The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 03:26:51 PM

Title: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 03:26:51 PM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.



Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GizmoTX on February 27, 2016, 04:49:48 PM
1. There is no "safe" area in the world. However, we are not afraid precisely because we can protect ourselves. The police exist for law enforcement, not protection. When seconds count, police are minutes or hours away.

2. Yes, we regularly practice, & are licensed to carry. Marksmanship is an enjoyable sport. We hunt for food, which also aids wildlife conservation by removing the old or over abundant.

3. We have always kept dangerous tools out of the hands of the untrained & the immature. When our son began playdates outside of our home, we showed him a gun to remove the mystery & taught him to immediately leave to get adult help if a friend ever encountered one. When he was old enough to move to a bedroom in a different section of our house, he used a deadbolt to stay safe in his room (we could still get in) & an emergency ladder to escape if need be. We use a security system when we're sleeping; if the system gets tripped, we all stay locked in bedrooms, contact each other by phone intercom, & can view any intruders by camera. This sounds like expensive equipment but it's not.

4. First responders will be called by us & given our physical description. We will immediately surrender any weapon. We assume we will be initially arrested while the authorities sort out what happened, even though our state upholds the Castle Doctrine. We'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

You really don't want to advertise that you don't have any self protection in your house -- known "gun free" zones are literally targets of opportunity. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Kaydedid on February 27, 2016, 05:07:41 PM
1.  For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.  I've known folks in our small city/town, where random violent crime really doesn't happen, to be worried enough to keep firearms around the home.

2. Most folks, at least around here, grew up around firearms and are responsible.  Many kids go through hunter safety classes and are familiar with basic gun safety.  From what I've been told (not a personal expert), with most handguns in an intruder situation accuracy isn't important.  Most times the gun will be enough to scare folks off, or else they will be close enough to hit without aiming.

3. I haven't heard of training for something like this, but it would make sense.

4. There seems to be a continuum of responses on this, based on the person's view of government and gun rights.  Ranges from not worrying about it to being ready to shootout with the police if necessary.  I'm not sure what actual repercussions would be, since almost all gun deaths here are from hunting, suicides, or very occasional cleaning accidents.

I used to be vehemently anti-gun, but after moving to this area realized they can be owned and operated in a responsible way.  I heard a fellow once say that he keeps an unloaded shotgun under his bed for home defense (not sure if he even owned shells for it), and just the sound of pumping it would be enough to scare most people away.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 05:15:21 PM
GizmoTx,

I thoroughly agree with your point #3.   Kids need to be taught to understand and respect firearms.    It would be horrible if a child found a pistol or rifle and injured or killed somebody because they thought it was cool.

In point #4, Canada is largely a "gun free" zone.   There are some exceptions, but they are just that - exceptions.    Do you live in Texas?   I've been to Dallas once or twice.   It was surprising to see the security guards with sidearms at TI (this was the Forest Lane facility, I don't know if it's still there), but the city didn't feel dangerous to me.    Did my situational awareness just suck?  (This was 20 years ago...)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 05:18:29 PM
Quote
For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.

Do you know why people worry about this?   It seems like there are so many other things that could go wrong.  Is it just a cultural thing?

Up north (Northern BC, Alaska, Yukon, etc.) once in a while you read about an aggressive bear breaking into someone's house.    But home invasions seems very rare.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2016, 05:26:18 PM
Quote
For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.

Do you know why people worry about this?   It seems like there are so many other things that could go wrong.  Is it just a cultural thing?

Up north (Northern BC, Alaska, Yukon, etc.) once in a while you read about an aggressive bear breaking into someone's house.    But home invasions seems very rare.

It's a cultural thing. In the US, you get so bombarded with these kinds of messages (we are a very fear-based society) that people spend a ton of time worrying about being victims of crime. If you're breathing that air all of the time, some people have a hard time thinking critically about it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 27, 2016, 05:49:18 PM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

I don't live in a dangerous area.  Actually, I live in one of the safest cities in the United States; one that is safer, on average, than many major metropolitan areas in Europe; such as Paris & London.  I also live in the city that (arguably) has the highest Class II & Class III firearms ownership, per capita, in the country.  Some cities in Texas are also in competition.  I would argue that those statistics are related.  So would John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, the largest & most comprehensive study ever performed on the topic of the effects of private firearms ownership on the general rate of crime.
Quote

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)
That depends upon what you would consider "regular", but yes, I do practice.  So do my 15 year old daughter & 13 year old son, who are both members of the local 4H shooting team.
Quote

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

Of course.  https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

My wife has her own concealed carry license, BTW; so suggesting that she would have to "stay out of the way" so she doesn't get hurt is more than a little sexist.

Quote

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?


Stick my hands up in the air, of course.

Quote
   Will the police arrest you?
No matter who's at fault, if I have my weapon in my hand after a shooting, I'm going to get arrested.  The concealed carry license only proves that I knew what I should be doing, not that I did actually rightly.
Quote

   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?
I do.
Quote

  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?
I do live in a 'castle doctrine' state, but again if someone get's shot, even inside my own home, I'm getting arrested.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to jail, but handcuffs and the back seat of a police cruiser is a near certainty.
Quote
For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

Somewhere, I have a hilarious photo that shows two townhome front doors.  One had a little sign that said, "Proudly a gun free home" or some such, the other said "This home is protected by Smith & Wesson".  The photo showed that the home on the left had been broken into, by shattering the glass on the front door.  The other door was untouched.  Apparently the owners didn't quite grasp what they were advertising.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 27, 2016, 05:57:56 PM
GizmoTx,

I thoroughly agree with your point #3.   Kids need to be taught to understand and respect firearms.    It would be horrible if a child found a pistol or rifle and injured or killed somebody because they thought it was cool.


For this exact reason, my children have never been permitted to play with toy guns that are remotely realistic.  If it looks like it could be a real gun, they are not allowed to play with it at another kid's house.  My kids do have those ray gun looking toys, but that is about as close as I am willing to go.  I want to limit visual confusion, if my kids ever encountered an unlocked weapon before their own age of reason.  Once they reach the age of reason, I buy them a gun, and then keep it locked in my gun cabinet 99% of the time.  Again, I live in a safe city, but on the outskirts, so my family is more likely to be threatened by a hungry coyote than an intruder.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Rural on February 27, 2016, 06:36:25 PM
We have bears, of which I've so far always been able to steer clear, feral pigs (ditto, but they're  the scariest thing in the woods; this is not Charlotte's Web here), and packs of feral dogs and coydogs (interbred feral dogs and coyotes). We've had to meet those last with deadly force and likely would not be here if not for guns in the home.


Oh, and we have methheads. Hopefully no guns required there, but I was going for one when my own dogs ran off one who was trying to break into my bedroom one morning a few years ago. All of that particular group seems to be in prison now, so hopefully things will continue to be better.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GizmoTX on February 27, 2016, 06:46:29 PM
Same here. While our son had toy guns, they were clearly toys, yet we insisted on safe behavior with them. When the time came, our son took hunter safety & the BSA shooting badges. He was only allowed access to a gun & hunting under direct supervision. Speaking of hungry coyotes, we live on a creek in Dallas, & often hear the packs hunting, which is chilling. Bobcats routinely circle our house as well. I do have some concern that a wild animal could easily have rabies, & always accompany our dog outside after sunset with a .22 pistol, just in case. We also spend time in rural west TX, where feral pigs & rattlesnakes do pose a real threat.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Rural on February 27, 2016, 06:59:05 PM
I actually don't worry about the straight-up coyotes much; around here, they just don't get hungry and desperate enough to pose a threat to adult humans or dogs the size of ours (the cats are a different matter, but they're fast and can climb trees, plus they stay close to our dogs). Coyotes are also fairly small. But the mixes with domestic dogs produce unpredictable behaviors, and most are bigger than full- blooded coyotes, some much bigger. Get domestic dogs gone wild running with those, and the pack loses its fear of humans, and that's a bad deal.


We have bobcats, but again, no real threat to adult humans. Unless rabid, of course (do bobcats get rabies? I've never heard of it, but I don't see why they couldn't). But then a rabid squirrel is a serious threat, too - rabies just changes the whole calculus.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 07:00:28 PM
Quote
My wife has her own concealed carry license, BTW; so suggesting that she would have to "stay out of the way" so she doesn't get hurt is more than a little sexist.

Actually I referred to your spouse without specifying which one of you was the male.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 27, 2016, 07:01:58 PM
https://polination.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/guns-protect-the-innocent/

I went looking for the photo I mentioned, but found this one instead.  I don't know this kid, but based upon how he holds that weapon, he does know how to use it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 27, 2016, 07:03:01 PM
Quote
My wife has her own concealed carry license, BTW; so suggesting that she would have to "stay out of the way" so she doesn't get hurt is more than a little sexist.

Actually I referred to your spouse without specifying which one of you was the male.

Well played, Sir.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 27, 2016, 07:08:42 PM
 http://www.a-human-right.com/

Practicalities aside, I own a gun because an effective form of self-defense is a basic human right.  We can run down the rabbit hole and argue about how far this right goes, or split hairs regarding how many rounds is enough; but in doing so, the premise is already accepted, which is likely one reason I rarely get anyone willing to have a debate on this subject. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 27, 2016, 08:28:55 PM
Like I said at the beginning, I'm not trolling you, I just wanted to gain more insight.

I completely get the varmint rifle scenario.   Especially after my gopher problem in 2014.   And I have a couple of friends who are deer hunters, although it's not something usually done in my crowd.

I have a much better understanding of the home defense mindset now.   Personally I'll take the Canadian scenario with our gun control laws over the US right to bear arms.   But that's just my opinion.    I've always been a big proponent of self-sufficiency.   Thank you guys for sharing.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: cavewoman on February 27, 2016, 09:04:14 PM
I used to think I was anti-gun, especially in the home, but I realize now I was just scared.  I'm a worrier with an active imagination.  Now that I have more experience with shooting, and am familiar with safety, I feel much more comfortable. 

Plus we had an incident almost a year ago with a meth-head entering our home with a machete.  Like someone mentioned above, the shotgun rack had him backpeddling (but somehow the methed out mind had him trying to explain his reasoning.. erm,  if this gun being pointed at you isn't telling you that you should leave, I don't know what to tell you).  I'm really glad no one was hurt, but I'm also glad that we had the gun in the home.  The police who arrived got a quick description, went and caught the guy, and after my boyfriend identified him they came back to talk to us.  They all said "wow, I can't believe you didn't shoot him" and said they would have, that my boyfriend would have been justified, etc etc.  It was strange, but obviously we were happy that it didn't come to that.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Al1961 on February 27, 2016, 09:13:20 PM
I have a couple of pistols (single shot .22 and 9mm CZ75).

They are not for protection.

I used to be a fairly competitive target shooter (regularly finishing in the top five in provincial IPSC competitions).

They are both sitting in the gun safe, with their trigger locks in place. It's been a long while since I've been at the range, not really into shooting sports anymore. But that's no reason to get rid of them.

Al
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 28, 2016, 02:44:07 AM
Save me a handful of popcorn...

I used to have firearms in the home... unfortunately they were all lost in a tragic boating accident.

That being said, the time I needed one most was when I was at my lowest level of income in college - moving to a more expensive, 'safer' area would have been financially untenable. A firearm was a much more financially feasible option at the time.  I did have an incident where it was used to de-escalate an early morning break-in. I can say I was glad to have it. The young woman lying next to me was glad I had it. I hope it was the last time I ever need one.

The ability for people of smaller stature, women, disabled persons or the elderly to defend themselves against aggressive animals (both two and four legged) is one of the primary  reasons I support firearm ownership. The risks of ownership are great, and so is the responsibility. Everyone has to pick a point along that continuum for themselves.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: former player on February 28, 2016, 05:39:31 AM
I have been thinking about coming to the States to do some travelling in some of your beautiful mountain areas.  As a foreigner I think I'm right in saying I couldn't have a gun?  What should I do for personal protection?  Should I limit myself to Canada?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Abe on February 28, 2016, 05:58:31 AM
former player, the US isn't that dangerous. You don't need a gun for travel unless you plan to visit high-crime areas. If you're just hiking in the mountains, just don't harass bears!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Paul der Krake on February 28, 2016, 06:05:14 AM
Quote
For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.

Do you know why people worry about this?   It seems like there are so many other things that could go wrong.  Is it just a cultural thing?
A public or semi-public person has security issues that are quite irrelevant to us average Joes. Their work can expose them to all sorts of crazy people. Discussing any of the usually divisive issues in public is bound to get you on the radar of some unpredictable folks. One of the podcasters I listen to routinely gets death threats.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: hdatontodo on February 28, 2016, 06:10:06 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MayDay on February 28, 2016, 06:15:24 AM
I have been thinking about coming to the States to do some travelling in some of your beautiful mountain areas.  As a foreigner I think I'm right in saying I couldn't have a gun?  What should I do for personal protection?  Should I limit myself to Canada?

It's not that dangerous. The majority don't carry or even own guns. Carry pepper spray in cities or bear spray in the woods if you're really worried.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 28, 2016, 06:23:06 AM
Quote
Posting mainly to follow to see how long this thread lasts before imploding

Ye of little faith.   Surely the community here can listen to the this particular sub-group without starting to judge.  Just once.

Quote
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry.

I think 2 of the people who replied to my questions stated that they did harden their houses against intruders.   It's an obvious step.    Furthermore everyone who replied takes firearms training and safety seriously.    A couple of folks have had personal incidents with meth heads.   And in these cases the gun worked successfully as a deterrent.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: steviesterno on February 28, 2016, 07:44:00 AM
I think safety is a valid concern, and you have to find a balance that makes sense to you. Statistics only matter if you're not one of the ones it happens to. On that, 30 year olds don't get cancer and pregnant women don't get hit by cars. Both happened to my wife. shitty, even if the odds were against it.

a gun is a tool that's rarely needed. But if you need it, there's almost never something else that works as well. I probably won't need insurance on the house, but I have it. I probably won't need my spare tire, but I have that. I probably won't need the gun next to the bed, but I have that.

Crime is always an issue, and fewer guns does not equal fewer crimes. There are mass knife attacks in china, violent crime went up in england and australia when they decreased civilian gun possessions, and all major dictatorships started with a disarming of the population. Guns don't cause violence, people do.

As far as feeling safe, I generally do. I follow basic safety rules, don't spend time with bad people at bad times in bad places, but shit happens everywhere. Truth is, even though we're in a very safe area outside DFW, there's cartel and terrorist activity all around me. I doubt I'll happen to be at the mall when shit happens, but in the event that it does, I want an option besides a cell phone or whistle.

I've carried legally in a dozen states in as many years, and have only cleared leather once...
I had a drugged out dude try to carjack me with a ninja sword in florida, but was able to drive away without shooting (situational awareness is key).
I was helping a friend move when abusive ex boyfriend showed up (despite restraining order) and came charging out of the house at us. thankfully with a basket to throw, rather than anything dangerous, but that gets the blood pumping and makes you glad to have a 45.
I've been charged by goats, dogs, rattle snakes, and our area has feral pigs, packs of strays, and more. Haven't fired, but not sure how long that luck will hold out.

As far as feeling safe at home, it's a matter of making yourself a harder target. If a SWAT team wants in, they will get it. But for random idiot burglar, we don't have trappings of wealth, have motion lights at all points of entry, have conspicuous real cameras, have a dog, keep our windows and doors locked ad bolted, have an alarm, have pointy plants by all the windows. it would be way easier to go next door where they don't have that.


But in addition to defense, I compete with my firearms. I am/was a competitive shooter as a hobby, have competed on the national stage, and really enjoy the collection, building, and maintaining firearms. it's the most relaxing thing you can do, since you need 100% focus. my wife is trained and as good of a shot as me, and keeps her own guns and knows how to use them. our son is only a month old, but everything is locked and away, and he will be taught about safe use and handling as soon as we can safely do it.

And yes, we have a home defense plan just the same way we have a fire plan, tornado plan, etc.
2 story house with bedrooms upstairs, as security was thought out before we bought. I hate split levels, cause a bad guy or fire is between you and the kids. the stairway is a, easily defensible high ground, while the wife grabs baby and hides out behind me, behind a few walls and near an escapable window. anyone in front is down range and fair game. This is Texas. the police know to knock and be let in. so when they get here (average response time is 15 minutes) we've already identified who's the family that lives there and that we are armed. I'll be the chubby guy in his underpants with a rifle.


guns can be mustachian. we're relying of self sufficiency, optimization, and not relying on anyone else for support. we fix stuff, tinker, and enjoy our hobbies. we have emergency funds and contingency plans and are ready for the unexpected... Guns can fill a roll with all of that.

If you don't like guns, that's fine. I'm never going to force my views on someone that isn't interested. I will use mine in your defense if need be, and I will happily extend an offer to take a non-shooter to the range after some lessons, and learn safe handling to make an informed decision if that's something they want/need in their life.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 28, 2016, 08:21:41 AM
That makes a big difference.  Here guns are part of criminal law, which is a federal jurisdiction.  Handguns are very strictly regulated, long guns are regulated but not as much.  I think the general Canadian view is long guns have purpose in our lives under certain circumstances (target shooting, hunting, coyote control, etc.) and are therefore culturally acceptable under those circumstances, but hand guns are only meant for killing people, and therefore are under major restriction.  Of course we still do all the obvious security things, since there are illegal handguns out there.  And we do have people use long guns for the wrong purpose, we are not immune to that.


The other thing I wanted to add before things get too crazy here is to clarify that the US government doesn't make firearmslaws here with the exception of banning automatic weapons. It is up to each state to make and regulate their gun ownership, use,  and purchase laws. So there are a vast differences in gun laws thru out the US - with some states very lenient and some states very strict.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: BlueHouse on February 28, 2016, 08:47:59 AM
Female.  Live alone.  Without going into too much detail, sometimes the feel of cold steel under my pillow just lets me rest easier.   Ever wake up with heart pounding, convinced someone is in a closet, waiting to kill you as soon as you fall asleep?  Yeah, me neither ever since I got the gun. 

I feel pretty safe in my house, but I like scary movies and thrillers.  Sometimes they make it into my dreams. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 28, 2016, 08:51:38 AM
BlueHouse, do you keep a loaded pistol under your pillow?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: former player on February 28, 2016, 09:14:03 AM
I have been thinking about coming to the States to do some travelling in some of your beautiful mountain areas.  As a foreigner I think I'm right in saying I couldn't have a gun?  What should I do for personal protection?  Should I limit myself to Canada?

It's not that dangerous. The majority don't carry or even own guns. Carry pepper spray in cities or bear spray in the woods if you're really worried.
former player, the US isn't that dangerous. You don't need a gun for travel unless you plan to visit high-crime areas. If you're just hiking in the mountains, just don't harass bears!

Thanks for the reassurance, but how do the statements that "its not that dangerous" fit with the people here who say they carry guns for protection when they go hiking?  Are they being overcautious?

Am I in the same situation as those people who had "proud not to be gun owners" on their door?  Anyone who realises I'm not American will also realise I don't have a gun for protection.

I promise not to harass bears.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 28, 2016, 09:27:29 AM
I spent a summer up in the Yukon.   A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly.  That would have been pretty frightening.   A grizzly's such a large animal I imagine you'd have to be a good shot to put it down if it was charging you.   Pretty sure I couldn't pull it off.    Apparently the bear started causing trouble in a native settlement and they shot it.

So, do you guys lock your pistols up in a safe when you go out?   Or do you carry them?   Or just leave them in the nightstand?   Is there risk that someone will break in when you're away and steal it?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GizmoTX on February 28, 2016, 11:11:10 AM
We carry, & lock the rest in a safe.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Yaeger on February 28, 2016, 11:34:48 AM
If you're reasonably savvy with technology you can make your own firearms fairly easily nowadays. Hell, you can even 3d print guns now (legally include the metallic strip).

https://ghostgunner.net/ (https://ghostgunner.net/)

I usually store my ARs and rifles with the firing pin removed and stored elsewhere. I like the idea of biometrics on guns, but I think the technology has a ways to go before it's ready for home defense use. Blood or dirt might make it impossible to make the gun ready to fire.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: iris lily on February 28, 2016, 12:07:21 PM
I live in the urban core of the murder capital of the world, St. Louis.  (Really, its not that bad, the murder stats are bad here for a variety of reasons that can be somewhat explained away. ) We don't have handguns in our house, but I understand those who do have them and who do carry them.

We have long guns that haven't been used in decades. They are DH's from when he lived on his family farm out in the country. They are hunting guns.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Cassie on February 28, 2016, 12:22:30 PM
When we had kids at home my hubby at that time was a hunter so we had guns. However, they were locked in a gun safe and the ammo was locked in another secure place etc so if the kids got one they still couldn't get the other, etc. WE now have a big dog that is half shephard and husky and would fight to the death if need be.  He has already proven himself.  I had a good friend that had a break in and the man was beating her hubby and telling her what he was going to do with her when he was done. She went and got a shotgun and killed him. She was not arrested but they did investigate the shooting and it was determined to be justified. However, after killing a man she could not bear to have guns in the house and got rid of them.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Letj on February 28, 2016, 02:42:33 PM
1.  For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.  I've known folks in our small city/town, where random violent crime really doesn't happen, to be worried enough to keep firearms around the home.

2. Most folks, at least around here, grew up around firearms and are responsible.  Many kids go through hunter safety classes and are familiar with basic gun safety.  From what I've been told (not a personal expert), with most handguns in an intruder situation accuracy isn't important.  Most times the gun will be enough to scare folks off, or else they will be close enough to hit without aiming.

3. I haven't heard of training for something like this, but it would make sense.

4. There seems to be a continuum of responses on this, based on the person's view of government and gun rights.  Ranges from not worrying about it to being ready to shootout with the police if necessary.  I'm not sure what actual repercussions would be, since almost all gun deaths here are from hunting, suicides, or very occasional cleaning accidents.

I used to be vehemently anti-gun, but after moving to this area realized they can be owned and operated in a responsible way.  I heard a fellow once say that he keeps an unloaded shotgun under his bed for home defense (not sure if he even owned shells for it), and just the sound of pumping it would be enough to scare most people away.

OMG!! Are you for real? This comes across as pure paranoia and I mean in the medical sense. I live in a city where there are always targeted shooting usually involving the drug trade and I don't live in fear. What's going on your hood that's making you so paranoid or is it the media?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: davisgang90 on February 28, 2016, 04:51:55 PM
1.  For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.  I've known folks in our small city/town, where random violent crime really doesn't happen, to be worried enough to keep firearms around the home.

2. Most folks, at least around here, grew up around firearms and are responsible.  Many kids go through hunter safety classes and are familiar with basic gun safety.  From what I've been told (not a personal expert), with most handguns in an intruder situation accuracy isn't important.  Most times the gun will be enough to scare folks off, or else they will be close enough to hit without aiming.

3. I haven't heard of training for something like this, but it would make sense.

4. There seems to be a continuum of responses on this, based on the person's view of government and gun rights.  Ranges from not worrying about it to being ready to shootout with the police if necessary.  I'm not sure what actual repercussions would be, since almost all gun deaths here are from hunting, suicides, or very occasional cleaning accidents.

I used to be vehemently anti-gun, but after moving to this area realized they can be owned and operated in a responsible way.  I heard a fellow once say that he keeps an unloaded shotgun under his bed for home defense (not sure if he even owned shells for it), and just the sound of pumping it would be enough to scare most people away.

OMG!! Are you for real? This comes across as pure paranoia and I mean in the medical sense. I live in a city where there are always targeted shooting usually involving the drug trade and I don't live in fear. What's going on your hood that's making you so paranoid or is it the media?
Well, it was fun while it lasted...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Kaydedid on February 28, 2016, 04:56:38 PM
1.  For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.  I've known folks in our small city/town, where random violent crime really doesn't happen, to be worried enough to keep firearms around the home.

2. Most folks, at least around here, grew up around firearms and are responsible.  Many kids go through hunter safety classes and are familiar with basic gun safety.  From what I've been told (not a personal expert), with most handguns in an intruder situation accuracy isn't important.  Most times the gun will be enough to scare folks off, or else they will be close enough to hit without aiming.

3. I haven't heard of training for something like this, but it would make sense.

4. There seems to be a continuum of responses on this, based on the person's view of government and gun rights.  Ranges from not worrying about it to being ready to shootout with the police if necessary.  I'm not sure what actual repercussions would be, since almost all gun deaths here are from hunting, suicides, or very occasional cleaning accidents.

I used to be vehemently anti-gun, but after moving to this area realized they can be owned and operated in a responsible way.  I heard a fellow once say that he keeps an unloaded shotgun under his bed for home defense (not sure if he even owned shells for it), and just the sound of pumping it would be enough to scare most people away.

OMG!! Are you for real? This comes across as pure paranoia and I mean in the medical sense. I live in a city where there are always targeted shooting usually involving the drug trade and I don't live in fear. What's going on your hood that's making you so paranoid or is it the media?

Since fear is by definition an emotion, why should it be rational?  Realistically, most of us are afraid of something irrational-whether it's harmless spiders, looking down from a skyscraper, elevators, etc.  I'm personally not worried about home intrusion, and have mental health issues so guns are completely off the table, but firearms for home defense are definitely a part of the culture here, and have been ever since it was a logging camp in the last century.  If people are responsible and treat their firearms like the dangerous tools they are, I have no problem with it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Mr Dumpster Stache on February 28, 2016, 07:08:40 PM
I spent a summer up in the Yukon.   A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly.  That would have been pretty frightening.   A grizzly's such a large animal I imagine you'd have to be a good shot to put it down if it was charging you.   Pretty sure I couldn't pull it off.    Apparently the bear started causing trouble in a native settlement and they shot it.

So, do you guys lock your pistols up in a safe when you go out?   Or do you carry them?   Or just leave them in the nightstand?   Is there risk that someone will break in when you're away and steal it?

I have a friend who does a lot of hiking and carries a .50 caliber revolver for bears. (For y'all who don't know, that's the same size bullet as the turrets on the back of military jeeps). If that won't stop a bear, not much else will. Of course, better not miss your first shot because the double sprained wrist is going to make it really hard to get a second shot off. :P
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 28, 2016, 07:16:12 PM
I spent a summer up in the Yukon.   A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly.  That would have been pretty frightening.   A grizzly's such a large animal I imagine you'd have to be a good shot to put it down if it was charging you.   Pretty sure I couldn't pull it off.    Apparently the bear started causing trouble in a native settlement and they shot it.

So, do you guys lock your pistols up in a safe when you go out?   Or do you carry them?   Or just leave them in the nightstand?   Is there risk that someone will break in when you're away and steal it?

I have a friend who does a lot of hiking and carries a .50 caliber revolver for bears. (For y'all who don't know, that's the same size bullet as the turrets on the back of military jeeps). If that won't stop a bear, not much else will. Of course, better not miss your first shot because the double sprained wrist is going to make it really hard to get a second shot off. :P

At the price .500 S&W runs, I'd sue any bear that forced me to expend that much money on stopping him for monetary damages.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 28, 2016, 07:22:14 PM
Yah, bears  move really fast for such big animals.    I can almost imagine the adrenaline rush as you try and aim that revolver.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: iris lily on February 28, 2016, 08:19:27 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Oh come now. We have a steel door. The perps kicked it in, on the hinge side.
Please explain how that could have been hardened. And still live like a normal person, I mean.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 28, 2016, 09:07:55 PM
Save me a handful of popcorn...

I used to have firearms in the home... unfortunately they were all lost in a tragic boating accident.

Wait, what?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 28, 2016, 09:09:52 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
I think you might be surprised by the quality of my locks.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 28, 2016, 09:22:05 PM

So, do you guys lock your pistols up in a safe when you go out?   Or do you carry them?   Or just leave them in the nightstand?   Is there risk that someone will break in when you're away and steal it?

All of my guns live inside a safe made for firearms.  I have a concealed carry license, but I have never actually carried in public except to or from a shooting event; but I would if the local conditions ever changed.  I do not hunt.  Break-ins are incrediblely rare in my area.  Again, I live in one of the most heavily armed metropolitan areas in the USA; any crook bold enough to break into homes without advance knowledge about his target is likely to have a short career. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 28, 2016, 09:56:28 PM
Save me a handful of popcorn...

I used to have firearms in the home... unfortunately they were all lost in a tragic boating accident.

Wait, what?

It's a 'gun guy' joke...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Kouhri on February 28, 2016, 10:29:18 PM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?   
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

I know that I'm not exactly the sort of person that your talking about because I feel the need to have guns in the house because I love hunting and gun ownership is a natural extension of that. Although in a SHTF scenario I would be much relieved by owning and having easy access to rifles.

