Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 346422 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2150 on: January 18, 2017, 07:24:39 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2151 on: January 18, 2017, 07:53:23 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2152 on: January 18, 2017, 08:01:13 AM »
Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.

Wait, are we going to be practical . . . or are we preparing to fight off an army of invaders?  Because even well trained, well armed police officers don't do all that well in the scenarios you've described.

:P

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2153 on: January 18, 2017, 08:05:36 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

I like your idea and you can compare a gun to a car.  If your child takes your car and causes damage with it, you are responsible for that.  If you car was stolen you are not liable for any damages that may be caused HOWEVER, if you leave your car in a state that makes it easy to steal (unlocked for example) then you may be liable depending on jurisdiction, and you certainly wont be getting full insurance payout in that case.

If your gun is used incorrectly, you are liable.  If it is stolen and you still took all necessary steps to secure it, then I would forgive liability, but if you left it sitting out on the table with the front door unlocked, you are irresponsible and at least partially liable.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2154 on: January 18, 2017, 08:09:40 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.


Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2155 on: January 18, 2017, 08:14:46 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?
Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.
Actually if you are negligent, you can be held liable for someone stealing your car and using it in an illegal manner (which includes not notifying the police within a certain time in certain states).  And my personal opinion, based on having a friend have his guns stolen because they knew the guns were there based on his statements, is that if you do not lock your guns up when they are not under your control, you are negligent. Which is why I don't have a gun.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2156 on: January 18, 2017, 08:15:38 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.

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.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2147
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2157 on: January 18, 2017, 08:21:24 AM »
If your concern is fighting off the entirety of ISIS, then you'll want mortars, machine guns, and fighter jets - yet none of those are legal without a special permit.

I'm advocating the same standard for anything beyond the stuff that is similar to what existed when the constitution was written - and yes, a shotgun is plenty to defend yourself against any threat you are going to face outside of the military.

-W

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2158 on: January 18, 2017, 08:22:22 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

I like your idea and you can compare a gun to a car.  If your child takes your car and causes damage with it, you are responsible for that.  If you car was stolen you are not liable for any damages that may be caused HOWEVER, if you leave your car in a state that makes it easy to steal (unlocked for example) then you may be liable depending on jurisdiction, and you certainly wont be getting full insurance payout in that case.

If your gun is used incorrectly, you are liable.  If it is stolen and you still took all necessary steps to secure it, then I would forgive liability, but if you left it sitting out on the table with the front door unlocked, you are irresponsible and at least partially liable.

I think there's a lot of room for having a common-sense dialogue about things like this... IF everyone comes to the table in good faith.

That's a pretty big if, however, especially these days.

Which is sad. I think there's so much suspicion on both sides of the aisle that no one wants to give even one millimeter, for fear that the other side will take everything away from them. Let's be honest, in the current climate, we're in a situation where both sides feel like they have to protect themselves from the evil other, instead of seeing the other side as decent people who are honestly concerned. And they justify their fears with slippery slope arguments. Which, of course, as intelligent people, we all know are a logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

In reality, there's a range of viewpoints, and plenty of room for dialogue. But it is all too easy for people to jump from someone's point A, and conclude that they also must believe B, C, D, etc. Because they're evil, or stupid, or ignorant, or choose your own derogatory and dismissive label.

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. 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.

So, if we want to make any ground at all, it's important to turn away from those arguments, and stop tilting at those windmills, and work in the in-between toward common sense and logic. In good faith, and assuming good faith of the other person as well.

I'm not optimistic that it will happen. But it is the way to begin.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 08:24:26 AM by Kris »
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2159 on: January 18, 2017, 08:33:57 AM »
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.

One in ten federal prison inmates had acquired a gun through theft according to the DOJ.  One in five juvenile offenders had stolen their first gun, and half had stolen a gun at least once in their life.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF - Page 3.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2160 on: January 18, 2017, 08:43:00 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained.  Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.
Yes, I am.  And I think that police officer was wrong.  You keep control of your weapon, period.  There can be exceptions, like my friend who has two guns safes, both of which are cemented into the base of the house.  You won't get them opened or moved without blowing up the house (which should get the police there). Or, if someone had control and was physically overpowered and had the gun stolen.  But otherwise, yes you should have control over your weapon or be fiscally liable for the damage it causes.  The idea that you should have a weapon and not be responsible for it is inane.  I learned to shoot (partly by the friend who owns all the guns) but I cannot safely keep one in my house so I don't.  There is a shooting range that I used to go to which had safes who hire for those who needed them.  I see that as a compromise.

It is an undue burden to ask all gun owners to be liable for stolen weapons, have a large gun safe, or store them offsite.  Your weapons are controlled when they are stored in a house.  The problem is not the gun owner in that case, it's the criminal illegally entering the house.

Should you have the same liability for all the inanimate objects in your house?  Car is stolen and used in a criminal action, you are liable?  Knives?  Gasoline?  Propane?  All of those objects have the potential for harm, yet many are focused on guns.

