Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 437116 times)

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #850 on: April 13, 2016, 01:01:08 PM »
Many rationalize it, and feel their views are very well founded, which, based upon their worldview, they may be. That said, it amounts to a fear reaction. Your fear may be valid, but be aware that that is what it is. When you act upon a fear reaction, often your decisions depart from rational, practical thought.

Indeed. The anti-gun types have an irrational fear of firearms... a relatively miniscule amount of guns ever are used to kill another. The pro firearms types have an irrational fear that they'll need a gun to protect themselves... a relatively small amount of people arm mugged, robbed or carjacked, and in this country, we haven't had the need for an armed resistance to a tyrant. (counter aurgument: yet.)

The difference is that the anti-gun types seek to take away one tool of death, when dozens more are readily available, and nothing is done about the intent. The field of things the pro-gun types 'fear' is leveled quite quickly when they have firearms.


Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #851 on: April 14, 2016, 04:32:50 AM »
I didn't see this referenced, sorry if this is a duplicate

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

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

"Most firearms deaths are suicides."

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

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

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

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

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

Nice.

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

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



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

Awesome post. And PFHC's follow up as well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #852 on: April 15, 2016, 02:48:01 PM »
Out to lunch today with a buddy. Sat about four feet from a group of gentlemen who were carrying concealed weapons. Not sure if they were off-duty officers or gun-nut citizens, but there was no shoot-out with the wait staff, no accidents and no wild-west draw downs.  If they hadn't been sitting down, I would probably never have seen the tiny bottom of their holsters and never known they were carrying beneath their shirts. Probably more guns out there in public than people realize, and yet very few accidents.

Stay safe and pay attention no matter where you are.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gone

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #853 on: April 20, 2016, 05:39:38 PM »
I don't keep a firearm in my home. My area is fairly safe so that I feel a fire arm would not protect me from anything. I do not own anything worth the life of another human, so protection against theft is unnecessary for me. If it came to protecting my own life, a gun is a crapshoot. Too many factors would need to work to my advantage: it would have to be at hand when needed, I would have to be competent to use it, I would have to have will to kill another person without hesitation, I would have to be faster than my assailant. I also have suffered anxiety and depression so, should a mix of terrible circumstances arise, a gun could pose more of a threat to me than anyone else.

A firearm is just not for me. Others have their opinion, but for my life, my insurance is enough of a weapon.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #854 on: April 20, 2016, 06:27:24 PM »
So now that Hillary has more or less wrapped up the Democratic ticket, are any firearm owners going to be stocking up on anything or wait for the eventual frenzy?

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #855 on: April 21, 2016, 06:23:16 AM »
So now that Hillary has more or less wrapped up the Democratic ticket, are any firearm owners going to be stocking up on anything or wait for the eventual frenzy?

I've been saving for an AR-15 and an M&P Shield 9mm for EDC (every day carry). Of course I'm constantly buying ammo as well. I live in a fairly conservative state, so I'm not worried about state regulation, but if it starts looking like there's going to be some federal regulation handed down, I'll probably speed up the timeline. I'm a member of the NRA, so I get pretty regular updates on pro and anti-gun legislation that's being tossed around.

Gone

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #856 on: April 21, 2016, 11:23:15 AM »
nice to see some more on topic discussion but curious about your last statement about insurance. Do you mean homeowners insurance to replace valuables stolen?,As a woman who lives alone I'm not much concerned about any if my stuff but more about personal protection from assault if someone breaks in while I'm there.

Yeah, insurance is enough for me. There's only two things I could lose if someone broke into my home: my stuff or my life. My stuff isn't important. My life isn't protected enough by a gun to warrant me owning one.

That's just me. For you it might be different.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 539
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #857 on: April 21, 2016, 12:03:34 PM »
nice to see some more on topic discussion but curious about your last statement about insurance. Do you mean homeowners insurance to replace valuables stolen?,As a woman who lives alone I'm not much concerned about any if my stuff but more about personal protection from assault if someone breaks in while I'm there.

Yeah, insurance is enough for me. There's only two things I could lose if someone broke into my home: my stuff or my life. My stuff isn't important. My life isn't protected enough by a gun to warrant me owning one.

That's just me. For you it might be different.

I understand your point. I wouldn't suggest anyone with serious depressive symptoms to get a gun, unless, possibly if there were huge offsetting circumstances. For someone in a fairly safe area...no.
I agree with you that my 'stuff' isn't worth anyone's life. The problem is, a thief has already determined otherwise! But that is really a side-issue for me. I live in a republic, and one of the traditional duties of citizens of a republic is defense. It is one of my civic duties, along with things like picking up trash, aiding injured people, helping out in a disaster, giving CPR. If you want to live in a nice, peaceful, responsible society, some members have to be willing to do these things. Not every citizen for every job, but a good number for each. So I have no problem with you not being willing to do this particular duty, since I assume you pick up other duties.

Gone

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #858 on: April 21, 2016, 01:29:02 PM »

I understand your point. I wouldn't suggest anyone with serious depressive symptoms to get a gun, unless, possibly if there were huge offsetting circumstances. For someone in a fairly safe area...no.
I agree with you that my 'stuff' isn't worth anyone's life. The problem is, a thief has already determined otherwise! But that is really a side-issue for me. I live in a republic, and one of the traditional duties of citizens of a republic is defense. It is one of my civic duties, along with things like picking up trash, aiding injured people, helping out in a disaster, giving CPR. If you want to live in a nice, peaceful, responsible society, some members have to be willing to do these things. Not every citizen for every job, but a good number for each. So I have no problem with you not being willing to do this particular duty, since I assume you pick up other duties.

Indeed, I do. My work keeps me very much involved in the civic duties of my community, so I feel quite comfortable with my level of input into society through work, taxes, and education. I like your attitude towards community cooperation. Very responsible.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #859 on: April 21, 2016, 06:00:43 PM »
Well IMO -- and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with contrary opinion; I'm not clear on what Americans are so scared of that they feel they need a gun.  Hunting is another thing - I grew up around that but stopped when I was much younger. 

