Another Responsible Gun Owner Stands His Ground

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Elypsis44

So much John McClane/George Zimmerman stuffed into one post.

So, you didn't read it then?

Are you here to have a discussion or just just throw out lame one-liners?

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Indeed, and that's why I prefer fleeing. We are discussing a scenario where this is not possible, right ? I mean, we've been clear on this for several days, now.



Of course it removes it. Tazers and pepper sprays are close-range weapons. They do incapacitate the intruder, assuming all goes according to plan, but you need to get a lot closer, which, again, puts you at a lot of risk. In the absence of a gun, and if I can't run away, I will not confront an intruder unless I have no other alternative (i.e. I will hide.)

Sorry if my previous post was brief. I was a bit frustrated that you had discussed snipping posts rather than actual points, but Nihilianth also managed to get under my skin by calling me dishonest. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Regarding the highlight...I think it's important to note that spraying pepper gas in the confined area of a bedroom or hallway is going to effect both the intruder and the sprayer. It will quickly become a matter of who can recover faster.

Also, regarding incapacitation. Assuming the intruder has a gun, how exactly do you "incapacitate" to the point where they cannot aim and fire? Shoot the leg? That doesn't make his arms not work. Shoot his arm? Sure, if you're a deadnuts shooter in the dark in the middle of the night while your heart is racing.

Police, military, and everywhere in between is trained to shoot the center body mass...not the extremities.

Just some food for thought...

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

If home invasion was such an issue and gun where so good at preventing it why are gun owners so scared of their addresses being published? If the thought of a gun in a home deters crime wouldn't the certainty of it be better?

Then you wouldn't mind putting a sign on your front lawn that proudly advertises you do not own guns on your property?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Then you wouldn't mind putting a sign on your front lawn that proudly advertises you do not own guns on your property?

I read a sign, home made, that read to the effect of, "Nothing worth stealing in here, so I'll assume you're coming for me."

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Why would you insist he leaves by the tiny window?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Trespassing is not a forcible felony? Trespassing could have a legitimate reason. For instance, a lost pet, or a missing family member, or just plain old mistake.

Breaking into someone's closed home, could not possibly fall under those categories. Hence, trespassing is not a reason for lethal force.

Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1586050.html
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...r-his-trouble/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ong-house.html
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...144287625.html
http://stupidknews.com/2012/08/02/dr...s-wrong-house/
http://morristown.patch.com/articles...in-wrong-house
https://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/...wn-police-say/
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2011/...to-wrong-house

[Morrigan]

^ The solution for that is: don't get drunk!

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Ok......and this is different from many many many other cases, how?

And I can almost guarantee if this goes to trial, he'll be found guilty.

Don't be so sure. I hope that old bastard gets the longest possible sentence. He's a murderer.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Especially if the guy you're hitting is a baby seal? Statistically speaking it would take a LOT of blows (and I would argue more than required to knock an attacker down and run) to get the kind of trauma to kill or even cause internal bleeding. Lacerations probably and maybe zygomatic/mandibular fractures of varying degree. But the kind of trauma that would lead to death would depend on the amount of forceful blows against the skull and like I said before...if it was lethal you'd get my scrutiny because either you beat him to death in malice murder or the guy has a soft head.

Can you back up your claims? Specifically, the hilited?

[Lowpro]

Oh you should like this guy then.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...th-murder?lite

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

If home invasion was such an issue and gun where so good at preventing it why are gun owners so scared of their addresses being published? If the thought of a gun in a home deters crime wouldn't the certainty of it be better?

People whom have guns for self defense, don't want to use them.

Also, since turnabout is fair play, did you see the video where a group went around to different people who helped publish all that info and asked them to put a I have no guns sign in their yard? Not one did it. Why not? I mean, if they didn't want people to have guns, and were proud of that decision, why wouldn't they advertise that?

I'll see if I can dig up the video.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Can you back up your claims? Specifically, the hilited?

already done champ. Now the question becomes do you really want to discuss the nature of baseball bat violence?

