Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345572 times)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #400 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

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #401 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

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #402 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: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #403 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: 658
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #404 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: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #405 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: 1239
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #406 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: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #407 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: 322
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #408 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: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #409 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.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #410 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!

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #411 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #412 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #413 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #414 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: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #415 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?

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #416 on: March 07, 2016, 07:39:47 AM »

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Yep, and actual studies, per the ATF, have determined that this lack electronic recordkeeping actually hinders investigations. Making phone calls, pouring over hundreds if not thousands of hand written "records" often times takes weeks and months.

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

Not all of us are ok with that...I loathe that my personal information is just a hacker's clicks away from being stolen.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #417 on: March 07, 2016, 07:40:13 AM »
I guess that's why it's so terrifying to live in dangerous places like Canada, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

You have to admit, the irony is funny.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #418 on: March 07, 2016, 08:36:54 AM »
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?

For that matter, how is it different from a list of Democrats? Or gay people? Or Jews?

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.

Who gives a shit? People have a right to do that! Just like they have a right to do a wide variety of other stupid things. It's a free country, you know -- but maybe you think that's the problem?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #419 on: March 07, 2016, 09:24:39 AM »
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?

For that matter, how is it different from a list of Democrats?

What I was proposing would only be usable by people responsible for public security to help the do their jobs.  It would be quite different, since the list of registered democrats is available to anyone:  https://www.propublica.org/article/is-your-neighbor-a-democrat-obama-has-an-app-for-that



Or gay people? Or Jews?

Are gun owners in the United States a persecuted minority who have been subject to violence, or are you just being silly at this point?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #420 on: March 07, 2016, 09:30:40 AM »
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?

For that matter, how is it different from a list of Democrats?

What I was proposing would only be usable by people responsible for public security to help the do their jobs.  It would be quite different, since the list of registered democrats is available to anyone:  https://www.propublica.org/article/is-your-neighbor-a-democrat-obama-has-an-app-for-that



Or gay people? Or Jews?

Are gun owners in the United States a persecuted minority who have been subject to violence, or are you just being silly at this point?

Steve:

This is what has been done with similar lists -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

In addition, medical data is frequently accessed w/o cause.  Why would this be any different?

I realize you are proposing safeguards, but that's part of where the resistance is coming from. 

Lastly, Canada gave up on a substantial part of their database.  Wasn't at least part of the reason because it was fairly ineffective?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #421 on: March 07, 2016, 10:41:27 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.
Who gives a shit? People have a right to do that! Just like they have a right to do a wide variety of other stupid things. It's a free country, you know -- but maybe you think that's the problem?[/quote]
Maybe we give a shit because they can do the same kind of damage (but potentially on a larger scale) as someone can do when driving drunk? 

I suppose I should think, well if they are stupid enough to have a gun around and be suicidal and kill themselves, that is their business, and I suppose in a certain light that makes sense, even if that person would not have successfully committed suicide without the handy gun. And yes, I know there are other ways to commit suicide, but guns are pretty popular when they are available.  It doesn't make sense to let someone get drunk and then be easily able to kill other people, whether it is with a gun or a car.  And yes, I know they can drink at home and then go shoot/drive into someone, but that doesn't mean we let people get drunk at a bar and then drive.

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.

So really the bottom line is, there are personal rights and responsibilities in any society, and then there are group/social rights and responsibilities, and where does any particular society draw the line?  I figure your right to do something ends when it impacts other people (whether it is you are polluting the river that others use, or being able to shoot someone whenever your choose because you have easy gun access), or drive drunk and possibly hit a car and kill or seriously injure the occupants) and you choose to be able to do some things even when they could easily negatively impact other people.

Re the tone of your last post, most of the non-American posters here have been polite and trying to understand why the differences in attitude, and the basically rude and "fuck-off it is our right" type of answers definitely don't help us understand.  The "it's a free country" doesn't help either, in many ways Canada is as free or freer than the US, we just don't tend to go around saying it as much.  Of course a huge proportion of the Americans replying here have been polite as well, so what is with the ones who are rude?  A well-thought out position does not need rhetoric or anger to be clear.


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #422 on: March 07, 2016, 10:53:27 AM »
It doesn't make sense to let someone get drunk and then be easily able to kill other people, whether it is with a gun or a car.  And yes, I know they can drink at home and then go shoot/drive into someone, but that doesn't mean we let people get drunk at a bar and then drive.

Being drunk with a gun is illegal.  In my state, you can have a gun in a certain establishments with alcohol but you can't drink a drop if carrying.

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.

Teenagers and 20 year olds can't buy pistols from a dealer or ammo for said pistols in any US state.  In most, if not all states, they can't carry a concealed weapon until 21.   

No one in the US is arguing for armed students in a high school.  It would be adults at colleges who are otherwise licensed to carry.

I think your fears about being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder are largely unfounded.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #423 on: March 07, 2016, 11:04:50 AM »
Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.


And what, exactly, is stopping an angry student from bringing a gun to the meeting now? A strongly worded sign?  It hasn't helped in any of the other schools where there have been shootings, so you are in as much danger right now as you would be with concealed carry on campus. 

If you don't like guns, don't carry one. No one is asking you to.  But don't pretend that, despite all evidence, concealed carry increases anyone's chance of being shot in a statistical manner.  Violent crime has been decreasing for decades in the US - despite gun laws loosening and despite the number of concealed weapons permits increasing and despite the number of guns being sold increasing.  No one is saying causation; but clearly the correlation doesn't fit gun control's agenda.
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 #424 on: March 07, 2016, 11:19:04 AM »
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?

