Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 466116 times)

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #300 on: March 04, 2016, 12:46:21 PM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


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

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

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


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #301 on: March 04, 2016, 12:49:12 PM »
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

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

Well, these are emotionally charged topics, and we both still live in a free country.  I'm sure we would get along just fine IRL, this medium lends itself to "safe disagreement" that couldn't be sustained, civilly, in real life.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #302 on: March 04, 2016, 12:50:29 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


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

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

Even if the numbers of encounters resolved by brandishing a firearm was included it would be incomplete.  Because that wouldn't take into account the number of encounters that would have been resolved by brandishing a piece of 2x4, a pipe wrench, a samurai sword, etc rather than a gun.

When you include pure hypotheticals (like crime allegedly prevented by brandishing a firearm), there's no end to the rabbit hole.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #303 on: March 04, 2016, 12:51:09 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

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

I list firearm deaths because firearms are the topic of conversation... you point out that if firearms did not exist, there would be no firearm deaths - true, but completely a straw man as firearms do exist, and are prevalent in the United States. There are firearm deaths in Canada, AUS, UK and just about every other country on the planet. The issue is, within the boundries of the United States, should 'public perception of safety' overrule the average citizen's right to bear arms. The answer is no - since firearm deaths have been declining (in both gross and per-capita rates), even as the number of firearms increase, it is very difficult to argue the needs of the public are being trampled by a citizen carrying a weapon on their person. Especially since the average, permitted, concealed weapon carrier has a much lower crime rate than the general population. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf  (Page 13 specifically)



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

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

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

You are absolutely right. Carrying a firearm for self defense is not the MOST effective way to protect ones self, nor is it the only way, nor is it likely to EVER be used.  However, it is still a person's RIGHT to choose to carry a firearm in self defense - and this in NO WAY infringes on anyone's else's rights. Someone's right to 'feel safe' in no way trumps anyone's right to self defense. They are welcome to be as afraid of a statistically unlikely event as they want - their fear does not trump anyone's right to defend themself.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #304 on: March 04, 2016, 12:52:27 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


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

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #305 on: March 04, 2016, 12:53:26 PM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


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

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

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


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #306 on: March 04, 2016, 12:54:04 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
You 't have to discharge a weapon to prevent a crime with it. See my example above.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #307 on: March 04, 2016, 12:56:54 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


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

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

Even if the numbers of encounters resolved by brandishing a firearm was included it would be incomplete.  Because that wouldn't take into account the number of encounters that would have been resolved by brandishing a piece of 2x4, a pipe wrench, a samurai sword, etc rather than a gun.

When you include pure hypotheticals (like crime allegedly prevented by brandishing a firearm), there's no end to the rabbit hole.

Again.... irrelavent. There are already laws and restrictions holding people who misuse, or are very likely to misuse, firearms accountable for their actions. The incredibly unlikely event of getting shot by someone you don't know in the United States is far outweighed by the right to defend oneself and to bear arms, irregardless of how likely that event may be.

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

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #308 on: March 04, 2016, 01:00:16 PM »

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

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

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

Having a gun on my person in a concealed manner in no way infringes on your rights or freedoms.

Taking away my freedom to have a weapon to allay your fear/distaste for guns does infringe upon my freedom.

Freedom is not absolute, but given the few incidents/problems with concealed carryholders it seems your fear is unfounded.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #309 on: March 04, 2016, 01:01:12 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


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

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
I can't find anything in this pdf that actually answers my question.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #310 on: March 04, 2016, 01:02:00 PM »
Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/

Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than than the US. They have virtually no privately owned firearms. Suicide ( though the argument that a person who wants to end their own life should be allowed to, if that's their true wish - it's their god damned body, aside) is another mental health issue. Gun advocates have long been pointing out we should increase mental health assistance - people still kill themselves in great numbers without firearms, even in the united states. It would be a much more effective use of resourses to address the root of the problem than to ban firearms (which is what you're proposing - nothing short of an all-out ban would remove firearms from people who become depressed).

