Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345576 times)

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2200 on: January 18, 2017, 02:31:23 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.
You're assuming an intruder doesn't have a gun his or herself. Dogs may give you warning but they can be shot, as can you with your bat regardless of your strength and size (remember the Indiana Jones sword vs. gun scene ;-)). As a woman I assume I would even have fewer options against someone bigger or stronger than me. Even if I could fight off an attacker bare handed, its likely they are armed or have a knife. I also go by the premise that Antone who can take my gun away and shoot me with it would be just as likely able to kill or harm me with their bare hands.

BTW did any of you see the recent TV news about an elderly lady who scared away intruders who broke into her house with her hand gun. Can't remember if she had to fire it but the guys went running. Or the one where a guy and female accomplish broke into a house via the dog door as the giant pitbull just stood there. Didn't even bark.    https://www.google.com/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4111872/amp/Thieves-break-Peoria-home-dog-door-luring-away-family-s-pet-treats.html?client=ms-android-americamovil-us&espv=1
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 02:43:14 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2201 on: January 18, 2017, 03:39:24 PM »
Oh sure I know every situation is different. Not to recreate our earlier argument, but all I'm saying is that even an armed intruder is less likely to choose the house with the big dog to rob, all things being equal. And since we are frugal and don't have fancy cars or tons of latest gen tech laying around, I highly doubt anyone would target my home over most of the neighbors when you combine those two factors. If a hired hit squad or heavily armed pack of meth-heads bust through my door, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to losing that fight.

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

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


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2202 on: January 19, 2017, 01:58:42 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2203 on: January 19, 2017, 01:01:37 PM »
Oh sure I know every situation is different. Not to recreate our earlier argument, but all I'm saying is that even an armed intruder is less likely to choose the house with the big dog to rob, all things being equal. And since we are frugal and don't have fancy cars or tons of latest gen tech laying around, I highly doubt anyone would target my home over most of the neighbors when you combine those two factors. If a hired hit squad or heavily armed pack of meth-heads bust through my door, I guess I'll just have to resign myself to losing that fight.

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

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

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

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

Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3975
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2204 on: January 20, 2017, 06:27:48 AM »
Do you think requiring someone to get training prior to purchase is a bad idea?

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

How did you get a driver's license?

Driving isn't a right, FWIW.


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


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


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


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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2205 on: January 20, 2017, 11:23:41 AM »
No one is suggesting that rights are limitless. The right to vote has limitations, the right to liberty has limitations, the right to free speech has limitations, the right to bear arems has limitations. The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2206 on: February 03, 2017, 12:07:49 AM »
House Republicans roll back a background check law passed during the Obama administration. The ACLU had been lobbying to reverse this, FYI. (In case one wishes to donate).

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

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2207 on: February 03, 2017, 09:55:40 AM »
The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.
In all your examples, the rights of the individual are limited due to an action they took that infringes on the rights of others. I'm certainly fine with restricting guns from people who have seriously infringed on the rights of others in the past; however, most gun laws impose limits on law abiding citizens who have not infringed on the rights of others.

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

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

thesvenster

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2208 on: February 03, 2017, 09:57:35 AM »
I've always thought the primary purpose of a dog was to alert you to intruders as much as defend against them. And don't discount  the fight in a small dog.

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

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

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2209 on: February 03, 2017, 10:03:54 AM »
I've always thought the primary purpose of a dog was to alert you to intruders as much as defend against them. And don't discount  the fight in a small dog.

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

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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2210 on: February 03, 2017, 02:03:20 PM »
I've always thought the primary purpose of a dog was to alert you to intruders as much as defend against them. And don't discount  the fight in a small dog.

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

Dogs, even nice ones, are incredibly tuned in to their owners and can be quite vicious. Morale of the story: you don't necessarily need a pitbull or a rotty.
I see you haven't met my dog - she runs from cats ;-). But she'll bark to alert me and as a mostly deaf woman living alone that's very helpful.

I wonder if the current changes in government are having a larger (or smaller) effect on firearm sales?
Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2211 on: February 03, 2017, 04:07:34 PM »
The line where this is drawn is the issue; should someone be limited in their liberty because they robbed a liquor store? How about embezzling money from rich people? What about misrepresenting a product to the public.
In all your examples, the rights of the individual are limited due to an action they took that infringes on the rights of others. I'm certainly fine with restricting guns from people who have seriously infringed on the rights of others in the past; however, most gun laws impose limits on law abiding citizens who have not infringed on the rights of others.

