Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345932 times)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2250 on: February 09, 2017, 04:56:10 PM »
I can't believe I'm going to defend Chris22 on this (sorry, Chris, I realize that probably sounds like an insult, but I really just mean that you and I seem almost always to be on opposite sides of the fence), but:

Gun control advocates, me included, often like to use the gun vs. car comparison regarding licensure, etc., in part because both can be lethal on purpose or through negligence.

I think I'm a good, responsible driver. I never text or use my phone behind the wheel, I'm not given to excessive speeding (though come on, I drive an Audi, I'm not made of stone). I have, on occasion, accidentally done something in my car like drift over the center line, before realizing that I've done so and moving back into my lane. Now, I could have killed someone, theoretically, by doing so, if there was someone else coming in the other direction. But there wasn't, and also, I'll wager that everyone, if they are honest, has done something like this from time to time. We are human, no harm no foul, whew! I don't necessarily think that person should be harshly fined or prosecuted for it.

Chris is right that modern handguns... don't just go off if they are dropped. They are designed not to. So, yeah, dropping it is a boneheaded move, dumb for sure, but not outside the realm of possibility that a responsible person could have it happen. But it's probably not nearly as dangerous as you might think if you weren't very familiar with them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19781_6-stupid-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 05:03:13 PM 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

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2251 on: February 11, 2017, 01:15:49 AM »
You don't think there are any societal downsides to having police carrying firearms all the time?
Another strawman?
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 #2252 on: February 11, 2017, 01:29:48 AM »
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.
But does it matter if statistical likelihood is driving the carrying? Can't carrying a gun provide protection against being robbed, assaulted, raped, murdered in their home, attacked by wild animals or killed in a mass-casualty shooting? Some of these are more likely to occur than others, but isn't a firearm just as effective at protecting against one as another? Does it matter that one carries because they might be shot by a terrorist while visiting planned parenthood, when they're actually more likely to be assaulted by muggers? So while open carry may not be best for all situations, neither is concealed carry.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2253 on: February 17, 2017, 06:55:46 PM »
I found an interesting article here:  http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

An elderly Canadian woman has been working on a farm in Florida.  It sounds like a big place, and access is gated using some sort of electronic system where you enter a code.   She followed a truck through the gate before it closed and continued on towards her house.   Shortly after, she encountered another truck which blocked the road.   The driver, a large man, got out with an assault rifle and confronted her.    Apparently she had tailgated his daughter, who reported it to her parents.   Her parents freaked out and went off to find the intruder before he killed or assaulted someone.  Everything ended without injury, although the author seemed a bit traumatized by the experience.

I'm not sure what to make out of this story.    Is crime so bad in Florida that the locals have to actively patrol like this?   It seems very foreign to me.

Or was the girl's father over-reacting?

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2254 on: February 17, 2017, 09:07:40 PM »
Maybe the father is a drug dealer and thought she was trying to kidnap the daughter.

In all seriousness I think there's an inverse relationship between real and perceived risk of danger in this country. Also an inverse relationship between real and perceived manliness. I'm not saying that most people who have self-esteem issues bury them with gun-toting, but there are some undercurrents of that where I grew up. We all knew the annoying neighborhood gadfly always talking about needing a gun for never-realized threats. The moron is lucky he didn't get shot up, illegally blocking the road and assaulting someone like that. The neighborhood road is not private property and he's not a policeman.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2255 on: February 17, 2017, 09:17:25 PM »
Maybe the father is a drug dealer and thought she was trying to kidnap the daughter.

In all seriousness I think there's an inverse relationship between real and perceived risk of danger in this country. Also an inverse relationship between real and perceived manliness. I'm not saying that most people who have self-esteem issues bury them with gun-toting, but there are some undercurrents of that where I grew up. We all knew the annoying neighborhood gadfly always talking about needing a gun for never-realized threats. The moron is lucky he didn't get shot up, illegally blocking the road and assaulting someone like that. The neighborhood road is not private property and he's not a policeman.
Would you care to compare these people with Mishmash, who posted just one page ago about deciding to open carrying a gun after an assault, and how they feel they have been treated more respectfully since deciding to carry a weapon in a way everyone can see?

