[irrehoobe]

What I envision is more a system where you could still own an armory's worth of weaponry, it would just have to actually be stored at a certified secure armory. This idea that gun owners are just hapless victims in all of this who's rights are being trampled on is bullshit. You have a right to bare them, we have a right to make sure they are secure. I have 50 years of gun theft statistics that blatantly show this shrug shoulder attitude we have about a pane of glass being all the protection 30 assault rifles need just isn't working. Doing it your way is what has gotten us into this mess.

Cause storing your arms somewhere else will certainly protect you from a home invasion.

[StitlyDute]

Cause storing your arms somewhere else will certainly protect you from a home invasion.

5 guns at home is not enough for you? I contest if you need more guns than that for home protection, your effed either way.

[7UENf0w7]

Home invasions are freakishly uncommon. The media tends to overplay these stories, and you are as likely to be a victim of terrorism than perish in a bungled home invasion crime. .

[xqdrocherz]

Home invasions are freakishly uncommon. The media tends to overplay these stories, and you are as likely to be a victim terrorism than perish in a bungled home invasion crime. .

Half of the US population were victims of home invasion last year, my source is the amount of Budweiser sold in 2011.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

Zeddoo, I would agree that with the 'right' to bear arms there's also the responsability to keep them safe - many thousands have been killed accidentally, or in momentary anger, because of easy access fo firearms and, tragically, many of them have been children.

[Hrennilasi]

Zeddoo, I would agree that with the 'right' to bear arms there's also the responsability to keep them safe - many thousands have been killed accidentally, or in momentary anger, because of easy access fo firearms and, tragically, many of them have been children.

I would implement a law where if a legally owned gun is used in a crime or accident then the owner could be held as complicit if it is found by a court that the owner hasn't done enough to secure his weapon.

That would make anyone owning a gun hold onto it better.

Of course, a number of illegal guns are just legal ones with their serial number scratched off.

[CurtisTH]

I'd buy more guns if they MADE THEM FOR LEFTIES. I'm currently torn between a Gen4 Glock 19 or a Stag Arms 3L. Finding a rifle designed for lefties is hard.

Steyr Aug can be had with an action for lefties

[Alex]

Home invasions are freakishly uncommon. The media tends to overplay these stories, and you are as likely to be a victim of terrorism than perish in a bungled home invasion crime. .

Considering that there is no data available about the total number of home invasions, I'm going to assume you just pulled that out of your ass.

Also, I like how you qualified this as "perish in a bungled home invasion". How about "be the victim of a home invasion", because maybe it's successful and they take all your stuff and rape your wife but don't kill you. Is that still ok by your standards, as long as you haven't "perished" in a "bungled" one?

[shanice]

Considering that there is no data available about the total number of home invasions, I'm going to assume you just pulled that out of your ass.

Also, I like how you qualified this as "perish in a bungled home invasion". How about "be the victim of a home invasion", because maybe it's successful and they take all your stuff and rape your wife but don't kill you. Is that still ok by your standards, as long as you haven't "perished" in a "bungled" one?

Thank you for proving my point. Do you have any evidence that there is any likelihood that you will ever experience a home invasion? No? Then your argument is purely emotive. There are enough unforeseeable actual threats to your family's health and fortunes that you don't need to worry about imaginary ones.

Home invasions are so rare the FBI doesn't even bother to track them. Most homicides are drug-related or crimes of passion, and most rapes are date-rape.

But why stop at rape? What about torture? Why, right now there could be someone planning to break into your apartment to tickle you to death! The human mind can concoct any number of conceivable horror scenarios. It's normal to think about them, but to take them seriously is a sign of paranoia (the underlying cause is usually childhood trauma like, say, being harassed by a group of ultra-nationalists).

That said, I support gun rights. You should do whatever you think is necessary to protect your family. Just don't think that owning a gun gives you anything more than a false sense of security against a crime that you will almost certainly never experience.

[accelieda]

Thank you for proving my point. Do you have any evidence that there is any likelihood that you will ever experience a home invasion? No? Then your argument is purely emotive. There are enough unforeseeable actual threats to your family's health and fortunes that you don't need to worry about imaginary ones.

