Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 466114 times)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2100 on: January 18, 2017, 09:00:58 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2101 on: January 18, 2017, 09:05:34 AM »

If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way.

Agree.  In fact, in many states you are liable if irresponsible with a loaded weapon in your home and something bad happens.   I agree with that as well.

Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.

In this thread, Gin1984 has set the bar for safe storage so high as to be unreasonable.   Not every gun owner needs a concreted safe in their basement.  That is literally the example given for safe storage.  If those are the requirements to avoid liability, no one but the wealthy will own a gun.
Actually I said it is cemented to the base of the house, not that it was in a basement.  One, I would not be so irresponsible to say where weapons are stored and two, not all houses have basements.  If it is out of someone's hand's who is responsible for it, it should be unable to be accessed.  That means a safe.  So, the other option is you have someone else supervise your weapon.  Theft is a big deal with guns and you should be able to keep your weapon secured.  If you think secure your weapon is a high bar, I don't consider you responsible with it.  However, you seemed to miss that, you are only liable IF someone else gets it.  If you are so sure a safe is not necessary, then take the risk and if it gets stolen, it is on you, because it was your choice to keep it unsecured.

Where do you draw the line - i.e. what is your definition of due diligence?  Is a 3000lb safe sitting on a floor good enough?  Is a metal storage cabinet that's bolted to the wall good enough?  I don't know what "cemented to the base of the house" means, since cement is not an adhesive for metal.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2102 on: January 18, 2017, 09:09:49 AM »

If you own a gun, you need to be responsible for it, because it is a deadly weapon. That much seems absolutely clear. And honestly, anyone who would say, "If I leave a loaded gun on the table at a food court in a mall and some kid kills another kid with it, I'm not liable," is being completely unreasonable. That is one extreme, but the vast majority of people do not think this way.

Agree.  In fact, in many states you are liable if irresponsible with a loaded weapon in your home and something bad happens.   I agree with that as well.

Likewise, there's another extreme, whereby someone says, for example, "If you have an unloaded gun in your house, in a locked safe, with the bullets and magazines stored in another location, and someone breaks into your locked house, hits you over the head and knocks you unconscious, then breaks into your locked safe, finds your bullets, steals them, and goes and kills someone with it, you are still liable." The vast majority of people would see that as being completely unreasonable. And both of those examples are extreme enough to essentially be straw men argument, in my opinion.

In this thread, Gin1984 has set the bar for safe storage so high as to be unreasonable.   Not every gun owner needs a concreted safe in their basement.  That is literally the example given for safe storage.  If those are the requirements to avoid liability, no one but the wealthy will own a gun.
Actually I said it is cemented to the base of the house, not that it was in a basement.  One, I would not be so irresponsible to say where weapons are stored and two, not all houses have basements.  If it is out of someone's hand's who is responsible for it, it should be unable to be accessed.  That means a safe.  So, the other option is you have someone else supervise your weapon.  Theft is a big deal with guns and you should be able to keep your weapon secured.  If you think secure your weapon is a high bar, I don't consider you responsible with it.  However, you seemed to miss that, you are only liable IF someone else gets it.  If you are so sure a safe is not necessary, then take the risk and if it gets stolen, it is on you, because it was your choice to keep it unsecured.

Disagree, 100%.  Locked in my house is secured.  No one can get to it unless they're breaking the law by breaking into my house.  Yeah, if I leave it laying on my patio table, or in my front yard, or in my garage with the garage door wide open, that's unsecured.  But stored in my house with all windows and doors locked and deadbolted?  Sorry, that's secured.  Heck, my houses is made of brick and stone anyways, it basically is just a giant safe.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2103 on: January 18, 2017, 09:18:18 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2104 on: January 18, 2017, 09:19:45 AM »
Nearly everyone agrees that if your gun is not in your possession (or the possession of a responsible party you trust) it should be locked up - the question is what is the standard for the secure place. Some people feel that inside their locked home or vehicle should be sufficient; others think that a bank grade safe is required. One poster has stated that the locked closet he uses is as effective as commonly marketed "gun safes" but draws less attention.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2105 on: January 18, 2017, 09:20:59 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents.  It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2106 on: January 18, 2017, 09:27:56 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2107 on: January 18, 2017, 09:28:55 AM »
Nearly everyone agrees that if your gun is not in your possession (or the possession of a responsible party you trust) it should be locked up - the question is what is the standard for the secure place. Some people feel that inside their locked home or vehicle should be sufficient; others think that a bank grade safe is required. One poster has stated that the locked closet he uses is as effective as commonly marketed "gun safes" but draws less attention.