Also; if the neighborhood is gated as such in the story, it is likely it was private property and thus it is not illegal for a homeowner to block the road. This may not be the case, but is quite likely.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

calimom

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Location: Northern California
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2256 on: February 17, 2017, 10:43:09 PM »
I found an interesting article here:  http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

An elderly Canadian woman has been working on a farm in Florida.  It sounds like a big place, and access is gated using some sort of electronic system where you enter a code.   She followed a truck through the gate before it closed and continued on towards her house.   Shortly after, she encountered another truck which blocked the road.   The driver, a large man, got out with an assault rifle and confronted her.    Apparently she had tailgated his daughter, who reported it to her parents.   Her parents freaked out and went off to find the intruder before he killed or assaulted someone.  Everything ended without injury, although the author seemed a bit traumatized by the experience.

I'm not sure what to make out of this story.    Is crime so bad in Florida that the locals have to actively patrol like this?   It seems very foreign to me.

Or was the girl's father over-reacting?

Who knows. Canadians (and otherwise sane people) must be constantly shaking their heads over the craziness of gun toting Second Amendment Americans. Did you hear the one about the Idaho woman who was so terrified by the idea of shopping at a big box store in broad daylight that she was shot to death by her own toddler?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2257 on: February 18, 2017, 06:35:58 AM »
Maybe the father is a drug dealer and thought she was trying to kidnap the daughter.

In all seriousness I think there's an inverse relationship between real and perceived risk of danger in this country. Also an inverse relationship between real and perceived manliness. I'm not saying that most people who have self-esteem issues bury them with gun-toting, but there are some undercurrents of that where I grew up. We all knew the annoying neighborhood gadfly always talking about needing a gun for never-realized threats. The moron is lucky he didn't get shot up, illegally blocking the road and assaulting someone like that. The neighborhood road is not private property and he's not a policeman.
Would you care to compare these people with Mishmash, who posted just one page ago about deciding to open carrying a gun after an assault, and how they feel they have been treated more respectfully since deciding to carry a weapon in a way everyone can see?

Also; if the neighborhood is gated as such in the story, it is likely it was private property and thus it is not illegal for a homeowner to block the road. This may not be the case, but is quite likely.

I'd say if one was a victim of assault or not, and carries a gun for protection it's make sense to let others know you have one. That's why I think open carry laws are fine. I'd say that is even a more responsible use of a gun since it deters violence against the gun owner.  That is an entirely different scenario than pulling a gun on someone and threatening to shoot them for apparently no real reason other than your paranoia if they don't comply with your demands. This is ostensibly why police forces were invented - to have neutral parties with training settle disputes between people while minimizing violence.

Regarding private property - unless the person owns the entire farm and pays for that road maintenance, the road is probably not his property but that of either the town or the HOA. In either case the writer would have exactly as much right to use the road and the right not to be accosted by a random person barricading it. Again, not his legal property and thus not legal for him to barricade the road and threaten someone on it. If he does own the property in its entirety then he has a plausible defense for his actions and the writer shouldn't be surprised a gun was pulled on her for trespassing.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 06:45:14 AM by Abe »

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2258 on: February 18, 2017, 06:42:16 AM »
re: open carry -- some people say that open carry is like wearing a sign that says -- shoot me first.   This would be true in some situations.
If the goal is to defend, then an element of surprise may be desirable.

re: vulnerability, I don't go out much and don't see a need to carry, but if I were to rate the risk of places I go, I would estimate my highest risk is running errands at Walmart and Target.   

But overall my lifestyle is very low risk and I don't feel a need to carry at this time.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2259 on: February 18, 2017, 10:45:52 AM »
I'm personally not a fan of open carry in public places outside of hiking trails etc... Although I've done it when I lived in Alaska and it smaller towns its pretty common place there since many people ARE returning from hiking, fishing or hunting. As a woman I personally think open carry in a public place where many people are would make me feel more of a target rather than less - plus I'd feel very conspicuous and noticeable. So prefer concealed carry in public.
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 #2260 on: February 18, 2017, 04:12:38 PM »
Quote
Who knows. Canadians (and otherwise sane people) must be constantly shaking their heads over the craziness of gun toting Second Amendment Americans. Did you hear the one about the Idaho woman who was so terrified by the idea of shopping at a big box store in broad daylight that she was shot to death by her own toddler?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/
Sad. On a positive note, it is a good thing the Canadian lady didn't drive past this... http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/arizona-good-samaritan-kills-man-beating-trooper/index.html
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2261 on: February 18, 2017, 06:00:27 PM »
You know, that's the first example I've seen of a citizen using a pistol to do something directly useful.   It's an impressive story.   It would be challenging to remain calm in the situation that motorist encountered.    I hope he gets the same sort of support an officer would after the shooting.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2262 on: February 18, 2017, 07:51:14 PM »
http://www.wibw.com/content/news/Topeka-Police-respond-to-stabbing-at-East-Topeka-Walmart-413500003.html

Well here is another one. Ccw holder stopped a stabbing- no one was shot.

