Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 443673 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #350 on: March 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM »


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.

I wasn't criticizing you.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #351 on: March 04, 2016, 02:34:21 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).

And a fourth one was criminally charged. Ironic.

Quote from: GuitarStv
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.
Quote from: GuitarStv
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html
Quote from:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html]The police are charging the woman with “third-degree assault and reckless endangering.”

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #352 on: March 04, 2016, 02:34:30 PM »

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.

Oh, I don't believe that self-defense is an absolute right.  I agree that it places a high burden for justification upon anyone that would seek to restrict it, however; and that is actually my point.  It's a high bar, but I can see that it's not absolute; but the problem is, where is the breaking point?  I think that it's a question of 'reasonableness' but that is also a very subjective issue.  I'm going to switch sides, just for a moment, to argue in favor of gun control; but I'm going to use a scenario in a cartoon as my example.  Some years ago there was a cartoon series called Cowboy Bebop; the premise was space as a wild frontier.  The characters were obviously pro-weapon, as they had many.  But there was one particular episode where they were visiting a classical "space wheel" type space colony, and the local law was that projectile weapons were prohibited inside the space station, but melee weapons were not.  The reason presented (in the original Japanese, I don't know about the English version) was that any bullet traveling beyond the sound barrier posed an existential threat to the entire colony, because it could (not would) break through the pressure containment wall, & depressurize the space station, thus killing everyone.  (IRL, this is one reason that Air Marshalls use very expensive rounds that are designed to shatter against hard objects)  In this case, I can see that the method of self-defense could reasonably be restricted; because the risk was not simply mildly elevated for those around the fire-armed individual, but potentially widespread and catastrophic.  Which is pretty much the same case that I would make against private ownership of a satchel nuke.  Today, we have laws that either prohibit, or severely restrict, the exercise of the 2nd within particular contexts, such as in business that serve alcohol & in courtrooms; and pretty much for the same reasons, as those are locations that the odds of an emotional conflict rising to the level of physical conflict are higher than the general public.

Quote
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.

As far as I am concerned, the interpretation of SCOTUS is also irrelevant.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #353 on: March 04, 2016, 02:40:42 PM »


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.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #354 on: March 04, 2016, 02:48:09 PM »


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.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.

Dramaman - Not twisting anything.  Again not directed at you. 

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #355 on: March 04, 2016, 02:50:24 PM »

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.

Oh, I don't believe that self-defense is an absolute right.  I agree that it places a high burden for justification upon anyone that would seek to restrict it, however; and that is actually my point.  It's a high bar, but I can see that it's not absolute; but the problem is, where is the breaking point?  I think that it's a question of 'reasonableness' but that is also a very subjective issue.  I'm going to switch sides, just for a moment, to argue in favor of gun control; but I'm going to use a scenario in a cartoon as my example.  Some years ago there was a cartoon series called Cowboy Bebop; the premise was space as a wild frontier.  The characters were obviously pro-weapon, as they had many.  But there was one particular episode where they were visiting a classical "space wheel" type space colony, and the local law was that projectile weapons were prohibited inside the space station, but melee weapons were not.  The reason presented (in the original Japanese, I don't know about the English version) was that any bullet traveling beyond the sound barrier posed an existential threat to the entire colony, because it could (not would) break through the pressure containment wall, & depressurize the space station, thus killing everyone.  (IRL, this is one reason that Air Marshalls use very expensive rounds that are designed to shatter against hard objects)  In this case, I can see that the method of self-defense could reasonably be restricted; because the risk was not simply mildly elevated for those around the fire-armed individual, but potentially widespread and catastrophic.  Which is pretty much the same case that I would make against private ownership of a satchel nuke.  Today, we have laws that either prohibit, or severely restrict, the exercise of the 2nd within particular contexts, such as in business that serve alcohol & in courtrooms; and pretty much for the same reasons, as those are locations that the odds of an emotional conflict rising to the level of physical conflict are higher than the general public.

Okay. My bad. I previously responded to a general statement that you made that seemed to imply that your right to self-defense and choice of self-defense was absolute and nobody could legitimately restrict that.

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.

As far as I am concerned, the interpretation of SCOTUS is also irrelevant.

I'm not sure why you think how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd amendment is irrelevant seeing as how they are the highest court in the land to weigh in on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and could do it again. I don't know if you think you have some god given right to guns, but the only real thing keeping our government from restricting that right any further is what is written in the 2nd amendment and how the Supreme Court interprets that writing.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #356 on: March 04, 2016, 02:55:34 PM »


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.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.