This is a security cabinet from walmart.  https://www.walmart.com/ip/22-Gun-Steel-Security-Cabinet-with-Bonus-Door-Organizer/52668444

I've seen similar items in person.  You don't get great security for $150.  Also serves as great advertising for the fact you do have guns.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2108 on: January 18, 2017, 09:29:47 AM »
It would also be valuable to discuss hand guns versus long guns.  Guessing the vast vast majority of accidental shootings, especially by kids, is with hand guns.  Frankly, I have a different standard of "secure" for hand guns versus long guns for myself, and if a law is to be forced upon me, I would expect the same from the law. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2109 on: January 18, 2017, 09:31:39 AM »
Nearly everyone agrees that if your gun is not in your possession (or the possession of a responsible party you trust) it should be locked up - the question is what is the standard for the secure place. Some people feel that inside their locked home or vehicle should be sufficient; others think that a bank grade safe is required. One poster has stated that the locked closet he uses is as effective as commonly marketed "gun safes" but draws less attention.

This is a security cabinet from walmart.  https://www.walmart.com/ip/22-Gun-Steel-Security-Cabinet-with-Bonus-Door-Organizer/52668444

I've seen similar items in person.  You don't get great security for $150.  Also serves as great advertising for the fact you do have guns.

Exactly.  If you are standing inside my locked house, you've already demonstrated the ability to enter something more hardened than that cabinet.  That thing is good for keeping weapons away from kids and other honest people, it's not anything that's going to stop a thief. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2110 on: January 18, 2017, 09:34:23 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

The FBI has all kinds of statistics on firearms and their usage many of which are ignored by gun control groups.

I'd prefer the CDC stick to researching diseases rather than advocating for gun control.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2111 on: January 18, 2017, 09:37:55 AM »
What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2112 on: January 18, 2017, 09:39:19 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

The FBI has all kinds of statistics on firearms and their usage many of which are ignored by gun control groups.

I'd prefer the CDC stick to researching diseases rather than advocating for gun control.
The FBI does not fund research, the CDC does.  And the CDC already funds research for things outside of disease like car seat safety:
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2113 on: January 18, 2017, 09:40:22 AM »
From the first post.
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.
  I live in a very non-dangerous area, as things go.  Still, things happen, and I find it better to be prepared than not to be prepared.  I have smoke detectors for the same reason, although I think a house fire is very unlikely.  I wear a seat belt when driving, too.  I am not "constantly on edge that someone is going to invade my house or assault me on the street," although somebody did try a little over a year ago. That was not where I live, however, but in New Orleans, a city known for violent crime.  I was quite thankful to be armed, and my wife was quite thankful I was armed.  I carry as habit, however, so I was not even in New Orleans "constantly on edge that someone was going to assault me on the street." 

To be honest, scottish, I do not know anybody who lives constantly on edge as you describe.  You say you are being "honest" and wanting to understand the point of view better, but the way you write does not indicate this to be true.  The same goes for your further posting in this thread.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
  Yes, although not as much as I used to, thanks to MMM and not wanting to spend money on ammunition!

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?
  Yes.  My wife has been through formal training, carries herself, and is pretty good with a pistol.   My two older boys are so well trained that they can now shoot in the yard without direct supervision (took years to get to that point).  Everybody knows what to do if there is an incident in public or at the home.

Indeed, in the incident I described in New Orleans, my wife anticipated what I was about to do and moved about 4-5 feet away from me, quickly, without me saying anything to her.  This is probably what tipped the robbers off that they were about to take rounds and sent them fleeing before I was able to remove them from the ongoing crime stats in New Orleans.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
  This is the United States.  We literally have 50 separate jurisdictions with 50 separate sets of rules (plus territories).  In most of those jurisdictions in the US, the police give you a pat on the back, tell you "Great job," and write up the report.  Things might be very different in a more restrictive state, however, like New Jersey, where many self defense actions might be criminal acts.  Not every state permits the same level of freedom, so your question is difficult to answer without knowing more about the circumstances. 