Home invasions are so rare the FBI doesn't even bother to track them. Most homicides are drug-related or crimes of passion, and most rapes are date-rape.

But why stop at rape? What about torture? Why, right now there could be someone planning to break into your apartment to tickle you to death! The human mind can concoct any number of conceivable horror scenarios. It's normal to think about them, but to take them seriously is a sign of paranoia (the underlying cause is usually childhood trauma like, say, being harassed by a group of ultra-nationalists).

That said, I support gun rights. You should do whatever you think is necessary to protect your family. Just don't think that owning a gun gives you anything more than a false sense of security against a crime that you will almost certainly never experience.

There are tens of thousands of cases a year where people successfully defend themselves with a firearm... in most cases, without firing a shot.

[PPActionnGuys]

T
Home invasions are so rare the FBI doesn't even bother to track them. Most homicides are drug-related .

This is true! 70% of murders here in detroit are drug related!

[JorgiOLusinio]

There are tens of thousands of cases a year where people successfully defend themselves with a firearm... in most cases, without firing a shot.

But then you have to off set that with the tens of thousands of accidental firearm incidents every year. And then having to lock up your weapon in one room reduces its effectiveness for protection, especially if you live in a large classic six apartment as I do.

I live in Hamilton Heights. I am surrounded by lots of poor people who would like nothing more than to steal my ipod. But if I'm going to be assaulted, it's going to be walking home from the subway late at night. There's nothing I can do about it. It's just one of the drawbacks of being a first-wave gentrifier--that and having to walk 5 blocks to get a decent latte.

[Hinigyday]

But then you have to off set that with the tens of thousands of accidental firearm incidents every year.

Out of those little more than a handful are real accidents, the rest are people being careless. If you follow the three basic rules of gun handling, there'd have to be some serious accident for anyone to get hurt:

1. every gun is loaded, always
2. don't point your loaded gun at anything you are not intending to shoot. if your gun is not loaded, see rule 1.
3. don't put your finger on the trigger unless you are going to shoot whatever is in front of the gun

[Kolovorotkes]

Home invasions are so rare the FBI doesn't even bother to track them. Most homicides are drug-related or crimes of passion, and most rapes are date-rape.

They get charged with rape, assault, etc. If someone breaks into your house and rapes you they're going to be charged with rape and that's all anyone is going to care about.

Where I used to live I knew a few cops and ex-cops. The topic had come up a few times, because I live in rednecksville where people own guns and drive trucks. It wasn't all that uncommon. Domestic violence that involves a drunk ex or current boyfriend breaking in, robbery, rape, etc.

Guess it also depends where you live. In rural areas it's much easier to sneak around at night. We don't have large apartment complexes and lots of people out at night. I could head out at 2 A.M. and be the only person around. Maybe head to walmart and see 2-3 other cars the whole drive.

So maybe your logic holds true where you live, but where I live I'd prefer to have a gun because in the event it does happen I'm completely alone and royally screwed without one. Plus target practice is fun.

[BGThomasis]

Out of those little more than a handful are real accidents, the rest are people being careless. If you follow the three basic rules of gun handling, there'd have to be some serious accident for anyone to get hurt:

1. every gun is loaded, always
2. don't point your loaded gun at anything you are not intending to shoot. if your gun is not loaded, see rule 1.
3. don't put your finger on the trigger unless you are going to shoot whatever is in front of the gun

I'd like you to define your interpretation of "accidents" and "being careless" - to me they're about the same thing.

The three 'laws' are much as I've been taught but I'd add a fourth

4. Never threaten to use, or even reveal, a firearm unless you KNOW you're prepared to use it - if you aren't, there's a good chance it'll be used against you or, at least, anger the other party.

[furious1]

So maybe your logic holds true where you live, but where I live I'd prefer to have a gun because in the event it does happen I'm completely alone and royally screwed without one. Plus target practice is fun.

That brings us to the initial point that while gun ownership and rights may be justified and better for the citizens. Arsenals of automatic weapons and thousands of rounds are not.