Dramaman - Not twisting anything.  Again not directed at you.

Okay, my bad. Total misunderstanding on my part, Midwest. To sum it up, I got confused as to who I was responding to. Yes, I knew you weren't criticizing me in the earlier post. I had posted basically to agree with you that Metric Mouse and Moonshadow were talking about general gun purchases and not concealed carry. When you followed up that you weren't criticizing me, I wasn't paying attention and thought I was responding to Moonshadow or Metric Mouse. My bad.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #357 on: March 04, 2016, 03:01:24 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.
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 #358 on: March 04, 2016, 03:14:06 PM »

I'm not sure why you think how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd amendment is irrelevant seeing as how they are the highest court in the land to weigh in on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and could do it again. I don't know if you think you have some god given right to guns, but the only real thing keeping our government from restricting that right any further is what is written in the 2nd amendment and how the Supreme Court interprets that writing.

I mean that I consider the right to self-defense to be a basic human right, and the opinion of SCOTUS could not possibly alter that.  Yes, their opinions do and will have a practical effect on the exercise of the 2nd, but I consider the 2nd to be an admission of an existing common law right, not the extension of a privilege.  Should SCOTUS reverse itself on this issue, it would simply be wrong.  Such a decision, and the resulting political action it would permit, would be casus belli for invoking the implicit threat embodied in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.  As such, any such reversal by SCOTUS would prove catastrophic.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #359 on: March 04, 2016, 03:43:10 PM »
As to the reciprocity question, it looks like that backfired upon the AG of Virginia...

Further executive action from Democrats in Virginia received a lot of attention at the national level when the attorney general announced a plan to unilaterally eliminate the state’s gun carry agreements with most other states. The backlash resulted in a deal to expand Virginia’s gun carry recognition rather than curtail it. That deal was signed into law at the end of February.

It's an enormous irony, that as anti-gun liberals advocate for greater restrictions on private weapons ownership and use by whatever means possible; the general public responds by buying more guns.  I suspect that does not bode well for the future viability of gun control legislation in most of the United States.  Even I am amazed by the sales rate.  Taken one for one (even the article mentions that this is a risky assumption) 5,158,876 background checks so far this year implies that more than 2% of the adult population bought a firearm. (245,273,438 adult population, circa 2014 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/39,40,41/416,417

2% in 2 months.  OMG.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #360 on: March 04, 2016, 03:43:32 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #361 on: March 04, 2016, 03:44:46 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #362 on: March 04, 2016, 03:46:41 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #363 on: March 04, 2016, 03:50:14 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #364 on: March 04, 2016, 04:27:12 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #365 on: March 04, 2016, 04:35:15 PM »
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.



GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #366 on: March 04, 2016, 04:39:11 PM »
I don't have strong feelings about silencers either way.  Certainly they should be available for target shooting, that makes sense.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4362
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #367 on: March 04, 2016, 04:46:19 PM »
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.
Explain the logic for the other side?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #368 on: March 04, 2016, 05:11:50 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.

So your concept of a compromise, so that I may exercise a right guaranteed to my by the 2nd amendment, is to surrender a right to privacy guaranteed to myself by the 4th & 5th?  That is a non-starter.

The privilege to drive a vehicle on the public roads is not a right.  The ability to freely travel is a right, but that can be exercised effectively by hiring a cab.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #369 on: March 04, 2016, 05:21:25 PM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3476550/He-really-John-Wick-Amazing-video-emerges-action-man-Keanu-Reeves-blasting-way-compound-variety-guns-trains-film-sequel.html

Based upon this video alone, Keenu Reaves is no stranger to firearms.  That was basically a 3-gun competition run, and he didn't look like he missed a single target.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #370 on: March 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM »
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.
Explain the logic for the other side?

Silencers make a regular gun look scary
Silencers make a gun quieter... so like, cops won't be able to hear a criminal use it, and won't be able to rush to the scene...
only assassins use silencers.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #371 on: March 04, 2016, 05:31:09 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.

So your concept of a compromise, so that I may exercise a right guaranteed to my by the 2nd amendment, is to surrender a right to privacy guaranteed to myself by the 4th & 5th?  That is a non-starter.

The privilege to drive a vehicle on the public roads is not a right.  The ability to freely travel is a right, but that can be exercised effectively by hiring a cab.

Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?  In what way?  How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6762
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #372 on: March 04, 2016, 05:46:27 PM »
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.