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

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

MustacheMathTM

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2212 on: February 03, 2017, 04:12:51 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2213 on: February 06, 2017, 09:39:59 AM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2214 on: February 06, 2017, 09:44:18 AM »
In IL, we have to get a FOID before you can buy a firearm or ammo.  It seems silly to think someone would go through the FOID process, which takes a month or so, and then make them another week after receiving the FOID to receive a firearm after purchase.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2215 on: February 06, 2017, 05:51:49 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2216 on: February 06, 2017, 07:25:04 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2217 on: February 06, 2017, 07:49:11 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

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

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2218 on: February 06, 2017, 07:51:02 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

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

That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2219 on: February 06, 2017, 07:52:49 PM »
That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
I am aware of this.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2220 on: February 06, 2017, 07:54:05 PM »
That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
I am aware of this.

So... I mean, follow your bliss, but what was the point of your answering a question I didn't ask? Just to take up space?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2221 on: February 06, 2017, 08:01:34 PM »
That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
I am aware of this.

So... I mean, follow your bliss, but what was the point of your answering a question I didn't ask? Just to take up space?
No.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2222 on: February 06, 2017, 08:07:38 PM »
That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open.
I am aware of this.

So... I mean, follow your bliss, but what was the point of your answering a question I didn't ask? Just to take up space?
No.

Okay. I just don't get it. But enjoy.

So, as to my actual question... anyone care to respond?
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2223 on: February 06, 2017, 08:51:09 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
My state (MA) requires a license to carry open or concealed. While open carry is legal you are not going to see people doing it especially in eastern MA. Most of the country doesn't require a permit to open carry.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2224 on: February 06, 2017, 08:58:24 PM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
I'm in Calif which does not allow open carry at all - loaded or unloaded - and concealed carry permits (CCW) are issued and regulated by each county thru the sheriffs dept. Some counties are lenient, others very very strict to the point of being impossible to get without a very compelling need However if you have a CCW in one county you are  good carrying in any county. They are usually renewed easily once you get one.

ETA: I believe some city police depts in Cali are also allowed to issue CCWs but I think that's rare. Even in my large SoCal metro area its all done thru the county sheriffs dept on an individual basis based on need (may issue rather than guareented issue). Up until a couple of years ago Cali had an "open but unloaded" carry policy but that was banned. I have lived in other states with open carry policies and they did not seem to have any greater problems then a state like Calif does for accidental or intentional shootings.

In my county these are the general requirements to get a CCW (besides being a county resident and having a justifiable "need" to carry a concealed weapon: 

"Please be aware the application process includes an interview, fingerprinting, background checks, residency verification, successful completion of firearms training, and the payment of all related fees. Applicants may also be required to pass a psychological examination as part of the CCW application process in accordance with California Penal Code Section 26190(f)(1)."
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 09:35:53 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2225 on: February 07, 2017, 07:09:26 AM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

I know I could google this, but for purposes of ths discussion it's more interesting to ask you folks: is the carry permit in your state a carry permit, or a concealed carry permit?
My state (MA) requires a license to carry open or concealed. While open carry is legal you are not going to see people doing it especially in eastern MA. Most of the country doesn't require a permit to open carry.


That'/ very useful information. I'm shocked about Florida and South Carolina.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2226 on: February 07, 2017, 08:05:21 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2227 on: February 07, 2017, 08:12:21 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

Oh, I can definitely see why you'd do it in a situation where you're hunting and you can. Hadn't thought of that, and it totally makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you are carrying for means of protection/defense from human beings, it is stupid.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2228 on: February 07, 2017, 08:21:34 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

Oh, I can definitely see why you'd do it in a situation where you're hunting and you can. Hadn't thought of that, and it totally makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you are carrying for means of protection/defense from human beings, it is stupid.


Understand, and agree that open carrying for personal protection (from humans) is stupid.  But what happens is that people in cities never think about other circumstances, and then lobby for laws that affect everyone, people in the country included.  Which is what causes friction between city people and country people, or red states/blue states. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2229 on: February 07, 2017, 08:25:02 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

Oh, I can definitely see why you'd do it in a situation where you're hunting and you can. Hadn't thought of that, and it totally makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you are carrying for means of protection/defense from human beings, it is stupid.


Understand, and agree that open carrying for personal protection (from humans) is stupid.  But what happens is that people in cities never think about other circumstances, and then lobby for laws that affect everyone, people in the country included.  Which is what causes friction between city people and country people, or red states/blue states.