The point is that for every "shot by a toddler" story, there is at least one "good" use of a weapon for defense. Anecdotes do not equal data, and throwing out horror stories as if they are the norm is not helpful, nor particularly useful to the conversation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

calimom

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Location: Northern California
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2263 on: February 18, 2017, 09:59:49 PM »
re: open carry -- some people say that open carry is like wearing a sign that says -- shoot me first.   This would be true in some situations.
If the goal is to defend, then an element of surprise may be desirable.

re: vulnerability, I don't go out much and don't see a need to carry, but if I were to rate the risk of places I go, I would estimate my highest risk is running errands at Walmart and Target.   

But overall my lifestyle is very low risk and I don't feel a need to carry at this time.

KBecks, when you enter Target, do you just brandish your pistol and just start firing? Or wait for all the "danger" to start happening and then shoot? You must live in a very dangerous neighborhood! ((hugs))

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2264 on: February 19, 2017, 05:53:18 AM »
Try reading that again, because I stated very clearly that I don't carry.   
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 06:07:11 AM by KBecks »

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2265 on: February 19, 2017, 06:08:27 AM »
And yet this statement
Quote
The point is that for every "shot by a toddler" story, there is at least one "good" use of a weapon for defense.
is itself an anecdote.   

Anyway I don't think I've been throwing out horror stories.   I started the thread because I want to understand the right to bear arms culture in the states beyond the typical 'Muricans love their guns, they're all nuts' meme that you encounter outside of the US.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 771
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2266 on: February 19, 2017, 06:21:34 AM »
You know, that's the first example I've seen of a citizen using a pistol to do something directly useful.   It's an impressive story.   It would be challenging to remain calm in the situation that motorist encountered.    I hope he gets the same sort of support an officer would after the shooting.

Do you want to see some other examples? 

Here's a gunfight video from Brazil
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/2016/12/gunfight-video-10-lessons-learned.html

A 63 year old man in Florida shoots armed robbers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CJp9BPHMOo

Generally I don't like watching these kinds of videos, I don't like seeing people getting shot, even people who are going to hurt and steal.  But I respect that people can and do successfully defend themselves with firearms. 


spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2267 on: February 19, 2017, 10:01:29 AM »
And yet this statement
Quote
The point is that for every "shot by a toddler" story, there is at least one "good" use of a weapon for defense.
is itself an anecdote.   

Anyway I don't think I've been throwing out horror stories.   I started the thread because I want to understand the right to bear arms culture in the states beyond the typical 'Muricans love their guns, they're all nuts' meme that you encounter outside of the US.
I think that most Americans have differing beliefs from each other in regards to owning firearms - be that solely in the home or carrying in public (concealed or open) - that youre going to find it hard to get a concensus. In my personal experience many seem OK with people who have personal home gun ownership here (although they may want to regulate the type of firearms allowed) but less OK (often by a lot) of concealed carry and even more so by open carry. The reasons people own home guns or choose to carry will vary too - some do it for protection they feel they need, some because its a constitutional right they want to embrace/support, others because they like hunting or shooting or guns as a hobby or collection, etc...
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 #2268 on: February 19, 2017, 10:13:58 AM »
re: open carry -- some people say that open carry is like wearing a sign that says -- shoot me first.   This would be true in some situations.
If the goal is to defend, then an element of surprise may be desirable.

re: vulnerability, I don't go out much and don't see a need to carry, but if I were to rate the risk of places I go, I would estimate my highest risk is running errands at Walmart and Target.   

But overall my lifestyle is very low risk and I don't feel a need to carry at this time.