Oh and if you want to nitpick on the actual number of hits with a baseball bat to induce the damage it would take to kill I'll admit it may (a definite may; I'd be surprised if you could do it in one swing but hey even I've knocked one out of the park before) just take one by a really forceful swing to a really specific area (most people don't even swing and connect to the head. Remember people defend themselves using their arms). If I were to imagine the most effective way to kill someone with a baseball bat using as few swings with admittedly normal force you'll want to hit either the neck or back of the head right near the occipital bone. What you want is artery damage and maximizing on that. Just in case you want to unleash your inner Bear Jew.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Noted, but does it real add anything to the deterrent effect. Losing family >> going to jail. For most people anyway.

Agreed. However, they deserve some type of additional liability, since the grief that they caused is not just theirs.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I have seen those discussions and it is one of the reasons I like debating this with you. We are both gun owners and we both think there should be ways to make sure that guns do not get into the wrong hands. We both know that there is no perfect solution and we should only be striving to make things better. Neither of us wants to ban guns.

Thank you Sir. And I agree 100%. It's just a matter of how far we're willing to compromise.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

My primary frustration, and I don't know if I have seen you express this but I think you agree based on the above, is that the NRA has changed its position over the years and no longer is willing to talk about the difference between responsible gun ownership and irresponsible gun ownership. To them, guns are good, everything else is someone else's problem. As a responsible gun owner, does this piss you off?*

Absolutely, 100%, irritating as hell. Even some of the others are just as bad.
No compromise, F ya'll, deal with it seems to be the default position.

I'm not that guy. I have no problem with sensible, reasonable, gun control. I know myself, Sabretooth, and BStrong are almost of the same exact position.

I wish the NRA would stop fighting so much every little measure, and start thinking critically.

Believe me, I wish I wasn't a member of the NRA. But, the gun range I belong to is NRA sponsored (Rules, regulations, and insurance provided by the NRA) and as such, I am required to be an NRA member. I am also taking classes to be an NRA safety instructor, as I do like that side of the NRA. Education is HUGE when it comes to guns. But, I did the smart thing, and got another NRA to sponsor me, and got a lifetime membership for $300. So, I keep my NRA membership for life, and never have to pay them another dime.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I agree, there should be a way to meet this without violating the 4th. That was par tof the reason I proposed burden shifting, but we can discuss that below. I guess requiring safe ownership would increase the usage of safes, just like requiring seat belts in cars increased the usage of seat belts. But to really get the usage up we passed usage laws and launched a PR campaign. I still think the PR campaign was more effective than ticketing, but I could be wrong.

I think if we saw more education of the public, specifically, gun safe use and the like, I think it would go a long way. Maybe even requiring them by law when you purchase your first firearm, or some other type law. I'm ok with that. Like you said with seatbelts. PR is HUGE.

And the only time you get a seat belt ticket, it's because someone observed you in public not obeying the law. No random stops, no random searches, for the most part. (I know some state law require another reason to stop someone other than a seat belt not being worn. Florida is not one of those states)

If there is a day when I am observed not using my safe, (through legal, legitimate means) then I should be issued a citation.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

But, if you are saying the state has the burden, then the state would have to search your home. The burden shift was a way to avoid the violation of the 4th. You keep your guns in a safe and the safe is picked, you met your burden. You keep your gun in a drawer by the front door and the front door window is broken and the gun stollen, you have not met your burden (unless the state determines that inside locked home is "secure").

The state always has the burden of proof. If the state believed that I was violating the law, and had probable cause to search my home, and received a warrant from a judge, I would of course comply. However, to do random safe checks, nay nay.

I'm not sure the law could be enforced though. It may conflict with some law that I am not aware of.

From what I've read elsewhere, if you've kept the gun inside the home, out of immediate sight, you're usually safe from prosecution.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I think we agree on where we are heading, it is just a matter of how best to get there. Contrast that to those who want very few restrictions on gun ownership and those who want to severely limit the number and type of gun available to most Americans.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

If your home is really secure, then having a gun under your mattress every night, and then storing it in a safe during the day, is like wearing a condom when are in bed alone. It may make you feel safer, but it does cost more than the protection it provides.

I don't understand what you mean?

I do keep a gun out at night. A gun, locked in my specific safe (the big one) is useless. Especially since it takes a fingerprint, and a code to get into. (I just found that feature today!!) In a sleepy daze, I doubt I'd be able to get into it fast enough. I also have a quick access one, if any of the kids' friends are over, or we've got company, to keep it safe. Especially if my kids' friends are over. They are not as well versed in gun handling and safety as my kids.