Answers anyone?  Re question 2, we also have to remember that the Concordia shootings were a psychologically disturbed professor shooting colleagues with a handgun (possession of which was of course illegal in Quebec/Canada).

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 1 - 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 2 - 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.  And there are some very disturbed students out there who carry grudges against teachers.

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!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #373 on: March 04, 2016, 06:19:15 PM »
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

Quote

How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?

Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To require that a citizen surrender their right to privacy, in order to exercise another right without interference; particularly when that database exists for the explicit reason to scan for violation of a current (or future) law, is to require that citizen to become a witness against themselves.

On another note, the database that you expect already exists.  But as a matter of law, they are separated and must be managed by the states individually; and cannot be used for criminal cases, but only for the collection of statistical data, without a court order.  In my home state of Kentucky, there is also the legal requirement that if anyone, including an agent of the federal government carrying an otherwise lawful court order to do so, were to arrive at the institution that operates this database demanding more than a single person's records, the operator must destroy the entire database.  And the feds know this, and therefore wouldn't likely bother.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #374 on: March 04, 2016, 06:27:26 PM »
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.


I had no comment on the stories in the Rifleman, because I don't consider them particularly important, so I ignored your prior commentary.  Don't take it personally, I've been ignored at least three times today.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #375 on: March 04, 2016, 06:57:27 PM »
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

The government has a database of your social security number, which they use to keep track of your earnings for tax purposes.  If you're not on that list you can't easily get a job.  It's fully searchable.  Same thing with passports.  You need to be on the list for passports, or your freedom to travel is restricted.  And driver's licences.  How is any of this different than a searchable list of gun owners?



Quote

How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?

Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To require that a citizen surrender their right to privacy, in order to exercise another right without interference; particularly when that database exists for the explicit reason to scan for violation of a current (or future) law, is to require that citizen to become a witness against themselves.

On another note, the database that you expect already exists.

How does a list of gun owners cause a violation or surrendering of privacy, but the existing list of drivers/licences not cause the same violation?  How does a list of gun owners compel someone to be a witness against himself, but the list of drivers/licenses not cause the same violation?  I'm not following your reasoning at all.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 06:59:28 PM by GuitarStv »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #376 on: March 04, 2016, 07:22:44 PM »
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

The government has a database of your social security number, which they use to keep track of your earnings for tax purposes.  If you're not on that list you can't easily get a job.  It's fully searchable.
It is actually against the law for the Social Security department to share your personal information with other departments without your consent, same with the IRS.  I not going to claim that it doesn't happen anyway, because I'm sure that it does, but it's against the law.

Quote

 Same thing with passports.  You need to be on the list for passports, or your freedom to travel is restricted.

Indeed it is, but only to other countries.  That rolls back to the whole international treaty issue.  And it's not actually required for an American citizen to have a passport to leave the country.  It's just that other countries don't have to let you in.

Quote

  And driver's licences.  How is any of this different than a searchable list of gun owners?


As I already said, the privilege of driving on public roads is, itself, not a right.

Quote
How does a list of gun owners cause a violation or surrendering of privacy, but the existing list of drivers/licences not cause the same violation?  How does a list of gun owners compel someone to be a witness against himself, but the list of drivers/licenses not cause the same violation? I'm not following your reasoning at all.

That much is apparent.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #377 on: March 04, 2016, 09:47:41 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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Well that's less stringent than I would like, but not a bad place to start. Can we have background checks be run by civilians, so that I can sell a gun to my relative without the undue burden of a licensed firearm dealer? Simple phone call, pass/ no pass ruling. (I.e. no personal info passed on to caller). And mandatory safety training in primary school, such as thr NRA Eddie Eagle program?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #378 on: March 05, 2016, 04:53:14 AM »
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.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Well that's less stringent than I would like, but not a bad place to start. Can we have background checks be run by civilians, so that I can sell a gun to my relative without the undue burden of a licensed firearm dealer? Simple phone call, pass/ no pass ruling. (I.e. no personal info passed on to caller). And mandatory safety training in primary school, such as thr NRA Eddie Eagle program?

A pass/no pass phone call would make sense, but don't see how it could work without without some personal information to ID the person selling and person receiving the weapon to record the transfer and to know who to search records for.  Mandatory safety training in primary school is a bit of a sticky issue, since some would see it as indoctrinating children with guns.  I'm generally in favour of it, but wouldn't want it run by the NRA.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6762
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #379 on: March 05, 2016, 05:02:07 AM »
You see, that is interesting in itself, because some people think stories like that justify the "I can save people from bad guys if I am out there with a gun" thinking.

I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.


