Gun Control

[Saunders]

I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

Honest question - about how long do you think it would take you to get to, unlock, and load your gun from say, your living room or your kitchen in the event of an armed robbery?

I keep a loaded (not chambered) pistol in a biometric safe bolted into the nightstand next to my bed. So, I can have it ready to fire in 10 - 15 seconds if I'm upstairs, 20-25 downstairs? I also have a rifle loaded (again not chambered) in my full size safe in my closet, but that's probably closer to an extra 10 or so seconds in the dark. Our bedroom (and the kids) is upstairs, so any intruder would half to come up and past my door before getting to the kids rooms.

 

[Saunders]

Maybe we need laws better enforcing gun safety? Maybe PSAs as well? Should it be illegal to not have your gun locked up with a minor in the home? Should we hold parents liable for the death of their child if the weapon was unsecure and the child died because they were playing with it?

I think part of the problem is the whole idea of gun ownership as a right. People take it less seriously (from a safety/caring standpoint) when it's not a privilege.

Locking guns up and having proper respect for them would put a large dent in some of those statics I would wager. You'd take stolen guns off the street, save childrens lives, have more knowledgeable operators, etc.

I've spoken about it a few times in this thread, but many of the illegal guns we see on the streets are thanks to idiotic gun owners. I've had law enforcement tell me this several times. Owners leave them unsecured in glove boxes, trunks, under the car seat, in closets, in a dresser drawer or under the bed. A lot of gun owners don't deserve the gun purely based on their stupidity, but of course, there's nothing legally preventing them from owning that gun.
Statistics from the last 5-6 years suggest about 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities report having owned a gun at some point in the past, which by nature is illegal because they're juveniles.

Better gun owner responsibility, safety, security and knowledge would go a long way towards preventing deaths. Most of the gun owners in my family keep their guns in secure, incredibly heavy gun safes. Though expensive, I believe having the right to own a gun gives you the responsibility to do everything you can to keep it out of the hands of criminals and the young.

This times infinity.

 

[teachercd]

I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

Honest question - about how long do you think it would take you to get to, unlock, and load your gun from say, your living room or your kitchen in the event of an armed robbery?

I keep a loaded (not chambered) pistol in a biometric safe bolted into the nightstand next to my bed. So, I can have it ready to fire in 10 - 15 seconds if I'm upstairs, 20-25 downstairs? I also have a rifle loaded (again not chambered) in my full size safe in my closet, but that's probably closer to an extra 10 or so seconds in the dark. Our bedroom (and the kids) is upstairs, so any intruder would half to come up and past my door before getting to the kids rooms.

Have you ever thought you needed to grab the one bolted to your bed and it turned out you didn't? Like where you thought you heard something and it was nothing? I am a super light sleeper so I wake up all the time from any noise at all and I'm basically never groggy so just wondering how it was in your situation.

 

[zoogs]

Slate: Senate Democrats spent 14 hours filibustering for the right cause, and the wrong idea.

Great article. I think we'll find common cause on this one, saunders.

The larger issue, though, is not that Murphy was grandstanding; it’s what he was grandstanding for. Expanding background checks is a worthy goal, but Democrats’ newfound focus on using the terror watch list to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists raises serious civil liberty concerns. The Supreme Court has declared the right to bear arms a fundamental right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern explained earlier this week, you can disagree with SCOTUS, but the fact remains that using the FBI’s watch list for gun control purposes would set a dangerous precedent...

You might like this one, too: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_media_keeps_misfiring_when_it_writes_about_guns.html

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The goal has never been to end all violence. The goal has never been to end all violence. The goal has never been to end all violence. The goal has never been to end all violence. The goal has never been to end all violence.

There are truly evil people on the planet who will be able to turn any modern marvel into a weapon. On September 11th, terrorists used commercial planes to end the lives of many, many people by flying them directly into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and thankfully but unfortunately, a Pennsylvania field. Think for a second of what your flying experience was like prior to September 11th. I can't speak to this as I was all of 10 years old and hadn't flown before, but I'm willing to bet that the security checks weren't as stringent and that the pilots weren't locked into the cockpit for the duration of the flight. Flash forward to today and there are numerous additional regulations in place, set up to prevent another attack like that from happening again. And it hasn't.

Where was the uproar from America's citizens? Surely they should've objected to "being punished with more stringent and invasive guidelines" because of the "acts of a few evil people." After all, why should a few people change the flight experience for the majority of innocent passengers? 99.9% of passengers don't fly planes into buildings. And yet we accepted the security changes because we knew it would lead to safer flights and a safer country. And, despite the annoyance, those regulations have worked.

So why is the mentality so different for gun control? There are countless number of stats out there showing the damaging effects of guns. And yes, people are irrevocably tied to guns--someone has to pull the trigger, but these stats show that just getting rid of the guns is a big step towards solving the country's gun violence problem. The argument in favor of guns always point out that perhaps these incidents would occur with less frequency if the person about to end lives knows that other people might be armed. In other words, America can solve its gun problem by throwing more guns at it.