Out of those little more than a handful are real accidents, the rest are people being careless. If you follow the three basic rules of gun handling, there'd have to be some serious accident for anyone to get hurt:

1. every gun is loaded, always
2. don't point your loaded gun at anything you are not intending to shoot. if your gun is not loaded, see rule 1.
3. don't put your finger on the trigger unless you are going to shoot whatever is in front of the gun

Aren't accidents usually the result of people being careless ?

The only real accidents which you are talking about would be instances where a gun fired on it's own due to malfunction or the gun is hit hard enough for the firing pin to fire, this rarely ever happens.



Also, your bulletproof guidelines are just rules which apparently thousands of people fail to follow yearly.


A significant number of guns used in crimes are sometimes also legal guns which are either borrowed, stolen, given by friend etc.



I'm not saying that they're all legal but certainly enough to prove the point that while legal guns might be used to thwart crimes they are also used to commit crimes and quite a lot are stolen from actual legal owners.

[Pharmadryg]

That brings us to the initial point that while gun ownership and rights may be justified and better for the citizens. Arsenals of automatic weapons and thousands of rounds are not.

It's not the kind of slippery slope you want to go down. With every subsequent politician, those "reasonable" limits would go down. You don't need to ban guns to ban guns. You can just regulate them out of existence.

Also, your bulletproof guidelines are just rules which apparently thousands of people fail to follow yearly.

People have trouble following traffic rules and get into accidents that kill tens of thousands each year. Yet we don't ban driving or owning a car.

I'm not saying that they're all legal but certainly enough to prove the point that while legal guns might be used to thwart crimes they are also used to commit crimes and quite a lot are stolen from actual legal owners.

However, if you look at the number of legal gun owners convicted for a violent crime that they used their legal gun for, that number is actually laughably small.

Statistics is a dangerous tool that should really only be employed by those qualified to interpret it.

Consider that the data you provided used federal data (which is a tiny sample of all crimes), and did not specify whether those firearms were actually used in the commission of the crime the inmates were convicted of.

[spapsinee]

It's not the kind of slippery slope you want to go down. With every subsequent politician, those "reasonable" limits would go down. You don't need to ban guns to ban guns. You can just regulate them out of existence.

We're essentially on the same page here, but I am compelled to point out that "slippery slope" arguments, in nearly every case, are fallacious. To take just a recent example, the arguments of opponents of euthanasia that claimed it would lead to a rash of medical killings inevitably proved to be bunk.

Let's stop drinking from the NRA cool-aid for a moment and acknowledge that assault weapons/ammo can be regulated without jeopardizing the 2nd Amendment.

[NvrNoNowX]

Let's stop drinking from the NRA cool-aid for a moment and acknowledge that assault weapons/ammo can be regulated without jeopardizing the 2nd Amendment.

Everyone gets an army assault rifle here and sale of ammunition is not regulated, and all that happens is that more people commit suicde with guns instead of other methods.


So what exactly is that regulation supposed to accomplish except to pave the way for more regulation (and costing money)?

[11Pecepebra]

We're essentially on the same page here, but I am compelled to point out that "slippery slope" arguments, in nearly every case, are fallacious. To take just a recent example, the arguments of opponents of euthanasia that claimed it would lead to a rash of medical killings inevitably proved to be bunk.

Let's stop drinking from the NRA cool-aid for a moment and acknowledge that assault weapons/ammo can be regulated without jeopardizing the 2nd Amendment.

My judgment was based on history of regulating literally anything by the government. The reality is that we have people who are paid to write laws. The inevitable consequence of that is that every day there are more laws than the day before. Short of fluctuations in highly some highly contended areas, such as some aspects of the financial realm, fluctuations heavily mediated by bribes (let's call them what they are), the trend has been inevitably for MORE regulation rather than less.

With regards to firearms, we can use nearly any other country or even US states and cities as an example of how going down the path of detailed regulation leads to little more than more regulation. Ultimately, crime trends are largely concomitant across the US, over the last 50 years, moderated by population dynamics and local economics, but really little else.