Guns in the House

[need2cruise]

Uh, I think you must have missed most of the thread, because this has already been covered earlier. Guns have several unique aspects, that among them being the that gunshots can be fatal, and that the fatality can be caused at a substantial distance. Those are special circumstances.

Please try to understand what those who disagree with you are saying, rather than just dismissing it derisively.

Regardless, knives aren't anywhere near as fatal at substantial distances, so the need to worry about knives is much less. Fire, I believe, is at least part of the context of the inspections that my DPW conducted. Homemade explosives haven't killed anywhere near as many people, in recent years, as irresponsibly stored handguns, so again, the need to worry is much less.

Staying true to our Constitution includes passing such a law - it is up to us, collectively, to decide, for each period of time, whether or not to do so. It isn't an absolute, unqualified, unequivocal right. Like most rights, it is conditional, qualified, and equivocal - balanced up against other, similarly defensible rights. Again, that's the point I've been making. So many people are so quick to assume that whatever they want - whatever they feel entitled to - must therefore be theirs. It's just not true. It's a fiction many folks tell themselves to fuel unreasonable outrage when that which reasonable and due process has determined serves the common interest best runs against their own personal interest.

Including giving us the power to pass laws, such as what we're discussing. You can't have it both ways. Either what we've been doing for the last 200 years - i.e., growing, changing, adjusting, adapting, modifying, etc. - is good, or it isn't good.

I think you're way off-base, on several levels. Ask yourself something: Do you continually find yourself shocked at how society changes over time, how laws change over time to reflect challenges our nation faces? If so, then perhaps the problem is that you're only considering the parts of the Constitution you like, and not the parts of the Constitution that lead to and/or support the changes that you don't like. That kind of view is bound to result in anger, frustration, etc., because it runs counter to what will happen.

If you take away guns, people will start using other modes for harm. Criminals will still obtain their guns as well. I don't know why this point is so hard to comprehend?

As for all these laws that have been changed and rewritten. Maybe YOUR perception is that its for the better. I do not see it that way. I see a country that is rapidly going downhill as a result of all these new laws. Our government took the power of being able to create laws and decided to use it for their gain, not for the gain of making the country better. The Constitution gave us the power to make laws, but it was not intended for these "laws" to start taking away fundamental rights. We have crossed that line and thats where the downfall began. I'm not sure what "rights" you are referring to as being conditional but the fundamental rights as set forth in the Constitional were not meant to be "conditional" but rather as our guaranteed rights. The rights in our Constitution are very basic rights for all humans.

 

[need2cruise]

I wish I had more time to sit and talk with you about this. You have some good view points and I've enjoyed talking to you! But I need to step away for a bit, so I'll catch up later!

 

[bicker]

If you take away guns, people will start using other modes for harm.

You mean people simply are compelled to harm others accidentally, as in the case of the OP? You're not making any sense.

Criminals will still obtain their guns as well.

Nothing I've been talking about has anything to do with criminals.

I don't know why this point is so hard to comprehend?

I think because you're trying to make a point that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread. Either that or because you're not willing to grant that reasonable people could disagree with your perspective. I'd readily grant as a valid perspective someone feeling that their desire to have a gun, and not have to demonstrate that they're storing it responsibly, should override their neighbor's right to safety. I'd disagree with what they claim, and I'd say that it shouldn't prevail, but I can grant that it is a legitimate perspective. Can you do the same, for the perspective posted that you disagree with? That'll go far towards helping you understand why your question, here, is off-target.

As for all these laws that have been changed and rewritten. Maybe YOUR perception is that its for the better. I do not see it that way.

You mean that you feel that we shouldn't have ever abolished slavery?

I see a country that is rapidly going downhill as a result of all these new laws.

And other people probably feel that those very same laws are the only things that have kept our country from totally collapsing. You can't prove you're right and they're wrong. Most likely, neither extreme is correct. It's just the natural process of a pluralistic society - meaning that reasonable people disagree. If you really think you're always going to get your own way, you're in for a very very rude awakening. You live in a society with other people, and so how things are is going to reflect a consensus view of how things should be, not your own personal vision.

 

[need2cruise]

You mean people simply are compelled to harm others accidentally, as in the case of the OP? You're not making any sense.

Nothing I've been talking about has anything to do with criminals.

I think because you're trying to make a point that has nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread. Either that or because you're not willing to grant that reasonable people could disagree with your perspective. I'd readily grant as a valid perspective someone feeling that their desire to have a gun, and not have to demonstrate that they're storing it responsibly, should override their neighbor's right to safety. I'd disagree with what they claim, and I'd say that it shouldn't prevail, but I can grant that it is a legitimate perspective. Can you do the same, for the perspective posted that you disagree with? That'll go far towards helping you understand why your question, here, is off-target.

You mean that you feel that we shouldn't have ever abolished slavery?

And other people probably feel that those very same laws are the only things that have kept our country from totally collapsing. You can't prove you're right and they're wrong. Most likely, neither extreme is correct. It's just the natural process of a pluralistic society - meaning that reasonable people disagree. If you really think you're always going to get your own way, you're in for a very very rude awakening. You live in a society with other people, and so how things are is going to reflect a consensus view of how things should be, not your own personal vision.