Don't ban the tool - educate people to respect it. Address the problems related to suicide, as firearms are not the cause of the problem.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #311 on: March 04, 2016, 01:03:48 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

JordanOfGilead

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #312 on: March 04, 2016, 01:04:58 PM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


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

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

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


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
I would be interested to see that correlated to number of suicides as a whole. If more people are killing themselves, but the percentage of people using firearms to commit suicide has remained steady, or declined, would that not be an indication that the number of suicides are just on the rise and using a firearm to commit suicide is a part of that, as opposed to the argument that you are making that easy access to guns CAUSES suicides?

I don't have easy access to that kind of statistic, but as somebody who 1) suffers from depression, 2) owns firearms, and 3) has a brother who committed suicide without the use of a firearm, I would like to see a more comprehensive study than just "this correlation between these two (possibly) independent factors exists."

I am by no means trying to argue against the truth of the article you shared, I just don't think it accurately displays the bigger picture in terms of occurrences and methods of suicide as related to availability of firearms.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #313 on: March 04, 2016, 01:05:41 PM »
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


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



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



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

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


I can give you some of those:


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

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

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


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

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

Lott's data set had errors in it.

Quote
In this case, it appears that Lott's data set had errors in

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Aneja-Donohue-and-Zhang-ALER.pdf

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #314 on: March 04, 2016, 01:06:05 PM »

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

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

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances.

Okay, and our framers did that exact thing, and laid it out plainly that congress shall not infringe upon my right in any fashion.  In order to change that, since the US Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land, you have to convince 66% of the populations of individual states that your perspectives are correct; because mine are historically consistent with what the framers intended, as I have already shown.  Regarding the legitimacy of an absolute human right, statistics are irrelevant.  The next question then becomes, is the right to self-defense an absolute right, or something else?  If you believe that the 2nd should be interpreted based upon some other standard than as an absolute human right, make that case.  Please.

Quote

 The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Yeah!  We finally ended up there!  You opened it up, so here we go!

Gun control is always a  pre-emptive action taken against the individual right to self defense.  The classic false "fire!" in a theater argument is not pre-emptive.  Said another way, while it's true I don't have the right to start a panic, and therefore laws against doing so are legitimate laws; those laws don't require that I wear duct tape across my mouth as I enter the theater, nor do they prevent me from crying "Fire!", but simply penalize me for doing so without just cause.

Gun control regulations, being pre-emptive in nature, violate my right to bear arms whenever they prohibit or penalize my ownership or activity with a firearm, so long as the activity that I'm engaged in wouldn't already be illegal.  Killing another human being without just cause is already illegal, regardless of the method employed.  It's called murder when it's purposeful & manslaughter when accidental & negligent.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #315 on: March 04, 2016, 01:07:39 PM »

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

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

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

Having a gun on my person in a concealed manner in no way infringes on your rights or freedoms.

Taking away my freedom to have a weapon to allay your fear/distaste for guns does infringe upon my freedom.

Freedom is not absolute, but given the few incidents/problems with concealed carryholders it seems your fear is unfounded.

I don't disagree with your specific example. I was arguing at your broader assertion that I as a member of society have no place in telling you how you can protect yourself.

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #316 on: March 04, 2016, 01:08:31 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #317 on: March 04, 2016, 01:10:39 PM »
I like lots of butter on my popcorn  ;-)  How do you take yours?

ETA: since this thread has gone predictably off topic from "who has a gun in the house and why" I'll bow out and resume eating popcorn ;).
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!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #318 on: March 04, 2016, 01:12:22 PM »
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


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

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

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


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
I would be interested to see that correlated to number of suicides as a whole. If more people are killing themselves, but the percentage of people using firearms to commit suicide has remained steady, or declined, would that not be an indication that the number of suicides are just on the rise and using a firearm to commit suicide is a part of that, as opposed to the argument that you are making that easy access to guns CAUSES suicides?

I don't have easy access to that kind of statistic, but as somebody who 1) suffers from depression, 2) owns firearms, and 3) has a brother who committed suicide without the use of a firearm, I would like to see a more comprehensive study than just "this correlation between these two (possibly) independent factors exists."

I am by no means trying to argue against the truth of the article you shared, I just don't think it accurately displays the bigger picture in terms of occurrences and methods of suicide as related to availability of firearms.