My state, in the home, says that you may shoot to prevent a violent and tumultuous entry or to prevent the commission of a felony in the home.  It's a pretty low standard.  It's not a good idea to break into homes in my state if you want to have a long life.  Other states may require you to show that your life is in danger and prove that you could not have escaped without shooting (the opposite of what is known as the "castle doctrine").  It really is different by state.

How each situation is handled by the authorities is also different depending on the circumstances.  Is there evidence that this was not self defense?  Is it clearly self defense?

When I was a police officer, the answer was usually, "NO" we do not arrest, if it appears to be self defense, although I remember that we brought in a woman one time.  She had killed a stalker.  We had been dealing with reports of this guy finding her after she moved to our jurisdiction to get away from him.  She lived in a community behind a fence with barbed wire and a gate, hoping he would not find her and that she would be safe if he did.  She did not own a firearm in the home.

One morning he showed up in the dark as she was getting in her car to go to work.  He was in camp and had his face painted.  He had a large knife. 

A officer had earlier suggested she get a firearm.  She asked him what type, what sort of ammunition, etc.

When the guy tried to kidnap her, she shot him three times, with the exact model of firearm and ammunition that had been suggested.  He expired on the pavement.  This woman had NO training whatsoever.

There were enough details in the evidence to show that he was planning a kidnapping and murder that morning, so it was pretty clear what would have happened to her had she been unarmed.

Anyway, we took her in (no handcuffs, kid glove, nice treatment) and had the DA present her case to the grand jury that day.  They returned a No Bill, as expected, and we cut her loose.  We saw it as preventative, since this was stalker/family/issues and now we could say, sorry, grand jury cleared her.

Quote
For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.
  Your choice.  If you are happy, I am happy.  So long as you are not using the power of your vote to restrict me and my choices, I am quite happy for you and your wife to remain defenseless, if that is what makes the two of you happy.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2114 on: January 18, 2017, 09:42:40 AM »
And the CDC already funds research for things outside of disease like car seat safety:
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/child_passenger_safety/cps-factsheet.html
  The problem is that the CDC engages in advocacy and attempts to give it a thin veneer of "science" to lend it credibility.  The crap the CDC churned out is the worst kind of junk science.

It is difficult to believe that anybody takes somebody like Kellerman seriously as a "researcher" anymore, but, hey, if it fits your agenda I guess honesty does not matter.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2115 on: January 18, 2017, 09:45:03 AM »
What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Several reasons, the first of which is the need to balance "secure from theft" with "available for use as needed."  I think that's different for everyone, based on their housing situation, the occupants of their home, the geographical area in which they live, etc.  I don't trust you, or the government, to strike a balance there, I think they intent is to go overboard with "safety" (an expensive illusion!) at the expense of my freedom and right to protect myself.

Second of all, I strongly resent and oppose taking the blame for crime off of the criminal and applying it to someone else.  Some asshole breaks into my house and steals my stuff and it's my fault?  Fuck that.  It's HIS fault.  Not mine. 

Third of all, I think you're attacking a very tiny percentage of the problem.  Most gun deaths are the result of suicide or gangbangers shooting each other.  They are irrelevant to my old shotgun laying under my bed. 

Fourth, as discussed, it's one more layer of trying to criminalize and/or otherwise infringe upon my 2A rights; you can't outlaw it completely, but you can make it so onerous to practice it that I give up.  I object to that.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2116 on: January 18, 2017, 09:45:32 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

Because the NRA specializes in tracking domestic violence cases that don't involve firearms?

On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men.

I'm going to venture a guess here that a woman living alone with a firearm is enormously safer than someone in a relationship with no firearms.  The problem is people.  So...pro tip, stay single - stay safe?

What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Would you like a law that says you are liable for the use of any property you own? Should you be liable if someone breaks into your house and OD's on prescription medication from your medicine cabinet?  Or kills someone with your kitchen knives? Or raids your liquor cabinet and then drives drunk and kills a family of three?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2117 on: January 18, 2017, 10:09:55 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

Because the NRA specializes in tracking domestic violence cases that don't involve firearms?

On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men.

I'm going to venture a guess here that a woman living alone with a firearm is enormously safer than someone in a relationship with no firearms.  The problem is people.  So...pro tip, stay single - stay safe?