Point taken on this one. Thanks for bringing up something I hadn't thought of (and that none of the gun instructors in the classes I've taken have brought up, either).
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2230 on: February 07, 2017, 08:43:02 AM »
Would you support waiting periods for people who already own guns? Or just for the first purchase? Seems silly to me to wait if I already own six guns, for example.
Yes, because I'd much prefer a few days waiting period for everyone over a registry of who does own guns.

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

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

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

NH allows open carry with no permit - the permit is required to carry a loaded concealed firearm. You can carry an unloaded concealed firearm without a permit.   I'm in NJ now, which basically doesn't issue permits at all.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2231 on: February 07, 2017, 09:05:24 AM »
Indiana issues a LTCH (License to Carry Handgun).  It doesn't specify how one must be carried (open or concealed).  You must have one to legally carry on your person or in your vehicle (loaded and/or accessible) off your property.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2232 on: February 07, 2017, 10:50:30 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.
Wow, something on here from the "other side" that I agree with.  I personally think Chris makes sense here.  In a rural area, you may need a gun and running into town should not be a reason to have to put your gun in a place you are not in control of it. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2233 on: February 08, 2017, 01:47:27 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.
These are exactly the types of situations that gun control activists don't think of when proposing federal gun laws. I mean police officers open carry all the time, can't be stupid in all situations. Open carry has its advantages in some situations, without any societal downsides.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 01:07:21 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2234 on: February 08, 2017, 11:05:31 AM »
You don't think there are any societal downsides to having police carrying firearms all the time?

MishMash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2235 on: February 08, 2017, 11:35:11 AM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

Oh, I can definitely see why you'd do it in a situation where you're hunting and you can. Hadn't thought of that, and it totally makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you are carrying for means of protection/defense from human beings, it is stupid.


Understand, and agree that open carrying for personal protection (from humans) is stupid.  But what happens is that people in cities never think about other circumstances, and then lobby for laws that affect everyone, people in the country included.  Which is what causes friction between city people and country people, or red states/blue states.

As a female that has shot someone trying to rape and or kill me I'm going to disagree with this one.  I had been carrying concealed on the street, guy didn't know I was armed when he grabbed me and dragged me into the alley whilst ripping off my shirt.  I have no doubt the .45 in my purse saved me from extreme bodily harm that day.

I openly carry now when I am out and about whether it be in a bad part of town or hiking back woods, and the oddest thing has happened.  No more verbal sexual harassment, no more unwanted groping, no more sketchy men trying to invade my personal bubble, all of which was a fairly common occurrence prior to this incident, and it was something people always told me I "just had to deal with". 

It's nice.  Sad that the world is that way, but nice to not have to deal with it.  I still carry concealed in places I am less likely to encounter said harassment or potential violence or where there are small children present in abundance.  I do this just to give piece of mind to those around me, and I'll never be the ass that carries an assault rifle around with me in the open walking down the street "just cause I can" (even though I own quite a few of them and I do carry them in open when appropriate, like sighting in at the farm)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2156
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2236 on: February 08, 2017, 12:09:05 PM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

Oh, I can definitely see why you'd do it in a situation where you're hunting and you can. Hadn't thought of that, and it totally makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you are carrying for means of protection/defense from human beings, it is stupid.


Understand, and agree that open carrying for personal protection (from humans) is stupid.  But what happens is that people in cities never think about other circumstances, and then lobby for laws that affect everyone, people in the country included.  Which is what causes friction between city people and country people, or red states/blue states.

As a female that has shot someone trying to rape and or kill me I'm going to disagree with this one.  I had been carrying concealed on the street, guy didn't know I was armed when he grabbed me and dragged me into the alley whilst ripping off my shirt.  I have no doubt the .45 in my purse saved me from extreme bodily harm that day.

I openly carry now when I am out and about whether it be in a bad part of town or hiking back woods, and the oddest thing has happened.  No more verbal sexual harassment, no more unwanted groping, no more sketchy men trying to invade my personal bubble, all of which was a fairly common occurrence prior to this incident, and it was something people always told me I "just had to deal with". 

It's nice.  Sad that the world is that way, but nice to not have to deal with it.  I still carry concealed in places I am less likely to encounter said harassment or potential violence or where there are small children present in abundance.  I do this just to give piece of mind to those around me, and I'll never be the ass that carries an assault rifle around with me in the open walking down the street "just cause I can" (even though I own quite a few of them and I do carry them in open when appropriate, like sighting in at the farm)

I can definitely see that it would stop men from harassing you. And I will amend this to say that you are right, open carry is probably a good option to keep women especially from being violated by men who assume they are easy targets for rape or other crime. So, I stand corrected.