But has anyone stopped to think that perhaps the person about to end innocent lives wouldn't think of ending innocent lives if they didn't have ready access to a tool capable of killing on a massive scale? Ending 50 lives is easy with a gun, it's extremely low effort, and it's pretty risk-free Go to crowded area with gun, point gun, pull trigger; easy as 1, 2, 3. Ending 50 lives with a knife is far more difficult. Ending 50 lives with an explosive requires much more effort and is far riskier (easier to detect, harder to create, and higher chance of failure). Ending 50 lives with a car might be as effortless, but most of the time a wall is going to stop that car from getting people once they're inside. Using a gun is the easiest, effortless, least risky method of ending lives on a massive scale, and yet acquiring a gun is easier than getting your driver's license.

The goal has never been to end all violence. Sensible people know that that's an impossible task. Violence will exist so long as humanity exists. But I am completely dumbfounded that America's gun laws by and large have not changed in the face of the innocent lives lost in Aurora, Blacksburg, Sandy Hook, Orlando, San Bernadino, and the many more mass shootings that occur at a shocking rate. There's simply no excuse to continue to do nothing. Gun control won't save all innocent lives, but it will save many more than doing nothing, and perhaps that's the difference in not losing loved ones far too soon.

 

[NM11046]

I'm surprised this hasn't been shared or referenced yet ... it perfectly summarizes my thoughts and also backs the rationale up with points and examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

 

[huskerfan2000]

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

Why?Because they're vetted better than civilians. Again, not an imperfect system.

So was Omar Mateen. He had a higher class license than I do, along with security clearances and it was his job. Even if they were banned in state for civilians, he still would have had access due to his licenses.

Cops are vetted better than that guy. I don't even know where you're going with this.

This is also a stupid response. You have no clue how good this person was vetted. Bottom line no law, new or current would have stopped this guy. NONE!

 

[Saunders]

Slate: Senate Democrats spent 14 hours filibustering for the right cause, and the wrong idea.

Great article. I think we'll find common cause on this one, saunders.

The larger issue, though, is not that Murphy was grandstanding; it’s what he was grandstanding for. Expanding background checks is a worthy goal, but Democrats’ newfound focus on using the terror watch list to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists raises serious civil liberty concerns. The Supreme Court has declared the right to bear arms a fundamental right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern explained earlier this week, you can disagree with SCOTUS, but the fact remains that using the FBI’s watch list for gun control purposes would set a dangerous precedent...

You might like this one, too: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_media_keeps_misfiring_when_it_writes_about_guns.html

Good stuff zoogs.

Here's another one I saw posted that I like, and it ties into your slate article.

I support the argument that the United States should enact a total ban on civilians owning firearms.

Oh, I don't support the ban. I support the argument.

I support the argument because it's honest and specific. It doesn't hide the ball, it doesn't refuse to define terms, it doesn't tell rely on telling people they are paranoid or stupid in their concerns about the scope of the ban. The argument proposes a particular solution and will require the advocate to defend it openly.

https://popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/

One of my biggest fears is the increased role in government oversight in the name of "security." In the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act was lauded by those in Washington as a step in the right direction for keeping us safe, but the reality is, it's a terrible piece of legislation that's created a really bad precedent.

We live in a country in which arbitrary power is routinely abused, usually to the detriment of the least powerful and the most abused among us. We live in a country in which we have been panicked into giving the government more and more power to protect us from harm, and that power is most often not used for the things we were told, but to solidify and expand previously existing government power.

Let's address the problem, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Saunders]

I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

Honest question - about how long do you think it would take you to get to, unlock, and load your gun from say, your living room or your kitchen in the event of an armed robbery?

I keep a loaded (not chambered) pistol in a biometric safe bolted into the nightstand next to my bed. So, I can have it ready to fire in 10 - 15 seconds if I'm upstairs, 20-25 downstairs? I also have a rifle loaded (again not chambered) in my full size safe in my closet, but that's probably closer to an extra 10 or so seconds in the dark. Our bedroom (and the kids) is upstairs, so any intruder would half to come up and past my door before getting to the kids rooms.

Have you ever thought you needed to grab the one bolted to your bed and it turned out you didn't? Like where you thought you heard something and it was nothing? I am a super light sleeper so I wake up all the time from any noise at all and I'm basically never groggy so just wondering how it was in your situation.

Yeah, once in the middle of the night at our old house. We heard a crash downstairs, and when I went to check it out, it was a shelf I had installed the day before. Shoulda used better wall anchors.

 

[huskerfan2000]

Slate: Senate Democrats spent 14 hours filibustering for the right cause, and the wrong idea.

Great article. I think we'll find common cause on this one, saunders.

The larger issue, though, is not that Murphy was grandstanding; it’s what he was grandstanding for. Expanding background checks is a worthy goal, but Democrats’ newfound focus on using the terror watch list to keep guns out of the hands of potential terrorists raises serious civil liberty concerns. The Supreme Court has declared the right to bear arms a fundamental right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern explained earlier this week, you can disagree with SCOTUS, but the fact remains that using the FBI’s watch list for gun control purposes would set a dangerous precedent...

You might like this one, too: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/the_media_keeps_misfiring_when_it_writes_about_guns.html

Good stuff zoogs.