What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Would you like a law that says you are liable for the use of any property you own? Should you be liable if someone breaks into your house and OD's on prescription medication from your medicine cabinet?  Or kills someone with your kitchen knives? Or raids your liquor cabinet and then drives drunk and kills a family of three?
Actually in certain situations, you can be liable for someone drinking your liquor and then driving drunk and killing someone. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2118 on: January 18, 2017, 11:00:19 AM »
He was a licensed armed security guard.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/state-slaps-150000-fine-on-security-firm-that-employed-orlando-shooter/2292978

Quote
Mateen was a G4S security guard for about nine years. Licensing records show he was a proficient shooter who scored in the 98th percentile with the same caliber weapon a 9mm semiautomatic pistol used in the Orlando slayings.

I stand corrected, he was better trained than most gun owners.  I'd prefer to avoid the situation entirely, but if someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer having a gun over not having one. 

Many criminals are not nearly as well versed in firearms.
Except that most studies (that we have, admittedly we have a very small amount because of the NRA) say that having a gun makes you more at risk:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/gun-ownership-makes-women-safer-debunked/

Gin - You are responding to a statement I didn't make.  You indicated that most gun owners don't have the training to confront threats.  My comment was simply if confronted with someone intent on killing me, I would prefer to be armed.  My first preference would be to avoid the situation entirely.  I have no illusions that a gun transforms me into a superhero.

You are free to make a choice not have a gun in your house.  I, on the other hand, would like to be free to make the choice to have a firearm in my house free of unreasonable burdens. The safe requirements you proposed are, in my opinion, completely unreasonable.  I suspect many feel the same way.

With regard to the studies, does it include suicides and accidents as part of the issue?  My guns are unloaded and in a closet.  In that condition, the risk of an accident is small.  As for suicide, guns are one of many ways to kill oneself.

It also includes domestic violence incidents. It would be interesting to run the numbers and see what's safer - living alone with a firearm, or living with a partner without one.
We'd love to.  Talk to the NRA.

Because the NRA specializes in tracking domestic violence cases that don't involve firearms?

On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men.

I'm going to venture a guess here that a woman living alone with a firearm is enormously safer than someone in a relationship with no firearms.  The problem is people.  So...pro tip, stay single - stay safe?

What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Would you like a law that says you are liable for the use of any property you own? Should you be liable if someone breaks into your house and OD's on prescription medication from your medicine cabinet?  Or kills someone with your kitchen knives? Or raids your liquor cabinet and then drives drunk and kills a family of three?
Actually in certain situations, you can be liable for someone drinking your liquor and then driving drunk and killing someone.

Having made numerous DUI arrests myself, I can tell you that this would not be one of those "certain situations."

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2119 on: January 18, 2017, 11:14:14 AM »
JLee,
See post # 2179.  That woman had NO training.  As you note, a firearm gives you a fighting chance even if you are untrained.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2120 on: January 18, 2017, 11:20:36 AM »
My dog gives me a great chance of not having an altercation in the first place, regardless of my gun training (which I do have, though I don't own one currently). Add in the baseball bat I keep handy and the lean 220lb frame I can use to swing it, and I feel quite secure. Plus there is no worry my kids or (especially) their friends might somehow get ahold of my gun, or that an intruder might take my gun in a struggle and shoot me with it. I still stand by the deterrent my mouthy 75lb fuzzball provides as being far more than needed for home defense. But I know reasonable minds disagree on this one.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2121 on: January 18, 2017, 11:25:09 AM »
My dog gives me a great chance of not having an altercation in the first place, regardless of my gun training (which I do have, though I don't own one currently). Add in the baseball bat I keep handy and the lean 220lb frame I can use to swing it, and I feel quite secure. Plus there is no worry my kids or (especially) their friends might somehow get ahold of my gun, or that an intruder might take my gun in a struggle and shoot me with it. I still stand by the deterrent my mouthy 75lb fuzzball provides as being far more than needed for home defense. But I know reasonable minds disagree on this one.
  If you're happy, then I'm happy.

See how easy that one was?

:)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2122 on: January 18, 2017, 11:35:52 AM »
If you're happy, then I'm happy.

See how easy that one was?

:)

Ditto ;p

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2123 on: January 18, 2017, 11:51:47 AM »
What I truly don't understand is if you truly believe that your solution is fine and your guns are secure, why would you care about a law that said you were fiscally liable if they were used incorrectly?  If you thought your option was as good as the "secure" options given in the law, would you not believe you were fine? 
It then appears to me, that you are aware they are not secure but that it is not worth it to you, to secure them.

Gin - Again, not what I said. 