1. Doesn't really apply, I'd have guns no matter where I lived
2. Yes I enjoy shooting for sport (target practice) and for dinner although I tend to do much more of the former
3. My fiance is also well versed in the safe use of firearms and is by far a better marksman than I. We don't ha e kids yet but I will educate them from a young age around firearm safely and intend to take them on (heavily supervised) shoots like my dad did for me when I was young. Also in New Zealand you need a specific licence to own firearms privately and part of the requirements include having firearms safe and secure to prevent the sorto of accidents from kids playing with a loaded gun kept under the bed or whatever.
4. I honestly can't see this ever being an issue as I'll never have a gun ready just in case an intruder comes in, I'd be more likely to stab them in self protection than shoot... but I suppose in a SHTF type scenario where I conciveably use one of my rifles, the rest of society has gone to shit anyway :)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: mrpercentage on February 28, 2016, 10:42:33 PM
Yes. I have guns and they are kept locked up. (they are for target practice not protection at my house). That said, I have law enforcement mace and so does my wife. Big cans enough to blast probably ten people and choke out a bear in the house. They are cone pattern with no need of aiming really.

Just an opinion, but I believe guns are more of a psychological deterrent for thieves. (don't break in his house you might get shot) The great irony is that guns are one of the top targets of thieves. They sell easy on the black market. Cash, guns, jewelry-- in that order. (and drugs if you are not the stand up guys/galls I think you all are)

Personal story-- I remember playing with my step dads Beretta 9mm when I was 11-12 years old and alone. He was a fan of the Lethal Weapon series and thought he was Mel Gibson or something. He had a gun safe but often kept the 9mm on the headboard.

Edit: I thought better of some information and decided you all don't need to know so deleted it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on February 28, 2016, 11:21:53 PM

3. My fiance is also well versed in the safe use of firearms and is by far a better marksman than I. We don't ha e kids yet but I will educate them from a young age around firearm safely and intend to take them on (heavily supervised) shoots like my dad did for me when I was young. Also in New Zealand you need a specific licence to own firearms privately and part of the requirements include having firearms safe and secure to prevent the sorto of accidents from kids playing with a loaded gun kept under the bed or whatever.

Out of pure curiosity, how does the government enforce the requirement of having firearms 'safe and secure'?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: yuka on February 28, 2016, 11:36:39 PM
I have been thinking about coming to the States to do some travelling in some of your beautiful mountain areas.  As a foreigner I think I'm right in saying I couldn't have a gun?  What should I do for personal protection?  Should I limit myself to Canada?

It's not that dangerous. The majority don't carry or even own guns. Carry pepper spray in cities or bear spray in the woods if you're really worried.
former player, the US isn't that dangerous. You don't need a gun for travel unless you plan to visit high-crime areas. If you're just hiking in the mountains, just don't harass bears!

Thanks for the reassurance, but how do the statements that "its not that dangerous" fit with the people here who say they carry guns for protection when they go hiking?  Are they being overcautious?

Am I in the same situation as those people who had "proud not to be gun owners" on their door?  Anyone who realises I'm not American will also realise I don't have a gun for protection.

I promise not to harass bears.

I've done road trips across the country as long as a month and 6000 miles, and have never had a problem with break-ins or anything else as I traveled between national parks. At areas with grizzly bears, I follow the advice at all the ranger stations and talk incessantly. I make sure I'm always making noise so that I can't surprise a bear. This is only a concern in the West, as black bears are only a danger if they're starving and you've practiced poor food discipline, or if you get between a mother and her cub.

I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.

I think, just like moving to a safer area, fortifying a house is an incredibly expensive undertaking. Especially when you realize the shoddy quality that pervades modern home construction in a lot of areas in the US.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Yaeger on February 28, 2016, 11:42:10 PM
Out of pure curiosity, how does the government enforce the requirement of having firearms 'safe and secure'?

They don't, they can't. Cities pass laws like this as a means to punish people for accidents or theft.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: mrpercentage on February 29, 2016, 01:07:06 AM
Quote
For some folks, safety is an issue regardless of area.

Do you know why people worry about this?   It seems like there are so many other things that could go wrong.  Is it just a cultural thing?

Up north (Northern BC, Alaska, Yukon, etc.) once in a while you read about an aggressive bear breaking into someone's house.    But home invasions seems very rare.

Had to comment. I should make a better habit of putting them all in one post.

I do take a gun into the wilderness. Mostly for a comfort feeling. I know it sounds silly but I live near mountain lions. I remember once running into some tracks when I didn't have a gun. It was a big cat paws, wide as my hand, and they looked fresh. It was in soupy mud near a creek. It may sound ridiculous but my butt puckered and I had a hard time enjoying myself. There was also a problem in Payson Arizona with a black bear attacking several people for a few months. I like to hike up there. That is were I saw the cougar tracks actually. I swear I was being watched the whole time. I didn't see him though.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/arizona-bear-attacks-up-to-three-in-a-month/
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: steviesterno on February 29, 2016, 04:48:33 AM
my parents were pretty anti gun, since they grew up in NYC. But I went to school in semi-rural PA where hunting season is a school holiday and people made gun racks in shop.

My parents aren't willing to keep one in the house, but whenever they want to go to dinner downtown they always want me to go, and ask if I'm going to be bringing a "friend". so firearms are good to have around when they want to have them around.

They brought up the point that break ins are unlikely, which I agree with. But for some reason they aren't willing to post a "This family does not believe in or own firearms" sign in their front yard.

some people owning guns make them a deterrent to crime. here in Texas (where I live now) 1/3 people own a gun. So your chance of breaking into a house with a gun owner is about every 3rd time. it's also legal for anyone to carry in their car. as soon as this went into effect, car jacking went down significantly.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Fishindude on February 29, 2016, 05:34:16 AM
Guns are a hobby of mine, have a bunch of them, shoot quite a bit, hunt quite a bit, work on them myself, reload ammo, etc.
Most are kept in the safe, but I keep a few around the shop and house that we can get our hands on quickly.   It's not unusual to shoot a coyote, groundhog or other such varmint in the barnyard or out the back door.   Also travel with a gun or carry occasionally, but nobody will ever see it or be aware of it, unless things got horribly bad.

We don't live in a crime area, have very little fear of a home invasion, but am prepared regardless.
I shoot a lot and consider myself basically proficient with most firearms.
My kids grew up around guns and were shooting BB guns very early, then .22's and bigger stuff as they got older.  They know how to handle firearms safely.
Regarding dealing with first responders, that is so unlikely to ever be needed, that I don't worry about it.  I do have some close friends in law enforcement, that would probably be my first call.


Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: hdatontodo on February 29, 2016, 06:18:14 AM
My point isn't that making a house harder to gain entry is an end in itself, but rather is a layer of defense, and part of a larger plan that might include a strong bedroom door and brace, alarm, dog, cameras, etc. If you might get in a shootout, where is your bulletproof vest and flashlight, and quick access combination locked box? What about training? You don't just buy a firearm and assume you are protected.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on February 29, 2016, 06:48:19 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Oh come now. We have a steel door. The perps kicked it in, on the hinge side.
Please explain how that could have been hardened. And still live like a normal person, I mean.

We replaced some of the short screws on the hinges with 3" screws that make it into the framing.  I suspect that would make the hinges harder to kick in.  Don't know what to do about the windows or the slider.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: golden1 on February 29, 2016, 07:12:34 AM
I am pro gun control, but if I lived in a more rural area where I could not count on police coming to my aid in a reasonable time frame in case of an emergency, I would have to balance that with the knowledge that owning a gun in the home is the biggest risk factor in being shot and killed by one.  I would probably take other measures instead, like maybe having a dog, an alarm system, strong locks etc...   
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: electriceagle on February 29, 2016, 07:15:54 AM
1. There is no "safe" area in the world. However, we are not afraid precisely because we can protect ourselves. The police exist for law enforcement, not protection. When seconds count, police are minutes or hours away.

You really don't want to advertise that you don't have any self protection in your house -- known "gun free" zones are literally targets of opportunity.

Your username implies that you live in Texas.

According to Wikipedia, people in your state have about a 0.00005 chance of being murdered in a year. Across a 100 year lifetime, your chance of being murdered is half of a percent. Your chance of being a victim of any violent crime is 0.3% per year.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes happen between people who live violent lifestyles. That is, they deal drugs or are in a gang. Rates of violent crime against people who are just minding their own business are vanishingly small.

You live in a safe area of the world.

If you don't deal drugs and aren't in a gang, the effort that you put into preparation for counter-violence is similar in return to the shoes-on, shoes-off that we're all forced to do at the airport.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GizmoTX on February 29, 2016, 08:07:32 AM
People in Texas are statistically safer because of the culture of self sufficiency, including self protection. However, idiot criminals still exist & Texas is a border state.

Trusted Travellers don't remove shoes at the airport. Yes, I qualify.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on February 29, 2016, 08:43:44 AM
1. There is no "safe" area in the world. However, we are not afraid precisely because we can protect ourselves. The police exist for law enforcement, not protection. When seconds count, police are minutes or hours away.

You really don't want to advertise that you don't have any self protection in your house -- known "gun free" zones are literally targets of opportunity.

Your username implies that you live in Texas.

According to Wikipedia, people in your state have about a 0.00005 chance of being murdered in a year. Across a 100 year lifetime, your chance of being murdered is half of a percent. Your chance of being a victim of any violent crime is 0.3% per year.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes happen between people who live violent lifestyles. That is, they deal drugs or are in a gang. Rates of violent crime against people who are just minding their own business are vanishingly small.

You live in a safe area of the world.

If you don't deal drugs and aren't in a gang, the effort that you put into preparation for counter-violence is similar in return to the shoes-on, shoes-off that we're all forced to do at the airport.

I agree with you that unless you live in certain areas or participate in certain activities, your chances of dying via violent crime are exceedingly small.

On the other side of the coin, per wikipedia:

"11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms"

Looking at the 12,000 deaths not related to suicide, roughly 500 were accidental.  In a country of 300m+ with 300M+ guns, the odds of being involved in a gun accident are fairly low as well.

Not everyone wants a gun in their home and I respect that decision.  Having said that, the odds of death via an accident are exceedingly low.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: cheapass on February 29, 2016, 10:16:42 AM
We prefer to insource our physical security (DIY: the mustachian way!) rather than outsourcing it to the police. A gun in the hand beats a cop on the phone. Although we live in a safe area, it turns out that criminals are mobile and they don't limit their antics to only "dangerous" zip codes.

We also have motion detection lights, deadbolts, an alarm system, and a dog.

In my opinion, it's irresponsible not to be prepared to protect your family from those who may do them harm.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on February 29, 2016, 11:11:24 AM
I live in what ignorant, cowardly suburbanites might characterize as "the hood" and haven't bothered to buy a gun simply because it's not dangerous enough for it to be necessary. To be clear: I strongly support private ownership of guns*; I'm just too cheap to pay for the gun itself/ammo/carry permit/holster/safe/range training/etc. because the ROI isn't good enough. Maybe I'll buy some after FIRE or something; I don't know.

Also, I'd be more worried about a burglar breaking in and stealing my guns when I wasn't home, than a robber attacking me when I was.

I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Oh come now. We have a steel door. The perps kicked it in, on the hinge side.
Please explain how that could have been hardened. And still live like a normal person, I mean.

We replaced some of the short screws on the hinges with 3" screws that make it into the framing.  I suspect that would make the hinges harder to kick in.  Don't know what to do about the windows or the slider.

(*In fact, I'm fairly radical: I believe the Second Amendment was written by the Founders, being terrorists freedom fighters themselves, specifically to enshrine our right as citizens to violently overthrow a tyrannical government. As such, IMO even bans on things like fully-automatic machine guns and such are unconstitutional.)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 29, 2016, 12:16:57 PM
I am pro gun control, but if I lived in a more rural area where I could not count on police coming to my aid in a reasonable time frame in case of an emergency, I would have to balance that with the knowledge that owning a gun in the home is the biggest risk factor in being shot and killed by one.  I would probably take other measures instead, like maybe having a dog, an alarm system, strong locks etc...

True, but everything is relative.  The odds remain incredibly low in any household that does not engage in other risk factors, such as drugs or alcohol.  Alcohol & firearms, in particular, do not mix well.  The largest risk factor for drowning is owning a pool, as well.  Notably, I don't own a pool, but I still force my kids to take swimming classes; because other people own pools.  (And there is this thing called an ocean.)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 29, 2016, 12:27:17 PM
My point isn't that making a house harder to gain entry is an end in itself, but rather is a layer of defense, and part of a larger plan that might include a strong bedroom door and brace, alarm, dog, cameras, etc. If you might get in a shootout, where is your bulletproof vest and flashlight, and quick access combination locked box? What about training? You don't just buy a firearm and assume you are protected.

Have you been reading the same thread I have?  Because I don't think there is a single gun owner that has posted here that hasn't had training.  The average police officer only actually practices with his weapon annually, and the average "gun nut" is way more proficient than that.  That said, of all the methods of self-defense that exist, the firearm is the one that requires the least amount of training and/or practice to achieve a basic level of proficiency and safety.  Most take years of training & practice, and even then the best masters can still be defeated by a thug that knows which end the bullet comes out.  And then, there are handguns that are designed to be carried by an adult that doesn't practice, such as the derringers produced by Bond Arms.  Any handgun that is capable of shooting 5 projectiles at once, is likely intended to only succeed in one or two actually hitting the target, and it's definitely not designed for marksmanship.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on February 29, 2016, 01:29:49 PM
Never had any inclination to own a gun myself. Shot them enough during my military days. Even have partial hearing loss as a result. The odds of someone breaking into my house and me being able to comprehend what is going on, retrieve my gun from it's locked place, and fire without incidence, I figure are so remotely low so as not to register on the scale of "fear." I live in a pretty small house and own very little. Killing someone isn't really worth having my 27" TV stolen. From my own knowledge I figure I don't have too many enemies, at least none that would necessitate protecting my family from mass murder.

All this and I am pretty sure my 60lb Pit mix would easily beat me to the punch of disposing of any would be serial killers. I am not anti-gun by any means, I just don't find them useful.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: AZDude on February 29, 2016, 02:22:12 PM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

Bad stuff happens everywhere. For me, I grew up in a household where one of my parents worked in law enforcement. This meant we were always a potential retaliation target(we had rocks thrown through our window and were threatened a few times in public while out and about). Gives a different perspective.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

Not recently, although I have plenty of practice shooting both handguns and rifles. Once you know the basics, its not difficult to point and shoot at someone in the same room as you.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

Its always up to the shooter to know what they are shooting and why. Don't panic and this is not a problem. Bottom line, in this situation, your family is in more danger from an intruder than from you.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

This is idiocy. Castle doctrine and the right to self-defense. If a stranger enters your home, there are few places in the world where it is unlawful to use deadly force. Different if you chase them, subdue them and execute, etc... In most cases, you have nothing to fear. However, you will need to make sure that when the police do show up that you clearly identify yourself and dont get shot by LE.

Quote
For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

Certainly your choice, but I made it clear to my wife early on in the relationship that I consider having a firearm in the home non-negotiable, although when we moved to California I gave it to a family member due to California's strict gun laws. I never got it back after coming back, but have considered buying one strictly for home defense.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: tyort1 on February 29, 2016, 02:50:53 PM
I'm from Texas, owned a lot of guns growing up, did some hunting, a lot more "fun" target shooting (empty beer cans FTW).  But I don't have any guns where I live now, in Denver.  Even though I am very comfortable around them.  For 3 main reasons:

1.  Statistically our chances of getting being harmed in a violent altercation are very, very low.  Now some people say that statistics don't matter that much, but I say that they do.  Hell, my entire retirement portfolio is dependent upon statistics and math.  So yeah, I trust the stats.

2.  Following the whole stats theme, the one single thing I can do to raise my (and my family's) chances of being harmed by a gun is to bring a gun into my home.  Counterintuitive, but true.  So I am keeping my family safer by not bringing a gun into the equation.

3.  I know about myself that I am not eager to kill another human being.  If I'm in an confrontation, I will hesitate and the other person likely won't.  And that will likely get me killed in that situation. 

Oh, and I totally get the whole mentality of "you are never safe, always be prepared".  I used to feel exactly the same way.  But then I realized the above 3 points and thats a more rational approach.  Plus the other thing I realized - I personally have never been assaulted or been in a violent confrontation with someone armed.  And furthermore I didn't know anyone else that had been killed or even seriously injured in such a confrontation.  So yeah, it "might" happen, but then again I "might" get struck by lightening, too.  Or the stock market "might" go into a 20 year downward spiral.  But I'm not basing any of my decisions off that relatively unfounded fear.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on February 29, 2016, 03:13:31 PM
Plus the other thing I realized - I personally have never been assaulted or been in a violent confrontation with someone armed.

I haven't either. Moreover, in the incidents that have come closest the other guy had not only a gun, but a badge too -- so I don't think me being armed would have been very helpful!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Mr.Bubbles on February 29, 2016, 03:24:14 PM
Just my view on children being around guns.

I do not allow toy guns in my house (only real ones), i have a whole room for toys and you wont find a gun in their(blaster, bazooka, nerf, doesn't matter)

children in my house including nephews and nieces know that they are to treat ANY GUN, including toy, bb, water, as if it is a real gun.

You point a gun at something you intend to kill or shoot, not play.

I think its important to treat every gun as a real gun so there is no grey area, i was tought  at 5 years old that a bb gun is to be treated just like my dads 30-30, needed to be cleaned, and taken care of. never pointed at a person, house, or anything i did not intend to kill.

when you get yelled at for holding a bb gun wrong its easy to see how dangerous guns are.

once i mastered the BB gun and my dad thought i handled it just like i should a .22, i was gifted a .22 at christmas.

* all guns growing up including BB were locked in a gun safe and treated as a lethal weapon.

* all guns in my current house are locked in a gun safe (including the BB gun) while there are any children in the house that could possibly have access to them, other wise there is a loaded .45 (loaded clip in, nothing in the chamber) in my bed side desk with an extra clip.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on February 29, 2016, 03:34:50 PM
I have to say, this is really impressive.   Pretty much every gun owner in this thread (not sure about blue house who just made one short post) is a fervent believer in firearms safety and takes all reasonable precautions with their weapons.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Al1961 on February 29, 2016, 03:36:15 PM


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

This is idiocy. Castle doctrine and the right to self-defense. If a stranger enters your home, there are few places in the world where it is unlawful to use deadly force. Different if you chase them, subdue them and execute, etc... In most cases, you have nothing to fear. However, you will need to make sure that when the police do show up that you clearly identify yourself and dont get shot by LE.


The castle doctrine does not exist in Canada. The cops will charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder if you use a weapon to defend yourself in your own home. Even if your life is in immediate danger. OCCASIONALLY, the crown prosecutors will decide not to proceed with prosecution, but don't bet on it. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 29, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
I have to say, this is really impressive.   Pretty much every gun owner in this thread (not sure about blue house who just made one short post) is a fervent believer in firearms safety and takes all reasonable precautions with their weapons.

Thank you.  And this statement tells us something important about yourself.  While you may never own a weapon of your own, as it is certainly a personal choice; the realization you just expressed above implies that you will also never vote directly contrary to our interests, as gun owners, solely based upon an erroneous belief in the untrustworthy nature of gun owners generally.

Next, if you are willing, I think we would be happy to dispel any erroneous beliefs in the effectiveness of gun control measures as well.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 29, 2016, 04:22:15 PM


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

This is idiocy. Castle doctrine and the right to self-defense. If a stranger enters your home, there are few places in the world where it is unlawful to use deadly force. Different if you chase them, subdue them and execute, etc... In most cases, you have nothing to fear. However, you will need to make sure that when the police do show up that you clearly identify yourself and dont get shot by LE.


The castle doctrine does not exist in Canada. The cops will charge you with assault/attempted murder/murder if you use a weapon to defend yourself in your own home. Even if your life is in immediate danger. OCCASIONALLY, the crown prosecutors will decide not to proceed with prosecution, but don't bet on it. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

You would if Canada still honored English Common Law.  That said, according to Wikipedia, you do, but not by that name...

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Canada
By court ruling in 2011, a resident is permitted to use "reasonable and necessary" force in subduing an intruder in his or her private domicile or business. By definition, killing the intruder is only an option if non-lethal means cannot be carried out, and excessive force with obvious intent to kill is not necessarily defensible in court.

The part I bolded is also true in every "Castle Doctrine" state in the US, it's just that those laws force the court to presume that the homeowner was acting properly, unless and until a prosecutor can show otherwise.  The castle doctrine does not protect homeowners from arrest, it mostly puts an additional burden of proof upon a prosecutor, that didn't exist before.  As I stated before, if I were to ever shoot someone in my own home, I'm going to get arrested.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on February 29, 2016, 06:34:16 PM
US 32% of households have firearms. (It might be a bit higher, I have seen different estimates)
Canada, 25% households have firearms. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html

Um. Really not that big a difference. Some provinces have far higher ownership levels than the US average. It's the people, not the number of guns. Some countries have lots of violent people, and others have fewer.

The US is the second-safest country in the New World though, after Canada. So, the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates are the two safest. Odd fact.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on February 29, 2016, 06:44:38 PM
The US is the second-safest country in the New World though, after Canada. So, the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates are the two safest. Odd fact.

If no one challenges that odd fact, I'll eat my hat.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on February 29, 2016, 07:02:33 PM
The US is the second-safest country in the New World though, after Canada. So, the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates are the two safest. Odd fact.

If no one challenges that odd fact, I'll eat my hat.

;-) Cuba claims lower crime, and maybe even has lower crime than the US. No way to verify Cuban numbers though. No other country comes close to US levels though.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Letj on February 29, 2016, 07:19:15 PM
The US is the second-safest country in the New World though, after Canada. So, the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates are the two safest. Odd fact.

If no one challenges that odd fact, I'll eat my hat.

Keep in mind the use of the term New World so the poster is comparing the US and Canada to developing countries like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Jamaica, etc. These countries are hands down way more dangerous than the US.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: yuka on February 29, 2016, 08:39:19 PM
...

They brought up the point that break ins are unlikely, which I agree with. But for some reason they aren't willing to post a "This family does not believe in or own firearms" sign in their front yard.

...

I'm just going to point out that, from a security perspective, giving your adversary a chance to enumerate your vulnerabilities is seldom wise.

(Vaguely) on that note, I guess the best signs would indicate your regular recreational use of hard drugs, alcohol, and semi-automatic sidearms. That's announcing yourself as a person who is probably home and armed all the time, but rational very little of the time... Making it the most dangerous Geneva Convention-abiding residence of all.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: tyort1 on February 29, 2016, 08:51:04 PM
US 32% of households have firearms. (It might be a bit higher, I have seen different estimates)
Canada, 25% households have firearms. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html

Um. Really not that big a difference. Some provinces have far higher ownership levels than the US average. It's the people, not the number of guns. Some countries have lots of violent people, and others have fewer.

The US is the second-safest country in the New World though, after Canada. So, the two countries with the highest gun ownership rates are the two safest. Odd fact.

Haha, of course.  Because the other "New World" countries are not first world nations.  Of course Canada and the US is going to be after than Central and Southern America.  But if you compare the US to other FIRST WORLD countries, things are not so impressive. 

But it's all a bunch of worthless discussion - whether you are pro gun or anti-gun, it does not matter.  There is no way in hell the US is ever going to change their basic attitudes towards guns.  If they do then "I" will eat my hat.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: nnls on February 29, 2016, 09:06:08 PM

Crime is always an issue, and fewer guns does not equal fewer crimes. There are mass knife attacks in china, violent crime went up in england and australia when they decreased civilian gun possessions, and all major dictatorships started with a disarming of the population. Guns don't cause violence, people do.


Just wondering where you got the figures for violent crime increasing in England and Australia when they decreased civilian gun possessions. As to my understanding and from a very quick google search violent crime in Australia didnt increase

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: mrpercentage on February 29, 2016, 09:19:44 PM
I have to say, this is really impressive.   Pretty much every gun owner in this thread (not sure about blue house who just made one short post) is a fervent believer in firearms safety and takes all reasonable precautions with their weapons.

Don't be too impressed. You are on a frugality forum. The ability to suspend a temporary reward to achieve a better longer term one is a hallmark of intelligence. Those browsing here are undoubtably wiser than the standard gun owner. I would bet the futures on that one. All in.

if someone is not familiar with guns please consider something like this https://www.copsplus.com/prodnum8643.php

that might prevent something like this
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-mom-accidentally-shot-killed-daughter-20151230-story.html
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: cheapass on March 01, 2016, 07:11:58 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Paul der Krake on March 01, 2016, 07:59:21 AM
Gun prices aren't the largest deterrent. It's the ongoing cost of ammo and range fees that will sink your budget. They make a $8 bucket of golf balls that look cheap in comparison.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: AZDude on March 01, 2016, 08:25:26 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?

Depends on the municipality, but across the entire state you cannot drive with a loaded gun in the car. The gun and the ammunition have to be separated and the gun must be in some kind of closed container(If I remember right, its been a couple of years). You also have to register a gun if its being brought in from another state(if you are moving to CA).

City of San Diego, for example, was very strict and did not allow concealed weapons and getting a permit to do so was entirely subjective. Basically the local PD had to specifically approve you.  There were more, but I forget exactly what they were.

Contrast that to Arizona, where concealed weapons are legal as long as you are not legally barred from owning a firearm. I can walk around in public with a handgun under my coat and its 100% legal. You can drive a car with a gun under the seat(and I have), although be on your best behavior if you get pulled over.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Fishindude on March 01, 2016, 08:53:37 AM
Indiana is similar to AZ.  I have a lifetime concealed carry permit, so legally could take a gun most anywhere, concealed out of sight or in a holster in plain view.
No special rules about transporting in vehicles either.    We can also purchase silencers (suppressors) with the proper permit.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: cheapass on March 01, 2016, 08:59:14 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?

Depends on the municipality, but across the entire state you cannot drive with a loaded gun in the car. The gun and the ammunition have to be separated and the gun must be in some kind of closed container(If I remember right, its been a couple of years). You also have to register a gun if its being brought in from another state(if you are moving to CA).

City of San Diego, for example, was very strict and did not allow concealed weapons and getting a permit to do so was entirely subjective. Basically the local PD had to specifically approve you.  There were more, but I forget exactly what they were.

Contrast that to Arizona, where concealed weapons are legal as long as you are not legally barred from owning a firearm. I can walk around in public with a handgun under my coat and its 100% legal. You can drive a car with a gun under the seat(and I have), although be on your best behavior if you get pulled over.

Ah, so it sounds like in certain municipalities if the sheriff doesn't like your skin color or your perceived sexual orientation, you can be arbitrarily denied the right to defend yourself outside the home. Or maybe you just didn't donate to his re-election campaign.

Having a firearm unloaded and locked sure makes it difficult to stop an attempted carjacking or abduction. Especially detrimental to those who can't physically fight off an attacker like a small female or an elderly person.

These are the laws we want to model our federal regulations after? Seriously?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 09:55:36 AM
There are plenty of guns in Canada.  They're used as tools . . . for hunting, pest control, sport shooting primarily.  We're required to get a license when we get a gun, which means getting a background check and training.  You're required to register your weapon, so that police have information to keep them safe in case of a dangerous situation.  You have to keep weapons locked away and unloaded in your home to prevent accidents.

In the US at first glance there appears to be an awful lot of fear around guns and gun use.  It's assumed that your gun will not be a tool, but will need to be used as a weapon . . . which is why the idea of keeping the weapon locked away is unpalatable.  There's fear that the government is nefarious and out to get you, so keeping a national registry of weapons owners is unpalatable.  Background checks aren't required in most states for private sales for some reason (?).  You don't usually need a license to own a gun, so there's no kind of screening regarding competence.  I don't really understand the reasoning that argues against requiring some training to own a firearm . . . is it also fear based?

From my perspective, the US is just knotted up with fear of everything and that's why the conversation there seems to be so emotionally charged and angry any time people talk about firearms.  It's weird.  Like, look how terrified everyone is of ISIL . . . and then realize that toddlers killed more people in the US with guns than terrorists did last year.  It is heartening to know that many of the gun owners on this forum do take prudent precautions regarding safety.  It's disheartening to know that these precautions are all voluntary.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: BlueMR2 on March 01, 2016, 10:05:58 AM
1. I live in a very low crime area.  Does not mean that's perfectly safe though.  Bad things happen everywhere.  Oddly, criminals have cars and have noticed that people in "safe" neighborhoods make really easy targets as long as you don't hit them too often...

2. I regularly practice when I have the money available.  Unfortunately, I'm already looking at being 50% overbudget for this year due to some really ugly unexpected repairs.  The firearms practicing will be one of the things sacrificed to limit my financial damage this year.

3. My wife is trained and has her own firearm.  She does not practice as much, which we take into account in our planning.

4. I expect to be held for questioning.  Things could go so bad that I end up serving time, but more likely I'll just face civil lawsuits.  I'll probably be able to defend those, but expect to lose most of what I have in the process.  However, I plan on being alive...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 01, 2016, 10:16:41 AM
I don't have a gun in my house, although I inherited from my grandfather a couple of shotguns that are kept in the garage at my mom's house. I've occasionally wondered whether I should have a gun and have always concluded that the possible benefit of a gun being useful in the extremely rare event of a break-in is vastly outweighed by the general worry and paranoia that having a gun in the house would bring, not to mention the hassle of actually learning how to use and maintain the gun. Course, if a zombie apocalypse happens, I'm so screwed.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2016, 10:18:06 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms, and that is left up to each state and county. Some states have very loose restrictions and some like Calif have more strict ones. These generally deal with type of  gun and ammo that can be purchases, waiting periods, background checks,  training and safety courses required to purchase, how to carry and transport firearms, concealed carry licenses, magazine capacity,  etc.. A long list of regulations and laws that very greatly from state to state with Calif being one of the most restrictive in the nation.