There are other times that I keep it locked up in the quick access safe though. Holidays, when I am drinking at home, those type of situations.

The ones hanging on the wall, like I said before (don't know if you saw that or not) is an older rifle, and one that is almost impossible to find ammo for. I don't even have any in the house, so the chances of someone firing that weapon any time soon, is almost impossible.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Again, I think guns should be more secure than my bedroom. You think your guns should be less secure than your sleeping area.

As secure as your house, at minimum. Certain situations call for different levels of security, as I elaborated on above.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

At least we agree that they should be secure and that we as gun owners have a responsibility to secure our guns. That is a hurdle that some gun owners are still having trouble with, yet they want us to call them responsible gun owners.

Damn skippy! If you've got small children in the house, it had BETTER be locked away safe, and if you want one for SD and you require quick access, get a quick access safe. They're not that expensive, and are almost as quick as openly storing them.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

*I'm not much on bolding, but I really would like an answer to that even if you gloss over the rest. The rest seems to be matters of process and degree.

No problem. Your posts have, as far as I have seen and recall, are reasonable and respectful.

Cheers Sir!!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

People whom have guns for self defense, don't want to use them.

Also, since turnabout is fair play, did you see the video where a group went around to different people who helped publish all that info and asked them to put a I have no guns sign in their yard? Not one did it. Why not? I mean, if they didn't want people to have guns, and were proud of that decision, why wouldn't they advertise that?

I'll see if I can dig up the video.

What exactly is your implicit argument here? If people without guns do not want that advertised, then it must somehow be reasonable for people who claim guns deter home invasions to not want people to know they have guns? If so, how is that a logical argument as opposed to a wild, illogical leap to an unrelated conclusion?

Of course what they ought to do is put "No guns here!" signs on the houses that do have guns. Then the gun nuts could have fun playing pretend commando and lying in wait for dastardly home-invaders, and everyone else could relax (at least until one of the gun nuts panics and starts punching holes in the place).

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Really?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1586050.html
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...r-his-trouble/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ong-house.html
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...144287625.html
http://stupidknews.com/2012/08/02/dr...s-wrong-house/
http://morristown.patch.com/articles...in-wrong-house
https://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/...wn-police-say/
http://www.chathamdailynews.ca/2011/...to-wrong-house

Sorry, I stand corrected.

Rarely should have been my wording. You're very right. There are times when there is a legitimate reason, but it may not save you from charges, or from a gun being used.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

^ The solution for that is: don't get drunk!


Don't be so sure. I hope that old bastard gets the longest possible sentence. He's a murderer.

That is a pretty ****** case, because the HO should have been convicted.

And I agree. I hope they give him life, since he murdered someone, IMO, in cold blood.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Oh you should like this guy then.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...th-murder?lite

No, I don't. If he had made any attempt to contact the police when the event occurred, or, I dunno, maybe after the second teen was dead, he might have had a SD case. But, taking your gun, putting it under their chin when they're CLEARLY not a threat, and pulling the trigger, is *********** disgusting.

And no, not everyone, nor anyone here that I am aware of, would support this POS.

Disgusting that you would think this is how we think. Apparently you're not listening. None of us here WANT to use our gun to kill someone. This guy did. Rare and disgusting case.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Rarely should have been my wording.

Sadly it's not actually that rare, I could have kept going with the URLs for a long time, though it is rather sad that people so often get to the point of being too drunk to recognise their own house.

Quote:

You're very right. There are times when there is a legitimate reason, but it may not save you from charges

True, though in a lot of cases the charges get dropped to misdemers of tresspass and criminal damage rather than burglary once everything is sorted out.

Quote:

or from a gun being used.

Which funnily enough is why there is a suggestion that it's a bad idea to see an intruder and start blazing away with lead.

If you are locked in your bedroom and they kick down the bedroom door with a knife in their hand, go for it, but it seems that far too many people just see a shadow in the dark or a stranger and instead of trying to determine if there actually is a threat, or shouting a warning to get out, they just open fire.

To me it becomes a vicious circle. If burglers believe that they are going to get shot at, then they are more likely to carry a gun, as more burglers carry guns, more homeowners will fear that a intruder is armed and shoot....

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, I don't. If he had made any attempt to contact the police when the event occurred, or, I dunno, maybe after the second teen was dead, he might have had a SD case. But, taking your gun, putting it under their chin when they're CLEARLY not a threat, and pulling the trigger, is *********** disgusting.

