Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 418475 times)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2500 on: April 28, 2017, 12:53:03 PM »
Okay, let's set aside the argument, and we will stipulate for the moment that the reason people own guns is, in part, because of 'fear'.

So?  What does that win you?

Well for me, as I pointed out pages ago during a similar discussion, many pro-gun advocates like to claim that they are arguing from a place of logic and reason, while gun-control advocates are arguing from a place of irrational fear (e.g. of mass shootings). I think it's fair to point out that the fear runs both ways, just as there is logic and reason behind enforcing some kinds of gun restrictions, though where that line lays is the crux of this debate, of course.

The problem is, though, people who buy legally guns out of "fear" do not harm or threaten the rights of anyone else.  People who make asinine rules outlawing guns or types of guns do.  Contrary to what some think, my owning a gun has zero effect on anyone else.

Indeed, that is one of several reasons  I personally oppose overly harsh gun control measures. I also might think twice about letting my kids go to your house (for safety, not because I think badly of you as a gun owner), but I would make those calls on a case by case basis.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2501 on: April 28, 2017, 01:25:01 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?
Frugalite in training.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2502 on: April 28, 2017, 01:31:13 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

Change mind on what exactly?   That I shouldn't be able to own a gun?  You can't.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2503 on: April 28, 2017, 01:32:07 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

Not sure much anything would, which is another reason I've changed my own focus to the problem of how can we most effectively reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. Pretty sure gun control is actually rather low on the list of options, especially given that it's quite implausible to assume we could not only heavily restrict guns but also disarm the entire population as well.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2504 on: April 28, 2017, 01:36:45 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

Change mind on what exactly?   That I shouldn't be able to own a gun?  You can't.

And there it is.  This is exactly the same thing that happened when I was involved with the Evolution debate.  People are set, minds cannot be changed.  Oh well, at least its out in the open now.
Frugalite in training.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2505 on: April 28, 2017, 01:44:04 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

Change mind on what exactly?   That I shouldn't be able to own a gun?  You can't.

And there it is.  This is exactly the same thing that happened when I was involved with the Evolution debate.  People are set, minds cannot be changed.  Oh well, at least its out in the open now.

Guess I'm just fortunate the framers of the Constitution agree with me.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2506 on: April 28, 2017, 01:52:50 PM »
Okay, let's set aside the argument, and we will stipulate for the moment that the reason people own guns is, in part, because of 'fear'.

So?  What does that win you?

Well for me, as I pointed out pages ago during a similar discussion, many pro-gun advocates like to claim that they are arguing from a place of logic and reason, while gun-control advocates are arguing from a place of irrational fear (e.g. of mass shootings). I think it's fair to point out that the fear runs both ways, just as there is logic and reason behind enforcing some kinds of gun restrictions, though where that line lays is the crux of this debate, of course.

The problem is, though, people who buy legally guns out of "fear" do not harm or threaten the rights of anyone else.  People who make asinine rules outlawing guns or types of guns do.  Contrary to what some think, my owning a gun has zero effect on anyone else.

Right to life though? If someone asked you to choose gun ownership or death. Would you choose the gun? Nope, cause you have that gun to keep your life. I mean let us not pretend like there aren't licensed psychos out there who go on shooting rampages. What are rights if one is dead?
You are ignoring the Oscar Pistorius's of this world.

On this note, I said it before. Gun ownership in America is a religion. I believe America has the highest gun ownership in the world and I am actually not really against gun ownership. I do wish there were stricter laws though. It seems awfully easy to obtain a gun here.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 01:56:24 PM by Rimu05 »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2507 on: April 28, 2017, 01:56:41 PM »
Okay, let's set aside the argument, and we will stipulate for the moment that the reason people own guns is, in part, because of 'fear'.

So?  What does that win you?

Well for me, as I pointed out pages ago during a similar discussion, many pro-gun advocates like to claim that they are arguing from a place of logic and reason, while gun-control advocates are arguing from a place of irrational fear (e.g. of mass shootings). I think it's fair to point out that the fear runs both ways, just as there is logic and reason behind enforcing some kinds of gun restrictions, though where that line lays is the crux of this debate, of course.

The problem is, though, people who buy legally guns out of "fear" do not harm or threaten the rights of anyone else.  People who make asinine rules outlawing guns or types of guns do.  Contrary to what some think, my owning a gun has zero effect on anyone else.

Right to life though? If someone asked you to choose gun ownership or death. Would you choose the gun? Nope, cause you have that gun to keep your life. I mean let us not pretend like there aren't licensed psychos out there who go on shooting rampages. What are rights if one is dead?
You are ignoring the Oscar Pistorius's of this world.

On this note, I said it before. Gun ownership in America is a religion. I believe America has the highest gun ownership in the world.

The number is vanishingly small. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2508 on: April 28, 2017, 02:11:43 PM »
The number is vanishingly small.

And in an already heavily-armed nation, stricter gun control is unlikely to stop those psychos anyway. And besides, most gun deaths are either from suicide or homicide. A very large percentage of the latter is a result of the endless and endlessly stupid drug war, which our religious-crusader of an AG seems intent on rekindling. Taking the opposite approach (legalize it) is still my odds-on favorite for the most effective thing we can do to lower gun homicides dramatically.

A somewhat reductive, but still useful infographic on the topic:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 02:13:35 PM by Lagom »

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2509 on: April 28, 2017, 02:12:54 PM »

Guess I'm just fortunate the framers of the Constitution agree with me.

Oh dear god I was hoping we could get through a single discussion without referencing 'the framers'.  It was a pretty good discussion up until this point.
Frugalite in training.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2510 on: April 28, 2017, 02:20:50 PM »
The number is vanishingly small.

And in an already heavily-armed nation, stricter gun control is unlikely to stop those psychos anyway. And besides, most gun deaths are either from suicide or homicide. A very large percentage of the latter is a result of the endless and endlessly stupid drug war, which our religious-crusader of an AG seems intent on rekindling. Taking the opposite approach (legalize it) is still my odds-on favorite for the most effective thing we can do to lower gun homicides dramatically.

A somewhat reductive, but still useful infographic on the topic:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Very useful!  Yes I agree, we need to move the conversation away from "take away guns" toward "these are the types of gun deaths, what can be done about them?".
Frugalite in training.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2511 on: April 28, 2017, 02:34:07 PM »
Rimu, I totally agree.  We do, in fact, live in a very safe country:

[img]http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ldah6rdp6ukvngoyqi1fcg.gif[img]

[img]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/13violentcrimeoffensefigure.gif[img]

Those are crazy, crazy low crime rates. 

But it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter, for the exact reasons I outlined above.  Data and facts simply aren't convincing to a gun owner in the USA.  Their typical response will be something along the lines of "Yeah, well those graphs won't protect you when someone breaks into your home!". 

They have a deeply embedded sense of being under threat, which is fear, and that cannot be addressed in a debate or via facts/evidence.

This is another great example of the same data saying different things to different people. 

To the anti gun side it says "the world is safe, you don't need a gun!"
To the pro gun side it says "the world is safe even with guns, why do you want to take them away?"

As far as taking the high road of "data and facts won't convince them," you haven't given me any facts that tell us why the same thing that happened in Russia, China, Venezuela, huge swaths of Africa, and in 1939 in a huge part of Western Europe, can't happen in the United States.  Societal collapse is damn near a constant in human history, as is normal citizens getting screwed by those in power. 

This isn't me reading a book that talks about magic happening 2000 years ago.  This is me listening to a Holocaust survivor in my history class describe his life as a 12 year old in a concentration camp.  This is talking to friends' grandparents who lived through government upheavals in other countries, and now have a crazy hard time throwing anything away or saving money because of it.  This is reading a forum thread that someone in their 40's wrote about their time in Russia 25 years ago.  Hell, Venezuelans right now are dying because they're buying tainted food on the black market due to their government's crazy policies. 

I'm not saying I think it's likely to happen, I really hope it doesn't, but to state that someone is "ignoring facts" by reading a history book doesn't seem right to me.  Acting as if we're all just emotional silly people who haven't really thought it through and are ignoring some glaringly obvious fact you have is frankly, insulting.   I hope nothing terrible happens, I generally live my life under the assumption nothing terrible will happen, but I don't think it's all that crazy to buy a gun or two just in case.  I also keep a week or two worth of food and water around in case of a natural disaster.

In a corporate training I did a few years back for a manufacturing facility, we did a large segment on risk management.  The probability of a risk had to be weighed against its severity.  If something had a .01% chance of happening, but in that .01% someone was likely to be killed, we had to address the risk.  On the flip side if a risk had a 1% chance of happening but the consequence was someone having to re-sign a sheet of paper, it might not be addressed.  You have to look at the severity of the consequences along with the probability.

As far as defining fear, if making plans to avoid something bad means you're afraid of it, sure I'm afraid.  I just think stretching out the definition makes the word a bit silly, but that's fine.  I'm not afraid of car crashes when I drive home, at least not in any sense of what I consider fear, but I still put on a seat belt.  If that's fear to you, then so be it.  I'm actually going to shoot some guns today, should be a good time.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2512 on: April 28, 2017, 02:43:55 PM »
This is another great example of the same data saying different things to different people. 

To the anti gun side it says "the world is safe, you don't need a gun!"
To the pro gun side it says "the world is safe even with guns, why do you want to take them away?"

As far as taking the high road of "data and facts won't convince them," you haven't given me any facts that tell us why the same thing that happened in Russia, China, Venezuela, huge swaths of Africa, and in 1939 in a huge part of Western Europe, can't happen in the United States.  Societal collapse is damn near a constant in human history, as is normal citizens getting screwed by those in power. 

This isn't me reading a book that talks about magic happening 2000 years ago.  This is me listening to a Holocaust survivor in my history class describe his life as a 12 year old in a concentration camp.  This is talking to friends' grandparents who lived through government upheavals in other countries, and now have a crazy hard time throwing anything away or saving money because of it.  This is reading a forum thread that someone in their 40's wrote about their time in Russia 25 years ago.  Hell, Venezuelans right now are dying because they're buying tainted food on the black market due to their government's crazy policies. 

I'm not saying I think it's likely to happen, I really hope it doesn't, but to state that someone is "ignoring facts" by reading a history book doesn't seem right to me.  Acting as if we're all just emotional silly people who haven't really thought it through and are ignoring some glaringly obvious fact you have is frankly, insulting.   I hope nothing terrible happens, I generally live my life under the assumption nothing terrible will happen, but I don't think it's all that crazy to buy a gun or two just in case.  I also keep a week or two worth of food and water around in case of a natural disaster.

In a corporate training I did a few years back for a manufacturing facility, we did a large segment on risk management.  The probability of a risk had to be weighed against its severity.  If something had a .01% chance of happening, but in that .01% someone was likely to be killed, we had to address the risk.  On the flip side if a risk had a 1% chance of happening but the consequence was someone having to re-sign a sheet of paper, it might not be addressed.  You have to look at the severity of the consequences along with the probability.

As far as defining fear, if making plans to avoid something bad means you're afraid of it, sure I'm afraid.  I just think stretching out the definition makes the word a bit silly, but that's fine.  I'm not afraid of car crashes when I drive home, at least not in any sense of what I consider fear, but I still put on a seat belt.  If that's fear to you, then so be it.  I'm actually going to shoot some guns today, should be a good time.

Oh, don't feel bad, I feel pretty much the same way about all preppers.  There's a thread in the off topic forum called "Thoughts on Fire in a declining nation" where the whole prepper mentality is hashed out in a lot of detail.  I think the odds of that happening in the US are about the same as winning the lottery while simultaneously getting eaten by a shark.  But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.  To quote the all-knowing Dude.  :) 

Plus as I noted in my prior post, I don't think taking away the guns is actually the answer.  The data from 538 is pretty interesting.  I didn't know that SO many deaths are older white men committing suicide by gun.  Over 2/3rds of all gun deaths are old white guys killing themselves!  Clearly that's a different problem (and a different solution) than people shooting each other in the drug war. 
Frugalite in training.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2513 on: April 28, 2017, 02:52:08 PM »
Oh, don't feel bad, I feel pretty much the same way about all preppers.  There's a thread in the off topic forum called "Thoughts on Fire in a declining nation" where the whole prepper mentality is hashed out in a lot of detail.  I think the odds of that happening in the US are about the same as winning the lottery while simultaneously getting eaten by a shark.  But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.  To quote the all-knowing Dude.  :) 

Plus as I noted in my prior post, I don't think taking away the guns is actually the answer.  The data from 538 is pretty interesting.  I didn't know that SO many deaths are older white men committing suicide by gun.  Over 2/3rds of all gun deaths are old white guys killing themselves!  Clearly that's a different problem (and a different solution) than people shooting each other in the drug war.

Exactly this. It's why as a former pro gun control zealot I have drastically changed my position over the years. This debate has largely become a sort of ideological litmus test except it actually makes no sense to view it that way when compared to other issues (e.g. welfare, abortion, etc.) because the existence of guns in American society is not inherently what is causing these deaths (except in a literal sense, obviously). And the causes vary depending on the demographic of the particular group to die by a firearm, so there literally can't be one solution (e.g. gun control) to reduce these deaths as a whole, making it a red herring and waste of time for liberals to focus on it.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2514 on: April 28, 2017, 02:55:25 PM »
Oh, don't feel bad, I feel pretty much the same way about all preppers.  There's a thread in the off topic forum called "Thoughts on Fire in a declining nation" where the whole prepper mentality is hashed out in a lot of detail.  I think the odds of that happening in the US are about the same as winning the lottery while simultaneously getting eaten by a shark.  But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.  To quote the all-knowing Dude.  :) 

Plus as I noted in my prior post, I don't think taking away the guns is actually the answer.  The data from 538 is pretty interesting.  I didn't know that SO many deaths are older white men committing suicide by gun.  Over 2/3rds of all gun deaths are old white guys killing themselves!  Clearly that's a different problem (and a different solution) than people shooting each other in the drug war.

Fair enough, it was the (what seemed to be) smugness of "no facts or evidence will convince them, it's just emotional" line you kept repeating that bothered me a bit.  There are perfectly logical reasons to support individuals' ability to protect themselves, whether it's from criminals or governments or who knows what.

What would your odds have been of collapse in Venezuela about 10 years ago?  Wish I could go back in time and take that bet.  There are so many whacky large scale financial things going on in the US right now I find it hard to believe it'll be around forever.  The real question is whether the correction will be smooth or rough, and whether it'll be in 20 years or 200 years.

I do agree that buying an armory is far from everything you need in case of societal collapse.  My thought is that society likely won't totally collapse, it will be similar to the Soviet Union system where basically everything goes back to a local level of bartering.  I'm not planning on being totally self sufficient, but would like to have a way to protect myself if the police aren't an option anymore.  You can google "Gyprat soviet union" and you'll find the thread, it's in the survival section of a popular gun forum, not sure if linking it is kosher.  He dispels plenty of prepper myths in the thread, it's an interesting read.  I'm pretty sure he didn't have any guns and did fine. 

I'm not sure if I would even have the stomach to use a gun on somebody else, but I can tell you for sure I'd rather have the choice than not if put in the situation. 

One thing I can tell you I am absolutely afraid of is the stuff the holocaust survivor told us.  That poor man, he experienced multiple things as a 12 year old that are worse than any nightmare I've had my entire life.

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2515 on: April 28, 2017, 02:58:09 PM »
Okay, let's set aside the argument, and we will stipulate for the moment that the reason people own guns is, in part, because of 'fear'.

So?  What does that win you?

Well for me, as I pointed out pages ago during a similar discussion, many pro-gun advocates like to claim that they are arguing from a place of logic and reason, while gun-control advocates are arguing from a place of irrational fear (e.g. of mass shootings). I think it's fair to point out that the fear runs both ways, just as there is logic and reason behind enforcing some kinds of gun restrictions, though where that line lays is the crux of this debate, of course.

The problem is, though, people who buy legally guns out of "fear" do not harm or threaten the rights of anyone else.  People who make asinine rules outlawing guns or types of guns do.  Contrary to what some think, my owning a gun has zero effect on anyone else.

Right to life though? If someone asked you to choose gun ownership or death. Would you choose the gun? Nope, cause you have that gun to keep your life. I mean let us not pretend like there aren't licensed psychos out there who go on shooting rampages. What are rights if one is dead?
You are ignoring the Oscar Pistorius's of this world.

On this note, I said it before. Gun ownership in America is a religion. I believe America has the highest gun ownership in the world.

The number is vanishingly small.

And the chances that you'll ever use your gun for "protection" probably even smaller but that's a trade off some of you guys have made. Really, two arguments at a stand still. Some people would rather decrease the chances that a psycho could easily get a gun by ridding the world of guns. Some people value having a gun even if it means that maybe once a year someone might run into a mall or a kindergarten with one. There are of course statistics out there depending on where you get them that say, gun control hasn't lowered gun related crime in certain areas. There are also statistics that show that less guns = less gun related crime and less mass shootings.

You also have those that just want to hunt and I'm sure the vegans will demonize the hunters even if it might be beneficial.

Pick your poison. Plus I doubt statistics or anything will dissuade anyone. I went out and bought a motorcycle at 18 and my whole family was convinced I would die on that thing. I still rode it no matter how many articles of motorcycle accidents I got and I still continued to ride it for a good three years even after dropping it.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2516 on: April 28, 2017, 03:05:05 PM »
Oh, don't feel bad, I feel pretty much the same way about all preppers.  There's a thread in the off topic forum called "Thoughts on Fire in a declining nation" where the whole prepper mentality is hashed out in a lot of detail.  I think the odds of that happening in the US are about the same as winning the lottery while simultaneously getting eaten by a shark.  But hey, that's just like, my opinion man.  To quote the all-knowing Dude.  :) 

Plus as I noted in my prior post, I don't think taking away the guns is actually the answer.  The data from 538 is pretty interesting.  I didn't know that SO many deaths are older white men committing suicide by gun.  Over 2/3rds of all gun deaths are old white guys killing themselves!  Clearly that's a different problem (and a different solution) than people shooting each other in the drug war.

Exactly this. It's why as a former pro gun control zealot I have drastically changed my position over the years. This debate has largely become a sort of ideological litmus test except it actually makes no sense to view it that way when compared to other issues (e.g. welfare, abortion, etc.) because the existence of guns in American society is not inherently what is causing these deaths (except in a literal sense, obviously). And the causes vary depending on the demographic of the particular group to die by a firearm, so there literally can't be one solution (e.g. gun control) to reduce these deaths as a whole, making it a red herring and waste of time for liberals to focus on it.

Yup, and the misleading statistics often used make most of us pro gun owners (also former anti) very wary when someone starts talking about "emotion" and "ignoring facts." 

We've gotten used to people doing things like trumpeting child shooting numbers that include 24 year old gang members shooting each other, while including pictures of kindergarten classrooms in the accompanying photos.  Or talking about how the NRA blocks common sense research, when the researchers who were slated to do this research in the 90's were quoted with how they thought guns were a public health menace (before doing the research) and other equally biased quotes.  With advocacy groups that are supposedly helping families sue "big gun" by creating lawsuits they know they won't win all over the country to try and bankrupt gun manufacturers as a form of gun control, then writing articles about how the new laws protecting said manufacturers are prioritizing big corporations over families with dead babies. 

The anti gun side fights dirty, so that's why some of us, or me at least, tend to get worked up quicker than we otherwise might.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2517 on: April 28, 2017, 03:10:01 PM »
Fair enough, it was the (what seemed to be) smugness of "no facts or evidence will convince them, it's just emotional" line you kept repeating that bothered me a bit.  There are perfectly logical reasons to support individuals' ability to protect themselves, whether it's from criminals or governments or who knows what.

What would your odds have been of collapse in Venezuela about 10 years ago?  Wish I could go back in time and take that bet.  There are so many whacky large scale financial things going on in the US right now I find it hard to believe it'll be around forever.  The real question is whether the correction will be smooth or rough, and whether it'll be in 20 years or 200 years.

I do agree that buying an armory is far from everything you need in case of societal collapse.  My thought is that society likely won't totally collapse, it will be similar to the Soviet Union system where basically everything goes back to a local level of bartering.  I'm not planning on being totally self sufficient, but would like to have a way to protect myself if the police aren't an option anymore.  You can google "Gyprat soviet union" and you'll find the thread, it's in the survival section of a popular gun forum, not sure if linking it is kosher.  He dispels plenty of prepper myths in the thread, it's an interesting read.  I'm pretty sure he didn't have any guns and did fine. 

I'm not sure if I would even have the stomach to use a gun on somebody else, but I can tell you for sure I'd rather have the choice than not if put in the situation. 

One thing I can tell you I am absolutely afraid of is the stuff the holocaust survivor told us.  That poor man, he experienced multiple things as a 12 year old that are worse than any nightmare I've had my entire life.

Yes, I think I do come off as smug in these discussions, apologies for that.  I do try to "call it like I see it".  I know not everyone will agree with me.  But that's the fun of debate (at least for me) - we throw out our best ideas, hash it around, chew on it a bit, and maybe end up better off after the exchange. 

Also, let me be clear - I own guns.  Several in fact.  We also have a family farm in rural Tx that we could head for and hole up if S ever HTF.  So if things do collapse, I do, in fact, have a contingency plan.  But these were all things I inherited from my family (or that my parents still own/hold).  I guess, speaking for me, personally, I cannot fathom a collapse happening here.  Not any time soon. 

If/when it ever does happen, I honestly think that the best contingency of all is to be wealthy already and be willing to leave.  Which, as an air-force brat, I'm actually quite accustomed to.  I don't think I ever lived more than 3 years in one place most of my formative years.  Except Texas.  Spent a fair bit of time there. 
Frugalite in training.

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2518 on: April 28, 2017, 03:24:18 PM »
In fairness to the gun owners, you are at least prepared for a Zombie apocalypse. I don't even have a base ball bat lying around. I can only hope to deter zombies with fruit.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2519 on: April 28, 2017, 04:30:16 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

If you could convince me that liberalism were so fundamentally flawed that we needed to abandon it entirely, I believe that would be sufficient.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2520 on: April 28, 2017, 04:39:08 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

If you could convince me that liberalism were so fundamentally flawed that we needed to abandon it entirely, I believe that would be sufficient.

Can you clarify which version of liberalism you mean?  There's several (from MW Dictionary):

a often capitalized :  a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b :  a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c :  a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically :  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized :  the principles and policies of a Liberal party
Frugalite in training.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2521 on: April 28, 2017, 04:48:56 PM »
What you appear to be arguing here (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that your interpretation of the best thing for the preservation of your own existence should always be allowed . . . regardless of the harm it may cause to anyone else.

The response to that would be if you want to deny me something you need to prove that it is causing harm to someone else.  For the vast vast vast majority of legally owned firearms, you can't prove that, because it isn't. 

We have denied private ownership of nukes despite the fact that no privately owned nuclear weapons have ever hurt anyone.  Proof that something is causing harm to someone else isn't a pre-requisite to controlling it.

That said, I tend to agree with you - it's best to have a solid foundation of evidence and reasoning when you're contemplating restricting the rights of others.  I'd like to see better data regarding the net impact of gun ownership to society.  That's what I said earlier.

Also, FWIW, you and others keep talking about "fear" being the reason for gun owners owning guns, and you look down on this.  Quite frankly, I view people who fear legally owned guns in the exact same manner, as I find it equally as irrational.

I haven't mentioned anything about fear (or the reason for gun ownership at all) in more than a month in this thread though.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2522 on: April 28, 2017, 05:10:25 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

If you could convince me that liberalism were so fundamentally flawed that we needed to abandon it entirely, I believe that would be sufficient.

Can you clarify which version of liberalism you mean?  There's several (from MW Dictionary):

a often capitalized :  a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
b :  a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
c :  a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically :  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)
d capitalized :  the principles and policies of a Liberal party

Surely: b and d.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2523 on: April 28, 2017, 05:23:40 PM »
Surely: b and d.

OK, cool.  So a couple of follow up questions then.  Have you always (your entire life) held this viewpoint?  If not, what did you believe in the past and why did you change those views?

I'll go first, just so you know my question is sincere - I used to be a "I don't know" when I was very young, a hardcore fiscal conservative in my 20's, a libertarian in my 30's, and now shifted to left of middle in my 40's.  The things that caused the shifts were really just life experiences.  As I saw that the government spent money like water, I was a fiscal conservative.  When I realized that both parties spent money at about the same rate, and in fact the R's actually spent more $$ than the D's, I became a libertarian.  As I get older I'm more focused on fairness and a level playing field, which lands me a bit left of center.  Plus I've always been fairly progressive on social issues. 

Your turn.
Frugalite in training.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2079
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2524 on: April 28, 2017, 09:33:05 PM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?
For starters, you'd have to convince them that their personal private ownership of guns has a direct, negative, and significant effect on society, AND that the benefits of private gun ownership in general do not exceed that effect. Given that such a negative effect does not apply to any meaningful percentage of lawful gun owners, you'll have a very hard time convincing them of that.

The motivations for people to own guns, in this case, are completely irrelevant.
We have denied private ownership of nukes despite the fact that no privately owned nuclear weapons have ever hurt anyone.  Proof that something is causing harm to someone else isn't a pre-requisite to controlling it.
Equating nuclear weapons with small arms in an effort to make that argument is called equivocating, and is a logical fallacy.  You're comparing the possibility of great harm (from a nuke) to the proven lack of harm from private small arms ownership.  When debating whether private gun ownership should be further restricted, you must take into account that we already have a great volume of information about whether such ownership causes great harm.  And it doesn't.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2525 on: April 29, 2017, 05:57:23 AM »
Surely: b and d.

OK, cool.  So a couple of follow up questions then.  Have you always (your entire life) held this viewpoint?  If not, what did you believe in the past and why did you change those views?

I'll go first, just so you know my question is sincere - I used to be a "I don't know" when I was very young, a hardcore fiscal conservative in my 20's, a libertarian in my 30's, and now shifted to left of middle in my 40's.  The things that caused the shifts were really just life experiences.  As I saw that the government spent money like water, I was a fiscal conservative.  When I realized that both parties spent money at about the same rate, and in fact the R's actually spent more $$ than the D's, I became a libertarian.  As I get older I'm more focused on fairness and a level playing field, which lands me a bit left of center.  Plus I've always been fairly progressive on social issues. 

Your turn.

You sound like you'd enjoy being an anarchist.  As little government as possible, and let people do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others. 

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2526 on: April 29, 2017, 09:16:59 AM »
We have denied private ownership of nukes despite the fact that no privately owned nuclear weapons have ever hurt anyone.  Proof that something is causing harm to someone else isn't a pre-requisite to controlling it.
Equating nuclear weapons with small arms in an effort to make that argument is called equivocating, and is a logical fallacy.  You're comparing the possibility of great harm (from a nuke) to the proven lack of harm from private small arms ownership.


Equivocating is the use of a term with more than one meaning or sense.  'Ownership of nuclear weapons' does not have more than one meaning or sense.  I suspect that the logical fallacy you meant to accuse me of perpetrating is 'False Equivalence'.

The comment I was responding to:
Quote
if you want to deny me something you need to prove that it is causing harm to someone else.

I used nuclear weapons as an example of something that has been denied to people for private ownership (despite the total lack of harm that has ever been caused by private owners of nuclear weapons) to prove that the statement was incorrect.  If you re-read my comment I think that you'll see that there was no argument made that guns are the same as nukes.


When debating whether private gun ownership should be further restricted, you must take into account that we already have a great volume of information about whether such ownership causes great harm.  And it doesn't.

To my knowledge there is no definitive body of scientific evidence that conclusively proves that legalized gun ownership is beneficial or detrimental to society.  The question itself is far to broad to easily answer . . . there are many different approaches to firearms and firearms regulation.  You would have to demonstrate the impact of various schemes (licensed vs unlicensed ownership, registration vs non registered systems, partial restriction of certain types of weapons vs unrestricted access, how various regulations regarding carrying weapons effect society, etc.)

You've claimed that there is a body of evidence demonstrating that there is little harm from gun ownership under current US regulation.  What exactly do you mean when you say that?  What regulation are you comparing to?  What data are you referencing?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2527 on: April 29, 2017, 10:04:57 AM »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2528 on: April 29, 2017, 10:09:53 AM »
Ironically, getting more weapons out and into the hands of minorities is likely the best path towards eventual gun control laws in the country.  :P

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2529 on: April 29, 2017, 10:22:19 AM »
Ironically, getting more weapons out and into the hands of minorities is likely the best path towards eventual gun control laws in the country.  :P

Although as pointed out earlier, many gun proposals, similar to voter ID laws or anti-drug laws, would disproportionately affect the poor and/or minorities.

But yeah, one of my favorite moments during the Ferguson protests was when that african american gun club showed up to (peacefully) join the march, while open carrying the entire time. Bet a few heads exploded with that one.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2530 on: April 29, 2017, 12:40:46 PM »
NRA's American Rifleman magazine reports on instances of armed citizens using guns to protect themselves and others. 
https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen


I thought I saw something in an issue about sending more people to jail in Virgina for gun crimes being effective, but I can't find the info now.  But basically, if you commit a crime with a gun, then you go to jail -- rather than going easy on gun crimes -- was proven to make a difference.  Can't find the story though.

Here is is, Project Exile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile



Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2531 on: April 29, 2017, 10:07:02 PM »
Contrary to the commonly held belief that debate never changes anybody's mind on controversial subjects, occasionally commenting but mostly just reading along with this thread has significantly changed my mind on the subject of guns and gun control in the US.

I used to be pretty strongly anti-gun, as in, I believed the US should move towards eliminating everything except hunting rifles and even they should be strictly regulated, kind of like in Europe and Japan. After reading, thinking and talking about the subject a little more, now, I think I agree with @Lagom's statements above that advocating for "gun control" is a poor strategy for progressives. If we really want to make a difference and actually lower the number of gun deaths in the US and we're not just concerned with being right, we would be better off focusing on specific types of gun deaths and looking at what can practicably be done to lower those numbers.

If 2/3 of gun deaths are really due to old white guys shooting themselves, it seems to me like we could easily lower that statistic by completely legalizing and destigmatizing physician assisted death everywhere in the United States. IMHO, anyone who wants to die should have the right to do so and should be able to easily and legally gain access to a safe, humane and non violent means of ending his own life. If old white guys who didn't want to live anymore could just swallow a pill and wash it down with a cold beer, probably most of them would prefer to kill themselves that way than with a gun. Presto, gun deaths go down by 2/3 in the U.S.

Also, as Lagom said above, a no brainer would be to end the idiotic failed war on drugs in the U.S. and just legalize everything. Spending the same amount that we spend now on enforcement, instead, on education and treatment would have much better results, IMHO, and would have the added side benefit of greatly reducing the numbers of young men who shoot each other with handguns in our country's inner cities.

Just doing those two things, legalizing physician assisted death and legalizing drugs, would cut the number of gun deaths in the U.S. down to much more "acceptable" levels.

Boom, problem solved!

Thanks to OP for starting the thread and to both Lagom, Tyort1 and others for your discussion above. It's helped me to see the gun debate differently.

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2532 on: April 30, 2017, 05:56:51 AM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?
I am a gun owner.  It's all about the money. If there were some way for gun companies the make a shit ton of money through controlling guns, it would happen. We are a greedy and selfish nation of people. Newtown was enough for me. If you can't look into your heart and say that you're willing to relinquish the ability to buy and own high powered or fast-loading guns after seeing the damage that one sick individual can do, then there is something wrong with your thinking. As in, I really believe you've been brainwashed by the gun companies.

This is a fucked up country when it comes to gun ownership.

For me, I'll never buy another gun. But I don't give mine up because... So many other crazy people have them. I am one of the people that is more likely to hurt myself or a loved one. Or have it stolen. Maybe when I move to a place with less crime I'll turn mine in.

No need to reply to me or my post. I only look at this thread every year or so. No intent to argue. I just want to answer the question.
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2533 on: April 30, 2017, 06:32:35 AM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?
I am a gun owner.  It's all about the money. If there were some way for gun companies the make a shit ton of money through controlling guns, it would happen. We are a greedy and selfish nation of people. Newtown was enough for me. If you can't look into your heart and say that you're willing to relinquish the ability to buy and own high powered or fast-loading guns after seeing the damage that one sick individual can do, then there is something wrong with your thinking. As in, I really believe you've been brainwashed by the gun companies.

This is a fucked up country when it comes to gun ownership.



+1.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1704
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2534 on: April 30, 2017, 06:40:24 AM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?

I haven't checked in for awhile on this thread...  That's likely one of those unknown unknowns.

I grew up anti-gun, but as I transitioned from a consumer to a maker my views changed on all types of prohibition, as well as people, and the value of various things/concepts.  So, views *can* change, but when a view is so strongly held it's nearly impossible to see what could change it.  My young self never would have imagined my older self this way.

The anti-gun group seems to have a large built in assumption that gun ownership is fear driven.  Perhaps some is, but I've found that largely it is not.  The self-defense aspect is typically just a way to justify the ownership of something that the person wants (and may only use for recreation).

Another large and incorrect assumption I see are those very loud pro-gun people who claim that all the liberals are out to get the guns.  There are people that are out to get the guns, sure.  It's not divided on the classic political conservative/liberal lines though.  I know just as many pro-gun "liberals" as I do "conservatives".  Some of the worst offenses to gun owners have been done by "conservatives" as well.  Don't link that political division with gun rights, you're just offending people on your own side.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2535 on: April 30, 2017, 08:37:50 AM »
I'm not going to read 50 pages of replies and I realize this is an emotionally charged issue. But the fact is, you or a family member is far more likely to die of a gunshot wound if there is a handgun in the home than if there isn't.

The problem with your statement isn't an issue of factual correctness, but rather it's standing at the intersection of inflammatory statements and statements which do not address the question. It points toward the premise of the thread, as if about to make a statement, but refrains from doing so. Most of us will presume to know what you intend to imply, but you haven't been willing to make a stand for your argument. As far as I can tell, you either were in too much of a hurry to finish the point you had intended to make, or you are signaling.

In either case, perhaps return to your comment and ask yourself, "Do there exist any responses to what I've said that would further the conversation?"

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2536 on: April 30, 2017, 09:18:35 AM »
Surely: b and d.

OK, cool.  So a couple of follow up questions then.  Have you always (your entire life) held this viewpoint?  If not, what did you believe in the past and why did you change those views?

I'll go first, just so you know my question is sincere - I used to be a "I don't know" when I was very young, a hardcore fiscal conservative in my 20's, a libertarian in my 30's, and now shifted to left of middle in my 40's.  The things that caused the shifts were really just life experiences.  As I saw that the government spent money like water, I was a fiscal conservative.  When I realized that both parties spent money at about the same rate, and in fact the R's actually spent more $$ than the D's, I became a libertarian.  As I get older I'm more focused on fairness and a level playing field, which lands me a bit left of center.  Plus I've always been fairly progressive on social issues. 

Your turn.

Before I begin, let me just point out that you asked for a manifesto. So here we go!

I'd say that my preference for liberalism has been a constant throughout my life, including whatever part of adolescence one can be believed to have well-considered stances in such matters. Variation has revolved around what systems I perceive as best protecting that basic framework.

From a distrust of government, I've grown into a distrust of large organizations, coming to the realization that agency and local knowledge problems are central to many of the issues I have with central government. So in that sense, I've come to embrace that local governments should be active and inclined to make small bets, and I've perhaps made more allowances for intermediate/State governments, while my impression of federal government is much the same. On the other hand, the practices of large companies, along with the myriad subsidies that pave their way and their propensity to get in bed with politicians to make more of them, make me increasingly hesitant to consider those companies beneficial.

I also believe that our horrendous development patterns of the last 80 years, and their deleterious consequences on community and civic life, create strong disagreements where none need be. (People get more at one another's throats when other things in life are going shittily. For example, you'd be more likely to have a pleasant conversation with me when I'm on vacation or living in a place I like, rather than when I've just topped off a crappy day at work by spending the greater part of an hour struggling through the traffic of the suburban Charleston hell-scape where I currently live.) If we weren't wringing all the wealth out of our society to build more roads and pay bonuses to investment bankers, we'd all feel a bit more at ease, and conversations such as guns would go more smoothly.

But we are, and they don't. And what does that have to do with anything?

I believe that there will inevitably come times when my rights to life, liberty, and property are on shaky ground. Whether those times come from government decree or private individuals, I believe they'll come more slowly and more cautiously if those threatening my rights are harboring the belief that we, as a populace, are well-armed. So, that belief is not going anywhere. But the 80(+)% solution to gun violence isn't about guns generally; it's about handguns. And I don't feel so strongly about those. So, if we were ever in a place, as a country, where I felt like the debate were proceeding rationally and from a place of most people knowing what they were talking about, I might be on board for some significant handgun restrictions. But that's not what's happening.

We have congress-people who talk about banning barrel shrouds and shoulder-things-that-go-up. You can't have a good-faith discussion from that point. They're as ignorant and irrationally scared of guns as I am of snakes and spiders.

In summary:
  • Suburban living isolates to the point that we don't know our fellow citizens well enough to handle this discussion, and impoverishes us to the point where too many of us are backed into desperate corners that don't make for level-headed discussion.
  • While I have patience for discussion of handgun legislation, I don't have patience or trust for politicians who currently advocate such things.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2537 on: April 30, 2017, 10:37:14 AM »
Let me turn it around and ask this question to gun owners: 

What WOULD be required to change mind on this topic?
I am a gun owner.  It's all about the money. If there were some way for gun companies the make a shit ton of money through controlling guns, it would happen. We are a greedy and selfish nation of people. Newtown was enough for me. If you can't look into your heart and say that you're willing to relinquish the ability to buy and own high powered or fast-loading guns after seeing the damage that one sick individual can do, then there is something wrong with your thinking. As in, I really believe you've been brainwashed by the gun companies.

This is a fucked up country when it comes to gun ownership.

For me, I'll never buy another gun. But I don't give mine up because... So many other crazy people have them. I am one of the people that is more likely to hurt myself or a loved one. Or have it stolen. Maybe when I move to a place with less crime I'll turn mine in.

No need to reply to me or my post. I only look at this thread every year or so. No intent to argue. I just want to answer the question.

Money is indeed powerful.  If the ultimate goal was to truly help people stay healthy and alive I can think of far better avenues than gun control. The health care, fast food, alcohol, and tobacco industries come to mind. 

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2538 on: April 30, 2017, 02:53:47 PM »
Contrary to the commonly held belief that debate never changes anybody's mind on controversial subjects, occasionally commenting but mostly just reading along with this thread has significantly changed my mind on the subject of guns and gun control in the US.

I used to be pretty strongly anti-gun, as in, I believed the US should move towards eliminating everything except hunting rifles and even they should be strictly regulated, kind of like in Europe and Japan. After reading, thinking and talking about the subject a little more, now, I think I agree with @Lagom's statements above that advocating for "gun control" is a poor strategy for progressives. If we really want to make a difference and actually lower the number of gun deaths in the US and we're not just concerned with being right, we would be better off focusing on specific types of gun deaths and looking at what can practicably be done to lower those numbers.

If 2/3 of gun deaths are really due to old white guys shooting themselves, it seems to me like we could easily lower that statistic by completely legalizing and destigmatizing physician assisted death everywhere in the United States. IMHO, anyone who wants to die should have the right to do so and should be able to easily and legally gain access to a safe, humane and non violent means of ending his own life. If old white guys who didn't want to live anymore could just swallow a pill and wash it down with a cold beer, probably most of them would prefer to kill themselves that way than with a gun. Presto, gun deaths go down by 2/3 in the U.S.

Also, as Lagom said above, a no brainer would be to end the idiotic failed war on drugs in the U.S. and just legalize everything. Spending the same amount that we spend now on enforcement, instead, on education and treatment would have much better results, IMHO, and would have the added side benefit of greatly reducing the numbers of young men who shoot each other with handguns in our country's inner cities.

Just doing those two things, legalizing physician assisted death and legalizing drugs, would cut the number of gun deaths in the U.S. down to much more "acceptable" levels.

Boom, problem solved!

Thanks to OP for starting the thread and to both Lagom, Tyort1 and others for your discussion above. It's helped me to see the gun debate differently.

Shane, I too am starting to move beyond simple "control handguns" vs "No restrictions" views I had before this thread.  The discussion, while heated at times, has been pretty great, IMO.  Just that data from 538 alone was worth reading and participating in this thread for.  Shifts my thinking completely on this topic. 
Frugalite in training.

surfhb

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2539 on: May 01, 2017, 12:36:06 AM »
I think safety is a valid concern, and you have to find a balance that makes sense to you. Statistics only matter if you're not one of the ones it happens to. On that, 30 year olds don't get cancer and pregnant women don't get hit by cars. Both happened to my wife. shitty, even if the odds were against it.

a gun is a tool that's rarely needed. But if you need it, there's almost never something else that works as well. I probably won't need insurance on the house, but I have it. I probably won't need my spare tire, but I have that. I probably won't need the gun next to the bed, but I have that.

Crime is always an issue, and fewer guns does not equal fewer crimes. There are mass knife attacks in china, violent crime went up in england and australia when they decreased civilian gun possessions, and all major dictatorships started with a disarming of the population. Guns don't cause violence, people do.

As far as feeling safe, I generally do. I follow basic safety rules, don't spend time with bad people at bad times in bad places, but shit happens everywhere. Truth is, even though we're in a very safe area outside DFW, there's cartel and terrorist activity all around me. I doubt I'll happen to be at the mall when shit happens, but in the event that it does, I want an option besides a cell phone or whistle.

I've carried legally in a dozen states in as many years, and have only cleared leather once...
I had a drugged out dude try to carjack me with a ninja sword in florida, but was able to drive away without shooting (situational awareness is key).
I was helping a friend move when abusive ex boyfriend showed up (despite restraining order) and came charging out of the house at us. thankfully with a basket to throw, rather than anything dangerous, but that gets the blood pumping and makes you glad to have a 45.
I've been charged by goats, dogs, rattle snakes, and our area has feral pigs, packs of strays, and more. Haven't fired, but not sure how long that luck will hold out.

As far as feeling safe at home, it's a matter of making yourself a harder target. If a SWAT team wants in, they will get it. But for random idiot burglar, we don't have trappings of wealth, have motion lights at all points of entry, have conspicuous real cameras, have a dog, keep our windows and doors locked ad bolted, have an alarm, have pointy plants by all the windows. it would be way easier to go next door where they don't have that.


But in addition to defense, I compete with my firearms. I am/was a competitive shooter as a hobby, have competed on the national stage, and really enjoy the collection, building, and maintaining firearms. it's the most relaxing thing you can do, since you need 100% focus. my wife is trained and as good of a shot as me, and keeps her own guns and knows how to use them. our son is only a month old, but everything is locked and away, and he will be taught about safe use and handling as soon as we can safely do it.

And yes, we have a home defense plan just the same way we have a fire plan, tornado plan, etc.
2 story house with bedrooms upstairs, as security was thought out before we bought. I hate split levels, cause a bad guy or fire is between you and the kids. the stairway is a, easily defensible high ground, while the wife grabs baby and hides out behind me, behind a few walls and near an escapable window. anyone in front is down range and fair game. This is Texas. the police know to knock and be let in. so when they get here (average response time is 15 minutes) we've already identified who's the family that lives there and that we are armed. I'll be the chubby guy in his underpants with a rifle.


guns can be mustachian. we're relying of self sufficiency, optimization, and not relying on anyone else for support. we fix stuff, tinker, and enjoy our hobbies. we have emergency funds and contingency plans and are ready for the unexpected... Guns can fill a roll with all of that.

If you don't like guns, that's fine. I'm never going to force my views on someone that isn't interested. I will use mine in your defense if need be, and I will happily extend an offer to take a non-shooter to the range after some lessons, and learn safe handling to make an informed decision if that's something they want/need in their life.

An old post on this thread but This made me laugh.   

I think you may have bad luck or just put yourself in terrible situations.    Sword attacks, charging exes and goats?!   Seriously,   I live and grew up in one of the most "violent" areas of the country (Los Angeles) and never came close to needed a weapon for defense.   

The paranoia and fear of this great boogie man we seem to fear and our fascination with weapons as truly passed the level of just plain retarded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2540 on: May 01, 2017, 05:32:53 AM »

If 2/3 of gun deaths are really due to old white guys shooting themselves, it seems to me like we could easily lower that statistic by completely legalizing and destigmatizing physician assisted death everywhere in the United States. IMHO, anyone who wants to die should have the right to do so and should be able to easily and legally gain access to a safe, humane and non violent means of ending his own life. If old white guys who didn't want to live anymore could just swallow a pill and wash it down with a cold beer, probably most of them would prefer to kill themselves that way than with a gun. Presto, gun deaths go down by 2/3 in the U.S.


Is this old white man hate going on here?   Your argument is making you sound like an asshole.  Change the types of people, and you're not OK with that?   What about all the young gay teenagers -- is it OK with you if they want to kill themselves?   What about the desperate housewives?  The disabled?  Children who don't quite fit in?  Anytime you say you're OK with a certain group killing themselves, that's pure evil.  We will not devalue a segment of our society. Lord help you lest YOU are someday an "old white man", viewed as worthless by others.

The reality is that suicide does not just hurt the person who dies.  Even old white men have children and families, dependents, grandchildren, etc.  How dare you devalue anyone at all.

Suicide should never be sold and never encouraged. 



« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:44:51 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2541 on: May 01, 2017, 05:38:14 AM »
The issues of "safety" and "security" are always conflated with such nonsense as constitutional rights, overthrowing the government, "castle defense", politics, etc.

Excuse me, did you just call our constitutional rights nonsense?


We are truly living in a dangerous world.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8342
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2542 on: May 01, 2017, 06:00:05 AM »
The issues of "safety" and "security" are always conflated with such nonsense as constitutional rights, overthrowing the government, "castle defense", politics, etc.

Excuse me, did you just call our constitutional rights nonsense?


We are truly living in a dangerous world.

I suspect he's referring to the common debating practice of yelling "because constitution" and then covering your ears and shutting your eyes to everything else.

That is not and has never been a valid argument, it's just an appeal to authority.  The constitution got a lot of things right and is a great document . . . argue why you believe that it got those things right and why they make sense in modern times, but don't just throw it out there and drop the mic as if you've proven something.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2543 on: May 01, 2017, 06:17:15 AM »
You're complicating this way too much.  As does everyone.  The issues of "safety" and "security" are always conflated with such nonsense as constitutional rights, overthrowing the government, "castle defense", politics, etc.

The simple fact is, you are safer in your house without a gun.

I hope to see you at the next "body cams, house cams, and 24/7 internet monitoring for everyone" convention.  It's for safety and security of course, common sense stuff really.


Guns are not only an equalizer for those who aren't as physically capable as those who might do them harm, they're also a very literal form of "power to the people."  If you completely trust your government (currently run by Donald Trump and an evangelist) to protect you for the next 40-80 years depending on how old you are, then by all means feel free to not own guns.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2544 on: May 01, 2017, 07:54:04 AM »
Newtown was enough for me. If you can't look into your heart and say that you're willing to relinquish the ability to buy and own high powered or fast-loading guns after seeing the damage that one sick individual can do, then there is something wrong with your thinking. As in, I really believe you've been brainwashed by the gun companies.

This is an intellectually bankrupt thing to say.  There are 300M+ guns in this country.  We can't just make them all go away, by law or otherwise (how did prohibition work out?  War on drugs?)  Yes, if by snapping our fingers we could make every child in every school safe, absolutely let's discuss doing that.  But we live in the real world, where we can't do that.  Disarming law-abiding gun owners does not fix the problem.  So stop pretending it does.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2545 on: May 01, 2017, 10:47:35 AM »
And these stridently insulting/judgmental last few posts, gun-toting friends, is a large reason why anti-gun folks think you are intractable. This thread proves otherwise (on both sides), but let's pump the breaks here a bit.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2546 on: May 01, 2017, 11:07:18 AM »
And these stridently insulting/judgmental last few posts, gun-toting friends, is a large reason why anti-gun folks think you are intractable. This thread proves otherwise (on both sides), but let's pump the breaks here a bit.

They think we're intractable because they never offer anything back.  What's the carrot?  Where's the compromise?  There's this "we want to ban 100% of X" and then we are supposed to be satisfied when only 40% of X is banned.  You want legal gun owners to work with you, offer us something.  Where's the greater reciprocity?  Where's the no waiting periods for current gun owners?  What's in it for us?  If you don't offer us anything, yeah, don't be surprised if we're not amenable to any of it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2547 on: May 01, 2017, 11:18:29 AM »
And these stridently insulting/judgmental last few posts, gun-toting friends, is a large reason why anti-gun folks think you are intractable. This thread proves otherwise (on both sides), but let's pump the breaks here a bit.

They think we're intractable because they never offer anything back.  What's the carrot?  Where's the compromise?  There's this "we want to ban 100% of X" and then we are supposed to be satisfied when only 40% of X is banned.  You want legal gun owners to work with you, offer us something.  Where's the greater reciprocity?  Where's the no waiting periods for current gun owners?  What's in it for us?  If you don't offer us anything, yeah, don't be surprised if we're not amenable to any of it.

I have, repeatedly. As someone who is admittedly in neither camp fully, I'm on record suggesting we stop pushing for gun control altogether, and possibly even roll back many current restrictions. Obviously my stance is quite different than those you are arguing with directly, but either way you guys mostly have ignored my own suggestions, presumably because you don't like them either? Some other posters in this thread who are/were pro gun control have also started shifting their stance a bit, but you guys generally seem stuck on those who have not, rather than continuing more productive lines of dialog.

Besides, my point is that your quoted response here is totally reasonable, but calling people "intellectually bankrupt" or "pure evil" (KBecks) is unnecessary and pointless, just as much as when the left tries to claim you don't care about dead children, or whatever. What I am seeing is that you (to a lesser extent), and especially KBecks and others on the pro-gun side earlier in the thread, seem to have constructed a narrative that those intellectually/morally bankrupt idiot liberals are never going to see reason, when this thread proves that idea is patently false.

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
  • Location: WDC
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2548 on: May 01, 2017, 11:44:46 AM »
Newtown was enough for me. If you can't look into your heart and say that you're willing to relinquish the ability to buy and own high powered or fast-loading guns after seeing the damage that one sick individual can do, then there is something wrong with your thinking. As in, I really believe you've been brainwashed by the gun companies.

This is an intellectually bankrupt thing to say.  There are 300M+ guns in this country.  We can't just make them all go away, by law or otherwise (how did prohibition work out?  War on drugs?)  Yes, if by snapping our fingers we could make every child in every school safe, absolutely let's discuss doing that.  But we live in the real world, where we can't do that.  Disarming law-abiding gun owners does not fix the problem.  So stop pretending it does.
Chris22, If you read my post, you'll see that I didn't address ALL guns, only the ones that can do an extraordinary amount of damage when they're in the wrong hands.   In fact, I think your response to my comment makes no sense at all and I wonder if maybe you quoted me by accident?  Because this post is totally off-target. 

Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2549 on: May 01, 2017, 11:57:14 AM »
All guns are high powered.  All guns can kill a lot of people.  Anyone with motivation and a little bit of brains can pull off a mass killing.  Think of the truck attacks in France and England.  Thankfully there are very few evil, sick people out there.  It is NOT the gun, it is the sick asshole that's the problem.

Law breaking criminals should be controlled, see the reference upthread to programs giving a minimum 5 year prison sentence for gun crimes as a deterrent.