Spartana - As a gun owner in a state which has fewer state gun laws (other than the federal which are enforced), I can't agree with you that the Feds don't regulate guns.  ATF?  There are tons of laws on the books that are enforced by the feds  From what I know about California, the laws seem overly restrictive (additional weapon and magazine bans come to mind). 

As it relates to conceal carry, in my state you have to have an FBI background check and training.  If you pass those, you get a concealed carry.  The sheriff has no choice if you follow those requirements. 

What is the process in CA?  I thought it was quite difficult in some jurisdictions to get a concealed carry there.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 12:23:45 PM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: frugalconfederate on March 01, 2016, 03:36:38 PM


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Being in Kentucky, I have no worries about prosecution for defending myself in my own home... but I have always heard that if you shoot someone climbing through your window, make sure he falls inside and not outside.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 03:43:32 PM


Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Being in Kentucky, I have no worries about prosecution for defending myself in my own home... but I have always heard that if you shoot someone climbing through your window, make sure he falls inside and not outside.

You need to stop listening to hillbillly lawyers. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 01, 2016, 05:01:32 PM


In the US at first glance there appears to be an awful lot of fear around guns and gun use.  It's assumed that your gun will not be a tool, but will need to be used as a weapon . . . which is why the idea of keeping the weapon locked away is unpalatable.  There's fear that the government is nefarious and out to get you, so keeping a national registry of weapons owners is unpalatable.  Background checks aren't required in most states for private sales for some reason (?).  You don't usually need a license to own a gun, so there's no kind of screening regarding competence.  I don't really understand the reasoning that argues against requiring some training to own a firearm . . . is it also fear based?


One US political party has a fair number of leaders who constantly harp on taking all guns away from US citizens. So, we worry about that. They tell us they will take our stuff, and we believe them. So, we don't want unified lists of who owns guns in their hands, because we believe them when they tell us they will abuse that power. The US political system is a bit insane, but plenty of countries have had bans put in place, so I don't think it is crazy to think the US could do it too.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 05:45:44 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2016, 05:58:34 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation of many weapons.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 06:05:59 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 01, 2016, 06:10:29 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:13:57 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Yes, you are.  The Democratic Party learned long ago that they can't openly discuss amending the 2nd, nor any kind of piecewise or partial ban at the federal level, or half of their own voter base will abandon them.  So instead, they have been using a step-wise, and mostly state by state, strategy to achieve the same ends.  It's called "gun control", and if they can swing it without someone laughing, "common sense gun control".  The problem  is that a lot of their (very liberal) base in certain states very much believe that our "gun culture" is an impediment to their long view, which is a "civilized society" that looks much more like Europe.  However, to change "gun culture" they actually have to change the culture, which involves limiting the influences of "gun nuts" upon the next generation.  The traditional, and current, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment stands in the way of that long view; and they continue to undermine it by whatever means remains available to them.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 06:14:47 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:20:34 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Quote
"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

Quote
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell

Quote
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

I can do this all day.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:28:37 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Governor Cuomo

Quote
     Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the--you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.


    Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?


    Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun... something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Quote
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer

Quote
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

 Mayor Barbara Fass

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.

Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:34:01 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
  I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . .  It is time to act.  We cannot go on like this.  Ban them!

  Sen. John H. Chafee

Quote
My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill.  We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets.  Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use.  But that's the endgame.  And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.

 Rep. Bobby Rush

Quote
Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition.  It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.  It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind.

  Rep. Major Owens

Quote
There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun.

              I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.

              I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.  And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.

Michael Gartner

Let me know when you have seen enough that you are convinced that it's real.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 06:34:44 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."
- Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

Handguns are not equivalent to all guns in America.




Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Quote
In an interview with 60 Minutes that aired in February 1995, correspondent Lesley Stahl asked Feinstein about this loophole, which made it legal to buy and sell hundreds of thousands of the assault weapons the senator had sought to restrict.

Feinstein responded: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jan/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-misfires-feinstein-gun-claim/ (http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jan/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-misfires-feinstein-gun-claim/)

Misrepresented quotation.  Full quote shows that she wasn't talking about banning all guns.


Quote
“I don’t believe people should to be able to own guns.”
- Barack Obama (during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s)

Quote
the source of the Obama quote isn't exactly neutral. He's John Lott, an energetic gun-rights campaigner and author of the books More Guns, Less Crime, Straight Shooting, and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong. The chief evidence for the "secret plan", meanwhile, is that the head of the organisation Gun Owners of America "says there is no doubt" that he has such a plan. The same man also says that he "can see [Obama] telling gun stores... 'you can't sell rifles [that use large magazines] or I'm pulling your license." So the secret plan to ban guns a) exists only in a gun activist's mind, and b) even in that imaginary form, isn't actually a plan to ban guns.
/quote]
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2012/aug/01/guide-anti-obama-conspiracy-theories (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkemans-blog/2012/aug/01/guide-anti-obama-conspiracy-theories)

Fabricated quotation.




I can do this all day.

I'll ask again, do you have any real quotes regarding the question I asked?


(I'm just going to reject your celebrity quotes as being off topic, since they're not actually in any kind of political power.)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2016, 06:37:05 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Governor Cuomo

Quote
     Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the--you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.
rather than a politician

    Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?


    Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun... something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Quote
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.

Charles Krauthammer

Quote
I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" -- quote -- to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be.  But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

 Mayor Barbara Fass

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.

Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke


A permit to own a gun is not confiscation of all guns.

Handguns are not all guns.

A bill that provides multiple exceptions so that people can keep guns is not confiscation of all guns.

Handguns are not all guns.


Do you have anything related to the question I posted, or not?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2016, 06:43:40 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:44:39 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?
care
It's a pretty common sentiment on the far left, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, among other top politicians. Outside politics, pretty common among big-name leftists to talk this line. I take them at their word. The weird thing is this is a leftist position in the US, but a righty position in for example Britain, where Maggie Thatcher was a big confiscation proponent.

Quotes that show they want to confiscate all guns?

Quote
My guess [is] . . . that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment. . . .  I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely -- the handguns, the semis and the automatics.

Roger Rosenblatt

Quote
Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby.  I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one."

L. Brent Bozell III

Quote
The [American Academy of Pediatrics] believes handguns, deadly air guns and assault weapons should be banned.

American Assocation of Pediatrics, Where We Stand

Quote
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . .  [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again.  Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice.  Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris

Quote
We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Quote
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

And this very election cycle...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/hillary-clinton-gun-confiscation-worth-looking-at/

Quote
A voter asked, “Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”

Mrs. Clinton responded by describing Australia’s program, and then said, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 01, 2016, 06:51:46 PM
[

(I'm just going to reject your celebrity quotes as being off topic, since they're not actually in any kind of political power.)

Oh, no.  You don't get to do that.  You asked for quotes calling for gun bans.  I provided more than all guns, but I get to do that, because otherwise you would just complain that it's not a widespread opinion on the left.  Prominant leftists in media count, because they have an outsized political influence.  Political activists, action communities, and movements count for the same reasons; otherwise no bitching about what the NRA or the GOA have to say.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: nnls on March 01, 2016, 07:24:46 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 01, 2016, 07:39:42 PM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns).  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 01, 2016, 08:06:00 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: nnls on March 01, 2016, 09:54:45 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.

yes semi automatics are banned, but you could then use the money from the buyback to buy a new gun that isn't illegal. Therefore not turning law abiding citizens into criminals.

The amount of mass shootings/ gun violence has massively decreased in Australia since the regulation happened. I don't see how anyone could argue this is a bad thing.

yes criminals continue to ignore the law and I am sure there are criminals in Australia that still have automatic and semi automatic guns but we still hardly have gun related deaths
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Luckyvik on March 02, 2016, 04:25:04 AM
I just stumbled across this thread, I'm from Sydney, Australia. For us here we don't get the whole need to own a gun in the USA.

I don't know a single person that has a gun, I am trained in handling firearms due to a previous job but it has never occurred to me to own my own firearm don't see what the point would be.

I also have a closed friend who was almost killed in one of the rare shootings in Australia by a random wacko many years ago before the gun buyback and so I have been touched by this issue personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2016, 06:21:08 AM
Going back a ways, the % gun ownership in the US and Canada - I think it was said to be about 33% and 25%.  I don't know if the numbers are correct, but the big difference is that those guns in Canada are not hand guns.  And there is no concealed carry.  We also try to limit automatic weapons - do I need 25 shots (or whatever) in a row to shoot a coyote?  No?  Is it handy if I want to do a school massacre?  Yes.
 
I write this acknowledging I am forever psychologically scarred by the Ecole Polytechnicue shooting, the Concordia shooting (illegal handgun) and the Dawson shooting (we were massively lucky, that one could have been much much worse, and it could have been my school).  Yet if I were a farmer and found coyotes worrying a calf or lamb, would I shoot it?  Yes.  Preferably with something accurate, so the coyote died instantly.

Reminder to Americans, it doesn't matter what carry laws and permits you have and your state has, if you have handguns you can't bring them into Canada when you visit, no matter how benign your intentions and how responsible you are. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 06:24:03 AM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

So semi automatics are banned in Australia and existing semi auto firearms were confiscated.  Correct?  The majority of guns sold in the us are semi auto.  There are tens of millions of semi autos in the us.  That represents potential  confiscation on a vast scale.

One of the reasons the us can't have an effective conversation on gun violence is because this type of rhetoric keeps being raised.  We tried an assault weapons ban.  It achieved nothing.  There are 300m guns in the us.  Confiscation will turn law abiding citizens into criminals.  Current criminals will continue to ignore the law.

As has already been pointed out, all guns were not banned.  All guns were not confiscated.  Some types of firearms were made illegal so there was a buyback program that allowed people to get money for guns that had been made illegal . . . this program was purely for the benefit of gun owners.

To recap: even in Australia, nobody came for all the guns.  That kind of rhetoric is just false information.

As Moonshadow has pretty well proven, it's not possible to find a quote from a politician indicating that they want to rid the country of all guns.  Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

Pretending that men in black are coming to rid the US of all guns is a denial of reality.  It appears to be used by pro gun supporters as a method to shut down any reasonable debate.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2016, 06:49:54 AM

As has already been pointed out, all guns were not banned.  All guns were not confiscated.  Some types of firearms were made illegal so there was a buyback program that allowed people to get money for guns that had been made illegal . . . this program was purely for the benefit of gun owners.

To recap: even in Australia, nobody came for all the guns.  That kind of rhetoric is just false information.

As Moonshadow has pretty well proven, it's not possible to find a quote from a politician indicating that they want to rid the country of all guns.  Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

Pretending that men in black are coming to rid the US of all guns is a denial of reality.  It appears to be used by pro gun supporters as a method to shut down any reasonable debate.

Steve:

What happened in Australia (the buyback) wasn't for the benefit of the gun owners.  Based on my citation provided above, Australia outlawed certain weapons and forced owners to sell them to the government.  They were provided compensation, but the buyback was not voluntary.  It was confiscation with compensation. 

If Australia wants that scheme, that's up to them. 

Framing a confiscation of semiautomatic weapons (what happened in Australia) as a reasonable debate is the problem.  Gun owners in the US don't view it as a reasonable or common sense.  Semi auto weapons are not rocket launchers or heavy machine guns and shouldn't be compared as such.

MW
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 06:58:28 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 07:02:49 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2016, 07:04:19 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.


If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Wordstew on March 02, 2016, 07:49:50 AM
Having worked in law enforcement and the prison system over the last 25 years let me chime in.  Most people are grossly under-prepared and under-trained to carry and or use a firearm safely.  I always suggest for people to buy a high powered flashlight that strobes and a can of pepper spray. Point the strobe at the bad guys face and unload the can of pepper spray on him. Those are the two items in my nightstand and when my wife is home alone I'm far more confident that she will be able to use those items versus a firearm as she is far more familiar with using a spray can and a flashlight than a firearm.  You might also want to consider buying a powerful green laser, you can blind someone with it.
Far more important is to have a plan to create distance and have physical barriers between you and the bad guy.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 08:50:16 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.


If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 02, 2016, 09:14:23 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

They aren't discussing banning all guns.  Just the most popular and a majority of new guns purchased  That's a ridiculous and extremist position.  Even Canada has semi-autos.

ETA - If I ever visit Australia or Canada, I'll willingly and without complaint leave my guns at home as a respectful visitor.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 09:18:33 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

If the politicians in the US want to get something done on gun violence in the US, bringing up Australian style confiscation as a model isn't helpful.  Confiscating all semi autos in the US would involve tens if not hundreds of millions of firearms.

Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

They aren't discussing banning all guns.  Just the most popular and a majority of new guns purchased  That's a ridiculous and extremist position.  Even Canada has semi-autos.

Interestingly enough, there are guns that are legal to import/purchase in Canada that are banned in the US (Norinco M14, for example).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 02, 2016, 09:37:06 AM
I just stumbled across this thread, I'm from Sydney, Australia. For us here we don't get the whole need to own a gun in the USA.

The British gave you your country. We took ours from them by force.

Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: BlueMR2 on March 02, 2016, 10:28:23 AM
2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I wonder what the current sales numbers are like.  To me it seems like all the practical guns sold are semi-autos.  Non-semi-autos are just collectors items at this point.  Does a double action revolver count as a semi-auto?  It's effectively the same thing...  :-)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 11:15:51 AM
2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I wonder what the current sales numbers are like.  To me it seems like all the practical guns sold are semi-autos.  Non-semi-autos are just collectors items at this point.  Does a double action revolver count as a semi-auto?  It's effectively the same thing...  :-)

On the practical side, you'll still find bolt action rifles in the high-end precision and hunting realm...but yeah, most are semi-auto.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 11:19:31 AM
Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)

My understanding is that this interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect.  This is a well written article that presents what I'm referring to:

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns (http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Yaeger on March 02, 2016, 11:37:04 AM
Do they want to limit access to certain weapons?  Sure!  The same way that access to rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons are currently limited.  That's where the debate really should be - what is a reasonable weapon to limit, and how well will limiting this weapon protect the population.

The answer is, of course, that there should be no limit at all because the real purpose of private weapon ownership in the US is as a final check against tyranny. If, for example, the US military staged a coup the citizens would need those rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons to combat them. (In reality, a significant fraction of the military itself would break ranks in such a scenario and armories would be raided, but still, the Second Amendment is an issue of principle, not practicality.)

My understanding is that this interpretation of the second amendment is incorrect.  This is a well written article that presents what I'm referring to:

http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns (http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-2nd-amendment-did-not-grant-an-unlimited-right-to-own-guns)

Nah he was correct.

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 11:43:21 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns).  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 11:46:22 AM
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 11:49:40 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns).  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 11:50:13 AM
Sure, and that's an argument that should be made in the gun control debate.  It's much more sensical than pretending that people want to take away all your guns.

2/3+ of mine are semiauto, so it'd certainly be a fair percentage. :P

I actually only own one semiauto, which is a handgun designed for concealed carry.  It's also my only handgun, and every other firearm would qualify as a "high powered rifle". 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 11:52:10 AM
Having worked in law enforcement and the prison system over the last 25 years let me chime in.  Most people are grossly under-prepared and under-trained to carry and or use a firearm safely.

What are you basing this opinion upon?  Because every single gun owner that I know are very well trained.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Yaeger on March 02, 2016, 11:55:36 AM
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

It's assumes the reasonable need for those weapons. During normal everyday use you'd never need those weapons thus you would use them. If the 'militia' would ever need to oppose the private politicized army or selected militia, then it would be reasonable that they would have access to those weapons in opposition to oppression. It depends on that reasonable interpretation.

But you're right in that a carte blanche isn't the answer.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 11:58:48 AM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns).  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.

Okay, I have been wrong before.  But this is still a manufacturing & import ban, not a private ownership ban.  I would agree that it's stupid, but I would not agree that a manufacturing ban or import ban qualify as gun control. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 12:05:00 PM
I also am pro gun control and support stricter gun laws like we have in Calif but not bans.

Curious, what additional laws does California have that are more stringent than federal regs?
The Feds generally don't regulate gun laws, with a few exception such as banning some types of firearms,

I suspect that you were over-simplifying for the uninitiated audience, Spartana, but the fact is that there really is no such thing as a federal weapons ban.  What happens is that special licenses are required for Class II & Class III weapons, that are typically expensive & heavily regulated.  Even the "assault weapons ban" of the Clinton era didn't ban any weapons, and particularly not actual assault weapons, which are already regulated as Class III weapons.

To interrupt the confusion in advance; a Class III weapon is either anything one might consider a "machine gun", an automatic weapon, or an explosive weapon, whereas a Class II weapon is the "miscellaneous" group that doesn't fit into either Class I (typical semi-automatic handguns & rifles, of a caliber of .50 or less) and doesn't fit into Class III (as noted above, weapons of exclusive military applications).  The kinds of items that are in Class II included firearms that are disguised such as pen guns, suppression devices & 'bang sticks'.  It is possible to get the licenses necessary for these items, in states that permit it (not California, which is one reason action films often have to be filmed at a studio in Arizona or on location.   Yes, those guns they use on film are often the real thing) but it is an extremely expensive process involving the civilian equivalent of a national security clearance.  I know this because there are a lot of wealthy rednecks in this region, and they like to spend money doing things like this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBf_LvqUsQ

BTW, Knob Creek gun range, where this event is filmed twice a year, is only a 20 minute drive beyond the city limits of Louisville, Kentucky.  Roughly half way to Fort Knox.  The GE Minigun can be rented, but the renter has to buy their own ammo, which costs about $200 for enough ammo to last about 25 seconds.  Not mustachian at all.

I would argue that automatic firearms are almost/effectively banned, since the only ones you can purchase as a private citizen are ones registered prior to the 1986 FOPA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Ban_on_machine_guns).  Certainly any automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned by default, as they could not have been registered prior.  There isn't a special license required - just a $200 tax stamp and some federal paperwork.

Not quite.  Class III weapons still in use by the US military, and manufactured within the United States, are still an exception to that manufacturing ban, I believe.  Still, that's a manufacturing ban, not a possession ban; and those firearms are so valuable that they are likely to be maintained forever.

As a private citizen, you cannot purchase / transfer ownership of an automatic firearm unless it was registered prior to the 1986 act.  You can register short barreled rifles and other NFA items that have been manufactured since then, but not an automatic.

I have a friend who used to run a gun store - his law enforcement price for a semi-auto S&W MP15 was $950.  A select-fire (automatic) was $975.  If weapons in use by the military were excluded from this prohibition, Vietnam-era M16's would not be fetching $16,000...because you'd be able to buy a Colt/etc for $1000-1500.

Okay, I have been wrong before.  But this is still a manufacturing & import ban, not a private ownership ban.  I would agree that it's stupid, but I would not agree that a manufacturing ban or import ban qualify as gun control.

It is not a manufacturing ban.  Smith & Wesson can make automatic rifles all day long, but only for specific buyers (police, military, security contractors, gun dealers who cater to those markets).  It is impossible for a private citizen to own any automatic rifle that was produced after 1986 - how is that not a ban?

Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

It's assumes the reasonable need for those weapons. During normal everyday use you'd never need those weapons thus you would use them. If the 'militia' would ever need to oppose the private politicized army or selected militia, then it would be reasonable that they would have access to those weapons in opposition to oppression. It depends on that reasonable interpretation.

But you're right in that a carte blanche isn't the answer.

Explosives are not banned - in 2012, Milkor offered five M32 MGL (grenade launcher) for civilian sale at $19,500/each.  You would have a $200 tax stamp on the purchase, and then another $200 tax stamp for every grenade you bought for it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 12:16:26 PM
Did you read the article I posted?

From the link that you submitted, second page:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose


Which is why it's OK to ban rocket launchers, nukes, and specific types of guns.

Don't lump those together.  As I already noted, explosive weapons are Class III; and are not actually banned for private ownership.  They are just very expensive.  Case law has placed them into the same category of military weapons as a cannon, which has been protected by case law for well over 100 years.  My dad & his brother had a cannon, when he was 12.  It was a 1/4 scale cannon, that he & his brother would use as part of a Colors ceremony they would do every now and again, usually on July 4 & Veterans Day.  They had tiny uniforms & the whole bit; and even though it never had any projectiles in it, they did use real gunpowder, so it was a real cannon & not a model.
 
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

1) Because it has zero use as a defensive weapon, militarily or not.

2) Because it's an indiscriminate weapon, i.e. no matter the skill of the user, the weapon cannot be used with individual precision, land mines are banned for a similar reason.

3) Because it's very use implies great & widespread destruction of property, in addition to life, and any gun owner knows that they are responsible for the damage they cause to third parties.

4) Because nukes include a vast number of military secrets.

5) And because there is a huge risk of violations of international treaties.

So, please; in the interest of intellectual honesty, leave the 'nuke' argument out of this, because it has no place unless we start talking about land mines next.

If you want to discuss other types of guns, name them.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 12:39:37 PM
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.


Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 12:46:48 PM

It is not a manufacturing ban.  Smith & Wesson can make automatic rifles all day long, but only for specific buyers (police, military, security contractors, gun dealers who cater to those markets).  It is impossible for a private citizen to own any automatic rifle that was produced after 1986 - how is that not a ban?


Well, it is, and I'm sure the plan was to expand that as time went on.  However, it's a particularly limited ban, upon items for which the attrition rate is incredibly small.  So while they may be very expensive these days, those types of weapons are still available.  I admit I'd love to own a P90 myself, but the political will just doesn't exist to repeal or overturn this; and that is because even the majority of the pro-gun voter base doesn't really consider a ban on Class III weapons to be comparable to limitations upon handguns such as magazine capacity.  I'd support any politician that moved to repeal that ban, but it's not very high on my list of priorities.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 01:00:20 PM
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.  The only one that you could even bitch about was the Obama quote from John Lott, which is only in question because Lott was the only witness.  As far as I know, and probably you either, Obama has never denied the quote.  You can say that John Lott is a liar, if you want to, but that certainly isn't my intellectual dishonesty, even if true.

Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.  Now you are trying to dissassociate yourself from yourself; which is a nice 'GutairStx' touch.  And adding in an insult towards my
intellectual honesty is a nice touch.  Look at what I wrote again, and you will see that I did address your point about the 2nd not protecting all types of weapons.

Quote

Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?

Bore size & the necessity of a crew (more than one person) to use or move it.  Any rifled firearm of a larger caliber than .50 is not a Class I weapon, by definition, and is regulated at the federal level.  This really is not in dispute in the US.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 02, 2016, 01:18:34 PM
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2016, 01:20:39 PM
The British gave you your country. We took ours from them by force.
That was aimed at Australia, but I suppose you would say the same thing about Canada. 

To shift viewpoint just a bit, most of the Commonwealth countries developed home rule gradually (with a bit of fuss here and there).  It wasn't "given" to us, we worked for it, but mostly peacefully.  Sort of like a child gradually growing up and becoming independent, but still on good terms with the parents.  We have nice family reunions too (Commonwealth meetings, Commonwealth games). Fortunately the British government had the example of what happens when you try to keep the apron strings too tight (i.e. the US), and cooperated. The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees - witness the United Empire Loyalists in Canada.  Speaking of heroes/icons, Laura Secord was born in the 13 colonies (New York).

A result of this is that (I speak for Canada here) we mostly tend to talk things over, sometimes ad nauseum, until we sort things out and reach some sort of accord that we may not all be thrilled with but can live with.  Please notice the "wishy-washy" language, we call it getting along.  Of course some groups are not happy with this (witness the FLQ) but mostly they are seen as aberrant, not heroes.  So we just don't have that built-in sense that we might need to over throw our government by force (i.e. US second amendment argument). It's OUR government, it took a lot of negotiation to get it, and it is there to serve us (peace, order, and good government is the founding principle for Confederation, for example).  So re a "right" to bear arms, it just isn't in our national psyche.  Part of our lives, yes, you can't be a frontier society at some point and not have guns as part of it.

On the defense part, if no-one has hand-guns then there is less need to have one's own guns to use in self-defense.  Yes, people own them illegally here, and there are extra penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime, on top of the regular penalties.  The suggestions of a super strong flashlight and some sort of pepper spray (whatever is legal in that jurisdiction) seems like a lot more sensible precaution.  Not to mention having a phone in the bedroom with speed dial to 911.  Not a green laser please, they blind and would be dangerous to a child playing with one, or to an aircraft pilot blinded by a child playing with one.


Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 01:21:31 PM
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 01:28:31 PM
The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees

This is way off topic already, but this above statistic is made up.  There certainly were loyalists in the US colonies, but there were not nearly one-third of the population.  Closer to half or more of the population didn't care at all, and only about 3% of the population actively participated in the US revolutionary war in any capacity.  After the war, loyalists were offered passage to Great Britain, most did not accept it; so just how loyal were they?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2016, 01:34:18 PM
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.



Let me refresh your memory, we're a whole page away from the last time I had to point this out to you now:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Here's the actual quote, which came during a 60 minutes interview where she discusses a loophole that allowed people to buy assault weapons that she had tried to restrict:

Quote from: actual quote
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

You both made up your quote rather than finding the correct one, and then deliberately took it out of context to change it's meaning.  So yeah, intellectually dishonest.  How would you describe it?





Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.

Sure, as an example of a weapon that you can't own.  I did not compare nukes to guns, which is why your straw man argument against nukes being compared to guns seemed a little out of place.




And adding in an insult towards my intellectual honesty is a nice touch.

Thanks, but really you take most of the credit for it.  I wouldn't have pointed it out without you first being dishonest, and then accusing me of being so.



Quote
Since it seems very important to you, I'm not familiar with the technical difference between a cannon and a gun.  Could you enlighten me please?

Bore size & the necessity of a crew (more than one person) to use or move it.  Any rifled firearm of a larger caliber than .50 is not a Class I weapon, by definition, and is regulated at the federal level.  This really is not in dispute in the US.

Thanks.  I was just curious if there was a technical differentiation, having always seen a cannon as just being a big gun.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 02, 2016, 01:37:44 PM
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.

Hmm. Sounds unconstitutional, but nobody's likely to gain standing to challenge it...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 01:46:54 PM
A nuke is banned, of course, but for a completely different reasons.

Is private ownership of nukes actually "banned," or is it merely a practical impossibility?

No, they are actually banned.

Hmm. Sounds unconstitutional, but nobody's likely to gain standing to challenge it...

It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 02:02:06 PM
The guy who posted made up quotes to prove his point on this very page is concerned about intellectual honesty all of a sudden?  O.o

I did not post made up quotes.  They are real quotes.



Let me refresh your memory, we're a whole page away from the last time I had to point this out to you now:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

Here's the actual quote, which came during a 60 minutes interview where she discusses a loophole that allowed people to buy assault weapons that she had tried to restrict:

Quote from: actual quote
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.’"

You both made up your quote rather than finding the correct one, and then deliberately took it out of context to change it's meaning.  So yeah, intellectually dishonest.  How would you describe it?


Simple research error.  I found that quote online, already out of context.  I considered that a possibility in advance (in general), which is one reason that I provided as many different quotes from as many different people as I had the time for.  Are you going to claim that they are all out of context?

Quote

Quote
At least you're maintaining consistency by continuing to obfuscate and ignore my point, which was that the 2nd amendment isn't a blanket allowance of all types of weapons.  Doing so by spending the bulk of your post against a straw man (that I'm equating nukes with guns) gives it a nice 'MoonShadow' touch.

I'm not the one who brought up nukes, GutairStv.  You did.

Sure, as an example of a weapon that you can't own.  I did not compare nukes to guns, which is why your straw man argument against nukes being compared to guns seemed a little out of place.


Naming a nuke as a weapon that I can't own, and then asking your opposition to justify the distinction (under an "absolute" right), is a comparison.  You did it, stop pretending.

Quote

And adding in an insult towards my intellectual honesty is a nice touch.

Thanks, but really you take most of the credit for it.  I wouldn't have pointed it out without you first being dishonest, and then accusing me of being so.

Of course, you would say that.  Still doesn't make it so.  Keep repeating it though, and someone is bound to buy it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 02, 2016, 02:15:59 PM
It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.

Good point. I should have thought of that myself, given that I'm pretty sure I complained in another thread about recent treaties (e.g. the TPP) being effectively omnibus bills of shit Congress can't pass legitimately, or that would be unconstitutional otherwise.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Yaeger on March 02, 2016, 02:33:48 PM
It also wouldn't fly, because it is constitutional, if only because of international treaties regarding nuclear weapons.  Treaties approved by the US Senate have the force of law equal to the US Constitution.