And no, not everyone, nor anyone here that I am aware of, would support this POS.

Disgusting that you would think this is how we think. Apparently you're not listening. None of us here WANT to use our gun to kill someone. This guy did. Rare and disgusting case.

Whoa whoa whoa sorry first off I didn't actually direct that towards you though that was actually for Moriggan after he/she was talking about the drunkies. I am not demanding you either defend this guy or even represent him; you only represent yourself here. Seriously you should be able to see that from the sequence of my posts; my post in your request for statistics on baseball bad mortality was below that.

Although I will tell you this and this is not referring to your character but I have a harder time than others in finding the legal obligation a homeowner has to make sure he's not like this guy. I've seen MANY posters here (worse elsewhere) discuss how they would put every single bullet (I think I saw "8+1" mentioned here) into any intruder who broke into someone's house with the intent to kill (not the intruder; as we've established their intent is nebulous; read:inconsequential to the owner). Aside from this guy doing an effective double-tap I do have a serious concern for a homeowner's legal allowances for self defense. I think you actually answered me to my satisfaction (*golfclap*) earlier in that you said that you agreed that a homeowner should temper their response in self defense. What I disagree on a less fundamental level is WHEN a homeowner should be allowed to use deadly force in uncertainty. This guy...even before he put the gun under that person's chin and I know those kids weren't allowed to be there; by all accounts they were criminals and he feared for his life (as his lawyer says but I believe it's plausible) I just don't think that you should kill somebody over that. And not just that but that we should foster an idea that it's not just a matter of legal deference to the homeowner but it's actually okay to bypass a lot of other options to protect yourself (or your home, property, sense of security etc). I think for the most part people disagree with that, but damn if it doesn't seem like a massive devaluation of life even to a criminal. It's just my character to do that and if it makes me a "good way to get killed" guy well I'll stick to nonlethal and see how far I get. Probably about as far as most all others.

What I do have a fundamental disagreement on is that a criminal's life is forfeit in almost all regards, even in self defense which for me has a slightly higher bar than I feel many others seem to have.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

What I do have a fundamental disagreement on is that a criminal's life is forfeit in almost all regards, even in self defense which for me has a slightly higher bar than I feel many others seem to have.

(Speaking for myself) It's not that I view criminals lives to be "forfeit", or that they "deserve to die" or anything like that, it's merely that I see no reason why the onus should be on the homeowner to assume that the intruder has peaceful intentions.

[Lowpro]

It's not that, it's that when you do take it on yourself to do something, among so many options available why assume only the worst; so much so that you can kill or even overkill (if that word has any meaning) without any demonstrable (though assumed) threat to your life as if that's the only option. Even if there were some device that had some Star Trek phaser knockout ability that worked the first time every time I don't even think people would demand that be the primary defensive option. I mean let's just play the game to its logical conclusion. Let's say you have an intruder, The same homeowner would, by that logic, have to assume the intruder would have that same device or even worse a gun to kill you because they are only there to do whatever you think is the worst outcome (because as I said their intent in intrinsically inconsequential. If they said "Don't shoot, I'm unarmed" the homeowner cannot assume that). It's a damned red queen not an actual determination of circumstance. I mean not to bring it to a gun control issue (and I don't want to but this illustrates a point) either but even if there was a perfect world where no criminal had a gun your same logic would have to apply because the homeowner has no obligation to consider at all because there is no onus on them to assume anything else even if it was impossible (let's just make it practical; the intruder has no freakin' arms).

Maybe the situation does suck that much, and for a small group it does but damn if it seems like there's a lot more legal allowance for the homeowner to make the call to kill regardless of true circumstances. I mean it goes back to what I said and I think you even quoted Giz "we prefer dead criminals to dead homeowners (as if either must die)". I'd prefer neither dead, and neither a reason (or legal deference) to make it so. But hey, all I need to do is prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. All I need is precog unit.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I am not so sure about that. Here are a couple of studies about who is in favour of what over guns

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/...gun-control/2/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/me...un-owners.aspx




Again from the Pew Research I linked to above and this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...polling-shows/

there is hardly anyone who wants to ban all guns or have nil gun control. It is safe to ignore the rants of the extremes.