I think having firearms in a house that should be be safe from intruders is secured.  You are indicating that I am incorrect and in the unlikely event someone breaks into my house, I should be held liable unless I meet the unreasonable standard you propose.

I agree with you that firearms are more secure in a bank vault like contraption attached to my houses foundation.  I disagree with you that it is reasonable to hold me liable for thefts if I don't have such a contraption.

The cost benefit simply isn't there.

To add, I'm concerned because in the unlikely event someone does break in and steal them and use them in a crime I would then be liable.  If someone breaks into your garage, steals your car and plows into a crowd should you be liable?  It's unlikely to happen, but I would be concerned about liability if that were the standard applied.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 12:32:45 PM by Midwest »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2124 on: January 18, 2017, 11:58:13 AM »
JLee,
See post # 2179.  That woman had NO training.  As you note, a firearm gives you a fighting chance even if you are untrained.

I'm confused as to why you're directing this statement towards me.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2125 on: January 18, 2017, 12:00:25 PM »

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm. As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

It sounds like you might be discriminating against low-income people who want guns to protection in the rougher neighborhoods. 

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2126 on: January 18, 2017, 12:04:33 PM »
JLee,
See post # 2179.  That woman had NO training.  As you note, a firearm gives you a fighting chance even if you are untrained.

I'm confused as to why you're directing this statement towards me.
  I thought you mentioned an untrained person being better off in a dangerous situation having than not having a firearm, and I pointed you to one real world example.  It was a long thread, though, and I may have misattributed that writing.  Also, it looks like you were a former or current police officer, and I am a former police officer as well.  It is not "directed" at you in any sense that requires defensiveness or drama.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2127 on: January 18, 2017, 12:05:13 PM »

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm. As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

It sounds like you might be discriminating against low-income people who want guns to protection in the rougher neighborhoods.

and now we are on the circular reasoning train because maybe those neighborhoods are rougher because of poverty brought on by amongst other things poor financial decision making.  Or maybe those neighborhoods are rougher due to the large number of guns in them.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2128 on: January 18, 2017, 12:10:42 PM »

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm. As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

It sounds like you might be discriminating against low-income people who want guns to protection in the rougher neighborhoods.

and now we are on the circular reasoning train because maybe those neighborhoods are rougher because of poverty brought on by amongst other things poor financial decision making.  Or maybe those neighborhoods are rougher due to the large number of guns in them.

Nah, both of those reasons are unlikely. I think liberal minded folks (not sure if that's you?) generally agree that urban poverty is not a result of bad decisions and/or guns. In my opinion they also should give more consideration that this might be one of those areas in which gun advocates have a point. Of course, as I said earlier, many gun advocates also believe that the urban poor brought their situation onto themselves and they would be well served to think more on the topic from their end of the spectrum.

hoosier

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 104
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2129 on: January 18, 2017, 12:13:37 PM »

What are the statistics for the number of guns stolen from homes that are subsequently used in crimes?  I think the liability issue is mostly when guns are used incorrectly and kill/wound someone in the home.  If gun theft is an actual significant problem there should be a rule requiring the filing of a report within 24 hours reporting a stolen firearm. As for a guns safe being too expensive...if you can't afford a basic safe maybe you shouldn't be dropping hundreds on firearms, just saying.

It sounds like you might be discriminating against low-income people who want guns to protection in the rougher neighborhoods.

Or maybe those neighborhoods are rougher due to the large number of guns in them.

I imagine it has more to do with the large number of criminals in them.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 12:37:36 PM by hoosier »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2130 on: January 18, 2017, 12:15:18 PM »
JLee,
See post # 2179.  That woman had NO training.  As you note, a firearm gives you a fighting chance even if you are untrained.

I'm confused as to why you're directing this statement towards me.
  I thought you mentioned an untrained person being better off in a dangerous situation having than not having a firearm, and I pointed you to one real world example.  It was a long thread, though, and I may have misattributed that writing.  Also, it looks like you were a former or current police officer, and I am a former police officer as well.  It is not "directed" at you in any sense that requires defensiveness or drama.