It's really a question of what kind of crime you anticipate having to defend yourself from, isn't it? Because if what you're envisioning is defending yourself from an armed attacker who doesn't care whom he hurts, open carry is basically putting a target on yourself as the first person to shoot/remove from the situation.

So, then it comes down to statistical likelihoods of who might hurt you, and how, and why. And when we get to that point, I think it's likely that the statistical likelihoods are not what's driving conceal or open carry decision, in many cases.

"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

MishMash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2237 on: February 08, 2017, 01:29:43 PM »
Personally, I think there is a time and place for everything.  And just because you COULD carry an AR or PS90 around in the open, doesn't mean you should, it's called being a decent person and not scaring those less familiar with firearms because lets face it...they are the ones that get their panties in a bunch and try to regulate away firearms, so we shoot ourselves in the foot. 

Open carry has it's place, concealed has it's place.  It's all about developing a sense of when it may be appropriate, and when (even though it's legal) you're just being a dick. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2238 on: February 08, 2017, 02:53:42 PM »
(Though deciding to open carry is freaking stupid in my opinion.)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's way more nuanced and situational than your blanket statement suggests.  I open carry more than I concealed carry.  But I open carry in places where it sorta makes sense to do so, and absolutely no one raises their eyebrows at it (unless, I guess, there are out of towners).  I've referred before to spending a lot of time in Northern WI, which is a huge hotbed of outdoors activities like hunting, ATVing, fishing, boating, etc.  There is lots of woods there, and they frequently have bears.  So lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.  And then halfway through the day we decide to go into town and grab a hot dog or go to the hardware store or whatever, and I'd rather keep my weapon on my hip than leave it in a car, or more frequently, we're on ATVs and I have no way to secure it.  So open carry it is.  PLENTY of other folks do the same. 

I agree, if open carry means wandering around downtown Chicago with a pistol on my hip, or being one of those assholes in CA with an AR-15 strung over my back in Starbucks, it's stupid.  But this is a big country, and going around saying stuff like "open carry is freaking stupid" and not accounting for regional norms and differences is what hacks people off, because what makes sense in Chicago or Minneapolis doesn't necessarily make sense in Eagle River, Wisconsin.

These are exactly the types of situations that gun control activists don't think of when proposing federal gun laws. I mean police officers open carry all the time, can't be stupid in all situations. Open carry has its advantages in some situations, without any societal downsides.
Police officers also typically have heavy-duty triple retention holsters, where most people open-carrying have holsters that aren't specifically designed for simultaneous fast access and weapon retention. It's not quite analogous to compare.

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2239 on: February 09, 2017, 09:26:35 AM »
So, then it comes down to statistical likelihoods of who might hurt you, and how, and why. And when we get to that point, I think it's likely that the statistical likelihoods are not what's driving conceal or open carry decision, in many cases.
I'm pretty sure that rape is much more common than crazy guy with a gun. Crazy guy with a gun always gets national attention for months; rape is barely a local news story (nationwide average is one rape every 2 minutes). There still is the argument for concealed carry in that the more common concealed carry it is the greater the risk of attacking someone who is not openly carrying the weapon. One of the biggest reasons I support gun rights isn't because I personally want to use firearms, it's because I want those who want to harm others to not know if they are risking their personal safety.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2240 on: February 09, 2017, 09:30:21 AM »
So, then it comes down to statistical likelihoods of who might hurt you, and how, and why. And when we get to that point, I think it's likely that the statistical likelihoods are not what's driving conceal or open carry decision, in many cases.
I'm pretty sure that rape is much more common than crazy guy with a gun. Crazy guy with a gun always gets national attention for months; rape is barely a local news story (nationwide average is one rape every 2 minutes). There still is the argument for concealed carry in that the more common concealed carry it is the greater the risk of attacking someone who is not openly carrying the weapon. One of the biggest reasons I support gun rights isn't because I personally want to use firearms, it's because I want those who want to harm others to not know if they are risking their personal safety.

True, but I think date rape/acquaintance rape is the majority of that statistic, and I think in either of those circumstances it is unlikely a firearm will be a factor; thinking of the 'classic' "guy took a previously consensual hook up too far" thing, doubtful a firearm will come into play in this situation but I suppose it is possible.