Well, of course. I was merely using those extremes in order to illustrate the following points, which you responded to below:

Quote:

I agree, the answer is with the gun makers, dealers and owners who have everyone else over a barrel. I find their rhetoric scary compared to the anti-gun side.

The "anti-gun" side is emotional. But at least it's understandably emotional. The pro-gun side is both emotional and insensitive.

[Nihilianth]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Regarding the highlight...I think it's important to note that spraying pepper gas in the confined area of a bedroom or hallway is going to effect both the intruder and the sprayer. It will quickly become a matter of who can recover faster.

Also, regarding incapacitation. Assuming the intruder has a gun, how exactly do you "incapacitate" to the point where they cannot aim and fire? Shoot the leg? That doesn't make his arms not work. Shoot his arm? Sure, if you're a deadnuts shooter in the dark in the middle of the night while your heart is racing.

Police, military, and everywhere in between is trained to shoot the center body mass...not the extremities.

Just some food for thought...

Do you even know how pepper spray works? It's not exactly the same as, say, a flash-bang grenade with an area radius effect. Pepper pray is sprayed out of an aerosol can, and away from the user. Unless you are pointing it the wrong way at yourself, you're not exactly going to be suffering from the effects the same as the person whom you are spraying.

Sure, you may get a *little bit* on you form the mist. But not exactly the full-force of the stuff like the intruder would get.

Originally Posted by Lowpro

already done champ. Now the question becomes do you really want to discuss the nature of baseball bat violence?

Oh and if you want to nitpick on the actual number of hits with a baseball bat to induce the damage it would take to kill I'll admit it may (a definite may; I'd be surprised if you could do it in one swing but hey even I've knocked one out of the park before) just take one by a really forceful swing to a really specific area (most people don't even swing and connect to the head. Remember people defend themselves using their arms). If I were to imagine the most effective way to kill someone with a baseball bat using as few swings with admittedly normal force you'll want to hit either the neck or back of the head right near the occipital bone. What you want is artery damage and maximizing on that. Just in case you want to unleash your inner Bear Jew.

To be fair, a single blow with a baseball bat can do a LOT of damage. And depending on where and how hard you strike a person, killing someone most definitely is not out of the question. Even with a single blow. A blow to thehead is most likely to kill someone than anywhere else on the body. In the chest, you can break a rib, which can puncture the heart, lungs, or an artery, which would in turn lead to death.

There have been people killed by a thrown and/or hit baseball. A minor league coach in the Pirates farm system was killed a few year back by a batted ball.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

What exactly is your implicit argument here? If people without guns do not want that advertised, then it must somehow be reasonable for people who claim guns deter home invasions to not want people to know they have guns? If so, how is that a logical argument as opposed to a wild, illogical leap to an unrelated conclusion?

I think his point, and this is why I didn't reply to his post, is that if they have their way, there would be no guns in any home, so displaying publicly that they have no guns would have the same effect: other people would know they don't have them. They may have refused to put up the sign for different reasons, mind you, but they probably don't want to look vulnerable, which is a tad ironic.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

we've established their intent is nebulous; read:inconsequential to the owner

Non sequitur and argument from ignorance. By "don't know" we don't mean "nothing to do with you".

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

It's not that, it's that when you do take it on yourself to do something, among so many options available why assume only the worst; so much so that you can kill or even overkill (if that word has any meaning) without any demonstrable (though assumed) threat to your life as if that's the only option.

Unfortunately you have been unconvincing about other options in the absense of more data. Remember that we are talking about a no-exit scenario.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

Do you even know how pepper spray works? It's not exactly the same as, say, a flash-bang grenade with an area radius effect. Pepper pray is sprayed out of an aerosol can, and away from the user. Unless you are pointing it the wrong way at yourself, you're not exactly going to be suffering from the effects the same as the person whom you are spraying.

Sure, you may get a *little bit* on you form the mist. But not exactly the full-force of the stuff like the intruder would get.

Thanks for the condescending response.

Yes, I know how pepper spray works...very well.

While in high school, on the bus ride home, a kid on the bus thought it would be a good idea to see what the spray smelled like, so he sprayed a quick little burst into the air.

Within seconds, no one on the bus could keep their eyes open. The driver had to pull over. We fumbled all the windows open and it was a good 15-20 minutes before the driver could see well enough to get us moving.