KBecks, when you enter Target, do you just brandish your pistol and just start firing? Or wait for all the "danger" to start happening and then shoot? You must live in a very dangerous neighborhood! ((hugs))
Please don't troll.
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 #2269 on: February 19, 2017, 10:42:56 AM »
And yet this statement
Quote
The point is that for every "shot by a toddler" story, there is at least one "good" use of a weapon for defense.
is itself an anecdote.   

Anyway I don't think I've been throwing out horror stories.   I started the thread because I want to understand the right to bear arms culture in the states beyond the typical 'Muricans love their guns, they're all nuts' meme that you encounter outside of the US.
Exactly right, just another anecdote. The point being that anecdotes don't prove anything, and you now have examples of guns being used for defense.  I was not implying that you were throwing out horror stories, only that you were looking for the other side of the equation as well. The trolls in tbis thread will try to sidetrack things, but mostly the debate has been open, and as evidenced by the last few pages some people have even come to different opinions than they previously held.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2270 on: February 19, 2017, 10:53:18 AM »
Exactly right, just another anecdote. The point being that anecdotes don't prove anything, and you now have examples of guns being used for defense.  I was not implying that you were throwing out horror stories, only that you were looking for the other side of the equation as well. The trolls in tbis thread will try to sidetrack things, but mostly the debate has been open, and as evidenced by the last few pages some people have even come to different opinions than they previously held.

Didn't really read the last couple pages but since it seems we have some new folks to the discussion, thought I would chime back in as someone who changed his mind on guns (years before this thread existed). I used to be militantly pro gun control, but now I am pretty indifferent to it. I'm not about to join the NRA, which remains a shady and hypocritical entity as far as I'm concerned, but I do think most of the gun laws out there are unnecessarily burdensome, and do not need to be made even stricter given the likely low ROI on goals like reducing gun deaths. The thing is, you don't even have to believe that guns are necessary for self defense (I don't, for many/most Americans anyway) to still think gun control is a bad idea.

First, the biggest danger privately held guns pose is to the owners themselves, and personally I fall on the Darwin's Law side of that equation. You add in the logistical nightmare outlawing guns in a country with so many guns out there already, combine that with the number of gun deaths related to things like suicide or the drug trade, and it becomes clear that reducing gun deaths can be accomplished much more quickly and efficaciously through actions other than stricter gun control laws which also, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, disproportionately affect poor and minority communities.

Constitutionality doesn't need to come into it, nor does how effective guns are for personal defense. The fact remains in the U.S. specifically, crusading for gun control is not an effective use of time or resources. I wish we could be like Japan or the UK when it comes to guns, but that ship sailed long ago, and here we are.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2271 on: February 19, 2017, 02:38:29 PM »
Yep, I tend to be pretty indifferent to gun control.   Gun control largely works in Canada and I don't think we should change.   I see no way to implement gun control in the US either, so not much point in trying to change that either.

My impression is that a large part of the US has a bit of a libertarian culture, and owning a firearm to defend yourself is just part of being able to look after yourself.    I can understand the folks on this forum who have their own weapons, and practice with them and store them safely.    I'm a big believer in self-sufficiency.   One of the things Robert Heinlein wrote that I actually agree with is:

Quote
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I don't understand why society would tolerate someone with a handgun who does not behave in a safe manner.   This person is a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

This story here http://www.wibw.com/content/news/Topeka-Police-respond-to-stabbing-at-East-Topeka-Walmart-413500003.html exemplifies the problem I have with private citizens carrying firearms around.

This incident seemed to work out well, but it could also have gone very wrong:
 - the 3rd party CCW could have shot one or both participants in the altercation.   Not only would he have to deal with the legal repercussions, he would have to deal with the mental stress of killing someone.
- one of the two men fighting could have seized control of his pistol and the violence in the situation could have escalated.
- the weapon could have been discharged and hit a bystander

of course if he had no firearm, the confrontation could have escalated and one of the participants could have been badly injured or killed.   So I don't see a 'right' answer to the scenario.

It's just my opinion, but if someone is going to use a pistol this way, I think she needs to be trained and licensed to do so.   There's no way I'd want someone without regular training brandishing a weapon in public to try and control a violent situation.




JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2272 on: February 22, 2017, 03:38:30 PM »
Yep, I tend to be pretty indifferent to gun control.   Gun control largely works in Canada and I don't think we should change.   I see no way to implement gun control in the US either, so not much point in trying to change that either.