Unfortunately most studies of sort are done through universities and grants and Congress has banned the use of federal monies to study firearms. Here is something I found:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

Quote
What makes guns the most common mode of suicide in this country? The answer: They are both lethal and accessible. About one in three American households contains a gun. The price of this easy access is high. Gun owners and their families are much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners. A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #319 on: March 04, 2016, 01:13:36 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #320 on: March 04, 2016, 01:18:48 PM »
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
How so?
I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?
Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.
This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

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

Surprisingly I would agree with you. Which is why I am glad the Supreme Court made the ruling it did in the Heller case. Using the definition of militia and it's context in the 2nd amendment, one could easily claim it was extreme gun control, that only certain individuals could own guns.

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

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

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

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

I am sorry, perhaps the word "specific" wasn't clear and I should have explained it further. I was looking for the specific (ie. exact) phrase. You were answering in generalities. I appreciate you finally answering though. It's important to understand the prefatory clause " A Well Regulated militia" does not exist in the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments therefore your assertion is invalid.


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

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

Sure they owned guns. I did not claim to the contrary. For other cases see U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). Interesting cases. Even more interesting to see the evolution of the 2nd amendment. Early on the discussion was about rights granted "as part of the militia." The Heller case over turned a statute that had been in place for 30+ years. Seems like a long time to have an "unconstitutional" staute in place.   

Anywho it's worth a looksie.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #321 on: March 04, 2016, 01:23:30 PM »
The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Yeah!  We finally ended up there!  You opened it up, so here we go!

Gun control is always a  pre-emptive action taken against the individual right to self defense.  The classic false "fire!" in a theater argument is not pre-emptive.  Said another way, while it's true I don't have the right to start a panic, and therefore laws against doing so are legitimate laws; those laws don't require that I wear duct tape across my mouth as I enter the theater, nor do they prevent me from crying "Fire!", but simply penalize me for doing so without just cause.

You do make a good point regarding the difference between pre-emptive and I would even bolster that with the argument that the government is not easily able to ban the media from publishing an article in advance.

Even so, I do not believe that negates my assertion that your right to self defense is absolute and that I as a part of society and government cannot place any restrictions whatsoever on it. I think all it does is present me with a higher burden of justification for restricting your choices of self defense.

Of course that assumes that the 2nd amendment which you stand behind is really all about self defense. Not everyone universally agrees with that position and a future Supreme Court could provide an alternative interpretation.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:25:13 PM by dramaman »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #322 on: March 04, 2016, 01:23:41 PM »

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:59:53 PM by MoonShadow »

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #323 on: March 04, 2016, 01:24:00 PM »
First one - no mention of the man carrying a gun - so any two other people could have restrained him until police came, could they not?

Second one - that could have gone wrong so fast in so many ways.  Does American Rifleman also report on the gone-wrong stories, so readers can see that it is not always the best choice?

Question - given the number of bar fights that happen because people do not exercise good judgement when drunk, why would anyone (including the proprietors) want to have anyone in a bar have access to a gun?   

Question - how are teachers reacting to knowing their students could be carrying a concealed gun?  I've heard enough bad College/University office hour stories that I would be very concerned about one-on-one meetings with disgruntled students in those situations.

Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.

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


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

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!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #324 on: March 04, 2016, 01:24:40 PM »
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No problem. I think the force feeding of opinion tend to happen on both sides. I think stats are pointless, personally. You can find stats to support both sides and you simply end up back at square one. Kind of like talking in circles with stats.   

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #325 on: March 04, 2016, 01:24:48 PM »

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

With regard to your posts on guns/suicide, taking my freedoms away because of another's potential choices (suicide) is a poor argument to me.  Suicide is horrible, but infringing my rights is worse.  Particularly when guns are only one of a multitude of ways to kill oneself.  Do we plan to ban cars and garages as well?  That seems just as effective and substantially more painless.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:28:49 PM by Midwest »

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #326 on: March 04, 2016, 01:28:57 PM »
It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. ...

I'm confused by your posts.

First, under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court does not have the power to invent new constitutional rights. It only has the power to "say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), including to say what the constitution protects. The opinions of the Supreme Court in Heller and its progeny did not invent any new right out of thin air; they merely stated what the Second Amendment means and what it protects. You may not like those opinions, but they are binding. As a result, it is merely an accurate statement of law to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, subject to certain conditions. It's not "disingenuous" to accurately state the law. Whatever may have been written in older books, the authors of those books did not possess the power to say what the law is, unlike the Supreme Court.