The kid was suspended for 4 days for that little bit of stupid.

Now, chances are good the sprayer recovers well before the sprayee, but don't just write it off like it's no big deal.

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

It's not that, it's that when you do take it on yourself to do something, among so many options available why assume only the worst; so much so that you can kill

Morally, it's because the criminal intrudar has forced the homeowner to make a fast, information-deficient, decision - with their life at stake. Given that this is a situation entirely of the criminals making, it seems only fair that they take the risk and we allow the homeowner to do what they feel is necessary to remain safe (within reasonable limits, i.e. advancing on you inside your house… not running away from you down your driveway).

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Even if there were some device that had some Star Trek phaser knockout ability that worked the first time every time I don't even think people would demand that be the primary defensive option.

Are you kidding? That sounds like an awesome defensive option!

Originally Posted by Lowpro

but damn if it seems like there's a lot more legal allowance for the homeowner to make the call to kill

Maybe that's because they are in their home, doing nothing wrong and a criminal intruder suddenly forces them to make a split-second high-stress decision, with poor information, with their life and their families lives on the line. The home invader is 100% responsible for the homeowner having to make that decision.

Originally Posted by Lowpro

I mean it goes back to what I said and I think you even quoted Giz "we prefer dead criminals to dead homeowners (as if either must die)". I'd prefer neither dead

Hey, I'd prefer neither dead too. And ponies for everyone too. But if it comes down to a choice then "I'd prefer a dead home invader to a dead homeowner", definitely.


May I make an observation. You appear to have a lot of symapthy/empathy with the home invader, and never once question that he may be morally responsible for his demise (having made a free choice to break into an occupied residence with who knows what intention). You never seem to really empathize with the resident, woken up at 3 am to find a figure approaching them and suddenly being forced to make a life or death decision. Why second guess (and hold responsible) the forced/rushed decision making of the resident while not criticizing the home invaders for their choices… it seems like they are to be pitied but not granted the recognition that they have agency too.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Agreed. However, they deserve some type of additional liability, since the grief that they caused is not just theirs.



Thank you Sir. And I agree 100%. It's just a matter of how far we're willing to compromise.



Absolutely, 100%, irritating as hell. Even some of the others are just as bad.
No compromise, F ya'll, deal with it seems to be the default position.

I'm not that guy. I have no problem with sensible, reasonable, gun control. I know myself, Sabretooth, and BStrong are almost of the same exact position.

I wish the NRA would stop fighting so much every little measure, and start thinking critically.

Believe me, I wish I wasn't a member of the NRA. But, the gun range I belong to is NRA sponsored (Rules, regulations, and insurance provided by the NRA) and as such, I am required to be an NRA member. I am also taking classes to be an NRA safety instructor, as I do like that side of the NRA. Education is HUGE when it comes to guns. But, I did the smart thing, and got another NRA to sponsor me, and got a lifetime membership for $300. So, I keep my NRA membership for life, and never have to pay them another dime.



I think if we saw more education of the public, specifically, gun safe use and the like, I think it would go a long way. Maybe even requiring them by law when you purchase your first firearm, or some other type law. I'm ok with that. Like you said with seatbelts. PR is HUGE.

And the only time you get a seat belt ticket, it's because someone observed you in public not obeying the law. No random stops, no random searches, for the most part. (I know some state law require another reason to stop someone other than a seat belt not being worn. Florida is not one of those states)

If there is a day when I am observed not using my safe, (through legal, legitimate means) then I should be issued a citation.



The state always has the burden of proof. If the state believed that I was violating the law, and had probable cause to search my home, and received a warrant from a judge, I would of course comply. However, to do random safe checks, nay nay.

I'm not sure the law could be enforced though. It may conflict with some law that I am not aware of.

From what I've read elsewhere, if you've kept the gun inside the home, out of immediate sight, you're usually safe from prosecution.







I don't understand what you mean?

I do keep a gun out at night. A gun, locked in my specific safe (the big one) is useless. Especially since it takes a fingerprint, and a code to get into. (I just found that feature today!!) In a sleepy daze, I doubt I'd be able to get into it fast enough. I also have a quick access one, if any of the kids' friends are over, or we've got company, to keep it safe. Especially if my kids' friends are over. They are not as well versed in gun handling and safety as my kids.