Good point. I should have thought of that myself, given that I'm pretty sure I complained in another thread about recent treaties (e.g. the TPP) being effectively omnibus bills of shit Congress can't pass legitimately, or that would be unconstitutional otherwise.

As far as I'm aware, and through multiple discussion on the subject like:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/case.html (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/case.html)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/354/1.html (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/354/1.html)

No treaty or law supersedes Article VI of the Constitution. The Constitution has no equal. However, treaties and acts of law by Congress are roughly equal.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Cathy on March 02, 2016, 03:11:38 PM
MoonShadow was imprecise in his phrasing but presumably what he was referring to was the fact that current US law arguably allows the federal government to obtain new powers by making treaties, even if the powers are not otherwise authorised by the Constitution. For a discussion of the history of the current state of affairs and also a criticism of it, see the concurring opinion of the late Justice Scalia in Bond v. United States, 564 US ___, 134 S Ct 2077, 2094 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14369486041709640908#p2094) (2014). My link takes you directly to Justice Scalia's concurrence.

The issue in Bond was whether a treaty had allowed the federal government to criminalise purely local, simple assaults. Applying what it considered to be clear and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Third Circuit found in 681 F 3d 149 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=967890202113571023) (2012) that the treaty in question had indeed given Congress the power to pass a statute to criminalise simple assault, even though that would not be otherwise constitutional.

The majority of the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit on the ground that the criminal statute was ambiguous and, as a matter of statutory interpretation, should be read down so as not to cover simple assaults. Reading the statute that way, it was not necessary to consider whether Congress's power had been enlarged by the treaty.

Justice Scalia wrote separately because he would have reached the constitutional issue and overturned the Court's precedents that arguably allow treaties to expand the power of the federal government beyond what is explicitly authorised in the Constitution. Justice Scalia's opinion is not the law, but it contains a good discussion of this topic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
MoonShadow was imprecise in his phrasing but presumably what he was referring to was the fact that current US law arguably allows the federal government to obtain new powers by making treaties, even if the powers are not otherwise authorized by the Constitution.

Yes,  thank you Cathy; that was impressively thorough.  I'm not of the opinion that it should be that way; however, as I believe that the US Constitution should supersede any treaty, and that any treaty that violates the US Constitution shouldn't be ratifiable at all.  But that said, it is how it is.  Firearms are a no-no on a sailboat in international waters for a similar reason; whether or not the ship flies the US flag, unless they are part of a sanctioned navy.  And my 1st & 4th amendment rights are limited by international treaty, whenever I pick up my ham radio; and violations are severely punished.  One does not simply upset the FCC and get away with it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 02, 2016, 05:49:01 PM
Who has ever said that they want to take all guns away from US citizens though?  My understanding was that occasionally people talk about limiting magazine size, reducing access to semi-automatic weapons, stuff like that.  I've never heard anyone propose taking away shotguns and single shot rifles though . . . am I missing something?

Guitarstv - This is a recent article with President Obama praising Australian gun control  which as I understand it is effectively confiscation-

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/23/obama-backs-australias-gun-laws-while-condemning-latest-mass-shootings-in-us

You understand incorrectly.  Australians can still buy firearms (rifles, shotguns, hand guns, etc.) as long as they follow the regulations in place.  There was no confiscation of all guns, just enforced regulation.

Steve:

From wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

"Australia had buyback schemes in 1996 and 2003. Both schemes were compulsory, and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed."

Respectfully, I don't misunderstand.  What happened in Australia was confiscation.  Obama's not the only one praising it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67

I'm not saying they confiscated all guns, but once it starts it won't stop.

No thanks.

It was a compulsory buy-back of guns that would now not be allowed, so automatics and semi-automatic guns and a few others.

My dad had  guns, he didn't have to hand them in and still has guns to this day. Same with most people I know who had guns.

This article implies that gun ownership in Australia has actually risen since the banning of semi-automatic firearms.  How true is it, I wonder?

http://louderwithcrowder.com/australian-gun-ownership-rises-gun-crime-remains-low-america-still-at-fault/#.VteEBFJkZwI
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2016, 07:13:43 PM
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

Anyway, to continue sort of off topic:
Re % Loyalists, sources differ (I did a quick Google, so as not to be going from memory, and my original %s were not meant to be precise).  Given the times, many sources only talk about adult white men - which excludes women, children, and non-whites.  Even some Patriot sources talk about 1/3 or more in opposition.  And of course many were pretty quiet about their political preferences, when the alternative was to be tarred and feathered and have their houses burned down.  The Patriots played pretty rough at times.

Why would you think that Loyalists were not loyal if they did not return to Great Britain? Their lives were in North America. They went to other British colonies and started over.   It was a huge diaspora. 

Those in the south went to Florida, the Bahamas and Bermuda.  The Loyalist settlers had a huge impact on the development of Canada. People on the northern coast went by ship to Nova Scotia - there were so many that they ended up becoming a new province, New Brunswick.  Those further inland hiked north and west, and settled in the western parts of Quebec, and are now known as the settlers in the Eastern Townships of Quebec and large parts of south eastern Ontario.  These Loyalists were why the original colony of Quebec was split into Upper and Lower Canada, which became Ontario and Quebec after Confederation.  St. John (New Brunswick) still proudly proclaims itself The Loyalist City.  I saw a large sign saying this when I took the ferry from Digby Nova Scotia to St. John a few years ago.  My great-great grandmother's family were UEL and proud of it.  The house of the War of 1812 heroine Laura Ingersoll Secord, a United Empire Loyalist (as was her husband Thomas Secord) is now a museum and park.  People remember.

End OT.
The US managed to have 1/3 of the population get its way - 1/3 didn't care, and 1/3 were loyal to Britain and ended up as political refugees

This is way off topic already, but this above statistic is made up.  There certainly were loyalists in the US colonies, but there were not nearly one-third of the population.  Closer to half or more of the population didn't care at all, and only about 3% of the population actively participated in the US revolutionary war in any capacity.  After the war, loyalists were offered passage to Great Britain, most did not accept it; so just how loyal were they?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 02, 2016, 07:33:51 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-reloads-as-gun-amnesties-fail-to-cut-arms-20130113-2cnnq.html
This article claims Aussie gun ownership is rising.
It was surprisingly hard to Google for crime stats for Australia. Easy to get a few years, but charts like you see for the US going back more than a decade didn't appear. I am sure they are out there somewhere, but I didn't see them. Still it appears Australia has a low and possibly somewhat declining violent crime rate. One note I saw said that about half of Aussi murders were done with a knife.
Not surprising. It's the people, not the tool. The US has lots of violent people, compared to Aus or Canada. People of British descent in the US also have very low crime rates. Swedes anywhere in the world remain Swedes. The crime rate for Japanese Americans is astonishingly low, just like the Japanese in Japan. If people want to be violent, they will be.
The US mass murder level is comparable to that in Europe. It's the everyday street criminal that the US abounds in, compared to most western countries.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Cathy on March 02, 2016, 07:47:03 PM
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show. ...
(Emphasis mine.)

This may be true of some Canadians, such as perhaps you and GuitarStv, but certainly not all of them. Canada is not a hive mind, and there are a variety of opinions among the general populace on the private ownership of handguns and other firearms and the regulation thereof. In fact, as recently as 2000, the Province of Alberta brought a court action challenging the constitutionality of the federal statutory scheme regulating firearms. Reference re Firearms Act, 2000 SCC 31 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2000/2000scc31/2000scc31.html), [2000] 1 SCR 783. Although Alberta lost, the fact that it brought the case at all suggests that opinion on firearms is not uniform across Canada.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2016, 08:21:53 PM
You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 02, 2016, 08:42:35 PM
If I never visited the US, I would not care at all what Americans do with guns.  Since I do, it makes sense for me to know what is happening there.  However, a lot (not all) of Americans seem to react very strongly when non-Americans ask for explanations of the rational for gun ownership.  We are simply trying to understand you. 

Also, what you do does affect us, since we are next to you.  Most of the illegal hand guns in Canada are smuggled in from the US (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm).  Thanks so much. Not.

You seem to think we let our government decide for us.  No, there have been public pressures for various aspects of gun legislation, including the long-gun registry as a direct result of public pressure after Ecole Poytechnique, and then its cancellation after other pressures.  And of course we have the ever-present discussion about Federal/Provincial areas of legislation as exemplified by the Alberta court case Cathy mentioned.  In some ways it might be simpler if it were an area of provincial jurisdiction, since provinces differ radically in their urban/rural splits, but basically it is federal and we live with that.

Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2016, 10:44:12 PM
Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

I agree. Worrying about the incredibly unlikely event of being unintentionally killed by a firearm in the United States would be a very stressful way to live. Considering (According to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm) that you're about 6 times more likely to be killed crossing the street than you are to be accidentally shot, I'd say even carrying in a general sort of way should put firearms generally further down the list of worries.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 02, 2016, 11:16:32 PM
If I never visited the US, I would not care at all what Americans do with guns.  Since I do, it makes sense for me to know what is happening there.  However, a lot (not all) of Americans seem to react very strongly when non-Americans ask for explanations of the rational for gun ownership.  We are simply trying to understand you. 

Also, what you do does affect us, since we are next to you.  Most of the illegal hand guns in Canada are smuggled in from the US (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ci-rc/reports-rapports/traf/index-eng.htm).  Thanks so much. Not.

You seem to think we let our government decide for us.  No, there have been public pressures for various aspects of gun legislation, including the long-gun registry as a direct result of public pressure after Ecole Poytechnique, and then its cancellation after other pressures.  And of course we have the ever-present discussion about Federal/Provincial areas of legislation as exemplified by the Alberta court case Cathy mentioned.  In some ways it might be simpler if it were an area of provincial jurisdiction, since provinces differ radically in their urban/rural splits, but basically it is federal and we live with that.

Actually, given how many Americans die in accidental deaths involving guns, I do care, in an impersonal "I care about people in general" way.  Especially for the children.  Plus it just seems like such a stressful and negative way to live.

You seem to have missed the main point of my post, which was that our histories are different, the evolution of our governments was different, and therefore we have wildly different attitudes to gun ownership and legislation.  So this means Americans should not be surprised when people from other countries don't understand the American attitude towards guns.  It truly seems strange to us, the strong attachment people show.

I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

No one is saying "ban ALL guns", just like no one is saying "I need a nuke to keep my family safe."   Everyone respects there are limits to U.S. gun ownership - it's where we draw the line that matters.  Right now, most people are actually pretty comfortable with where the lines are, which is why the laws haven't changed.

Well then, you should be absolutely horrified at the number of swimming pool deaths (http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php) in this country.

Especially the children.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 02, 2016, 11:19:14 PM
Finally! Someone is thinking of the children! 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 05:59:56 AM
I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately, the actions that the US takes related to gun control directly effect it's neighbours.  Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.  Weapons used in crime also become very difficult to trace.

This means that there ends up being a lot of spillover into Canada (70% of the guns used in crimes in my city alone come from the US - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss)).  The problem of US guns also exists for Mexico (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry)).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 03, 2016, 06:56:04 AM
I don't think any American gun owner gives a rat's ass about what Canadians or Aussies or Kiwis or Brits or anyone else thinks about our guns. In fact, many of us are mystified why you would care if we have guns in our homes or not. You don't see us lobbying for every Aussie to keep a handgun under their bed. It's a very personal decision - Canadians are comfortable allowing their government to decide what they can and cannot use to defend themselves and their families. Americans wish to decide for themselves.

Unfortunately, the actions that the US takes related to gun control directly effect it's neighbours.  Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.  Weapons used in crime also become very difficult to trace.

This means that there ends up being a lot of spillover into Canada (70% of the guns used in crimes in my city alone come from the US - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/crossfire-the-battle-over-gun-control-in-america-1.1333715?cmp=rss)).  The problem of US guns also exists for Mexico (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry (http://www.marketplace.org/2012/09/10/world/mexican-activists-call-change-us-gun-industry)).

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 03, 2016, 07:19:25 AM
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 03, 2016, 07:22:40 AM
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

I was responding to this in particular:
Quote
Because the US doesn't need background checks for most private sales, or keep records of gun sales it's pretty easy for a criminal to get weapons.
Are you saying that the majority of guns illegally brought into Canada were only brought in because it's possible to buy one through a private sale in the US without a background check, despite the ATF's claim that the majority of guns used in crime are sold through straw purchases or corrupt dealers?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 07:27:17 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 03, 2016, 07:32:43 AM
Well then, you should be absolutely horrified at the number of swimming pool deaths (http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php) in this country.

Especially the children.

Well, we are working on that too.  From the Canadian Red Cross:
Most drowning victims were males between the ages of 15 and 74. Males in these age groups had the highest drowning rates, followed by children between 1 and 4. The risk profile by age changed during the 1990’s. In the early 1990’s, 1 to 4 year old toddlers had the highest drowning rates in Canada; however, the greatest improvements in drowning rates between 1991-1995 and 1996-2000 were among infants less than 1 year old, 53%, and toddlers, 34%. There was also significant improvement for males between the ages of 5 and 44, but less improvement for men 45 and older.

I trust the US is too? 


And my we are getting off topic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 03, 2016, 07:38:21 AM
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Retired - If the US would enforce the straw buyer provision, go after felons attempting to buy guns, hire enough FBI agents to do background checks (Obama did do this), and go after unlicensed dealers with a clear standard of what a gun dealer is (10 guns a year?) that would go a long way to towards solving these problems. 

Rather than do that, within the last year - Obama has proposed a murky definition of what a gun dealer is (as little as one gun sale), the ATF has attempted to ban commonly available ammunition through a change in definition, and Obama (and other lawmakers) have continued to waste political capital discussing "assault weapons" which are involved a minority of US crimes (most are handguns).

With regard to our Southern neighbor, I think their crime and corruption are a bigger problem than US guns.  Given the level of organization of their criminals, I suspect other sources than the US could be found for weapons if the US dried up.  If Trump gets elected, maybe the wall will stop the guns from getting into Mexico.

Steve - With regard to the registry, that's not happening in the US.  Didn't Canada give up on that?  That's how I read this article -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 03, 2016, 07:55:09 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 07:56:38 AM
That is the US.  Here handguns are not sold like long guns are, so they have to come from somewhere else, and mostly they come from the US (illegally).  Which was the point GuitarStv and I were trying to make, that what one country does can affect its neighbours.  We both posted links (different ones, there are lots) making this point.

Sure I can go to a sporting goods store and buy a gun (after I pass the gun safety course and get a license) but I can't buy a handgun. 

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Retired - If the US would enforce the straw buyer provision, go after felons attempting to buy guns, hire enough FBI agents to do background checks (Obama did do this), and go after unlicensed dealers with a clear standard of what a gun dealer is (10 guns a year?) that would go a long way to towards solving these problems. 

Rather than do that, within the last year - Obama has proposed a murky definition of what a gun dealer is (as little as one gun sale), the ATF has attempted to ban commonly available ammunition through a change in definition, and Obama (and other lawmakers) have continued to waste political capital discussing "assault weapons" which are involved a minority of US crimes (most are handguns).

With regard to our Southern neighbor, I think their crime and corruption are a bigger problem than US guns.  Given the level of organization of their criminals, I suspect other sources than the US could be found for weapons if the US dried up.  If Trump gets elected, maybe the wall will stop the guns from getting into Mexico.

Steve - With regard to the registry, that's not happening in the US.  Didn't Canada give up on that?  That's how I read this article -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

The right wing government that just lost power abolished the firearms registry over the protests of law enforcement agencies.  All restricted and prohibited firearms still need to be registered in Canada though, and the restricted weapons cover the ones favoured most by criminals.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 07:58:01 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 03, 2016, 08:07:33 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?


Steve - Gun dealers have records of buyers and are subject to inspection by the ATF.

You fill out a form each time you purchase a gun from a federal firearms dealer.  If you are doing straw purchases on a large scale it would come up if investigated and prosecuted.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/25/texas-gun-dealer-sues-feds-over-reporting-requirem/
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 03, 2016, 08:23:38 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?


Steve - Gun dealers have records of buyers and are subject to inspection by the ATF.

You fill out a form each time you purchase a gun from a federal firearms dealer.  If you are doing straw purchases on a large scale it would come up if investigated and prosecuted.

http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/25/texas-gun-dealer-sues-feds-over-reporting-requirem/

My very (admittedly limited) understanding is that the quality of records management of dealers are hit and miss. Each individual dealer keeps their own records, some better, some worse. Any kind of straw purchase investigation would therefore require a lot of footwork going to each individual dealer which hopefully has done a decent job maintaining their records. It would be a lot better if all dealers had to enter their records into some kind of searchable database, but paranoia of jackbooted government agents breaking down door to seize everyone's guns makes that verboten.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 03, 2016, 08:30:37 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 08:46:51 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2016, 08:50:59 AM
According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), a majority of guns used in crime come from gun dealers.

Right.

As demonstrated by the article you posted, insufficient regulation has created this situation.  If there was a registry of who owns what gun, the two most common ways that criminals get their weapons (straw purchasers and corrupt gun dealers) would be caught in short order.
Insufficient enforcement has created this situation.

And that's the problem - your thought process is "make more laws", while existing laws aren't even being properly enforced.

How does one enforce laws against straw purchases without records to prove what's going on?  Same question for corrupt gun dealers?

Your argument is based on the faulty premise that there are no records - FFLs are required to maintain records of every transfer they facilitate.

I have looked into getting my C&R FFL so I could purchase 'curio and relic' firearms without going through a dealer, but the paperwork requirements are substantial -- and that's not even for selling.

I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the word "corrupt" generally imply dealers who don't necessarily comply with rules/laws/regulations?

I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Blonde Lawyer on March 03, 2016, 08:54:55 AM
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

For those interested, here is why we bought it.  My husband's use of force policy is very limited and is limited to on duty use to protect another officer, not for protecting the public.  I don't want to say what agency he is but it is specialized.  We were fine not having a firearm in the house.  But sometimes for work reasons, his firearm comes home.  (Early morning detail in opposite direction from office as an example).  In a truly worst case scenario, if there were a home invasion and he used that work firearm to protect us, he would lose his job.  So rather than ever having to deal with that, we just bought another identical firearm that is the home one.

I live in a state that is huge on gun owner rights.  I'm not taking a position on the issue but the common complaint I hear on restrictions is that the general public need to have the same level of force as the government (aka LEO) in case they need to overthrow their government.  Yup, I live in one of those states.  Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets. 

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons.  The idea of needing protection NOW but having to wait a cooling off period is concerning.  My state does not have a cooling off period but my parent's state does.  We bought our home firearm faster than I bought my car which is a bit concerning.  My parents pointed out, however, that if we were in their state, we just couldn't buy a handgun immediately.  We still could have purchased a shot gun or rifle for the home.  My state also allows open carry and occasionally there are political protesters walking down main street with a long gun strapped on them with extra ammo like Rambo just to prove that they can.  That leads to many frantic calls to the police who then have to say "as long as he's not actively threatening anyone or pointing it anyone there is nothing we can do."  This "gun rights" person is actually helping his oppositions case because now the majority of citizens want laws stopping that.  They don't want to have to wait to see if the person walking into a store with a rifle has bad intentions or not.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 03, 2016, 09:10:18 AM
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

There is a federal background check requirement.  They have 3 days to make sure you are a qualified purchaser.  Many states have no requirement regarding magazine size, so they wouldn't ask if you are a LEO.


Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets.

I'm not a gun or body armor expert, but I believe almost any rifle bullet will pierce the body armor worn by LEO.  The latest  attempt at banning bullets would have done nothing to change this.

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons. 

It's unfortunate you had to deal with this and LEO's are more subject to those threats.  Having said that, who is to decide the credible threat and who has a right to self protection?   Your family's life is no more valuable than mine (and vice versa).  I believe all citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The open carry people walking around target or walmart with AR's are morons.  The gun control people who are scared to death of guns are just as bad.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 03, 2016, 09:45:53 AM
So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Because the NRA et. al. strenuously opposes any registry at all -- let alone an easily-searchable one -- and that's the compromise we ended up with.

Have you ever heard of "doxxing," where internet vigilantes (e.g. Anonymous) go look up publicly-available (but not easily accessible) information about people and then broadcast it in order to facilitate harassment of them?

Or, more ominously, the registration of Jews in Nazi Germany, which made it easier to round them up for the concentration camps?

Those sorts of concerns are why people resist gun registries: they see it as an invitation for harassment (or a convenient shopping list for criminals), or worse, a precursor to confiscation.

I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2016, 10:13:25 AM
I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.

Given the many who die from baseball cardings each day, that's certainly a valid comparison.  :P
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MrMoogle on March 03, 2016, 10:14:27 AM
When my grandfather passed, my uncle inherited his gun collection (14 or 15).  As a favor to my uncle, I sold them for him for a commission, and from this bought some.  Two newer hand guns, and old rifle, and two old shotguns.  On occasion I shoot the handguns and rifle.  I don't have a good place to shoot the shotguns. 

I keep all but one shotgun locked up in a gun cabinet.  It doesn't fit in the cabinet, but as I was reading this thread it occurred to me I could remove the barrel and then it would fit fine.  It stays unloaded under my bed.  I'm hoping the pump action would be enough if I ever had a break-in, although honestly, I'd probably forget it was even there.

The shotgun under my bed was my great-grandfather's.  I have a black and white picture from the 50's with him holding it.  He was a farmer and used it for hunting birds.

My other shotgun is an "unfinished" shotgun.  It is missing two stamps on it, the manufacturer's stamp and the inspector's stamp.  It's a German gun, and the owner of the manufacturing plant was Jewish.  When Hitler started rounding up Jews, the owner fled to England, closing the plant.  By my best guess, this gun was near the end of the line when it closed, and probably a worker took it home with him.  The gun dealer who found out most of this info for me, found another of the same year with it's stamps.  The inspector stamp has a strong connection to my last name.  Although that side of the family has been here since the early 1800's, so I'm not sure how my grandfather's family would have any connection to relatives in Germany. 

When I sold the other guns, there wasn't really requirements on me because I'm from Alabama.  But I found a information sheet online, and got basic info from each person I sold to.  Mostly CYA. 

My grandfather also had an old shotgun with an 8 in barrel.  He might have had paperwork for it, but I never found it.  I didn't realize what it was until after I brought all the guns home, going through 4 states, I thought it was an old pistol.  If I had paperwork for it, it would have been his most valuable one, but I turned it into the police.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 03, 2016, 10:28:54 AM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.
Before reading the thread I want to give my two cents on why DW and I DO keep firearms in the house.
1. We don't necessarily live in a dangerous area (although it isn't the BEST neighborhood), but DW has some dangerous family members that we suspect may show up unannounced with ill intentions at some point.
2. I regularly practice with my firearm. I have a 12 gage and a .22 and take them to a range when I can as well as using snap caps (dummy rounds) to practice clearing the house about once or twice a month. DW Is familiar with safety and function and knows how to use both weapons, but doesn't practice nearly as much as I do (need to talk to her about that).
3. We don't have children, but we do have a cat and a dog. DW knows to stay out of the line of fire, cat has a hiding place nowhere near any entry points in our home that he retreats to when he senses that I'm on edge, and dog is very good at listening to commands from myself and DW and doing what he is told, even if it goes against instinct.
4. We plan on dealing with first responders (god forbid we ever have to) the same way we have in the past for less severe incidents. As calmly as possible, no sudden movements, make sure they are immediately aware that there are firearms present (as well as where and what specifically they are). It is likely that myself and/or DW will be temporarily detained but there are laws in our area that permit use of lethal force against trespassers on private property. There are some details in the law that you have to be careful about (they have to be in the home, not on your front lawn, you can't shoot a trespasser in the back or while they are attempting to flee, etc.), but assuming the law is obeyed, we don't expect any legal issues. Additionally, given the unique situation we are in, we know the people we anticipate needing firearms to protect ourselves from and dealing with the police/courts/jail is a lot better than what would happen if we didn't have anything with which to protect ourselves.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 03, 2016, 10:37:14 AM
My understanding is that the "background check" that occurs is just to see if you are listed as a felon or someone with a DV restraining order prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm.  Also, certain modifications (this may vary by state) are allowed to be carried by LEO only.  For example, I think in Mass a magazine can hold 10 rounds if civilian and 15 if LEO.  We purchased an off duty LEO weapon for home protection (15 rounds) and the store we purchased it from never asked for proof that my husband was a LEO.

There is a federal background check requirement.  They have 3 days to make sure you are a qualified purchaser.  Many states have no requirement regarding magazine size, so they wouldn't ask if you are a LEO.


Most gunowners that I personally know, support limiting what type of weapon the general population can have.  For example, no bullet proof vest piercing bullets.

I'm not a gun or body armor expert, but I believe almost any rifle bullet will pierce the body armor worn by LEO.  The latest  attempt at banning bullets would have done nothing to change this.

I was always in favor of gun control until we had a personal threat made against us.  There is a big difference between average joe risk of home invasion and protecting yourself if someone is actively out to get you because of your profession or other reasons. 

It's unfortunate you had to deal with this and LEO's are more subject to those threats.  Having said that, who is to decide the credible threat and who has a right to self protection?   Your family's life is no more valuable than mine (and vice versa).  I believe all citizens have the right to protect themselves.

The open carry people walking around target or walmart with AR's are morons.  The gun control people who are scared to death of guns are just as bad.

This is true. Basically any common centerfire rifle round will penetrate a standard vest like it's not even there. I had a small hard plate in my vest which may have helped if I was shot at enough of an angle, but it was a small area and for a straight-on hit with almost any rifle round I would've been a goner.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 03, 2016, 10:43:48 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2016, 10:56:59 AM
I remember (albeit several years ago), undercover folks were going to gun baseball card shows and had absolutely no problem buying guns baseball cards with absolutely no paper trail. Heck they were selling and buying right out of trunks in the parking lot of the show. Just doesn't seem right.

Does you still think it "doesn't seem right" with the changes above? That's how some people feel about gun ownership. They can come at that opinion from two different angles: one is the idea that guns are just tools and therefore there isn't a valid public interest in restricting them. The other is a Fourth Amendment / property rights-based argument that the government does not have the power to restrict (or force disclosure of) what property people own.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that people with that sort of perspective exist.

Given the many who die each day from baseball cardings each day, that's certainly a valid comparison.  :P

Papercuts are serious business. Some even require extensive applications of first aid ointment and Band-Aids. Many a family have been torn apart due to baseball card violence. Certainly a valid comparison.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 03, 2016, 11:06:48 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).

Wow I can't imagine living in that kind of neighborhood. That must suck! I suppose I take for granted our wonderful neighbors who always have an open door (unannounced) for my kids to go play with their kids. Heck one time I left my garage door open and the neighbor knocked on our door to let us know it was still open. Can't beat a wonderful sense of community.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Mr.Bubbles on March 03, 2016, 11:26:50 AM
as to the baseball card comment,

i actually threw a playing card (gambit x-men style) at a friend growing up, hit him in the eye and he couldn't see correctly for what seemed like close to a week.

however, i've never hurt anyone with any one of my firearms before... maybe i need a playing card training class, or at least keep them locked up in a safe.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 03, 2016, 11:44:40 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.

[/quote]

Wow I can't imagine living in that kind of neighborhood. That must suck! I suppose I take for granted our wonderful neighbors who always have an open door (unannounced) for my kids to go play with their kids. Heck one time I left my garage door open and the neighbor knocked on our door to let us know it was still open. Can't beat a wonderful sense of community.
[/quote]
It's not the neighborhood I live in, there are other reasons to be weary of unannounced guests than a bad neighborhood. We don't have kids, so their friends coming over isn't a concern.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Blonde Lawyer on March 03, 2016, 12:10:57 PM
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 03, 2016, 12:49:14 PM
Midwest,

I think you misread my comment.  Last paragraph, don't want to go back to quote.  I'm not saying that your life is worth less than mine.  I'm saying that my personal experience made me rethink my stance on gun control laws.  Previously, when analyzing those laws I was considering the risk the average person faces of not very likely home invasion.  After my own experience, it made me realize that there are many people in this country that for whatever reason are targets.  I'm not saying just the targets should have access to guns.  I was saying it made me think that cooling off periods might not be as great as I thought they were.

I would love to see some kind of requirement that people have some firearm training.  It may not need to be to get the gun in the first place but it could be within a year of purchase.  Some minimum standards like being able to actually hit a target.  Not the bulls eye.  The silhouette.  I also totally underestimated the difficulty before I shot one myself.

But I also think everyone should have to re-certify on their driver test every so many years.

Thanks for the clarification.  I certainly didn't mean to insult your experience.

I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).  For concealed carry, I think a training requirement is an excellent idea.  Personally, I took the concealed carry course primarily to improve my skills/knowledge (carried a gun 1x in 5 years).

To make an car analogy, you can buy a car w/o a license but you need a license to drive on public streets.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 03, 2016, 01:06:22 PM
I don't think training should be required for purchase (constitutional issues).

