Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345934 times)

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #350 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 #351 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #352 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #353 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #354 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 #355 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 #356 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 #357 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #358 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #359 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #360 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #361 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #362 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 #363 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #364 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 »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #365 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #366 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 #367 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #368 on: March 04, 2016, 02:38:59 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.
Yes I was being unreasonable to make a point. If 2 guys knocked on my door looking for someone that didn't live there I would just tell them that thru the closed door. If they continued hang around or did something threatening I'd probably call the cops rather then open my door, show them I'm armed and hope they are scared enough to run away and never come back. As a single female who lives alone and is about as intimidating as Tinker Bell, I prefer to lay low about the fact that I am armed and alone unless directly threatened. And who knows, two burly guys at my front door may just turn out to be undercover cops.As a former LEO who has  CCW and often carries (under the pink Hello Kitty hoodie ;)) I do not make it known to anyone I'm carrying unless I need to.

ETA I also never said anything about firing on someone Wyatt Earp style  - only brandishing your weapon for no apparent reason. Which I don't consider that to be a reasonable response when two seemingly  unarmed men  come knocking on your door looking for someone who use to live there. 

Now back to my popcorn!
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 03:32:04 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #369 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #370 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 #371 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 #372 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #373 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 #374 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 #375 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #376 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 #377 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #378 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 #379 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #380 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 #381 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #382 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #383 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 #384 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 #385 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: 567
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #386 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #387 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: 5186
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #388 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)


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #389 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 #390 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #391 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 #392 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #393 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #394 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: 5186
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #395 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.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #396 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 #397 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 #398 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: 5186
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #399 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.