Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345944 times)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #800 on: April 08, 2016, 09:09:06 AM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #801 on: April 08, 2016, 09:32:21 AM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #802 on: April 08, 2016, 09:39:55 AM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #803 on: April 08, 2016, 11:39:08 AM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.
Nearly all firearm deaths are a result of misuse, not because of a design flaw in the firearm. What changes to a well functioning firearm could be done to stop people from either killing themselves or others?

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #804 on: April 08, 2016, 11:40:27 AM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.
Nearly all firearm deaths are a result of misuse, not because of a design flaw in the firearm. What changes to a well functioning firearm could be done to stop people from either killing themselves or others?

Without impacting effectiveness of the weapon in high-stress conditions.  <-- the part most people miss
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #805 on: April 08, 2016, 11:45:34 AM »
You're arguing about details of a pure hypothetical and missing the point.

Having worse data does not lead to more informed choices being made.  At the very least, it would make sense to lift the ban on federal funding of gun research.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #806 on: April 08, 2016, 11:58:04 AM »
You're arguing about details of a pure hypothetical and missing the point.

Having worse data does not lead to more informed choices being made.  At the very least, it would make sense to lift the ban on federal funding of gun research.
There is no longer a ban.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #807 on: April 08, 2016, 11:58:50 AM »


Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety. Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

Actually, we do know this.  You don't.  That's part of the point of it all.  Most gun owners are also home owners, and parents.  We do consider these things.  Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed.  You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on.  You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire.  On the other hand, there are older designs of similar weapons that are not designed to 'fail-safe' (as in, if it fails; then it fails in a safe way).  Some of such designs are of former soviet design.  "Where is the safety?"  "Safety?  Is gun, is not safe!"  Modern versions often have such safety devices, but I wouldn't own an AK-47, for example; and this is a contributing reason.  I do own a Mosign-Nagant, and it's safe condition involves the physical removal of the bolt from the rifle; which is exactly how it spends most of it's existence in my home, usually with the bolt in the handgun safe.

And yes, we do have research data to support these kinds of decisions; but a lot of it is common sense once you have real knowledge about the nature of firearms generally, and the nature of the firearms you are considering in particular.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #808 on: April 08, 2016, 12:07:51 PM »
Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed.  You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on.  You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire. 

I'm fairly convinced you can hand an AR-15 to almost any non-gun person and they'd have no idea how to fire it (wouldn't know how to chamber the first round).  This also makes it safer around children when stored in condition III.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #809 on: April 08, 2016, 12:35:23 PM »
You're arguing about details of a pure hypothetical and missing the point.

Having worse data does not lead to more informed choices being made.  At the very least, it would make sense to lift the ban on federal funding of gun research.
There is no longer a ban.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/16/obama_gun_control_executive_orders_call_for_cdc_gun_violence_research_17.html
.

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.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #810 on: April 08, 2016, 12:36:35 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #811 on: April 08, 2016, 12:41:15 PM »
Quote from: GuitarStv
Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.

Quote from: Moonshadow
Actually, we do know this.  You don't.

Great!  You can enlighten me.

Can you provide some of the studies you've got that show how ownership of particular models of guns compare in around the home gun incidents?  Or some studies that show which model and type of firearm is statistically more dangerous to own with young kids in the house?



Even in this respect, the AR-15 is one of the 'safest' of the class of military-grade, semi-automatic carbine rifles ever designed.  You can't get the thing to fire when the safety is on.  You could drop it from a rooftop, and you'd be more likely to bend the barrel than get it to fire. 

I'm fairly convinced you can hand an AR-15 to almost any non-gun person and they'd have no idea how to fire it (wouldn't know how to chamber the first round).  This also makes it safer around children when stored in condition III.

Coolbeans guys.  Who was asking about AR15s?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #812 on: April 08, 2016, 12:42:04 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #813 on: April 08, 2016, 12:45:17 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

What if I don't want to bet, I want to actually know.  With measurable data?

*Shrug*

Then I guess you could commission a study to find out. It would be expensive and time consuming. And in the end, I am 99 percent sure the answer would be "Glock handguns are the mostly likely to be involved in an injury resulting from a negligent discharge." And all that time and money would have been wasted.

Doubly so, since the community of gun users would say "We already knew that. This study isn't going to change our behavior."

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #814 on: April 08, 2016, 12:55:09 PM »
Coolbeans guys.  Who was asking about AR15s?

If you're talking about banning specific types of guns, the gun that will come up in conversation every time is the AR-15.  So, you are, even if you don't know it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #815 on: April 08, 2016, 12:58:11 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

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.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #816 on: April 08, 2016, 01:06:40 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.

Because just a body count is a statistic in isolation.  Trying to draw causation from correlation is not a scientific way to approach a complicated issue.

Proper research could quantify exactly what the effect of each type of weapon has on the general populace.  It could identify if there are particular weapons (or particular attributes of weapons) that are unusually more dangerous or more often involved in crimes than others . . . and this works both ways.  If AR15s aren't more dangerous, then it would clearly demonstrate the futility of trying to ban these weapons.  It could demonstrate the effect of measures like ensuring a background check for all sales on a weapon, whether or not it makes sense to have regulation regarding gun storage, or what the effect of having a searchable database of gun owners would do for law enforcement.

Would it not stand to reason that if something is unusually more dangerous and/or involved more in crimes, there would be a higher murder rate by that type of weapon? I'll grant you the other issues you mention regarding background checks, storage, etc. The FBI data will not give you the necessary information needed to make an informed conclusion regarding those topics. However, regarding banning a certain type of weapon because of how dangerous it is would and should be supported by data that reflects a higher rate of death by that type of weapon. The FBI data should be plenty good enough for that type of conclusion.

Death rate isn't the be all end all because it doesn't tell the whole story.

What if one particular type of firearm turned out to cause 300% more deaths in the home than other similar firearms for example?  Maybe an outright ban isn't the right way to go about things, when just a minor redesign could improve safety.  Right now we don't know if there are particular designs of handguns/rifles/shotguns that are more dangerous.


There are very few cases I can think of where obstructing or occluding information leads to better informed decisions being made.

I think we could bet that Glocks (the type of gun I carry, and its carried by more police and military organizations than any other handgun design on the market) are involved in more cases of negligent discharge injuries than other types of guns.

The reasons for this are technical in nature. The gun has no manual external safety, and the trigger must be pulled during disassembly. Gun owners know this. Its not a secret.

Again, it is probably involved in more "accidents" than any other single firearm design.

But civilian owners, police departments and militaries keep buying and using them because the benefits of the (excellent) design outweigh those issues. The people who own and use Glocks are capable of making that determination. A scientific study or outside party is not.

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.

Totally legitimate personal choice.

Isn't it grand? :)

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #817 on: April 08, 2016, 01:07:50 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?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #818 on: April 08, 2016, 01:13:56 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).

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #819 on: April 08, 2016, 01:22:24 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's no evidence of its danger, yet because it's an evil black rifle (in other words, it "looks scary") bans are continually attempted.  I'm not sure that logic is present with these attempts at all.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #820 on: April 08, 2016, 01:22:34 PM »
I think it's been posted several times already, but the reason we don't have good research on this topic is that gun advocates have helped to block funding for good research.  I think that we all would agree that removing this roadblock would be beneficial for the debate.

I've never understood why people argue that there isn't good research available. The FBI numbers even include deaths by the "mass shootings" as well. Given that, the number of murders committed with firearms, even sorted by type of weapon seems rather good to me. Especially if you're looking to enact a ban on a certain type of weapon based on the misguided notion that that type of weapon is somehow being used on a more regular basis than others. It's not true, the data from the FBI doesn't support it, so arguing for it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.
No, I'm saying that the ban makes getting good/less biased data hard.  One group which was able to do a respective study said: 
"Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world.
Legislation to regulate firearms has often been passed with the intent of reducing problems related to their use.
However, lack of clarity around which interventions are effective remains a major challenge for policy development.
Aiming to meet this challenge, we systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearmrelated
laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies
published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous
implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm
deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms
are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.
Limitations of studies include challenges inherent to their ecological design, their execution, and the lack
of robustness of findings to model specifications. High quality research on the association between the implementation
or repeal of firearm legislation (rather than the evaluation of existing laws) and firearm injuries would lead to a
better understanding of what interventions are likely to work given local contexts. This information is key to move this
field forward and for the development of effective policies that may counteract the burden that firearm injuries pose
on populations
."


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #821 on: April 08, 2016, 01:25:32 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?

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #822 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #823 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #824 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #825 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #826 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: 2580
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #827 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #828 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #829 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 #830 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 #831 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #832 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #833 on: April 08, 2016, 03:24:03 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.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 03:26:01 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #834 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 #835 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 #836 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 #837 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 #838 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 #839 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.


spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #840 on: April 09, 2016, 09:26:47 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.
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.
Retired at 42 to play!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #841 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: 4107
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #842 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 #843 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 #844 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #845 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #846 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: 154
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #847 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #848 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 #849 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.