Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 394709 times)

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #450 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: 530
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #451 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 #452 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #453 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 #454 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

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #455 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: 906
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #456 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: 491
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #457 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: 1134
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #458 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: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #459 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 #460 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 #461 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: 888
  • Location: PNW
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #462 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.
“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: 4292
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #463 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 #464 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: 584
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #465 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: 641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #466 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 #467 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 #468 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: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #469 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 #470 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 #471 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 #472 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #473 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 #474 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: 641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #475 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: 419
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #476 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 #477 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 #478 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: 3608
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #479 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: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #480 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: 1346
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #481 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 #482 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.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 844
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #483 on: March 14, 2016, 02:30:12 PM »
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

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.

I'm not constantly on edge, but I am aware that even in good neighborhoods crazy things happen.  That being said, I've got guns more for fun than protection.  The protection is a bonus.  There are certainly more efficient/effective ways to improve my security, but I just like having them.

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.)

Probably around once every couple of months.  Not as often as I'd like, but regular working (9-5) hours means I'm going to ranges at peak times.

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 girlfriend uses and enjoys the guns too.  I can't imagine a situation where she'd ever be in the way, as we live in a 1 bedroom apartment.

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?

By cooperating with them, and not saying much/anything until I talk to a lawyer.  I don't have one on call, because I don't suspect it'll ever happen.

Quote
For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

Fair enough.  You'll most likely be fine.


I think there are plenty of times in history where things would have gone very differently with an armed populace.  Some people alluded to the government turning on us, and while unlikely, it's not unprecedented historically.  Invasion is similar.  Sure, the US (or whatever invading country) could destroy us all with missiles, but if war was that easy we would've been in and out of the Middle East in a few weeks.  Is it much of a deterrent?  Probably not, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one trying to take over the United States.

Guns being the equalizer they are, I do appreciate them for leveling the playing field for smaller/older/frailer citizens.  In a world without firearms, large young people have a very significant advantage in any violent encounter. 

Are there accidents with firearms?  Of course.  I think that self protection is important enough that accidents are something that is worth it.  We should work on reducing them where possible while retaining the right to bear arms.  I often compare it to breathalizers or cameras.  Would we live in a safer place if everyone had breathalizers in their cars, cameras on their chests, and cameras in their homes that the police could watch? Of course, we'd prevent and catch all sorts of abuse, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, etc etc.  We're reaching a point where the technology wouldn't be THAT expensive. Yet how many of you would want to live in that world?  I can hear the political ads now:  "Won't you think of the children?!  This is Timmy, he was beat viciously by his father for 3 years before he was killed.  If we'd simply had mandatory cameras in homes, Timmy could've been saved.  Why don't you want to save Timmy?  If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #484 on: March 14, 2016, 05:41:10 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia. The state militia was explicitly assigned the task of patrolling for runaway slaves, searching slave households, and confiscating any arms or ammunition they found. "Protection from tyranny" is a concept that exited at the time, but it was the tyranny of the non-slave-holding Northern states that the proponents were afraid of. They read the Constitution as giving the Federal Government the right to take away their guns, and without their guns they would not be able to keep the slaves in line. Critically, this is why the amendment says "State" instead of "United States."

This piece in The Atlantic goes into more depth and explains more about the gun culture that existed in 1787 in the South.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #485 on: March 14, 2016, 05:58:10 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia.

This is bullshit.  Northern states such a Massachusetts required able bodied male citizens to carry a firearm while traveling, including to church services, well before slavery was an issue divided north-south geographically.

the government levied fines for not owning a firearm. This was the case in Massachusetts in 1644. The state required that “every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him able bear arms a sufficient musket and other serviceable piece” as well as “two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets.”(3) Those who neglected this duty could receive fines up to ten shillings (for laborers, roughly a day’s wages).

My 1644 reference trumps your 1787 reference.  If you bother to actually read that article, you will discover that it refers back to William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 06:01:13 PM by MoonShadow »

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #486 on: March 14, 2016, 06:38:26 PM »
My 1644 reference trumps your 1787 reference.  If you bother to actually read that article, you will discover that it refers back to William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

That's all well and good, but Blackstone's Commentaries doesn't actually advocate bearing those arms in public. Just ownership. Which is fine! Owning a gun and knowing how to use it is specifically allowed by the Statute of Northampton that Blackstone was commenting on. The Statute has this to say on the subject:

I]f any person whatsoever (except the Queenes servants and ministers in her presence, or in executing her precepts, or other offices, or such as shall assist them: and except it be upon Hue and Crie made to keep the peace, and that in places where acts against the Peace do happen) shall be so bold, as to go, or ride armed, by night, or by day, in Faires, Markets, or any other places: then any Constable, or any other of the saide Officers, may take such Armour from him, for the Queenes use, & may also commit him to the Gaole.  And therefore, it shall be good in this behalf, for the Officers to stay and arrest all such persons as they shall find to carry Dags or Pistols, or to be appareled with privie coates, or doublets: as by the proclamation [of Queen Elizabeth I]

The Atlantic piece goes on to describe how the Northern states had open carry prohibitions by the time the Constitution was being ratified and the South didn't, specifically to maintain the state militias. You're right that I overgeneralized there, but the Militia that the amendment refers to are those in the South which were tasked with slave patrol.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #487 on: March 14, 2016, 06:45:05 PM »

The Atlantic piece goes on to describe how the Northern states had open carry prohibitions by the time the Constitution was being ratified and the South didn't, specifically to maintain the state militias.
The northern states had state militias by this time as well, Protostache.  And every reference that I can find in that article was a local ordinance, limiting the scope of the carry restrictions to a town center.  While this certainly wasn't unheard of at the time, those laws were still based upon English law; the 2nd was written specifically to trump that.

Quote
You're right that I overgeneralized there, but the Militia that the amendment refers to are those in the South which were tasked with slave patrol.

I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution. 

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #488 on: March 14, 2016, 06:49:11 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia. The state militia was explicitly assigned the task of patrolling for runaway slaves, searching slave households, and confiscating any arms or ammunition they found. "Protection from tyranny" is a concept that exited at the time, but it was the tyranny of the non-slave-holding Northern states that the proponents were afraid of. They read the Constitution as giving the Federal Government the right to take away their guns, and without their guns they would not be able to keep the slaves in line. Critically, this is why the amendment says "State" instead of "United States."

This piece in The Atlantic goes into more depth and explains more about the gun culture that existed in 1787 in the South.

The right to bear arms was part of English common law.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #489 on: March 14, 2016, 07:17:28 PM »
I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia, at the time thought to be the deciding vote on ratification, was extremely concerned that the Northern states would neglect to call up the militias in the case of a slave revolt:

The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

The right to bear arms was part of English common law.

See my reply to MoonShadow two posts above yours. English common law forbade bearing arms in public, wherever the constables and kings' guard patrolled. Carrying them on dangerous roads and in the wilderness was fine, as was keeping them in your home because of the castle doctrine. This doctrine carried through to the 1780s and today with minor modifications. The 1631 Virginia law was no exception because the colonists were under threat of Indian attack night and day. It was the very definition of wilderness.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #490 on: March 15, 2016, 08:45:39 AM »
I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution.

Not to mention that such an accusation is borderline-libelous, almost equivalent to the claim that "only racists want to bear arms." It's exactly as offensive as if I were to claim that gun control advocates were all racists who wanted to disarm black people.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #491 on: March 15, 2016, 03:23:49 PM »
I literally just stumbled across this 4 part argument in favor of personally owned nuclear weapons by Davi Barker.  As I stated before, I don't agree with this position, but then (I have not read all 4 parts yet) I think that he is making a logical argument that governments shouldn't have them either.  We shall see.  Anyway, I thought it loosely relevant to where this thread has drifted as of late.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2014/05/04/nuclear-anarchism-part-1-the-specter-of-private-nuclear-weapons/

Sorry, it was Foo Quuxman, not Davi Barker
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 04:28:39 PM by MoonShadow »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #492 on: March 16, 2016, 12:39:09 AM »
That's all well and good, but Blackstone's Commentaries doesn't actually advocate bearing those arms in public. Just ownership. Which is fine! Owning a gun and knowing how to use it is specifically allowed by the Statute of Northampton that Blackstone was commenting on.

(Emphasis mine)

Good!  The topic of this thread is (mostly) firearm ownership. If you agree that people can own firearms if they so choose to, you're in agreement with the majority of people in the United States.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #493 on: March 16, 2016, 03:05:21 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

I refuse to answer this question, on the basis that I might incriminate myself.

big_owl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #494 on: March 16, 2016, 04:19:32 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

Hard to say.  I already lost all mine in a bad canoeing accident.  A damn shame.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #495 on: March 16, 2016, 06:43:46 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

Hard to say.  I already lost all mine in a bad canoeing accident.  A damn shame.
Man. That's a real shame! Were they insured?
;-)

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #496 on: March 16, 2016, 11:46:36 PM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the goverment in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

*If they don't have the support of the armed forces, then you wouldn't need to defend yourself from the government by using guns in the first place.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #497 on: March 17, 2016, 12:03:48 AM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

Handguns are more about personal protection from the criminal element, but they are protected under the 2nd because they do have a military use, even today.  As for freedom of speech online, it's kind of ironic that you would mention that in a firearms thread, since the US federal government literally considers military grade encryption to be a military armament.  So long as they continue to do so, they can prevent American companies from exporting the best kinds of encryption software as if it were a domestic weapon, but at the same time cannot prevent it from use by Americans themselves.  I know that it sounds crazy that mathematics could be in the same legal class as a machine gun, but yet it is.
Quote
As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the government in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

The bill of rights are listed in order of importance; freedom of speech, expression & religious convictions first, followed by the right to defend oneself.  It's cliche, but the right to free expression cannot be maintained without a credible means of self-defense, because freedom of expression includes the right to be offensive, so long as one is not also threatening.  Yet, if you don't have the right, or the practical ability to defend yourself, the potential that your expressions will be found offensive to someone else willing to do you harm will cause just about anyone with sense to alter their expression.  If that is the case, do you really have a freedom of speech?

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #498 on: March 17, 2016, 12:28:41 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #499 on: March 17, 2016, 05:26:53 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Of course you can fight the U.S. military. Whether you will be successful in that fight is an entirely different argument. The Constitution does not grant us the power to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive, only the means to try. It is absolutely valid.