My impression is that a large part of the US has a bit of a libertarian culture, and owning a firearm to defend yourself is just part of being able to look after yourself.    I can understand the folks on this forum who have their own weapons, and practice with them and store them safely.    I'm a big believer in self-sufficiency.   One of the things Robert Heinlein wrote that I actually agree with is:

Quote
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

I don't understand why society would tolerate someone with a handgun who does not behave in a safe manner.   This person is a danger to themselves and everyone around them.

This story here http://www.wibw.com/content/news/Topeka-Police-respond-to-stabbing-at-East-Topeka-Walmart-413500003.html exemplifies the problem I have with private citizens carrying firearms around.

This incident seemed to work out well, but it could also have gone very wrong:
 - the 3rd party CCW could have shot one or both participants in the altercation.   Not only would he have to deal with the legal repercussions, he would have to deal with the mental stress of killing someone.
- one of the two men fighting could have seized control of his pistol and the violence in the situation could have escalated.
- the weapon could have been discharged and hit a bystander

of course if he had no firearm, the confrontation could have escalated and one of the participants could have been badly injured or killed.   So I don't see a 'right' answer to the scenario.

It's just my opinion, but if someone is going to use a pistol this way, I think she needs to be trained and licensed to do so.   There's no way I'd want someone without regular training brandishing a weapon in public to try and control a violent situation.

The article doesn't mention any training the CCW holder had. Are you implying that he was untrained?

Replace the armed individual with police officer and all of your complaints remain. He could have shot one or both persons, or a bystander, or someone could have taken the gun.

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2273 on: February 22, 2017, 07:08:13 PM »

That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open. 

In Maryland there is no legal open carry.  Good luck getting a conceal carry permit.  You must show the government you have "good and proper reason".  The constitution itself is not considered a good enough reason.

NC is an open carry state.  You must have a CCW to carry concealed.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2274 on: February 22, 2017, 09:47:13 PM »

That is not what I asked. I asked whether carry is conceal or open. 

In Maryland there is no legal open carry.  Good luck getting a conceal carry permit.  You must show the government you have "good and proper reason".  The constitution itself is not considered a good enough reason.

NC is an open carry state.  You must have a CCW to carry concealed.
Different states have Laws all over the board. Seems to have little correlation to gun crime rates.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Drifterrider

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2275 on: February 23, 2017, 05:53:51 AM »

Different states have Laws all over the board. Seems to have little correlation to gun crime rates.
[/quote]

Yep, which is why it is important to know before you go. 

I have a non-residential permit that isn't valid in my state but is in others.  If I think I might carry even once (concealed) I ask a state police officer, get his card and make notes.  That said, I almost never "carry" but I almost always "transport".

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2276 on: February 23, 2017, 08:35:31 AM »
I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle.  It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated.  That ship has sailed. 

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality.  I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2277 on: February 23, 2017, 08:41:56 AM »
Who doesn't feel safe in public spaces? People who don't know that gun crimes and gun deaths have been dropping for decades? If people are so unsafe in public, that would be a wonderful arguement for more people to carry guns, not fewer. More kids are mowed down in Chicagos south side every year than died in Sandy Hook. When that isn't being addressed, it makes little sense to worry about a one-off event that no proposed gun law would have prevented.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2278 on: February 23, 2017, 08:49:04 AM »
I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle.  It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated.  That ship has sailed. 

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality.  I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change.

One has a greater chance of getting struck by lighting than by getting killed in a mass shooter event. The odds of being a victim of violent crime are much, much greater than that. A shooting at a school sucks big time but what sort of gun control would have prevented it? I do know a trained, armed teacher is much more effective at stopping a shooter than a building full of sitting ducks.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2279 on: February 23, 2017, 09:06:13 AM »
Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building?  Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?  I know these mass shooting incidents are rare, but like all rare yet "shocking" events, they have an effect on people and change behavior at a societal level.  You can tell people all you want to not feel afraid, but it doesn't change how we are wired.  This is why we took shoes off at airports until very recently although no one actually died.  Knowing that anyone, anywhere could have a gun produces a low level of anxiety.  It forces cops to be more heavily armed.  It makes people behave differently.  It makes people LESS safe in aggregate, although an individual gun owner might feel more safe (although from talking to experienced and trained gun owners, they probably aren't actually and overestimate their abilities in a crisis situation). 