For that matter, how is it different from a list of Democrats?

What I was proposing would only be usable by people responsible for public security to help the do their jobs.  It would be quite different, since the list of registered democrats is available to anyone:  https://www.propublica.org/article/is-your-neighbor-a-democrat-obama-has-an-app-for-that



Or gay people? Or Jews?

Are gun owners in the United States a persecuted minority who have been subject to violence, or are you just being silly at this point?

Steve:

This is what has been done with similar lists -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Yeah, that's bullshit.  I'd be pissed if someone gave out the personal information of every person with a driver's license too.  That's not what I'm proposing.

In addition, medical data is frequently accessed w/o cause.  Why would this be any different?

I realize you are proposing safeguards, but that's part of where the resistance is coming from. 

Medical data is frequently accessed without cause.  Would you propose that it be illegal or difficult for a doctor who needs your medical data to perform an emergency surgery?  Or would it make more sense to invest in better security protocols/monitoring?

What I'm proposing would work in a manner similar to your driver's license database.  It's would not be accessible to the public.  While I guess that there could be abuses by police, I'm kinda scratching my head to come up with a scenario where police would use the information that you have a gun to wreak havoc with your life.


Lastly, Canada gave up on a substantial part of their database.  Wasn't at least part of the reason because it was fairly ineffective?

No, our database was given up for political reasons by our previous right wing government (ostensibly for cost savings).  There was a long list of law enforcement personnel who wanted to keep the registry because they found it valuable for their work.

Rightflyer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Location: Eastern Ontario
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #425 on: March 07, 2016, 11:22:22 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.

It may not be funny to you.

But it is not ignorant. It actually sums up the situation accurately. 

If more folks heard the commonsense in this piece we'd all be better off.
Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #426 on: March 07, 2016, 11:25:52 AM »
If they can do concealed carry, how does anyone know they are carrying and drinking?
Being drunk with a gun is illegal.  In my state, you can have a gun in a certain establishments with alcohol but you can't drink a drop if carrying.

I taught 18 to well into middle age (College especially, University was mostly 18-22), so my students (if I had been in the US) could have carried guns.  Plus a lot of the comments on this thread have mentioned how poorly the American gun laws re purchase are enforced, so that does not necessarily mean that just because someone should not be able to buy something, they really can't buy it.  Hey, I know masses of people who did underage drinking in their teens, back when the legal age was 21.  As in, basically 99% of the people I went to university with.  Certainly even now, people in Hull (drinking age 18 and later bar closings) see kids coming over from Ottawa (drinking age 19 and earlier closings).
Quote
Teenagers and 20 year olds can't buy pistols from a dealer or ammo for said pistols in any US state.  In most, if not all states, they can't carry a concealed weapon until 21.
No one in the US is arguing for armed students in a high school.  It would be adults at colleges who are otherwise licensed to carry.

I'm in Canada, so I have no fears of being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder.

Quote
I think your fears about being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder are largely unfounded.[/i]

In Freakonomics, the authors argued that the rise in availability in abortions meant that many children who would have been raised in very dysfunctional homes were not being born, and so the demographic that tends to do these things got smaller.  Certainly as a population ages the incidence of violence goes down as well.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #427 on: March 07, 2016, 11:46:28 AM »
Are gun owners in the United States a persecuted minority who have been subject to violence, or are you just being silly at this point?

Steve:

This is what has been done with similar lists -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Yeah, that's bullshit.  I'd be pissed if someone gave out the personal information of every person with a driver's license too.  That's not what I'm proposing.

On the contrary; it is exactly what you're proposing!

Either that, or you're proposing ignoring the Freedom of Information Act, and allowing the list to become a tool to oppress whoever and whatever unpopular groups the government wants, in the same way that it can easily abuse the no-fly list / "terrorist" watch list.

A public list would be used to ostracize gun owners; a secret list would be arbitrarily and capriciously abused to deny people their rights. Neither option is tolerable, so the only viable solution is to not have a list in the first place.

Medical data is frequently accessed without cause.  Would you propose that it be illegal or difficult for a doctor who needs your medical data to perform an emergency surgery?  Or would it make more sense to invest in better security protocols/monitoring?

This is a terrible analogy:

First of all, that's not why all these medical databases exist. They're not there for the benefit of patients; they're there either (a) for the benefit of the insurance companies, who want to look for excuses not to pay claims, or (b) for the benefit of the government, who wants to crack down on doctors who prescribe "too many" controlled substances.

Second, somehow doctors made do without extensive medical histories in emergency situations for hundreds of years up to this point. You hugely exaggerate its importance.

Third, even if it really were extremely medically useful, there is no excuse whatsoever for it to be anything other than opt-in on the part of the patient. Why shouldn't a patient be allowed to choose whether his records are in the database? Why shouldn't he be allowed to decide to (for example) keep them in a USB drive he wears around his neck like a glorified medical ID tag instead?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #428 on: March 07, 2016, 11:51:19 AM »
Maybe we give a shit because they can do the same kind of damage (but potentially on a larger scale) as someone can do when driving drunk? 

So you support requiring background checks to purchase an automobile too, then?

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.

That can already happen. Do you think a student who's about to commit murder is going to care in the slightest about being charged with possessing a weapon on a college campus too? Do you think a student who flies into an irrational rage (as opposed to acting with premeditation) who didn't have a gun wouldn't just bludgeon you to death with a lamp or something instead?