Here's another one I saw posted that I like, and it ties into your slate article.

I support the argument that the United States should enact a total ban on civilians owning firearms.

Oh, I don't support the ban. I support the argument.

I support the argument because it's honest and specific. It doesn't hide the ball, it doesn't refuse to define terms, it doesn't tell rely on telling people they are paranoid or stupid in their concerns about the scope of the ban. The argument proposes a particular solution and will require the advocate to defend it openly.

https://popehat.com/2016/06/16/in-support-of-a-total-ban-on-civilians-owning-firearms/

One of my biggest fears is the increased role in government oversight in the name of "security." In the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act was lauded by those in Washington as a step in the right direction for keeping us safe, but the reality is, it's a terrible piece of legislation that's created a really bad precedent.

We live in a country in which arbitrary power is routinely abused, usually to the detriment of the least powerful and the most abused among us. We live in a country in which we have been panicked into giving the government more and more power to protect us from harm, and that power is most often not used for the things we were told, but to solidify and expand previously existing government power.

Let's address the problem, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

These are all great quotes and responses! This is exactly the purpose for protecting all attacks to the 2nd Amendment!

To the bold: That is exactly what is happening, government is taking more and more control from the people/free market!

 

[Saunders]

Damn I like this guy.

I confess from the start of this: I enjoy unproductive talk. Boasting, bloviating, berating, shouting, snarking, and swearing are all pleasures, indulged with little if any guilt. My purpose is not to condemn such behavior. How could I? We just brought on Marc Randazza and the man swears like a drunken Newark stevedore with his d!(k caught in a French press.

At least most of the time, I grasp that my self-indulgence doesn't accomplish much. It pleases me, it entertains like-minded people, and it reaffirms that which people already believe.

But it doesn't persuade. It neither seeks nor finds common ground.

Much of our modern American dialogue about gun rights and gun control is like that. We yell, we signal to the like-minded, we circle our wagons, we take shots at opponents. But we don't change minds. Take a look at the discussion of guns on your Facebook feed right now. Do you think it's going to build a majority on any issue?

Say we wanted to have a productive conversation. Imagine we wanted to identify our irreducible philosophical and practical differences, seek any areas of agreement, persuade anyone on the fence, and change some minds. What might we do?


https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

Last night the President of the United States — the President of the United States — suggested that people should be deprived of Second Amendment rights if thegovernment, using secret criteria, in a secret process using secret facts, puts them onto a list that is almost entirely free of due process or judicial review. Because we're afraid, because they could be dangerous was his only justification; he didn't engage the due process issue at all. But he was merely sauntering down a smooth, comfortable, well-lit road paved by most Republicans and Democrats before him since the rise of "tough on crime" rhetoric and especially since 9/11. The President — and other Democrats — may hope that Americans will trust progressives not to overreach in restricting rights. That hope is patently misplaced; Democrats and mainstream progressives haven't been worth a squirt of hot piss on due process or criminal justice rights for more than a generation. In the Great War on Terror and the Great War on Drugs, they're like Bill Murray in Stripes: mildly counter-cultural and occasionally a little mouthy but enthusiastically using the same weapons in the same fight against the same perceived enemy.

And Republicans! Don't get me started. You can't sneer at constitutional rights for a decade and a half and then expect them to be a credible shield when you abruptly decide they matter again. With few exceptions, Republicans arguing about Second Amendment rights resemble a kid becoming a sudden rules-lawyer halfway through a game of Calvinball.

 

[huskerfan2000]

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

No love for human life at all!

 

[Redux]

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

No love for human life at all!

This is not the place for that discussion.

 

[teachercd]

I make sure my guns are locked up with kids in the house, but when my oldest hits six next month, we're having the gun safety talk. It's something every parent should do.

Honest question - about how long do you think it would take you to get to, unlock, and load your gun from say, your living room or your kitchen in the event of an armed robbery?

I keep a loaded (not chambered) pistol in a biometric safe bolted into the nightstand next to my bed. So, I can have it ready to fire in 10 - 15 seconds if I'm upstairs, 20-25 downstairs? I also have a rifle loaded (again not chambered) in my full size safe in my closet, but that's probably closer to an extra 10 or so seconds in the dark. Our bedroom (and the kids) is upstairs, so any intruder would half to come up and past my door before getting to the kids rooms.

Have you ever thought you needed to grab the one bolted to your bed and it turned out you didn't? Like where you thought you heard something and it was nothing? I am a super light sleeper so I wake up all the time from any noise at all and I'm basically never groggy so just wondering how it was in your situation.

Yeah, once in the middle of the night at our old house. We heard a crash downstairs, and when I went to check it out, it was a shelf I had installed the day before. Shoulda used better wall anchors.

Ha! That is funny! I have reached for weapons before too and there is nothing there or it was just something stupid.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

and a large portion of you are hypocrites if you are not just as loud for getting rid of abortions. Hundreds of thousands of babies a year are killed in the name of choice.. Perfect example of sanctioned mass murder!

No love for human life at all!

This is a discussion on gun control and gun violence in the United States. The talk of abortions doesn't have a place in this thread.