I'm making a point on gun control in general-which is the topic of this conversation. If your neighbors want to own guns for protection, that's their right, if they want to own them for hunting, thats their right, if they want to own them just because, thats their right. Who cares if you don't like it or are worried about it. I'm sure there are others who worry about things you have or currently do but are not out to take your rights away to do those things.

I do grant that reasonable people can disagree with my perspective. I'm not trying to change your perspective, I'm just pointing out my perspectives on your perspectives, the same thing you are doing.

Slavery wasn't written into the Constitution. You won't find that word in there. It was people changing the context of the Constitution to fit their whims and what it meant. It was written as "We the People". "The People" are the ones who decided to change it a bit to fit their cause.

And I never try to push my way. I'm only defending my rights as they stand currently, which I'm allowed to defend. You're trying to push your way to take away these rights. So you have that a bit backwards. The laws we have created do not get passed as consensus of the whole, but rather what lobbyists are pulling which strings. To think otherwise is being an osterich and burying your head to what is really going on around us.

 

[Colleen27]

I made that point before.... we do random body searches of persons. We already do. And "persons" is listed before houses. What the heck makes you think that that passage allows searches of "persons" (which we know happens) but doesn't allow searches of "houses"? Think about it.

We don't allow searches of "persons" without either consent or probable cause, and there is absolutely no precedent for requiring individuals to waive/forfeit one Constitutional right in order to exercise another. I'm not so naive as to think it could never happen, but at this point in time I don't believe it would stand up to judicial review.

 

[bellebud]

ok, back to kids and guns for a moment.

We have a couple (few) guns, we have a couple of kids. our guns are locked up. DS started w/ a bb gun at 6yo in the yard with dh. Then onto an air rifle at the shooting range w/ dh. DS9 just got a 22 for xmas. Locked up, only taken to the range w/ dh.

DS is learning all the safety rules of guns, just like my dh did (dh's dad was a detective and had his gun simply in his underwear drawer at home - which gives me the chills when I think about it).

Onto my ds... I'd so much rather him learn how to use a gun, safely, with his dad, at a youngish age. If he goes to a house where there's a gun that is not properly locked away, there will be no "WOW! look at that!" factor, and hopefully he'll even have a frame of mind to understand the severity of it and not allow a friend to "show" him the gun, etc. THAT's how kids often die of gunshot wounds.

I'd be all for the parents having to take a class when they purchase guns regarding child safety, locking up safety, having them sign something that they are 100% responsible for their child's actions with those guns, etc. I'd also be for the parents having to repeat the class every x-amount of time (every year, every 2 years???). I think some idiots can be educated (and yes, I'm being mean here - these parents are clearly idiots and caused all of this). We can have some safety controls in place to 'help' (it won't solve everything of course) without taking people's rights away. There will always be some idiots who don't think they need to be careful... but if these yahoos are made to take classes, sign something, etc, it may help some of them realize the severity of the situation of having guns and kids together. Maybe all kids in the household even have to take a kid class too, periodically.

I liken it to dh teaching ds to ride his 4-wheeler. I have a friend who will not allow her ds12 to ever ride a 4-wheeler. He very well may go to a friends house someday who has a 4-wheeler, the excitement and novelty of it will take over, he'll get on it and get hurt, having no idea what he's doing. I'd rather my ds know what he's doing on it, and it be no big deal to him either. Of course none of this guarantees my ds won't ever get hurt just being a curious, non-thinking kid at some point, but I'd like to lessen the chances.

And I forgot to hit the quote button, but Bicker, you stated "you mean people are simply compelled to harm others accidentally, as in the case of the OP"... I don't see in any way, shape or form how the OP article was an accident. That gun did not go off while cleaning it, dropping it, etc... it was pointed at the mothers head and shot, correct? That's NOT an accident. Please correct me if I misread what you meant there - as I'm sure you will

 

[Magpie]

Personally - with regards to home protection - I'd rather have a big dog than a gun. A gun can't wake you up in the middle of the night and tell you that someone's trying to break into your home. And a dog is always ready for action and can't be turned against you.

If anything ever happens to my husband, the first thing I'm doing is buying a bigger dog (my little one is only useful as a substitute for a broken doorbell).

Living with lots of people is another great way to stay safe (assuming you trust them)!

 

[need2cruise]

bellebud--you hit the nail on the head with the education part. That is what is missing in the whole scenrio. Parents need to teach their children about guns--whether they own them or not. Kids are brought up today with a misconception on guns. All they know is what they see in their video games or tv shows. Parent's do not take the time to sit down and talk to their kids about guns and the safety around them. Instead, they push the topic under the rug and fail to talk to them. Education to the power of guns, the after math of what a gun can do and the safety of them is what will stop the accidental shootings. However, nothing will stop someone who is bent on harming another individual.

And the pp--a big dog may alert you someone is coming in, but what about once they are in the house? How do you protect yourself then if the dog doesn't or gets killed by the intruder? My dog is there for alert purposes, but I want to be able to protect myself too. Police can take up to 10-15 minutes to respond when you live out in the country (sometimes even in the city if they are tied up with other calls). They will be called, but I rely on myself for my own protection!