Ah, yeah I don't think that was me. I was responding to the argument that "guns in homes make women less safe" by asserting that it's not the firearm that's making them unsafe -- it's the abusive partners.  I would be curious to see if single women with firearms are statistically safer than women with partners and no firearms.  Given the alarming frequency of domestic violence incidents, I would be quite sure that having a domestic partner is a far higher indicator of someone's victim potential than owning a firearm.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2131 on: January 18, 2017, 12:59:41 PM »
My dog gives me a great chance of not having an altercation in the first place, regardless of my gun training (which I do have, though I don't own one currently). Add in the baseball bat I keep handy and the lean 220lb frame I can use to swing it, and I feel quite secure. Plus there is no worry my kids or (especially) their friends might somehow get ahold of my gun, or that an intruder might take my gun in a struggle and shoot me with it. I still stand by the deterrent my mouthy 75lb fuzzball provides as being far more than needed for home defense. But I know reasonable minds disagree on this one.

We also recently adopted a dog for a combination deterrent / companion animal / happiness booster.   We don't have handguns for home defense, but we have hunting guns in our home.   That's our decision and comfort level right now, but -- I appreciate very much that if I wanted a handgun I could have one this afternoon.   Assessing my risk, we're pretty low.  (Although there was just a carjacking where the driver was stabbed multiple times in the next suburb over, I am not out driving at 4 a.m., the time that crime occurred.)

Everyone's situation is different.  It's totally right for each individual to find the solution that works for them.  If I were, for example, a 115 lb 26 year old waitress and coming home alone at night, I might want a defense option.   That's OK too! Everybody's situation and needs are different. and not everyone can have a dog.   
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 01:03:34 PM by KBecks »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2132 on: January 18, 2017, 03:39:24 PM »
Oh sure I know every situation is different. Not to recreate our earlier argument, but all I'm saying is that even an armed intruder is less likely to choose the house with the big dog to rob, all things being equal. And since we are frugal and don't have fancy cars or tons of latest gen tech laying around, I highly doubt anyone would target my home over most of the neighbors when you combine those two factors. If a hired hit squad or heavily armed pack of meth-heads bust through my door, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to losing that fight.

Of course dogs aren't for everyone and some dogs are better watch dogs than others, as you note with the pit bull example. Mine is 100% guaranteed to bear her teeth, jump against the door/sliding back door, and bark/growl in a very loud and intimidating manner if anyone she doesn't know walks on the sidewalk in front of my house, much less approaches the building. She's a sweetheart but also terrific at making unwanted solicitors turn around from my door before even ringing the bell :)

All of that said as the father of a daughter, if she were to move somewhere sketchy by herself, I very well might encourage her to buy a gun and learn how to use it.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2133 on: January 19, 2017, 01:58:42 AM »

Ah, yeah I don't think that was me. I was responding to the argument that "guns in homes make women less safe" by asserting that it's not the firearm that's making them unsafe -- it's the abusive partners.  I would be curious to see if single women with firearms are statistically safer than women with partners and no firearms.  Given the alarming frequency of domestic violence incidents, I would be quite sure that having a domestic partner is a far higher indicator of someone's victim potential than owning a firearm.

Hard to draw conclusions, but looking at the numbers offered it would seem so. If 10 million people are injured by partners every year, and less than 80K are injured by firearms (having subtracted out intentional self-injury), that would be like 125 times more dangerous to have a partner in one's residence than to have a gun. Would be an interesting study, for sure.

(Fun fact - Anyone could study this, it wouldn't require federal funding to be funneled to one specific government agency, despite what some posters have implied.)

And again, why exactly is anyone worried about fire arms in the home? More people were shot in Chicago this year than died accidently from firearms across the entire country. Too bad all the low-income people on the south side couldn't afford to have safes cemented to the bases of their houses.

Also - my gun is much cheaper than a dog, and much easier to keep. Though not as fun to cuddle with, and it doesn't play fetch for shit. Pros and cons.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 02:00:38 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2134 on: January 19, 2017, 01:01:37 PM »
Oh sure I know every situation is different. Not to recreate our earlier argument, but all I'm saying is that even an armed intruder is less likely to choose the house with the big dog to rob, all things being equal. And since we are frugal and don't have fancy cars or tons of latest gen tech laying around, I highly doubt anyone would target my home over most of the neighbors when you combine those two factors. If a hired hit squad or heavily armed pack of meth-heads bust through my door, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to losing that fight.