I know the suicide statistics quite well.  One of my high school friends was a gun nut and ended up killing himself with a gun late last year.  He had diagnosed mental health issues and still had no trouble acquiring an arsenal.  In fact, he had journals indicating he was planning on taking more people out with him, but I think he lost his nerve in the end. 

In any case, I am past pushing for gun control, because it's pointless.  I am even encouraging all the liberals I know to buy multiple guns. 

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2280 on: February 23, 2017, 09:11:05 AM »
Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building?  Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 09:13:23 AM by cheapass »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2281 on: February 23, 2017, 09:30:30 AM »
Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building?  Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.

Truth.
"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 #2282 on: February 23, 2017, 09:32:36 AM »
Then why did all of the schools in my town feel like they had to rip down their entrances and put up new glass fronts and security doors so that the faculty could see if a shooter was approaching the building?  Why did my kids have to start having "code blue" active shooter drills?

Because humans are naturally irrational creatures and prioritize trying to prevent extremely unlikely events rather than things that are actually likely to kill people. If we wanted to get the greatest return on our time and effort in the form of preventing (actually delaying) deaths, we would have more defensive driving courses, not text and drive, eat healthy foods, exercise regularly, etc.
Exactly.

I am glad you have stopped pushing for gun control golden1. I hope anyone you convince to buy guns enjoys them safely. Shooting sports are quite fun.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2283 on: February 23, 2017, 09:33:18 AM »
Did you actually read what I wrote after that?  No, because it doesn't fit into your narrative of "I like guns so I will rationalize keeping them in any way I can." 

My biggest gripe about the whole thing is that you and other pro-gun people immediately jump to "Don't take my guns over a statistically unlikely event!"  not "OMFG, 27 kids died to gun violence!  I really want to keep my guns but that is terrible.  What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?"  Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools."  Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better.  You laugh at us non-gun people as dumb ignorant emotional idiots, and therefore widen the polarization instead of, oh I don't know, trying to educate people and solve the problem. 

I want people to be able to safely own guns.  I also want to send my kids to school safely, and not let my friends who have suicidal depression be able to acquire multiple weapons.  I want people who live in unsafe areas to be able to defend themselves, I want people to own guns to protect against a tyrannical government, and I want people to be able to use guns simply for recreation if that floats your boat.  I don't think that all of this is necessarily irreconcilable. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2284 on: February 23, 2017, 09:37:25 AM »
I view gun control the same way I view abortion and some addictive drugs.  I hate guns, don't do drugs, and I hate abortion, but making them illegal won't solve the problem

Focus on reducing gun deaths, and do some reasonable things.  This debate as it stands is old and tired and isn't going anywhere. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2285 on: February 23, 2017, 09:38:12 AM »
Emotional reactions will often be dismissed as unhelpful for solving problems. This is why many gun owners don't appeal to emotions- they appeal to logic and reason with their arguments. An armed teacher is probably just as likely to stop a mass shooting as banning scary black rifles because they make us feel sad; both have a very low chance of success, with some downsides.

Your last paragraph is helpful; few people would disagree with the goals you listed. What policies would you propose to meet them?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2157
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2286 on: February 23, 2017, 09:44:49 AM »
Did you actually read what I wrote after that?  No, because it doesn't fit into your narrative of "I like guns so I will rationalize keeping them in any way I can." 

My biggest gripe about the whole thing is that you and other pro-gun people immediately jump to "Don't take my guns over a statistically unlikely event!"  not "OMFG, 27 kids died to gun violence!  I really want to keep my guns but that is terrible.  What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?" Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools."  Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better.  You laugh at us non-gun people as dumb ignorant emotional idiots, and therefore widen the polarization instead of, oh I don't know, trying to educate people and solve the problem. 

I want people to be able to safely own guns.  I also want to send my kids to school safely, and not let my friends who have suicidal depression be able to acquire multiple weapons.  I want people who live in unsafe areas to be able to defend themselves, I want people to own guns to protect against a tyrannical government, and I want people to be able to use guns simply for recreation if that floats your boat.  I don't think that all of this is necessarily irreconcilable.