100% agree on the "make the bad guys wonder if they good guys are armed" though.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2241 on: February 09, 2017, 11:57:57 AM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

robartsd

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2242 on: February 09, 2017, 12:25:54 PM »
So, then it comes down to statistical likelihoods of who might hurt you, and how, and why. And when we get to that point, I think it's likely that the statistical likelihoods are not what's driving conceal or open carry decision, in many cases.
I'm pretty sure that rape is much more common than crazy guy with a gun. Crazy guy with a gun always gets national attention for months; rape is barely a local news story (nationwide average is one rape every 2 minutes). There still is the argument for concealed carry in that the more common concealed carry it is the greater the risk of attacking someone who is not openly carrying the weapon. One of the biggest reasons I support gun rights isn't because I personally want to use firearms, it's because I want those who want to harm others to not know if they are risking their personal safety.

True, but I think date rape/acquaintance rape is the majority of that statistic, and I think in either of those circumstances it is unlikely a firearm will be a factor; thinking of the 'classic' "guy took a previously consensual hook up too far" thing, doubtful a firearm will come into play in this situation but I suppose it is possible.


100% agree on the "make the bad guys wonder if they good guys are armed" though.
Yes, most rape is by an acquaintance; but 28% are stranger rape, so stranger rape occurs about 8.4 times per hour in the US. So it is still much more common than "crazy guy with a gun" scenarios.

So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?
It certainly is appropriate to hold gun owners responsible for their own actions or negligence. I could even see passing reasonable laws that would have charged the moviegoer in the linked article with a misdemeanor. Conviction of a weapon related misdemeanor might be reason to suspend a firearms license and/or extra scrutiny when applying for a firearms license. Conviction of a weapon related felony (which should be charged in a case where negligence causes a toddler to shoot themselves) would be reason for revoking or denying a firearms license.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2243 on: February 09, 2017, 12:56:59 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it. 
"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: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2244 on: February 09, 2017, 01:05:16 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

The gun fell out, CCW holder picked it up? 

No optimal, but guns generally don't go off from being dropped.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 102
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2245 on: February 09, 2017, 01:23:35 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

I'm interested-what are the repercussions for doing stupid stuff with a weapon like dropping it in public or leaving it out so a kids gets hold of it?  I guess i was under the impression that most people aren't charged with a felony if their kid shoots another kid because they've "suffered enough" or whatever. Are there cases where people go to jail in that circumstance?  I don't think the guy who dropped the weapon had anything happen to him.  Prosecutorial discretion?



Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2246 on: February 09, 2017, 01:27:57 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

I'm interested-what are the repercussions for doing stupid stuff with a weapon like dropping it in public or leaving it out so a kids gets hold of it?  I guess i was under the impression that most people aren't charged with a felony if their kid shoots another kid because they've "suffered enough" or whatever. Are there cases where people go to jail in that circumstance?  I don't think the guy who dropped the weapon had anything happen to him.  Prosecutorial discretion?

All sorts of things.  If you leave your weapon unsecured you can be charged with negligent homicide if it's used to kill or maim someone.  If you are careless with keeping your weapon concealed you can be charged with brandishing.  It sounds like the guy in the theater wasn't charged because he wasn't arrested; I don't know what happened beyond what was in that article, but like I said, if the cop determined that his weapon literally fell out of the holster when he sat down, the cop probably gave him a stern talking to and sent him on his way.  Given how many times my cell phone has fallen out of my pocket I'm inclined to give the guy some leeway; not the exact same thing, but again, shit happens. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2247 on: February 09, 2017, 01:34:20 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

I'm interested-what are the repercussions for doing stupid stuff with a weapon like dropping it in public or leaving it out so a kids gets hold of it?  I guess i was under the impression that most people aren't charged with a felony if their kid shoots another kid because they've "suffered enough" or whatever. Are there cases where people go to jail in that circumstance?  I don't think the guy who dropped the weapon had anything happen to him.  Prosecutorial discretion?

All sorts of things.  If you leave your weapon unsecured you can be charged with negligent homicide if it's used to kill or maim someone.  If you are careless with keeping your weapon concealed you can be charged with brandishing.  It sounds like the guy in the theater wasn't charged because he wasn't arrested; I don't know what happened beyond what was in that article, but like I said, if the cop determined that his weapon literally fell out of the holster when he sat down, the cop probably gave him a stern talking to and sent him on his way.  Given how many times my cell phone has fallen out of my pocket I'm inclined to give the guy some leeway; not the exact same thing, but again, shit happens.