There are other times that I keep it locked up in the quick access safe though. Holidays, when I am drinking at home, those type of situations.

The ones hanging on the wall, like I said before (don't know if you saw that or not) is an older rifle, and one that is almost impossible to find ammo for. I don't even have any in the house, so the chances of someone firing that weapon any time soon, is almost impossible.



As secure as your house, at minimum. Certain situations call for different levels of security, as I elaborated on above.



Damn skippy! If you've got small children in the house, it had BETTER be locked away safe, and if you want one for SD and you require quick access, get a quick access safe. They're not that expensive, and are almost as quick as openly storing them.



No problem. Your posts have, as far as I have seen and recall, are reasonable and respectful.

Cheers Sir!!

Top post, reading that I feel silly that you and I argued so much before, I agree with all of what you have said there.

I do wish the good gun owners would try and take back the NRA and get the agenda of suitability and training to have a gun to the top of the list of action needed.

I think then real action will be possible.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Top post, reading that I feel silly that you and I argued so much before, I agree with all of what you have said there.

I do wish the good gun owners would try and take back the NRA and get the agenda of suitability and training to have a gun to the top of the list of action needed.

I think then real action will be possible.

It might even find ample support among the crumbling ruins of the GOP.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Lowpro

already done champ.

One limited case study =/= conclusive evidence. Supporting evidence, I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by Lowpro

Now the question becomes do you really want to discuss the nature of baseball bat violence?

Not really, as I know first hand the damage a baseball bat can do.

Originally Posted by Lowpro

{snipped} Just in case you want to unleash your inner Bear Jew.

Can you explain the "bear jew" thing? I don't understand.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

One limited case study =/= conclusive evidence. Supporting evidence, I'll give you that.



Not really, as I know first hand the damage a baseball bat can do.



Can you explain the "bear jew" thing? I don't understand.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0101641/

He was a character in Inglourious Basterds who killed Nazi prisoners with a Louisville Slugger.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

What exactly is your implicit argument here?

Is it that hard to follow the quoted posts?

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

If people without guns do not want that advertised, then it must somehow be reasonable for people who claim guns deter home invasions to not want people to know they have guns? If so, how is that a logical argument as opposed to a wild, illogical leap to an unrelated conclusion?

Who here said that? I know I certainly haven't.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Of course what they ought to do is put "No guns here!" signs on the houses that do have guns. Then the gun nuts could have fun playing pretend commando and lying in wait for dastardly home-invaders, and everyone else could relax (at least until one of the gun nuts panics and starts punching holes in the place).

Since nobody that I know, or even have heard about really, subscribes to that mindset, your conclusion is way off. Ignorance knows no bounds.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Sadly it's not actually that rare, I could have kept going with the URLs for a long time, though it is rather sad that people so often get to the point of being too drunk to recognise their own house.

Compared to the amount of drunk people that go home on a nightly basis, it's rare.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

True, though in a lot of cases the charges get dropped to misdemers of tresspass and criminal damage rather than burglary once everything is sorted out.

Sometimes, yes. It all just depends on that state's statutes and laws.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Which funnily enough is why there is a suggestion that it's a bad idea to see an intruder and start blazing away with lead.

I'd agree with that. I'll give someone chance to surrender or run. If someone takes another step towards me, all bets are off. If they do not either high tail it for the door, or immediately surrender and lay on their face, they're not going to like me very much.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you are locked in your bedroom and they kick down the bedroom door with a knife in their hand, go for it, but it seems that far too many people just see a shadow in the dark or a stranger and instead of trying to determine if there actually is a threat, or shouting a warning to get out, they just open fire.

I don't know if it's all that common, but I am certain it does happen. But, yes, it is good advice to make sure the threat, is actually a threat.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

To me it becomes a vicious circle. If burglers believe that they are going to get shot at, then they are more likely to carry a gun, as more burglers carry guns, more homeowners will fear that a intruder is armed and shoot....

Maybe the burglars should stop being criminals. I'm not going to disarm myself, to break the cycle. But, you're most likely right. I don't know though honestly.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Top post, reading that I feel silly that you and I argued so much before, I agree with all of what you have said there.

I do wish the good gun owners would try and take back the NRA and get the agenda of suitability and training to have a gun to the top of the list of action needed.

I think then real action will be possible.

Agreed.

