Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 358224 times)

andy85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #250 on: March 04, 2016, 09:29:19 AM »
This all sounds like the "thought police"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #251 on: March 04, 2016, 09:30:28 AM »
That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Having all those records about everyone is a bad thing!

You want to know who has a socially-embarrassing disease? Just look it up! You want to know who is likely to be a sucker and an easy mark for your ponzi scheme? Just look it up! You're a corrupt politician and you want to know who to have your goons intimidate into not voting? Just fucking look it up!

No. All of this Orwellian data collection has gone way too fucking far already. Saying that we should add to it is evil!

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

If that's actually the case, then I don't understand it either. I hope that it's not, and that the NRA et. al. are failing to strenuously oppose it only because it's outside their area of focus, not because they don't care.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms.

Guns should be either allowed everywhere, or if a place wants to restrict them, they should be required to let people check them at the door.

Why?

Because if I'm trying to run errands from point A to B to C to D in the same day, and I can't take my gun to point C, then it effectively bans me from taking my gun to A, B, or D either.

This is why the bill that would legalize guns on college campuses currently being considered by the Georgia legislature doesn't go far enough: it fails to allow guns in dorms and fraternity houses, which means that commuter students can exercise their Second Amendment rights, but students living on campus still have their rights infringed.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Having a gun in the movie theater is almost beside the point. If you disallow it, then you're really disallowing anybody from carrying a gun on their way to and from the movie theater, unless they're a car clown and can lock the gun in their trunk.

If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct.

Quote from: 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I am an able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, therefore I am part of the militia.

(Sorry ladies; that's another one of those laws that the feminists should probably work on amending.)

Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

What, you prefer they carry openly? That's an unusual opinion.

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
 
The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #252 on: March 04, 2016, 09:31:29 AM »
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?" 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #253 on: March 04, 2016, 09:32:39 AM »
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #254 on: March 04, 2016, 09:37:24 AM »
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.

Sorry, I missed the 'information I have provided in this thread' bit. I seem to recall you are law enforcement, or ex-law enforcement or something like that and you are afraid that you would regret not being able to intervene if something happened. Is that correct? If that context is true, I would likely give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not a paranoid nut. Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

Some say mother hen, some say sheepdog.  Either way, I would put my life on the line to save yours - as would many others.  We're just not all that vocal about it.

I stopped renewing my NRA membership because the "sky is falling" fear-mongering tactics are not something of which I approve.  I am in favor of enforcing existing gun laws.  I am not in favor new laws being proposed by people who are clueless as to what's already illegal.

To emphasize my earlier point, here's an excerpt from On Combat:
Quote
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
Making it illegal for people to carry a firearm in a church will not prevent incidents like this.  How many shootings have there been in "gun free zones"?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 09:45:07 AM by JLee »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #255 on: March 04, 2016, 09:38:33 AM »
Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?"

Okay, so long as we both recognize that your fears are equally as irrational as mine.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8191
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #256 on: March 04, 2016, 09:39:08 AM »
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?"


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


^ From the 2008 supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment.  It would seem that the second amendment does not say you can carry a gun anywhere you please, does not say you can carry concealed weapons, and does not prevent additional conditions from being added to arms sales.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 09:40:42 AM by GuitarStv »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #257 on: March 04, 2016, 09:45:31 AM »
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

In reverse order...

What I have written regarding fears is not legally relevant. I never said it was. No, my fear regarding idiots and nut with concealed guns is not legally relevant. Neither is someone who thinks they need a gun to feel safe. I was never making a legal argument, which is why whenever the 2nd amendment was brought up in objection, it was a total non-sequitur.

No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #258 on: March 04, 2016, 09:49:27 AM »
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #259 on: March 04, 2016, 09:53:04 AM »
No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

What about the one addressed to you, where I argued that banning guns at place X effectively bans them at place Y too because there's no place to store it when traveling between X and Y?

I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.

It's clear from context that when you say things like "really shouldn't" you mean that the government should prohibit it, and at that point you are advocating for a nanny state.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #260 on: March 04, 2016, 09:53:24 AM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

MandalayVA

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1425
  • Location: Richmond VA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #261 on: March 04, 2016, 09:58:09 AM »
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"

What about those who associate with them?  Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary gunman) was well-known to be mentally ill, but that didn't stop his mother from owning guns--which were used against her and numerous six-year-olds.  The argument has been made that the guns were locked up.  Apparently, they were not locked up well enough.  I know that the majority of gun owners are responsible, but if I had a mentally ill person coming in and out of my house on a regular basis I would keep the key to the gun cabinet on my person at all times.