Of the entire universe of possible "regulations" on private gun ownership, mandatory marksmanship training would be the least Constitutionally-problematic. The key is to realize that, at the time of writing, the phrase "a well-regulated militia" meant one that was well-trained.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 03, 2016, 02:17:43 PM

My grandfather also had an old shotgun with an 8 in barrel.  He might have had paperwork for it, but I never found it.  I didn't realize what it was until after I brought all the guns home, going through 4 states, I thought it was an old pistol.  If I had paperwork for it, it would have been his most valuable one, but I turned it into the police.

It was a pistol, if it was manufactured with a barrel less than 12 inches, and had a pistol grip; it only become class II if it was originally manufactured & sold with a barrel longer than 18.5 inches.  Shotgun pistols are still made & sold as normal handguns; that is what the Bond Arms' entire line is based upon, and the Taurus Judge 410 revolver also.  And if it was a .410 single shot break action, it was probably worth a fortune.  That gun is probably in some cop's safe, now.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 01:04:24 AM

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

Current law already forbids selling any firearm to someone you know to be, or suspect to be, unable to legally possess that weapon. So if you think a person who will go illegally buy a gun for their felon friend will then privately register that they illegally transferred that weapon to their felon friend, I would ask why in the world you would think that? This is why educated people stress enforcing current laws, rather than adding new laws (or recreating laws that already exist, like not being able to buy guns illegal in your home state in the state next to you - already a law)



But none of this applies to the OP's question - why should any of this affect me having a weapon in my house?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 06:23:51 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 06:35:52 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

To frame it in a way that may be more relevant to you, it would be like saying we're going to ban all bikes except for single-speed models.  You might say, well, I commute by bike, and I live in a hilly area, it's not practical for me to use a fixed gear bike for commuting.  And I might say "well I'm not banning all bikes, you can still keep your fixed gear bike for the BMX track or the bike path down by the lake." 

That is what GCAs are effectively doing, they're going to "allow me" to own a gun, but it's a gun that's not useful to me in most of the situations I want to use it, so it is effectively a ban without actually being one. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 06:37:23 AM

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 06:43:17 AM
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

1.  My area is very safe, but anything can happen anywhere.  To me, this is like asking why I don't remove fire hazards in my house instead of buying an extinguisher.

2.  Yes.  Skeet, plinking in the woods, time at the range, etc.

3.  Our bedrooms are at the back of the 2nd floor, rare that the threat would be there, so my wife would care for our daughter in the back of the house, and I would guard the stairs in the front which gives me an open firing lane to ~80% of the main floor. 

4.  "I was in fear for my life [and that of my family if applicable] and I fired until I believed the threat was gone.  I am very upset right now and would not like to say anything else without my lawyer present."  I do not personally believe I would be arrested, even in liberal Cook County, for using a firearm against someone who illegally entered my home, but if that happened, so be it.  Given the layout of my house, there is no place to retreat to, so if someone was coming up the stairs, I believe I have a very compelling argument that I am in fear for my life.  Also, the guy across the street is a detective in our local PD, every reason to think he'd have my back unless I was doing something completely stupid, like shoot someone who was not inside my house.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 06:49:42 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 06:55:21 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes.  I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 07:05:24 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Interesting - by your own description, we have a "paranoid nut" and an "idiot" causing the problem here. The common denominator is not the gun.

If anything, you should feel safer. Link: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all)
Quote
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

However, since "guns are intimidating", you have the emotional reaction to feel unsafe, instead of the logical reaction to see what the actual outcome is.  That is a huge problem, IMO -- people want knee-jerk gun control, which is not fair or thought out properly. They want to "feel safe" without regard to fact.

Let's try this:
Quote
I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support car control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Car advocates want to be able to take 4000lb killing machines everywhere - to the movie theaters, schools, etc. In Colorado, an elderly person accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian in a WalMart parking lot (http://kdvr.com/2016/01/26/police-pedestrian-dies-when-elderly-driver-hits-him-in-wal-mart-parking-lot/). In Las Vegas, a woman ran down dozens of people on the sidewalk, killing one of them (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/us/las-vegas-strip-pedestrians-hit/). Our Universities are being forced to allow students to drive their own cars to school.  Cars can be lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be be driving cars that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
And let me remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right. ;)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 07:16:01 AM

Fair enough, I wasn't aware that records are supposed to be kept by retailers.  That obviously makes it tough to find bad dealers.

So, if there's already a gun registry . . . why the requirement that it be so shitty that it's hard to find and stop straw purchases?  Wading through millions of handwritten records would seem to hamstring law enforcement.  A central searchable database would be sensible, no?

Arguing that there should be better enforcement, while refusing to address the cause of poor enforcement seems disingenuous.

This is why the gun control debate goes no where - it takes so much time to make up ground with people who don't know the current laws that it's impossible to make progress.

Current laws already require all firearms to be tracked from the manufacturer to the dealer, and from the dealer to the customer they sold it to. It's not really 'searchable' in the way you mean, but with two phone calls the police can find out who owns the gun they found at a crime scene.

That is the happy path. It depends upon the gun dealer keeping excellent, easily accessible records and being willing to share that information over the phone. It would be interesting to know how often such a simple phone transaction provides the information sought after. Even if they can get the information about gun XYZ over the phone, there is no way anyone can do comprehensive data mining to look for patterns that might reveal which dealers and individuals are connected with guns that seem to end up at crime scenes.
spent on gun studies. That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Yep, and actual studies, per the ATF, have determined that this lack electronic recordkeeping actually hinders investigations. Making phone calls, pouring over hundreds if not thousands of hand written "records" often times takes weeks and months.

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 07:19:31 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes.  I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that.

I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 07:27:12 AM
Let's try this:
Quote
I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support car control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Car advocates want to be able to take 4000lb killing machines everywhere - to the movie theaters, schools, etc. In Colorado, an elderly person accidentally ran over and killed a pedestrian in a WalMart parking lot (http://kdvr.com/2016/01/26/police-pedestrian-dies-when-elderly-driver-hits-him-in-wal-mart-parking-lot/). In Las Vegas, a woman ran down dozens of people on the sidewalk, killing one of them (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/21/us/las-vegas-strip-pedestrians-hit/). Our Universities are being forced to allow students to drive their own cars to school.  Cars can be lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be be driving cars that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?
And let me remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right. ;)



A gun is a weapon, not a tool.  It's designed to facilitate killing.  You can use it for target practice (learning to kill better), you can use it for hunting (killing animals), or you can use it for defense (killing people, or as a method of intimidation that you might kill them).  Pretty much any other usage (opening cans, turning off the TV) is improper usage.  It's primary function is to make killing easier.

This is fundamentally very different than a car, or baseball cards.  Yes, things other than guns can be dangerous or cause death . . . but there is utility that they provide that goes above and beyond killing.  That does not exist with a gun.  These comparisons to a car or to baseball cars are disingenuous.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Fishindude on March 04, 2016, 07:27:39 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:30:57 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

I mean, okay, you can believe whatever you want, but do you also believe your right to protest [free speech] is predicated upon having a gripe someone else feels is legitimate? 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:32:42 AM

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

Generally speaking, I'll bet they aren't.  Us right wing nutjobs don't really like centralized databases on anything ;)

There are also cases like this:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:33:45 AM
These comparisons to a car or to baseball cars are disingenuous.

I know, right?  I mean, no one has a Constitutional right to cars or baseball cards.  :)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 07:35:48 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Interesting - by your own description, we have a "paranoid nut" and an "idiot" causing the problem here. The common denominator is not the gun.

Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If anything, you should feel safer. Link: (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all)
Quote
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center.

Murder and crime rates have been falling for decades. There have been multiple explanations advanced for this, including the elimination of lead in paint. The fact the concealed gun permits have increased during a time period that murder rates have fallen does not in and of itself prove that the former is the cause of the latter.

However, since "guns are intimidating", you have the emotional reaction to feel unsafe, instead of the logical reaction to see what the actual outcome is.  That is a huge problem, IMO -- people want knee-jerk gun control, which is not fair or thought out properly. They want to "feel safe" without regard to fact.

Yes, it is an emotional argument. No less emotional and knee jerk than those who argue that they need to carry guns with them everywhere to defend themselves when crime rates are at all time lows. Yes, there are people who do live in a dangerous community or have a legitimate risk of targeted violence, but a good many people do not.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 07:35:58 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 07:38:28 AM
Again . . . now we're entering into discussion about the specifics and details of gun control implementation.  There's an awful lot to discuss in this area.  By no longer pretending that people interested in gun control want to ban all guns, a dialog can be started.

The problem with this "we're not looking to ban all guns" argument is that what people are doing with handgun bans/limitations is restricting what people can practically use as a defensive weapon.  Gun control advocates (GCAs) point out "you can still have a gun for hunting or target shooting" and whatnot, but what I really want is to have a weapon I can carry to defend myself, if I decide to do so.  The only practical tool for that application is a hand gun.  So if you take handguns away, which is absolutely the goal of many GCAs, and has been done (mostly if not completely) in many places outside the US, you are saying "sure, you can have a gun, but you will not have the ability to use it to defend yourself".  Which is what most people who oppose gun control want.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms. Guns are lethal weapons and by their very nature are intimidating. The fact that so many people now seem to be carrying concealed guns and that I could get hurt or even be killed if I happen to be around an idiot who screws up or someone with anger issues infringes on MY personal safety. You say that YOU want to feel safe. Well, I want to feel safe too and unfortunately the very thing that makes YOU FEEL SAFE makes ME FEEL UNSAFE. Am I crazy that I think that I have just as much right to feel safe as you do?

Not to be an ass, but...yes. I have an inherent right, as spelled out in the 2nd amendment, to bear arms.  You do not have any inherent right to not be around someone who is bearing arms.  No one has a right to "feel" this or not "feel" that.

Technically it doesn't "spell that out". The 2nd amendment applies to a "well organized militia." If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Essentially the Supreme Courts interpretation provides you and all of us that right.

There is a great book out there called "The Second Amendment" by Michael Waldman. It's neither pro-gun control nor against gun control. It's simply an in-depth look at the 2nd amendment. Here is an excerpt is it relates to the above post:
"But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias."

For the record I have no skin in the gun debate. Just trying to dispel common myths.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:40:26 AM
Yes, it is an emotional argument. No less emotional and knee jerk than those who argue that they need to carry guns with them everywhere to defend themselves when crime rates are at all time lows. Yes, there are people who do live in a dangerous community or have a legitimate risk of targeted violence, but a good many people do not.

Except that those people are justifying something they have a right to do.  Their argument is silly, but that doesn't invalidate their right.  Your argument is also silly, but you're trying to use it to remove my rights.  You have to have a much better reason. 

Know what reason I gave on my CCW application in the space "Reason for Request"?  "Because I can." 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 07:41:50 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/pastors-daughter-accidentally-shot-while-in-church/

Quote
A 20-year-old pastor's daughter was critically injured Sunday after she was accidentally shot while attending church services at the Grace Connection Church in  St. Petersburg, Fla., according to authorities.

Moises Zambrana, 48, a church congregation member, accidentally discharged his gun and the bullet struck Hannah Kelley in the head.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:43:42 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .000039%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

(edit, fixed math)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 07:46:55 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 07:47:45 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

I didn't say that toddlers were the sizable minority.

Quote
^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration


Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:50:00 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.

But again...I have a right to do it.  You want to remove that right, you better use some good statistics, and then pass a Constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, I can claim I want to carry in case we're attacked by aliens, and it's just as good a reason as any for me to exercise my 2A rights (ignoring my potentially being ruled mentally unstable ;)).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 07:52:50 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?" 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 07:56:05 AM

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

Generally speaking, I'll bet they aren't.  Us right wing nutjobs don't really like centralized databases on anything ;)

There are also cases like this:  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/

I can't imagine how hard it would be make a medical diagnosis when the doctor has to fumble around with searching for previous written records etc. Or the cop running the plate of the convicted felon turned fugitive but getting nothing back (because there are no electronic records). "Sorry sir, I've got nothing on you, enjoy your day!"

Heck I can't imagine the time and manpower that would be necessary for all this manual record keeping. When one click of a button can turn up a persons entire medical history. I think it's fantastic. It's certainly helped my doctor. Heck those are extreme cases. I wonder how many folks carry gas cards/grocery store cards that are scanned for each purchase. Can you in reality, honestly, truthfully, make the inherent claim that you make a conscious effort to erase all electronic records of yourself? I bet not.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 07:57:13 AM
I respectively disagree with the notion that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms guarantees that my own safety must be put at risk merely because a person in a low crime community with absolutely no expectation that they are the targets of violence feel they MUST carry a gun with them EVERYWHERE to feel safe.

This thread is really going round & round.
How does someone carrying put your safety at risk?
It could be argued that you might actually be safer when in the vicinity of someone carrying. There are about a dozen stories every month in the American Rifleman magazine that show how legally armed citizens used their firearms to save lives and thwart crimes.  The general media doesn't share these stories.

Your argument might actually be true if we assume that all gun owners are well-trained and safety conscious.  A great many of them are.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/ (http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/)

^ 58 US shootings by toddlers in 2015 gives a small slice of the ample evidence that a sizable minority of owners fail to take the safety of others into consideration though.  These are the people who those interested in gun control want to control via better regulation, rules about gun safety, rules about gun storage, etc.

There are an estimated 300M guns in the US, maybe more.  Cut that in half to allow for people who own multiple guns.  So that's 58 incidents in a pool of 150M.  That's .0000004%.

That's a "sizeable minority"?  Isn't this supposed to be a website using real statistics and real analysis to quantify risk and remove emotion from the equation?

When people argue that they need a take a concealed gun with them EVERYWHERE to defend themselves in an era in which the crime rate is at an all time low, I think statistics and real analysis to quantify risk has already left the debating arena. The debate long ago ceased to be about numbers and is merely emotional about how a gun makes one feel.

But again...I have a right to do it.  You want to remove that right, you better use some good statistics, and then pass a Constitutional amendment.  Otherwise, I can claim I want to carry in case we're attacked by aliens, and it's just as good a reason as any for me to exercise my 2A rights (ignoring my potentially being ruled mentally unstable ;)).

The Supreme Court didn't need statistics to recognize that crying FIRE in a crowded theater is not protected by the First Amendment. In the same way, one doesn't need statistics to recognize that the 2nd amendment is NOT absolute and some restrictions are just reasonable.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 08:02:00 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 08:07:50 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?

I want a source that says that gun control opponents are against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 08:10:54 AM
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 08:17:09 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 08:22:32 AM
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

No, it would not.  It would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to legally carry concealed weapons - and the vast majority of gun violence is not accidental.  It's people knowingly breaking the law, and simply making it illegal for them to carry a gun isn't going to make them think they should stop murdering people. Do you think the felon (already prohibited from possessing, let alone owning a firearm) who bought a gun on the black market will decide to not carry it because concealed carry isn't legal?

Before I moved to an anti-gun state, I carried a concealed firearm frequently.  Not because I was constantly in fear of being attacked, but because I have years of law enforcement training and experience. I felt that if something were happen that I could potentially stop if I was armed (example (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-off-duty-cop-saved-lives-in-mall/)), I would have a really hard time forgiving myself if I was unable to help. Not everyone out there is carrying a gun because they're scared.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 08:24:35 AM
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

Steve - As a gun owner, I would not support the end of concealed carry.  I would support mandatory training to get concealed carry as well as an FBI background check.  Training should include education on safe storage (mine didn't).

You have mentioned several times some gun owners are paranoid nuts and idiots.  There is some irrational fear on both sides of the argument. 

The nice thing with concealed carry is those who are afraid of guns don't know you have it.  In addition, at least in my state, private businesses can ban concealed weapons should they so choose.

On a whole, concealed carry training requirements improve safety.  I don't have any statistics, but haven't a rash of firearms accidents since my state implemented concealed carry.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 08:25:19 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

How many deaths from alcohol do you consider acceptable?  Given your crusade against gun owners when you could spend this time campaigning against alcohol and drunk driving, there clearly must be an acceptable number of alcohol deaths.

I don't think there's any acceptable number of children that can drown in order for me to have a swimming pool at my house, but I don't think that swimming pools should be banned outright.

See, we can play this game all day. It's not productive.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 08:34:56 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

I'm seeing a general argument that sounds like "I don't like this, therefore nobody should" instead of fact. It makes me sad. :(

Quote from: dramaman
Unfortunately, gun control opponents seem to be against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

Source?

You want a source? Are you really trying to argue that I could get gun control regulation passed that required gun owners to pass a test that weeded out anyone so paranoid that they think they need to take a gun into a theater or church?

I want a source that says that gun control opponents are against any restrictions that could prevent paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

My statement as a generalization of the level of contempt that gun control opponents have for any regulations that restrict gun ownership. As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way). Likewise, I have never seen anything to indicate that the NRA would support legal restrictions that prevent someone like that idiot councilman from getting a gun, not to mention a concealed carry. I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

I keep wondering why you are demanding a source for what is a generalization. Either it implies that you thought the generalization was inaccurate was inaccurate or it is just a silly debating tactic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 08:42:59 AM
Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

Steve - As a gun owner, I would not support the end of concealed carry.  I would support mandatory training to get concealed carry as well as an FBI background check.  Training should include education on safe storage (mine didn't).

You have mentioned several times some gun owners are paranoid nuts and idiots.  There is some irrational fear on both sides of the argument. 

The nice thing with concealed carry is those who are afraid of guns don't know you have it.  In addition, at least in my state, private businesses can ban concealed weapons should they so choose.

On a whole, concealed carry training requirements improve safety.  I don't have any statistics, but haven't a rash of firearms accidents since my state implemented concealed carry.

Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 08:43:18 AM

My statement as a generalization of the level of contempt that gun control opponents have for any regulations that restrict gun ownership.

Dramaman - There are tons of regulations on the books now.  Often, gun control opponents are opposing more unnecessary or useless regulations. 

Case in point, there  is a constant drumbeat about an assault weapons ban in this country.  We had an assault weapons ban which achieved nothing except to limit rights of law abiding citizens.  Long guns (including "assault rifles") are not the choice of criminals so why is that a priority?  It certainly has nothing to do with logic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 08:45:41 AM
That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Having all those records about everyone is a bad thing!

You want to know who has a socially-embarrassing disease? Just look it up! You want to know who is likely to be a sucker and an easy mark for your ponzi scheme? Just look it up! You're a corrupt politician and you want to know who to have your goons intimidate into not voting? Just fucking look it up!

No. All of this Orwellian data collection has gone way too fucking far already. Saying that we should add to it is evil!

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

If that's actually the case, then I don't understand it either. I hope that it's not, and that the NRA et. al. are failing to strenuously oppose it only because it's outside their area of focus, not because they don't care.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms.

Guns should be either allowed everywhere, or if a place wants to restrict them, they should be required to let people check them at the door.

Why?

Because if I'm trying to run errands from point A to B to C to D in the same day, and I can't take my gun to point C, then it effectively bans me from taking my gun to A, B, or D either.

This is why the bill that would legalize guns on college campuses currently being considered by the Georgia legislature doesn't go far enough: it fails to allow guns in dorms and fraternity houses, which means that commuter students can exercise their Second Amendment rights, but students living on campus still have their rights infringed.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Having a gun in the movie theater is almost beside the point. If you disallow it, then you're really disallowing anybody from carrying a gun on their way to and from the movie theater, unless they're a car clown and can lock the gun in their trunk.

If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct.

Quote from: 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I am an able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, therefore I am part of the militia.

(Sorry ladies; that's another one of those laws that the feminists should probably work on amending.)

Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

What, you prefer they carry openly? That's an unusual opinion.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 08:46:49 AM
As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way).

As long as you hold this view, which appears to be that if you think you might need a gun you are paranoid which should exclude you from being able to posses a gun, I don't believe we can have a productive conversation.  Responsible gun owners are not "paranoid."  They don't carry a gun out of "fear".  They do so for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, and lock my doors.  Not because I think something will happen, but because I want to be prepared in the small chance it does.


Quote
I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

The NRA would not be in favor of requiring courses for ownership because those can be used as a proxy for gun control, ie "you must take a state-sponsored course to buy a gun" and that course is only held on the 5th Tuesday of every February and costs $700 in pennies. 

However, the NRA is very very very much in favor of as much training as you can afford and that gun owners should spend lots of time practicing with their weapons.  There's a huge difference between believe what someone SHOULD do, and requiring them to do it. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 08:52:04 AM
As far as I know, the NRA only seems to support keeping guns from people who have certifiable mental issues. Somebody who is so paranoid that he thinks he needs to take a gun into a movie theater is not necessarily going to be certifiably insane (although some might argue that ought to be considered that way).

As long as you hold this view, which appears to be that if you think you might need a gun you are paranoid which should exclude you from being able to posses a gun, I don't believe we can have a productive conversation.  Responsible gun owners are not "paranoid."  They don't carry a gun out of "fear".  They do so for the same reason I wear a seatbelt, own a fire extinguisher, and lock my doors.  Not because I think something will happen, but because I want to be prepared in the small chance it does.


Quote
I have no evidence, but I would suppose that the NRA would be against having to pass an IQ test or even gun safety course to buy a firearm. I'm not sure what the NRA's position is on requiring a safety course for a concealed carry permit.

The NRA would not be in favor of requiring courses for ownership because those can be used as a proxy for gun control, ie "you must take a state-sponsored course to buy a gun" and that course is only held on the 5th Tuesday of every February and costs $700 in pennies. 

However, the NRA is very very very much in favor of as much training as you can afford and that gun owners should spend lots of time practicing with their weapons.  There's a huge difference between believe what someone SHOULD do, and requiring them to do it.

Thank you for substantiating my original generalization. Gun control opponents are against any restrictions that prevented paranoid nuts and idiots from carrying concealed guns.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 08:52:55 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  I don' t agree that makes you a paranoid gun nut.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed accidental discharges are ridiculous.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Falling on the floor is bad, but why do you include that with accidental discharge?  Guns don't just go off when they are dropped.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 08:55:01 AM
Thank you for substantiating my original generalization. Gun control opponents are against any restrictions that prevented paranoid nuts and idiots from carrying concealed guns.

By casting the net wide enough on "paranoid nuts" and "idiots", yes, you are correct.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 08:58:41 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 09:00:39 AM
Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

How many deaths from alcohol do you consider acceptable?  Given your crusade against gun owners when you could spend this time campaigning against alcohol and drunk driving, there clearly must be an acceptable number of alcohol deaths.

I don't think there's any acceptable number of children that can drown in order for me to have a swimming pool at my house, but I don't think that swimming pools should be banned outright.

See, we can play this game all day. It's not productive.

Trying to analogize gun ownership/violence with some other aspect of our lives is utterly pointless and as I believe was explained earlier "disingenuous."  A swimming pool, is used for leisure. It's purpose is not to kill. Alcohol is also used for leisure. It's purpose is not to kill. Same with a car and any other item who's purpose is not to kill. The analogies are pointless. Yes on both sides. They could go on forever. If you found where someone was killed by a coffee mug, do we ban coffee mugs? It's ridiculous to compare a gun to anything other than another gun or weapon of some sort, who's sole purpose is to kill (or maim, whatever).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 09:04:27 AM
Quote from: Midwest
Steve - As a gun owner, I would not support the end of concealed carry.  I would support mandatory training to get concealed carry as well as an FBI background check.  Training should include education on safe storage (mine didn't).

I think that this is a reasonable idea.  It shouldn't just applied to concealed carry though.  Why not have mandatory training including education on safe storage (and some sort of basic safety test) be a part of ownership for any gun?





Given that there are 300M guns in the US, how many accidental deaths due to negligence surrounding guns are acceptable to you?

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

You're arguing that the right for you to carry a gun and feel safe trumps the right of someone else to be safe from you carrying your gun.  Given that not everyone will voluntarily choose to store and use their guns in a safe manner, that implies that there must be an acceptable number of negligence caused gun related deaths for you.

If you've been beating your wife, the question is valid . . . even if you don't want to answer it.

How many deaths from alcohol do you consider acceptable?  Given your crusade against gun owners when you could spend this time campaigning against alcohol and drunk driving, there clearly must be an acceptable number of alcohol deaths.

The cool thing about drunk driving is that it was made illegal, and regular public campaigns against it went out.  And you know what happened?

Deaths from drunk driving have trended down year after year, despite the growing number of people driving.

In the same way I'm not advocating that all guns are banned, I wouldn't advocate that all alcohol (or cars) be banned.  But sensible restrictions on where you can carry a gun (for example) and regulations on who can drive and when that freedom can be revoked due to reckless behavior seem to make a lot of sense.


I don't think there's any acceptable number of children that can drown in order for me to have a swimming pool at my house, but I don't think that swimming pools should be banned outright.

See, we can play this game all day. It's not productive.

OK, so we're in agreement here.  Banning swimming pools outright is a bad idea.  But there are regulations regarding safety around swimming pools that are currently enforced regarding access to the pool, fencing, etc.  I think we both probably agree that these pool regulations make a lot of sense.  They've reduced deaths from swimming pools among toddlers.

Drawing parallels between ownership of a weapon designed to kill, and alcohol or a swimming pool is again disingenuous.  For all the same reasons that I listed the last time you did it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:04:47 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:06:25 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 09:09:56 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

Concealed carry incidents are rare.  If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 09:13:12 AM
In the same way I'm not advocating that all guns are banned, I wouldn't advocate that all alcohol (or cars) be banned.  But sensible restrictions on where you can carry a gun (for example) and regulations on who can drive and when that freedom can be revoked due to reckless behavior seem to make a lot of sense.

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 09:17:08 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 09:17:25 AM
mandatory training including education on safe storage

So here, I'll make myself a target.  What is safe storage?  I have, right now, in my house with a toddler, a loaded gun laying on the floor under my bed.  "Oh My God!" right?  How irresponsible of me!  I'm violating all sorts of rules or should-be rules on safe storage, and it's amazing something tragic hasn't happened!!

In reality, it's a shotgun.  It weighs around 10lbs and with the short barrel on is about 30" long.  There is no round chambered (2 in the pipe though).  For someone to fire it, they'd have to be able to hold it, depress the cocking lever while racking the slide and cycle the action, and remove the safety.  There is not physical way my toddler has the dexterity and strength to do it.  When she is older and stronger and has the physical ability to handle a firearm, she'll be trained, and I may re-evaluate my storage technique.

But for now, people with zero knowledge of guns would, I'm sure, freak out about "OMG loaded gun on the floor!"

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:18:34 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:21:45 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.

Sorry, I missed the 'information I have provided in this thread' bit. I seem to recall you are law enforcement, or ex-law enforcement or something like that and you are afraid that you would regret not being able to intervene if something happened. Is that correct? If that context is true, I would likely give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not a paranoid nut. Mother hen, perhaps. ;)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: cheapass on March 04, 2016, 09:22:06 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

+1

I will not patronize movie theaters that disallow me from carrying. If some psychotic fuck wants to shoot up the place, I at least have a fighting chance to protect my family and don't have to hide under my seat waiting for my turn to die.

Here in Texas, businesses that actually post the required 30.06 signs are exceedingly rare though. They recognize it isn't in their best interest to literally turn customers away at the door.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:27:20 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:28:48 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

+1

I will not patronize movie theaters that disallow me from carrying. If some psychotic fuck wants to shoot up the place, I at least have a fighting chance to protect my family and don't have to hide under my seat waiting for my turn to die.

Here in Texas, businesses that actually post the required 30.06 signs are exceedingly rare though. They recognize it isn't in their best interest to literally turn customers away at the door.

Thank you very much for providing the counterexample to JLee.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: andy85 on March 04, 2016, 09:29:19 AM
This all sounds like the "thought police"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 09:30:28 AM
That would be possible with an electronic registry, but no, in an age in which our comprehensive medical history, credit history, voting history and almost every other piece of information is kept in electronic format, guns records haven't evolved any further than gutenberg.

Having all those records about everyone is a bad thing!

You want to know who has a socially-embarrassing disease? Just look it up! You want to know who is likely to be a sucker and an easy mark for your ponzi scheme? Just look it up! You're a corrupt politician and you want to know who to have your goons intimidate into not voting? Just fucking look it up!

No. All of this Orwellian data collection has gone way too fucking far already. Saying that we should add to it is evil!

The bolded part is why I don't understand why folks opposed to electronic record keeping (centered around weapons)  seem to be ok with every other aspect of their personal lives stashed away in electronic format.

If that's actually the case, then I don't understand it either. I hope that it's not, and that the NRA et. al. are failing to strenuously oppose it only because it's outside their area of focus, not because they don't care.

I think you may be painting too broad a picture regarding the aim of people who support gun control of one type or another. But let's say that is true. Then it works both ways. Gun advocates want to be able to take concealed hand guns everywhere - movie theaters, classrooms, etc. Here in Kansas, a paranoid nut accidentally shot a woman in a movie theater with his concealed handgun. In a nearby town, an idiot city council member had his concealed gun accidentally fall to the ground in the middle of a council meeting. Our Universities are being forced to allow students to take guns with them into classrooms.

Guns should be either allowed everywhere, or if a place wants to restrict them, they should be required to let people check them at the door.

Why?

