Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 443677 times)

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #900 on: April 26, 2016, 06:07:15 AM »
Still haven't picked up a AR-15 yet.  I'm leaning toward a Colt 6920.  After catching up on this thread I feel the need to go ahead and get it.  And I'm also a pilot and plane owner and would defiantly not like something like the FAA to be in control of anything. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #901 on: April 26, 2016, 06:10:39 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.

It would be better if half the rules they suggested didn't already exist and the other half had any effect on the problem they were claiming to solve...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #902 on: April 26, 2016, 07:53:51 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.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
Quote
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600.

Do you seriously expect firearms training to have a significant impact on homicide and suicide rates? Those aren't things that happen because someone lacks training...arguably it's demonstrating that they actually do know what they're doing.  Or do you want to create a massive red tape maze to reduce the accidental death count (which is less than 2%)?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #903 on: April 26, 2016, 08:00:15 AM »




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.

No twisting required: 60%+ of gun deaths are suicides. more regulation will result in the following: The same number of total suicides, but some will exhibit masterful handling of the weapon the act; and those who can't get the gun will choose another way to go... and probably more painful ways, god forbid they do things that bring other people into it like jumping into traffic.

Quote
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.

uh, no. the left has fought AGAINST half of those accomplishments...  Slavery, segregation... both ended by republicans with democrats voting against it. Labor rights were only supported by the left because it was anticapitalist. Gay rights... yeah, the republicans have that wrong.
every other 'accomplishment' the left has won has usually proven to be a disaster, or at best, the cure was only slightly better than the disease.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #904 on: April 26, 2016, 08:59:03 AM »
Call it what you will, a disaster or progress, the ideas of the LEFT, not Democrats or Republicans that have had radically different planks through their existence, have generally won.    40 hour work weeks, child labor, suffrage have all been ideas pushed forward by the left.    Perhaps it was the communists or the anarchists or Republicans.    They're still leftist ideas, and through history our country has consistently drifted left.    And the people that opposed these positions always eventually lost.

I'm not actually trying to argue a leftist gun control position, if anything I like the Swiss model, I'm just trying to point out that gun advocates are going to lose based simply on the statistics of the country.     We're becoming more urban, and fewer and fewer people own guns.    That's a recipe for more and more draconian gun control laws.    Do what you will with that, I don't really care if guns become illegal, or if there's a program to determine if people are competent before purchasing firearms.  I'd just like to see fewer people shot in this country, we look like idiots and it's kind of embarassing.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #905 on: April 26, 2016, 09:23:05 AM »
Call it what you will, a disaster or progress, the ideas of the LEFT, not Democrats or Republicans that have had radically different planks through their existence, have generally won.    40 hour work weeks, child labor, suffrage have all been ideas pushed forward by the left.    Perhaps it was the communists or the anarchists or Republicans.    They're still leftist ideas, and through history our country has consistently drifted left.    And the people that opposed these positions always eventually lost.


You can call them leftist ideas if you like, but it's not historically accurate, no matter what your history professors told you.  All of these things developed as society improved in wealth & infrastructure, because they were possible.  None of them were particularly new ideas at the time, either.
Quote
I'm not actually trying to argue a leftist gun control position, if anything I like the Swiss model, I'm just trying to point out that gun advocates are going to lose based simply on the statistics of the country.     We're becoming more urban, and fewer and fewer people own guns.    That's a recipe for more and more draconian gun control laws.    Do what you will with that, I don't really care if guns become illegal, or if there's a program to determine if people are competent before purchasing firearms.  I'd just like to see fewer people shot in this country, we look like idiots and it's kind of embarassing.

You haven't been paying attention to the statistics for the past 20 or so years have you?  Not only has the rate of murder per capita been on the decline since about 1990, along with every other violent crime statistic; gun ownership rates, concealed carry license rates, and pro-gun state legislation have all been on the rise.  You have been on the wrong side of this particular argument for decades.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #906 on: April 26, 2016, 10:28:51 AM »
Call it what you will, a disaster or progress, the ideas of the LEFT, not Democrats or Republicans that have had radically different planks through their existence, have generally won.    40 hour work weeks, child labor, suffrage have all been ideas pushed forward by the left.    Perhaps it was the communists or the anarchists or Republicans.    They're still leftist ideas, and through history our country has consistently drifted left.    And the people that opposed these positions always eventually lost.


You can call them leftist ideas if you like, but it's not historically accurate, no matter what your history professors told you.  All of these things developed as society improved in wealth & infrastructure, because they were possible.  None of them were particularly new ideas at the time, either.
Quote
I'm not actually trying to argue a leftist gun control position, if anything I like the Swiss model, I'm just trying to point out that gun advocates are going to lose based simply on the statistics of the country.     We're becoming more urban, and fewer and fewer people own guns.    That's a recipe for more and more draconian gun control laws.    Do what you will with that, I don't really care if guns become illegal, or if there's a program to determine if people are competent before purchasing firearms.  I'd just like to see fewer people shot in this country, we look like idiots and it's kind of embarassing.

You haven't been paying attention to the statistics for the past 20 or so years have you?  Not only has the rate of murder per capita been on the decline since about 1990, along with every other violent crime statistic; gun ownership rates, concealed carry license rates, and pro-gun state legislation have all been on the rise.  You have been on the wrong side of this particular argument for decades.

Welath, infrastructure, and vocal proponents.    Nothing just happens because we have money or more universities, people fight for something for years and there's eventually critical mass.    I like the little anti-intellectual jab at the end though.

Lets look at another statistic from the last 20 years.   DOMA was passed about 20 years ago.   State after state defined marriage as between a man and a woman.   Blah blah blah.   June 2015, supreme court declares marriage legal.    I see that same thing happening with gun ownership, on about the same time line.    Gun control laws have been steadily increasing since about the Kennedy assassinations.   Much like gay rights, there are victories for gun rights proponents at the state level, but there's still a steady increase at the federal level.   Considering that the Republicans are completely unable to find a candidate that can win the presidency, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Also, if you want to talk about lying with statistics, take a look at how the FBI and local law enforcement compile violent crime stats.   It's pretty gnarly.    And gun ownership per capita has been slowly declining since the 70s.   Much of that is connected with lower amounts of participation in hunting.   What is happening is that the people who own guns, own considerably more than they used to.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #907 on: April 26, 2016, 10:41:59 AM »


Lets look at another statistic from the last 20 years.   DOMA was passed about 20 years ago.   State after state defined marriage as between a man and a woman.   Blah blah blah.   June 2015, supreme court declares marriage legal.    I see that same thing happening with gun ownership, on about the same time line.    Gun control laws have been steadily increasing since about the Kennedy assassinations.   Much like gay rights, there are victories for gun rights proponents at the state level, but there's still a steady increase at the federal level.   Considering that the Republicans are completely unable to find a candidate that can win the presidency, I don't see this changing anytime soon.


The lack of a solid presidential candidate isn't confined to the Republicans.  If Hillary wins, I don't see how the democrats take congress which means no gun legislation.  She may be able to appoint a supreme court justice, but they may or may not turn out how she wants them.

With regard to laws and activity at the federal level, the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire, a recent case of ATF overreach on ammunition was shut down, and the Supreme court has ruled in favor of gun rights on several recent occasions. 

To add - I don't think Hillary winning is a foregone conclusion.  The country has had 30 years to get to know her and she's not very popular (even among many Democrats).  The only reason she has a chance is because of insanity on the Republican side.  Once the Republicans figure out whose running against her, she may manage to lose.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 10:48:37 AM by Midwest »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #908 on: April 26, 2016, 11:03:13 AM »
Call it what you will, a disaster or progress, the ideas of the LEFT, not Democrats or Republicans that have had radically different planks through their existence, have generally won.    40 hour work weeks, child labor, suffrage have all been ideas pushed forward by the left.    Perhaps it was the communists or the anarchists or Republicans.    They're still leftist ideas, and through history our country has consistently drifted left.    And the people that opposed these positions always eventually lost.


You can call them leftist ideas if you like, but it's not historically accurate, no matter what your history professors told you.  All of these things developed as society improved in wealth & infrastructure, because they were possible.  None of them were particularly new ideas at the time, either.
Quote
I'm not actually trying to argue a leftist gun control position, if anything I like the Swiss model, I'm just trying to point out that gun advocates are going to lose based simply on the statistics of the country.     We're becoming more urban, and fewer and fewer people own guns.    That's a recipe for more and more draconian gun control laws.    Do what you will with that, I don't really care if guns become illegal, or if there's a program to determine if people are competent before purchasing firearms.  I'd just like to see fewer people shot in this country, we look like idiots and it's kind of embarassing.

You haven't been paying attention to the statistics for the past 20 or so years have you?  Not only has the rate of murder per capita been on the decline since about 1990, along with every other violent crime statistic; gun ownership rates, concealed carry license rates, and pro-gun state legislation have all been on the rise.  You have been on the wrong side of this particular argument for decades.

Welath, infrastructure, and vocal proponents.    Nothing just happens because we have money or more universities, people fight for something for years and there's eventually critical mass.    I like the little anti-intellectual jab at the end though.

Lets look at another statistic from the last 20 years.   DOMA was passed about 20 years ago.   State after state defined marriage as between a man and a woman.   Blah blah blah.   June 2015, supreme court declares marriage legal.    I see that same thing happening with gun ownership, on about the same time line.    Gun control laws have been steadily increasing since about the Kennedy assassinations.   Much like gay rights, there are victories for gun rights proponents at the state level, but there's still a steady increase at the federal level.   Considering that the Republicans are completely unable to find a candidate that can win the presidency, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Also, if you want to talk about lying with statistics, take a look at how the FBI and local law enforcement compile violent crime stats.   It's pretty gnarly.    And gun ownership per capita has been slowly declining since the 70s.   Much of that is connected with lower amounts of participation in hunting.   What is happening is that the people who own guns, own considerably more than they used to.

You are wrong about this one.

Let's use gay marriage as an example. With this issue, you had 3 groups. One very small group who very badly wanted gay marriage legal (gay people). One very small group who really wanted gay marriage illegal (religious right). Then a third very large group who didn't really give a crap (average hetero people). Over time, culture (TV, movies, books, etc) normalized gay people in the eyes of that very large group of average hetero people. Plus the fact that a fair-minded individual would probably see gays as the victim in the argument. So by 2010 or so, most people sympathized with gay folks and looked at the religious right people as out of touch bigots. Legalizing gay marriage was inevitable, the Supreme Court just sped it up.

Same with slavery. You have a very small group (slave owners) who wanted it to be legal. You had a small group who wanted to end slavery (abolitionists). Then you had a very large group of people (most whites) that didn't really care. Because a reasonable person can see that slavery is obviously wrong, the end of slavery was inevitable, the Civil War just sped it up.

On the gun issue, you have a totally different situation. You have a significant group of gun owners who want LESS gun control, and another large group of gun owners who are basically OK with the gun control we have. Then you have a very small group who wants more gun control. Then you have a large group of non-gun-owning people who don't really care either way. Most people don't really care about gun control. You can point to a poll that says "60 percent of Americans want more gun control" but that doesn't mean what it seems to. If you ask some random person on the street, they will say they want more gun control because the media and John Stewart/Oliver says that's what they should think. But it's not something they think about, are informed about, or care about, or use as a metric when deciding to vote.

You have maybe 5 percent of the population who are gun control activists. Then you have 20 percent of the population who would NEVER vote for an anti-gun candidate for any reason. Then the rest of the population who doesn't even have the issue on their radar.

Then take into consideration that our culture has normalized guns, and there is no sign of that reversing. A young man who grew up playing Call of Duty might never own a gun but he probably thinks they are pretty cool and would like to have the option of buying an AR-15 if he felt like it.

Then you have the fact that most reasonable people can see that anti-gun politicians are massive hypocrites of the worst type (Feinstein has/had a CHL in California for example, and they all have armed bodyguards).

This doesn't even touch on the potential for armed resistance if you push pro-gun people far enough.

So yeah, basically the gun control issue is totally different from the gay marriage issue, or any of the other issues you used as an example.


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #909 on: April 26, 2016, 11:24:41 AM »
Please excuse this mini-rant.

I often wonder if anti-gun people understand the importance of the role of firearms when it comes to the liberty that most of us take for granted. People talk about where human rights come from in theory. It is also important to think about where they came from in practice.

Throughout (basically) all of human history, the vast majority of human beings lived in abject subjugation. The average person was basically the property of a king, or warlord, or emperor, or tribal ruler, or whatever. This situation was ALWAYS maintained using one basic mechanism; the professional soldier. In different times, places, and cultures, this looked different. The Roman Legion, the Greek Hoplite, the Byzantine Cataphract, and so on. The ruling class was able to maintain absolute control over the population by maintaining small numbers of expertly trained and well equipped soldiers. Human beings had, in practice, no rights because they could not exert their claim to human rights against rulers wielding even small numbers of professional soldiers.

Use the classic European Knight as an example. The knight was part of the ruling class. He was trained from a young age to fight. His weapons, armor, several trained warhorses and so on were incredibly expensive. By maintaining even a small number of these professional soldiers, the ruling class could maintain whatever level of control over the subject class they desired.

All the religious principles, all the philosophy, all the basic yearning people have for human dignity cannot stand up to a mounted charge from knights on horseback. Humans have always had basic, inherent rights. However, they had no way to force the ruling classes to acknowledge this fact. Five thousand righteously angry peasants with pitchforks could not stand up to 100 professionally trained and equipped knights on horseback.

Then the firearm was invented. Now, the peasant could be trained in a day to use a musket to shoot a knight off of his horse. Many people acknowledge how this changed warfare, but fewer acknowledge how it changed the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. After the proliferation of the firearm, the ruling class could no longer subjugate the vast majority of human beings with the threat of small numbers of professional soldiers. It totally changed the power dynamic. It is not a coincidence that the 18th and 19th and 20th century saw people all over the world overthrowing their rulers, or at least demanding basic human rights and dignity.

Human beings didn't suddenly figure out they should be free. They always knew it. The proliferation of the firearm gave them the ability to demand it. Human rights, dignity, and liberty in practice literally flow from the barrel of a gun. Ask, tell, make.

Those who would willingly give up the firearm and throw themselves on the mercy of their rulers are insane. They are not progressive, they are regressive. They are short sighted, they and blind, they do not understand history. Human ingenuity has given us a tool to ensure our basic human rights. Keeping this tool is worth the cost of 10, 20, 30, 50 thousand deaths a year and more.

How people can fail to see this baffles me.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #910 on: April 26, 2016, 11:43:59 AM »
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #911 on: April 26, 2016, 11:47:38 AM »
Welath, infrastructure, and vocal proponents.    Nothing just happens because we have money or more universities, people fight for something for years and there's eventually critical mass.    I like the little anti-intellectual jab at the end though.

Yeah, that's exactly what happens. Culture changes through time. Capitalism and economic prosperity is the catalyst for social and cultural change. If you're arguing for the benefit of child labor laws (for example), please realize that families didn't push children into poor jobs just because, they NEEDED that income. Our economy grew to a point where non-farm families no longer needed children to labor to support the family, so it became unpopular in lieu of education.

You're trying to equate these changes to gun control and you're ignoring ALL of the background to make a point that evidence doesn't support. It's nonsensical, nothing happens in a vacuum.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #912 on: April 26, 2016, 12:34:37 PM »
I appreciate your thoughtful response.  You obviously have pondered this for a bit.

I have the opposite opinion.  Really, if the "government" really wanted to go dictator on us - do you think a few shotguns and M15s are going to help much?  I don't think so.

I'm just as baffled by the claim that arming yourself somehow defends our joint liberty.  How is this?  Just in case tomorrow the state of say, CT decides they are going to outright collect all guns, tax you 75%, and make you attend gay weddings or something?  I'm not sure where this paranoia comes from.

I've travelled quite a bit in Central and South America, conduct fieldwork in very remote places, and have had a turn in some gritty east coast cities.  Folks often are surprised about my travels and ask if I'm worried about my safety.  Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

I'd feel much more secure with a sense of liberty if we had more European or Australian gun laws.  My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.
Your worry is based on uninformed fear, not facts or statistics.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

Quote
During over two decades, from October 1, 1987 to May 31, 2014, Florida has
issued permits to more than 2.64 million people, with the average person holding
a permit for more than a decade.3 Few -- 168 (about 0.006%) -- have had their
permits revoked for any type of firearms related violation, the most common
being accidentally carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone such as a
school or an airport, not threats or acts of violence. It is an annual rate of 0.0002
percent.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #913 on: April 26, 2016, 12:34:52 PM »
I think it's safe to say that any average citizen who goes around fearing that they'll be shot by a stranger, or by anyone with an 'assault rifle' doesn't math well.  Don't fear the math!

Edit: JLee has it covered.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 12:36:33 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #914 on: April 26, 2016, 12:42:14 PM »
I think it's safe to say that any average citizen who goes around fearing that they'll be shot by a stranger, or by anyone with an 'assault rifle' doesn't math well.  Don't fear the math!

Edit: JLee has it covered.
Yep.

As was recently posted:

Quote
My take - those that feel the need to carry all the time are scared of something -robbers, the black guy, society in general, or the government.  Why?  I'm baffled.
Quote
Frankly, I'm more worried that someone legally packing will get pissed at my driving or biking and find the need to forge his manhood by taking his insecurities out on me.

It is incredibly ironic that gun owners are accused of feeling like they need a gun to protect them when the world is so safe that it isn't necessary...yet the gun owners (who commit a tiny fraction of all crimes) are then presented as dangerous and scary to the welfare of the general population. The hypocrisy is astonishing and completely contrary to every statistic I have ever seen.

For the record, I carried a gun in case something like this happened.  I'm not sure how I'd live with myself if I was too lazy to carry my firearm and then was unable to stop something like that.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 12:43:59 PM by JLee »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #915 on: April 26, 2016, 12:48:07 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #916 on: April 26, 2016, 12:53:39 PM »
No northwestie, don't get started.    They're libertarians dude.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #918 on: April 26, 2016, 12:57:25 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

No northwestie, don't get started.    They're libertarians dude.

No, I am not. You can take your assumptions elsewhere.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #919 on: April 26, 2016, 01:15:56 PM »
Why be worried?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Xi9pyQ2MFsE/U8gvekvNe2I/AAAAAAAACbg/LuFupWQadHM/s1600/Gun_deaths+v+guns+chart.jpg

And, again, if you take suicides out of the numbers it'll be far lower. Stop cherry-picking data and use the correct statistics. Eliminating gun deaths by restricting guns won't eliminate the majority of those deaths. France and Japan have a far higher suicide rate than the US with much stricter access to firearms.

And if you're going to use statistics to show a trend, show the trend in context: declining homicides as a percentage of the population.

Also, no one has rebutted the fact that gun control, both in our country and outside (UK, Canada, Australia, etc), has not had any meaningful impacts on curbing gun violence.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 01:20:00 PM by Yaeger »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #920 on: April 26, 2016, 02:23:18 PM »
No, I agree.  There's noting wrong with having firearms accessible to the mentally ill or those prone to suicide.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #921 on: April 26, 2016, 02:35:57 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #922 on: April 26, 2016, 02:38:18 PM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #923 on: April 26, 2016, 02:41:33 PM »
How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.[3]

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, reaching a low of 10,117 in 1999. Gun-related homicides increased slightly after that, to a high of 11,547 in 2006, before falling again to 10,869 in 2008.[

And how many of those were committed by CCW holders? You said yourself you're worried about the people who are "legally packing."

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #924 on: April 26, 2016, 02:52:17 PM »
Poignant

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #925 on: April 26, 2016, 02:54:45 PM »
Red herring.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 35
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #926 on: April 26, 2016, 03:18:58 PM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. More guns in the US HAS coincided with less crime, for decades.

Red herring.

Agreed, he's just a sore loser that resorts to an ad hominem when his points are all debunked. This is why arguing with close-minded liberals (based on the broad anti-conservative/Republican comments he's made) is like pissing into the wind, they're not likely to change their opinion no matter the body of evidence in front of them. Despite what he says he's not willing to consider that he might be wrong.

I'd be all for mandating gun safety education in public schools in lieu of gun control. I think it's an important topic that all of our children need and would address a lot of his concerns.

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #927 on: April 26, 2016, 03:31:32 PM »
Still haven't picked up a AR-15 yet.  I'm leaning toward a Colt 6920.  After catching up on this thread I feel the need to go ahead and get it.  And I'm also a pilot and plane owner and would defiantly not like something like the FAA to be in control of anything.

This is a good choice, good quality at a nice price point.  I wouldn't put it in the tier 1 category (LWRC, Noveske, Knights, etc.) but it's a solid tier 2 rifle especially for the money.  I would also consider Daniel Defense if you can find one at a similar price to the Colt. 

Allen Farlow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 62
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #928 on: April 26, 2016, 03:39:58 PM »
Total number of deaths by firearms in the United States in 2014:  12,586
(http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014)

Total number of deaths by motor vehicles in the U.S. in 2014: 32,675
(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)

What is anyone doing about motor vehicle control? We already register them... just saying...

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #929 on: April 26, 2016, 03:45:04 PM »
It's a joke, not an ad hominem attack.    Calm down.

I'm not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.    Safety education in schools, really?    I'm fairly certain that I already went through that in the early 80s.     I could put up a thousand arguments, and debunk all of your points and we'd still be right here.

I feel like an alcoholic that needs to hit a meeting right now.    Enjoy the brain damage my progressive friends.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2016, 04:02:39 PM by greaper007 »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #930 on: April 26, 2016, 03:47:22 PM »
Total number of deaths by firearms in the United States in 2014:  12,586
(http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/tolls/2014)

Total number of deaths by motor vehicles in the U.S. in 2014: 32,675
(http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts)

What is anyone doing about motor vehicle control? We already register them... just saying...

9,967 of those motor vehicle fatalities were alcohol-related. 3500 people drown in pools annually, too.  If alcohol and pools were to be heavily restricted, we could potentially save more lives than are lost to guns. Please note that I am not saying that this means gun deaths are not a problem, but if the true interest is in saving lives, the focus should be much wider than it is.

Side note, I do think that driver training requirements in the US are abysmally low.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #931 on: April 26, 2016, 03:53:39 PM »

I'mean not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.   

There are very few arguing for no regulation, I'm certainly not.  I do, however, like the regulation to provide some sort of cost benefit analysis. 

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #932 on: April 26, 2016, 04:21:30 PM »
It's a joke, not an ad hominem attack.    Calm down.

I'm not a sore loser, I'm just questioning why I walked into another debate with people who essentially don't support regulation of dangerous products.    Safety education in schools, really?    I'm fairly certain that I already went through that in the early 80s.    I could put up a thousand arguments, and debunk all of your points and we'd still be right here.

I feel like an alcoholic that needs to hit a meeting right now.    Enjoy the brain damage my progressive friends.

Speculative evidence.

It is interesting that you've labeled me as Libertarian, now Progressive...I can't help but wonder what's next!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #933 on: April 26, 2016, 04:42:41 PM »
Poignant

Ouch!  That's going to leave a mark.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #934 on: April 27, 2016, 04:09:44 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.
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 #935 on: April 27, 2016, 04:18:39 AM »
It just seems so logical that we should have MORE firearms -- then this would act as a deterrent.  The collateral damage, I'm sure, would be insignificant.

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. More guns in the US HAS coincided with less crime, for decades.

Wait wait wait wait wait....so guns sales have skyrocketed, applications for concealed weapon permits have gone through the roof, states are loosening gun laws left, right and center, the federal government is doing the same.....AND we're getting SAFER!?  Isn't that exactly what EVERYBODY wants!?  Why do gun-fearers not understand that America is having its cake and eating it too? It's not like its a secret; it's covered in every statistic available on gun violence.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #936 on: April 27, 2016, 07:28:18 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #937 on: April 27, 2016, 07:49:41 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

you're willfully misrepresenting the point of everyone you're arguing against here. 

Allen Farlow

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 62
  • Location: USA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #938 on: April 27, 2016, 07:54:38 AM »
Well, if we have to 'clear some community standards' that's not really freedom now, is it?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #939 on: April 27, 2016, 08:23:19 AM »
Poignant

Not sure if that word means what you think it means, but that graphic is pretty damn funny. Thank you for sharing.

Sad, because it's the way these conversations always go.     I was trying to advocate for a gun ownership position that allows people to have the hardware of their choice if they're able to clear some community safety standards.     Just like we do with every other dangerous product.

Yet the conversation always devolves into a give nothing , there aren't really any problems with guns (like mass shootings, or being a kid thats trying to survive the summer on the s side of chicago) and you just don't understand freedom.

It's a joke, but it's accurate, and that makes me sad.

Chicago has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation and enough murders that you are bringing it up as an example of why more gun control is needed.  I realize you'll blame Indiana and the surrounding states, but with 300M guns in US, criminals will always find guns and/or a way to kill people.  The people most affected by the things you propose are law abiding citizens.

With regard to mass shootings, any death is awful but there were less than 400 people killed in mass shootings last year.  1 is too many, but things like banning black rifles won't impact this number in any meaningful way.

Lastly, while we are on the topic of violence take a look at this

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

There were 12,253 murders in the US during 2013.  3800 of those were committed without guns.  Do you seriously believe banning guns will eliminate the 8500 murders committed with guns?  If 1/3 of the murders are committed without guns presently, I suspect murderers will find another tool if guns are removed from the equation.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #940 on: April 27, 2016, 09:21:14 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.    Just like I had to get a type rating to fly as a captain in a Saab 340.    My dad has guns and I spent a portion of my life carrying an M-16 around.    I have a familiarity with firearms.

What I'd advocate for is something like the Swiss system where most houses have an automatic weapon sitting in the hallway closet.   Anyone that wants to have guns should do some military service or training and then continually re qualify with their equipment.     We could have some sort of double blind registry that was maintained by a civilian organization.    Certain hardware could only be purchased with the proper certificate.    I'd like to see this program controlled by a non-governmental entity that advocated for citizens.

Because, the problem with guns doesn't really stem from the people on this thread.     I'm going to assume that none of you are angry ex-spouses, mentally incompetent or fail to train with your weapons on a regular basis.   However, a sizeable percentage of gun owners are bad gun owners.    They don't properly secure their weapons and allow things like Newtown to occur.     We don't have a tight registration system, so thugs in Chicago can get their 21 year old girlfriend to make straw purchases for them (something I was approached about during my misbegotten youth).    Or they're crazy or have an anger problem.

We have 100,000 shootings a year with a third of the population as gun owners.    About 800 million passengers fly on airliners a year in 2013, only 9 died.   Planes used to fall out of the sky a lot, once we acknowledge that this was an unacceptable problem we really brought those numbers down and everyone can still ride as a passenger on a plane if they want to.    We could do something similar with guns.   

That's my point, not the same tired gun ban arguments that most on the left spew out.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #941 on: April 27, 2016, 09:25:45 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.    Just like I had to get a type rating to fly as a captain in a Saab 340.    My dad has guns and I spent a portion of my life carrying an M-16 around.    I have a familiarity with firearms.

What I'd advocate for is something like the Swiss system where most houses have an automatic weapon sitting in the hallway closet.   Anyone that wants to have guns should do some military service or training and then continually re qualify with their equipment.     We could have some sort of double blind registry that was maintained by a civilian organization.    Certain hardware could only be purchased with the proper certificate.    I'd like to see this program controlled by a non-governmental entity that advocated for citizens.

Because, the problem with guns doesn't really stem from the people on this thread.     I'm going to assume that none of you are angry ex-spouses, mentally incompetent or fail to train with your weapons on a regular basis.   However, a sizeable percentage of gun owners are bad gun owners.    They don't properly secure their weapons and allow things like Newtown to occur.     We don't have a tight registration system, so thugs in Chicago can get their 21 year old girlfriend to make straw purchases for them (something I was approached about during my misbegotten youth).    Or they're crazy or have an anger problem.

We have 100,000 shootings a year with a third of the population as gun owners.    About 800 million passengers fly on airliners a year in 2013, only 9 died.   Planes used to fall out of the sky a lot, once we acknowledge that this was an unacceptable problem we really brought those numbers down and everyone can still ride as a passenger on a plane if they want to.    We could do something similar with guns.   

That's my point, not the same tired gun ban arguments that most on the left spew out.

You are arguing that an unfamiliarity with firearms is the problem - how will making everyone more proficient reduce the murder count?  I agree that training is important, but this should reduce accidental shootings -- I don't see how it would have an impact on reducing murder or suicide rates.

You keep bringing up airlines - faulty comparison.

That said, if I could qualify with and then buy anything I wanted, I'd be thrilled.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 09:33:16 AM by JLee »

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #942 on: April 27, 2016, 09:44:44 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3812
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #943 on: April 27, 2016, 09:49:32 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #944 on: April 27, 2016, 10:08:10 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly. 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 10:14:22 AM by Midwest »

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #945 on: April 27, 2016, 10:09:44 AM »
Training is twofold.    Unfamiliarity is a serious problem, I believe you said that you're ex LEO, I went through OCS in the Marine Corps (dor'ed before you ask) and I've seen seen some really bad habits at civilian ranges, I'm sure you have too.    I've also seen my redneck family members keep loaded weapons in the open around children.      These people need some more training.     Two, mandatory training would allow instructors to spot potential crimminals, crazies and terrorists and red flag them for further investigation.     I used to train a lot of foreign pilots, (the 9-11 high jackers trained 10 miles up the road from my school).    After 9-11, every instructor had to go through training to spot potential terrorists.    It seems to have worked fairly well.

You're right that alone this won't reduce the murder and suicide rate, that's another issue which needs to be dealt with through community mental health and poverty reduction programs.    Every gun owner should be lobbying Congress to implement more spending in these areas.    However, having to qualify with a weapon would make you come into contact with more officials.   That would potentially allow them to spot people who might be suicidal.     My wife is a psychologist, the threshold for determining suicidality is fairly specific and simple.

Training would also reduce the murder rate because as you know, most crimminals are essentially lazy.    Beyond your occasional psychopath, they're probably not going to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a gun.

Based on your responses, I don't know why we wouldn't allow someone like you to own an M-16.    Especially used surplus built after 1986 that should cost $500 instead of $20,000.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #946 on: April 27, 2016, 10:45:10 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

Yes, general aviation is considerably less safe than airlines.   Beyond pilot ability and oversight, the equipment simply isn't as good at the GA level on the whole.    However, the FAA and NTSB continually evaluate the cause of GA crashes and change requirements and training based on statistics and individual findings.    Pilots are also continually evaluated throughout their career, and the FAA offers lots of free training material for pilots at all levels.    From seminars to emails.    This does reduce the incidences of accidents and incidents for GA.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #947 on: April 27, 2016, 10:55:13 AM »
How is it a faulty comparison?    They're both objects that are simple to master but difficult to recover in tenuous situations.     If anything, keeping a plane flying in bad weather or with mechanical situations is more difficult than keeping a bullet from entering an innocent person.

One is a mode of transportation.  One is a weapon.  Your emphasis appears to be that "training will solve the problem" -- were the 9/11 hijackers untrained?  How is a firearm "difficult to recover in tenuous situations"? I'm no ATP, but I've landed a C182RG in a crosswind and that was more complicated than plinking cans with my Ruger 10/22.

A more accurate comparison would be airplanes to cars (which kill over 30,000 people annually).

They're both tools, tools require training and practice.    You've plinked cans since you were 9 years old, I'm sure you're better at it than me.    I got to the point as an instructor that I could land a plane by simply telling a student (who had never flown the plane) what sort of adjustments to make while I stared out the side window.

The classic example with a firearm is a noise heard in the middle of the night.    Do you have the training necessary to go from a dead sleep to identifying a robber from your spouse?    That's a difficult situation that's hard to recover from.

The 9-11 highjackers should have been stopped by the FBI after the instructors training them made reports.    That was a failure of the system that wouldn't happen today because we've adjusted systems and training relative to events.

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #948 on: April 27, 2016, 11:15:14 AM »
I also think we should have similar training for cars, with endorsements for things like large suvs or towing.    Penalties need to be higher for enfractures also.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #949 on: April 27, 2016, 11:38:31 AM »
Right, so I said I don't support banning guns.   I actually support allowing people to carry the gun of their choice, I'd just like to see that they've qualified on their weapon.   


I believe you argue the current CCW training classes (in most states) aren't enough despite the low incident rate.  How much training would you envision for a CCW to carry a 9MM? 

With regard to your pilot comparison, it's unfair to compare professional pilots to citizen gun owners.  Amateur pilots have a much higher incident rate than airlines for miles flown yet we still allow them to fly.

I'm not sure.   There would probably be a graduated certificate  based on hours trained and testing.    Then specific endorsements for more highly sensitive areas like schools, courthouses or say packed concerts.     Maybe 40 hours of training with a written and practical exam could be considered a license to learn.    You could carry in relativery low density areas or in locations like your car.    LEO's and ex military would also be able to test out immediately if they chose.

LEO's in my state need 60 hours of firearms training.  I suspect we are not an outlier regarding the # of hours.  LEO's encounter potential shootings on a much more frequent basis than the average citizen.

Our CCW class is 12 hours and includes both classroom and practical.  Despite the low number of hours, incidents with CCW holders are low.

While more training is good (I'm looking at additional training because it's fun and I enjoy learning), I think you are setting the bar unnecessarily high.  The impact of such a high bar will be that many are simply priced out of the market due to time and financial constraints.  As I said earlier, you need to to a cost benefit analysis when limiting freedoms. 

You seem to be on the side that more regulation is better despite the costs.  If incidents are low with 12 hours, why do we need 40?  With regard to CCW holders in states that require training and a background check, you seem to have a solution in search of a problem.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 11:40:31 AM by Midwest »