I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy. 
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."  Hunter S. Thompson

Follow my road here:  The Road To Mandalay




Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #262 on: March 04, 2016, 10:03:30 AM »
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?

The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #263 on: March 04, 2016, 10:03:45 AM »
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

Me too.  Cabela's is right down the street, as is a slightly cheaper store called Gat Gun. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #264 on: March 04, 2016, 10:04:34 AM »
No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

What about the one addressed to you, where I argued that banning guns at place X effectively bans them at place Y too because there's no place to store it when traveling between X and Y?

That is also irrelevant in regards to the fear vs. fear point that I was making. Once again, my entire point was to illustrate how fear on the behalf of those who wish to carry concealed guns ends up invoking fear on behalf of people like me who worry about idiots and people with anger issues. I wasn't addressing 2nd amendment legal concerns or the practical arguments regarding the supposed burden that places that ban conceal weapons have on those wishing to carry them.


I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.

It's clear from context that when you say things like "really shouldn't" you mean that the government should prohibit it, and at that point you are advocating for a nanny state.
[/quote]

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #265 on: March 04, 2016, 10:07:05 AM »
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

When my neighbors want to buy or sell guns to each other, they arrange with a licensed dealer to handle the paperwork.

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #266 on: March 04, 2016, 10:08:48 AM »

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.

Or worse yet, the illusion thereof. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #267 on: March 04, 2016, 10:30:11 AM »
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.


This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?

The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?

"Yes" to what? I didn't ask a yes or no question. Care to try again?

On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right we're already explicitly provided?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 11:00:26 AM by BeginnerStache »

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #268 on: March 04, 2016, 10:34:09 AM »

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!
I just want to be that guy and point out that driving a car isn't a right. It is a privilege that you have to possess a certification (driver's license) to practice. Terrible example.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #269 on: March 04, 2016, 10:59:15 AM »
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #270 on: March 04, 2016, 11:03:46 AM »
Extensive training along with fairly stringent licensing requirements are needed for concealed carry

I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

People consider a $10 fee for a state ID card to vote to be a violation of their right to vote, not sure how almost $500 for a CCW class isn't the exact same thing. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #271 on: March 04, 2016, 11:13:46 AM »
considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

Exactly.  There was never a huge need to define a right that, for the large part, wasn't being tried to be actively removed.   
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #272 on: March 04, 2016, 11:15:24 AM »
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

I can be on board with "most" of that. Before the Columbia v. Heller decision the courts, for the overwhelming majority of the previous 200 years, applied the 2nd amendment more in terms of it's literal interpretation (militias NOT individuals). The literal interpretation of course didn't lead to any outright ban or confiscation of firearms. Carrying firearms was pretty much just a carry-over of the day where quite literally every able-bodied person carried a gun and militias were the main level of protection. And of course in those days you had black powder, muskets, and canons. Times have changed. Sure it's very important to revisit the Constitution from time to time and see how it applies with today. I am ok banning certain kinds of guns, and I am ok banning certain kinds of people from getting ANY gun. And I understand individuals have a right to bear arms as provided by a more recent Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps 200 years form now people will be arguing where laser guns fall in the constructs of the Constitution.

It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. 

These discussions are always pointless. It's like climate change and politics. Nothing ever really gets accomplished. I am just as guilty for participating.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #273 on: March 04, 2016, 11:15:32 AM »
I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

This statement is on the mark.
Illinois does just about everything possible to make it difficult.   You even have to have stupid "FOID" firerams owners ID card to purchase a box of ammo.
All new training requirements or laws do is place another tax or burden on a bunch of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Leave things the hell alone and get tough with the laws already in place.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #274 on: March 04, 2016, 11:24:38 AM »
Extensive training along with fairly stringent licensing requirements are needed for concealed carry

I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

People consider a $10 fee for a state ID card to vote to be a violation of their right to vote, not sure how almost $500 for a CCW class isn't the exact same thing.
 

I consider voting a right and carrying a CCW to be a privilege (one that should be available).  if you can't swing $150 - $200 for a training class, how can you afford a gun and ammo to practice with?  I'm much more concerned with the CCW being issued on the whim of govt (may issue) versus a shall issue state with clear requirements for getting a CCW.

