Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345585 times)

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #450 on: March 07, 2016, 01:57:02 PM »
- 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.

I can tell you from experience, the Air Force alone could probably wipe out the vast majority of the population from the air. Firearms are pretty useless against long range bombers, F-15s, F14s, AC-130s, A-10s, etc.

Someone might get  a lucky shot in on a low flying aircraft (Helos) or when the A-10 is making a strafe run (they generally fly low altitude for this).

I kind of laugh when someone brings up the government turning on it's own people (as to why we need to arm ourselves). Believe it or not, the military is largely made up of folks like us who largely despise many aspects of the government.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #451 on: March 07, 2016, 02:02:06 PM »
Yeah.  Like getting a driver's license.  They're not public...

Of course they're public! That's how insurance companies look up how many points you have.

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.

Who said I was only talking about Trump?

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?

The "at all" part overstates my claim. Moreover, the Second Amendment is important as a deterrent to that scenario coming to pass in the first place.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #452 on: March 07, 2016, 02:04:02 PM »
- 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.

I can tell you from experience, the Air Force alone could probably wipe out the vast majority of the population from the air. Firearms are pretty useless against long range bombers, F-15s, F14s, AC-130s, A-10s, etc.

Someone might get  a lucky shot in on a low flying aircraft (Helos) or when the A-10 is making a strafe run (they generally fly low altitude for this).

I kind of laugh when someone brings up the government turning on it's own people (as to why we need to arm ourselves). Believe it or not, the military is largely made up of folks like us who largely despise many aspects of the government.

I agree the US military could eliminate the US populace with the weapons at it's disposal.  One would think we could eliminate ISIS as well....  If we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs against those barbarians, I think a civil war in the US would have similar restrictions.  I'll pass on finding out.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #453 on: March 07, 2016, 02:09:09 PM »
- 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.

I can tell you from experience, the Air Force alone could probably wipe out the vast majority of the population from the air. Firearms are pretty useless against long range bombers, F-15s, F14s, AC-130s, A-10s, etc.

Someone might get  a lucky shot in on a low flying aircraft (Helos) or when the A-10 is making a strafe run (they generally fly low altitude for this).

I kind of laugh when someone brings up the government turning on it's own people (as to why we need to arm ourselves). Believe it or not, the military is largely made up of folks like us who largely despise many aspects of the government.

I agree the US military could eliminate the US populace with the weapons at it's disposal.  One would think we could eliminate ISIS as well....  If we are fighting with one arm tied behind our backs against those barbarians, I think a civil war in the US would have similar restrictions.  I'll pass on finding out.

I don't see how those 2 are related at all. If the entire country of Syria was ISIS, yes we could wipe them out. Just carpet bomb Syria. But that's not really the case.

I personally am not too worried about the government turning on it's own citizens. Sort of tin foil hat territory. When I served, I fought for my country, not for the government and against my country.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 02:14:23 PM by BeginnerStache »

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #454 on: March 07, 2016, 02:18:53 PM »
Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller You qualified with most states, but in my state ALL purchases must be through a licensed FFL
- No safety training to buy a gun Hand guns require taking either a hunters education course or a course by a certified NRA instructor.  My course consisted of both classroom and live fire training.  No training necessary for long guns.
- No gun registry Every firearm is registered in my state, handgun or long gun.
- No license for firearm ownership No license per se, but everyone is fingerprinted and must pass a background check
- No regulations related to firearm storage None in the home but when transporting, all firearms must be in a case and unloaded.  You may only transport from a gunsmith, police station, or gun shop.
- 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.

Laws vary from state to state, be careful not to over generalize.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #455 on: March 07, 2016, 02:19:42 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.