I had no comment on the stories in the Rifleman, because I don't consider them particularly important, so I ignored your prior commentary.  Don't take it personally, I've been ignored at least three times today.
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!

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #380 on: March 05, 2016, 09:33:45 AM »
Wow has the thread ever shifted.   I think Spartana may win.




MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #381 on: March 05, 2016, 03:01:16 PM »
You see, that is interesting in itself, because some people think stories like that justify the "I can save people from bad guys if I am out there with a gun" thinking.


I don't know why you seem surprised, since I have made it rather clear that the relative increase or decrease in statistical risks matter not to my mind.  It all comes down to this, do I have a basic human right to self-defense?  If I do, then I also have a right to at least the same quality & type of weapon that is available to my greatest threats, as well as an actual right to make use of them.  If I consider my greatest threat to be the rise of a tyrannical version of my own government, or the invasion of a foreign army; then I have a right to (conventional) weapons of war, although I can agree that the society at large can impose polite limitations on how & where those weapons of war can be made use of, at least during peaceful times.  (BTW, despite few actual laws that prohibit morons from carrying an AR15 into a WalMart for a shopping trip, it is considered rude and a sign of general stupidity)  Likewise, however, if I'm arming against being mugged or robbed; say I'm a convenience store owner in a shifty neighborhood, who has to carry cash deposits to the bank on a regular basis; I have a right to arm up with the best weapon that I consider reasonable, which would likely be a single handgun with enough rounds available to make myself feel comfortable.  Perhaps I'm getting old, and am not quite as good a shot, nor as quick at reloading a spare magazine, as I was at 20. (shot capacity is a case of diminishing returns, but I should be the one to decide where the extra round isn't worth the extra bother).  The actor I posted the 3-gun video about, Keenu Reeves, has been asked about gun ownership, and has stated "why not? but I don't own any"; while Ice-T (rapper & actor) has been asked the same questions and said, "I'll give up my guns when everyone else does first".  Both, apparently, are quite proficient with firearms, whether or not they own them, or rent them.  Reeves apparently doesn't feel unsafe in his life, but Ice-T was born in Newark, New Jersey; and grew up surrounding by, and occasionally a member of, street gangs.  For both of them, the risks of ever being shot are very, very low; just as they are low for most of us.  Yet, it's not like famous & rich rappers have never been assassinated.  In fact, one google search tells me that a rapper called "Bankroll Fresh" was assassinated just this morning by "drive by".  One might assume, outside looking in, that some subcultures in the United States are more violent than others.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #382 on: March 05, 2016, 03:15:16 PM »
Mandatory safety training in primary school is a bit of a sticky issue, since some would see it as indoctrinating children with guns.  I'm generally in favour of it, but wouldn't want it run by the NRA.

Why not the NRA?  How about 4H? http://www.4-hshootingsports.org/

Or better yet, Appleseed http://appleseedinfo.org/

Both of those organizations actually are indoctrinating children with guns, and I approve of that.  The NRA mostly just teaches kids to tell an adult.  Appleseed teaches the child how to put a 22 rifle round through a quarter at 25 yards.  Those people are truly hard core markspeople.  I was a "sharpshooter" grade shooter with my M16 in the USMC, and I have taken the Appleseed test twice, and never really came close.  Yet, I once saw a 10 year old girl draw smiley faces & hearts on paper plates with a 22 rifle at an appleseed event, 25 yards away.  Appleseed has a 95%+ first time failure rate, even after 2 days of training, but if you pass, you legally earn the privilege of buying a surplus military rifle from the US government itself; at cost, not market.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 03:16:57 PM by MoonShadow »

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6762
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #383 on: March 06, 2016, 05:55:40 AM »
Still asking, third time now:
I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.
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!

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #384 on: March 06, 2016, 06:36:04 AM »
Quote
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

Who's "on edge?"  I live in a decent neighborhood.  But NO NEIGHBORHOOD is without bad people.  I'm perfectly calm.  The only person who needs to be "on edge" is the dumb SOB who makes the mistake of trying to break into my house for drug money (or whatever) at 2 AM.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

Not as much as I used to.  I should do it more, just because it's fun.  But I spent a lot of time in the military, I'm pretty sure I can still handle a weapon competently, just as I found I could ride a bike when I started riding last month, for the first time in 30 years.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

My spouse will be right there with me.  I'll have the shotgun or the AR15.  She'll be backing me up with a 9mm pistol.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Why would the police arrest me?  I left the People's Republic of New York for Texas a long time ago.  They might compliment my our shooting skill, though.