This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2287 on: February 23, 2017, 09:48:28 AM »
Quote
Emotional reactions will often be dismissed as unhelpful for solving problems. This is why many gun owners don't appeal to emotions- they appeal to logic and reason with their arguments

I find that most people come to their conclusions first through emotion and then reason their way to that conclusion later. I honestly think most gun owners just like guns.  They see one and it makes them feel happy for some reason.  Maybe their dad took them shooting when they grew up, IDK.  I see a gun IRL and my stomach turns.  I viscerally hate them because to me they represent mostly death.  I understand intellectually the appeal for people.  I understand the need for them, but I will never love them in the same way gun enthusiasts would.  (I will cop to enjoying Fallout 4.  I learned more about guns through crafting them in that game than I ever knew before.)  Maybe I'll change my tune when Trump ushers in the zombie apocalypse. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2288 on: February 23, 2017, 09:50:44 AM »
Quote
This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I think they are paranoid that us non-gun owners are trying to repeal the second amendment, which is still an extreme minority position, so they use the slippery slope arguement instead of taking it at face value when people say "We don't want to repeal the second amendment." 

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2289 on: February 23, 2017, 09:53:30 AM »
What can we do as gun owners to add our input into why this happened and how to prevent this from happening?"  Instead, we heard from the NRA "It's your fault for not letting us have guns in schools."  Which shows you aren't interested in solving the problem, just making yourselves feel better. 

I haven't yet heard any recommendations on laws that would have prevented Sandy Hook from happening. I do know that if it were my child inside that school, I would much rather have an armed, trained teacher inside than not.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2290 on: February 23, 2017, 10:27:56 AM »
This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

Also, fuck the NRA.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 10:29:52 AM by Lagom »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2291 on: February 23, 2017, 11:03:42 AM »
This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

Also, fuck the NRA.
I was very clear on my belief on the effectiveness of armed teachers. You seem unclear, so you may wish to re-read my post.
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 #2292 on: February 23, 2017, 11:16:02 AM »
Quote
This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I think they are paranoid that us non-gun owners are trying to repeal the second amendment, which is still an extreme minority position, so they use the slippery slope arguement instead of taking it at face value when people say "We don't want to repeal the second amendment."
Ok, so for the third time; would you care to share policies that you think would be effective?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2293 on: February 23, 2017, 11:22:31 AM »
This. And this is why I will never join the NRA. Because they are not helping, and by encouraging that response in their actions and their words, they are making the gulf between the two camps even worse.

I'm a gun owner. And I have a CCW permit. But fuck the NRA.

Agreed. MM, don't pretend a very large minority, if not the majority of pro-gun activists use extremely emotion-based arguments. "Muh freedom!" and so forth. Also, what logically divined evidence proves that armed teachers will meaningfully reduce in-school gun violence? To me, that claim sounds more fear-based than logic based, but perhaps I missed a study?

That said, as I mentioned in my last post, there are plenty of logic-based reasons to oppose gun control and none of them have to do with the idea that better gun access will allegedly prevent violent assaults.

Also, fuck the NRA.
I was very clear on my belief on the effectiveness of armed teachers. You seem unclear, so you may wish to re-read my post.

Belief =/= logic, is all I''m saying. Your reasons were clear enough and plausible, but still more based in emotion than logic as far as I recall. I shall try to go back and reread them later to see if I'm misremembering.

Either way the broader point remains that it's silly to imply that many/most gun owners only use only logic and reason to support their beliefs. Just because someone with a gun stopped a crime one time, or five times, or a hundred times, it is not a logical argument to claim that greater gun access = less crime. We've seen it repeatedly throughout this thread. No one has said (or can say, for that matter) "This extensive peer review study shows that school shootings happen less often and with fewer deaths in areas where most teachers carry." Instead they say "I know I would feel better sending my child to a school where the teachers were well trained and armed." That is emotion-based reasoning.

ETA - I don't mean to say the above is bad reasoning, just that you can't really claim to be more logical/objective than many pro gun control advocates. We have already established that there is relatively little reliable research out there to show how the statistics work out, so all anyone has is their biased intuition, backed up with anecdotal evidence. To be clear I am only talking about the question of whether gun access reduces violent crime.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 11:49:41 AM by Lagom »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2294 on: February 23, 2017, 11:31:03 AM »
Quote
Ok, so for the third time; would you care to share policies that you think would be effective?