These sorts of "what if" scenarios are a cheap attempt to inject emotional rhetoric into the debate, nothing more.

I'm in Canada, so I have no fears of being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder.

I'm in the US, so neither do I.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #429 on: March 07, 2016, 11:55:26 AM »
Are gun owners in the United States a persecuted minority who have been subject to violence, or are you just being silly at this point?

Steve:

This is what has been done with similar lists -

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

Yeah, that's bullshit.  I'd be pissed if someone gave out the personal information of every person with a driver's license too.  That's not what I'm proposing.

On the contrary; it is exactly what you're proposing!

Either that, or you're proposing ignoring the Freedom of Information Act, and allowing the list to become a tool to oppress whoever and whatever unpopular groups the government wants, in the same way that it can easily abuse the no-fly list / "terrorist" watch list.

A public list would be used to ostracize gun owners; a secret list would be arbitrarily and capriciously abused to deny people their rights. Neither option is tolerable, so the only viable solution is to not have a list in the first place.

Not according to the freedom of information act.

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

Exemptions:
7. law enforcement records or information

^ Gun ownership records would be for law enforcement, and therefore exempt from FOIA requests.  Your complaint doesn't make much sense in light of that.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #430 on: March 07, 2016, 12:04:38 PM »
Still asking, third time now:
I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk)


This is already illegal in some form or fashion, just about everywhere (the drinking while armed part) and being caught drinking (in a bar|in public|in your own front yard) with a weapon on you is a real good way to permanently lose your concealed carry license, in addition to arrest.

Quote

 and teachers who could have armed students.

Students & parents are prohibited from carrying inside any school, unless you are wearing a uniform and a badge, that the school called you (i.e. a cop parent typically can't show up at the school unannounced); however, a few school districts do permit teachers to carry concealed 1) if they are otherwise legally permitted and 2) the school administration is aware & does not have a particular objection.  In all cases, a person who is armed concealed is prohibited from telling anyone that shouldn't already know; students, parents, etc., because (legally speaking) telling someone that you are carrying a weapon concealed (other than a cop) can be construed as a threat, much like showing the weapon to someone (brandishing).

I didn't respond to this earlier, because I assumed you were being facetious.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #431 on: March 07, 2016, 12:07:55 PM »
It doesn't make sense to let someone get drunk and then be easily able to kill other people, whether it is with a gun or a car.  And yes, I know they can drink at home and then go shoot/drive into someone, but that doesn't mean we let people get drunk at a bar and then drive.

So we should have bars confiscate customer's keys when they walk into a bar so they can't drive home drunk? Or how exactly do you prevent people from driving drunk? There are laws against it, just like there are laws against carrying while drunk, and murdering people.

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.

If a student is intent on shooting people, there is nothing stopping them from putting a gun in their backpack right now and doing it. Sure, there are laws and policies against it, but those intent on murder rarely care about those laws. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, NIU, Fort Hood were all massacres that were committed in "feel good" gun free zones. Also, none of those individuals were even licensed to carry a firearm in public.

Why is a 21 year old student trusted to go to the grocery store and the movies while legally carrying a firearm but suddenly turns into a psychotic killer when he crosses that imaginary line onto campus?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #432 on: March 07, 2016, 12:09:05 PM »
Not according to the freedom of information act.

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

Exemptions:
7. law enforcement records or information

^ Gun ownership records would be for law enforcement, and therefore exempt from FOIA requests.  Your complaint doesn't make much sense in light of that.

You mistakenly think that just because I mentioned FOIA, that my argument relied on it. On the contrary: secrecy for such a list would be intolerably bad whether FOIA would allow it or not.

"Law enforcement records or information" is okay to keep secret until it affects how the government treats a member of the public. Evidence of a crime is secret only until the discovery phase of a trial, and if it were allowed to remain secret after that point it would be a big fucking problem. Similarly, keeping the database you propose secret after it was used to deny someone a carry permit would also be a big fucking problem for exactly the same reason. How is the press supposed to audit whether the database is being abused without it being public?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #433 on: March 07, 2016, 12:23:50 PM »
Not according to the freedom of information act.

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

Exemptions:
7. law enforcement records or information

^ Gun ownership records would be for law enforcement, and therefore exempt from FOIA requests.  Your complaint doesn't make much sense in light of that.

You mistakenly think that just because I mentioned FOIA, that my argument relied on it. On the contrary: secrecy for such a list would be intolerably bad whether FOIA would allow it or not.

"Law enforcement records or information" is okay to keep secret until it affects how the government treats a member of the public. Evidence of a crime is secret only until the discovery phase of a trial, and if it were allowed to remain secret after that point it would be a big fucking problem. Similarly, keeping the database you propose secret after it was used to deny someone a carry permit would also be a big fucking problem for exactly the same reason. How is the press supposed to audit whether the database is being abused without it being public?

What abuse are you expecting from a gun registry?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #434 on: March 07, 2016, 12:26:31 PM »
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.
Who gives a shit? People have a right to do that! Just like they have a right to do a wide variety of other stupid things. It's a free country, you know -- but maybe you think that's the problem?
Maybe we give a shit because they can do the same kind of damage (but potentially on a larger scale) as someone can do when driving drunk? 

I suppose I should think, well if they are stupid enough to have a gun around and be suicidal and kill themselves, that is their business, and I suppose in a certain light that makes sense, even if that person would not have successfully committed suicide without the handy gun. And yes, I know there are other ways to commit suicide, but guns are pretty popular when they are available.  It doesn't make sense to let someone get drunk and then be easily able to kill other people, whether it is with a gun or a car.  And yes, I know they can drink at home and then go shoot/drive into someone, but that doesn't mean we let people get drunk at a bar and then drive.

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself.  If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.

So really the bottom line is, there are personal rights and responsibilities in any society, and then there are group/social rights and responsibilities, and where does any particular society draw the line?  I figure your right to do something ends when it impacts other people (whether it is you are polluting the river that others use, or being able to shoot someone whenever your choose because you have easy gun access), or drive drunk and possibly hit a car and kill or seriously injure the occupants) and you choose to be able to do some things even when they could easily negatively impact other people.

Re the tone of your last post, most of the non-American posters here have been polite and trying to understand why the differences in attitude, and the basically rude and "fuck-off it is our right" type of answers definitely don't help us understand.  The "it's a free country" doesn't help either, in many ways Canada is as free or freer than the US, we just don't tend to go around saying it as much.  Of course a huge proportion of the Americans replying here have been polite as well, so what is with the ones who are rude?  A well-thought out position does not need rhetoric or anger to be clear.
[/quote]

I find it stunning that you think a law prohibiting someone from carrying a gun in a school would prevent someone from bringing one in anyway if they intended to shoot someone.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #435 on: March 07, 2016, 12:29:32 PM »

Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller
This is not uniform, but most private transfers are either 'brokered' through a dealer, and thus involved a background check; or are direct transfers between family members, i.e. father to son.  The 'gun show loophole' doesn't really exist, in practice, because a legitimate buyer doesn't want to ever buy a stolen gun; because the penalty for buying a stolen firearm is a bit harsh.  Nor does a legitimate seller want to sell to an unknown person, because there is some liability to selling to a criminal, should that weapon be used in a crime. 

Florida, as has been already noted, is a bit strange in this regard.
Quote

- No safety training to buy a gun

Not as a legal requirement, but training is pretty cheap overall, and most places offer some basic training "free" with a purchause.  And safety training is legally required in many cases, just not universally.

Quote
- No gun registry

No federal gun registry.  States do have them, with varying degrees of completeness.  Having a unified gun registry in Washington, DC would be akin to the Swiss registering their weapons in Brussels; or Canadians filing with the British crown.  It just doesn't make rational sense, in part because the laws vary significantly across jurisdictions.
Quote

- No license for firearm ownership

This depends both upon the state, and the type of firearm.

Quote

- No regulations related to firearm storage


Varies by state, but the above statement is generally false.

Quote

- The majority of states let you walk around with a loaded gun


This part is true, and is pretty much the point of the 2nd Amendment, as I have well established.

Quote
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.

You are missing the point.  It's not about the rules, it's about culture.  The US is a fairly violent society overall, as compared to many other Western nations.  However, the US has a high degree of cultural diversity (and don't give me the crap about Canada taking in more immigrants than the US, per capita, over the past couple decades.  Yes, we know.  The US has been doing this for 200 years.) and when we tolerate cultural diversity, there will be cases when those sub-cultures don't tolerate each other well.  If you were to compare the violent crime rates of individual states versus individual Canadian provinces and/or individual European states (which is the proper way to do it) you will find that several US states are on par with the best of the Canadian provinces & European nations.  Guns or no guns.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #436 on: March 07, 2016, 12:31:22 PM »
Quote
So you support requiring background checks to purchase an automobile too, then?
I support not letting someone who has no license drive a car, which can be a lethal projectile.  If someone can buy a gun without any training, how is that different?  You can buy guns in Canada - you have to take training and get a permit, same as for a boater's license or driver's license - so if you have a criminal record or major psychological problems, you won't get that permit.  Of course you can get one illegally, but that is why they are illegal. I could buy a gun if I lived in the US, and my total experience is one afternoon when I was 16 and was very informally taught how to shoot a .22.  Looking back, I shudder.  Yikes.  And I was careful, and the people I was with were careful - but we could all have been massively irresponsible. 

That can already happen. Do you think a student who's about to commit murder is going to care in the slightest about being charged with possessing a weapon on a college campus too? Do you think a student who flies into an irrational rage (as opposed to acting with premeditation) who didn't have a gun wouldn't just bludgeon you to death with a lamp or something instead?

Well, it has happened here, but with long guns, which ended up kick-starting the gun registry (see Ecole Polytechnique, Dawson).  But that takes a lot of extra planning.  No random student is going to be carrying, because no random person is going to be carrying. Someone upthread (GuitarStv?) listed the restrictions on carrying guns in Canada.  And I can defend myself somewhat from the lamp.

@armueller, I thought I saw on this thread or somewhere that recently in some states anyone can carry a concealed weapon on campus? 