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

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #385 on: March 06, 2016, 06:44:04 AM »
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

steviesterno

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #386 on: March 06, 2016, 08:03:58 AM »
Still asking, third time now:
I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.

in Texas it's legal to carry in in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but not a bar (51% of sales come from booze). It's legal to have some drinks and carry, but not be intoxicated. same rules as driving. same common sense applies

As a teacher, I think we should be able to carry on campus. legal students, too. walking onto a campus doesn't make a non-violent person go crazy, and the only thing keeping guns off campus is a sign that says "Please No Guns". That doesn't stop anyone with the intent to do harm, only those of us with a dedication to following the laws.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #387 on: March 06, 2016, 12:37:13 PM »
I am interested in the thoughts of the people here who would like to see tighter restrictions or fewer guns. Why?
Would you be afraid to live in New Zealand? A million guns among 4 million people. Or Canada, which has nearly the gun ownership levels of the US? Or Switzerland? Which mandates citizens to own guns.
I don't think it's the guns. Both Mexico and Canada border the US. Mexico has strict gun laws, and Canada doesn't (comparatively). Why is Mexico so very much more violent than Canada and the US? It cannot be the proximity to the US that is the deciding factor.
The question isn't guns. It's violence. The Swiss trust their neighbors with machine guns. The British don't trust each other with kitchen knives.

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #388 on: March 06, 2016, 03:46:05 PM »
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #389 on: March 06, 2016, 06:15:15 PM »
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this
Maybe it got better later, but after the first few minutes I stopped watching. Not that funny, and fairly ignorant.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1237
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #390 on: March 06, 2016, 07:42:40 PM »
I think safety is a valid concern, and you have to find a balance that makes sense to you. Statistics only matter if you're not one of the ones it happens to. On that, 30 year olds don't get cancer and pregnant women don't get hit by cars. Both happened to my wife. shitty, even if the odds were against it.

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

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

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary. Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #391 on: March 06, 2016, 09:57:17 PM »

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary. Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...

It's a good point, Australia has had low crime rates recently. People exaggerate the upward blip in the year or two after the confiscation. But, what about the steady decline in US crime in the last 15 years, as gun laws were significantly loosened?
Gun laws tightened, crime stays about the same, maybe a slight drop. Gun laws loosened, crime falls sharply. I don't believe it is causation for either statistic.
Why would that gun control law in AUstralia prevent mass shootings? Earlier in this topic, it was discussed that in Australia about two thirds of the guns remained in private hands, and one third were confiscated. And by now, the number of guns is back where it was before the law. There is no link, no causation. Mass murders are such statistical anomalies that any country can go years without one, and then have a bunch all at once. People think the US has uniquely high levels of mass shootings, but they don't. Among advanced, western nations, the US is rather average.
What the US has is world exposure. The US press loves these things, and other country's press loves to make their own countries look good compared to the US. Plus, the US is so big that you have to add up nearly the entire EU to equal its population. Easy to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in X years. The US is ten times the Aussie population, and can be expected to have ten times the number of anything crazy.
What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 358
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #392 on: March 07, 2016, 01:13:09 AM »

What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.

Can you imagine? "Well, with the Main St. Elementary School incident, that brings mass clubbings up to 25 this year. Senator Feinstein is leading calls for club control, but strong opposition from interest groups, most prominently PGA and MLB, has derided Feinstein and like-minded congress-people for what they see as taking advantage of a national tragedy. As they point out, 'members of organizations such as the NFL have proven on countless occasions that savage beatings will happen even in the absence of blunt objects.' PGA and MLB spokespeople have returned to their typical refrains, that these are unstable individuals in difficult environments acting out their frustrations. 'It is embarrassing to vilify clubs time after time when there is a clear problem of job satisfaction that we need to tackle in this country. As sad as it is to say, the beatings will likely continue until morale improves.' "

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4362
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #393 on: March 07, 2016, 05:00:57 AM »

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary. Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...