Of course dogs aren't for everyone and some dogs are better watch dogs than others, as you note with the pit bull example. Mine is 100% guaranteed to bear her teeth, jump against the door/sliding back door, and bark/growl in a very loud and intimidating manner if anyone she doesn't know walks on the sidewalk in front of my house, much less approaches the building. She's a sweetheart but also terrific at making unwanted solicitors turn around from my door before even ringing the bell :)

All of that said as the father of a daughter, if she were to move somewhere sketchy by herself, I very well might encourage her to buy a gun and learn how to use it.
  When I was in jail (working, not an inmate) I often interviewed burglars just to get a sense of what they looked for in a target.  Some of them were indeed put off by dogs.  Others, not so much.  Many burglars had several ways of dealing with dogs.  I always asked about a homeowner home, and of course, most said they would avoid that house, which is why almost every burglary is during the daytime.  A surprising number carried firearms, however, during burglary in case they ran across a resident they did not know was going to be there.   100% of those asked would never dare to try a home in which they knew there was a homeowner with a gun.

Of course, there is usually no way for the burglar to know if there is a person with a gun.

The most common approach was just to walk up and knock on the front door.   If there was no answer, they they would start looking for a way in.

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4291
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2135 on: January 20, 2017, 06:27:48 AM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

I think training is a good idea as well. But i don't think that requiring training is wise, unless it is publicly funded and part of our national education system.  Just like being knowledgeable of national policies and history is a good idea before one votes, i wouldn't suggest we require everyone to pass a test to vote.

How did you get a driver's license?

Driving isn't a right, FWIW.


Driving itself is a right, if one owns the vehicle and the fuel. It's driving on publically-funded roads that's regulated, not the act itself. This is not a practical distinction for most people (is for me, with a private road on our property, which is why I thought of it- we were free to run our rock hauling truck up and down the mountain without keeps tags on it since we didn't take it on public roads).


But I do think the distinction gets to the heart of the sorts of constitutional questions we're batting around here. The argument is that the public has an interest in being sure those who drive on the public's roads are doing so safely. As population has increased, land parcels have shrunk, and pavement has spread everywhere, we've reached a point where it's not possible to accomplish daily life without traversing public roads one way or another, so the regulation has become restrictive in a way that might have changed its fundamental nature. But the original distinction was (is) meant to draw a line between the public and the private.


Rights do not have to be spelled out in the constitution to be rights - that's sort of the whole point. It's why Ben Franklin (I think it was) originally opposed the Bill of Rights - he was afraid people would come to think that the rights spelled out there were the only ones, instead of everything not explicitly restricted and not infringing on other citizens' rights being an inherent right of a citizen.


With guns, we actually get into more complexity, since it is spelled out in that Bill of Rights Franklin (or whoever it was) opposed, but now there are regulations in place anyway, some of which our Court has upheld. It's left us with no real clarity on the issue at all, which is probably a big part of why it's so contentious.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2136 on: January 20, 2017, 11:23:41 AM »
No one is suggesting that rights are limitless. The right to vote has limitations, the right to liberty has limitations, the right to free speech has limitations, the right to bear arems has limitations. The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.

Other rights have limitations and exceptions; it is where the line is drawn that is important.

With respect to firearms the line is currently drawn at commonly available small arms that are applicable for self defense, the defense of one's property and defense of the general public. I don't see that as terribly outrageous.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2137 on: February 03, 2017, 12:07:49 AM »
House Republicans roll back a background check law passed during the Obama administration. The ACLU had been lobbying to reverse this, FYI. (In case one wishes to donate).

Link to article
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2138 on: February 03, 2017, 09:55:40 AM »
The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.
In all your examples, the rights of the individual are limited due to an action they took that infringes on the rights of others. I'm certainly fine with restricting guns from people who have seriously infringed on the rights of others in the past; however, most gun laws impose limits on law abiding citizens who have not infringed on the rights of others.

Gun restrictions I support:
  • "Shall Issue" Licensing (should be no more onerous to carry a common small firearm than to drive a car):
    • Background checks to restrict guns from those with violent histories
    • Testing to ensure the person understands their responsibilities and is capable of using the gun safely
  • Reasonable waiting periods (a few days) for those who have previously obtained a license

Gun restrictions I oppose:
  • Registration (could be used by tyrant to collect guns)
  • Banned weapon types - though different class licensing could be used (perhaps some weapon types are more like getting a truck driver's license than getting a car driver's license

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2139 on: February 03, 2017, 09:57:35 AM »
I've always thought the primary purpose of a dog was to alert you to intruders as much as defend against them. And don't discount  the fight in a small dog.