If you are leaving loaded guns laying in an accessible area, you are liable.  If someone breaks into your house, I don't see how a reasonable person could assign liability to the gun owner in that case.

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.

A basic safe takes up space and is about as useful as locked closet (my method).  It also advertises the fact you have guns.  A locked closet on the other hand does not advertise to the world you have a gun collection.  It's not a money issue, it's a cost/benefit issue.

The example given was a safe that is concreted into the basement or a gun range.  That is an unreasonable position from both a cost benefit standpoint and a practical standpoint. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2161 on: January 18, 2017, 08:43:33 AM »
I like to fall back on the "double barrel shotgun" rule. With a double barrel shotgun, you get 2 chances to nail the bad guy (or whatever you're trying to shoot) before you have to spend some time reloading. It's pretty hard to miss, it's pretty hard to pick up/handle/load/fire for a child. Unless a bystander is standing right next to the bad guy, you're not going to shoot through the wall or over a long distance and injure anyone else. There's no way you'll outgun the cops.

Add basic hunting rifles (again, a couple shots is all you should really need before reloading) and just call it good right there.

More tech and functional stopping power (ok, maybe not more *pure* stopping power than a freaking musket... but much more functional) than the founders had. Very little danger for any innocents around, relatively speaking. Hard to commit atrocities with. Perfection.

Of course there are a billion handguns and random other much more dangerous stuff around of all kinds. That's fine. Just stop manufacturing those and let them rust away over the next 30 or 40 years (or be collected by high-end enthusiasts, who are about as likely to go murder someone as I am to win the Eurovision song contest).

-W

Let's put you up against a gang of 4 armed home invaders, or the Orlando shooter, etc. etc. with a fucking double barrel shotgun and see how you do.  We need to be practical.  It's not like one bullet immediately stops an attacker.  And most humans are moving targets.  I get that you have opinions but they're not really relevant.
Most people don't have the training to go up against someone like that regardless of what gun they use.  Which is why I am pro-training.  If you have a weapon, you need to be able to use it properly.
And for all the people that flipped out on Kris, let me be clear, when I said you need to be in control of your weapons, how you do is up to you.  However, if you are wrong and someone gets hurt based on your negligence, you should be fiscally liable.

Most people don't have the training to go against another untrained person?  To the best of my knowledge, the Orlando shooter was untrained. Same thing with most home invaders.  I'll take my odds with a gun versus without.  That's a choice I should be able to make.

Regarding being fiscally liable for secured weapons in your home.  Are you advocating gun owners be liable for guns stolen from their homes?  That would have a chilling effect on gun ownership.  Will the same logic apply to police officers?  We recently had an officer get an MP5 stolen from his car.

Lastly, to those advocating leaving the populace with shotguns, I believe the supreme court struck down bans on commonly used firearms.  Tough to ban all semi-autos firearms with that ruling.

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.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2162 on: January 18, 2017, 08:46:25 AM »
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.

One in ten federal prison inmates had acquired a gun through theft according to the DOJ.  One in five juvenile offenders had stolen their first gun, and half had stolen a gun at least once in their life.  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF - Page 3.

seems like there should be some rules or standards about securing firearms to reduce incidents of theft not unlike ignition guards in newer cars to help reduce although not eliminate incidents of theft.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2163 on: January 18, 2017, 08:49:55 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.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2164 on: January 18, 2017, 08:54:35 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.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2165 on: January 18, 2017, 08:57:55 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.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2166 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: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2167 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: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2168 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: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2169 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2170 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: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2171 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: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2172 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: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2173 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: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2174 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: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2175 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: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2176 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: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2177 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: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2178 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: 625
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2179 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3596
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2180 on: January 18, 2017, 09:41:45 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.
This 100%. If someone breaks into my house and rapes me because I didn't have the lady bits locked up in.a chasity belt its my fault? If they steal my credit cards and use them to fund terrorist activities that kill people its my fault for not locking them away in a 2 ton safe? If they steal my car because I left my car keys in  basket inside my house and go on a wild ride killing people or use the car in a crime spree its my fault because I didn't lock them in the underground vault? If someone breaks into my house and steals anything or harms me its their fault not mine.. Their liability not mine. This includes theft of any firearms I have in my home.
Retired at 42 to play!

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2181 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: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2182 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: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2183 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: 4111
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2184 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. 

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3596
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2185 on: January 18, 2017, 10:15:28 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.
True if you serve them alcohol but untrue if they illegally break into your house and get drunk and then drive off (maybe by stealing your car) and kill people. Big HUGE difference.
Retired at 42 to play!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2186 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: 625
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2187 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: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2188 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: 625
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2189 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: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2190 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: 1079
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2191 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: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2192 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: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2193 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: 625
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2194 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: 388
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2195 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: 1074
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2196 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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2197 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: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2198 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: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2199 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 »