Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 358225 times)

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #800 on: April 08, 2016, 01:27:15 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).
There is already data out there that rifles in general are used in very little homicides yet CA NY MA etc still have assault weapon bans and there are bills brought up in congress pretty often to reinstate a federal AWB. As far as accidental shootings go if a firearm is loaded and the trigger is pulled it will fire. I don't see a reason to ban a firearm that operates exactly how it was designed to do.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #801 on: April 08, 2016, 01:35:11 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners.  I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #802 on: April 08, 2016, 01:39:01 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners. I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/650-c/650-c-1.htm

Like that? :)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #803 on: April 08, 2016, 01:48:55 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners. I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/650-c/650-c-1.htm

Like that? :)
No, because of the WAY too many loopholes and that I think they should be held responsible no matter who gets access to them.  The responsible gun owner in my post did not let two adults touch the guns because they were no trained (vs again just put the gun down for all to access).
For example:.   
Quote
This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
       (a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course.
A minor should still be supervised and a gun should still be within the control of the owner at all times. 
Or
Quote
The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner.
WTF, if you are not in control of your weapon, you should have a way to keep in from being access aka a safe.  If you can't afford the safe, keep it on you or rent a locker in a range (I know two friends who live in shared housing so their guns live at the range).  Hell, the gun I use lives in my friend's safe.  You would be held responsible if a kid came over your fence and drond in a pool, why not if you left your gun sitting in the living room and they broke in?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 01:50:29 PM by Gin1984 »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #804 on: April 08, 2016, 02:13:27 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners. I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/650-c/650-c-1.htm

Like that? :)
No, because of the WAY too many loopholes and that I think they should be held responsible no matter who gets access to them.  The responsible gun owner in my post did not let two adults touch the guns because they were no trained (vs again just put the gun down for all to access).
For example:.   
Quote
This section shall not apply whenever any of the following occurs:
       (a) The child has completed firearm safety instructions by a certified firearms safety instructor or has successfully completed a certified hunter safety course.
A minor should still be supervised and a gun should still be within the control of the owner at all times. 
Or
Quote
The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry of any premises by any person or an illegal taking of the firearm from the premises of the owner without permission of the owner.
WTF, if you are not in control of your weapon, you should have a way to keep in from being access aka a safe.  If you can't afford the safe, keep it on you or rent a locker in a range (I know two friends who live in shared housing so their guns live at the range).  Hell, the gun I use lives in my friend's safe.  You would be held responsible if a kid came over your fence and drond in a pool, why not if you left your gun sitting in the living room and they broke in?

Should you be liable if someone breaks into your house, steals a kitchen knife, and stabs your neighbor? 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #805 on: April 08, 2016, 02:21:45 PM »
You would be held responsible if a kid came over your fence and drond in a pool, why not if you left your gun sitting in the living room and they broke in?

You sure about that one?  IANAL, but pretty sure if you've taken the necessary precautions required by code/law, you would not be liable for someone who scaled your fence (trespassed). 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #806 on: April 08, 2016, 02:54:14 PM »
You would be held responsible if a kid came over your fence and drond in a pool, why not if you left your gun sitting in the living room and they broke in?

You sure about that one?  IANAL, but pretty sure if you've taken the necessary precautions required by code/law, you would not be liable for someone who scaled your fence (trespassed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
And in my opinion (not law) is that a gun not secured should be treated like a attractive nuisance and the owner held liable. Stuck in a closet is not secured if you were stupid enough to tell others than you have guns not secured nor is on your kitchen counter in full view of a window.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #807 on: April 08, 2016, 02:54:18 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners.  I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

Gin -

I have 2 kids under the age of 13.  Unloaded guns in an out of they way closet are no danger to them or their friends.  They don't have the dexterity, strength or knowledge to load them.  I've also instructed them as to what will happen if/when they touch them.  Most of the accidents I'm aware of involve children encountering loaded firearms.  I would suggest my unplugged saw is bigger danger to them than the unloaded firearms in my closet.

As the children grow older and more knowledge about firearms operations, locks may be implemented.

Since you've brought up safes, they tend to take up a lot of space and are somewhat expensive adding yet another barrier to firearms ownership.  Given that unloaded firearms are pretty safe, I don't feel the need.

With regard to other parents, I don't advertise to other parents or children there are guns in the house because its none of their business.  We also have alcohol and prescription medicine in the house, I would suggest those are a higher danger than the guns, yet I don't feel compelled to disclose that either.  If I was leaving loaded weapons throughout the house, that would be a different story.

With regard to attractive nuisance, my firearms aren't laying loaded in the yard.  They are in house, unloaded in an out of the way area.  That's substantially different than a pool or trampoline with easy access. 