Because if I'm trying to run errands from point A to B to C to D in the same day, and I can't take my gun to point C, then it effectively bans me from taking my gun to A, B, or D either.

This is why the bill that would legalize guns on college campuses currently being considered by the Georgia legislature doesn't go far enough: it fails to allow guns in dorms and fraternity houses, which means that commuter students can exercise their Second Amendment rights, but students living on campus still have their rights infringed.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Having a gun in the movie theater is almost beside the point. If you disallow it, then you're really disallowing anybody from carrying a gun on their way to and from the movie theater, unless they're a car clown and can lock the gun in their trunk.

If you are in fact well trained and part of a militia, then you are absolutely correct.

Quote from: 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I am an able-bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 years of age, therefore I am part of the militia.

(Sorry ladies; that's another one of those laws that the feminists should probably work on amending.)

Would you support the end of legal concealed carry?  Because that would prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons.

If not, what solution would you propose as being reasonable to prevent both paranoid nuts and idiots from being able to carry concealed weapons?

What, you prefer they carry openly? That's an unusual opinion.

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
 
The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?" 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 09:32:39 AM
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 09:37:24 AM
I have legally carried a concealed firearm into a movie theater.

Given the information I have provided in this thread, does that make me a "paranoid nut"?  Why or why not?

If the reason you did carry the gun was that you were afraid that you would be killed by someone there, then that would make you a paranoid nut in my book.

You are not very good at reading.

Sorry, I missed the 'information I have provided in this thread' bit. I seem to recall you are law enforcement, or ex-law enforcement or something like that and you are afraid that you would regret not being able to intervene if something happened. Is that correct? If that context is true, I would likely give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not a paranoid nut. Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

Some say mother hen, some say sheepdog.  Either way, I would put my life on the line to save yours - as would many others.  We're just not all that vocal about it.

I stopped renewing my NRA membership because the "sky is falling" fear-mongering tactics are not something of which I approve.  I am in favor of enforcing existing gun laws.  I am not in favor new laws being proposed by people who are clueless as to what's already illegal.

To emphasize my earlier point, here's an excerpt from On Combat (http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Psychology-Physiology-Deadly-Conflict/dp/0964920549/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457109837&sr=8-1&keywords=on+combat):
Quote
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”
Making it illegal for people to carry a firearm in a church will not prevent incidents like this.  How many shootings have there been in "gun free zones"?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:38:33 AM
Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?"

Okay, so long as we both recognize that your fears are equally as irrational as mine.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 09:39:08 AM
Actually I was the one who called some very SPECIFIC concealed gun carriers as paranoid nuts and idiots. Not all, but some.

If you think you are in so much danger that you need to carry a concealed gun into a movie theater, classroom, or church setting, I would label you as a paranoid nut.

Could care less if you want to take your gun into those settings provided the church, school or church as not banned it.  Given that shooting have occurred in all 3 of those settings, not sure if it's entirely paranoid.

If you don't have the common sense and/or training to prevent your concealed gun from falling to the floor and/or accidentally discharging, I think you are an idiot.

Agreed.  That's not just concealed carry holders, LEO's do that as well.

Those gun owners who CAN GO OUT IN PUBLIC WITHOUT ALWAYS CARRYING CONCEALED GUNS AND NOT FEEL IMPENDING DOOM are NOT paranoid nuts.
Those concealed gun carriers who ARE ABLE TO PROPERLY MANAGE THEIR GUNS without the guns becoming a distraction are NOT idiots.

Feel free to argue with my assessment.

So if you always think bad things will happen and therefore carry a gun, you are a delusional nut?  That would exclude many current and former police and military. 

For the record, I have a concealed carry.  Used it 1x in 5 years.  Been chastised for not carrying by a police officer who believed if you took the training, you should carry.

I just thought it useful to define what I consider a paranoid nut. If you can't enjoy a few hours at a movie or in church unarmed without feeling like you are about to become a victim, something is wrong with you. If you can't go to a college class without the overpowering worry of someone shooting you. Something is wrong with you.

If a gun in the purse or holster of a legally carrying citizen makes them feel better, how does that impact you 99.9999999% of the time?  I get the feeling you have just as much of an irrational fear as they do.

My big concern are idiots, who I have already defined. Unfortunately the idiots are often also paranoid nuts.

If you are a paranoid nut and NOT an idiot. I probably have no real problem with you, unless you also have anger issues. That is a different issue entirely.
If you are a paranoid nut AND an idiot. I have big problems.

This all goes back to an offhand generalization I made that unfortunately gun control opponents will never agree to any restrictions that would prevent paranoid nuts and idiots (not to mention people with anger issues) from carrying concealed firearms.

Regarding irrational fears. Yes, I realize the risk of being harmed by an idiot with a gun is very, very low. My reason for bring it up was to counter what I thought was the equally irrational fear of those persons who think they need a gun during the lowest crime rate in decades. Ultimately the irrational fear of people needing guns to feel safe is offset by the irrational fear of people like me who are fearful of so many people carrying guns in public. So if fear is the argument, why is your fear more valid than my fear? That was the point I was originally trying to make.

Because the way I can alleviate my so-called fear is Constitutionally protected.  You need a better reason than "He makes me scared and I don't like it" to rescind my Constitutional rights.  You need an amendment.

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

It's not more valid, it just means my reaction to it is legally protected, whereas yours is not.  You can scream all day long that my gun makes you scared.  The reaction is always going to be "So?"


“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


^ From the 2008 supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment.  It would seem that the second amendment does not say you can carry a gun anywhere you please, does not say you can carry concealed weapons, and does not prevent additional conditions from being added to arms sales.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 09:45:31 AM
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

In reverse order...

What I have written regarding fears is not legally relevant. I never said it was. No, my fear regarding idiots and nut with concealed guns is not legally relevant. Neither is someone who thinks they need a gun to feel safe. I was never making a legal argument, which is why whenever the 2nd amendment was brought up in objection, it was a total non-sequitur.

No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
Mother hen, perhaps. ;)

I hope the irony of a nanny-state advocate calling somebody who isn't one a "mother hen" is not lost on you.

Incidentally, my previous post raised a few issues that nobody else has yet addressed. Were you planning to reply to it?

Sigh. The 2nd amendment is not some kind of trump card that makes your irrational fear more valid than my irrational fear. The 2nd amend is a LEGAL argument for why the government is limited in its ability to restrict you carring guns. It has no bearing whatsoever to contradict my assertion that your irrational fear is countered by my irrational fear.

Okay, so your fear is equally "valid." Legally speaking, how is that relevant?

Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 09:53:04 AM
No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

What about the one addressed to you, where I argued that banning guns at place X effectively bans them at place Y too because there's no place to store it when traveling between X and Y?

I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.

It's clear from context that when you say things like "really shouldn't" you mean that the government should prohibit it, and at that point you are advocating for a nanny state.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Fishindude on March 04, 2016, 09:53:24 AM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MandalayVA on March 04, 2016, 09:58:09 AM
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"

What about those who associate with them?  Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook Elementary gunman) was well-known to be mentally ill, but that didn't stop his mother from owning guns--which were used against her and numerous six-year-olds.  The argument has been made that the guns were locked up.  Apparently, they were not locked up well enough.  I know that the majority of gun owners are responsible, but if I had a mentally ill person coming in and out of my house on a regular basis I would keep the key to the gun cabinet on my person at all times.

I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 10:03:30 AM
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?

The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 10:03:45 AM
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

Me too.  Cabela's is right down the street, as is a slightly cheaper store called Gat Gun. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 10:04:34 AM
No, I wasn't planning to reply to your questions to other posters.

What about the one addressed to you, where I argued that banning guns at place X effectively bans them at place Y too because there's no place to store it when traveling between X and Y?

That is also irrelevant in regards to the fear vs. fear point that I was making. Once again, my entire point was to illustrate how fear on the behalf of those who wish to carry concealed guns ends up invoking fear on behalf of people like me who worry about idiots and people with anger issues. I wasn't addressing 2nd amendment legal concerns or the practical arguments regarding the supposed burden that places that ban conceal weapons have on those wishing to carry them.


I hardly think trying to explain that not all people are so fearful that they need to carry a gun and that some of those persons actually are fearful of people carrying guns who really shouldn't is necessarily advocating for a nanny state.

It's clear from context that when you say things like "really shouldn't" you mean that the government should prohibit it, and at that point you are advocating for a nanny state.
[/quote]

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 10:07:05 AM
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

When my neighbors want to buy or sell guns to each other, they arrange with a licensed dealer to handle the paperwork.

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 10:08:48 AM

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.

Or worse yet, the illusion thereof. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 10:30:11 AM
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.

How so?

I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?

Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.


This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 

You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.

Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?

The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?

"Yes" to what? I didn't ask a yes or no question. Care to try again?

On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right we're already explicitly provided?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 10:34:09 AM

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!
I just want to be that guy and point out that driving a car isn't a right. It is a privilege that you have to possess a certification (driver's license) to practice. Terrible example.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 10:59:15 AM
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 11:03:46 AM
Extensive training along with fairly stringent licensing requirements are needed for concealed carry

I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

People consider a $10 fee for a state ID card to vote to be a violation of their right to vote, not sure how almost $500 for a CCW class isn't the exact same thing. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 11:13:46 AM
considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

Exactly.  There was never a huge need to define a right that, for the large part, wasn't being tried to be actively removed.   
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 11:15:24 AM
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

I can be on board with "most" of that. Before the Columbia v. Heller decision the courts, for the overwhelming majority of the previous 200 years, applied the 2nd amendment more in terms of it's literal interpretation (militias NOT individuals). The literal interpretation of course didn't lead to any outright ban or confiscation of firearms. Carrying firearms was pretty much just a carry-over of the day where quite literally every able-bodied person carried a gun and militias were the main level of protection. And of course in those days you had black powder, muskets, and canons. Times have changed. Sure it's very important to revisit the Constitution from time to time and see how it applies with today. I am ok banning certain kinds of guns, and I am ok banning certain kinds of people from getting ANY gun. And I understand individuals have a right to bear arms as provided by a more recent Supreme Court ruling. Perhaps 200 years form now people will be arguing where laser guns fall in the constructs of the Constitution.

It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. 

These discussions are always pointless. It's like climate change and politics. Nothing ever really gets accomplished. I am just as guilty for participating.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Fishindude on March 04, 2016, 11:15:32 AM
I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

This statement is on the mark.
Illinois does just about everything possible to make it difficult.   You even have to have stupid "FOID" firerams owners ID card to purchase a box of ammo.
All new training requirements or laws do is place another tax or burden on a bunch of otherwise law abiding citizens.  Leave things the hell alone and get tough with the laws already in place.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 11:24:38 AM
Extensive training along with fairly stringent licensing requirements are needed for concealed carry

I would be just fine with the extensive training IF it was 1) free/nearly free and 2) widely and easily available.  Otherwise, there's just too much potential to abuse it as a way to avoid issuing CCW licenses.  In IL, a course costs $150-300+ (depending on prerequisites like prior military service) and a $150 application fee.  That's potentially $450+ for CCW. 

People consider a $10 fee for a state ID card to vote to be a violation of their right to vote, not sure how almost $500 for a CCW class isn't the exact same thing.
 

I consider voting a right and carrying a CCW to be a privilege (one that should be available).  if you can't swing $150 - $200 for a training class, how can you afford a gun and ammo to practice with?  I'm much more concerned with the CCW being issued on the whim of govt (may issue) versus a shall issue state with clear requirements for getting a CCW.

In those may issue states, the determining factor ends up being political connections and/or the perceived need of the applicant.  That's an inherently unfair way to issue these licenses. 

Fishindude - Those cards should be eliminated.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 11:28:22 AM
considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

Exactly.  There was never a huge need to define a right that, for the large part, wasn't being tried to be actively removed.

The Heller decision had absolutely nothing to do with trying to remove the 2nd amendment. It was all about interpretation.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 11:30:56 AM
I live in a neighborhood where, should I want one, I can mention to someone that I'm looking for a gun, give a caliber or make, and within a couple hours find what I'm looking for.  Is it legal?  Of course not.  Is it easy?  To use a pun, dead easy.

When my neighbors want to buy or sell guns to each other, they arrange with a licensed dealer to handle the paperwork.

It seems that your definition of a nanny state is one in which any restrictions on guns that you don't like has been placed.

No, my definition of nanny state is one in which Constitutionally-protected civil rights are infringed upon in the name of safety.

You pretty much repeated just what I said using your favored anti gun control jargon. Basically nanny state is anything you disagree with.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 11:54:42 AM
Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.

Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force. Not sure why people have such issues - the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix and despite more states moving to allow concealed and open carry of said firearms...

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies. That doesn't mean there aren't some improvements to be made, but most of the talking points in this thread have been pointed out to be emotion based rather than math based...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Chris22 on March 04, 2016, 11:58:11 AM
Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force.

Exactly.  I've always wondered why the left, which claims to stand up for women, minorities, etc, doesn't want to afford those groups the ability to protect themselves.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 12:00:54 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.http://www.vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/ (http://www.vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 12:05:35 PM
Same issue if you were a female of similar stature. Or elderly. Firearms are great equalizers of force.

Exactly.  I've always wondered why the left, which claims to stand up for women, minorities, etc, doesn't want to afford those groups the ability to protect themselves.

Because it is all subjective. Take me for instance. I keep no gun in my home, nor have I ever fired one except for once at scout camp. I've not been conditioned to think that my personal safety depends upon me having a gun. Therefore I really can't wrap my head around the idea that most other people need one either. On the other hand, someone who had grown up around guns and has been trained that a gun is needed to keep them safe will obviously feel differently.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 12:17:23 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 12:20:52 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 12:24:45 PM
So much good rebutal to standard gun control talking points!!!! Glad they have all been adressed so well....

No doubt it is still a uniquely American consideration, but the varied points of view do help, as just about everyone can learn from those more exposed to the topic...


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right were already explicitly provided?
One  might suggest that the Constitution is a living document, and as such, has been interpreted and changed many different ways since it was originally penned....  The "Individual Right" as ruled by Heller is just the latest interpretation.... considering for most of the country's history states and cities did not outright ban firearm posession by individuals, there was little need for the Heller decision until D.C. and Chicago ruled that citizens could not own any weapons....

I can be on board with "most" of that. Before the Columbia v. Heller decision the courts, for the overwhelming majority of the previous 200 years, applied the 2nd amendment more in terms of it's literal interpretation (militias NOT individuals).

This is historically inaccurate.  The 2nd was originally intended to protect an individial person's right to bear arms, and the initial portion "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is a preamble that needs to be interpreted using the meaning of the terms of the times.  The focus on the militia is an important distinction, that I believe another poster pointed out referred to the total body of able bodied men eligible to enter military service, what we would today call the Selective Service.  However, the term "well regulated" should also be considered, because it's use in context & during the age referred to training of that militia, not it's legal association to a state.  The framers regarded marksmanship a skill that all men should learn, and that it was best taught by fathers to sons.  This tradition flows from both the English common law, that a free man held a natural right to defense of self; as well as the Swiss tradition of the citizen militia, that all the citizenry are responsible for the defense of the state.  This kind of "well regulated militia" would have been literally impossible if not for a personal right to keep & bear arms.  And if that argument wasn't enough, and it wasn't even enough for those who were to ratify it at the time, the framers went to great lengths to explain themselves, and both major factions (the Federalists & anti-federalists) agreed that the 2nd existed as an enumerated acknowledgement of the classic common law right to self-defense.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[101][103]

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[104]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[105]

While both Monroe and Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as "afraid to trust the people with arms." He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed ..."

Quote
Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."

This interpretation of the 2nd's meaning was never questioned, by any faction, during the lifetime of those framers.  Furthermore, the original version presented before Congress  on June 8, 1789; said thus...

Quote
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

This version was edited in committee, of course, and came out like this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

There was then debate, primarily concerned about the religious exception, and it was amended again to this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Then edited shorter, by removing the explicit definition of a militia, and striking the concentious objector clause, resulting in this...

Quote
A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

Then again to this...
Quote
A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And finally to this...

Quote
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The numerous public statements, documents & notes from the framers, none of which have ever supported the idea that a militia was anything akin to a formal military force; the evolution of the 2nd itself is proof enough of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, as it was understood & ratified by every state.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 04, 2016, 12:25:21 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 12:27:32 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 12:28:48 PM
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
How so?
I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?
Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.
This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical: you were using it to explain how the definition of "militia" in 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) would cause the Second Amendment not to apply to 65-year-olds. By the tone of my response, it was implicitly clear that I agreed with that interpretation -- assuming there isn't some other law that modifies the situation -- and was upset by it because I think the Second Amendment ought to apply to all citizens.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 
You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.
Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?
The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?
"Yes" to what? I didn't ask a yes or no question. Care to try again?

Somebody other than BeginnerStache, please look through this exchange and let me know if I'm speaking in tongues or something, because I'm honestly mystified at what is unclear about it.

Anyway, to make another attempt:
Quote
Q:Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms?

A: Yes, I can. It's the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Bearing arms" is synonymous with "owning arms" and "the people" means "every person, individually." (If you wanted to argue that "the people" only referred to collective, organized groups, then you'd have to make the same argument for the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments too.)

On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right we're already explicitly provided?

I'm almost completely certain that individuals owned and carried weapons prior to 2008. Why? Because it was interpreted, correctly, that such a right was guaranteed. Perhaps it wasn't tested by the Supreme Court until 2008 -- if, indeed, there wasn't some previous case that you didn't mention -- because it was so obvious that in 200+ years nobody was delusional enough to challenge it.

The difference is that, unlike the right to carry a gun, the right to drive a car on public roads (while drunk or otherwise) is not enshrined in the Constitution!
I just want to be that guy and point out that driving a car isn't a right. It is a privilege that you have to possess a certification (driver's license) to practice. Terrible example.

That's almost the same as what I said: it is not a right enshrined in the Constitution.

Incidentally, owning a car is a right. Driving a car on your own property (or on the property of someone else from whom you have permission) is also a right. Only driving a car on public property is restricted.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 12:29:05 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/)

Way to dodge the statement...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 12:30:54 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

I am not anti-gun, nor have I ever stated such. And I don't feel "unsafe." I spent 4 years shooting guns of all types and actually at other people (mostly bad guys). Telling an airplane to drop a 4,000lb bomb less than a click from your position is a bit more scary. 

Are you saying it's ok to tell others how to feel, just because you, or someone else, feels a certain way? That's the point I am making. It's a bit of a double standard.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 12:32:06 PM

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 12:34:01 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 12:36:46 PM
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 12:37:00 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

I am not anti-gun, nor have I ever stated such. And I don't feel "unsafe." I spent 4 years shooting guns of all types and actually at other people (mostly bad guys). Telling an airplane to drop a 4,000lb bomb less than a click from your position is a bit more scary. 

Are you saying it's ok to tell others how to feel, just because you, or someone else, feels a certain way? That's the point I am making. It's a bit of a double standard.

That was a general statement directed at the anti-gun group. My apologies if it was unclear.

Regarding the bolded portion, absolutely not - and I challenge you to find anything I've ever posted that indicates otherwise.  I tend to avoid making decisions based on "feel" - I prefer logic, which is why I keep asking for statistics.  All I get in return is basically "guns r scary and i don't like them therefore you shouldn't have them either."  Again, not directed at you.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 12:39:09 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 12:39:43 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.

You are neglecting the number of encounters that are resolved by merely presenting (or 'brandishing') a firearm.  That is a harder statistic to determine, but it's definitely not zero.  Most professionals put that number between 2 (on the low end) and 10 times then number of crimes that are prevented by actually firing the weapon.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Jack on March 04, 2016, 12:41:42 PM
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

(It's weird that you're the one to say that, since I've felt the same way talking to you in the other thread. Speaking of which, I think we actually agree on quite a lot, with the exception of climate change and which issues should be prioritized when choosing a candidate who's ideology we only partially agree with.)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 12:42:34 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Not CCW, but to illustrate the point:
Quote
"An accidental discharge of a firearm causing death, even if the result of gross negligence cannot be prosecuted criminally," King wrote. "Just as it is my duty to prosecute those who violate the law, it is equally my duty to refrain from prosecuting those whose conduct, no matter how outrageous, does not constitute a crime."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-is-an-accidental-shooting-really-a-crime/)

Way to dodge the statement...

Not really a dodge, it's difficult to answer your question directly.

Quote
There is no central tally of the effects, with states often barring release of concealed-carry data and Congress hewing to the gun lobby’s opposition to research on guns’ effects on public health. But a methodical gleaning of eight years of news accounts by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, found that in research involving 722 deaths in 544 concealed-carry shootings in 36 states and the District of Columbia, only 16 cases were eventually ruled lawful self-defense — even though this has been a major gun rights selling point for the new laws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html?ref=opinion&_r=0)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 04, 2016, 12:45:10 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Then show those statistics. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 12:45:52 PM

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances. The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 12:46:21 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250)

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

(It's weird that you're the one to say that, since I've felt the same way talking to you in the other thread. Speaking of which, I think we actually agree on quite a lot, with the exception of climate change and which issues should be prioritized when choosing a candidate who's ideology we only partially agree with.)

Well, these are emotionally charged topics, and we both still live in a free country.  I'm sure we would get along just fine IRL, this medium lends itself to "safe disagreement" that couldn't be sustained, civilly, in real life.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 12:50:29 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.

You are neglecting the number of encounters that are resolved by merely presenting (or 'brandishing') a firearm.  That is a harder statistic to determine, but it's definitely not zero.  Most professionals put that number between 2 (on the low end) and 10 times then number of crimes that are prevented by actually firing the weapon.

Even if the numbers of encounters resolved by brandishing a firearm was included it would be incomplete.  Because that wouldn't take into account the number of encounters that would have been resolved by brandishing a piece of 2x4, a pipe wrench, a samurai sword, etc rather than a gun.

When you include pure hypotheticals (like crime allegedly prevented by brandishing a firearm), there's no end to the rabbit hole.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 12:51:09 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

I list firearm deaths because firearms are the topic of conversation... you point out that if firearms did not exist, there would be no firearm deaths - true, but completely a straw man as firearms do exist, and are prevalent in the United States. There are firearm deaths in Canada, AUS, UK and just about every other country on the planet. The issue is, within the boundries of the United States, should 'public perception of safety' overrule the average citizen's right to bear arms. The answer is no - since firearm deaths have been declining (in both gross and per-capita rates), even as the number of firearms increase, it is very difficult to argue the needs of the public are being trampled by a citizen carrying a weapon on their person. Especially since the average, permitted, concealed weapon carrier has a much lower crime rate than the general population. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/murder-rates-drop-as-concealed-carry-permits-soar-/?page=all

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf  (Page 13 specifically)



If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right. Carrying a firearm for self defense is not the MOST effective way to protect ones self, nor is it the only way, nor is it likely to EVER be used.  However, it is still a person's RIGHT to choose to carry a firearm in self defense - and this in NO WAY infringes on anyone's else's rights. Someone's right to 'feel safe' in no way trumps anyone's right to self defense. They are welcome to be as afraid of a statistically unlikely event as they want - their fear does not trump anyone's right to defend themself.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 12:52:27 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Then show those statistics.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 12:53:26 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250)

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 12:54:04 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
You 't have to discharge a weapon to prevent a crime with it. See my example above.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 12:56:54 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.

You are neglecting the number of encounters that are resolved by merely presenting (or 'brandishing') a firearm.  That is a harder statistic to determine, but it's definitely not zero.  Most professionals put that number between 2 (on the low end) and 10 times then number of crimes that are prevented by actually firing the weapon.

Even if the numbers of encounters resolved by brandishing a firearm was included it would be incomplete.  Because that wouldn't take into account the number of encounters that would have been resolved by brandishing a piece of 2x4, a pipe wrench, a samurai sword, etc rather than a gun.

When you include pure hypotheticals (like crime allegedly prevented by brandishing a firearm), there's no end to the rabbit hole.

Again.... irrelavent. There are already laws and restrictions holding people who misuse, or are very likely to misuse, firearms accountable for their actions. The incredibly unlikely event of getting shot by someone you don't know in the United States is far outweighed by the right to defend oneself and to bear arms, irregardless of how likely that event may be.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:00:16 PM

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances. The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Having a gun on my person in a concealed manner in no way infringes on your rights or freedoms.

Taking away my freedom to have a weapon to allay your fear/distaste for guns does infringe upon my freedom.

Freedom is not absolute, but given the few incidents/problems with concealed carryholders it seems your fear is unfounded.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 04, 2016, 01:01:12 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Then show those statistics.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf
I can't find anything in this pdf that actually answers my question.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 01:02:00 PM
Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/

Japan has a much higher rate of suicide than than the US. They have virtually no privately owned firearms. Suicide ( though the argument that a person who wants to end their own life should be allowed to, if that's their true wish - it's their god damned body, aside) is another mental health issue. Gun advocates have long been pointing out we should increase mental health assistance - people still kill themselves in great numbers without firearms, even in the united states. It would be a much more effective use of resourses to address the root of the problem than to ban firearms (which is what you're proposing - nothing short of an all-out ban would remove firearms from people who become depressed).

Don't ban the tool - educate people to respect it. Address the problems related to suicide, as firearms are not the cause of the problem.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:03:48 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JordanOfGilead on March 04, 2016, 01:04:58 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250)

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
I would be interested to see that correlated to number of suicides as a whole. If more people are killing themselves, but the percentage of people using firearms to commit suicide has remained steady, or declined, would that not be an indication that the number of suicides are just on the rise and using a firearm to commit suicide is a part of that, as opposed to the argument that you are making that easy access to guns CAUSES suicides?

I don't have easy access to that kind of statistic, but as somebody who 1) suffers from depression, 2) owns firearms, and 3) has a brother who committed suicide without the use of a firearm, I would like to see a more comprehensive study than just "this correlation between these two (possibly) independent factors exists."

I am by no means trying to argue against the truth of the article you shared, I just don't think it accurately displays the bigger picture in terms of occurrences and methods of suicide as related to availability of firearms.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 01:05:41 PM
Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.


Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)



When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)



I'd argue that there is one heck of a lot more crime being prevented with firearms, than there are accidental shootings.

I'd like the actual stats to back up that opinion please.


I can give you some of those:


Accidental shootings 2014: 1,603
Self defense shootings 2014: 1,583

Accidental shootings 2015: 1,957
Self defense shootings 2015: 1,288

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls)


But it doesn't back up the opinion that was given.
Crimes averted by the mere presence of a firearm will not be present in those statistics.
Then show those statistics.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

Lott's data set had errors in it.

Quote
In this case, it appears that Lott's data set had errors in

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Aneja-Donohue-and-Zhang-ALER.pdf (http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Aneja-Donohue-and-Zhang-ALER.pdf)
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:06:05 PM

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances.

Okay, and our framers did that exact thing, and laid it out plainly that congress shall not infringe upon my right in any fashion.  In order to change that, since the US Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land, you have to convince 66% of the populations of individual states that your perspectives are correct; because mine are historically consistent with what the framers intended, as I have already shown.  Regarding the legitimacy of an absolute human right, statistics are irrelevant.  The next question then becomes, is the right to self-defense an absolute right, or something else?  If you believe that the 2nd should be interpreted based upon some other standard than as an absolute human right, make that case.  Please.

Quote

 The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Yeah!  We finally ended up there!  You opened it up, so here we go!

Gun control is always a  pre-emptive action taken against the individual right to self defense.  The classic false "fire!" in a theater argument is not pre-emptive.  Said another way, while it's true I don't have the right to start a panic, and therefore laws against doing so are legitimate laws; those laws don't require that I wear duct tape across my mouth as I enter the theater, nor do they prevent me from crying "Fire!", but simply penalize me for doing so without just cause.

Gun control regulations, being pre-emptive in nature, violate my right to bear arms whenever they prohibit or penalize my ownership or activity with a firearm, so long as the activity that I'm engaged in wouldn't already be illegal.  Killing another human being without just cause is already illegal, regardless of the method employed.  It's called murder when it's purposeful & manslaughter when accidental & negligent.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 01:07:39 PM

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else

From my perspective, this is irrelevant.  For myself, it comes down to this simple idea.  I own myself, and have a basic human right to protect myself; so to that end, I have the right to choose the best method for doing same.  I can, of course, consider the practicalities of those methods, including the risks to myself, and choose not to buy a gun, but the choice is my right. Furthermore, if I have that right, so do others; and it's not my place (nor yours) to prevent others from exercising their rights even if I feel that they increase my risks.

You are wrong in this regard. None of us are an island. We are social creatures and the practicing of our freedoms will at times come in conflict. When that happens, it is right and proper for the government to lay the rules that are set forth to determine whose freedoms win out and under what circumstances. The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Having a gun on my person in a concealed manner in no way infringes on your rights or freedoms.

Taking away my freedom to have a weapon to allay your fear/distaste for guns does infringe upon my freedom.

Freedom is not absolute, but given the few incidents/problems with concealed carryholders it seems your fear is unfounded.

I don't disagree with your specific example. I was arguing at your broader assertion that I as a member of society have no place in telling you how you can protect yourself.

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 01:08:31 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 04, 2016, 01:10:39 PM
I like lots of butter on my popcorn  ;-)  How do you take yours?

ETA: since this thread has gone predictably off topic from "who has a gun in the house and why" I'll bow out and resume eating popcorn ;).
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 01:12:22 PM
I am surprised that people will buy a gun for home protection before hardening their doors and windows against forced entry. Also, some people will open their door to talk to anyone that knocks.
Everybody knows not to show up at our house unannounced if they don't want to risk bodily harm (for the reason mentioned in a previous comment).
umm....you don't have to answer the door ya know and they'll just leave eventually. Can't see any reason you'd need to scare them off unless they were trying to break in. As a gun owner of multiple types of firearms in the home (and also a handgun when travelling) I've never had to use it to shoo anyone off my property - at least not someone who's knocking on my door innocently.
Not always the case. Hopefully it stops being an issue, but one apartment I lived at right out of college was apparently previously leased by somebody that was being looked for by two very large gentlemen. They weren't willing to leave just because I wasn't answering the door.


I guess if I had two large men hanging out at my front door and not leaving I'd call the cops. If they were trying  to break in I'd call the cops, remove myself to somewhere safe AND protect myself if needed. I'd do the same if they were stalking or harassing me. I don't care about protecting my house, car or stuff, just myself (or family) from assault or rape.
I don't think you understand how criminals that use intimidation tactics work ... You call the cops, the cops ask them to leave, they go away and wait for the cops to leave, then come back and f*ck your sh!t up because you called the cops on them, whether or not they originally had a problem with you.
Also, the police in that neighborhood weren't interested in quickly responding to much less than a shooting. Like I said, it was my first apartment out of college, so it wasn't in a great area and it was dirt cheap.
So I'm suppose to fling open my front door with my AR-15 in one hand and my .357 Magnum in the other and shoo them off like that? If they aren't breaking in I have no legal recourse to do that or any reason to.
You're being unreasonable. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing with guns like you're making it out to be.

I'm a pretty skinny dude. Two guys that look like they could snap me in half aren't going to be intimidated enough to leave me alone just being me, but when I crack the door with the chain latched to show them I'm not who they are looking for and they just so happen to see that I'm holding a shotgun, it sends the message that I may not necessarily be the best person to harass for no good reason. I got an apology when they saw the 12ga, they promptly left, and I never had problems after that.

Having a gun as a means of personal/home defense doesn't mean I have to go all fucking Wyatt Earp and open fire every time somebody sneezes, but it is a proven effective preventative measure.


Statistically, it is much more likely that your gun will be stolen each year than used to prevent a crime.  (232,400 vs 67,600).  http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1001424;topic=51871.250)

Also interesting, 97.9% of justifiable homicides involve only one aggressor.  There really should be no need for a large magazine to defend yourself, unless you're wildly shooting bullets all over the place.
Statistically, my weapons have prevented crime more times than they have been stolen.
And where is this large magazine thing coming from? I'm talking about a shotgun. It holds 5 rounds in a tubular (fixed, attached to the gun) magazine.

Your personal example is not a meaningful statistic in and of itself, but rather an anecdote.

Speaking of statistics, the elephant in the room that gun advocates never seem to want to acknowledge are the statistics regarding suicide by gun and the concern that psychologists have that many of those people would still be alive if they had not had access to such a quick and effective means of killing themselves when going through a temporary bout of extreme depression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/14/many-more-people-are-dying-from-gun-suicides-than-homicides/
I would be interested to see that correlated to number of suicides as a whole. If more people are killing themselves, but the percentage of people using firearms to commit suicide has remained steady, or declined, would that not be an indication that the number of suicides are just on the rise and using a firearm to commit suicide is a part of that, as opposed to the argument that you are making that easy access to guns CAUSES suicides?

I don't have easy access to that kind of statistic, but as somebody who 1) suffers from depression, 2) owns firearms, and 3) has a brother who committed suicide without the use of a firearm, I would like to see a more comprehensive study than just "this correlation between these two (possibly) independent factors exists."

I am by no means trying to argue against the truth of the article you shared, I just don't think it accurately displays the bigger picture in terms of occurrences and methods of suicide as related to availability of firearms.

Unfortunately most studies of sort are done through universities and grants and Congress has banned the use of federal monies to study firearms. Here is something I found:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/ (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/)

Quote
What makes guns the most common mode of suicide in this country? The answer: They are both lethal and accessible. About one in three American households contains a gun. The price of this easy access is high. Gun owners and their families are much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners. A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:13:36 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 01:18:48 PM
Congrats, you have effectively instituted and advocated for the largest "gun control" amendment in history.
How so?
I am 65 years old and disabled. Do I qualify for the militia thereby providing me the right to bear arms provided in the 2nd amendment?
Well, shit. I guess 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) defines "militia" unconstitutionally narrowly in more aspects than just gender.
This simply required a "yes" or "no" answer.

Sorry, I thought it was rhetorical: you were using it to explain how the definition of "militia" in 10 U.S. Code § 311 (a) would cause the Second Amendment not to apply to 65-year-olds. By the tone of my response, it was implicitly clear that I agreed with that interpretation -- assuming there isn't some other law that modifies the situation -- and was upset by it because I think the Second Amendment ought to apply to all citizens.

Surprisingly I would agree with you. Which is why I am glad the Supreme Court made the ruling it did in the Heller case. Using the definition of militia and it's context in the 2nd amendment, one could easily claim it was extreme gun control, that only certain individuals could own guns.

Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms? 
You have to possess a thing in order to bear it.
Nice diversion. "To bear" is synonymous for "to have" or "to possess." Would you like to argue semantics some more or are you going to answer the question?
The answer is emphatically yes, the Second Amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms because "to bear" and to "possess" are synonymous. Did you so severely misunderstand me that you thought I was arguing otherwise?
"Yes" to what? I didn't ask a yes or no question. Care to try again?

Somebody other than BeginnerStache, please look through this exchange and let me know if I'm speaking in tongues or something, because I'm honestly mystified at what is unclear about it.

Anyway, to make another attempt:
Quote
Q:Can you point out where the 2nd amendment specifically provides individuals the right to own firearms?

A: Yes, I can. It's the part where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Bearing arms" is synonymous with "owning arms" and "the people" means "every person, individually." (If you wanted to argue that "the people" only referred to collective, organized groups, then you'd have to make the same argument for the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments too.)

I am sorry, perhaps the word "specific" wasn't clear and I should have explained it further. I was looking for the specific (ie. exact) phrase. You were answering in generalities. I appreciate you finally answering though. It's important to understand the prefatory clause " A Well Regulated militia" does not exist in the 1st, 4th and 10th amendments therefore your assertion is invalid.


On a related note, one would question why for nearly 200 years the courts (Supreme Courts and lower courts) interpreted the 2nd amendment to confer on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Perhaps they missed something in the amendment? And why, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller would the Supreme Court finally decide an individual has the right to bear arms, if it were indeed, as you have claimed, a right we're already explicitly provided?

I'm almost completely certain that individuals owned and carried weapons prior to 2008. Why? Because it was interpreted, correctly, that such a right was guaranteed. Perhaps it wasn't tested by the Supreme Court until 2008 -- if, indeed, there wasn't some previous case that you didn't mention -- because it was so obvious that in 200+ years nobody was delusional enough to challenge it.

Sure they owned guns. I did not claim to the contrary. For other cases see U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). Interesting cases. Even more interesting to see the evolution of the 2nd amendment. Early on the discussion was about rights granted "as part of the militia." The Heller case over turned a statute that had been in place for 30+ years. Seems like a long time to have an "unconstitutional" staute in place.   

Anywho it's worth a looksie.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 01:23:30 PM
The classic example is Holmes's 'Crying Fire in a crowded theater." Your freedom to speech does not mean that you always get to say whatever you want.

Yeah!  We finally ended up there!  You opened it up, so here we go!

Gun control is always a  pre-emptive action taken against the individual right to self defense.  The classic false "fire!" in a theater argument is not pre-emptive.  Said another way, while it's true I don't have the right to start a panic, and therefore laws against doing so are legitimate laws; those laws don't require that I wear duct tape across my mouth as I enter the theater, nor do they prevent me from crying "Fire!", but simply penalize me for doing so without just cause.

You do make a good point regarding the difference between pre-emptive and I would even bolster that with the argument that the government is not easily able to ban the media from publishing an article in advance.

Even so, I do not believe that negates my assertion that your right to self defense is absolute and that I as a part of society and government cannot place any restrictions whatsoever on it. I think all it does is present me with a higher burden of justification for restricting your choices of self defense.

Of course that assumes that the 2nd amendment which you stand behind is really all about self defense. Not everyone universally agrees with that position and a future Supreme Court could provide an alternative interpretation.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:23:41 PM

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 04, 2016, 01:24:00 PM
First one - no mention of the man carrying a gun - so any two other people could have restrained him until police came, could they not?

Second one - that could have gone wrong so fast in so many ways.  Does American Rifleman also report on the gone-wrong stories, so readers can see that it is not always the best choice?

Question - given the number of bar fights that happen because people do not exercise good judgement when drunk, why would anyone (including the proprietors) want to have anyone in a bar have access to a gun?   

Question - how are teachers reacting to knowing their students could be carrying a concealed gun?  I've heard enough bad College/University office hour stories that I would be very concerned about one-on-one meetings with disgruntled students in those situations.

Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.

Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)


When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 01:24:40 PM
the statistics say that firearm deaths have been declining for twenty years... despite more guns in the mix

I don't understand your logic. Isn't the fact that there are firearm deaths more a direct result of the fact that firearms exist rather than anything else? And what does "more guns in the mix" have to do with anything? 20 years is a relatively small time period. Gun ownership has been prevalent for centuries. And why did you only list "firearm deaths?"

If someone wants to rail against firearms, they should know that, in America, their fears are generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies.

You could also use these "stats" to say those carrying weapons for "self protection" are doing so based on fears that are "generally unfounded by statistics and irrational based on studies" as well.

I think it's disingenuous to tell folks, who might not see the world as you do, that their views or fears are unfounded. It's counter-productive as well to any conversation.

Then perhaps instead of going on and on about how "scary" guns are and how you "feel" unsafe, the anti-gun group should provide statistics showing how often CCW holders commit crimes compared to the general population.  Something concrete instead of "I feel scared therefore you shouldn't do X."

I am not anti-gun, nor have I ever stated such. And I don't feel "unsafe." I spent 4 years shooting guns of all types and actually at other people (mostly bad guys). Telling an airplane to drop a 4,000lb bomb less than a click from your position is a bit more scary. 

Are you saying it's ok to tell others how to feel, just because you, or someone else, feels a certain way? That's the point I am making. It's a bit of a double standard.

That was a general statement directed at the anti-gun group. My apologies if it was unclear.

Regarding the bolded portion, absolutely not - and I challenge you to find anything I've ever posted that indicates otherwise.  I tend to avoid making decisions based on "feel" - I prefer logic, which is why I keep asking for statistics.  All I get in return is basically "guns r scary and i don't like them therefore you shouldn't have them either."  Again, not directed at you.

No problem. I think the force feeding of opinion tend to happen on both sides. I think stats are pointless, personally. You can find stats to support both sides and you simply end up back at square one. Kind of like talking in circles with stats.   
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:24:48 PM

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

With regard to your posts on guns/suicide, taking my freedoms away because of another's potential choices (suicide) is a poor argument to me.  Suicide is horrible, but infringing my rights is worse.  Particularly when guns are only one of a multitude of ways to kill oneself.  Do we plan to ban cars and garages as well?  That seems just as effective and substantially more painless.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Cathy on March 04, 2016, 01:28:57 PM
It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. ...

I'm confused by your posts.

First, under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court does not have the power to invent new constitutional rights. It only has the power to "say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9834052745083343188), 177 (1803), including to say what the constitution protects. The opinions of the Supreme Court in Heller and its progeny did not invent any new right out of thin air; they merely stated what the Second Amendment means and what it protects. You may not like those opinions, but they are binding. As a result, it is merely an accurate statement of law to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, subject to certain conditions. It's not "disingenuous" to accurately state the law. Whatever may have been written in older books, the authors of those books did not possess the power to say what the law is, unlike the Supreme Court.

Second, the majority opinion in Heller expressly considers and rejects the claim that the Second Amendment had been interpreted differently in the past. That is actually one of the main things addressed in the opinion.

Third, as I have previously explained (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/scalia-died/msg980318/#msg980318), the preface to the Second Amendment does not limit the scope of rights granted by the operative clause. It's very common in a legal document such as a contract, statute, or constitution, to have clauses in the main body of the instrument that go beyond the purpose announced in the preamble to the document.

For example, imagine that a high school contracted with a publisher to purchase some books and the preamble to the book sale contract stated that "WHEREAS a well-educated student body will be best positioned to attend University after high school". The body of the contract then goes on to describe the number of books that must be delivered and a variety of other more specific terms. Could the publisher later argue that, notwithstanding the specifics in the body of the contract, it only is contractually required to deliver a fraction of the books promised because only a fraction of students will go on to University? Of course not, because the preamble to the contract does not override the terms of the contract. These principles of interpretation of written documents are described in the Heller opinion itself, and in my previous post.

Fourth, 10 USC § 311(a) does not purport to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I am unsure why it was injected into this thread.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 04, 2016, 01:29:50 PM

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
Absolutely untrue.  My BS was in psychology and never did anyone ever accept a correlation as causation.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby (rather, a right) that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:33:49 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 01:34:17 PM

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised. Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 01:35:25 PM
Jack, we don't agree on much, but we can agree on this.  BeginnerStache is not engaged in a debate, he is engaged in rationalization of his perspectives.  He is basically trolling you, and it's working.

Thank you.

(It's weird that you're the one to say that, since I've felt the same way talking to you in the other thread. Speaking of which, I think we actually agree on quite a lot, with the exception of climate change and which issues should be prioritized when choosing a candidate who's ideology we only partially agree with.)

Acually I have no intention of deliberately upsetting Jack nor have I stated anything offensive (at least not intentionally). I've read many of Jack's post's on other forums and he seems very intelligent (from my limited Internet contact). I've proposed the same questions (that I proposed to Jack) to real life friends and we have discussions about this very topic. So no I am not trolling Jack.

On the other hand I have decided not to engage Moonshadow (for obvious reasons) and I suppose that has upset him. I did take notice that he has started to respond to some of my comments on here. Perhaps I am not such a bad troll if he is still trying to get my attention ( : or a darn good one!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:38:21 PM

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 01:39:29 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.
Ah yes, perhaps I misspoke; to clarify, accidental discharges are exceedingly rare without mechanical actuation of the trigger.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 01:46:50 PM

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 04, 2016, 01:50:11 PM
It's disingenuous to claim the 2nd amendment provides individuals the right to own (bear) firearms. Books have been written on the 2nd amendment itself (I provided a name of one earlier). Regardless of which "side" you're on or if you fall right in the middle, it never hurts to educate yourself as much as possible. ...

I'm confused by your posts.

First, under the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court does not have the power to invent new constitutional rights. It only has the power to "say what the law is", Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9834052745083343188), 177 (1803), including to say what the constitution protects. The opinions of the Supreme Court in Heller and its progeny did not invent any new right out of thin air; they merely stated what the Second Amendment means and what it protects. You may not like those opinions, but they are binding. As a result, it is merely an accurate statement of law to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, subject to certain conditions. It's not "disingenuous" to accurately state the law. Whatever may have been written in older books, the authors of those books did not possess the power to say what the law is, unlike the Supreme Court.

Second, the majority opinion in Heller expressly considers and rejects the claim that the Second Amendment had been interpreted differently in the past. That is actually one of the main things addressed in the opinion.

Third, as I have previously explained (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/scalia-died/msg980318/#msg980318), the preface to the Second Amendment does not limit the scope of rights granted by the operative clause. It's very common in a legal document such as a contract, statute, or constitution, to have clauses in the main body of the instrument that go beyond the purpose announced in the preamble to the document.

For example, imagine that a high school contracted with a publisher to purchase some books and the preamble to the book sale contract stated that "WHEREAS a well-educated student body will be best positioned to attend University after high school". The body of the contract then goes on to describe the number of books that must be delivered and a variety of other more specific terms. Could the publisher later argue that, notwithstanding the specifics in the body of the contract, it only is contractually required to deliver a fraction of the books promised because only a fraction of students will go on to University? Of course not, because the preamble to the contract does not override the terms of the contract. These principles of interpretation of written documents are described in the Heller opinion itself, and in my previous post.

Fourth, 10 USC § 311(a) does not purport to limit the scope of the Second Amendment. On its face, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. I am unsure why it was injected into this thread.

Sorry for the confusion. The Heller case is important because the outcome was essentially that the 2nd amendment "included" individual gun ownership. By a vote of 5 v 4.  If you read their dispositions on both sides they specifically discuss right of militia v individual in regards to the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment. They did not invent a new right. They decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as including "individual" gun ownership. And even some in that case still disagree.

My opinion of the historical perspective of the 2nd amendment comes from University Law papers and the one full book I read concerning history of the 2nd Amendment. I'll have to look at the dates because the Heller decision might have come afterwards. The 4 dissenters (there were only 5 non-dissenters) STILL conclude the original meaning of the 2nd applied only to well regulated militias, as it was explicitly stated.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:50:54 PM

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.

States can still establish standards for reciprocity, they just have to be "reasonable", whatever that might mean in context.  So if a state establishes minimum standards for reciprocity, the other states can either raise their standards or challenge the original standard as unreasonable.  I can't predict how that will turn out.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 01:51:10 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed.  Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 01:51:33 PM

And to narrow it to the specific example of concealed carry, my (through the government) requiring you to undergo training and a psychological evaluation to carry a concealed firearm is not an unreasonable infringement of your right to keep me safe from allowing an untrained nutcase from thinking he has sanction to take a gun where ever he wants.

Dramaman - Based on your posts, almost everyone who wants to take a gun to a church, school or movie theater is nuts and therefore disqualified.  Psychological evaluations are subjective and could (probably would) be used to deny perfectly healthy people their rights.

Heh, I seriously doubt any psychological assessment would take my own personal opinion on the sanity of certain types of people into consideration. I was more thinking of people who have serious psychological problems. I don't think it is impossible that a reasonable evaluation could be devised? Will the idea even be considered? No.

But say you take out the psycho eval and just require the training for concealed. I don't think the Supreme Court, even with Scalia, would call that an unconstitutional burden on the 2nd amendment.
 

I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

I haven't read up greatly on the VA AG reciprocity issue. On the general issue of reciprocity, if I'm State A with tougher concealed carry rules, shouldn't I be concerned about people with guns from state B which is much more lenient? If I was the AG of state A, I wouldn't want to recognize permits from State B. I say all this honestly not knowing if that is what was going on in VA or something else.

I seriously doubt 25 states were that much more lenient.  Not sure how that benefited his citizens as reciprocity works both ways.  More likely the AG was just an anti gun prick.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-restore-handgun-reciprocity-in-deal-with-republicans/2016/01/28/6f8c0240-c5d8-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 01:53:06 PM
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:53:25 PM

My opinion of the historical perspective of the 2nd amendment comes from University Law papers and the one full book I read concerning history of the 2nd Amendment. I'll have to look at the dates because the Heller decision might have come afterwards. The 4 dissenters (there were only 5 non-dissenters) STILL conclude the original meaning of the 2nd applied only to well regulated militias, as it was explicitly stated.

Did you read my post on this topic?

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:55:08 PM
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 01:56:49 PM

Lott's data set had errors in it.


That claim led to a defamation case, which Lott (mostly) won.  No materially significant errors could be found, and the economist who made the charge (Levett, I think, of Freakanomics fame) was ordered by the court to apologize, but no material damages were awarded.  The only credible claim that John Lott's work cannot be trusted is in the sense that he uses econometrics, which is a statistical technique that attempts to present strong, long running correlations as evidence of cause & effect, which is not something that most scientists accept as a 'proof'.  (Unless, of course, we were talking about Climatology or Psychology.)


And, of course, it could still be true that John Lott's work embodies one massive, long running coincidence that involves the entire United States.  If so, that kind of unrelated correlation would be worth study in it's own right.
Absolutely untrue.  My BS was in psychology and never did anyone ever accept a correlation as causation.

My apologies.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 01:58:18 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 02:00:05 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 02:06:50 PM
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.

Do either of you realize I was discussing the CCW requirements in my state which requires training as well.  Pulling my quote out of context (which supports CCW) seems rather silly.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 02:10:22 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

1.  Please feel free to review my original post (it's right here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492)).  I don't even mention dropping a gun.  That whole conversation arc was entirely brought up by JLee.

Regardless of the digression, guns do discharge accidentally.  It happens.  There are multiple examples given in this thread.  Most people (you included) don't consider it safe to throw a gun on the ground for that reason.

2.  It's cool that you have sane gun laws.  Florida apparently does not.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 02:15:57 PM
If you have a CCW, and your gun slips out of it's holster and discharges (even killing someone else) . . . it's not counted as a crime, so what you're asking for wouldn't show the whole story.

Steve - Guns don't just go off if you drop them unless they malfunction.  I purchased a pistol with a grip safety precisely to avoid some of the accidental discharge issues that glock has encountered.

Sure.  But sometimes they do malfunction (as you mentioned with your glock).  And as in the example I gave, sometimes there's just carelessness involved.  Either way, it's counted as an accident rather than a crime . . . but the classification of the shooting doesn't matter much to the dead person.

Glocks (which I don't own), have less safety mechanisms.  You implied they just go off if you drop them.  That is factually incorrect in the absence of a malfunction.

I am getting the impression that some people involved in this discussion have minimal experience with firearms.  They are not inherently volatile. They don't just fall out of holsters and go off all by themselves.  I carried Glocks almost exclusively on and off duty -- the closest thing to a malfunction I can say we had is certain batches of ammunition failed to fire reliably.  We had a Glock armorer disassemble and clean (far past a normal field-strip cleaning) the guns and we replaced the entire batch of ammunition that contained the potentially-faulty rounds. Not once have I witnessed one "just go off" - absent a catastrophic mechanical failure, it just won't happen without a finger on the trigger.  Properly handled, a firearm is entirely safe. A gun will not fall out of a proper holster either.

I was given my first rifle on my 12th birthday. I've been shooting handguns since I was 9. Guns are not intimidating or scary - I grew up with them. They're a normal part of life.  I can see how someone with no experience outside of action movies and television news might think otherwise, but trying to legislate away a hobby that millions of people safely enjoy isn't right, nor is it fair...and if you're going to do that anyway, at least come to a thorough understanding on the topic.

J Lee, I was referred to the lack of safety mechanism on a glock (other than the trigger).  If you are carrying with one in the pipe and snag the trigger there is a higher likelihood of accidental discharge than an XD which has a backstrap safety.

Triggers, BTW, do get snagged.  A classmate of mine found that out the hard way unfortunately.

To your point, many of those arguing gun control seem to have little practical experience handling firearms or ammunition.

I have no experience with handguns of any kind.  Only hunting rifles.  I was always taught to handle the rifle carefully.  That involved not throwing it on the ground (apparently this is an unnecessary precaution according to the gun owners in this thread?), keeping it unloaded when not hunting with it, keeping the safety on when not using it, not putting your finger on the trigger unless you were about to pull it, etc.

My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.

That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

1) I'm not sure what your point is here, other than being ridiculous for the sake of being ridiculous.  Having an intelligent conversation with you is difficult, because it's basically like this:
Me: "A properly functioning firearm will not discharge absence trigger movement"
You: "Oh, so according to you it's perfectly safe to throw my rifle on the ground!"

An airbag shouldn't go off without the proper electrical impulse either, but that doesn't mean you should start smacking it with a hammer to see what happens. Just...stahp.

2) I haven't been active since 2011, but I would've been talking to my prosecutor about this charge in NH:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 631
ASSAULT AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 631:3
   631:3 Reckless Conduct. –
    I. A person is guilty of reckless conduct if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another in danger of serious bodily injury.
    II. Reckless conduct is a class B felony if the person uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V. All other reckless conduct is a misdemeanor.

1.  Please feel free to review my original post (it's right here: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492 (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/firearms-in-the-home/msg1001492/#msg1001492)).  I don't even mention dropping a gun.  That whole conversation arc was entirely brought up by JLee.

Regardless of the digression, guns do discharge accidentally.  It happens.  There are multiple examples given in this thread.  Most people (you included) don't consider it safe to throw a gun on the ground for that reason.

2.  It's cool that you have sane gun laws.  Florida apparently does not.

You said "slips out of its holster and discharges" -- if you don't mean "drop", do you mean "accidentally pull trigger"?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 02:25:05 PM
I'm all for a reasonable training requirement and a background check.  I took a 12 hour class and was fingerprinted and background checked as part of the process.

Despite that, the attorney general in VA recently attempted to revoke reciprocity with my state and many others because it didn't meet his specifications.  The only plausible explanation to this turn of events was that he simply wanted to make concealed carry difficult.

Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm from a commerical business be subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even posessing firearms. Would that be a great compromise?

oh wait....

Just to be clear, this is a joke, because Metric Mouse knows something that most gun-control advocates do not; that this already is required by law.

Do either of you realize I was discussing the CCW requirements in my state which requires training as well.  Pulling my quote out of context (which supports CCW) seems rather silly.

Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 02:28:08 PM


That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

Steve - We agree, guns go off accidentally but they don't just go off when they hit the ground unless there is a malfunction.  Reporters are notoriously misinformed.  Several of the instances you cited involved guns in bags.  If a gun is floating around w/o a holster, the trigger could snag.

Further your examples included a 17 year old with a concealed pistol (illegal), a drunk with a gun (illegal) and a cop with a gun (nobody's arguing against that). 

Three of the five people either wouldn't be impacted by concealed carry (cop) or shouldn't have been carrying to begin with (drunk/17 year old).

While were on the subject of gun safety, ammunition is pretty safe unless loaded into a firearm.  This includes fires, dropping, hitting with hammer, etc.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 02:29:30 PM


Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.

I wasn't criticizing you.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: JLee on March 04, 2016, 02:34:21 PM


That said:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html (http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069255/Sheriff-s-deputy-dropped-gun-Kentucky-church-wedding-accidentally-shot-MOTHER.html)

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited (http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-wasatch-front-/a-gun-is-accidentally-discharged-inside-a-chipotle-in-sandy-gun-owner-not-cited)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/moviegoer-critically-injured-drunk-man-gun-article-1.2505605)

http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html (http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-starbucks/article_34e1afbd-bd73-5916-b3a7-d2dda274ee9f.html)


Dropped guns certainly have discharged.

Steve - We agree, guns go off accidentally but they don't just go off when they hit the ground unless there is a malfunction.  Reporters are notoriously misinformed.  Several of the instances you cited involved guns in bags.  If a gun is floating around w/o a holster, the trigger could snag. 

Further your examples included a 17 year old with a concealed pistol (illegal), a drunk with a gun (illegal) and a cop with a gun (nobody's arguing against that). 

Three of the five people either wouldn't be impacted by concealed carry (cop) or shouldn't have been carrying to begin with (drunk/17 year old).

And a fourth one was criminally charged. Ironic.

Quote from: GuitarStv
My original comment was made to show that crime stats don't tell the whole story of damage done by guns, and contained an example of someone who was twirling a gun around his finger who accidentally shot someone else.  He wasn't charged as no crime had been committed. Just as dropping a gun and having it go off would not be considered a crime.
Quote from: GuitarStv
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html
Quote from:
http://americablog.com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html]The police are charging the woman with “third-degree assault and reckless endangering.”
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 02:34:30 PM

Even so, I do not believe that negates my assertion that your right to self defense is absolute and that I as a part of society and government cannot place any restrictions whatsoever on it. I think all it does is present me with a higher burden of justification for restricting your choices of self defense.

Oh, I don't believe that self-defense is an absolute right.  I agree that it places a high burden for justification upon anyone that would seek to restrict it, however; and that is actually my point.  It's a high bar, but I can see that it's not absolute; but the problem is, where is the breaking point?  I think that it's a question of 'reasonableness' but that is also a very subjective issue.  I'm going to switch sides, just for a moment, to argue in favor of gun control; but I'm going to use a scenario in a cartoon as my example.  Some years ago there was a cartoon series called Cowboy Bebop; the premise was space as a wild frontier.  The characters were obviously pro-weapon, as they had many.  But there was one particular episode where they were visiting a classical "space wheel" type space colony, and the local law was that projectile weapons were prohibited inside the space station, but melee weapons were not.  The reason presented (in the original Japanese, I don't know about the English version) was that any bullet traveling beyond the sound barrier posed an existential threat to the entire colony, because it could (not would) break through the pressure containment wall, & depressurize the space station, thus killing everyone.  (IRL, this is one reason that Air Marshalls use very expensive rounds that are designed to shatter against hard objects)  In this case, I can see that the method of self-defense could reasonably be restricted; because the risk was not simply mildly elevated for those around the fire-armed individual, but potentially widespread and catastrophic.  Which is pretty much the same case that I would make against private ownership of a satchel nuke.  Today, we have laws that either prohibit, or severely restrict, the exercise of the 2nd within particular contexts, such as in business that serve alcohol & in courtrooms; and pretty much for the same reasons, as those are locations that the odds of an emotional conflict rising to the level of physical conflict are higher than the general public.

Quote
Of course that assumes that the 2nd amendment which you stand behind is really all about self defense. Not everyone universally agrees with that position and a future Supreme Court could provide an alternative interpretation.

As far as I am concerned, the interpretation of SCOTUS is also irrelevant.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 02:40:42 PM


Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Midwest on March 04, 2016, 02:48:09 PM


Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.

Dramaman - Not twisting anything.  Again not directed at you. 
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 02:50:24 PM

Even so, I do not believe that negates my assertion that your right to self defense is absolute and that I as a part of society and government cannot place any restrictions whatsoever on it. I think all it does is present me with a higher burden of justification for restricting your choices of self defense.

Oh, I don't believe that self-defense is an absolute right.  I agree that it places a high burden for justification upon anyone that would seek to restrict it, however; and that is actually my point.  It's a high bar, but I can see that it's not absolute; but the problem is, where is the breaking point?  I think that it's a question of 'reasonableness' but that is also a very subjective issue.  I'm going to switch sides, just for a moment, to argue in favor of gun control; but I'm going to use a scenario in a cartoon as my example.  Some years ago there was a cartoon series called Cowboy Bebop; the premise was space as a wild frontier.  The characters were obviously pro-weapon, as they had many.  But there was one particular episode where they were visiting a classical "space wheel" type space colony, and the local law was that projectile weapons were prohibited inside the space station, but melee weapons were not.  The reason presented (in the original Japanese, I don't know about the English version) was that any bullet traveling beyond the sound barrier posed an existential threat to the entire colony, because it could (not would) break through the pressure containment wall, & depressurize the space station, thus killing everyone.  (IRL, this is one reason that Air Marshalls use very expensive rounds that are designed to shatter against hard objects)  In this case, I can see that the method of self-defense could reasonably be restricted; because the risk was not simply mildly elevated for those around the fire-armed individual, but potentially widespread and catastrophic.  Which is pretty much the same case that I would make against private ownership of a satchel nuke.  Today, we have laws that either prohibit, or severely restrict, the exercise of the 2nd within particular contexts, such as in business that serve alcohol & in courtrooms; and pretty much for the same reasons, as those are locations that the odds of an emotional conflict rising to the level of physical conflict are higher than the general public.

Okay. My bad. I previously responded to a general statement that you made that seemed to imply that your right to self-defense and choice of self-defense was absolute and nobody could legitimately restrict that.

Of course that assumes that the 2nd amendment which you stand behind is really all about self defense. Not everyone universally agrees with that position and a future Supreme Court could provide an alternative interpretation.

As far as I am concerned, the interpretation of SCOTUS is also irrelevant.

I'm not sure why you think how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd amendment is irrelevant seeing as how they are the highest court in the land to weigh in on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and could do it again. I don't know if you think you have some god given right to guns, but the only real thing keeping our government from restricting that right any further is what is written in the 2nd amendment and how the Supreme Court interprets that writing.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: dramaman on March 04, 2016, 02:55:34 PM


Yeah, I picked up on the distinction that we were talking about possible concealed carry restrictions and the response switched to existing gun purchase laws. It was a non-sequitor and I really didn't think it was worth responding to.

I wasn't criticizing you.

You were responding to a piece of conversation in which I was participating and twisting the discussion into something it wasn't.

Dramaman - Not twisting anything.  Again not directed at you.

Okay, my bad. Total misunderstanding on my part, Midwest. To sum it up, I got confused as to who I was responding to. Yes, I knew you weren't criticizing me in the earlier post. I had posted basically to agree with you that Metric Mouse and Moonshadow were talking about general gun purchases and not concealed carry. When you followed up that you weren't criticizing me, I wasn't paying attention and thought I was responding to Moonshadow or Metric Mouse. My bad.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 03:01:24 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 03:14:06 PM

I'm not sure why you think how the Supreme Court interprets the 2nd amendment is irrelevant seeing as how they are the highest court in the land to weigh in on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and could do it again. I don't know if you think you have some god given right to guns, but the only real thing keeping our government from restricting that right any further is what is written in the 2nd amendment and how the Supreme Court interprets that writing.

I mean that I consider the right to self-defense to be a basic human right, and the opinion of SCOTUS could not possibly alter that.  Yes, their opinions do and will have a practical effect on the exercise of the 2nd, but I consider the 2nd to be an admission of an existing common law right, not the extension of a privilege.  Should SCOTUS reverse itself on this issue, it would simply be wrong.  Such a decision, and the resulting political action it would permit, would be casus belli for invoking the implicit threat embodied in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence.  As such, any such reversal by SCOTUS would prove catastrophic.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 03:43:10 PM
As to the reciprocity question, it looks like that backfired upon the AG of Virginia...

Quote from: http://freebeacon.com/issues/record-breaking-gun-sales-continue-through-february/
Further executive action from Democrats in Virginia received a lot of attention at the national level when the attorney general announced a plan to unilaterally eliminate the state’s gun carry agreements with most other states. The backlash resulted in a deal to expand Virginia’s gun carry recognition rather than curtail it. That deal was signed into law at the end of February.

It's an enormous irony, that as anti-gun liberals advocate for greater restrictions on private weapons ownership and use by whatever means possible; the general public responds by buying more guns.  I suspect that does not bode well for the future viability of gun control legislation in most of the United States.  Even I am amazed by the sales rate.  Taken one for one (even the article mentions that this is a risky assumption) 5,158,876 background checks so far this year implies that more than 2% of the adult population bought a firearm. (245,273,438 adult population, circa 2014 http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/39,40,41/416,417 ) 

2% in 2 months.  OMG.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 03:43:32 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 03:44:46 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 03:46:41 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 03:50:14 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 04:27:12 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Curbside Prophet on March 04, 2016, 04:35:15 PM
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.


Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 04:39:11 PM
I don't have strong feelings about silencers either way.  Certainly they should be available for target shooting, that makes sense.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 04, 2016, 04:46:19 PM
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.
Explain the logic for the other side?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 05:11:50 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.

So your concept of a compromise, so that I may exercise a right guaranteed to my by the 2nd amendment, is to surrender a right to privacy guaranteed to myself by the 4th & 5th?  That is a non-starter.

The privilege to drive a vehicle on the public roads is not a right.  The ability to freely travel is a right, but that can be exercised effectively by hiring a cab.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 05:21:25 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3476550/He-really-John-Wick-Amazing-video-emerges-action-man-Keanu-Reeves-blasting-way-compound-variety-guns-trains-film-sequel.html

Based upon this video alone, Keenu Reaves is no stranger to firearms.  That was basically a 3-gun competition run, and he didn't look like he missed a single target.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: ncornilsen on March 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Lets see if we can come to an agreement on a smaller issue.  Is there anyone here who feels suppressors (silencers) should not be 50 state legal?  I'm tired of damaging my hearing and those of the shooters around me because the law bans silencers.  Keep in mind a suppressor makes a gun harder to conceal and it does not silence a gun like movies portray.  If we can't agree on the small stuff, forget about the big stuff like concealed carry.
Explain the logic for the other side?

Silencers make a regular gun look scary
Silencers make a gun quieter... so like, cops won't be able to hear a criminal use it, and won't be able to rush to the scene...
only assassins use silencers.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 05:31:09 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Easily searchable by whom?

Law enforcement and FBI.  Not public though, that would lead to issues.

Okay, with or without a court order?

It should be treated the same way as running a driver's license . . . So I guess no court order.

So your concept of a compromise, so that I may exercise a right guaranteed to my by the 2nd amendment, is to surrender a right to privacy guaranteed to myself by the 4th & 5th?  That is a non-starter.

The privilege to drive a vehicle on the public roads is not a right.  The ability to freely travel is a right, but that can be exercised effectively by hiring a cab.

Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?  In what way?  How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 04, 2016, 05:46:27 PM
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.

Answers anyone?  Re question 2, we also have to remember that the Concordia shootings were a psychologically disturbed professor shooting colleagues with a handgun (possession of which was of course illegal in Quebec/Canada).

First one - no mention of the man carrying a gun - so any two other people could have restrained him until police came, could they not?

Second one - that could have gone wrong so fast in so many ways.  Does American Rifleman also report on the gone-wrong stories, so readers can see that it is not always the best choice?

Question 1 - given the number of bar fights that happen because people do not exercise good judgement when drunk, why would anyone (including the proprietors) want to have anyone in a bar have access to a gun?   

Question 2 - how are teachers reacting to knowing their students could be carrying a concealed gun?  I've heard enough bad College/University office hour stories that I would be very concerned about one-on-one meetings with disgruntled students in those situations.  And there are some very disturbed students out there who carry grudges against teachers.

Here are two factual clips from American Rifleman magazine.

Two women and two children were lucky an armed citizen was around when a man tried to carjack them at a Sunoco gas station. The first victim had just made a purchase and was getting back into her car when the suspect opened her door and started yelling and trying to pull her back out of the vehicle. The woman fought back and yelled for someone to call 911. The suspect then walked to the street, where traffic was stopped. He stood in front of a car, which had a woman and two children in it, yelling, “Help, help, someone is trying to kill me.” The suspect opened the driver’s door and pulled the woman out by her hair. The automobile, with the children still inside, lurched forward and rolled until it struck a gasoline pump island. The commotion got the attention of a passerby, who pulled his licensed handgun and held the suspect at gunpoint. The accused carjacker faces multiple charges. (Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, PA, 10/6/15)


When three men, at least one of whom was armed with a handgun, entered a Newport News, Va., dollar store and demanded money from the registers, only an armed citizen was there to stop them. When a customer near the registers pulled his concealed carry handgun and pointed it at them, all three culprits hastily fled the store. The police believe the same three individuals are responsible for a string of similar robberies in the nearby area, and an investigation to catch them is ongoing. (wavy.com, Portsmouth, VA, 12/1/15)

Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 06:19:15 PM
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

Quote

How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?

Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To require that a citizen surrender their right to privacy, in order to exercise another right without interference; particularly when that database exists for the explicit reason to scan for violation of a current (or future) law, is to require that citizen to become a witness against themselves.

On another note, the database that you expect already exists.  But as a matter of law, they are separated and must be managed by the states individually; and cannot be used for criminal cases, but only for the collection of statistical data, without a court order.  In my home state of Kentucky, there is also the legal requirement that if anyone, including an agent of the federal government carrying an otherwise lawful court order to do so, were to arrive at the institution that operates this database demanding more than a single person's records, the operator must destroy the entire database.  And the feds know this, and therefore wouldn't likely bother.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 06:27:26 PM
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.


I had no comment on the stories in the Rifleman, because I don't consider them particularly important, so I ignored your prior commentary.  Don't take it personally, I've been ignored at least three times today.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2016, 06:57:27 PM
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

The government has a database of your social security number, which they use to keep track of your earnings for tax purposes.  If you're not on that list you can't easily get a job.  It's fully searchable.  Same thing with passports.  You need to be on the list for passports, or your freedom to travel is restricted.  And driver's licences.  How is any of this different than a searchable list of gun owners?



Quote

How does it involve the fifth amendment at all?

Quote
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

To require that a citizen surrender their right to privacy, in order to exercise another right without interference; particularly when that database exists for the explicit reason to scan for violation of a current (or future) law, is to require that citizen to become a witness against themselves.

On another note, the database that you expect already exists.

How does a list of gun owners cause a violation or surrendering of privacy, but the existing list of drivers/licences not cause the same violation?  How does a list of gun owners compel someone to be a witness against himself, but the list of drivers/licenses not cause the same violation?  I'm not following your reasoning at all.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 04, 2016, 07:22:44 PM
Having a registry of guns and gun owners that is accessible to law enforcement violates unreasonable search and seizure?

If it's openly accessible to law enforcement, yes.  The 4th is a guarantee of privacy, from the government itself, for which the established due process is that a check from the court is required.  On a purely practical level, however, even a database with the legal protections of a court order required can, and will, be abused by some people who are in the position to do so.  History has shown us that criminally minded cops have used other databases (such as the DMV drivers database) to identify & stalk single women, among other crimes.  The data included in this database would be very valuable to anyone targeting gun owners to steal those guns.  And any computer database is hackable.

The government has a database of your social security number, which they use to keep track of your earnings for tax purposes.  If you're not on that list you can't easily get a job.  It's fully searchable.
It is actually against the law for the Social Security department to share your personal information with other departments without your consent, same with the IRS.  I not going to claim that it doesn't happen anyway, because I'm sure that it does, but it's against the law.

Quote

 Same thing with passports.  You need to be on the list for passports, or your freedom to travel is restricted.

Indeed it is, but only to other countries.  That rolls back to the whole international treaty issue.  And it's not actually required for an American citizen to have a passport to leave the country.  It's just that other countries don't have to let you in.

Quote

  And driver's licences.  How is any of this different than a searchable list of gun owners?


As I already said, the privilege of driving on public roads is, itself, not a right.

Quote
How does a list of gun owners cause a violation or surrendering of privacy, but the existing list of drivers/licences not cause the same violation?  How does a list of gun owners compel someone to be a witness against himself, but the list of drivers/licenses not cause the same violation? I'm not following your reasoning at all.

That much is apparent.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 04, 2016, 09:47:41 PM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Well that's less stringent than I would like, but not a bad place to start. Can we have background checks be run by civilians, so that I can sell a gun to my relative without the undue burden of a licensed firearm dealer? Simple phone call, pass/ no pass ruling. (I.e. no personal info passed on to caller). And mandatory safety training in primary school, such as thr NRA Eddie Eagle program?
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2016, 04:53:14 AM
Finally, "common sense" regulation. How about if every person in the United States who wishes to buy a firearm is subjected to a background check for criminal history and mental illness. This background check would be conducted by the US government, and be relatively quick, but stop violent felons and persons with diagnosed mental illnesses from purchasing, owning or even possessing firearms.

^ This slight rewording would be a great compromise.  Too bad so many people are fighting against making it law.

Not at all. How about, with this background check system, anyone who passes is allowed to own any common weapon they wish, with any size magazine they deem worthy of aquiring? If that weapon is fully automatic or fires explosive ammunition, it would be subject to the increased backround checks currently conducted for such weapons.

Fair compromise? So many people fight against this law as well, which is where the deadlock comes in.

Throw in an easily searchable government database of every gun owner and his weapons, and the permanent banning of ownership for any gun owner who is found negligent and you've got a deal!

Well that's less stringent than I would like, but not a bad place to start. Can we have background checks be run by civilians, so that I can sell a gun to my relative without the undue burden of a licensed firearm dealer? Simple phone call, pass/ no pass ruling. (I.e. no personal info passed on to caller). And mandatory safety training in primary school, such as thr NRA Eddie Eagle program?

A pass/no pass phone call would make sense, but don't see how it could work without without some personal information to ID the person selling and person receiving the weapon to record the transfer and to know who to search records for.  Mandatory safety training in primary school is a bit of a sticky issue, since some would see it as indoctrinating children with guns.  I'm generally in favour of it, but wouldn't want it run by the NRA.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 05, 2016, 05:02:07 AM
You see, that is interesting in itself, because some people think stories like that justify the "I can save people from bad guys if I am out there with a gun" thinking.

I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.
You guys move so fast - this was on page 7 and totally ignored/buried.


I had no comment on the stories in the Rifleman, because I don't consider them particularly important, so I ignored your prior commentary.  Don't take it personally, I've been ignored at least three times today.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: scottish on March 05, 2016, 09:33:45 AM
Wow has the thread ever shifted.   I think Spartana may win.



Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 05, 2016, 03:01:16 PM
You see, that is interesting in itself, because some people think stories like that justify the "I can save people from bad guys if I am out there with a gun" thinking.


I don't know why you seem surprised, since I have made it rather clear that the relative increase or decrease in statistical risks matter not to my mind.  It all comes down to this, do I have a basic human right to self-defense?  If I do, then I also have a right to at least the same quality & type of weapon that is available to my greatest threats, as well as an actual right to make use of them.  If I consider my greatest threat to be the rise of a tyrannical version of my own government, or the invasion of a foreign army; then I have a right to (conventional) weapons of war, although I can agree that the society at large can impose polite limitations on how & where those weapons of war can be made use of, at least during peaceful times.  (BTW, despite few actual laws that prohibit morons from carrying an AR15 into a WalMart for a shopping trip, it is considered rude and a sign of general stupidity)  Likewise, however, if I'm arming against being mugged or robbed; say I'm a convenience store owner in a shifty neighborhood, who has to carry cash deposits to the bank on a regular basis; I have a right to arm up with the best weapon that I consider reasonable, which would likely be a single handgun with enough rounds available to make myself feel comfortable.  Perhaps I'm getting old, and am not quite as good a shot, nor as quick at reloading a spare magazine, as I was at 20. (shot capacity is a case of diminishing returns, but I should be the one to decide where the extra round isn't worth the extra bother).  The actor I posted the 3-gun video about, Keenu Reeves, has been asked about gun ownership, and has stated "why not? but I don't own any"; while Ice-T (rapper & actor) has been asked the same questions and said, "I'll give up my guns when everyone else does first".  Both, apparently, are quite proficient with firearms, whether or not they own them, or rent them.  Reeves apparently doesn't feel unsafe in his life, but Ice-T was born in Newark, New Jersey; and grew up surrounding by, and occasionally a member of, street gangs.  For both of them, the risks of ever being shot are very, very low; just as they are low for most of us.  Yet, it's not like famous & rich rappers have never been assassinated.  In fact, one google search tells me that a rapper called "Bankroll Fresh" was assassinated just this morning by "drive by".  One might assume, outside looking in, that some subcultures in the United States are more violent than others.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MoonShadow on March 05, 2016, 03:15:16 PM
Mandatory safety training in primary school is a bit of a sticky issue, since some would see it as indoctrinating children with guns.  I'm generally in favour of it, but wouldn't want it run by the NRA.

Why not the NRA?  How about 4H? http://www.4-hshootingsports.org/

Or better yet, Appleseed http://appleseedinfo.org/

Both of those organizations actually are indoctrinating children with guns, and I approve of that.  The NRA mostly just teaches kids to tell an adult.  Appleseed teaches the child how to put a 22 rifle round through a quarter at 25 yards.  Those people are truly hard core markspeople.  I was a "sharpshooter" grade shooter with my M16 in the USMC, and I have taken the Appleseed test twice, and never really came close.  Yet, I once saw a 10 year old girl draw smiley faces & hearts on paper plates with a 22 rifle at an appleseed event, 25 yards away.  Appleseed has a 95%+ first time failure rate, even after 2 days of training, but if you pass, you legally earn the privilege of buying a surplus military rifle from the US government itself; at cost, not market.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 06, 2016, 05:55:40 AM
Still asking, third time now:
I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: libertarian4321 on March 06, 2016, 06:36:04 AM
Quote
1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

Who's "on edge?"  I live in a decent neighborhood.  But NO NEIGHBORHOOD is without bad people.  I'm perfectly calm.  The only person who needs to be "on edge" is the dumb SOB who makes the mistake of trying to break into my house for drug money (or whatever) at 2 AM.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

Not as much as I used to.  I should do it more, just because it's fun.  But I spent a lot of time in the military, I'm pretty sure I can still handle a weapon competently, just as I found I could ride a bike when I started riding last month, for the first time in 30 years.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

My spouse will be right there with me.  I'll have the shotgun or the AR15.  She'll be backing me up with a 9mm pistol.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

Why would the police arrest me?  I left the People's Republic of New York for Texas a long time ago.  They might compliment my our shooting skill, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 06, 2016, 06:44:04 AM
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: steviesterno on March 06, 2016, 08:03:58 AM
Still asking, third time now:
I'm still wondering about people carrying in bars (i.e. armed and drunk) and teachers who could have armed students.  I know it doesn't relate to OP's question, but then the discussion has shifted from guns at home to guns in public anyway.

in Texas it's legal to carry in in a restaurant that serves alcohol, but not a bar (51% of sales come from booze). It's legal to have some drinks and carry, but not be intoxicated. same rules as driving. same common sense applies

As a teacher, I think we should be able to carry on campus. legal students, too. walking onto a campus doesn't make a non-violent person go crazy, and the only thing keeping guns off campus is a sign that says "Please No Guns". That doesn't stop anyone with the intent to do harm, only those of us with a dedication to following the laws.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 06, 2016, 12:37:13 PM
I am interested in the thoughts of the people here who would like to see tighter restrictions or fewer guns. Why?
Would you be afraid to live in New Zealand? A million guns among 4 million people. Or Canada, which has nearly the gun ownership levels of the US? Or Switzerland? Which mandates citizens to own guns.
I don't think it's the guns. Both Mexico and Canada border the US. Mexico has strict gun laws, and Canada doesn't (comparatively). Why is Mexico so very much more violent than Canada and the US? It cannot be the proximity to the US that is the deciding factor.
The question isn't guns. It's violence. The Swiss trust their neighbors with machine guns. The British don't trust each other with kitchen knives.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: nnls on March 06, 2016, 03:46:05 PM
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 06, 2016, 06:15:15 PM
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this
Maybe it got better later, but after the first few minutes I stopped watching. Not that funny, and fairly ignorant.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Primm on March 06, 2016, 07:42:40 PM
I think safety is a valid concern, and you have to find a balance that makes sense to you. Statistics only matter if you're not one of the ones it happens to. On that, 30 year olds don't get cancer and pregnant women don't get hit by cars. Both happened to my wife. shitty, even if the odds were against it.

a gun is a tool that's rarely needed. But if you need it, there's almost never something else that works as well. I probably won't need insurance on the house, but I have it. I probably won't need my spare tire, but I have that. I probably won't need the gun next to the bed, but I have that.

Crime is always an issue, and fewer guns does not equal fewer crimes. There are mass knife attacks in china, violent crime went up in england and australia when they decreased civilian gun possessions, and all major dictatorships started with a disarming of the population. Guns don't cause violence, people do.

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary.  (http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678)Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Tom Bri on March 06, 2016, 09:57:17 PM

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary.  (http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678)Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...

It's a good point, Australia has had low crime rates recently. People exaggerate the upward blip in the year or two after the confiscation. But, what about the steady decline in US crime in the last 15 years, as gun laws were significantly loosened?
Gun laws tightened, crime stays about the same, maybe a slight drop. Gun laws loosened, crime falls sharply. I don't believe it is causation for either statistic.
Why would that gun control law in AUstralia prevent mass shootings? Earlier in this topic, it was discussed that in Australia about two thirds of the guns remained in private hands, and one third were confiscated. And by now, the number of guns is back where it was before the law. There is no link, no causation. Mass murders are such statistical anomalies that any country can go years without one, and then have a bunch all at once. People think the US has uniquely high levels of mass shootings, but they don't. Among advanced, western nations, the US is rather average.
What the US has is world exposure. The US press loves these things, and other country's press loves to make their own countries look good compared to the US. Plus, the US is so big that you have to add up nearly the entire EU to equal its population. Easy to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in X years. The US is ten times the Aussie population, and can be expected to have ten times the number of anything crazy.
What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: yuka on March 07, 2016, 01:13:09 AM

What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.

Can you imagine? "Well, with the Main St. Elementary School incident, that brings mass clubbings up to 25 this year. Senator Feinstein is leading calls for club control, but strong opposition from interest groups, most prominently PGA and MLB, has derided Feinstein and like-minded congress-people for what they see as taking advantage of a national tragedy. As they point out, 'members of organizations such as the NFL have proven on countless occasions that savage beatings will happen even in the absence of blunt objects.' PGA and MLB spokespeople have returned to their typical refrains, that these are unstable individuals in difficult environments acting out their frustrations. 'It is embarrassing to vilify clubs time after time when there is a clear problem of job satisfaction that we need to tackle in this country. As sad as it is to say, the beatings will likely continue until morale improves.' "
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: Gin1984 on March 07, 2016, 05:00:57 AM

<snip>

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Read this for a summary.  (http://theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678)Including the links.

According to every official statistic (police, Bureau of Statistics etc.) homicide and suicide rates have decreased overall since the Port Arthur gun laws, and we've had no mass shootings in over 10 years.

As you were...

It's a good point, Australia has had low crime rates recently. People exaggerate the upward blip in the year or two after the confiscation. But, what about the steady decline in US crime in the last 15 years, as gun laws were significantly loosened?
Gun laws tightened, crime stays about the same, maybe a slight drop. Gun laws loosened, crime falls sharply. I don't believe it is causation for either statistic.
Why would that gun control law in AUstralia prevent mass shootings? Earlier in this topic, it was discussed that in Australia about two thirds of the guns remained in private hands, and one third were confiscated. And by now, the number of guns is back where it was before the law. There is no link, no causation. Mass murders are such statistical anomalies that any country can go years without one, and then have a bunch all at once. People think the US has uniquely high levels of mass shootings, but they don't. Among advanced, western nations, the US is rather average.
What the US has is world exposure. The US press loves these things, and other country's press loves to make their own countries look good compared to the US. Plus, the US is so big that you have to add up nearly the entire EU to equal its population. Easy to say Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in X years. The US is ten times the Aussie population, and can be expected to have ten times the number of anything crazy.
What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.
Though I disagree with your assertion that we have same amount of mass shooting as other first world countries, I want to focus on your last statement.  Yes, some violent people might use other weapons but as shown by the Japanese knife attack at a school, compared to our school shooting, more people live through a knife attack.  You can fight back against a person with a club or knife in a way you cannot with a gun.  That makes a major difference in lives lost.
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2016, 06:01:23 AM

What the US does have is lots of violent people, lots more than Australia. Take away their guns, and they are still violent people. They'd use clubs or knives if they couldn't get guns. That's the question I have, why are some people violent. I couldn't care less if they use guns or swords.

Can you imagine? "Well, with the Main St. Elementary School incident, that brings mass clubbings up to 25 this year.

Haha, mass clubbings. Heck why stop at caring if it's a gun or swords. If there is no difference let's teach them how to fly F-14s and they can drop ordinance.  What about access to Nuke's?

Kind of like saying what's the difference between 1 life or 14 lives. Well 13 lives is the difference. I suppose for some, as long as it isn't their life, who cares!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: MasterStache on March 07, 2016, 06:17:38 AM
The "gun debate" always reminds me of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Doesn't matter how you feel or which side you are arguing, a lot of this is funny because it's more true than we often like to admit.

haha I love this
Maybe it got better later, but after the first few minutes I stopped watching. Not that funny, and fairly ignorant.

I understand. Satire isn't for everyone. And not everyone gets it. I laughed my rear end off.

"Naked with a holster" hilarious!!!!
Title: Re: Firearms in the home
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2016, 06:57:29 AM
I am interested in the thoughts of the people here who would like to see tighter restrictions or fewer guns. Why?
Would you be afraid to live in New Zealand? A million guns among 4 million people. Or Canada, which has nearly the gun ownership levels of the US? Or Switzerland? Which mandates citizens to own guns.
I don't think it's the guns. Both Mexico and Canada border the US. Mexico has strict gun laws, and Canada doesn't (comparatively). Why is Mexico so very much more violent than Canada and the US? It cannot be the proximity to the US that is the deciding factor.
The question isn't guns. It's violence. The Swiss trust their neighbors with machine guns. The British don't trust each other with kitchen knives.

In New Zealand:
- You have to pass a safety test and have a license to get a gun (involves background check).  Your license must be renewed every few years.
- There is an additional special license that you need to apply for if you want to own a pistol, and it can only be used for competition shooting.  You can't walk around with a loaded pistol (actually to transport a pistol at all it has to be kept in a locked container with ammunition stored separately).
- When transporting a firearm, it must be unloaded.
- The amount of ammunition that you can transport is limited.
- There are strict regulations related to firearm storage

In Canada:
- You have to pass a safety test and get a license to get a gun, and have to renew it every few years (licensing involves a background check)
- There are strict regulations related to firearm storage
- You're not allowed to carry a concealed weapon in Canada
- You typically can't carry a gun around with you unless it's unloaded (and then only for transport), or you are actively hunting.
- Carrying a hand gun requires permission which is difficult to get
- Owning a hand gun is difficult in Canada, and there are dramatically fewer handguns floating around as a result

In Switzerland:
- Firearm safety training is mandatory for most young men
- Strict regulations for firearm storage
- You need a license to own a gun
- It's illegal to carry a gun around with you except in rare work related circumstances (like if you're a security guard and having the gun is part of your job)
- All weapons are registered with the government.


Contrast with the US:
- No background check in most states to buy a gun from a private seller
- No safety training to buy a gun
- No gun registry
- No license for firearm ownership
- No regulations related to firearm storage
- The majority of states let you walk around with a loaded gun


The number of guns in a country doesn't directly correlate to safety, so maybe we should look at the different rules and regulations that make gun ownership so much safer in other countries with high gun ownership.  Every country you mentioned that has a lot of guns has tighter restrictions on them than the US.