Second, the majority opinion in Heller expressly considers and rejects the claim that the Second Amendment had been interpreted differently in the past. That is actually one of the main things addressed in the opinion.

Third, as I have previously explained, the preface to the Second Amendment does not limit the scope of rights granted by the operative clause. It's very common in a legal document such as a contract, statute, or constitution, to have clauses in the main body of the instrument that go beyond the purpose announced in the preamble to the document.

For example, imagine that a high school contracted with a publisher to purchase some books and the preamble to the book sale contract stated that "WHEREAS a well-educated student body will be best positioned to attend University after high school". The body of the contract then goes on to describe the number of books that must be delivered and a variety of other more specific terms. Could the publisher later argue that, notwithstanding the specifics in the body of the contract, it only is contractually required to deliver a fraction of the books promised because only a fraction of students will go on to University? Of course not, because the preamble to the contract does not override the terms of the contract. These principles of interpretation of written documents are described in the Heller opinion itself, and in my previous post.

Fourth, 10 USC § 311(a) does not purport to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I am unsure why it was injected into this thread.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:30:51 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #327 on: March 04, 2016, 01:29:50 PM »

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
Absolutely untrue.  My BS was in psychology and never did anyone ever accept a correlation as causation.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #328 on: March 04, 2016, 01:30:36 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby (rather, a right) that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:33:12 PM by JLee »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #329 on: March 04, 2016, 01:33:49 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #330 on: March 04, 2016, 01:34:17 PM »

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised. Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 01:37:26 PM by dramaman »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #331 on: March 04, 2016, 01:35:25 PM »
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

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

Acually I have no intention of deliberately upsetting Jack nor have I stated anything offensive (at least not intentionally). I've read many of Jack's post's on other forums and he seems very intelligent (from my limited Internet contact). I've proposed the same questions (that I proposed to Jack) to real life friends and we have discussions about this very topic. So no I am not trolling Jack.

On the other hand I have decided not to engage Moonshadow (for obvious reasons) and I suppose that has upset him. I did take notice that he has started to respond to some of my comments on here. Perhaps I am not such a bad troll if he is still trying to get my attention ( : or a darn good one!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #332 on: March 04, 2016, 01:38:21 PM »

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #333 on: March 04, 2016, 01:39:29 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.
Ah yes, perhaps I misspoke; to clarify, accidental discharges are exceedingly rare without mechanical actuation of the trigger.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #334 on: March 04, 2016, 01:46:50 PM »

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1082
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #335 on: March 04, 2016, 01:50:11 PM »
It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. ...

I'm confused by your posts.

First, under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court does not have the power to invent new constitutional rights. It only has the power to "say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), including to say what the constitution protects. The opinions of the Supreme Court in Heller and its progeny did not invent any new right out of thin air; they merely stated what the Second Amendment means and what it protects. You may not like those opinions, but they are binding. As a result, it is merely an accurate statement of law to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, subject to certain conditions. It's not "disingenuous" to accurately state the law. Whatever may have been written in older books, the authors of those books did not possess the power to say what the law is, unlike the Supreme Court.

Second, the majority opinion in Heller expressly considers and rejects the claim that the Second Amendment had been interpreted differently in the past. That is actually one of the main things addressed in the opinion.

Third, as I have previously explained, the preface to the Second Amendment does not limit the scope of rights granted by the operative clause. It's very common in a legal document such as a contract, statute, or constitution, to have clauses in the main body of the instrument that go beyond the purpose announced in the preamble to the document.

For example, imagine that a high school contracted with a publisher to purchase some books and the preamble to the book sale contract stated that "WHEREAS a well-educated student body will be best positioned to attend University after high school". The body of the contract then goes on to describe the number of books that must be delivered and a variety of other more specific terms. Could the publisher later argue that, notwithstanding the specifics in the body of the contract, it only is contractually required to deliver a fraction of the books promised because only a fraction of students will go on to University? Of course not, because the preamble to the contract does not override the terms of the contract. These principles of interpretation of written documents are described in the Heller opinion itself, and in my previous post.

Fourth, 10 USC § 311(a) does not purport to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I am unsure why it was injected into this thread.

Sorry for the confusion. The Heller case is important because the outcome was essentially that the 2nd amendment "included" individual gun ownership. By a vote of 5 v 4.  If you read their dispositions on both sides they specifically discuss right of militia v individual in regards to the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They did not invent a new right. They decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as including "individual" gun ownership. And even some in that case still disagree.