From your link:

"Usually the landowner must take some more affirmative steps to protect children."  For a pool or trampoline, a fence usually suffices to the best of my knowledge.  I would suggest unloaded guns locked in a house that the kids don't know about, aren't attractive and/or the house locks and the unloaded condition are an affirmative action.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 03:17:00 PM by Midwest »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #808 on: April 08, 2016, 03:08:45 PM »

Yup, of note, I am not willing to own a Glock because I don't like this feature.  I am a Springfield XD man instead (has a grip safety).  I don't begrudge anyone for wanting or owning a Glock, but it is an example of a knowledgeable gun owner choosing not to buy a model he is not comfortable with the featureset of.

Likewise.  I own a Sig Sauer handgun, but it's my only one.  When I first looked at the glock, and learned that it's only safety is a double trigger, I set it back down on the store counter and have never touched another since.  I'm not surprised at all by the (relatively) high rate of accidents with the Glock, as I could very much see myself shooting myself in my own leg just trying to put it out of my holster with too much adrenaline flowing, in a real danger situation.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #809 on: April 08, 2016, 03:16:31 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners.  I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

Gun owners are typically held responsible for harm they cause by mishandling or misuse of a firearm, and are often held partially responsible for harm caused by failing to keep their weapons out of the hands of others.  The details vary by state, but not really by a whole lot.  Are we done here then?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #810 on: April 08, 2016, 03:18:10 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners.  I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

Gin -

I have 2 kids under the age of 13.  Unloaded guns in an out of they way closet are no danger to them or their friends.  They don't have the dexterity, strength or knowledge to load them.  I've also instructed them as to what will happen if/when they touch them.  Most of the accidents I'm aware of involve children encountering loaded firearms.  I would suggest my unplugged saw is bigger danger to them than the unloaded firearms in my closet.

As the children grow older and more knowledge about firearms operations, locks may be implemented.

Since you've brought up safes, they tend to take up a lot of space and are somewhat expensive adding yet another barrier to firearms ownership.  Given that unloaded firearms are pretty safe, I don't feel the need.

With regard to other parents, I don't advertise to other parents or children there are guns in the house because its none of their business.  We also have alcohol and prescription medicine in the house, I would suggest those are a higher danger than the guns, yet I don't feel compelled to disclose that either.  If I was leaving loaded weapons throughout the house, that would be a different story.

With regard to attractive nuisance, my firearms aren't laying loaded in the yard.  They are in house, unloaded in an out of the way area.  That's substantially different than a pool or trampoline with easy access.
I agree.  Equating a pool in full view of the neighbors to an unloaded firearm in a rifle case in the back of a closet under an 'attractive nuisance' classification is ludicrous.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #811 on: April 08, 2016, 03:30:56 PM »

Yup, of note, I am not willing to own a Glock because I don't like this feature.  I am a Springfield XD man instead (has a grip safety).  I don't begrudge anyone for wanting or owning a Glock, but it is an example of a knowledgeable gun owner choosing not to buy a model he is not comfortable with the featureset of.

Likewise.  I own a Sig Sauer handgun, but it's my only one.  When I first looked at the glock, and learned that it's only safety is a double trigger, I set it back down on the store counter and have never touched another since.  I'm not surprised at all by the (relatively) high rate of accidents with the Glock, as I could very much see myself shooting myself in my own leg just trying to put it out of my holster with too much adrenaline flowing, in a real danger situation.
My sister has a Glock 9 for one of her duty firearms (other is an AR-15) and I love it. My own firearms have safety's except an old Rugar Security 6 .357 magnum with is double action.  But I don't have any kids in my home and that piece stays there - loaded when I'm home.  If I had kids I'd have a totally different scenario of how I keep firearms in the home.

For most of my time in LE, I carried a Glock 21SF. I quite liked it, except that when I was shooting a lot (e.g. range day) the side of my trigger finger would start to get a bit raw from rubbing on the trigger guard. I haven't noticed that with any other guns - I'm not sure if it was the ergonomics or if my grip was slightly different than most. 

I don't have kids either (nor do I have friends with kids visit) and I agree - my storage would be much different.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #812 on: April 08, 2016, 06:32:44 PM »

I see your three year old news report and raise you one from last year:  http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-ban-on-gun-violence-research-rewnewed-2015-7

There is very much still a ban on gun research.
The CDC did some gun studies in the few years in between the executive action and congressional ban of CDC funding for gun research. Other gov agencies are allowed to research guns.


What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?
If a study is done and in concludes firearm X is used in X percent of deaths in the home or something to that effect. Then what? Would you possibly support banning that particular firearm?

Maybe.

It would work both ways too.  Evidence of it's safety would make a strong case to give up on attempts to ban the AR15 (since this seems to be a popular example).

Gun owners and users already know the Glock design has less idiot proofing than others but they have declined to stop buying and using it.

If they are ok with the risk associated with the design, why should non - gun - owners have a say?
Because those accidents often effect non-gun owners (including children) sometimes of said gun owners.  I'd care less about controlling the type if gun owners were held accountable for their actions or lack their of harmed another.  As I mentioned previously comparing a gun owner who has guns in his closet with no trigger locks where both his children and the visiting children have access to without even the courtesy of telling the other parents to a man with many more gun (and assorted weapons) but they were in a gun safe, the bullets were separate and when they were brought out they were always within the control of the trained people (instead of the other person who just placed the guns down).

Gin -

I have 2 kids under the age of 13.  Unloaded guns in an out of they way closet are no danger to them or their friends.  They don't have the dexterity, strength or knowledge to load them.  I've also instructed them as to what will happen if/when they touch them.  Most of the accidents I'm aware of involve children encountering loaded firearms.  I would suggest my unplugged saw is bigger danger to them than the unloaded firearms in my closet.

As the children grow older and more knowledge about firearms operations, locks may be implemented.

Since you've brought up safes, they tend to take up a lot of space and are somewhat expensive adding yet another barrier to firearms ownership.  Given that unloaded firearms are pretty safe, I don't feel the need.

With regard to other parents, I don't advertise to other parents or children there are guns in the house because its none of their business.  We also have alcohol and prescription medicine in the house, I would suggest those are a higher danger than the guns, yet I don't feel compelled to disclose that either.  If I was leaving loaded weapons throughout the house, that would be a different story.

With regard to attractive nuisance, my firearms aren't laying loaded in the yard.  They are in house, unloaded in an out of the way area.  That's substantially different than a pool or trampoline with easy access.
I agree.  Equating a pool in full view of the neighbors to an unloaded firearm in a rifle case in the back of a closet under an 'attractive nuisance' classification is ludicrous.

Absolutely agree with this.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #813 on: April 09, 2016, 03:53:45 AM »
Gun owners are typically held responsible for harm they cause by mishandling or misuse of a firearm, and are often held partially responsible for harm caused by failing to keep their weapons out of the hands of others.  The details vary by state, but not really by a whole lot.  Are we done here then?

I would think so... It has been decided that the most dangerous firearms that pose the least use for legitimate purposes should be tightly regulated, buying handguns across state lines should be illegal, background checks should be performed for legal transfers and gun owners shall be held generally responsible for foreseeable accidents caused by their weapons. Since all of these laws already exist.... I guess the gun grabbers have won?

Oh, except for NRA safety instruction in school and repealing the ban on using government funds for firearm research - these are the only additional gun laws that has been generally requested that are not yet codified. Common ground has been found.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #814 on: April 09, 2016, 05:40:52 AM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #815 on: April 09, 2016, 06:05:01 AM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

One with the shoulder thing that goes up, a flash hider, forward grip, bullet button, high capacity bullet clip and make sure it's easily modifiable to fully automatic.


But honestly, I don't know much about the platform. As long as the receiver is mil-spec you will be able to bolt on most any piece you wish. I believe that 1-in-7 twist barrel will give you the most ammunition compatibility if you're going with .223, but I'm sure other posters with more knowledge will give much more actionable advice.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #816 on: April 09, 2016, 07:24:54 AM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.


Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #817 on: April 09, 2016, 09:57:07 AM »
Gin -

With regard to your comments on storage and attractive nuisance, have you ever loaded a firearm from scratch?  If so, was it semiautomatic?

I asked this not to belittle you, but without being familiar the operation of a firearm it's not an intuitive process. 

If I handed you an unloaded AR-15 or semiautomatic pistol with the appropriate ammunition and you had never operated it or a similar firearm,  it wouldn't surprise me if you were unable to load and operate it without reading the instructions.  I'm not saying that to belittle you or anyone else, but loading and charging a weapon takes some knowledge and skill to do.

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #818 on: April 09, 2016, 11:01:42 AM »
Gin -

With regard to your comments on storage and attractive nuisance, have you ever loaded a firearm from scratch?  If so, was it semiautomatic?

I asked this not to belittle you, but without being familiar the operation of a firearm it's not an intuitive process. 

If I handed you an unloaded AR-15 or semiautomatic pistol with the appropriate ammunition and you had never operated it or a similar firearm,  it wouldn't surprise me if you were unable to load and operate it without reading the instructions.  I'm not saying that to belittle you or anyone else, but loading and charging a weapon takes some knowledge and skill to do.

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.
i
I think your question is a reasonable one actually.  I do shoot and have loaded, unloaded and cleaned a handgun and an antique rifle.  The rifle I rarely shoot and I do get refreshed on loading, unloading and cleaning on the rare times I use it, but the handgun is extremely simple and I do think my three year old could do it (well do it badly because it is too heavy for her which actually would increase her risk).   

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #819 on: April 09, 2016, 12:07:39 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it.  I've just recently had the desire to buy one.  I guess just because some think that I shouldn't be able to own one.  I actually stopped at a local gun store to check them out.  The bushmaster, M&P, and  Ruger were around $700 or so.  Then they went up to around $1,800 for the nicer ones, Daniel Defence and I forget the other brand.

I'm in Florida, I thought all I had to do was wait for the next gun show.  I'll have no problem with a background check, I have my CCW Permit and have already been fingerprinted and all that. 

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #820 on: April 09, 2016, 12:11:28 PM »
Gin -

With regard to your comments on storage and attractive nuisance, have you ever loaded a firearm from scratch?  If so, was it semiautomatic?

I asked this not to belittle you, but without being familiar the operation of a firearm it's not an intuitive process. 

If I handed you an unloaded AR-15 or semiautomatic pistol with the appropriate ammunition and you had never operated it or a similar firearm,  it wouldn't surprise me if you were unable to load and operate it without reading the instructions.  I'm not saying that to belittle you or anyone else, but loading and charging a weapon takes some knowledge and skill to do.

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.
i
I think your question is a reasonable one actually.  I do shoot and have loaded, unloaded and cleaned a handgun and an antique rifle.  The rifle I rarely shoot and I do get refreshed on loading, unloading and cleaning on the rare times I use it, but the handgun is extremely simple and I do think my three year old could do it (well do it badly because it is too heavy for her which actually would increase her risk).

I think my wife would have trouble pulling back the slide.  Your 3 year old must have some strong hands to load the shells in the magazine, insert into gun, and then rack the slide to load the shell and cock the hammer.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #821 on: April 09, 2016, 12:17:00 PM »
Gin -

With regard to your comments on storage and attractive nuisance, have you ever loaded a firearm from scratch?  If so, was it semiautomatic?

I asked this not to belittle you, but without being familiar the operation of a firearm it's not an intuitive process. 

If I handed you an unloaded AR-15 or semiautomatic pistol with the appropriate ammunition and you had never operated it or a similar firearm,  it wouldn't surprise me if you were unable to load and operate it without reading the instructions.  I'm not saying that to belittle you or anyone else, but loading and charging a weapon takes some knowledge and skill to do.

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.
i
I think your question is a reasonable one actually.  I do shoot and have loaded, unloaded and cleaned a handgun and an antique rifle.  The rifle I rarely shoot and I do get refreshed on loading, unloading and cleaning on the rare times I use it, but the handgun is extremely simple and I do think my three year old could do it (well do it badly because it is too heavy for her which actually would increase her risk).

You must be dealing with a revolver and a very precocious daughter.  If you put an unloaded revolver and the proper ammunition on the table in front of a 3 year old, there is a small chance something might happen (I wouldn't suggest it putting setting down any firearm loaded or unloaded in front of a child, regardless).

If that same unloaded firearm is in your closet, in a case, on a shelf and the ammunition is in a box, there is almost no chance of anything happening.  Contrast that to an unfenced pool where the same child could simply fall in. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #822 on: April 09, 2016, 12:18:53 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it.  I've just recently had the desire to buy one.  I guess just because some think that I shouldn't be able to own one.  I actually stopped at a local gun store to check them out.  The bushmaster, M&P, and  Ruger were around $700 or so.  Then they went up to around $1,800 for the nicer ones, Daniel Defence and I forget the other brand.

I'm in Florida, I thought all I had to do was wait for the next gun show.  I'll have no problem with a background check, I have my CCW Permit and have already been fingerprinted and all that.

The M&P's are nice, affordable and preferable to DPMS.  I've had trouble with certain magazines fitting DPMS.

Tigerpine

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 155
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #823 on: April 09, 2016, 12:23:35 PM »
You must be dealing with a revolver and a very precocious daughter.

I think we tend to give children less credit than they deserve.  My nephew couldn't even speak yet, but he remembered how to work a music box thing after only seeing it used once.  And he wasn't "taught" how to use it, either; he just happened to observe well enough on his own.  (All the adults had forgotten.  It involved removing a side cover, which was secured by a magnet.  We were all blown away that he knew just what to do!)

All matters of strength aside, kids can learn at an alarming rate!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #824 on: April 09, 2016, 12:28:02 PM »
You must be dealing with a revolver and a very precocious daughter.

I think we tend to give children less credit than they deserve.  My nephew couldn't even speak yet, but he remembered how to work a music box thing after only seeing it used once.  And he wasn't "taught" how to use it, either; he just happened to observe well enough on his own.  (All the adults had forgotten.  It involved removing a side cover, which was secured by a magnet.  We were all blown away that he knew just what to do!)

All matters of strength aside, kids can learn at an alarming rate!

Tigerpine - I give children plenty of credit which is why I wouldn't leave a firearm in front of a child.  Having said that, a 3 year old child loading and cocking a revolver is unlikely unless they were trained to do so.

For those same reasons, I don't leave unattended saws plugged in or with batteries around kids.  I don't however put my firearms, medication and power tools in a safe despite the fact they are all dangerous to children.  Reasonable precautions sufficiently mitigate the risk.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 12:35:17 PM by Midwest »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #825 on: April 09, 2016, 12:39:24 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.
No no no - you need the pink "Hello Kitty" one because pink equals not dangerous so OK ;)!

Well I'll be the outlier here and say that for a home protection firearm (as per the OP question) a pump action short barrel shotgun is a much better choice than any rifle. I personally like ones with pistol grips but not sure they are legal everywhere.

I agree, so I guess we will be alone together.  The variability of choices in a 12 gauge shotgun shell is amazing, so it's not difficult at all to choose an appropriate round for home defense.  Not only are there reduced recoil rounds designed to be used inside a home, with a much reduced velocity after passing through a typical residential wall; the escalation of force is easier because your first round could be rock salt, rubber balls or a bean bag; followed up by your choice of more aggressive rounds.  This is not possible with a rifled weapon, particularly a small bore weapon such as an AR-15.  This is one application that I think that a short barrelled shotgun would have a lot of advantages, particularly swinging around corners & door frames, while still being held in two hands with two points of contact, like a carbine.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #826 on: April 09, 2016, 12:41:39 PM »

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.

Before the age of google and youtube, I would have agreed with this statement.  Now I don't, because anyone old enough to read can look it up on the internet, and likely with a video demonstration.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #827 on: April 09, 2016, 01:04:46 PM »

The likelihood of a preteen being able to do the above without training is unlikely.  As I said, once my kids get older I will reevaluate.  Comparing those operations to an unfenced pool or trampoline (the standard is my area for attractive nuisance), however is more than a stretch.

Before the age of google and youtube, I would have agreed with this statement.  Now I don't, because anyone old enough to read can look it up on the internet, and likely with a video demonstration.

I think that would fall within the training mentioned but note the limitation to preteen.  Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.  It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits.

My friend has a 14 year with a much too healthy interest in guns and is quite familiar with their operation.  If he were in our household, trigger locks would be installed. 
« Last Edit: April 09, 2016, 01:06:39 PM by Midwest »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #828 on: April 09, 2016, 03:26:34 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it.  I've just recently had the desire to buy one.  I guess just because some think that I shouldn't be able to own one.  I actually stopped at a local gun store to check them out.  The bushmaster, M&P, and  Ruger were around $700 or so.  Then they went up to around $1,800 for the nicer ones, Daniel Defence and I forget the other brand.

I'm in Florida, I thought all I had to do was wait for the next gun show.  I'll have no problem with a background check, I have my CCW Permit and have already been fingerprinted and all that.

The M&P's are nice, affordable and preferable to DPMS.  I've had trouble with certain magazines fitting DPMS.

FWIW my DPMS functions well with metal GI mags and with Magpul mags. I haven't tried anything else.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #829 on: April 09, 2016, 03:33:24 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.

Thanks, I'll have to look into it.  I've just recently had the desire to buy one.  I guess just because some think that I shouldn't be able to own one.  I actually stopped at a local gun store to check them out.  The bushmaster, M&P, and  Ruger were around $700 or so.  Then they went up to around $1,800 for the nicer ones, Daniel Defence and I forget the other brand.

I'm in Florida, I thought all I had to do was wait for the next gun show.  I'll have no problem with a background check, I have my CCW Permit and have already been fingerprinted and all that.

The M&P's are nice, affordable and preferable to DPMS.  I've had trouble with certain magazines fitting DPMS.

FWIW my DPMS functions well with metal GI mags and with Magpul mags. I haven't tried anything else.

Magpul and federal equaled a blown primer for me.   Not sure if it didn't seat fully, but rifle doesn't like magpuls.  Had to take the trigger apart to fix as it ended up in the trigger pack.  Your mileage may vary.

GI mags are fine.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #830 on: April 09, 2016, 03:44:02 PM »
I wouldn't underestimate the ability of a 7-year-old boy to fiddle with a gun long enough to make it go 'boom'. And, some people are dumb enough to leave a chambered round behind after 'clearing' their gun. Then it's just a matter of pulling the trigger.

As an aside, there is a funny video of some African militia handing an AK to a chimp, and the chimp blowing off a whole mag in random directions.
https://youtu.be/6Vpuh6q2O_c

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5486
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #831 on: April 10, 2016, 04:14:05 PM »
This was so nested I hope I got the attribute right.

Way back in this thread someone pointed out that other countries that also have privately-owned guns have much lower mortality rates.

When I look at this table I can see why Canadian gun mortality rates are lower than American ones.  Look at the large proportion of deaths caused by handguns.  In Canada there are extremely few handguns legally owned by civilians (and yes, there are illegal ones, mostly smuggled in from the US and popular with gang shootings, I am not talking about them).  We have lots of long guns.   Even our original long-gun registry was focused mostly on guns that could fire large amounts of ammunition without reloading, and being more careful about emotionally unstable people having access, basically as a result of the Ecole Polytechnique shooting.  There has never been an overall consensus that no-one should own long guns.  The general consensus is that if someone needs a long gun (target practice, coyote control, whatever) that is a legitimate need.   Being able to take out multiple targets without reloading (like all those students) is not generally seen as a legitimate need.

By the way, nice to see so many Americans discussing appropriate and inappropriate use/storage/choice of guns.  From outside you all seem to be knee-jerk pro-gun the way you seem to think we are all knee-jerk anti-gun.

Question - not trying to be inflammatory - if there are so many laws already enacted about safe use/storage etc., whey are there so many accidental deaths?  People being stupid? complacent? not following them because they are not strictly enforced?  I mean, say for example the law in one state says guns must be stored unloaded in a gun safe, how often is there any enforcement of that condition?  I am having a hard time picturing the local municipality doing safety checks like fire departments do for smoke detectors. 

There is already data out there that rifles in general are used in very little homicides yet CA NY MA etc still have assault weapon bans and there are bills brought up in congress pretty often to reinstate a federal AWB. As far as accidental shootings go if a firearm is loaded and the trigger is pulled it will fire. I don't see a reason to ban a firearm that operates exactly how it was designed to do.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #832 on: April 10, 2016, 07:33:37 PM »

Question - not trying to be inflammatory - if there are so many laws already enacted about safe use/storage etc., whey are there so many accidental deaths? People being stupid? complacent? not following them because they are not strictly enforced?
Well, that has a lot to do with the accidents that do happen; but mostly the rate really isn't all that high, we just have a much higher absolute number of gun owners, if not per capita, than Canada.  It's also easier to have a self-inflicted wound type accident with a handgun, because it's difficult to point a long gun at yourself accidentally.

Quote

 I mean, say for example the law in one state says guns must be stored unloaded in a gun safe, how often is there any enforcement of that condition?  I am having a hard time picturing the local municipality doing safety checks like fire departments do for smoke detectors. 

No one does safety checks for smoke detectors either.  No, no one checks up on most gun owners; unless they own a class 2 or class 3 weapons, then the ATF does it every now and again.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #833 on: April 10, 2016, 07:34:24 PM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #834 on: April 11, 2016, 10:36:37 AM »

Question - not trying to be inflammatory - if there are so many laws already enacted about safe use/storage etc., whey are there so many accidental deaths? People being stupid? complacent? not following them because they are not strictly enforced?
Well, that has a lot to do with the accidents that do happen; but mostly the rate really isn't all that high, we just have a much higher absolute number of gun owners, if not per capita, than Canada. It's also easier to have a self-inflicted wound type accident with a handgun, because it's difficult to point a long gun at yourself accidentally.

Quote

 I mean, say for example the law in one state says guns must be stored unloaded in a gun safe, how often is there any enforcement of that condition?  I am having a hard time picturing the local municipality doing safety checks like fire departments do for smoke detectors. 

No one does safety checks for smoke detectors either.  No, no one checks up on most gun owners; unless they own a class 2 or class 3 weapons, then the ATF does it every now and again.

The rate itself is much higher in the US, IIRC, much like DUI deaths are:

Canada, 2009-2012, 598 deaths across four years
USA, 2014, 9,967 deaths in one year

There are 66x as many DUI-related deaths in the US, despite a population multiplier of nine.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #835 on: April 11, 2016, 10:40:10 AM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

From the original post -

"It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits."

Heywood57

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 74

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #837 on: April 11, 2016, 11:57:57 AM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

From the original post -

"It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits."

I think that you are assuming too much.  If they can't see the relevant videos on my network, that does not prevent them from doing so at a friend's house, or with a friend's smartphone.  And yes, I've seen 9 year olds with smartphones.  Beyond that, I was breaking into networks for kicks at 12 back in the late 80's. (Before that was actually made a felony)  I'd wager that my own network isn't that much of a challenge to a motivated teenager with a bit of computer skills, since I haven't kept up with that scene, and I'm unwilling to spend a couple hundred dollars for a security & monitoring program mostly to keep my teens away from porn.  I still consider a decent gun safe a wiser path, at least for my family.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #838 on: April 11, 2016, 12:00:17 PM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

From the original post -

"It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits."

I think that you are assuming too much.  If they can't see the relevant videos on my network, that does not prevent them from doing so at a friend's house, or with a friend's smartphone.  And yes, I've seen 9 year olds with smartphones.  Beyond that, I was breaking into networks for kicks at 12 back in the late 80's. (Before that was actually made a felony)  I'd wager that my own network isn't that much of a challenge to a motivated teenager with a bit of computer skills, since I haven't kept up with that scene, and I'm unwilling to spend a couple hundred dollars for a security & monitoring program mostly to keep my teens away from porn.  I still consider a decent gun safe a wiser path, at least for my family.

Or...education?  If there are firearms in the house, there's absolutely no excuse for a child to learn how they operate via the internet.  I've been shooting handguns since I was 9.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #839 on: April 11, 2016, 12:06:47 PM »

Question - not trying to be inflammatory - if there are so many laws already enacted about safe use/storage etc., whey are there so many accidental deaths? People being stupid? complacent? not following them because they are not strictly enforced?
Well, that has a lot to do with the accidents that do happen; but mostly the rate really isn't all that high, we just have a much higher absolute number of gun owners, if not per capita, than Canada. It's also easier to have a self-inflicted wound type accident with a handgun, because it's difficult to point a long gun at yourself accidentally.

Quote

 I mean, say for example the law in one state says guns must be stored unloaded in a gun safe, how often is there any enforcement of that condition?  I am having a hard time picturing the local municipality doing safety checks like fire departments do for smoke detectors. 

No one does safety checks for smoke detectors either.  No, no one checks up on most gun owners; unless they own a class 2 or class 3 weapons, then the ATF does it every now and again.

The rate itself is much higher in the US, IIRC, much like DUI deaths are:


I don't understand your point.  Canada & the US are divergent cultures, and I already noted that it's harder for some kinds of accidents to occur with longarms than handguns.  Those are two independent variables, both of which have an enormous number of contributing variables between nations that makes comparing them largely meaningless.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #840 on: April 11, 2016, 12:09:40 PM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

From the original post -

"It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits."

I think that you are assuming too much.  If they can't see the relevant videos on my network, that does not prevent them from doing so at a friend's house, or with a friend's smartphone.  And yes, I've seen 9 year olds with smartphones.  Beyond that, I was breaking into networks for kicks at 12 back in the late 80's. (Before that was actually made a felony)  I'd wager that my own network isn't that much of a challenge to a motivated teenager with a bit of computer skills, since I haven't kept up with that scene, and I'm unwilling to spend a couple hundred dollars for a security & monitoring program mostly to keep my teens away from porn.  I still consider a decent gun safe a wiser path, at least for my family.

Or...education?  If there are firearms in the house, there's absolutely no excuse for a child to learn how they operate via the internet.  I've been shooting handguns since I was 9.

I was arguing the point from the perspective of a family that only a parent shoots, but I agree here too.  My oldest daughter got her first 22lr at her 9th birthday,  and her little brother at 10.  And we keep them all locked up, because the 3,6 &7 year olds are still untrustworthy.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3478
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #841 on: April 11, 2016, 12:39:46 PM »

Question - not trying to be inflammatory - if there are so many laws already enacted about safe use/storage etc., whey are there so many accidental deaths? People being stupid? complacent? not following them because they are not strictly enforced?
Well, that has a lot to do with the accidents that do happen; but mostly the rate really isn't all that high, we just have a much higher absolute number of gun owners, if not per capita, than Canada. It's also easier to have a self-inflicted wound type accident with a handgun, because it's difficult to point a long gun at yourself accidentally.

Quote

 I mean, say for example the law in one state says guns must be stored unloaded in a gun safe, how often is there any enforcement of that condition?  I am having a hard time picturing the local municipality doing safety checks like fire departments do for smoke detectors. 

No one does safety checks for smoke detectors either.  No, no one checks up on most gun owners; unless they own a class 2 or class 3 weapons, then the ATF does it every now and again.

The rate itself is much higher in the US, IIRC, much like DUI deaths are:


I don't understand your point.  Canada & the US are divergent cultures, and I already noted that it's harder for some kinds of accidents to occur with longarms than handguns.  Those are two independent variables, both of which have an enormous number of contributing variables between nations that makes comparing them largely meaningless.

My point is that gun deaths aren't the only thing where the rate is higher than Canada, despite there being laws. Some people think that laws magically make problems go away.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1110
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #842 on: April 11, 2016, 12:51:41 PM »
Most 10 year olds aren't looking at how to operate an AR-15 or a glock on youtube.

I have 8 year olds that look up anything on youtube.

From the original post -

"It's also a little tougher to look into those things with filters installed on their electronic devices and supervision of their viewing habits."

I think that you are assuming too much.  If they can't see the relevant videos on my network, that does not prevent them from doing so at a friend's house, or with a friend's smartphone.  And yes, I've seen 9 year olds with smartphones.  Beyond that, I was breaking into networks for kicks at 12 back in the late 80's. (Before that was actually made a felony)  I'd wager that my own network isn't that much of a challenge to a motivated teenager with a bit of computer skills, since I haven't kept up with that scene, and I'm unwilling to spend a couple hundred dollars for a security & monitoring program mostly to keep my teens away from porn.  I still consider a decent gun safe a wiser path, at least for my family.

If a 9 year old who has never been shown how to operate a firearm (trained) is sneaking into the closet while I'm home (my youngest isn't left home alone), using the internet to determine which ammunition, then using the internet to learn to charge and operate, I'm not sure the guns are secure in a safe (there videos on safe cracking as well).  My youngest isn't allowed to use the internet without us present BTW.

Once my youngest learns to shoot, trigger locks will be installed.  There are those in this thread acting as if safes should be mandatory and/or unloaded guns are easy to load and operate for the untrained.  I it's just as likely child will steal a car (keys are readily accessible) than load and operate a firearm.  Despite that, we aren't putting the car keys in a safe.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #843 on: April 11, 2016, 01:00:32 PM »
My kid is 3.  Currently, there is no possible way she has the dexterity, strength, or knowledge how to chamber and fire a round in any of my unsecured firearms. 

When she gets older, I imagine there will be a time period where she (or her friends) has the ability but lacks maturity, in which case the firearms will be stored differently.  And then she will get older still, and have the maturity, and I can go back to storing it as I do now (condition 3, loaded but without a chambered round).
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #844 on: April 11, 2016, 08:43:42 PM »
That settles it. I'm buying a AR-15.   What's should I look for?

First buy a stripped lower receiver locally. Don't pay more than $60. This part is legally the firearm so it will have to come from a dealer, with a background check and so on.

Then buy a parts kit and assemble it yourself. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice.

I would reccomend a kit that looks something like thus: 16 inch cold hammer forced barrel, flat top receiver, with magpul furniture. A kit like this will run you about $500.

Then get a fold away rear sight and fold away front sight. Magpul is another good inexpensive brand for these but there are others. Then go to Primary Arms and buy one of their inexpensive red dot sights and co- witness it with the folding sights.

For about $800 you have a fully kitted AR 15 that is better and cheaper than buying one off the shelf.

Cold forged barrel.  It was probably a typo on your part but since he's not familiar I wanted to point that out.  Also make sure the barrel is chambered in 5.56 as there are slight variations between 5.56 and .223.  Without going into a lot of detail, you can shoot .223 in a 5.56 barrel but not necessarily the other way around. 

I would also recommend purchasing a complete upper rather than assembling because things can go wrong if you don't know what you're doing.  The lower you can do with basic tools and less chance of screwing things up.  Although be prepared for little springs to go flying across the room to never be found again.  I would keep it simple, shoot it a bunch at the range, then figure out what you want to modify. 

You should also do some research on direct impingement vs piston.  They both have their pros and cons.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #845 on: April 11, 2016, 09:14:32 PM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

From that article (which by the way is a Murdoch publication and has a habit of sensationalising stuff):

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

So (from the article, if you take what they say as gospel) -

1. Firearms deaths occur in Australia at a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 per year. What's the rate in the US? Oh yeah, 10.54. More than 10x the number per head of population.

2. Most of those deaths are people killing themselves deliberately, according to the same story.

Not really sure how either of these things is an argument against gun control...

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #846 on: April 12, 2016, 02:19:55 PM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

From that article (which by the way is a Murdoch publication and has a habit of sensationalising stuff):

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

So (from the article, if you take what they say as gospel) -

1. Firearms deaths occur in Australia at a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 per year. What's the rate in the US? Oh yeah, 10.54. More than 10x the number per head of population.

2. Most of those deaths are people killing themselves deliberately, according to the same story.

Not really sure how either of these things is an argument against gun control...

Not sure how it's an argument for it either.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #847 on: April 13, 2016, 04:12:18 AM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

From that article (which by the way is a Murdoch publication and has a habit of sensationalising stuff):

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

So (from the article, if you take what they say as gospel) -

1. Firearms deaths occur in Australia at a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 per year. What's the rate in the US? Oh yeah, 10.54. More than 10x the number per head of population.

2. Most of those deaths are people killing themselves deliberately, according to the same story.

Not really sure how either of these things is an argument against gun control...

Not sure how it's an argument for it either.

Nice.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1239
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Australia
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #848 on: April 13, 2016, 06:11:03 AM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

From that article (which by the way is a Murdoch publication and has a habit of sensationalising stuff):

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

So (from the article, if you take what they say as gospel) -

1. Firearms deaths occur in Australia at a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 per year. What's the rate in the US? Oh yeah, 10.54. More than 10x the number per head of population.

2. Most of those deaths are people killing themselves deliberately, according to the same story.

Not really sure how either of these things is an argument against gun control...

Not sure how it's an argument for it either.

Um, it isn't?

Quote
Nice.

I'm totally confused. In the words of a very famous Australian, "Please explain?".

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 576
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #849 on: April 13, 2016, 08:14:35 AM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/scary-trend-in-australian-gun-crime-with-more-than-200-shooting-deaths-a-year/news-story/374b4e55fdbb1718079c36979245d50c

From that article (which by the way is a Murdoch publication and has a habit of sensationalising stuff):

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

So (from the article, if you take what they say as gospel) -

1. Firearms deaths occur in Australia at a rate of 0.93 per 100,000 per year. What's the rate in the US? Oh yeah, 10.54. More than 10x the number per head of population.

2. Most of those deaths are people killing themselves deliberately, according to the same story.

Not really sure how either of these things is an argument against gun control...

Not sure how it's an argument for it either.

Nice.

I wasn't exactly responding to hard-hitting analysis.

If most firearm deaths are suicides, then the user had an intent to kill. Taking away the gun is like taking a mechanic's 14mm wrench and leaving him with a 14mm socket and ratchet, channel locks, and an adjustable wrench.  I get that firearms are the 'quickest' way of doing the deed, and are what people with the INTENT for suicide will gravitate toward, but take them away, and another method will be found.



Same thing with the overall murder rates - In austrailia, .93/100k of 1.1 homocides/100K are with a gun. (85%) In the US, 3.4 of 3.8/100K are with a gun (89%). That seems like, within the certainty of any statistic, the SAME rate of use of firearms in murders either place. Ergo, controlled versus less controlled gun ownership STILL results in them being used in about 90% of murders. So again, Why bother?