So to confirm here . . . there are only theoretical repercussions for stupidity involving guns and you are against the idea of having anything more concrete than that?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2248 on: February 09, 2017, 01:39:20 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

I'm interested-what are the repercussions for doing stupid stuff with a weapon like dropping it in public or leaving it out so a kids gets hold of it?  I guess i was under the impression that most people aren't charged with a felony if their kid shoots another kid because they've "suffered enough" or whatever. Are there cases where people go to jail in that circumstance?  I don't think the guy who dropped the weapon had anything happen to him.  Prosecutorial discretion?

All sorts of things.  If you leave your weapon unsecured you can be charged with negligent homicide if it's used to kill or maim someone.  If you are careless with keeping your weapon concealed you can be charged with brandishing.  It sounds like the guy in the theater wasn't charged because he wasn't arrested; I don't know what happened beyond what was in that article, but like I said, if the cop determined that his weapon literally fell out of the holster when he sat down, the cop probably gave him a stern talking to and sent him on his way.  Given how many times my cell phone has fallen out of my pocket I'm inclined to give the guy some leeway; not the exact same thing, but again, shit happens.

So to confirm here . . . there are only theoretical repercussions for stupidity involving guns and you are against the idea of having anything more concrete than that?

C'mon GuitarStv, you're better than that.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2249 on: February 09, 2017, 01:42:48 PM »
So, this is an interesting thread, and I think that I am persuadable on gun rights issues.  Many compelling arguments here.  Here is my sticking point.  I'm ok with giving everyone, within reason (e.g., no toddlers), a first crack at things and letting them demonstrate that they are doing the right thing.  But what about people who have demonstrated that they are too stupid to carry around a deadly weapon?  Like those people who leave guns out and then a toddler shoots himself.  Or this guy:

http://www.coloradofirearmtraining.com/firearm-safety/gun-falls-out-onto-ground-at-tampa-movie-theater

Would you be in favor of any repercussions at all for just out and out stupidity while carrying?

Uh, generally there ARE repercussions, and they are severe.  Do you mean MORE repercussions?  In the theater one, I mean, not sure.  Nothing is foolproof, so I'll give the guy a little leeway, nothing did happen after all.  CCW guys talk about "printing" which is where your weapon is outlined under your clothes, or they worry about a shirt riding up and exposing their weapon.  Again, if you're making a good-faith effort and shit happens, I wouldn't get too wrapped around the axle over it.

I'm interested-what are the repercussions for doing stupid stuff with a weapon like dropping it in public or leaving it out so a kids gets hold of it?  I guess i was under the impression that most people aren't charged with a felony if their kid shoots another kid because they've "suffered enough" or whatever. Are there cases where people go to jail in that circumstance?  I don't think the guy who dropped the weapon had anything happen to him.  Prosecutorial discretion?

All sorts of things.  If you leave your weapon unsecured you can be charged with negligent homicide if it's used to kill or maim someone.  If you are careless with keeping your weapon concealed you can be charged with brandishing.  It sounds like the guy in the theater wasn't charged because he wasn't arrested; I don't know what happened beyond what was in that article, but like I said, if the cop determined that his weapon literally fell out of the holster when he sat down, the cop probably gave him a stern talking to and sent him on his way.  Given how many times my cell phone has fallen out of my pocket I'm inclined to give the guy some leeway; not the exact same thing, but again, shit happens.

So to confirm here . . . there are only theoretical repercussions for stupidity involving guns and you are against the idea of having anything more concrete than that?

No.  Don't put words in my mouth. 

First of all, I object to some of the characterization of "stupidity."  Leaving your loaded handgun on a table where I kid can find it is stupidity, and it's negligence, and it's illegal.  Taking your gun out in public and waving it around, or lifting up your shirt to show it off is stupidity and is brandishing and is illegal.  Having a gun fall out of your holster may be stupidity, or it may be an equipment failure, or a million other things that I'm not going to speculate on.  I'd liken it in this case to speeding; you can go 100mph in a school zone and go to jail for reckless driving, or you can go 75 in a 65 and have the cop let you off with a warning or write you a nominal ticket.  I'm in favor of letting the cop use his judgement and determine if something is an honest mistake, or actual negligence and him using one of the laws on the books to arrest the guy.

Second, plenty of people have been charged for negligence or brandishing or other similar crimes, these are not "theoretical" in any way.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 01:44:53 PM by Chris22 »
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason