Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 437073 times)

BlueHouse

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
  • Location: WDC
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2550 on: May 01, 2017, 12:07:20 PM »
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.
ugh.  You win.  I'm leaving the discussion.  I'll pop back in in a year or two. 
Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2551 on: May 01, 2017, 12:10:46 PM »
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. 

I can get on board with a deeper discussion on appropriate punishments for gun crimes. It makes much more sense to have mandatory minimum laws for gun crimes than for drugs, and combining the former with legalizing the latter would almost certainly have a massively positive effect on gun homicide rates.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2552 on: May 01, 2017, 12:12:56 PM »
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.

I don't believe the responsibility is on the pro-gun ownership side to have explain why the Constitution is correct and should be upheld, when the Constitution supports gun ownership and is the foundation of our (U.S.) government.  Now, if you want to, you can come up with all the reasons why you believe why the U.S.Constitution is wrong and should be amended, ignored or bypassed.  And then we can ponder whether any of those arguments are worthwhile or not.

Added:  If you like history you may also want to check out the Magna Carta and its influence on the U.S. Constitution.  There are some powerful ideas about liberty and freedom and protecting people from their rulers. 





« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 12:19:26 PM by KBecks »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2553 on: May 01, 2017, 12:13:07 PM »
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.

You stated "high powered or fast-loading" guns.  You mean AR-15s.  Which are not high powered, and load the exact same way as any other magazine-feed semi-automatic weapon.  They're also the weapons that are responsible for a tiny, tiny percentage of overall gun murders.  They're also one of the most popular privately owned firearms.  But because one was used in one of the most horrific crimes ever in America, they should be banned.  Because emotion.  And because I disagree, there is "something wrong with my thinking."
"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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2554 on: May 01, 2017, 12:14:52 PM »
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. 

I can get on board with a deeper discussion on appropriate punishments for gun crimes. It makes much more sense to have mandatory minimum laws for gun crimes than for drugs, and combining the former with legalizing the latter would almost certainly have a massively positive effect on gun homicide rates.

Assuming we are talking about 'real' crime (assault, rape, murder, robbery, etc) and not 'technical' crimes like you mistakenly carried a pistol into a restaurant that gets 52% of its revenue from alcohol sales, then I am 100% on board with this. 
"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: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2555 on: May 01, 2017, 12:21:53 PM »
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. 

I can get on board with a deeper discussion on appropriate punishments for gun crimes. It makes much more sense to have mandatory minimum laws for gun crimes than for drugs, and combining the former with legalizing the latter would almost certainly have a massively positive effect on gun homicide rates.

Assuming we are talking about 'real' crime (assault, rape, murder, robbery, etc) and not 'technical' crimes like you mistakenly carried a pistol into a restaurant that gets 52% of its revenue from alcohol sales, then I am 100% on board with this.

Yes, violent assaults involving a gun, even if the gun wasn't fired (perhaps even just brandishing?), illegal gun trafficking, etc., would all make sense. A responsible gun owner would do none of those things so should have nothing to worry about. Accidentally violating a law as you described should maybe be punishable by a fine or whatever, but I would certainly not support a prison sentence of any kind.

This is the kind of thing I find it strange Democrats don't pursue. I guess it's because they're not supposed to support harsher criminal laws in any circumstance?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2556 on: May 01, 2017, 12:27:30 PM »
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. 

I can get on board with a deeper discussion on appropriate punishments for gun crimes. It makes much more sense to have mandatory minimum laws for gun crimes than for drugs, and combining the former with legalizing the latter would almost certainly have a massively positive effect on gun homicide rates.

Assuming we are talking about 'real' crime (assault, rape, murder, robbery, etc) and not 'technical' crimes like you mistakenly carried a pistol into a restaurant that gets 52% of its revenue from alcohol sales, then I am 100% on board with this.

Yes, violent assaults involving a gun, even if the gun wasn't fired (perhaps even just brandishing?), illegal gun trafficking, etc., would all make sense. A responsible gun owner would do none of those things so should have nothing to worry about. Accidentally violating a law as you described should maybe be punishable by a fine or whatever, but I would certainly not support a prison sentence of any kind.

This is the kind of thing I find it strange Democrats don't pursue. I guess it's because they're not supposed to support harsher criminal laws in any circumstance?

Perhaps they are still sensitive to the anger that many have over the 1994 Crime Bill passed by Bill Clinton that many of a certain demographic see as extremely racist?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2557 on: May 01, 2017, 12:35:31 PM »
I find data like this incredibly interesting.  Crime rate is way down.  But people feel like it's way up.  Weird.

Frugalite in training.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2558 on: May 01, 2017, 12:38:18 PM »
Perhaps they are still sensitive to the anger that many have over the 1994 Crime Bill passed by Bill Clinton that many of a certain demographic see as extremely racist?

I think that is certainly part of the broader attitude. This is where political correctness runs amok on the left. Tons of criminal laws are demonstrably racist, or at least disadvantageous to minorities (e.g. many drug laws), but that doesn't mean that we should only seek to soften criminal penalties in every instance. I mean, if we were to up the harshness of gun crime penalties (as previously outlined), that would also probably statistically affect minorities more than white people, but there is a pretty big difference between shipping thousands of minorities to long prison sentences for smoking (or even selling) pot one time too often, versus a considerably lower number of criminals that also happen to be murderers, rapists, etc.

I find data like this incredibly interesting.  Crime rate is way down.  But people feel like it's way up.  Weird.

...

That is indeed a pretty interesting graph, though unsurprising. Note the year it spikes upwards.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2559 on: May 01, 2017, 12:42:31 PM »
Oh I know.  But it's just so interesting to see perception so divorced from reality.  We live in perhaps the safest time and in the safest country in all history.  And yet people feel unsafe.  It's just gobsmacking.
Frugalite in training.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2560 on: May 01, 2017, 04:33:26 PM »
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.

I don't believe the responsibility is on the pro-gun ownership side to have explain why the Constitution is correct and should be upheld, when the Constitution supports gun ownership and is the foundation of our (U.S.) government.  Now, if you want to, you can come up with all the reasons why you believe why the U.S.Constitution is wrong and should be amended, ignored or bypassed.  And then we can ponder whether any of those arguments are worthwhile or not.

Added:  If you like history you may also want to check out the Magna Carta and its influence on the U.S. Constitution.  There are some powerful ideas about liberty and freedom and protecting people from their rulers.

I haven't made any claims about the constitution.  What exactly do you believe that it's my responsibility to explain?

In a debate, the responsibility of each participant is to explain his or her position.  As was mentioned, it's a common tactic to just mention the constitution as though that stands in lieu of thought.  It does not.  An appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority.  (Note - this doesn't mean that the authority is wrong, just that it's a poor argument.)

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2561 on: May 01, 2017, 07:09:40 PM »

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.

My use of the phrase "old white guys" was just copied from Tyort1's post above which came from the 538 data posted by Lagom. While obviously a stereotype, my understanding is that most people who shoot themselves are older white males. KBecks, if you have data which indicate otherwise, you are welcome to share. I have absolutely nothing against old white men. Sorry if my post gave that impression. It wasn't intentional.

IMHO, any mentally stable person should, absolutely, have the right to die at a time and place of his own choosing. Some sort of a waiting period would make sense. Requiring that a person who wants to die, first speak with his physician would be sensible. Presumably, a physician wouldn't prescribe lethal medication to a person who seemed crazy or just temporarily depressed. Perhaps requiring some counseling first would be a reasonable hurdle to make people jump over before getting access to a lethal dose of drugs.

You're welcome to disagree, KBecks, but I think the legalization and destigmatization of physician assisted death would be a good thing for our society. As far as your comment that, "Suicide should never be sold and never encouraged," I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as I never suggested either of those things...

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2562 on: May 01, 2017, 08:55:39 PM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.



KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2563 on: May 01, 2017, 09:01:29 PM »
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.

I don't believe the responsibility is on the pro-gun ownership side to have explain why the Constitution is correct and should be upheld, when the Constitution supports gun ownership and is the foundation of our (U.S.) government.  Now, if you want to, you can come up with all the reasons why you believe why the U.S.Constitution is wrong and should be amended, ignored or bypassed.  And then we can ponder whether any of those arguments are worthwhile or not.

Added:  If you like history you may also want to check out the Magna Carta and its influence on the U.S. Constitution.  There are some powerful ideas about liberty and freedom and protecting people from their rulers.

I haven't made any claims about the constitution.  What exactly do you believe that it's my responsibility to explain?

In a debate, the responsibility of each participant is to explain his or her position.  As was mentioned, it's a common tactic to just mention the constitution as though that stands in lieu of thought.  It does not.  An appeal to authority is still an appeal to authority.  (Note - this doesn't mean that the authority is wrong, just that it's a poor argument.)

You seem to enjoy debating for the sake of debate and I have no time for that.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1588
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2564 on: May 01, 2017, 10:13:48 PM »
But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.

Interesting.  So, you are against the death penalty, too?

Also I use the phrase old white guys above, because at 45 years, I is one now :(
Frugalite in training.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2565 on: May 02, 2017, 12:25:54 AM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.

What a silly argument. The whole point of assisted suicide is to help those who are literally incapable of taking their own life, usually due to a physical limitation that is generally accompanied by intolerable pain of some kind (physical or psychological). That doesn't mean the decision should be taken lightly but you are making it sound like he is advocating Futurama-style suicide booths. I agree that the suggestion of using assisted suicide purely to reduce gun deaths is a bit much, but you know very well that was not really the intent of the suggestion, and you are really just taking umbrage at the concept in general, I presume due to religious beliefs.

Also, +1 to the query if you oppose the death penalty. I do, and yet I support assisted suicide. Go figure, eh? If you are the opposite on both counts I would be curious to hear why.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2566 on: May 02, 2017, 05:59:41 AM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.

What a silly argument. The whole point of assisted suicide is to help those who are literally incapable of taking their own life, usually due to a physical limitation that is generally accompanied by intolerable pain of some kind (physical or psychological). That doesn't mean the decision should be taken lightly but you are making it sound like he is advocating Futurama-style suicide booths. I agree that the suggestion of using assisted suicide purely to reduce gun deaths is a bit much, but you know very well that was not really the intent of the suggestion, and you are really just taking umbrage at the concept in general, I presume due to religious beliefs.

Also, +1 to the query if you oppose the death penalty. I do, and yet I support assisted suicide. Go figure, eh? If you are the opposite on both counts I would be curious to hear why.

Agreed.  Assisted suicide isn't necessary for someone with the ability to end his or her own life . . . it would only be utilized by people without the freedom to do so.  The predicted 'death businesses' from that post certainly haven't materialized in any of the countries that currently have legal assisted suicide.  More disturbing though is the claim that the beliefs of KBecks are 'morally right' (and therefore anyone who supports the idea of assisted suicide is 'morally wrong').

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2567 on: May 02, 2017, 06:11:56 AM »
But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.

Interesting.  So, you are against the death penalty, too?

Also I use the phrase old white guys above, because at 45 years, I is one now :(

Yes.

Age is relative.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 06:16:26 AM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2568 on: May 02, 2017, 06:13:29 AM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.

What a silly argument. The whole point of assisted suicide is to help those who are literally incapable of taking their own life, usually due to a physical limitation that is generally accompanied by intolerable pain of some kind (physical or psychological). That doesn't mean the decision should be taken lightly but you are making it sound like he is advocating Futurama-style suicide booths. I agree that the suggestion of using assisted suicide purely to reduce gun deaths is a bit much, but you know very well that was not really the intent of the suggestion, and you are really just taking umbrage at the concept in general, I presume due to religious beliefs.

Also, +1 to the query if you oppose the death penalty. I do, and yet I support assisted suicide. Go figure, eh? If you are the opposite on both counts I would be curious to hear why.

Agreed.  Assisted suicide isn't necessary for someone with the ability to end his or her own life . . . it would only be utilized by people without the freedom to do so.  The predicted 'death businesses' from that post certainly haven't materialized in any of the countries that currently have legal assisted suicide.  More disturbing though is the claim that the beliefs of KBecks are 'morally right' (and therefore anyone who supports the idea of assisted suicide is 'morally wrong').

I am saying an idea is morally wrong, or an idea is pure evil, not a person with that idea.  Do you see the difference?   Now, if a person carries out the idea, their action may be evil, but not the person. 

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2569 on: May 02, 2017, 06:15:18 AM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.

What a silly argument. The whole point of assisted suicide is to help those who are literally incapable of taking their own life, usually due to a physical limitation that is generally accompanied by intolerable pain of some kind (physical or psychological). That doesn't mean the decision should be taken lightly but you are making it sound like he is advocating Futurama-style suicide booths. I agree that the suggestion of using assisted suicide purely to reduce gun deaths is a bit much, but you know very well that was not really the intent of the suggestion, and you are really just taking umbrage at the concept in general, I presume due to religious beliefs.

Also, +1 to the query if you oppose the death penalty. I do, and yet I support assisted suicide. Go figure, eh? If you are the opposite on both counts I would be curious to hear why.

You are not following the conversation.  Assisted suicide was suggested as a means of reducing gun deaths -- therefore people who would get pills would not shoot themselves anymore.   I say that we don't need to increase the means of ending lives just to reduce the number of guns in our society.  The results are the same -- dead people -- I prefer to reduce that result rather than play games with the means to the end.

I am against the death penalty because of potential human error and respect for life.  Also, I am against assisted suicide as a replacement for gun ownership because it's a stupid idea.   I am against assisted suicide for terminally ill because of the potential for abuse and error.  Since this is a gun control topic and not an assisted suicide conversation until now as a digression, I'm not well versed on assisted suicide but this Web site meshes with most of my thinking:
http://www.thecompassionatechoice.com/articles/30-logical-reasons-against-assisted-suicide/
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 07:08:02 AM by KBecks »

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2570 on: May 02, 2017, 06:33:51 AM »

So, let me get this straight.  Assisted suicide is a good idea for those that are physically suffering and physically unable to end their own life.  If they are so weak and in so much pain that they can't take a handful of pills or sever a major artery with a <insert sharp object> I don't see them getting out of their bed, racking the slide on a handgun, and using that.

This is possibly the most flawed logic I've ever heard. 

Edit:  After reading some more, it sounds like this may have been more hypothetical than anything, but still.  At the end of the day the body count is still the same, so I don't even see the point.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2017, 06:50:11 AM by hoosier »

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2571 on: May 02, 2017, 06:48:08 AM »
I can get on-board with a lot of things to reduce gun related deaths.  Mandatory minimum non-parolable sentences for violent gun crimes and illegal possession of a firearm should be at the top of the list. 

Who can't agree with that?

I don't think I can go so far as to say brandishing should qualify because that could be misinterpreted, depending on the circumstances.  I could see that turning into when my shirt rides up when I'm picking up some oatmeal off the bottom shelf at Aldi, the pearl-clutcher old lady behind sees me "brandishing", and the next thing you know I'm doing a nickel in big boy jail.


Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2572 on: May 02, 2017, 10:06:07 AM »
IMO, Even if exactly the same number of people died with a physician's assistance as currently die by shooting themselves that would be qualitatively better for our society than the status quo where tens of thousands of Americans shoot themselves annually.

People who shoot themselves normally do so secretly. Somebody has to find all those dead bodies. What do you think it's like for those family members, cleaning ladies, neighbors who start to smell something unusual, or perfect strangers to find a person who has killed himself with a gun? Do you think those people ever forget that sight? For the rest of their lives? Who gets to clean up the mess?

Since this thread is about guns in the home, what about the guns themselves? What happens to them? With people who secretly shoot themselves in their home or car or a hotel room or maybe in the woods or some other remote location, what happens to their guns? Hopefully, most suicide victims' guns get turned in to the police, but with tens of thousands of people a year shooting themselves, it sure seems like at least a few of those guns may end up in the wrong hands and end up being used in robberies and homicides of totally unrelated innocent people.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I think it's important. Lowering the number of people who shoot themselves with guns every year, by whatever means possible, seems like a worthy goal to me. I suggested legalization of physician assisted death, but obviously that's not the only means of reducing gun suicides. Another, maybe less controversial way, would be to put more resources into counseling for people with depression or to fund more suicide prevention hotlines.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2573 on: May 02, 2017, 10:19:39 AM »
If you have time check out these arguments against assisted suicide and let us know what you think.   I think the potential negative side effects of popularizing assisted suicide outweigh the negatives associated with individually-administered gun suicides.  Note that all suicide is a negative in my view and suicide prevention is most preferred:

http://www.thecompassionatechoice.com/articles/30-logical-reasons-against-assisted-suicide/


Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2574 on: May 02, 2017, 10:36:02 AM »
I don't honestly have much of an opinion on suicide, assisted or otherwise, aside from my libertarian (small l) bent saying it should be an option for people.  I just want to get the massive number of suicides-by-gun out of the deaths-by-firearms statistics because it suggests a bigger problem than we actually have, and takes a much different approach to solve than the "we have a gun problem let's ban some guns!" attitude that exists when those statistics are crammed into the number.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2575 on: May 02, 2017, 10:43:47 AM »

People who shoot themselves normally do so secretly. Somebody has to find all those dead bodies. What do you think it's like for those family members, cleaning ladies, neighbors who start to smell something unusual, or perfect strangers to find a person who has killed himself with a gun? Do you think those people ever forget that sight? For the rest of their lives? Who gets to cleas in their home or car or a hotel room or maybe in the woods or some other remote location, what happens to their guns? Hopefully, most suicide victims' guns get turned in to the police, but with tens of thousands of people a year shooting themselves, it sure seems like at least a few of those guns may end up in the wrong hands and end up being used in robberies and homicides of totally unrelated innocent people.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I think it's important. Lowering the number of people who shoot themselves with guns every year, by whatever means possible, seems like a worthy goal to me. I suggested legalization of physician assisted death, but obviously that's not the only means of reducing gun suicides. Another, maybe less controversial way, would be to put more resources into counseling for people with depression or to fund more suicide prevention hotlines.

You're missing your own point (net positive benefit to society). 

If a person truly is a candidate for assisted suicide, which I would hope they are literally suffering on their death bed, those aren't the people shooting themselves.

If a person is able to function well enough to get a gun and pull a trigger don't you think their life is worth trying to save?  I would hope so, otherwise your value of human life is shockingly low.

Doc, I had a bad day at work...I think its time you put me down for the count.  OK, step into my office.

For what it's worth, I found my best friend's dad swinging from the rafters in a barn.  It was awful.  I won't ever forget it.  Even friends and family who didn't find him won't ever forget it.  But it wouldn't have been any better had I given the man a hug and said goodbye as he walked into a Dr's office.  If you've experienced suicide up close and personal, you're not going to be convinced that it was good idea.

I've watched others wither and die from hopelessly incurable cancer.  I don't have a problem with them giving up the fight and letting death come, but putting down a human like an animal is never going to be a good idea.

As for what happens to the guns after they die, probably the same thing that happens to every other gun that resides in the home of someone recently deceased.  The successfully suicidal are probably a tiny fraction of gun owners.  If this is your concern, you should be mortified by all the orphaned guns from people who die from cancer, heart disease, and car accidents.

TLDR, assisted suicide has a net negative impact on society. 


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2576 on: May 02, 2017, 06:02:03 PM »
Assisted suicide is and should always be considered as murder.  It is morally wrong.  If you ask physicians or others to provide assisted suicide as a service, there will be a charge for it and it will become a business, and there will be a potential financial motive.  I find that disgusting and wrong in many ways.  So if you legalize assisted suicide, you will find people creating new, death businesses, with tons of potential for abuse.  We simply don't want to go there.

It seems that you are advocating for assisted suicide as a means to reducing gun violence.  That's a very strange workaround.

If people want to kill themselves, then they can be free to work out their methods and make attempts of their own free will.  But society should never, ever, help with killing our own members.  We should try to help people stay alive and have reason for living.   We have prevention hotlines because it is the right thing to do.

What a silly argument. The whole point of assisted suicide is to help those who are literally incapable of taking their own life, usually due to a physical limitation that is generally accompanied by intolerable pain of some kind (physical or psychological). That doesn't mean the decision should be taken lightly but you are making it sound like he is advocating Futurama-style suicide booths. I agree that the suggestion of using assisted suicide purely to reduce gun deaths is a bit much, but you know very well that was not really the intent of the suggestion, and you are really just taking umbrage at the concept in general, I presume due to religious beliefs.

Also, +1 to the query if you oppose the death penalty. I do, and yet I support assisted suicide. Go figure, eh? If you are the opposite on both counts I would be curious to hear why.

Agreed.  Assisted suicide isn't necessary for someone with the ability to end his or her own life . . . it would only be utilized by people without the freedom to do so.  The predicted 'death businesses' from that post certainly haven't materialized in any of the countries that currently have legal assisted suicide.  More disturbing though is the claim that the beliefs of KBecks are 'morally right' (and therefore anyone who supports the idea of assisted suicide is 'morally wrong').

I am saying an idea is morally wrong, or an idea is pure evil, not a person with that idea.  Do you see the difference?   Now, if a person carries out the idea, their action may be evil, but not the person.

What do you call a person who strongly believes in an idea of 'pure evil'?  A good person?

People believe different things for a variety of reasons . . . it's been rare in my experience that 'pure evil' or 'moral wrongness' is really the driving force in their belief.  Typically there are shades of grey, and reasonable cases/arguments that can be made for both sides of an issue.
 Calling someone's strongly held viewpoint morally wrong just isn't conductive to a conversation.  At best it's done in an attempt to make yourself feel better about your own choices, at worst it alienates the people you're talking with.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2577 on: May 02, 2017, 06:09:38 PM »
I don't honestly have much of an opinion on suicide, assisted or otherwise, aside from my libertarian (small l) bent saying it should be an option for people.  I just want to get the massive number of suicides-by-gun out of the deaths-by-firearms statistics because it suggests a bigger problem than we actually have, and takes a much different approach to solve than the "we have a gun problem let's ban some guns!" attitude that exists when those statistics are crammed into the number.

Agreed that suicides shouldn't be included in death by firearms statistics as it distorts the data and makes it seem guns are a bigger problem than they actually are.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2578 on: May 02, 2017, 08:56:56 PM »

People who shoot themselves normally do so secretly. Somebody has to find all those dead bodies. What do you think it's like for those family members, cleaning ladies, neighbors who start to smell something unusual, or perfect strangers to find a person who has killed himself with a gun? Do you think those people ever forget that sight? For the rest of their lives? Who gets to cleas in their home or car or a hotel room or maybe in the woods or some other remote location, what happens to their guns? Hopefully, most suicide victims' guns get turned in to the police, but with tens of thousands of people a year shooting themselves, it sure seems like at least a few of those guns may end up in the wrong hands and end up being used in robberies and homicides of totally unrelated innocent people.

Sorry if this is off topic, but I think it's important. Lowering the number of people who shoot themselves with guns every year, by whatever means possible, seems like a worthy goal to me. I suggested legalization of physician assisted death, but obviously that's not the only means of reducing gun suicides. Another, maybe less controversial way, would be to put more resources into counseling for people with depression or to fund more suicide prevention hotlines.

You're missing your own point (net positive benefit to society). 

If a person truly is a candidate for assisted suicide, which I would hope they are literally suffering on their death bed, those aren't the people shooting themselves.

If a person is able to function well enough to get a gun and pull a trigger don't you think their life is worth trying to save?  I would hope so, otherwise your value of human life is shockingly low.

Doc, I had a bad day at work...I think its time you put me down for the count.  OK, step into my office.

For what it's worth, I found my best friend's dad swinging from the rafters in a barn.  It was awful.  I won't ever forget it.  Even friends and family who didn't find him won't ever forget it.  But it wouldn't have been any better had I given the man a hug and said goodbye as he walked into a Dr's office.  If you've experienced suicide up close and personal, you're not going to be convinced that it was good idea.

I've watched others wither and die from hopelessly incurable cancer.  I don't have a problem with them giving up the fight and letting death come, but putting down a human like an animal is never going to be a good idea.

As for what happens to the guns after they die, probably the same thing that happens to every other gun that resides in the home of someone recently deceased.  The successfully suicidal are probably a tiny fraction of gun owners.  If this is your concern, you should be mortified by all the orphaned guns from people who die from cancer, heart disease, and car accidents.

TLDR, assisted suicide has a net negative impact on society.

It may sound counter intuitive, but the best time for a person to end his own life, with a gun or otherwise, is when he's still relatively healthy. Once a person is bedridden, it becomes much more difficult to choose when and how one dies.

Based on personal experience watching family members die slowly from cancer, I totally disagree with your stance against physician assisted death, Hoosier. You're welcome to "give up the fight and just let death come," if that's what you choose for yourself, but the rest of us should also be free to choose how, when and where we die if that's what we want for ourselves. I'm not telling you you *have* to kill yourself if you don't want to, but I'd appreciate your giving me the same respect by not judging my end of life choices as well.

It's possible to view death as a horrible thing that should be put off for as long as possible, at all costs, or one can also view death as a normal and natural part of life, no more to be feared than birth. If I am ever diagnosed with an incurable disease like cancer, I would appreciate having the option of calling my family and friends together for a party to say goodbye and at the end of the night taking a pill prescribed to me by my doctor, falling asleep and never waking up again. Fuck suffering for months, unable to get out of bed. Before I get to that point, I'm going to say goodbye and check out on my own terms, thank you. :)

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2579 on: May 02, 2017, 09:10:46 PM »
If you have time check out these arguments against assisted suicide and let us know what you think.   I think the potential negative side effects of popularizing assisted suicide outweigh the negatives associated with individually-administered gun suicides.  Note that all suicide is a negative in my view and suicide prevention is most preferred:

http://www.thecompassionatechoice.com/articles/30-logical-reasons-against-assisted-suicide/

KBecks, please see my response to Hoosier, above.

You're welcome to not use physician assisted death for yourself, but I'd appreciate your not imposing your views on me and others who would like to make different choices for ourselves.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2580 on: May 03, 2017, 05:00:40 AM »
Here's where we get to debate, although, we probably need to start a separate topic about assisted suicide and get it out of the gun ownership topic.

You can kill yourself anytime you want, but I will never support allowing doctors to prescribe death pills, etc.  If you live in a place where this is already legal, then no worries for you, but I will fight this idea becoming mainstream in the U.S. for all the reasons in the link.  Additionally, I hope you are never, ever in a situation where you need to consider that option. 

It's a difficult topic for sure, and I think it's a very important one.

ETA:  I will start to consider this from a more libertarian view as in,  if you want death pills, why should I get in your way?  But.... I am very concerned about potential abuse of this kind of thing, as well as the expansion of it into actual murder without a patient's consent.  Here's an interesting article that talks about assisted suicide as an entitlement rather than a liberty, it shows that 500 people in Holland were given lethal injection without consent (I hope you agree that this is terrible and wrong.), and explains that the most sick and weak are the most vulnerable to coercion.
http://righttolife.org.uk/comment-opinion/false-autonomy-the-libertarian-case-against-assisted-suicide/

The other article I linked to explained how offering suicide reduces people's hope, and give doctors the ability to get lazy and not try to help people with difficult medical problems, assisted suicide will be used as a tool to reduce medical costs, and there will be less motive to research cures for diseases when there's the easier path of people taking their own lives.

I think we do need a new topic if you want to continue the conversation.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 05:36:08 AM by KBecks »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2581 on: May 03, 2017, 05:56:24 AM »
You can kill yourself anytime you want

As has been pointed out multiple times already, this initial assumption of yours is not true for a lot of people.

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2582 on: May 03, 2017, 06:08:20 AM »
First, you should try to quantify what is "a lot of people".   Second, let's look at the other possibilities, such as healthcare powers of attorney, do not resusictate orders, and the patient's ability to refuse medical interventions, and to request pain treatments and palliative care.

Another interesting article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/20/assisted-suicide-for-mentally-ill-canada-weighs-what-some-european-nations-already-allow.html

Should people with autism be given access to assisted suicide?  Alzheimers?  the mentally ill?  gay teens?  old white men?  desperate housewives?   black and brown people?  the "uneducated"?

Here is another article, haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I've read so far of it is good.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/assisted-suicide-legalization-california-kevin-drum

« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 08:00:40 AM by KBecks »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2583 on: May 03, 2017, 10:38:42 AM »
First, you should try to quantify what is "a lot of people".   Second, let's look at the other possibilities, such as healthcare powers of attorney, do not resusictate orders, and the patient's ability to refuse medical interventions, and to request pain treatments and palliative care.

Another interesting article:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/20/assisted-suicide-for-mentally-ill-canada-weighs-what-some-european-nations-already-allow.html

Should people with autism be given access to assisted suicide?  Alzheimers?  the mentally ill?  gay teens?  old white men?  desperate housewives?   black and brown people?  the "uneducated"?

Here is another article, haven't read the whole thing yet, but what I've read so far of it is good.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/assisted-suicide-legalization-california-kevin-drum

You are creating false dichotomies and claiming a slippery slope based on straw man assumptions. That's a lot of fallacies! No one here is advocating unlimited, easy-access assisted suicide for anyone who wants it.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2584 on: May 03, 2017, 06:13:03 PM »
First, you should try to quantify what is "a lot of people".

I'm referring to the number of people who can't kill themselves, or who have infirmities that would make committing suicide very difficult / or to have potential complications that could increase suffering.  This would include large swaths of people . . . anyone with advanced Parkinson's disease for example, a variety of cancers, anyone without ease of use of hands, etc.

I don't really see a point in quantifying a specific number, since you appear to agree that the number is greater than one . . . which means that you accept that your initial assumption is wrong.



Second, let's look at the other possibilities, such as healthcare powers of attorney, do not resusictate orders, and the patient's ability to refuse medical interventions, and to request pain treatments and palliative care.

What are we looking at them for exactly?  The choice to die is a personal one.  It's something that needs to be made on a case by case basis.  I'd absolutely support the distribution of information and the availability of support groups/counselling/alternatives for people in this situation . . . but at the end of the day, the choice needs to be available to them and should be made by them.  You appear to believe that your opinion should matter more than theirs, which is troubling to me.



Should people with autism be given access to assisted suicide?  Alzheimers?  the mentally ill?  gay teens?  old white men?  desperate housewives?   black and brown people?  the "uneducated"?

Yes.  Yes (conditionally)*.  Yes (conditionally)*.  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.

*With the possible exception of people who are afflicted by a mental illness or disease that renders them incapable of decision making, this should be available as an option to anyone.[/quote]

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6581
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2585 on: May 04, 2017, 06:22:25 AM »
Re assisted suicide.  I had a friend who had ovarian cancer, on top of MS.  She squirreled away her sleeping pills and pain killers so she could go out when she wanted.  And when she wanted, she was so immobilized by her illness that she could not access her pills.   She lingered for months.  Her end was OK, she was in a good hospice, but still.

And for many, when death is near, it is a friend, not an enemy.  My Dad told me he was ready to go, about a week before he died.

The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2586 on: May 04, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »
There are large ethical issues connected to assisted suicide. But I've seen my grandmother and uncle starve to death after suffering from parkingson for many years. They really didn't want to be here anymore, and food intake was the only thing they could control. It is genetic, and if I get that diagnosis I will certainly consider my options.

Guns are a messy way to go, and based on my personal prejudices I doubt that the main group of people who use that option have considered contacting the hotlines. Maybe some of them could be talked out of it if they were in contact with a doctor.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2587 on: May 05, 2017, 05:50:35 PM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2588 on: May 07, 2017, 11:29:44 AM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.

Quote
"In most U.S. states, anything from a single-shot shotgun all the way up to a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle can be purchased at showrooms or through online sales — by way of private dealers — with no background checks, and without requiring either an ID or a gun license,"

Apparently they haven't actually tried this (because you can't).

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2589 on: May 08, 2017, 06:15:46 AM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.

Yeah, not like they'd have any reason to lie about that.  The "gun show loophole" is so misunderstood it blows my mind, the same with online dealers.  I've never been to a website that will sell someone a gun without going through an FFL, largely because it's illegal.  The same with gun shows, yeah there's always one guy walking around with a sign saying he's selling his .22 for $1000 in a private sale, but those guys aren't nearly enough to arm an army.  The dealers at gun shows still have to perform background checks like any other gun store.  From listening to huge swaths of the media you'd think you just walk into one in a bloody t-shirt and everyone pushes a gun in your face with a sign that says "cash only no background checks" on their table.

I'll agree it's easy in that someone with no criminal background can buy a gun if they're radicalized.  The same goes for any other country where people can buy guns.  If you have a clean background, why wouldn't they sell you one?  If we had a way to tell if people had been radicalized that'd be great, but as far as I know we don't.

Relying on ISIS propaganda to determine the effectiveness of our firearms policy seems silly to me.  Granted if they released an article about how abortions are constantly advertised as being "10 minutes or less" at any drug store with a sign showing a dead baby on it, I'm sure the anti abortion folks would be reposting it like mad.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2590 on: May 09, 2017, 06:19:39 AM »
I find data like this incredibly interesting.  Crime rate is way down.  But people feel like it's way up.  Weird.



The same people feel the economy is in a slump and has been for years.  Few people bother to find out for themselves; most just accept what is presented in the media as truth.

That really applies to most people on most subjects, most of the time.

fdhs_runner

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Location: Suburban Wasteland of NC aka Fatalville
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2591 on: May 11, 2017, 05:09:36 AM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.

Yeah, not like they'd have any reason to lie about that.  The "gun show loophole" is so misunderstood it blows my mind, the same with online dealers.  I've never been to a website that will sell someone a gun without going through an FFL, largely because it's illegal.  The same with gun shows, yeah there's always one guy walking around with a sign saying he's selling his .22 for $1000 in a private sale, but those guys aren't nearly enough to arm an army.  The dealers at gun shows still have to perform background checks like any other gun store.  From listening to huge swaths of the media you'd think you just walk into one in a bloody t-shirt and everyone pushes a gun in your face with a sign that says "cash only no background checks" on their table.

I'll agree it's easy in that someone with no criminal background can buy a gun if they're radicalized.  The same goes for any other country where people can buy guns.  If you have a clean background, why wouldn't they sell you one?  If we had a way to tell if people had been radicalized that'd be great, but as far as I know we don't.

Relying on ISIS propaganda to determine the effectiveness of our firearms policy seems silly to me.  Granted if they released an article about how abortions are constantly advertised as being "10 minutes or less" at any drug store with a sign showing a dead baby on it, I'm sure the anti abortion folks would be reposting it like mad.

I'm still wondering where the Charlie Hebdo gunman and the Paris attackers got their guns ...

Also, thanks for pointing out existing Federal law. That's often sorely lacking from these discussions. I'm sure there are websites out there selling black market guns, just like there's websites out there selling drugs. It's called the 'Dark Web'.

Oh I know.  But it's just so interesting to see perception so divorced from reality.  We live in perhaps the safest time and in the safest country in all history.  And yet people feel unsafe.  It's just gobsmacking.

I wish I could agree, but after working in Korea for a year I can't. They have a city of around 25 million that has a homicide rate on par with Vermont (~1 per capita, contrasted with D.C.'s 15.9 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-4)
« Last Edit: May 11, 2017, 06:09:24 AM by fdhs_runner »

alexboy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2592 on: May 12, 2017, 05:19:14 AM »
I keep mine locked and loaded, safety on. But I have no children around to worry about.  My father keeps hist XD40 under the mattress, but I'm not as mad:)

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 837
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2593 on: May 13, 2017, 11:11:35 AM »
Also, thanks for pointing out existing Federal law. That's often sorely lacking from these discussions. I'm sure there are websites out there selling black market guns, just like there's websites out there selling drugs. It's called the 'Dark Web'.


I've always wondered about that.   If you buy something physical on the dark web - like a weapon - how do you get it delivered?

Presumably overnight shipping isn't going to work.

Do you have to travel to pick it up & then smuggle it back into the country yourself?

Are there delivery services (smugglers) on the dark web who can be hired to deliver it?

fdhs_runner

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Location: Suburban Wasteland of NC aka Fatalville
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2594 on: May 14, 2017, 11:45:38 AM »
Also, thanks for pointing out existing Federal law. That's often sorely lacking from these discussions. I'm sure there are websites out there selling black market guns, just like there's websites out there selling drugs. It's called the 'Dark Web'.


I've always wondered about that.   If you buy something physical on the dark web - like a weapon - how do you get it delivered?

Presumably overnight shipping isn't going to work.

Do you have to travel to pick it up & then smuggle it back into the country yourself?

Are there delivery services (smugglers) on the dark web who can be hired to deliver it?

Sometimes that stuff is simply mailed (https://www.stripes.com/news/2-us-soldiers-indicted-in-meth-smuggling-case-in-south-korea-1.458902#.WRiWluvyuUk), even into jails (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/03/10/jail-inmates-now-getting-drug-soaked-paper-through-mail-jails-moving-to-stop-it/?utm_term=.979269b23ab0). They can't search every package.

There's also plenty of legal firearms transiting the mail system, and the boxes aren't marked as such for obvious reasons.

Guide2003

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 139
  • Location: Southern AL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2595 on: May 29, 2017, 09:14:37 PM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.
Typical Washington Post, not doing their homework on the central tenet of the story. FFL's have to go through so much to get and maintain their license there's no way they would be willing to risk that for the small amount of money they would make off a semi-auto sold off the books. They are required to do a background check each and every time they sell a weapon. And even in the private sales I have seen, firearm owners are overly paranoid and take extra precautions than they need to. Americans are not "dumb" because we let individuals with no prior record buy guns; it is a bedrock principle for our society that people have the right to defend themselves until it is demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

It is ironic that articles like this don't discuss the MUCH GREATER problem of straw purchases, which will always be the more common way for criminals to get guns than black markets or "ghost guns." Clearly no one can argue with the premise that criminals don't abide by laws, and the only people who extra legislation restricts are the people you don't have to worry about.

Also, can you imagine anyone in combat in the middle east putting up with a non-select fire rifle??? No one would take them seriously. And why would anyone in America be worried about being shot by ISIS?
“We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty.” Mother Teresa

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8837
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2596 on: May 30, 2017, 06:09:03 AM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.
Typical Washington Post, not doing their homework on the central tenet of the story. FFL's have to go through so much to get and maintain their license there's no way they would be willing to risk that for the small amount of money they would make off a semi-auto sold off the books. They are required to do a background check each and every time they sell a weapon. And even in the private sales I have seen, firearm owners are overly paranoid and take extra precautions than they need to. Americans are not "dumb" because we let individuals with no prior record buy guns; it is a bedrock principle for our society that people have the right to defend themselves until it is demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

It's surprisingly easy to disprove your theory:

Quote
About 30 percent of inspected dealers had violated firearms regulations in 2011, and about 0.7 percent of them had their licenses revoked.
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/less-percent-noncompliant-gun-dealers-get-their-li/


Quote
"I don't need your address."

"No background check?"

"Nothing. Just show me that you're from Ohio."

"That's good about the background check because I probably couldn’t pass one."

"I don't care. All's I got to do is demand you show me your license."

"You don’t care about the background check, right?"

"Nope. Nope. I wouldn't pass either, bud."
-
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/exclusive-videos-show-gun-show-vendo


Yet more video showing the purchasing of firearms from licensed dealers without a background check: http://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=9680



I agree with you.  American's aren't dumb.  When they know there's little risk in doing something illegal, and there's profit to be made they'll jump on board.  Why wouldn't you?