And I think here a bar has obligations re drunk customers, certainly not to give them more, and I think there have been lawsuits?  At least in urban areas there is public transportation.  Plus bars are really good about designated drivers these days - if a person has a concealed carry, do they have a sober designated carrier? Cathy, where are you when we need you?
@JLee - of course someone who has real mental issues (which is what we have seen with almost all the Canadian shootings) can plan ahead and do the shooting.  It is more the spur-of-them-moment thing I am envisioning.
Quote
These sorts of "what if" scenarios are a cheap attempt to inject emotional rhetoric into the debate, nothing more.
Um, aren't all those "If I have a gun I can be the hero when a bad guy pulls out a gun" scenarios exactly that?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #437 on: March 07, 2016, 12:35:12 PM »

Re students, if I am having an after-class meeting in my office with a student who pulls a gun on me, I doubt I would be able to pull my own gun and defend myself. If I were teaching in a school that allowed students to carry guns, I would want a hot button that I could easily signal security with in my office, and hope the student wanted to vent before shooting me so security has time to arrive.  Of course then the student will probably kill both of us when security arrives.  But if the student finds me in the hallway?  I'm toast.  I'm amazed anyone would be a teacher under those conditions.  I was a teacher for 37 years, and I know how stressful teaching students in their late teens and early 20's can be anyway.


Jesus, you must be a serious dick as a teacher!  What are you doing?  Offering to fix their grades if they have sex with you?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #438 on: March 07, 2016, 12:40:51 PM »
If they can do concealed carry, how does anyone know they are carrying and drinking?
Being drunk with a gun is illegal.  In my state, you can have a gun in a certain establishments with alcohol but you can't drink a drop if carrying.

I taught 18 to well into middle age (College especially, University was mostly 18-22), so my students (if I had been in the US) could have carried guns.  Plus a lot of the comments on this thread have mentioned how poorly the American gun laws re purchase are enforced, so that does not necessarily mean that just because someone should not be able to buy something, they really can't buy it.  Hey, I know masses of people who did underage drinking in their teens, back when the legal age was 21.  As in, basically 99% of the people I went to university with.  Certainly even now, people in Hull (drinking age 18 and later bar closings) see kids coming over from Ottawa (drinking age 19 and earlier closings).
Quote
Teenagers and 20 year olds can't buy pistols from a dealer or ammo for said pistols in any US state.  In most, if not all states, they can't carry a concealed weapon until 21.
No one in the US is arguing for armed students in a high school.  It would be adults at colleges who are otherwise licensed to carry.

I'm in Canada, so I have no fears of being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder.

Quote
I think your fears about being gunned down by a licensed concealed carry holder are largely unfounded.[/i]

Retired -

1) 18-20 year old in most (if not all) states cannot legally carry a concealed weapon.  It's typically a felony.  Therefore most of them don't (except for the criminals).

2) It's illegal in most (in not all) jurisdictions to possess a firearm while drunk.  In my state, concealed carry holders cannot possess a weapon if they have a drop in a bar. 

So, in the US you have the same odds of being gunned down by 1) an 18-20 year old student legally carrying a concealed firearm and 2) the same odds of being shot by a drunken concealed carry holder legally carrying a firearm.

Those acts are illegal in both jurisdictions.   

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #439 on: March 07, 2016, 12:42:19 PM »
Not according to the freedom of information act.

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

Exemptions:
7. law enforcement records or information

^ Gun ownership records would be for law enforcement, and therefore exempt from FOIA requests.  Your complaint doesn't make much sense in light of that.

You mistakenly think that just because I mentioned FOIA, that my argument relied on it. On the contrary: secrecy for such a list would be intolerably bad whether FOIA would allow it or not.

"Law enforcement records or information" is okay to keep secret until it affects how the government treats a member of the public. Evidence of a crime is secret only until the discovery phase of a trial, and if it were allowed to remain secret after that point it would be a big fucking problem. Similarly, keeping the database you propose secret after it was used to deny someone a carry permit would also be a big fucking problem for exactly the same reason. How is the press supposed to audit whether the database is being abused without it being public?

What abuse are you expecting from a gun registry?

  • If public, "naming and shaming" of the sort Midwest cited
  • If secret, discrimination on who is "allowed" to own guns based on race and/or political ideology
  • If an authoritarian government came to power, a shortcut to confiscation (in exactly the situation where armed resistance would soon become necessary)

Quote
So you support requiring background checks to purchase an automobile too, then?

I support not letting someone who has no license drive a car, which can be a lethal projectile.

On his own property?

I ask because, as I've pointed out before -- and as you've apparently ignored -- you don't need a license merely to own a car, or to drive it in general. You only need it to drive a car on public roads.

Quote
These sorts of "what if" scenarios are a cheap attempt to inject emotional rhetoric into the debate, nothing more.

Um, aren't all those "If I have a gun I can be the hero when a bad guy pulls out a gun" scenarios exactly that?

Irrelevant. I never made such an argument.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #440 on: March 07, 2016, 01:02:48 PM »
Too hard to do quotes:

I have no objection to someone driving on their own property, or carrying a gun on their own property.  I live in farm country, and there are coyotes.  I know lots of people who have long guns and use them for coyote control, and I am fine with that.  I know conservation owners who will shoot someone's dog if that dog is worrying deer in a winter deer yard (and the little ones are the worst, but that is a different topic), and I am fine with that.   As I said way up thread, the discussion has shifted from in the home to in public, everything I have written since then has applied to public space.

I have taught students as old as 50, as do many other Community College teachers, so age limits are irrelevant for the discussion.

My emotional rhetoric reply was aimed at those who have made emotional rhetorical statements or posted similar stories on this thread - if you wrote one, I was talking to you.  If you didn't ignore the comment, it does not apply to you.

@Moonshadow, that was a dickish comment Jesus, you must be a serious dick as a teacher!  What are you doing?  Offering to fix their grades if they have sex with you?  Get real.  Students get seriously pissed at teachers when they do shit work and expect As, and get the Cs and Ds they deserve.  At my College we stopped posting class test results (totally anonymous) on our doors years ago, because building services got tired of fixing the holes in the walls (unhappy students really do take it out physically).   

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #441 on: March 07, 2016, 01:04:20 PM »

Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller
This is not uniform, but most private transfers are either 'brokered' through a dealer, and thus involved a background check; or are direct transfers between family members, i.e. father to son.  The 'gun show loophole' doesn't really exist, in practice, because a legitimate buyer doesn't want to ever buy a stolen gun; because the penalty for buying a stolen firearm is a bit harsh.  Nor does a legitimate seller want to sell to an unknown person, because there is some liability to selling to a criminal, should that weapon be used in a crime. 

Florida, as has been already noted, is a bit strange in this regard.

OK, if this existing loophole is never exercised as you claim . . . why not make a background check for all sales of firearms mandatory?  As you mentioned, it would really have no impact on law abiding gun owners.


Quote

- No safety training to buy a gun

Not as a legal requirement, but training is pretty cheap overall, and most places offer some basic training "free" with a purchause.  And safety training is legally required in many cases, just not universally.

Exactly my point!  Since training is so cheap and widely offered, it should be a mandatory part of all gun ownership.  It's already required some of the time, it should be required all the time for firearm ownership.

Quote
- No gun registry

No federal gun registry.  States do have them, with varying degrees of completeness.  Having a unified gun registry in Washington, DC would be akin to the Swiss registering their weapons in Brussels; or Canadians filing with the British crown.  It just doesn't make rational sense, in part because the laws vary significantly across jurisdictions.

There should be a centralized, easily searchable database of all guns and gun owners.  Criminals don't mind bringing guns across state lines, there needs to be an easy way to track these weapons.  This would help law enforcement crack down on gun shops who sell to criminals.  It would make it more risky for a private owner to sell a gun to a criminal.  By segmenting the data the way you're proposing, there is no benefit but there is significant disadvantage in terms of police effectiveness, and time/money spent investigating crime.

Quote
- No license for firearm ownership

This depends both upon the state, and the type of firearm.

Yes, but it shouldn't.  All firearms sold should require a license.  The license would make selling a gun privately much easier, because it would be proof of a passed background check.  A condition for the license would be basic safety training.


Quote
- No regulations related to firearm storage

Varies by state, but the above statement is generally false.



So, are 2/5ths of gun owners with children criminals . . . or are the laws just woefully inadequate regarding firearms storage?

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #442 on: March 07, 2016, 01:04:59 PM »
I recently watched the TV series "Revolution" and I thought that the first season of it was a well-executed piece of pro-Second Amendment propaganda. The premise of the show is that, for reasons which are initially unknown, the physics of electricity have stopped working in the world and only older technology is still operative. Most firearms are functional. In the aftermath of the shutdown of electricity, the world falls into chaos, with widespread senseless violence and crime. There is no longer any semblance of a society. A militia led by two main characters is eventually able to restore order in the territory of some of the former United States by winning a series of battles and consolidating power. To achieve peace, the new state confiscates all firearms from the population.

The main story of the first season takes place something like 10-15 years after these events, and by that time the new state has become dystopian and evil. The protagonists of the story eventually join up with a group of rebels (who call themselves Americans), but they're at a severe disadvantage without firearms. The story shows us how control over firearms is extremely powerful. The main characters have to go to great lengths to steal a single gun, and for the most part fight with bows and arrows and other inferior weapons. I won't spoil the story, but I thought it was a pretty good piece of propaganda. If you live in the United States, it is available on Netflix. I don't know whether it is available on Netflix for residents of Canada, but if it is, I would suggest that some of the posters here consider watching it.
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #443 on: March 07, 2016, 01:12:56 PM »




So, are 2/5ths of gun owners with children criminals . . . or are the laws just woefully inadequate regarding firearms storage?

Steve - If gun control advocates had their way, all guns would be stored in a safe which would make ownership more expensive and is largely unnecessary for the safety of children. 

My guns are unloaded in an accessible closet.  All are in cases.  Some cases are locked.  Some are not.  Kids are 7 and 12.  My 7 year old is banned from closet.  12 year old occasionally gets in it, but is trustworthy.

I've gone over basic gun safety with both.  Neither could load or operate the weapons without help.  All but one of my firearms is semi auto which makes operation for them even more difficult.

I suspect most accidents in the home with kids occur with guns that are left loaded and accessible.  A loaded weapon around kids is vastly different than an unloaded one put away.

« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 01:15:34 PM by Midwest »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #444 on: March 07, 2016, 01:14:25 PM »
Not according to the freedom of information act.

https://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx

Exemptions:
7. law enforcement records or information

^ Gun ownership records would be for law enforcement, and therefore exempt from FOIA requests.  Your complaint doesn't make much sense in light of that.

You mistakenly think that just because I mentioned FOIA, that my argument relied on it. On the contrary: secrecy for such a list would be intolerably bad whether FOIA would allow it or not.

"Law enforcement records or information" is okay to keep secret until it affects how the government treats a member of the public. Evidence of a crime is secret only until the discovery phase of a trial, and if it were allowed to remain secret after that point it would be a big fucking problem. Similarly, keeping the database you propose secret after it was used to deny someone a carry permit would also be a big fucking problem for exactly the same reason. How is the press supposed to audit whether the database is being abused without it being public?

What abuse are you expecting from a gun registry?

  • If public, "naming and shaming" of the sort Midwest cited
  • If secret, discrimination on who is "allowed" to own guns based on race and/or political ideology
  • If an authoritarian government came to power, a shortcut to confiscation (in exactly the situation where armed resistance would soon become necessary)

- Public listing of the database wouldn't happen.  As was mentioned previously, the database wouldn't be available under freedom of information requests if it's used for police work.  It would work much the same way as the driver's license database.  Have there been many instances of public naming and shaming using DMV records?

- The database wouldn't be secret.  In the same way that there are checks and balances built into the DMV records, there would be checks and balances built into the firearms registry.  Is discrimination based on race and political ideology a big problem when getting a driver's license?

- Where do you place the odds of an authoritarian government being elected into power in the US?  Then where do you really place the odds of a few guys with guns in their basements being able to fight off the tanks, jets, nukes, and predator drones that would be used to fight against them?  You're getting well into fantasy territory here.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #445 on: March 07, 2016, 01:26:05 PM »




So, are 2/5ths of gun owners with children criminals . . . or are the laws just woefully inadequate regarding firearms storage?

Steve - If gun control advocates had their way, all guns would be stored in a safe which would make ownership more expensive and is largely unnecessary for the safety of children. 

My guns are unloaded in an accessible closet.  All are in cases.  Some cases are locked.  Some are not.  Kids are 7 and 12.  My 7 year old is banned from closet.  12 year old occasionally gets in it, but is trustworthy.

I've gone over basic gun safety with both.  Neither could load or operate the weapons without help.  All but one of my firearms is semi auto which makes operation for them even more difficult.

I suspect most accidents in the home with kids occur with guns that are left loaded and accessible.  A loaded weapon around kids is vastly different than an unloaded one put away.

And like I posted earlier, my loaded unlocked weapon might as well be locked on the moon when it comes to my toddler.  I would bet money a full grown adult wouldn't be able to figure out how to rack and fire my basic shotgun, nevermind a 3y/o.  I'm not going to feel bad because "unlocked!" and "no trigger lock!" when someone doesn't understand what that means.  Yeah, if you leave your Glock on the bedside table where your kid can get it, you're an ass, but not all weapons are the same and not all solutions make sense for all situations. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #446 on: March 07, 2016, 01:32:08 PM »
- Public listing of the database wouldn't happen.  As was mentioned previously, the database wouldn't be available under freedom of information requests if it's used for police work.  It would work much the same way as the driver's license database.  Have there been many instances of public naming and shaming using DMV records?

- The database wouldn't be secret.  In the same way that there are checks and balances built into the DMV records, there would be checks and balances built into the firearms registry. 

So not secret, not public, but some quasi-privileged status in between, with nebulous "checks and balances" to protect it. Uh-huh, right.

Well, I guess I have no rebuttal to that, in the sense that an argument is impossible to rebut when it's so ill-defined as to be meaningless.

Is discrimination based on race and political ideology a big problem when getting a driver's license?

Yes, actually.

- Where do you place the odds of an authoritarian government being elected into power in the US? 

Have you seen who's leading the polls in the current Presidential election?!

Then where do you really place the odds of a few guys with guns in their basements being able to fight off the tanks, jets, nukes, and predator drones that would be used to fight against them?

First: I've already admitted earlier in the thread that in any such scenario, large percentages of the military would defect and armories would be raided.

Second: all you're doing is arguing that the Second Amendment should protect the right to bear tanks, jets, nukes and predator drones too!

Third: Every conflict since Vietnam has proven that small arms and guerilla tactics can go a long way.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #447 on: March 07, 2016, 01:44:02 PM »
- Public listing of the database wouldn't happen.  As was mentioned previously, the database wouldn't be available under freedom of information requests if it's used for police work.  It would work much the same way as the driver's license database.  Have there been many instances of public naming and shaming using DMV records?

- The database wouldn't be secret.  In the same way that there are checks and balances built into the DMV records, there would be checks and balances built into the firearms registry. 

So not secret, not public, but some quasi-privileged status in between, with nebulous "checks and balances" to protect it. Uh-huh, right.

Well, I guess I have no rebuttal to that, in the sense that an argument is impossible to rebut when it's so ill-defined as to be meaningless.

Yeah.  Like getting a driver's license.  They're not public, and as far as I'm aware abuses of the driver's license system for racially motivated or political reasons are pretty rare because of a good system of checks and balances.



Is discrimination based on race and political ideology a big problem when getting a driver's license?

Yes, actually.

So you couldn't find anything either then?



- Where do you place the odds of an authoritarian government being elected into power in the US? 

Have you seen who's leading the polls in the current Presidential election?!

Trump's an idiot, but his powers to totally change the US from a democracy to an authoritarian regime are heavily limited by the checks and balances built into the US government.



Then where do you really place the odds of a few guys with guns in their basements being able to fight off the tanks, jets, nukes, and predator drones that would be used to fight against them?

First: I've already admitted earlier in the thread that in any such scenario, large percentages of the military would defect and armories would be raided.

OK.  You admit that the firearms at home wouldn't matter at all in that scenario (however unlikely it may be).  Kinda proves the point that a list of who owns some guns doesn't matter then, doesn't it?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #448 on: March 07, 2016, 01:45:45 PM »

Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller
This is not uniform, but most private transfers are either 'brokered' through a dealer, and thus involved a background check; or are direct transfers between family members, i.e. father to son.  The 'gun show loophole' doesn't really exist, in practice, because a legitimate buyer doesn't want to ever buy a stolen gun; because the penalty for buying a stolen firearm is a bit harsh.  Nor does a legitimate seller want to sell to an unknown person, because there is some liability to selling to a criminal, should that weapon be used in a crime. 

Florida, as has been already noted, is a bit strange in this regard.

OK, if this existing loophole is never exercised as you claim . . . why not make a background check for all sales of firearms mandatory?  As you mentioned, it would really have no impact on law abiding gun owners.


I never did say never, I said that most private sellers do not sell to someone they don't personally know without involving a licensed dealer, for the reasons noted above.  If the background check were perfectly free, and failing to pass did not prevent an heir from the value of a gun collection; I could support a universal requirement for a quick check.  However, they are not always free currently & there are still some very big devils in the details.  The details would still matter to me.
Quote

Quote

- No safety training to buy a gun

Not as a legal requirement, but training is pretty cheap overall, and most places offer some basic training "free" with a purchause.  And safety training is legally required in many cases, just not universally.

Exactly my point!  Since training is so cheap and widely offered, it should be a mandatory part of all gun ownership.  It's already required some of the time, it should be required all the time for firearm ownership.

Sorry, but that is a constitutional issue, and would require a constitutional amendment.  As it is, it's almost as effective to do it voluntarily.  Rare is the person who legally owns a firearm, but doesn't know how the safety works.

Quote

Quote
- No gun registry

No federal gun registry.  States do have them, with varying degrees of completeness.  Having a unified gun registry in Washington, DC would be akin to the Swiss registering their weapons in Brussels; or Canadians filing with the British crown.  It just doesn't make rational sense, in part because the laws vary significantly across jurisdictions.
There should be a centralized, easily searchable database of all guns and gun owners.  Criminals don't mind bringing guns across state lines, there needs to be an easy way to track these weapons. This would help law enforcement crack down on gun shops who sell to criminals.  It would make it more risky for a private owner to sell a gun to a criminal.  By segmenting the data the way you're proposing, there is no benefit but there is significant disadvantage in terms of police effectiveness, and time/money spent investigating crime.

This would not actually change anything material about law enforcement tracing a weapon used in a crime, because licensed dealers are required to keep records forever.  And they are typically on paper, because many of their customers (and themselves) are suspicious that electronic records are too easy to access.  I would agree.  So the records exist, they are just not centralized.  I am not at all concerned about how much manpower the feds require to investigate, they can just hire more marshals

As for a "centralized, easily searchable database".  No.  I don't want it easy to search.  I want it difficult & full of checks and limits, if it exists at all.  Just no.  This is not negotiable.  This requirement will always kill any otherwise "common sense" regulation that can ever be proposed.  No.  If you would actually like to see gun owners bend a bit, and give a little towards unifying background check laws nationally, do not include this idea.

Quote

Quote
- No license for firearm ownership

This depends both upon the state, and the type of firearm.

Yes, but it shouldn't.  All firearms sold should require a license.  The license would make selling a gun privately much easier, because it would be proof of a passed background check.  A condition for the license would be basic safety training.

We need to get something straight here.  Your personal opinion about what should or shouldn't be has zero merit in this debate.  That said, my concealed carry license ID also functions as proof of a previously passed background check for most weapons, but some still require a quick check with the ATF; and it's voluntary.  So what you want can be accomplished, simply by advocating that every gun owner pursue a CCW, and the training comes as a bonus!  As a former member of the USMC, I automatically pass the safety rules for almost everything, but I still have to have a phone conversation with an ATF agent anytime that I buy a rifle that is considered "high powered, sniper class".  They ask me psych type questions, I suppose to make sure I'm not about to 'reach out and touch someone', since they taught me how.  I have bought enough of these to know that this never goes away, so I'm in a national database somewhere because I'm a military veteran with military grade firearms.  The databases exist, quit worrying about them all being in the same place.  They will never be completely accurate anyway.
Quote
Quote
Quote
- No regulations related to firearm storage

Varies by state, but the above statement is generally false.



So, are 2/5ths of gun owners with children criminals . . . or are the laws just woefully inadequate regarding firearms storage?

That infographic is bullshit.  I thought we all agreed not to post propaganda here, as if it was a legitimate argument.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #449 on: March 07, 2016, 01:47:35 PM »

- Public listing of the database wouldn't happen.  As was mentioned previously, the database wouldn't be available under freedom of information requests if it's used for police work.  It would work much the same way as the driver's license database.  Have there been many instances of public naming and shaming using DMV records?

Rather than DMV, let's look at the IRS.  They have been repeatedly hacked.  In addition, the employees of the IRS misused their power to target political groups they disagreed with.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/irs-tea-party-scandal-congress-nonprofit-obama


- The database wouldn't be secret.  In the same way that there are checks and balances built into the DMV records, there would be checks and balances built into the firearms registry.  Is discrimination based on race and political ideology a big problem when getting a driver's license?

See above analogy on the IRS.  Driver's licenses are common are not a hot button issue.  Guns are politically divisive.

- Where do you place the odds of an authoritarian government being elected into power in the US?  Then where do you really place the odds of a few guys with guns in their basements being able to fight off the tanks, jets, nukes, and predator drones that would be used to fight against them?  You're getting well into fantasy territory here.

I don't have a red dawn fantasy nor am I a military expert.  Having said that, I suspect hundreds of millions of firearms could have some impact in a conflict.  How much or how it would go?  I'd prefer to not to find out.