It's a good point, Australia has had low crime rates recently. People exaggerate the upward blip in the year or two after the confiscation. But, what about the steady decline in US crime in the last 15 years, as gun laws were significantly loosened?
Gun laws tightened, crime stays about the same, maybe a slight drop. Gun laws loosened, crime falls sharply. I don't believe it is causation for either statistic.
Why would that gun control law in AUstralia prevent mass shootings? Earlier in this topic, it was discussed that in Australia about two thirds of the guns remained in private hands, and one third were confiscated. And by now, the number of guns is back where it was before the law. There is no link, no causation. Mass murders are such statistical anomalies that any country can go years without one, and then have a bunch all at once. People think the US has uniquely high levels of mass shootings, but they don't. Among advanced, western nations, the US is rather average.
What the US has is world exposure. The US press loves these things, and other country's press loves to make their own countries look good compared to the US. Plus, the US is so big that you have to add up nearly the entire EU to equal its population. Easy to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in X years. The US is ten times the Aussie population, and can be expected to have ten times the number of anything crazy.
What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.
Though I disagree with your assertion that we have same amount of mass shooting as other first world countries, I want to focus on your last statement.  Yes, some violent people might use other weapons but as shown by the Japanese knife attack at a school, compared to our school shooting, more people live through a knife attack.  You can fight back against a person with a club or knife in a way you cannot with a gun.  That makes a major difference in lives lost.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #394 on: March 07, 2016, 06:01:23 AM »

What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.

Can you imagine? "Well, with the Main St. Elementary School incident, that brings mass clubbings up to 25 this year.

Haha, mass clubbings. Heck why stop at caring if it's a gun or swords. If there is no difference let's teach them how to fly F-14s and they can drop ordinance.  What about access to Nuke's?

Kind of like saying what's the difference between 1 life or 14 lives. Well 13 lives is the difference. I suppose for some, as long as it isn't their life, who cares!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #395 on: March 07, 2016, 06:17:38 AM »
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this
Maybe it got better later, but after the first few minutes I stopped watching. Not that funny, and fairly ignorant.

I understand. Satire isn't for everyone. And not everyone gets it. I laughed my rear end off.

"Naked with a holster" hilarious!!!!

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #396 on: March 07, 2016, 06:57:29 AM »
I am interested in the thoughts of the people here who would like to see tighter restrictions or fewer guns. Why?
Would you be afraid to live in New Zealand? A million guns among 4 million people. Or Canada, which has nearly the gun ownership levels of the US? Or Switzerland? Which mandates citizens to own guns.
I don't think it's the guns. Both Mexico and Canada border the US. Mexico has strict gun laws, and Canada doesn't (comparatively). Why is Mexico so very much more violent than Canada and the US? It cannot be the proximity to the US that is the deciding factor.
The question isn't guns. It's violence. The Swiss trust their neighbors with machine guns. The British don't trust each other with kitchen knives.

In New Zealand:
- You have to pass a safety test and have a license to get a gun (involves background check).  Your license must be renewed every few years.
- There is an additional special license that you need to apply for if you want to own a pistol, and it can only be used for competition shooting.  You can't walk around with a loaded pistol (actually to transport a pistol at all it has to be kept in a locked container with ammunition stored separately).
- When transporting a firearm, it must be unloaded.
- The amount of ammunition that you can transport is limited.
- There are strict regulations related to firearm storage

In Canada:
- You have to pass a safety test and get a license to get a gun, and have to renew it every few years (licensing involves a background check)
- There are strict regulations related to firearm storage
- You're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon in Canada
- You typically can't carry a gun around with you unless it's unloaded (and then only for transport), or you are actively hunting.
- Carrying a hand gun requires permission which is difficult to get
- Owning a hand gun is difficult in Canada, and there are dramatically fewer handguns floating around as a result

In Switzerland:
- Firearm safety training is mandatory for most young men
- Strict regulations for firearm storage
- You need a license to own a gun
- It's illegal to carry a gun around with you except in rare work related circumstances (like if you're a security guard and having the gun is part of your job)
- All weapons are registered with the government.


Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller
- No safety training to buy a gun
- No gun registry
- No license for firearm ownership
- No regulations related to firearm storage
- The majority of states let you walk around with a loaded gun


The number of guns in a country doesn't directly correlate to safety, so maybe we should look at the different rules and regulations that make gun ownership so much safer in other countries with high gun ownership.  Every country you mentioned that has a lot of guns has tighter restrictions on them than the US.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 06:59:14 AM by GuitarStv »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #397 on: March 07, 2016, 07:04:31 AM »
^ I read that as "in other countries it is very difficult or impossible to defend one's self." 

I guess for some that's something to aspire to?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9066
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #398 on: March 07, 2016, 07:22:27 AM »
I guess that's why it's so terrifying to live in dangerous places like Canada, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #399 on: March 07, 2016, 07:25:31 AM »
There seems to be a substantial emphasis here on the "in the US you can walk around with a loaded gun and in other countries you can't."  How many crimes are committed by people legally carrying concealed firearms?