Quote
It is ironic that articles like this don't discuss the MUCH GREATER problem of straw purchases, which will always be the more common way for criminals to get guns than black markets or "ghost guns." Clearly no one can argue with the premise that criminals don't abide by laws, and the only people who extra legislation restricts are the people you don't have to worry about.

Straw purchases are a big problem, agreed.  Unfortunately they're next to impossible to prevent without better records or some simple method of registering who owns which firearm.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 966
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2597 on: May 30, 2017, 06:48:04 AM »
ISIS is bragging about how easy it is to get guns for their purposes on the US.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/696912/isis-touting-american-gun-shows-easy-ways-snag-weapons

So, uh... #MAGA, I guess.
Typical Washington Post, not doing their homework on the central tenet of the story. FFL's have to go through so much to get and maintain their license there's no way they would be willing to risk that for the small amount of money they would make off a semi-auto sold off the books. They are required to do a background check each and every time they sell a weapon. And even in the private sales I have seen, firearm owners are overly paranoid and take extra precautions than they need to. Americans are not "dumb" because we let individuals with no prior record buy guns; it is a bedrock principle for our society that people have the right to defend themselves until it is demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

It's surprisingly easy to disprove your theory:

Quote
About 30 percent of inspected dealers had violated firearms regulations in 2011, and about 0.7 percent of them had their licenses revoked.
-
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/less-percent-noncompliant-gun-dealers-get-their-li/


Quote
"I don't need your address."

"No background check?"

"Nothing. Just show me that you're from Ohio."

"That's good about the background check because I probably couldn’t pass one."

"I don't care. All's I got to do is demand you show me your license."

"You don’t care about the background check, right?"

"Nope. Nope. I wouldn't pass either, bud."
-
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/exclusive-videos-show-gun-show-vendo


Yet more video showing the purchasing of firearms from licensed dealers without a background check: http://www.flyingpenguin.com/?p=9680



I agree with you.  American's aren't dumb.  When they know there's little risk in doing something illegal, and there's profit to be made they'll jump on board.  Why wouldn't you?




Quote
It is ironic that articles like this don't discuss the MUCH GREATER problem of straw purchases, which will always be the more common way for criminals to get guns than black markets or "ghost guns." Clearly no one can argue with the premise that criminals don't abide by laws, and the only people who extra legislation restricts are the people you don't have to worry about.

Straw purchases are a big problem, agreed.  Unfortunately they're next to impossible to prevent without better records or some simple method of registering who owns which firearm.

There's a big difference between being "non compliant" and selling multiple guns to terrorists.  Someone missing something on a form can make them non compliant, that doesn't mean they're selling boatloads of guns to anyone who walks in. 

For example, restaurants are allowed to make a 70/100 on their health inspection and still pass.  In 1/2 of the counties in this article, over 75% of the restaurants in that county had at least one health violation, which could be described as "noncompliant."  That doesn't mean they all need to be shut down, or that the violations were serious.  http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Restaurant-inspection-scores-vary-widely-11106553.php

From the link you posted:

Quote
"There’s a difference between people having a hard time trying to do the right thing versus people who don’t have any interest in doing the right thing at all," said Suzanne Dabkowski, a public information officer and industry operations investigator at ATF’s field division in Columbus, Ohio. "Most people do seem to want to do it correctly."

According to the ATF, it’s rare for a dealer to demonstrate a blatant disregard for the law — "willful" noncompliance. This can include serious violations like knowingly selling to straw buyers (someone buying a gun for someone else who wouldn’t be able to pass the background check) or minors or consistently ignoring ATF warnings, said Mike Bouchard, a former ATF assistant director for field operations.

Only in those cases does the ATF recommend revocation, and a separate process kicks in. The recommendation first goes through ATF internal review, including legal consultation. If the recommendation is approved, the dealer can request a hearing and make the case that its violations were not willful. Should the ATF decide to press on, the dealer can take the case to the U.S District Court.

Yes, the dealer willingly selling illegal guns is bad, and I'm betting has been taken care of.  I don't think anyone's arguing that no gun dealer has ever sold guns illegally, but we are arguing that it is rare.  If you consider prison time and confiscation of all of your inventory and being banned from the industry for life to be "little risk" then sure.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2598 on: May 30, 2017, 08:14:05 AM »

Quote
About 30 percent of inspected dealers had violated firearms regulations in 2011, and about 0.7 percent of them had their licenses revoked.

Wouldn't a little critical thinking tell you that if 30% had some sort of violation and only 0.7% had lost their license that those two stats don't line up?  That's like saying that some huge percentage of Americans are criminals and then supporting it with the fact that 30% had gotten speeding tickets.  Come on man. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

thegardener

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Dayton, OH
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2599 on: June 01, 2017, 11:47:40 AM »
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    I don't live in a dangerous area and the crime rate is very low; however, my county has 5 police officers. If something happened, they are not likely to get to my house very quickly. The exception would be a firetruck because they are housed right down the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   Yes. Not regularly with all of them, some of them I don't like to shoot that much. We have an AR-15 and several large shotguns that kick a lot. I can shoot them, but I much prefer handguns.

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  I have a spouse who also likes guns. He shoots the AR-15 and the shotguns more than I do. We don't have any kids, but if/when we do, they will be trained on how to use them when they're old enough.

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities? I live in a rural area that's pretty pro-gun and I don't expect to have any issues. It's not that uncommon to see lots of people walking around in Walmart with guns on them in my area. It's socially acceptable, people know how to use them, and it deters criminal activity. If you want to renew your CCW permit in my county, you have to schedule an appointment weeks in advance because they have such a large volume of people. My husband renews his in the next county over because you can just walk in without making an appointment.