A few years ago a friend of mine in Washington state was sitting home with his wife when there golden doodle (wearing his sweater at the time) started going crazy. My friend grabbed a large maglite and went to check the detached garage. A meth head had broken in and was looking for stuff. So my friend points the light in his eyes and starts yelling at the guys. The mild mannered golden doodle, sweater and all, attacked the methhead and my friend had to drag the dog off of him.

Dogs, even nice ones, are incredibly tuned in to their owners and can be quite vicious. Morale of the story: you don't necessarily need a pitbull or a rotty.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2140 on: February 03, 2017, 10:03:54 AM »
I've always thought the primary purpose of a dog was to alert you to intruders as much as defend against them. And don't discount  the fight in a small dog.

A few years ago a friend of mine in Washington state was sitting home with his wife when there golden doodle (wearing his sweater at the time) started going crazy. My friend grabbed a large maglite and went to check the detached garage. A meth head had broken in and was looking for stuff. So my friend points the light in his eyes and starts yelling at the guys. The mild mannered golden doodle, sweater and all, attacked the methhead and my friend had to drag the dog off of him.

Dogs, even nice ones, are incredibly tuned in to their owners and can be quite vicious. Morale of the story: you don't necessarily need a pitbull or a rotty.
And frankly I advise against the bully breeds, they actually are not that aggressive. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2141 on: February 03, 2017, 04:07:34 PM »
The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.
In all your examples, the rights of the individual are limited due to an action they took that infringes on the rights of others. I'm certainly fine with restricting guns from people who have seriously infringed on the rights of others in the past; however, most gun laws impose limits on law abiding citizens who have not infringed on the rights of others.

Gun restrictions I support:
  • "Shall Issue" Licensing (should be no more onerous to carry a common small firearm than to drive a car):
    • Background checks to restrict guns from those with violent histories
    • Testing to ensure the person understands their responsibilities and is capable of using the gun safely
  • Reasonable waiting periods (a few days) for those who have previously obtained a license

Gun restrictions I oppose:
  • Registration (could be used by tyrant to collect guns)
  • Banned weapon types - though different class licensing could be used (perhaps some weapon types are more like getting a truck driver's license than getting a car driver's license
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2142 on: February 03, 2017, 04:12:51 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2143 on: February 06, 2017, 09:39:59 AM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

NH waives the waiting period if you have a CCW permit. It's not a registry of who owns what, but if you have a CCW it's a pretty safe bet that you're already a gun owner.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2144 on: February 06, 2017, 09:44:18 AM »
In IL, we have to get a FOID before you can buy a firearm or ammo.  It seems silly to think someone would go through the FOID process, which takes a month or so, and then make them another week after receiving the FOID to receive a firearm after purchase.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2145 on: February 06, 2017, 05:51:49 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

NH waives the waiting period if you have a CCW permit. It's not a registry of who owns what, but if you have a CCW it's a pretty safe bet that you're already a gun owner.
New Hampshire has no waiting period to purchase firearms.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2146 on: February 06, 2017, 07:25:04 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

NH waives the waiting period if you have a CCW permit. It's not a registry of who owns what, but if you have a CCW it's a pretty safe bet that you're already a gun owner.

I'm curious how many of you live in states with actual concealed carry permits. I ask because i hear that term used all the time, including in my state of MN, but actually in our state it is a carry permit, not a concealed carry permit. In other words, the permit to carry means I can open carry if I like, no problem. (Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2147 on: February 06, 2017, 07:49:11 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

NH waives the waiting period if you have a CCW permit. It's not a registry of who owns what, but if you have a CCW it's a pretty safe bet that you're already a gun owner.

I'm curious how many of you live in states with actual concealed carry permits. I ask because i hear that term used all the time, including in my state of MN, but actually in our state it is a carry permit, not a concealed carry permit. In other words, the permit to carry means I can open carry if I like, no problem. (Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
The best states all have permitless carry.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2610
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2148 on: February 06, 2017, 07:51:02 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

NH waives the waiting period if you have a CCW permit. It's not a registry of who owns what, but if you have a CCW it's a pretty safe bet that you're already a gun owner.

I'm curious how many of you live in states with actual concealed carry permits. I ask because i hear that term used all the time, including in my state of MN, but actually in our state it is a carry permit, not a concealed carry permit. In other words, the permit to carry means I can open carry if I like, no problem. (Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
The best states all have permitless carry.

That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2149 on: February 06, 2017, 07:52:49 PM »
That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
I am aware of this.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM