Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345945 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #900 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

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #901 on: April 24, 2016, 08:32:04 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)..
And we also don't want to mess up our pretty faces with a gun shot to the head when a hangul of pills leaves us lovely. Vanity even unto death ;-)!

But seriously, yes it's more common for men to commit suicide with a firearm because they are more likely to own then women.  That's probably changing a lot in the USA over the last couple of decades and of course many women have access to their male partners guns.


Retired at 42 to play!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #902 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 #903 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 #904 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #905 on: April 25, 2016, 01:24:15 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.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 01:32:42 AM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #906 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: 574
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #907 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #908 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.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #909 on: April 25, 2016, 10:51:36 AM »
I live in a state where it is illegal to openly carry a firearm so never see that and can understand it could be disconcerting for other's to see. However when I have lived in a state where it was legal and common to open carry it was seen as somewhat "normal and everyday" by most people who saw it and so not so disconcerting. I personally dislike open carry outside of very specific places (like in remote areas outdoors or where there is a viable and direct threat (zombies around ;)!) and feel that it isn't something that is necessary for most people in daily circumstances. I also feel that those with CCW (concealed carry permits) should require a fairly large amount t of training and qualifying/requalifying.
Retired at 42 to play!

greaper007

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1130
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #910 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: 567
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #911 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 »

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3597
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #912 on: April 25, 2016, 02:31:15 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.   
While I disagree with your stance that the need to feel protected in your home or outside your home is a narcissistic thing (you don't know an individuals circumstances) or that owning and/or carrying a gun is a danger to others (not my personal experience or the national experience in the USA), I do agree that the buying and owning of any firearm for home or personal use should require safety and use training, background checks, age requirements, licensing, etc... to greater ensure the skill and knowledge of the gun owner and the safety of those around them. Many states already have those requirements in place.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2016, 02:33:41 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #913 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 #914 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 #915 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #916 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #917 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: 567
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #918 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 #919 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #920 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 #921 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 #922 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #923 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #924 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 #925 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #926 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 #927 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: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #928 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 #929 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 #930 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 #931 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 #932 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.

dmc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #933 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #934 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #935 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: 567
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #936 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 #937 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 #938 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 #939 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: 1078
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #940 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 #941 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 #942 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 #943 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: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #944 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #945 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: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #946 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: 3353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #947 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 #948 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 #949 on: April 26, 2016, 12:53:39 PM »
No northwestie, don't get started.    They're libertarians dude.