Hmmm, well for starters, I think that people need to build a proper comfort level with a gun, and at the same time respect it as the tool that it is.  I think that it has become the symbol of death for people like me and a symbol of patriotism for pro-gun people, and really neither is appropriate.  I would like to see the NRA (or some other organization) provide outreach

Switzerland is an interesting country.  Everyone has a gun in Switzerland but there is very low gun violence.  Maybe we can channel some of those ideas to the US.  Also, let's study different gun laws in different states and try to find some common denominators to gun safety.  Maybe there is nothing there, but let's look at the data and at least try things.  The problem is, every attempt to try an idea is met with extreme resistance because it is assumed that the end game is to repeal the second amendment. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2295 on: February 23, 2017, 11:44:32 AM »
The NRA already does this kind of outreach. It is called the Eddie Eagle program. You may wish to read up on it. I would like to see this training as part of standard curriculum in every school, and see almost no reason against it.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2296 on: February 23, 2017, 11:53:40 AM »
Violent crime is much more correlated with poverty than gun laws. You have states with very lax gun laws(ME,NH,VT) that have very low murder rates and ones with high murder rates(MS,MO,LA). You also have states with strict gun laws with low murder rates(MA,RI,HI) and states with high murder rates(DE,MD,IL)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2297 on: February 23, 2017, 12:02:02 PM »

Belief =/= logic, is all I''m saying. Your reasons were clear enough and plausible, but still more based in emotion than logic as far as I recall. I shall try to go back and reread them later to see if I'm misremembering.

Either way the broader point remains that it's silly to imply that many/most gun owners only use only logic and reason to support their beliefs. Just because someone with a gun stopped a crime one time, or five times, or a hundred times, it is not a logical argument to claim that greater gun access = less crime. We've seen it repeatedly throughout this thread. No one has (or can) say "This extensive peer review study shows that school shootings happen less and with fewer deaths in areas where most teachers carry." Instead they say "I know I would feel better sending my child to a school where the teachers were well trained and armed." That is emotion-based reasoning.
No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2298 on: February 23, 2017, 12:05:25 PM »
Violent crime is much more correlated with poverty than gun laws. You have states with very lax gun laws(ME,NH,VT) that have very low murder rates and ones with high murder rates(MS,MO,LA). You also have states with strict gun laws with low murder rates(MA,RI,HI) and states with high murder rates(DE,MD,IL)

Correct. And thus the most logical conclusion is that claiming guns clearly do/do not increase personal safety is based more in emotion than logic. Perhaps well-reasoned emotion, but still.

This is why I prefer to focus more broadly on questions like "how do we reduce gun deaths?", which have many answers besides "stricter gun control!" or "arm every teacher!"

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2299 on: February 23, 2017, 12:16:42 PM »
No. Belief does not equal logic. But the argument that an armed teacher could stop a shooter is more reasoned and less emotional than "I feel scurred around big mean guns." I specifically said that it wasn't likely to have an effect on shooting rates, only that it is a reasoned argument as opposed to an emotional one.

I have not seen as many arguements of " I would feel better with more guns in my school." I see plenty of "Guns could stop school shootings" arguments. The status of this being completely factul or not does not detract from this being a reasoned arguement and not an emotional one. On the other hand i see mostly emotional arguements for gun control- golden1 listed several, with zero reason based arguements. In fact, their whole point was that gun proponents are not emotional enough, which I think is silly and unhelpful, whether it is true or not.

Sure, "guns could stop school shootings" is completely factual the same way that "metal detectors could stop school shootings," or "anti-bullying campaigns can stop school shootings," or "[insert theory here]." All of them are plausibly true and all of them have plausible scenarios in which they would fail to stop a shooting. None of them are clearly the most reasoned/logical approach because there is not enough data to back any of them up that definitively.

I don't disagree that anti-gun folks tend to make emotional appeals and are generally harsher with them. My point is that pro-gun folks also make emotional appeals, they are just different. golden1 and others are more along the lines of "how can you stand for children to be murdered and do nothing?" Pro gun folks are along the lines of either "guns = FREEDOM!" which is obviously emotion based, or more subtly, "I believe I am safer and can make others safer when I have a gun," which sounds reasonable, but is still based within the same emotion used by the anti-gun folks, fear. 

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the above. Fear for the safety of you, your family, and society is a great reason to seek effective solutions. But it's a bit condescending for you to imply that you have the logical high ground in the debate, so to speak, just as it is obnoxious (and I will say, objectively more mean-spirited) for others to come in and accuse you of being indifferent to murdered children.