I actually watched this series when it first came out, and I was struck with how poorly the writers understood firearms technology.  I would think that if it was pro-gun propaganda, they would have done better research.  Specifically, a world where electricity doesn't work anymore would not prevent most center fire weapons from being maintained, nor prevent the manufacture of new bullets for anything more modern than a Kentucky flintlock. (and there is some interesting history about how the Kentucky flintlock earned that name, and it's not because of where they were manufactured)  Any revolver used technology that is older than the industrial revolution, and can be safely fired using reloaded brass cartridges for generations.  I, personally, have whole cases of 22lr ammo, mostly because it's cheaper in volume and my two teenagers use mass amounts of it during 4H shooting season.  If a Revolutions type drop in publicly available technology (i.e. a Carrington Event) were to occur, I'd likely still be trading in 22lr manufactured decades prior after 15 years, because I'd know immediately how valuable high-quality modern ammo would become.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #456 on: March 07, 2016, 02:26:03 PM »
So if this were my proposal:

  • Concealed carry 50 state legal
  • Short barrel rifles 50 state legal
  • No magazine capacity limit
  • Suppressors 50 state legal

In exchange for:

  • All firearm purchases via licensed FFL dealer
  • Registration of all firearms (not retroactive, too difficult)
  • All owners submit to a background check
  • All owners must provide proof of safety/firearms training

Is this something those who want gun control would be in favor?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #457 on: March 07, 2016, 02:30:47 PM »
So if this were my proposal:

  • Concealed carry 50 state legal
  • Short barrel rifles 50 state legal
  • No magazine capacity limit
  • Suppressors 50 state legal

In exchange for:

  • All firearm purchases via licensed FFL dealer
  • Registration of all firearms (not retroactive, too difficult)
  • All owners submit to a background check
  • All owners must provide proof of safety/firearms training

Is this something those who want gun control would be in favor?
  If every transaction goes through a FFL dealer with a background check, why is there any need for a registry?

I'd be good with background checks on all firearms sales to non-family members, but the implementation is problematic.  For instance, can you loan a gun to friend?  For how long?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #458 on: March 07, 2016, 02:37:38 PM »
- 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.

I can tell you from experience, the Air Force alone could probably wipe out the vast majority of the population from the air. Firearms are pretty useless against long range bombers, F-15s, F14s, AC-130s, A-10s, etc.

Someone might get  a lucky shot in on a low flying aircraft (Helos) or when the A-10 is making a strafe run (they generally fly low altitude for this).

I kind of laugh when someone brings up the government turning on it's own people (as to why we need to arm ourselves). Believe it or not, the military is largely made up of folks like us who largely despise many aspects of the government.

While this is true, this fact doesn't materially change the fact that bombs & high dollar vehicles don't win wars, and they definitely can't subjugate ideologically driven populations.  And here is another fact, that I can offer from personal experience; those fancy vehicles require some serious industrial support to keep them flying.  If you don't think that the USMC, and probably the Army, doesn't have plans to make life very unsettling and rather unpeaceful in the event that one or more of the branches of the US military were to effect a 'coup'; then you haven't thought it through properly.  And, I also know from experience, some US cities are very well defended from air attack.  This might just pertain to Cincinnati, Ohio (my area of expertise, and the home of GE Aircraft engines, as well as Avon Manufacturing in Avondale (Avon is a chemical manufacturing plant, just think about it), just north of Cinci, as well as a former nuclear fuel processing site in Indiana) but I know of at least one phalanx CIWS hidden in plain sight on a high hill, and I would suspect at least two more exist.  There is no way that the Air Force is going to do anything unless they have control of that weapon, which they probably do; but the USMC (and Army) do know where it is. 

I know that some of you just looked up what a phalanx gun is, and are presently thinking "OMG! How could they hide that thing?!".  There are two of them rumored to be on the White House lawn.  Just look at the photos online, if you didn't know that it was supposed to be a giant computer controlled cannon, what would you say it looks like?
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 03:21:24 PM by MoonShadow »

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #459 on: March 07, 2016, 02:43:29 PM »
So if this were my proposal:

  • Concealed carry 50 state legal
  • Short barrel rifles 50 state legal
  • No magazine capacity limit
  • Suppressors 50 state legal

In exchange for:

  • All firearm purchases via licensed FFL dealer
  • Registration of all firearms (not retroactive, too difficult)
  • All owners submit to a background check
  • All owners must provide proof of safety/firearms training

Is this something those who want gun control would be in favor?
  If every transaction goes through a FFL dealer with a background check, why is there any need for a registry?

I'd be good with background checks on all firearms sales to non-family members, but the implementation is problematic.  For instance, can you loan a gun to friend?  For how long?

Here in Hawaii, while the transaction goes through an FFL, the background check is done by the police department.  As for loaning, I believe the law here is you may loan a long gun for up to 14 days.  Hand guns cannot be loaned out.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #460 on: March 07, 2016, 02:52:17 PM »
Yeah.  Like getting a driver's license.  They're not public...

Of course they're public! That's how insurance companies look up how many points you have.

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.

Who said I was only talking about Trump?

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?

The "at all" part overstates my claim. Moreover, the Second Amendment is important as a deterrent to that scenario coming to pass in the first place.

Yuuuuup.  Ever get an insurance quote online?  The last time I did that, the website asked me which vehicle I wanted a quote on - and listed four vehicles registered at my address.  My name is on one of them...but the insurance company knows exactly what is where.  All four were correct, too.

This must've been missed, since I'm still seeing concern about people legally carrying concealed firearms. It seems if this was a legitimate concern, you'd want to research the rate at which CCW holders commit crimes.

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?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #461 on: March 07, 2016, 02:58:55 PM »

This must've been missed, since I'm still seeing concern about people legally carrying concealed firearms. It seems if this was a legitimate concern, you'd want to research the rate at which CCW holders commit crimes.

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?

For those who are too lazy to look it up themselves, I'll save you the trouble. JLee is referring to the fact that, statistically speaking, gun owners who are willing to go through the CCW licensing process break the law at a rate about half that of uniformed police officers.  If you don't trust me, feel free to look it up yourself.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2016, 03:10:59 PM by MoonShadow »

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #462 on: March 07, 2016, 03:03:36 PM »
. . . 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 think this is, to be honest, a really good question.  I also think it's an area where I would like to see the NRA step up and show some leadership.  I'm an NRA member, gun owner and supporter of gun ownership, but I don't see a logical reason for fighting against background checks (except in the case of family sales/transfers and other specific, limited exceptions). 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #463 on: March 07, 2016, 03:13:58 PM »
. . . 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 think this is, to be honest, a really good question.  I also think it's an area where I would like to see the NRA step up and show some leadership.  I'm an NRA member, gun owner and supporter of gun ownership, but I don't see a logical reason for fighting against background checks (except in the case of family sales/transfers and other specific, limited exceptions).

I don't have a problem with background checks either, though the $15-30 fee that FFLs charge to do a transfer would be bothersome when you're buying a $100 .22 target rifle from someone (and people who don't care about laws won't bother with that anyway).

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #464 on: March 07, 2016, 04:26:15 PM »
. . . 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 think this is, to be honest, a really good question.  I also think it's an area where I would like to see the NRA step up and show some leadership.  I'm an NRA member, gun owner and supporter of gun ownership, but I don't see a logical reason for fighting against background checks (except in the case of family sales/transfers and other specific, limited exceptions).

As a gun owner who did have to go through a background check, I'm okay with this as well.  However, I think where it gets muddled is what constitutes a "pass" from a check.  Some of the stuff is easy, you're a felon you fail.  But there's some gray areas too particularly when it comes to mental illness.  Does a soldier with PTSD pass?  Someone with depression?  It's one of those things where it sounds good on the surface but can be abused to the point where anti-gun owners can use it as basis for denying people their rights. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #465 on: March 07, 2016, 06:33:28 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....   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.
....

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.

Well good. As long as you agree with the theory that people should be allowed to have guns in their own home, you're really 90% agreed with Americans. And since we're agreed upon in their own home, I can't imagine you would care which style of weapon they possess, nor how many bullets it holds.

As far as carrying in public, most states are moving towards the middle on that. States that haven't allowed it are increasingly allowing it, and states that have always allowed it are increasing requiring training to get a permit. So congrats on that win as well!

Note that none of the suggestions in this thread would make a measurable dent in violent crime, suicide rates, gun traffricing or mass shootings.  The suggestions, collectively, may reduce some accidents, but that was hardly the point of the discussion...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #466 on: March 08, 2016, 10:08:44 AM »

My grandfather also had an old shotgun with an 8 in barrel.  He might have had paperwork for it, but I never found it.  I didn't realize what it was until after I brought all the guns home, going through 4 states, I thought it was an old pistol.  If I had paperwork for it, it would have been his most valuable one, but I turned it into the police.

It was a pistol, if it was manufactured with a barrel less than 12 inches, and had a pistol grip; it only become class II if it was originally manufactured & sold with a barrel longer than 18.5 inches.  Shotgun pistols are still made & sold as normal handguns; that is what the Bond Arms' entire line is based upon, and the Taurus Judge 410 revolver also.  And if it was a .410 single shot break action, it was probably worth a fortune.  That gun is probably in some cop's safe, now.

I've missed a lot on this thread.  I had a 410 H&R Handy Gun, and here's the quick google search result:
http://www.gunvaluesboard.com/have-acquired-an-h-r-410-smooth-bore-handy-gun-that-would-grade-excellent...-30425650.html
The first reply is similar to what I had found previously (this was 8 years ago now):  Since I didn't have paperwork, it's an issue. 

On the second reply, I'm not sure when BATF relented on them.  I knew a few gun dealers, and none of them would touch it without paperwork. 

It was worth ~$1800 at the time, but I only got a portion of that, and it wasn't worth the risk to me to keep it.  My uncle (the owner) agreed.

My grandfather probably did have paperwork on it.  He was a lawyer though, and had about 15 filing cabinets, and I was never going to find it.


Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #467 on: March 08, 2016, 06:27:34 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
This second one has a good chart showing mass shootings death rates by country.

To the post above that questioned my statement that the US is about average  among Western nations for mass shootings. Try Google. The Wash Post isn't a crackpot gun nut kind of place, and even they agreed. The chart on the second link makes it even clearer.
The US is middle of the road for violence. Higher than most western countries, lower than most of the rest of the world. It's the people. Not the guns. Laugh if you like, and then go look at photos of those slaughtered in Rwanda, mostly killed by men wielding hoes and machetes. http://www.borgenmagazine.com/photos-from-rwandan-genocide/

Take a look at this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
You can see that gun ownership does not correlate well with violence. Europe the US Canada and Australia have lots and lots of guns, and low violence rates (even the US is low violence by world standards). Yemen also has lots of guns, and super high violence. Central African countries have super high violence, and some of the lowest gun rates in the world. Japan has few guns and low violence.

You are looking at it simplistically, looking for a link that just is not there. Why bother to try to control what is not the problem?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #468 on: March 08, 2016, 07:17:45 PM »
So if this were my proposal:

  • Concealed carry 50 state legal
  • Short barrel rifles 50 state legal
  • No magazine capacity limit
  • Suppressors 50 state legal

In exchange for:

  • All firearm purchases via licensed FFL dealer
  • Registration of all firearms (not retroactive, too difficult)
  • All owners submit to a background check
  • All owners must provide proof of safety/firearms training

Is this something those who want gun control would be in favor?

I think the argument that the transfer through an FFL is the hang up - instead, how about reforming the background check system so that individuals could use it. No need to drive 100 miles to an FFL - just ring them up.

As far as 'loaning' firearms - it would still be illegal to give a firearm to anyone disqualified from owning one due to criminal or mental history. So more incentive to check up on your new friend before you borrow them your hunting rifle. And I think 14 days is a good period - another useful law from HI.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #469 on: March 08, 2016, 07:26:03 PM »
What drives me nuts is the multiple checks for existing owners. I have firearms in my home. I had a background check when I got my FOID, and again when I got my CCW. Then I have the one when I buy a firearm. And now I get to go through another one anytime I buy a new weapon?  Come on. If I was going to do something bad, I would do it with a weapon I already own!  It's just silly meddling at this point. How about some common sense?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #470 on: March 08, 2016, 07:38:57 PM »
What drives me nuts is the multiple checks for existing owners. I have firearms in my home. I had a background check when I got my FOID, and again when I got my CCW. Then I have the one when I buy a firearm. And now I get to go through another one anytime I buy a new weapon?  Come on. If I was going to do something bad, I would do it with a weapon I already own!  It's just silly meddling at this point. How about some common sense?

Shhh... no one really wants common sense compromise. They either want to ban all the evil guns or own their own private flamethrower tanks with thousand-bullet clips for the shooting of the babies.

Also, those waiting periods should probably increase for each additional firearm you buy. Just in case you're waiting for one more to begin your suicide plot...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #471 on: March 09, 2016, 09:47:00 PM »
Wow has the thread ever shifted.   I think Spartana may win.
I should have bet you a dollar for every OT post - I'd be rich ;-)! But seriously I'm impressed everyone has been so polite and respectful even though it went OT mostly.  That's a change from gun threads in the past.
Retired at 42 to play!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #472 on: March 09, 2016, 09:56:41 PM »
Wow has the thread ever shifted.   I think Spartana may win.
I should have bet you a dollar for every OT post - I'd be rich ;-)! But seriously I'm impressed everyone has been so polite and respectful even though it went OT mostly.  That's a change from gun threads in the past.

Well, that's progress of a sort.

BeginnerStache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #473 on: March 10, 2016, 09:43:56 AM »
You have to admit, this is some pretty funny karma:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video/outspoken-gun-lobbyist-accidentally-shot-015455124.html

Especially the part where she praises her 4 year old for knowing how to shoot. Perhaps he did hit what he was aiming for? Not happy with his timeouts perhaps? 

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 490
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #474 on: March 10, 2016, 10:10:40 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.

I enjoyed that video as well.

As a liberal who doesn't understand the passion behind guns I i've pretty much just accepted that guns are here to stay so I just have to deal with it. That's society I guess. People just like guns.  I like fancy coffee.  Some people like fast cars. And other people like guns.  But let's not pretend that someone who likes guns is occupying some sort of superior form of freedom consciousness because they like guns, but I might like drugs.  The fact that my neighbor can own his own personal arsenal but I'm breaking the law for smoking some pot in my home is some next level freedom bullshit.   

So since I've given up on guns, if all you gun owners could do me a solid and not freak out when pot legalization is on the ballot in your state, i'd appreciate it. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #475 on: March 10, 2016, 10:49:45 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.

I enjoyed that video as well.

As a liberal who doesn't understand the passion behind guns I i've pretty much just accepted that guns are here to stay so I just have to deal with it. That's society I guess. People just like guns.  I like fancy coffee.  Some people like fast cars. And other people like guns.  But let's not pretend that someone who likes guns is occupying some sort of superior form of freedom consciousness because they like guns, but I might like drugs.  The fact that my neighbor can own his own personal arsenal but I'm breaking the law for smoking some pot in my home is some next level freedom bullshit.   

So since I've given up on guns, if all you gun owners could do me a solid and not freak out when pot legalization is on the ballot in your state, i'd appreciate it.

I voted for pot legalization.  Don't plan to partake while shooting.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #476 on: March 10, 2016, 11:30:50 AM »
I've got nothing against pot, and may even imbibe a little if it becomes legal in my state. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #477 on: March 10, 2016, 12:47:18 PM »

So since I've given up on guns, if all you gun owners could do me a solid and not freak out when pot legalization is on the ballot in your state, i'd appreciate it.

Ironically, I'm already on the list for fast track growers' permit in my state, should that ever become legally possible.  You are never going to find a true libertarian that gives a damn whether or not you prefer pot over alcohol.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #478 on: March 10, 2016, 12:49:30 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
  • Location: PNW
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #479 on: March 10, 2016, 12:55:51 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

It's news because it is fucking funny. She posts "my 4-year-old gets pumped up to go shooting" then gets shot by 4-year-old. This is not the only case of kids shooting their parents accidentally.
Wondrous: An Alice in Wonderland Inspired Adult Coloring Book

“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #480 on: March 10, 2016, 01:42:27 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

It's news because it is fucking funny. She posts "my 4-year-old gets pumped up to go shooting" then gets shot by 4-year-old. This is not the only case of kids shooting their parents accidentally.
It is also news because she said she has guns to keep her daughter and herself safe and.... yea, that worked well.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #481 on: March 10, 2016, 01:44:20 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

It's news because it is fucking funny. She posts "my 4-year-old gets pumped up to go shooting" then gets shot by 4-year-old. This is not the only case of kids shooting their parents accidentally.

It may be funny, but that's not why it's news.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #482 on: March 10, 2016, 03:20:59 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

It's news because it is fucking funny. She posts "my 4-year-old gets pumped up to go shooting" then gets shot by 4-year-old. This is not the only case of kids shooting their parents accidentally.
It is also news because she said she has guns to keep her daughter and herself safe and.... yea, that worked well.

People buy cars to drive themselves and their children places, and sometimes the kid pops it in gear and runs their parent over.
People buy Y to do X for themselves and their children, and sometimes they are careless, even just once, and it doesn't work so well.

I'm horrified by the disrespect that lady showed for firearms and passed on to her child, but the fact is, it's in the news BECAUSE it helps feed the gun control narrative, and because it happens so rarely it can get the spotlight, and yes, because it's ironic that it happened to someone outspoken about training her children how to use firearms. Looks like she should have done a better job.


protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #483 on: March 10, 2016, 06:08:01 PM »

On a serious note, WTF is a 4 year old doing with a loaded gun in the back seat of a car?

She is being investigated for this particular failure.  Have a little faith.  It's news because it's rare.  When was the last time a murder in Detroit was national, or even local, news?

It's news because it is fucking funny. She posts "my 4-year-old gets pumped up to go shooting" then gets shot by 4-year-old. This is not the only case of kids shooting their parents accidentally.
It is also news because she said she has guns to keep her daughter and herself safe and.... yea, that worked well.

People buy cars to drive themselves and their children places, and sometimes the kid pops it in gear and runs their parent over.
People buy Y to do X for themselves and their children, and sometimes they are careless, even just once, and it doesn't work so well.

I'm horrified by the disrespect that lady showed for firearms and passed on to her child, but the fact is, it's in the news BECAUSE it helps feed the gun control narrative, and because it happens so rarely it can get the spotlight, and yes, because it's ironic that it happened to someone outspoken about training her children how to use firearms. Looks like she should have done a better job.

It's not rare. In fact, it's rather common. The CDC has data up to 2013 on non-fatal injuries but it's hard to link to. Go to this page, select "Unintentional" in the first box and "Firearm" in the second, then click "Submit request" at the bottom, leaving all of the other options at their defaults. You'll see that there were 16,864 reported unintentional non-fatal firearm-related injuries in 2013.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #484 on: March 10, 2016, 06:26:20 PM »
Will you all just take it easy man

https://youtu.be/ZjibEkDoXQc
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #485 on: March 10, 2016, 07:18:32 PM »
Will you all just take it easy man

https://youtu.be/ZjibEkDoXQc

I'm calmer than you are.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #486 on: March 10, 2016, 07:51:16 PM »

So since I've given up on guns, if all you gun owners could do me a solid and not freak out when pot legalization is on the ballot in your state, i'd appreciate it.

Ironically, I'm already on the list for fast track growers' permit in my state, should that ever become legally possible.  You are never going to find a true libertarian that gives a damn whether or not you prefer pot over alcohol.

Merely legalizing pot doesn't go far enough; government shouldn't be requiring permits to grow it (or anything else without a damn good reason*, really) either.

(* e.g. cotton requires a permit because of the fight against the boll weevil)

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #487 on: March 10, 2016, 11:27:08 PM »

So since I've given up on guns, if all you gun owners could do me a solid and not freak out when pot legalization is on the ballot in your state, i'd appreciate it.

Ironically, I'm already on the list for fast track growers' permit in my state, should that ever become legally possible.  You are never going to find a true libertarian that gives a damn whether or not you prefer pot over alcohol.

Merely legalizing pot doesn't go far enough; government shouldn't be requiring permits to grow it (or anything else without a damn good reason*, really) either.

(* e.g. cotton requires a permit because of the fight against the boll weevil)
Baby steps, Jack.  We didn't get where we are today in any short time period, reversing it will still take some time.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #488 on: March 11, 2016, 11:21:28 PM »
People buy cars to drive themselves and their children places, and sometimes the kid pops it in gear and runs their parent over.
People buy Y to do X for themselves and their children, and sometimes they are careless, even just once, and it doesn't work so well.

I'm horrified by the disrespect that lady showed for firearms and passed on to her child, but the fact is, it's in the news BECAUSE it helps feed the gun control narrative, and because it happens so rarely it can get the spotlight, and yes, because it's ironic that it happened to someone outspoken about training her children how to use firearms. Looks like she should have done a better job.

It's not rare. In fact, it's rather common. The CDC has data up to 2013 on non-fatal injuries but it's hard to link to. Go to this page, select "Unintentional" in the first box and "Firearm" in the second, then click "Submit request" at the bottom, leaving all of the other options at their defaults. You'll see that there were 16,864 reported unintentional non-fatal firearm-related injuries in 2013.

That child should have gotten  background check.  Though I'm sure the mother did when she purchased her firearms....how could this perfect policy have failed!?  Hopefully she is able to sue the gun manufacturer - they should have put a child lock on that .45.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #489 on: March 12, 2016, 02:32:02 PM »
People buy cars to drive themselves and their children places, and sometimes the kid pops it in gear and runs their parent over.
People buy Y to do X for themselves and their children, and sometimes they are careless, even just once, and it doesn't work so well.

I'm horrified by the disrespect that lady showed for firearms and passed on to her child, but the fact is, it's in the news BECAUSE it helps feed the gun control narrative, and because it happens so rarely it can get the spotlight, and yes, because it's ironic that it happened to someone outspoken about training her children how to use firearms. Looks like she should have done a better job.

It's not rare. In fact, it's rather common. The CDC has data up to 2013 on non-fatal injuries but it's hard to link to. Go to this page, select "Unintentional" in the first box and "Firearm" in the second, then click "Submit request" at the bottom, leaving all of the other options at their defaults. You'll see that there were 16,864 reported unintentional non-fatal firearm-related injuries in 2013.

That child should have gotten  background check.  Though I'm sure the mother did when she purchased her firearms....how could this perfect policy have failed!?

Maybe because the purpose of background checks isn't to keep idiot parents from obtaining a gun? Too bad on that.

Hopefully she is able to sue the gun manufacturer - they should have put a child lock on that .45.

All snark aside, it is curious why medicine bottles have been child proof for years but heaven forbid you do the same with guns.

tyort1

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #490 on: March 12, 2016, 03:16:49 PM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).
Frugalite in training.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #491 on: March 12, 2016, 03:24:09 PM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

What you are referring too is commonly called a "smart gun", for which there are notorious problems.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #492 on: March 12, 2016, 03:25:48 PM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

This technology has existed for years, but until it's required by law it will never enter common usage. I think the arguments run toward reliability more than anything. More complicated weapons are less likely to work when you need them to. If there's a piece of tech that needs a battery, what happens if the battery runs down? What happens if you're wearing gloves when someone busts into your house?

It also adds considerable cost, which would prevent some people from being able to afford weapons.

big_owl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #493 on: March 13, 2016, 11:53:14 AM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #494 on: March 13, 2016, 12:21:45 PM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun.

One idea that is a bit better is an RFID tagged ring for the owner(s) of a particular weapon, but again, the tech isn't reliable enough.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #495 on: March 14, 2016, 07:47:56 AM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun.

One idea that is a bit better is an RFID tagged ring for the owner(s) of a particular weapon, but again, the tech isn't reliable enough.

The excuse that 'the tech isn't reliable enough' will always be around until it is mandated by government. These things never almost never develop organically. There has to be pressure on the companies to develop and mature the technology. Otherwise it is always easier to argue that consumers don't want to pay for a safer product.

The 'what if someone bursts into my house while I'm wearing gloves' excuse is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #496 on: March 14, 2016, 07:51:16 AM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun.

One idea that is a bit better is an RFID tagged ring for the owner(s) of a particular weapon, but again, the tech isn't reliable enough.

The excuse that 'the tech isn't reliable enough' will always be around until it is mandated by government. These things never almost never develop organically. There has to be pressure on the companies to develop and mature the technology. Otherwise it is always easier to argue that consumers don't want to pay for a safer product.

The 'what if someone bursts into my house while I'm wearing gloves' excuse is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.
You must've missed the thread that was discussing dressing in layered outdoor winter clothing so you could leave the heat off in your house in the winter. :P

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #497 on: March 14, 2016, 09:02:28 AM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun.

One idea that is a bit better is an RFID tagged ring for the owner(s) of a particular weapon, but again, the tech isn't reliable enough.

The excuse that 'the tech isn't reliable enough' will always be around until it is mandated by government. These things never almost never develop organically. There has to be pressure on the companies to develop and mature the technology. Otherwise it is always easier to argue that consumers don't want to pay for a safer product.

The 'what if someone bursts into my house while I'm wearing gloves' excuse is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.

Even if the scanner and processor were perfectly reliable, the device still relies on a solenoid to physically prevent the hammer from being released, which increases mechanical complexity and thus reduces reliability in and of itself. (In other words, a smart gun is inherently more likely to jam than an otherwise-equivalent 'dumb gun').

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #498 on: March 14, 2016, 11:25:42 AM »
Why take a perfectly functioning, weapon and make it more complicated and prone to problems and failure by adding electronic controls?
If you're worried about someone besides you using it, put it away somewhere.

 


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #499 on: March 14, 2016, 01:33:26 PM »
Why not put a finger print scanner on a weapon, like with an iPhone.  Building in biometric security seems like a great way to ensure the right people can use the weapon (i.e., the adults), and it protects your children while at the same time it prevents a burglar from taking the weapon from you and using it against you (happens pretty frequently).

The scanner on my iPhone is terrible.  As was earlier stated, you can't use it with gloves, sometimes it requires 2-3 attempts to get it to 'read' properly, and it is absolutely useless if your finger is at all wet.  This would be a terrible idea for a handgun.

One idea that is a bit better is an RFID tagged ring for the owner(s) of a particular weapon, but again, the tech isn't reliable enough.

The excuse that 'the tech isn't reliable enough' will always be around until it is mandated by government. These things never almost never develop organically.

Almost, although seat belts & air bags were well established safety options before they were mandated.  Let the tech mature before you use this argument.  As I have already said, if I have a right to defense of self (and I believe that went uncontested here) then I also have a right to the best technology available to that end, within rational limits.  In many cases, the best tech for self defense is a small, concealable handgun that can be counted upon to go "bang" when I pull the trigger.  If that doesn't include doubling the price of a handgun, as well as introducing new forms of failure (i.e. dead battery); then you don't really have a rational argument against the 'dumb gun' until the premium is about $10 and the reliability can be proven.  I think I might actually buy one of the smart guns that use the RFID ring, once they are on the market, because I like the idea that I can leave my carry weapon out of the safe while loaded, and expect that I'm not putting my small children in undue risk should they sneak into my room at night and get it off the nightstand.  Such as it is, I don't trust my small kids around my 'dumb' guns, and I keep them locked up.  If you don't think that loaded firearms around small children is a move in the correct direction, perhaps you shouldn't advocate for smart gun technology so readily.