I've lived in a very rural area on 40 acres and in a not-so-desirable place in D.C., and a range within that and never felt the need for a gun. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #860 on: April 21, 2016, 07:11:54 PM »
Well IMO -- and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with contrary opinion; I'm not clear on what Americans are so scared of that they feel they need a gun.  Hunting is another thing - I grew up around that but stopped when I was much younger. 

I've lived in a very rural area on 40 acres and in a not-so-desirable place in D.C., and a range within that and never felt the need for a gun.

You do realize that many people own guns because they enjoy shooting and they just simply want to...?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #861 on: April 21, 2016, 09:03:46 PM »
Yes, and was not addressing that.   Again, IMO -- that's an "interesting" hobby.  There's lots of places out here int he west where you can find gravel pits where everybody and there brother brings bottles, cans, sofas, chairs, and all sorts of appliances to shoot up.  Let's say the leftovers are not overly aesthetic

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #862 on: April 21, 2016, 09:36:15 PM »
Yes, and was not addressing that.   Again, IMO -- that's an "interesting" hobby.  There's lots of places out here int he west where you can find gravel pits where everybody and there brother brings bottles, cans, sofas, chairs, and all sorts of appliances to shoot up.  Let's say the leftovers are not overly aesthetic

Perhaps I misunderstood your generalization, then.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #863 on: April 22, 2016, 12:13:49 AM »

And often carried by those you'd least expect - Granny at bingo? Soccer Mom cheering from the sidelines? That perky blonde with a pony tail and pink "Hello Kitty" sweatshirt eating a veggie burger after her bike ride? Ok so that's me ;).  The stereotype of the brawny dude with the big truck and cowboy hat may be true but really you just never know.


"God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal."
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #864 on: April 22, 2016, 05:24:20 AM »
Well IMO -- and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with contrary opinion; I'm not clear on what Americans are so scared of that they feel they need a gun.  Hunting is another thing - I grew up around that but stopped when I was much younger. 

I've lived in a very rural area on 40 acres and in a not-so-desirable place in D.C., and a range within that and never felt the need for a gun.

I feel that way about a lot of things. Sadly, I live in America and the citizens have choices of things to own, for any reason and often no reason at all. It makes me scared and sad to think of all those people out there free to do whatever they want, without permission from anyone else. Hopefully this will someday change; until then I just shake my head at crazy people who do things that I don't enjoy or own things I think are silly.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #865 on: April 22, 2016, 06:09:01 AM »
nice to see some more on topic discussion but curious about your last statement about insurance. Do you mean homeowners insurance to replace valuables stolen?,As a woman who lives alone I'm not much concerned about any if my stuff but more about personal protection from assault if someone breaks in while I'm there.

Yeah, insurance is enough for me. There's only two things I could lose if someone broke into my home: my stuff or my life. My stuff isn't important. My life isn't protected enough by a gun to warrant me owning one.

That's just me. For you it might be different.
yeah I'm kind of the opposite - don't care about my stuff and don't own anything even worth insuring (except my guns hahaha!) but highly value my life and body and have no way to get "replacement insurance" for those so want to do what I can to protect them.  But I definitely understand that isn't the (paranoid?insecure? unnecessary?) mindset of most people. I'm OK with that.

I have enough sentimental value in my guns (most are family heirlooms) that I purchased a pretty expensive safe to put them in. Insurance just isn't enough for me when it comes to those. I'd rather have the gun than the money any day of the week. Same with my deceased grandfather's wedding ring. I have a separate rider on my insurance for it, but no amount of money could ever truly replace it so it also sits in the safe. My pistol on my nightstand is a form of insurance against the unlikely event that someone with intentions other than petty burglary targets our home. My wife had a knife put to her throat by an ex-boyfriend several years ago, so I really don't take any chances anymore. While it's unlikely anything like that will ever happen again, the only insurance I have is my pistol.

Beyond the safety and personal protection mumbo jumbo, I also have a fascination with the engineering and craftsmanship that goes into making a gun. More specifically, shotguns. Some of the shotguns out there are just incredible pieces of artwork. Because of this, I want to own as many beautiful guns as I can afford to own. For those who are interested, here's a YouTube video of a Holland & Holland side-by-side being made.

https://youtu.be/RLxDRb7yWnw

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3833
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #866 on: April 22, 2016, 06:53:10 AM »
If most firearm deaths are suicides, then the user had an intent to kill. Taking away the gun is like taking a mechanic's 14mm wrench and leaving him with a 14mm socket and ratchet, channel locks, and an adjustable wrench.  I get that firearms are the 'quickest' way of doing the deed, and are what people with the INTENT for suicide will gravitate toward, but take them away, and another method will be found.

One thing regarding suicides to consider is what percentage of attempts are successful.

I suspect the rate of "first time attempt success" is much higher with firearms than other means.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4347
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #867 on: April 22, 2016, 09:01:13 AM »
If most firearm deaths are suicides, then the user had an intent to kill. Taking away the gun is like taking a mechanic's 14mm wrench and leaving him with a 14mm socket and ratchet, channel locks, and an adjustable wrench.  I get that firearms are the 'quickest' way of doing the deed, and are what people with the INTENT for suicide will gravitate toward, but take them away, and another method will be found.

One thing regarding suicides to consider is what percentage of attempts are successful.

I suspect the rate of "first time attempt success" is much higher with firearms than other means.
It is, which is one of the reasons the rate of suicide for males is higher than for females (what means is used)..

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #868 on: April 23, 2016, 04:01:53 PM »
Well IMO -- and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with contrary opinion; I'm not clear on what Americans are so scared of that they feel they need a gun.  Hunting is another thing - I grew up around that but stopped when I was much younger. 

I've lived in a very rural area on 40 acres and in a not-so-desirable place in D.C., and a range within that and never felt the need for a gun.

This is something I run into a lot, especially when talking to non-americans. This idea that guns are some extreme thing that should require some justification. Why do you feel the need to own a gun? What are you scared of? Etc.

These questions are natural coming from someone who sees a gun as a strange and foreign object.

Many Americans don't see things this way. We own guns. Always have. Parents owned them when we were kids. They are common everyday objects.

So when asked "what are you so scared of that you need a gun?" A lot of us really don't know how to respond to that. I'm not scared of anything. I own and carry a gun... because. It is a normal and everyday thing for me, there is no over - riding reason I can point to.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #869 on: April 23, 2016, 06:41:27 PM »
Well, why not carry a bazooka  then?  Still don't see the point.  Especially given that the percentages show that a gun in the house is, by far, more likely to kill a relative or a child than an intruder. 

I grew up around hunters, but none of us felt the need to be packing while we went shopping for groceries.  Seemed rather silly.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #870 on: April 23, 2016, 10:59:25 PM »
Well, why not carry a bazooka  then?  Still don't see the point.  Especially given that the percentages show that a gun in the house is, by far, more likely to kill a relative or a child than an intruder. 

I grew up around hunters, but none of us felt the need to be packing while we went shopping for groceries.  Seemed rather silly.

Odds-wise, at the time of you growing up, it was illegal for them to carry. I'm willing to bet that some of them would've if it weren't illegal.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #871 on: April 24, 2016, 04:20:20 AM »

Well, why not carry a bazooka  then?  Still don't see the point.  Especially given that the percentages show that a gun in the house is, by far, more likely to kill a relative or a child than an intruder. 


I grew up around hunters, but none of us felt the need to be packing while we went shopping for groceries.  Seemed rather silly.

Lots of people do silly things. Sadly, in America, this is allowed. If only the whole world agreed on everything, it would be a much less scary and confusing place.

Also, an excellent reason to not have children or relatives in your house. Or near the pool; statistically speaking.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2016, 04:22:49 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #872 on: April 24, 2016, 08:40:36 AM »
I thought this guy was pretty, dammit!

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

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #873 on: April 24, 2016, 10:30:43 AM »
Well, why not carry a bazooka  then?  Still don't see the point.  Especially given that the percentages show that a gun in the house is, by far, more likely to kill a relative or a child than an intruder. 

I grew up around hunters, but none of us felt the need to be packing while we went shopping for groceries.  Seemed rather silly.
I don't see the point in a lot of things people do, but if they are not harming anyone it's none of my business. 

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #874 on: April 24, 2016, 11:09:49 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

I'm an FAA certified flight instructor and Airline Transport Pilot, I can assure you that flying any plane is difficult and dangerous.   Which is why the US government requires that you have a certain amount of training and experience in order to take a test that would allow you to operate an aircraft by yourself.    Not just one test, but progressively more difficult tests and training in order to have more responsibilities.    There's also a requirement for frequent reexamination of your abilities and knowledge.      I don't see a huge difference between guns and planes, they're both very useful tools that are totally unforgiving.

I don't understand why we don't do the same thing with guns.    I don't have a problem with guns, I have a problem with idiots with guns.    And there are a lot of idiots with guns.    I'd be fine with lifting a lot of firearms laws if we ensured that people carrying those firearms were trained and evaluated.    For instance, we could lift the 1986 machine gun ban and instead have a machine gun license.     We could get rid of state by state concealed carry laws, and instead have a license that allowed people to carry a concealed weapon in any state.    First though, make sure they're physically fit (you don't want someone stroking out and giving a bad guy another weapon when their blood pressure spikes for the first time in 20 years), mentally sound, able to make snap use of force judgements, and able to put lead on target under pressure.    I don't think that's too much to ask.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #875 on: April 25, 2016, 09:02:43 AM »
After being out in the woods all weekend and shooting about 6 different varieties of guns, I am reminded that shooting guns is freaking fun.  That is all.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #876 on: April 25, 2016, 10:05:32 AM »
Well IMO -- and I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with contrary opinion; I'm not clear on what Americans are so scared of that they feel they need a gun.  Hunting is another thing - I grew up around that but stopped when I was much younger. 

I've lived in a very rural area on 40 acres and in a not-so-desirable place in D.C., and a range within that and never felt the need for a gun.

This is something I run into a lot, especially when talking to non-americans. This idea that guns are some extreme thing that should require some justification. Why do you feel the need to own a gun? What are you scared of? Etc.

These questions are natural coming from someone who sees a gun as a strange and foreign object.

Many Americans don't see things this way. We own guns. Always have. Parents owned them when we were kids. They are common everyday objects.

So when asked "what are you so scared of that you need a gun?" A lot of us really don't know how to respond to that. I'm not scared of anything. I own and carry a gun... because. It is a normal and everyday thing for me, there is no over - riding reason I can point to.
This. I think for most gun owners we don't understand the fear others have of guns since we see them as just ordinary objects that, in and of themselves, are safe. I view a car driving g at 65 next to me as a far greater danger than someone who owns a gun. Especially given the far greater likelihood of an accident or that someone may be driving irresponsibly (drunk, texting, etc..). Yet most of us go about our day driving, or biking/walking around cars with not much concern. We try to be responsible ourselves and assume that those around us driving thousand pound machines at high speeds are responsible too so we have little fear. So don't quite understand why people fear guns, and those who own them, when they seem to be perfectly comfortable driving near or driving in a fast moving vehicle - and having their family do the same.

I've gone shooting with friends at ranges many times and took a hunters' safety class when I was a kid. I understand what you're saying about guns being ordinary, every day objects, especially during hunting season.

That said, when I see someone carrying a pistol in the grocery store or in a fast food joint, I get nervous because of the implicit threat that that gun conveys to me. It says to me that the owner reserves the right to end me or a member of my family if they think something we or someone else does or says threatens their safety. This is true even if they're in uniform.

You can make some basic assumptions about how safe you and your family will be if you or someone else causes a car accident, primarily due to the vast strides car manufacturers have made over the past few decades with regards to survivability. The only assumption one can safely make about a gun is that it's loaded, especially about a gun on a stranger's hip.

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #877 on: April 25, 2016, 10:48:36 AM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #878 on: April 25, 2016, 12:41:15 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #879 on: April 25, 2016, 02:07:23 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

If the whole point of the 2nd amendment wasn't for it to be a check and balance against an oppressive government, it would make a little bit of sense for them to regulate gun ownership that tightly. The problem is, it would be far to easy for the gov't to limit service hours, monkey with the criteria, etc in such a way that they effectively make it impossible to practically own a gun. and given the tactics used already to end-run the 2nd amendment, you better bet they would.