In those may issue states, the determining factor ends up being political connections and/or the perceived need of the applicant.  That's an inherently unfair way to issue these licenses. 

Fishindude - Those cards should be eliminated.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 11:26:23 AM by Midwest »

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #275 on: March 04, 2016, 11:28:22 AM »
considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

Exactly.  There was never a huge need to define a right that, for the large part, wasn't being tried to be actively removed.

The Heller decision had absolutely nothing to do with trying to remove the 2nd amendment. It was all about interpretation.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #276 on: March 04, 2016, 11:30:56 AM »
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

When my neighbors want to buy or sell guns to each other, they arrange with a licensed dealer to handle the paperwork.

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.

You pretty much repeated just what I said using your favored anti gun control jargon. Basically nanny state is anything you disagree with.

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #277 on: March 04, 2016, 11:45:18 AM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #278 on: March 04, 2016, 11:54:42 AM »
Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.

Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force. Not sure why people have such issues - the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix and despite more states moving to allow concealed and open carry of said firearms...

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies. That doesn't mean there aren't some improvements to be made, but most of the talking points in this thread have been pointed out to be emotion based rather than math based...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #279 on: March 04, 2016, 11:58:11 AM »
Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force.

Exactly.  I've always wondered why the left, which claims to stand up for women, minorities, etc, doesn't want to afford those groups the ability to protect themselves.
"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: 8191
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #280 on: March 04, 2016, 12:00:54 PM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.http://www.vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 12:18:40 PM by GuitarStv »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #281 on: March 04, 2016, 12:05:35 PM »
Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force.

Exactly.  I've always wondered why the left, which claims to stand up for women, minorities, etc, doesn't want to afford those groups the ability to protect themselves.

Because it is all subjective. Take me for instance. I keep no gun in my home, nor have I ever fired one except for once at scout camp. I've not been conditioned to think that my personal safety depends upon me having a gun. Therefore I really can't wrap my head around the idea that most other people need one either. On the other hand, someone who had grown up around guns and has been trained that a gun is needed to keep them safe will obviously feel differently.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #282 on: March 04, 2016, 12:17:23 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #283 on: March 04, 2016, 12:20:52 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #284 on: March 04, 2016, 12:24:45 PM »
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

I can be on board with "most" of that. Before the Columbia v. Heller decision the courts, for the overwhelming majority of the previous 200 years, applied the 2nd amendment more in terms of it's literal interpretation (militias NOT individuals).

This is historically inaccurate.  The 2nd was originally intended to protect an individial person's right to bear arms, and the initial portion "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preamble that needs to be interpreted using the meaning of the terms of the times.  The focus on the militia is an important distinction, that I believe another poster pointed out referred to the total body of able bodied men eligible to enter military service, what we would today call the Selective Service.  However, the term "well regulated" should also be considered, because it's use in context & during the age referred to training of that militia, not it's legal association to a state.  The framers regarded marksmanship a skill that all men should learn, and that it was best taught by fathers to sons.  This tradition flows from both the English common law, that a free man held a natural right to defense of self; as well as the Swiss tradition of the citizen militia, that all the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state.  This kind of "well regulated militia" would have been literally impossible if not for a personal right to keep & bear arms.  And if that argument wasn't enough, and it wasn't even enough for those who were to ratify it at the time, the framers went to great lengths to explain themselves, and both major factions (the Federalists & anti-federalists) agreed that the 2nd existed as an enumerated acknowledgement of the classic common law right to self-defense.


George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[101][103]

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[104]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[105]

While both Monroe and Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed ..."

Quote
Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."

This interpretation of the 2nd's meaning was never questioned, by any faction, during the lifetime of those framers.  Furthermore, the original version presented before Congress  on June 8, 1789; said thus...

Quote
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This version was edited in committee, of course, and came out like this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

There was then debate, primarily concerned about the religious exception, and it was amended again to this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Then edited shorter, by removing the explicit definition of a militia, and striking the concentious objector clause, resulting in this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Then again to this...
Quote
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And finally to this...

Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The numerous public statements, documents & notes from the framers, none of which have ever supported the idea that a militia was anything akin to a formal military force; the evolution of the 2nd itself is proof enough of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, as it was understood & ratified by every state.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #285 on: March 04, 2016, 12:25:21 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8191
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #286 on: March 04, 2016, 12:27:32 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #287 on: March 04, 2016, 12:28:48 PM »
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
How so?
I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?
Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.
This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical: you were using it to explain how the definition of "militia" in 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) would cause the Second Amendment not to apply to 65-year-olds. By the tone of my response, it was implicitly clear that I agreed with that interpretation -- assuming there isn't some other law that modifies the situation -- and was upset by it because I think the Second Amendment ought to apply to all citizens.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 
You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.
Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?
The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?
"Yes" to what? I didn't ask a yes or no question. Care to try again?

Somebody other than BeginnerStache, please look through this exchange and let me know if I'm speaking in tongues or something, because I'm honestly mystified at what is unclear about it.

Anyway, to make another attempt:
Quote
Q:Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms?

A: Yes, I can. It's the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Bearing arms" is synonymous with "owning arms" and "the people" means "every person, individually." (If you wanted to argue that "the people" only referred to collective, organized groups, then you'd have to make the same argument for the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments too.)

On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right we're already explicitly provided?

I'm almost completely certain that individuals owned and carried weapons prior to 2008. Why? Because it was interpreted, correctly, that such a right was guaranteed. Perhaps it wasn't tested by the Supreme Court until 2008 -- if, indeed, there wasn't some previous case that you didn't mention -- because it was so obvious that in 200+ years nobody was delusional enough to challenge it.

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!
I just want to be that guy and point out that driving a car isn't a right. It is a privilege that you have to possess a certification (driver's license) to practice. Terrible example.

That's almost the same as what I said: it is not a right enshrined in the Constitution.

Incidentally, owning a car is a right. Driving a car on your own property (or on the property of someone else from whom you have permission) is also a right. Only driving a car on public property is restricted.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #288 on: March 04, 2016, 12:29:05 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/

Way to dodge the statement...

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #289 on: March 04, 2016, 12:30:54 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

I am not anti-gun, nor have I ever stated such. And I don't feel "unsafe." I spent 4 years shooting guns of all types and actually at other people (mostly bad guys). Telling an airplane to drop a 4,000lb bomb less than a click from your position is a bit more scary. 

Are you saying it's ok to tell others how to feel, just because you, or someone else, feels a certain way? That's the point I am making. It's a bit of a double standard.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #290 on: March 04, 2016, 12:32:06 PM »

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8191
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #291 on: March 04, 2016, 12:34:01 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #292 on: March 04, 2016, 12:36:46 PM »
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #293 on: March 04, 2016, 12:37:00 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

I am not anti-gun, nor have I ever stated such. And I don't feel "unsafe." I spent 4 years shooting guns of all types and actually at other people (mostly bad guys). Telling an airplane to drop a 4,000lb bomb less than a click from your position is a bit more scary. 

Are you saying it's ok to tell others how to feel, just because you, or someone else, feels a certain way? That's the point I am making. It's a bit of a double standard.

That was a general statement directed at the anti-gun group. My apologies if it was unclear.

Regarding the bolded portion, absolutely not - and I challenge you to find anything I've ever posted that indicates otherwise.  I tend to avoid making decisions based on "feel" - I prefer logic, which is why I keep asking for statistics.  All I get in return is basically "guns r scary and i don't like them therefore you shouldn't have them either."  Again, not directed at you.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #294 on: March 04, 2016, 12:39:09 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #295 on: March 04, 2016, 12:39:43 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.

You are neglecting the number of encounters that are resolved by merely presenting (or 'brandishing') a firearm.  That is a harder statistic to determine, but it's definitely not zero.  Most professionals put that number between 2 (on the low end) and 10 times then number of crimes that are prevented by actually firing the weapon.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #296 on: March 04, 2016, 12:41:42 PM »
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

(It's weird that you're the one to say that, since I've felt the same way talking to you in the other thread. Speaking of which, I think we actually agree on quite a lot, with the exception of climate change and which issues should be prioritized when choosing a candidate who's ideology we only partially agree with.)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8191
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #297 on: March 04, 2016, 12:42:34 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/

Way to dodge the statement...

Not really a dodge, it's difficult to answer your question directly.

Quote
There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health. But a methodical gleaning of eight years of news accounts by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, found that in research involving 722 deaths in 544 concealed-carry shootings in 36 states and the District of Columbia, only 16 cases were eventually ruled lawful self-defense — even though this has been a major gun rights selling point for the new laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #298 on: March 04, 2016, 12:45:10 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Then show those statistics. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #299 on: March 04, 2016, 12:45:52 PM »

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances. The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.