My opinion of the historical perspective of the 2nd amendment comes from University Law papers and the one full book I read concerning history of the 2nd Amendment. I'll have to look at the dates because the Heller decision might have come afterwards. The 4 dissenters (there were only 5 non-dissenters) STILL conclude the original meaning of the 2nd applied only to well regulated militias, as it was explicitly stated.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #336 on: March 04, 2016, 01:50:54 PM »

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.

States can still establish standards for reciprocity, they just have to be "reasonable", whatever that might mean in context.  So if a state establishes minimum standards for reciprocity, the other states can either raise their standards or challenge the original standard as unreasonable.  I can't predict how that will turn out.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #337 on: March 04, 2016, 01:51:10 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed.  Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #338 on: March 04, 2016, 01:51:33 PM »

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.

I seriously doubt 25 states were that much more lenient.  Not sure how that benefited his citizens as reciprocity works both ways.  More likely the AG was just an anti gun prick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-restore-handgun-reciprocity-in-deal-with-republicans/2016/01/28/6f8c0240-c5d8-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #339 on: March 04, 2016, 01:53:06 PM »
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #340 on: March 04, 2016, 01:53:25 PM »

My opinion of the historical perspective of the 2nd amendment comes from University Law papers and the one full book I read concerning history of the 2nd Amendment. I'll have to look at the dates because the Heller decision might have come afterwards. The 4 dissenters (there were only 5 non-dissenters) STILL conclude the original meaning of the 2nd applied only to well regulated militias, as it was explicitly stated.

Did you read my post on this topic?


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #341 on: March 04, 2016, 01:55:08 PM »
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #342 on: March 04, 2016, 01:56:49 PM »

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
Absolutely untrue.  My BS was in psychology and never did anyone ever accept a correlation as causation.

My apologies.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #343 on: March 04, 2016, 01:58:18 PM »
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #344 on: March 04, 2016, 02:00:05 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #345 on: March 04, 2016, 02:06:50 PM »
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.

Do either of you realize I was discussing the CCW requirements in my state which requires training as well.  Pulling my quote out of context (which supports CCW) seems rather silly.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9507
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #346 on: March 04, 2016, 02:10:22 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

1.  Please feel free to review my original post (it's right here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492).  I don't even mention dropping a gun.  That whole conversation arc was entirely brought up by JLee.

Regardless of the digression, guns do discharge accidentally.  It happens.  There are multiple examples given in this thread.  Most people (you included) don't consider it safe to throw a gun on the ground for that reason.

2.  It's cool that you have sane gun laws.  Florida apparently does not.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #347 on: March 04, 2016, 02:15:57 PM »
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

1.  Please feel free to review my original post (it's right here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492).  I don't even mention dropping a gun.  That whole conversation arc was entirely brought up by JLee.

Regardless of the digression, guns do discharge accidentally.  It happens.  There are multiple examples given in this thread.  Most people (you included) don't consider it safe to throw a gun on the ground for that reason.

2.  It's cool that you have sane gun laws.  Florida apparently does not.

You said "slips out of its holster and discharges" -- if you don't mean "drop", do you mean "accidentally pull trigger"?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #348 on: March 04, 2016, 02:25:05 PM »
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.

Do either of you realize I was discussing the CCW requirements in my state which requires training as well.  Pulling my quote out of context (which supports CCW) seems rather silly.

Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #349 on: March 04, 2016, 02:28:08 PM »


That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

Steve - We agree, guns go off accidentally but they don't just go off when they hit the ground unless there is a malfunction.  Reporters are notoriously misinformed.  Several of the instances you cited involved guns in bags.  If a gun is floating around w/o a holster, the trigger could snag.

Further your examples included a 17 year old with a concealed pistol (illegal), a drunk with a gun (illegal) and a cop with a gun (nobody's arguing against that). 

Three of the five people either wouldn't be impacted by concealed carry (cop) or shouldn't have been carrying to begin with (drunk/17 year old).

While were on the subject of gun safety, ammunition is pretty safe unless loaded into a firearm.  This includes fires, dropping, hitting with hammer, etc.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 02:32:57 PM by Midwest »