I think there is a lot of room between "guns for all" and "repeal the 2nd Amendment". Sometimes we like to live on the fringes where our arguments are strongest, but less important. finding the place where our arguments can have impact takes a little bit of admitting that our positions aren't absolute.

I also think that most responsible gun owners would have no problem limiting gun ownership through reasonable means, if they were certain that it wasn't just some step towards taking all of the guns away. Measures such as universal background checks just shouldn't even be discussed anymore - implement them now.

The problem is that the NRA no longer represents the interests of responsible gun owners, it is driven by the gun manufacturers and dealers. And yet I'm willing to bet they provide one of the largest gun safety education programs in the country. That is hard to reconcile with their lobbying. Gun safety starts with respect for guns and an expectation that gun owners be responsible. The rest is just procedure.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

One limited case study =/= conclusive evidence. Supporting evidence, I'll give you that.

Right but it also works in the reverse. Before the study one could easily infer the same damage though from multiple sources of head trauma. It's just not easy to kill someone with a blunt object to the head with human power because it requires examination of impact force and stress which relate the the objects speed, weight shape etc etc. Given that understanding what would be more surprising is if the study found it any other way than what it did. Just food for thought. It's supporting evidence for a supported hypothesis. I would call it conclusive as most all these kinds of studies are never conclusive especially a case study.

Originally Posted by Triforcharity

Not really, as I know first hand the damage a baseball bat can do.



Can you explain the "bear jew" thing? I don't understand.

Oh that's from Inglourious Basterds

NSFW:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Xulld]

Quote:

I also think that most responsible gun owners would have no problem limiting gun ownership through reasonable means, if they were certain that it wasn't just some step towards taking all of the guns away. Measures such as universal background checks just shouldn't even be discussed anymore - implement them now.

Well then I need to be convinced that it is not just a way for universal registration.

I am reasonable. How would you do it?

Also this whole thing was sparked by the mass shooting. Is this just a coincidence or is there a causative factor involved with the proposed back ground checks?

ie, how would this stop anything? I mean criminals do not need get back ground checks to buy illegal drugs either . . yet they still get them.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Well then I need to be convinced that it is not just a way for universal registration.

Yes, all policy should be shaped by irrational paranoia. Really, do you complain that your truck has to be licensed and registered, how about your dog if you live in a city? (BTW, a dog is a far better deterrent if you are concerned about your home safety.)

But if you must, how about requiring a license to own a gun. Having a license will not require you to own a gun, but if you do not have a license you will not be allowed to buy guns, ammo, reloading equipment or supplies, etc. Also, selling the above to someone without a license would be illegal.

There, not universal registration. No need to register what guns you have or even if you own guns or where they are. That was pretty easy.

Quote:

I am reasonable. How would you do it?

I've not read all of your posts, but from the ones I have read I'm not certain we will even agree on the definition of reasonable. But, if you don't like the above, how about all gun sales must go through the current NICS system. Licensed dealers could charge a small fee to handle this for private sellers, like a notary public. Still no universal registration.

Quote:

Also this whole thing was sparked by the mass shooting. Is this just a coincidence or is there a causative factor involved with the proposed back ground checks?

I think Newtown was the straw that broke the camel's back. We had several mass shootings last year as well and finally we, as a people, were just shocked into recognizing that there are too many people who should not have guns in our country and yet there are no effective laws to prevent them from getting more and more guns.

Quote:

ie, how would this stop anything? I mean criminals do not need get back ground checks to buy illegal drugs either . . yet they still get them.

Make it harder for non-criminals to sell guns to criminals. Currently, if you deal a lot of guns privately you have little incentive to make sure you are not selling to felons, drug dealers, and whack jobs. That needs to change.

Frankly, universal registration of all firearms is the real way to deal with that, but paranoia will keep that off the table for some time. But hey, pot legalization is making headway and the BSA is considering gay members, so maybe we can move towards registering firearms to ensure that complete loons don't have guns.

I also support any move to promote responsible storage of firearms. What if Ms. Landa's firearms had been in a gun safe? That changes everything. Same with other mass shootings that started with a stolen gun. I would support a measure to limit gun owners to owning only as many guns as their safe could hold. No limit on the number of guns you can own, only that you have to have a spot in your safe(s) for each firearm. Really, are we going to let people say they are responsible gun owners if they can't even store their firearms adequately?