Also, it's a douchebag move to be throwing around armchair physiologist terms like 'narcissistic' in regards to gun owners. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 02:10:48 PM by ncornilsen »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #880 on: April 25, 2016, 02:34:10 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #881 on: April 25, 2016, 02:40:08 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

If the whole point of the 2nd amendment wasn't for it to be a check and balance against an oppressive government, it would make a little bit of sense for them to regulate gun ownership that tightly. The problem is, it would be far to easy for the gov't to limit service hours, monkey with the criteria, etc in such a way that they effectively make it impossible to practically own a gun. and given the tactics used already to end-run the 2nd amendment, you better bet they would.

Also, it's a douchebag move to be throwing around armchair physiologist terms like 'narcissistic' in regards to gun owners.

The government has nuclear weapons and F-22s, the prevention of oppression thing is sort of a moot argument.    Also, at the time that the bill or rights was written, the militias it referred to generally meant people hunting down escaped slaves.   So, have fun with that legacy.   

I've yet to have major problems with the FAA monkeying with my certificates.    Unlike gun ownership, I actually needed those to make a living.    I think a bi-partisian council with civilian and non-civilian oversight would insure that people who were able to fill out some forms and submit to training would have the privileged of using whatever hardware they desired.    As it stands now, if gun owners don't come up with a better system they're going to face more and more draconian strategies designed to prevent any gun ownership.    If I was for guns, I'd try to get in front of this thing.

I'm married to an actual psychologists, so I'm at least a "davenport psychologist."    "Narcissism - extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."    The United States has one of the highest per capita gun violence rates in the world.    If you don't wish to promote regulations that would help us have gun violence statistics that mirrored the rest of the developed world, how else would you describe yourself if not "narcissistic?"   

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #882 on: April 25, 2016, 02:43:17 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #883 on: April 25, 2016, 03:16:25 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #884 on: April 25, 2016, 03:20:23 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.
Not sure if serious.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #885 on: April 25, 2016, 03:20:31 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

If the whole point of the 2nd amendment wasn't for it to be a check and balance against an oppressive government, it would make a little bit of sense for them to regulate gun ownership that tightly. The problem is, it would be far to easy for the gov't to limit service hours, monkey with the criteria, etc in such a way that they effectively make it impossible to practically own a gun. and given the tactics used already to end-run the 2nd amendment, you better bet they would.

Also, it's a douchebag move to be throwing around armchair physiologist terms like 'narcissistic' in regards to gun owners.

The government has nuclear weapons and F-22s, the prevention of oppression thing is sort of a moot argument.   

An oppressive government isn't going to nuke or airstrike itself. And I believe our middle east quagmire proves that in armed insurgency can put up a pretty good fight against a well armed and trained army, and that neglects that a lot of our military would be unwilling to turn on it's own nation.
Quote
Also, at the time that the bill or rights was written, the militias it referred to generally meant people hunting down escaped slaves.   So, have fun with that legacy.
The truthout article which started this myth has been debunked so thoroughly, that to continue to buy into this untruth is borderline willful ignorance.

Quote
I've yet to have major problems with the FAA monkeying with my certificates.    Unlike gun ownership, I actually needed those to make a living.    I think a bi-partisian council with civilian and non-civilian oversight would insure that people who were able to fill out some forms and submit to training would have the privileged of using whatever hardware they desired.    As it stands now, if gun owners don't come up with a better system they're going to face more and more draconian strategies designed to prevent any gun ownership.    If I was for guns, I'd try to get in front of this thing.

There is no inherent conflict of interest between the ruling class and you flying commercial airliners. The 'monkeying' I refer to is the same kind of things that have been done to limit women's access to abortion... putting them in remote areas, that kind of thing. it probably won't start that way, but I can guarantee you it would end up worse than that. And Some reasonable regulation certainly would be a good idea.
Quote
I'm married to an actual psychologists, so I'm at least a "davenport psychologist."    "Narcissism - extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."    The United States has one of the highest per capita gun violence rates in the world.    If you don't wish to promote regulations that would help us have gun violence statistics that mirrored the rest of the developed world, how else would you describe yourself if not "narcissistic?"   

Are you like, new to this thread or something? The statistical methods used by the US and other countries differ in a way that over represents the use of guns in murders in the US. It's also already been discussed that, despite Australia's gun control laws, guns are still used in ~85% of murders, which is about the same rate as in the US.

I swear it's like you duct out of the thread when something that pretty thoroughly calls your view into question, then reappear after the topic has changed so you can re-introduce the same, debunked talking points.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #886 on: April 25, 2016, 03:27:41 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

I'd suggest a graduated licensing system that allows certain privileges based on the level one reaches.   Again, I have no problem allowing people to carry miniguns in public if they demonstrate that they're safe, sane, in shape and proficient.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #887 on: April 25, 2016, 03:32:53 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

I'd suggest a graduated licensing system that allows certain privileges based on the level one reaches.   Again, I have no problem allowing people to carry miniguns in public if they demonstrate that they're safe, sane, in shape and proficient.

Greaper - You suggest that flying an airliner and properly operating a firearm are very similar in level of proficiency required (I disagree btw).  Given that flying an airliner requires 1000+ hours of flight time, how many hours would you suggest are needed to carry a concealed firearm?

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #888 on: April 25, 2016, 04:18:45 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

If the whole point of the 2nd amendment wasn't for it to be a check and balance against an oppressive government, it would make a little bit of sense for them to regulate gun ownership that tightly. The problem is, it would be far to easy for the gov't to limit service hours, monkey with the criteria, etc in such a way that they effectively make it impossible to practically own a gun. and given the tactics used already to end-run the 2nd amendment, you better bet they would.

Also, it's a douchebag move to be throwing around armchair physiologist terms like 'narcissistic' in regards to gun owners.

The government has nuclear weapons and F-22s, the prevention of oppression thing is sort of a moot argument.   

An oppressive government isn't going to nuke or airstrike itself. And I believe our middle east quagmire proves that in armed insurgency can put up a pretty good fight against a well armed and trained army, and that neglects that a lot of our military would be unwilling to turn on it's own nation.
Quote
Also, at the time that the bill or rights was written, the militias it referred to generally meant people hunting down escaped slaves.   So, have fun with that legacy.
The truthout article which started this myth has been debunked so thoroughly, that to continue to buy into this untruth is borderline willful ignorance.

Quote
I've yet to have major problems with the FAA monkeying with my certificates.    Unlike gun ownership, I actually needed those to make a living.    I think a bi-partisian council with civilian and non-civilian oversight would insure that people who were able to fill out some forms and submit to training would have the privileged of using whatever hardware they desired.    As it stands now, if gun owners don't come up with a better system they're going to face more and more draconian strategies designed to prevent any gun ownership.    If I was for guns, I'd try to get in front of this thing.

There is no inherent conflict of interest between the ruling class and you flying commercial airliners. The 'monkeying' I refer to is the same kind of things that have been done to limit women's access to abortion... putting them in remote areas, that kind of thing. it probably won't start that way, but I can guarantee you it would end up worse than that. And Some reasonable regulation certainly would be a good idea.
Quote
I'm married to an actual psychologists, so I'm at least a "davenport psychologist."    "Narcissism - extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type."    The United States has one of the highest per capita gun violence rates in the world.    If you don't wish to promote regulations that would help us have gun violence statistics that mirrored the rest of the developed world, how else would you describe yourself if not "narcissistic?"   

Are you like, new to this thread or something? The statistical methods used by the US and other countries differ in a way that over represents the use of guns in murders in the US. It's also already been discussed that, despite Australia's gun control laws, guns are still used in ~85% of murders, which is about the same rate as in the US.

I swear it's like you duct out of the thread when something that pretty thoroughly calls your view into question, then reappear after the topic has changed so you can re-introduce the same, debunked talking points.

I was a history major that graduated long before 2013, the idea that the militias referred to in the 2nd amendment encompassed both minute men and southern slave enforcement is not a new one.   This isn't an idea that was propagated by one left wing source.

Plenty of developed nations don't allow any gun ownership, again, not an idea I support.   Yet, they don't constantly fear an overbearing government that will enslave them all.    I'm not sure why we need to.   

The quagmire in the middle east goes far beyond technological differences and gun ownership.    The world could fix the middle east (they broke it with the  way the region was structured post British colonialism), but we don't really have the will or interest in doing what it takes to make that happen.   We're getting into the weeds with this one though.   Suffice to say, if it comes to the point that a bunch of civilians with Ar-15s are fighting against the US Governement, we've surpassed a state where any law matters.

We're at 16,000 gun incidents so far just this year.    I don't really care how you try to justify that with statistical methods, it's astronomical for a developed nation.

I think if you look at gun laws, the monkeying that occurs with abortion is already happening.    The assault weapon ban was a pretty ridiculous piece of legislation.   Bans in Chicago, but wide open markets in Indiana etc.    Again, I don't know why this needs to be a binary issue.   Totally unregulated gun ownership or Australia.    I think safe, sane and effective shooters should be able to keep and carry any hardware they can qualify on.   I'd be willing to accept the lower accident and incident rate that would occur in such a system.

I use the aviation example because that's effectively what happens with aviation.   You have to have a ton of practice and pass a test just to get a Private Pilots License.   It's a system that works, and it gives you a sense of pride, accomplishment and responsibility to carry that certificate. I can tell you some hair raising stories from my airline days, yet flying on a US based airline is one of the safest ways you can traverse the country.   There's a reason for that, testing and oversight.    When a crash happens, we all study that crash and try our hardest to make sure that whatever caused that crash is fixed.    We don't do that with guns.   We punish people when crimes occur, but we don't look at the root problem of idiots with guns.    We offer what's essentially a very very loose licensing requirement in order to receive a CCW, and no training requirement to buy most handguns or rifles.    What do most states require, a weekend class where you fire off a few dozen rounds at a stationary target at the end, where only a percentage of rounds have to hit center mass?    I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.    If you can't demonstrate a tight grouping, in a dynamic environment, you shouldn't be carrying a weapon in a crowded location.   

In the Marine Corps we didn't even fire our weapons until after officer candidate school.    First we had to get used to carrying weapons around, muzzle awareness etc.   Then the people that continued after OCS were required to qualify with their weapons in a test that was way beyond center mass.    That's a good system to emulate for civilian gun ownership.    It seems to be similar to what the Swiss do (where you can see people carrying sub-machine guns in the grocery store).

Again, I wouldn't suggest that this was a system that was simply overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, or the ATF.    You could have a joint civilan and non-civilian board that made sure everyone had access and and equal chance to prove themselves.   As long as the civilan counterpart was someone other than the NRA.   That's just a shell organization for the gun manufacturers that gins up fear to sell more guns.

Respond as you wish, I have kids to play with and dinner to make.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #889 on: April 25, 2016, 04:30:18 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

I'd suggest a graduated licensing system that allows certain privileges based on the level one reaches.   Again, I have no problem allowing people to carry miniguns in public if they demonstrate that they're safe, sane, in shape and proficient.

Greaper - You suggest that flying an airliner and properly operating a firearm are very similar in level of proficiency required (I disagree btw).  Given that flying an airliner requires 1000+ hours of flight time, how many hours would you suggest are needed to carry a concealed firearm?

Ok, one more.   Contrary to popular belief.   It's not hard to fly a plane.   The mechanics are quite simple (I could teach you how to land in about a weekend), I was an airline pilot at about 400 hours of total time.    I had no problem performing single engine ILS approaches at minimums, on raw data.    What I couldn't do at 400 hours was draw on years of experience to make a decision.    Is this radar return safe to fly through?    Am I ok with the FAA minimum for reserve fuel flying into La Guardia when it's surronded by bad weather and everyone has declared Hartford as their alternate airport (I always asked for an extra 500lbs of fuel in that situation).   Should I be holding in this sort of icing?    At 1500 hours (ATP requirements) I was much more comfortable making these decisions.    Guns are the same.   You can see lots of people that can shoot tight groupings at a stationary target, but how often have they made use of force decisions, had to engage in hand to hand combat with someone that got the jump on them and is trying to take their weapon, shoot at a target surrounded by civilians?    You're able to make those decisions because you've trained and you have experience.   As a person in the crowd, I want an overseeing body to ensure that has happened.

There's a graduation of certificates in aviation.    And it doesn't take that long to graduate from one to the other.    After college I hit a pilot mill in Florida, I walked in with a PPL, and had a commercial multi-engine license in less than a year.   It took a little bit longer and I had an instructors license.    I was at an airline within about 2 years when it was all said and done.   That's not really a crazy amount of time.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #890 on: April 25, 2016, 05:53:48 PM »
Everyone gets too black and white on this issue.   Guns are extremely dangerous, like lots of other things (cars, poison, high school football).    If people are smart and careful (most are), the chance of a gun hurting an innocent person is rare.    Unfortunately, we don't do very much as a country to insure that  people are smart and careful before they're allowed to have a gun.

The distinction is "allowed" denotes permission.  It is called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Permissions.   AND, there are restrictions to owning and bearing at the Federal and state levels.

And that's the fundamental problem with gun ownership in this country.    Almost every idiot can have one.    We don't allow any idiot to own a cobra, or fly an airliner.    We realize that community safety is more important than a narcissistic need for "protection" without a demonstration of health, knowledge and ability.   

In my state, purchasing a car doesn't require a license.  Driving on the public roadways does.  Similar to that, purchasing a gun doesn't require a license but carrying concealed does.

Flying an airliner is a complex operation that is completely different than owning and operating a firearm.

FYI - In many states you don't need a license to have a dangerous snake - http://www.today.com/news/deadly-snakes-are-sold-online-shipped-passenger-planes-2D80202704

Yes, I generally try not to live in states where idiots can own a cobra.    No, as a former airline captain and someone that carried an M-16 around at one point in my life, I can assure you that flying a plane and knowing how to properly use a firearm are very similar.

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

I'd suggest a graduated licensing system that allows certain privileges based on the level one reaches.   Again, I have no problem allowing people to carry miniguns in public if they demonstrate that they're safe, sane, in shape and proficient.

Greaper - You suggest that flying an airliner and properly operating a firearm are very similar in level of proficiency required (I disagree btw).  Given that flying an airliner requires 1000+ hours of flight time, how many hours would you suggest are needed to carry a concealed firearm?

Ok, one more.   Contrary to popular belief.   It's not hard to fly a plane.   The mechanics are quite simple (I could teach you how to land in about a weekend), I was an airline pilot at about 400 hours of total time.    I had no problem performing single engine ILS approaches at minimums, on raw data.    What I couldn't do at 400 hours was draw on years of experience to make a decision.    Is this radar return safe to fly through?    Am I ok with the FAA minimum for reserve fuel flying into La Guardia when it's surronded by bad weather and everyone has declared Hartford as their alternate airport (I always asked for an extra 500lbs of fuel in that situation).   Should I be holding in this sort of icing?    At 1500 hours (ATP requirements) I was much more comfortable making these decisions.    Guns are the same.   You can see lots of people that can shoot tight groupings at a stationary target, but how often have they made use of force decisions, had to engage in hand to hand combat with someone that got the jump on them and is trying to take their weapon, shoot at a target surrounded by civilians?    You're able to make those decisions because you've trained and you have experience.   As a person in the crowd, I want an overseeing body to ensure that has happened.

There's a graduation of certificates in aviation.    And it doesn't take that long to graduate from one to the other.    After college I hit a pilot mill in Florida, I walked in with a PPL, and had a commercial multi-engine license in less than a year.   It took a little bit longer and I had an instructors license.    I was at an airline within about 2 years when it was all said and done.   That's not really a crazy amount of time.

Given that a ridiculously low percentage of CCW holders commit crimes at all, let alone violent firearm crime, I'm not sure why your focus is on making use of force decisions or shooting in crowded areas.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #891 on: April 25, 2016, 06:24:38 PM »

I'm not even a sport pilot, but doesn't get an airline pilot license take 1000+ hours of flight time?  That's a very high level of proficiency. 

Are you suggesting that gun owns need to be that proficient in order to own/carry a firearm?

I'd suggest a graduated licensing system that allows certain privileges based on the level one reaches.   Again, I have no problem allowing people to carry miniguns in public if they demonstrate that they're safe, sane, in shape and proficient.

Greaper - You suggest that flying an airliner and properly operating a firearm are very similar in level of proficiency required (I disagree btw).  Given that flying an airliner requires 1000+ hours of flight time, how many hours would you suggest are needed to carry a concealed firearm?

Ok, one more.   Contrary to popular belief.   It's not hard to fly a plane.   The mechanics are quite simple (I could teach you how to land in about a weekend), I was an airline pilot at about 400 hours of total time.    I had no problem performing single engine ILS approaches at minimums, on raw data.    What I couldn't do at 400 hours was draw on years of experience to make a decision.    Is this radar return safe to fly through?    Am I ok with the FAA minimum for reserve fuel flying into La Guardia when it's surronded by bad weather and everyone has declared Hartford as their alternate airport (I always asked for an extra 500lbs of fuel in that situation).   Should I be holding in this sort of icing?    At 1500 hours (ATP requirements) I was much more comfortable making these decisions.    Guns are the same.   You can see lots of people that can shoot tight groupings at a stationary target, but how often have they made use of force decisions, had to engage in hand to hand combat with someone that got the jump on them and is trying to take their weapon, shoot at a target surrounded by civilians?    You're able to make those decisions because you've trained and you have experience.   As a person in the crowd, I want an overseeing body to ensure that has happened.

There's a graduation of certificates in aviation.    And it doesn't take that long to graduate from one to the other.    After college I hit a pilot mill in Florida, I walked in with a PPL, and had a commercial multi-engine license in less than a year.   It took a little bit longer and I had an instructors license.    I was at an airline within about 2 years when it was all said and done.   That's not really a crazy amount of time.

Greaper - I'm sure you were more comfortable at 1500 hours, but you don't need to be a navy seal to be reasonably proficient with a firearm.

I looked at our state peace officer training requirements - 600 hours/60 on firearms.  These are people who have a much higher likelihood of using their firearm in a confrontation and may be required to use them in an offensive situation.  I wouldn't want these guys flying a 747 with 60 hours of flight time.  You seem to want to set the bar so high that no one except the wealthy and ex military/LEO will be able to carry a weapon.  Given your aviation example, I think most LEO's would be disqualified as well.

Citizens with firearms in my state are only to use their weapons for personal defense.  You have a duty to retreat.  On top of that, citizens don't enjoy the protections the police are entitled to.  Because of the lower likelihood of use and the restrictions in which they can be used, they simply don't need the type of training you envision.

Lastly, I am not aware of a rash of CCW involved shootings where strays hit bystanders.  The NYPD on the other hand http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/15/nypd-two-bystanders-times-square-shooting  If a non LEO did that, we would throw them in jail.  The threat of punishment to CCW holders and other non-LEO types, takes care of a lot of the problems you seem to think exist.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 06:26:38 PM by Midwest »

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #892 on: April 25, 2016, 08:26:47 PM »
Ok, the requirements that I'm stating aren't what I envision for a simple CCW.     What I'm envisioning is a radically new way of regulating gun ownership that would ultimately benefit anyone that's into guns and the public at large.     I'd like to do away with all the state to state rules and come up with a national system that would ultimately benefit the gun owner.    Like I stated before, it would be a graduated system.    Where people that were deemed reasonably proficient could carry certain weapons in certain situations.    Perhaps a caliber and magazine limit along with denying entry into certain areas where we could determine that people need more training and tighter requirements.    Once you obtained a basic license you would be able to test up to higher levels.   Perhaps you could obtain a rating that allowed you to own semi automatic weapons without a magazine limit, or even automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 (the ATF automatic weapon program has been a great success in terms of weapons used in crimes).    There could be courses that allowed school staff to carry a firearm, and be very proficient in that specific environment.

That's a good example.   For instance, my father was also a pilot and went through Federal Flight Deck Officer training in his 50s.    That's a program created after 9-11 that trains and allows pilots to carry a weapon in the cockpit.   He had to go through a psychological exam, background check and I believe 2 weeks of intensive training with ex military and leos.   They learned obviously how to shoot, and how to engage in close quarter hand to hand combat in a very specific environment.    He was an ex Navy fighter pilot, but the extent of his firearm experience was firing at cans off the back of the aircraft carrier before he flew into combat.    Yet, he was still able to pass at the end of the course.

I like to use the aviation example because I'm familiar with it, guns and airplanes are similar in that they're not inherently dangerous but very unforgiving, and it's a system that works very well.    More than 800 million passengers flew on an airliner in 2013, yet there were only 9 fatalities (about 500 if you include general aviation and all other sectors).   It's estimated that there are about 300 million guns in America with about a third of Americans owning guns, so about 100 million people own guns in this country.   So an 1/8th of the passengers that traveled by air, yet 33,636 people were killed by firearms.   Approximately 100,000 people were shot in that same year.    9 vs 33,636.     Why shouldn't we regulate gun ownership (and driving a car IMHO) like aviation?    I care a lot more about the 33,636 people killed by guns than I do about a strict adherence to an amendment written over 200 years ago.

The system's not working and it needs to be overhauled.    The statistics aren't on gun owners side.   Fewer and fewer people own guns, and fewer and fewer are exposed to them.   I think it's just a matter of time until the laws get more and more draconian.    Why not get on the front side of this and regulate yourselves?     

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #893 on: April 25, 2016, 09:04:10 PM »
Ok, the requirements that I'm stating aren't what I envision for a simple CCW.     What I'm envisioning is a radically new way of regulating gun ownership that would ultimately benefit anyone that's into guns and the public at large.     I'd like to do away with all the state to state rules and come up with a national system that would ultimately benefit the gun owner.    Like I stated before, it would be a graduated system.    Where people that were deemed reasonably proficient could carry certain weapons in certain situations.    Perhaps a caliber and magazine limit along with denying entry into certain areas where we could determine that people need more training and tighter requirements.    Once you obtained a basic license you would be able to test up to higher levels.   Perhaps you could obtain a rating that allowed you to own semi automatic weapons without a magazine limit, or even automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 (the ATF automatic weapon program has been a great success in terms of weapons used in crimes).    There could be courses that allowed school staff to carry a firearm, and be very proficient in that specific environment.

That's a good example.   For instance, my father was also a pilot and went through Federal Flight Deck Officer training in his 50s.    That's a program created after 9-11 that trains and allows pilots to carry a weapon in the cockpit.   He had to go through a psychological exam, background check and I believe 2 weeks of intensive training with ex military and leos.   They learned obviously how to shoot, and how to engage in close quarter hand to hand combat in a very specific environment.    He was an ex Navy fighter pilot, but the extent of his firearm experience was firing at cans off the back of the aircraft carrier before he flew into combat.    Yet, he was still able to pass at the end of the course.

I like to use the aviation example because I'm familiar with it, guns and airplanes are similar in that they're not inherently dangerous but very unforgiving, and it's a system that works very well.    More than 800 million passengers flew on an airliner in 2013, yet there were only 9 fatalities (about 500 if you include general aviation and all other sectors).   It's estimated that there are about 300 million guns in America with about a third of Americans owning guns, so about 100 million people own guns in this country.   So an 1/8th of the passengers that traveled by air, yet 33,636 people were killed by firearms.   Approximately 100,000 people were shot in that same year.    9 vs 33,636.     Why shouldn't we regulate gun ownership (and driving a car IMHO) like aviation?    I care a lot more about the 33,636 people killed by guns than I do about a strict adherence to an amendment written over 200 years ago.

The system's not working and it needs to be overhauled.    The statistics aren't on gun owners side.   Fewer and fewer people own guns, and fewer and fewer are exposed to them.   I think it's just a matter of time until the laws get more and more draconian.    Why not get on the front side of this and regulate yourselves?   

I'm confused. You are talking about "regulating gun ownership" and then all of your clarification boils down to "carry certain weapons in certain situations" and "denying entry into certain areas" -- CCW holders already commit crimes at a lesser rate than police officers. Are you talking about ownership or are you talking about concealed carry?

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #894 on: April 25, 2016, 10:39:58 PM »
Ok, the requirements that I'm stating aren't what I envision for a simple CCW.     What I'm envisioning is a radically new way of regulating gun ownership that would ultimately benefit anyone that's into guns and the public at large.     I'd like to do away with all the state to state rules and come up with a national system that would ultimately benefit the gun owner.    Like I stated before, it would be a graduated system.    Where people that were deemed reasonably proficient could carry certain weapons in certain situations.    Perhaps a caliber and magazine limit along with denying entry into certain areas where we could determine that people need more training and tighter requirements.    Once you obtained a basic license you would be able to test up to higher levels.   Perhaps you could obtain a rating that allowed you to own semi automatic weapons without a magazine limit, or even automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 (the ATF automatic weapon program has been a great success in terms of weapons used in crimes).    There could be courses that allowed school staff to carry a firearm, and be very proficient in that specific environment.

That's a good example.   For instance, my father was also a pilot and went through Federal Flight Deck Officer training in his 50s.    That's a program created after 9-11 that trains and allows pilots to carry a weapon in the cockpit.   He had to go through a psychological exam, background check and I believe 2 weeks of intensive training with ex military and leos.   They learned obviously how to shoot, and how to engage in close quarter hand to hand combat in a very specific environment.    He was an ex Navy fighter pilot, but the extent of his firearm experience was firing at cans off the back of the aircraft carrier before he flew into combat.    Yet, he was still able to pass at the end of the course.

I like to use the aviation example because I'm familiar with it, guns and airplanes are similar in that they're not inherently dangerous but very unforgiving, and it's a system that works very well.    More than 800 million passengers flew on an airliner in 2013, yet there were only 9 fatalities (about 500 if you include general aviation and all other sectors).   It's estimated that there are about 300 million guns in America with about a third of Americans owning guns, so about 100 million people own guns in this country.   So an 1/8th of the passengers that traveled by air, yet 33,636 people were killed by firearms.   Approximately 100,000 people were shot in that same year.    9 vs 33,636.     Why shouldn't we regulate gun ownership (and driving a car IMHO) like aviation?    I care a lot more about the 33,636 people killed by guns than I do about a strict adherence to an amendment written over 200 years ago.

The system's not working and it needs to be overhauled.    The statistics aren't on gun owners side.   Fewer and fewer people own guns, and fewer and fewer are exposed to them.   I think it's just a matter of time until the laws get more and more draconian.    Why not get on the front side of this and regulate yourselves?   

I'm confused. You are talking about "regulating gun ownership" and then all of your clarification boils down to "carry certain weapons in certain situations" and "denying entry into certain areas" -- CCW holders already commit crimes at a lesser rate than police officers. Are you talking about ownership or are you talking about concealed carry?

All of it.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #895 on: April 26, 2016, 12:08:05 AM »
Except there's no correlation between increased gun control and reduced gun violence. Look at the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and recent gun legislation and you'll see almost no change in gun violence. Any trends you DO see are more likely related to cultural changes more than legislative when compared to other countries at the same time period. In fact, in the US gun violence has been declining for decades while our gun per capita ratio has increased.

I bet you see something similar in Aviation. Regulation and government control just pushed people away from recreational flying by raising costs and making it more a pain to meet the criteria, it was technology and innovation which has resulted in the majority of the safety increases for the industry. Regulation and certification is often more reactive than proactive, and always tailored towards towards popular public sentiment rather than actually solving a problem. Gun control is a vote generator, nothing else.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #896 on: April 26, 2016, 12:49:38 AM »
Except there's no correlation between increased gun control and reduced gun violence. Look at the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and recent gun legislation and you'll see almost no change in gun violence. Any trends you DO see are more likely related to cultural changes more than legislative when compared to other countries at the same time period. In fact, in the US gun violence has been declining for decades while our gun per capita ratio has increased.

I bet you see something similar in Aviation. Regulation and government control just pushed people away from recreational flying by raising costs and making it more a pain to meet the criteria, it was technology and innovation which has resulted in the majority of the safety increases for the industry. Regulation and certification is often more reactive than proactive, and always tailored towards towards popular public sentiment rather than actually solving a problem. Gun control is a vote generator, nothing else.

9 airline deaths in 2013.    More people flying than ever, even GA deaths have gone down.   That has nothing to do with regulation driving people away from aviation.   It has everything to do with creating rules in response to events.   From crew rest requirements to crew resource training.   Airline planes used to crash a lot, they don't anymore.

I don't care how you want to twist the statistics around, more people are shot in the United States than almost any developed nation.   That's because we let morons buy guns without submitting to proper training.    We could come up with solutions to stop it, instead we make boogie man arguments about how we have to protect ourselves from the government.

Beyond that, like I said.   If I was into guns I'd get in front of this thing instead of fighting it.    The fighters all seem to lose.   The left has been right on every social issue, and the left's policies have generally been implemented after a long drawn out fight.    Slavery, labor laws, segregation, women's rights and most recently gay rights and state sponsored health care.   I personally don't like bans, I prefer hard core regulation when it comes to things like guns, drugs or sex work.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 01:03:19 AM by greaper007 »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #897 on: April 26, 2016, 01:10:53 AM »

The government has nuclear weapons and F-22s, the prevention of oppression thing is sort of a moot argument.    Also, at the time that the bill or rights was written, the militias it referred to generally meant people hunting down escaped slaves.   So, have fun with that legacy.   


No it didn't.  Myself & others have thoroughly debunked this fallacy, repeatedly, on this very thread.  The fact that you even mentioned it, particularly without bothering to read any of the prior posts in this thread, renders any argument you thought you had worthless & without merit.

It's offensive & plain wrong.  Don't do this again.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #898 on: April 26, 2016, 01:15:22 AM »


I was a history major that graduated long before 2013, the idea that the militias referred to in the 2nd amendment encompassed both minute men and southern slave enforcement is not a new one.  This isn't an idea that was propagated by one left wing source.


This part is correct.  It was vastly more than one.  It's false. 

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #899 on: April 26, 2016, 05:46:14 AM »
I will never understand this strange "position" that so many people seem to take regarding gun ownership. It goes something like this:

"I support the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. I think we should allow people to own some certain guns as long as we set up a Byzantine licensing and qualification scheme requiring 100s of hours of expensive training, endless paperwork, unannounced safe storage requirement home visits, etc etc etc..."

It makes no sense. You do not support the right to keep and bear arms if you put all of these qualifications on it. It's a bit like saying you support the right to vote as long as voters own property, register with an "approved" party, take a "literacy" test, and pay a "poll tax."

Even if some of those qualifiers make sense and would promote better utilitarian outcomes, the addition of those qualifiers reduces the right to a privilege, and the statement becomes nonsensical.