 

[Hercules10]

Screw those little guns. I want a flame-thrower...and a bazooka. When is the next gun-show!?

 

[bellebud]

Personally - with regards to home protection - I'd rather have a big dog than a gun. A gun can't wake you up in the middle of the night and tell you that someone's trying to break into your home. And a dog is always ready for action and can't be turned against you.

If anything ever happens to my husband, the first thing I'm doing is buying a bigger dog (my little one is only useful as a substitute for a broken doorbell).

Living with lots of people is another great way to stay safe (assuming you trust them)!

I love having dogs for this reason (and they lovies they give too of course ).

We have 2 80lb dogs... I feel very safe with them, and their barking also alerts us, allowing my dh to grab his gun if need be.

I LOL at your line of your little one being a substitute for a broken doorbell - that's adorable (and true!)

 

[tonilea]

The answer is obvious. No guns in homes with small children. Also I think 10+ guns in a home is a bit extreme.. it sounds like a militia.

LOL! We must have an arsenal!

Seriously, banning gun ownership would be about as effective as Prohibition. Guns and booze are not the real problems and never have been. It is irresponsible use and storage.

 

[PrincessKsMom]

bellebud--you hit the nail on the head with the education part. That is what is missing in the whole scenrio. Parents need to teach their children about guns--whether they own them or not. Kids are brought up today with a misconception on guns. All they know is what they see in their video games or tv shows. Parent's do not take the time to sit down and talk to their kids about guns and the safety around them. Instead, they push the topic under the rug and fail to talk to them. Education to the power of guns, the after math of what a gun can do and the safety of them is what will stop the accidental shootings. However, nothing will stop someone who is bent on harming another individual.

And the pp--a big dog may alert you someone is coming in, but what about once they are in the house? How do you protect yourself then if the dog doesn't or gets killed by the intruder? My dog is there for alert purposes, but I want to be able to protect myself too. Police can take up to 10-15 minutes to respond when you live out in the country (sometimes even in the city if they are tied up with other calls). They will be called, but I rely on myself for my own protection!

Funny how I not only agree with parents teaching their children gun safety, but I find it amusing how you skipped over the part of the gun owners having to be educated as well. I agree with that PP that gun owners should have to take classes as well. They should be made to take responsibility for their guns, usage, storage and family members. Right now anyone can be handed a gun at a gun show, no background check or class needed.

As for the dog, I would think most B&Es are avoided when the criminal hears the dogs. Again, not all, but most. Who wants to take a chance of tangling with a dog, which might give the owner time to get their gun?

I also find it amusing that not one person comments on my article I attached earlier. Everyone is all for blaming the kid and his family in the original article for being idiots, but no one commented on the child of a police officer who shot his Principal and Vice Principal in Omaha, before killing himself. Where's the outrage that he was able to get his hands on the gun? Why isn't his father an idiot?

 

[bellebud]

Screw those little guns. I want a flame-thrower...and a bazooka. When is the next gun-show!?

 

[Magpie]

And the pp--a big dog may alert you someone is coming in, but what about once they are in the house? How do you protect yourself then if the dog doesn't or gets killed by the intruder? My dog is there for alert purposes, but I want to be able to protect myself too. Police can take up to 10-15 minutes to respond when you live out in the country (sometimes even in the city if they are tied up with other calls). They will be called, but I rely on myself for my own protection!

I'm honestly not much worried - we live right in town, and in a frequently patrolled neighbourhood, so the police are literally seconds away. They'd get here faster than I could assemble a properly secured and locked gun. Not to mention, in our town, owning a gun immediately makes you a target for thieves.

The big debate locally is over whether or not to lock our doors, not whether we should have a gun in the house. I don't actually know anyone who owns a gun. My FIL (who lived in the country and was a hunter) used to have a couple rifles he kept disassembled in a safe, but he died some ten years ago and his guns were sold. My MIL didn't want to risk someone breaking into her house to steal them.

My town has a murder rate of approximately 1 per 100,000 people and they're usually domestic in nature, and involve knives. Sometimes there's a bar fight between strangers. There's a rash of burglaries going on right now, but the way they work is the robbers look for empty houses in the middle of the day and then they knock on the door to ensure no one is home. A couple times in the last fifteen years I'm pretty sure I've caught people casing our house, but we have so many folks living here the house is never empty. Maybe twice a year we all go out together. And then dog freaks, because she's not used to her humans leaving!

Once the cops chased a drug dealer into our back yard... that was as much excitement as we've ever seen. The kids slept right through all the commotion and flashing lights.

 

[bellebud]

As for the dog, I would think most B&Es are avoided when the criminal hears the dogs. Again, not all, but most. Who wants to take a chance of tangling with a dog, which might give the owner time to get their gun?

I also find it amusing that not one person comments on my article I attached earlier. Everyone is all for blaming the kid and his family in the original article for being idiots, but no one commented on the child of a police officer who shot his Principal and Vice Principal in Omaha, before killing himself. Where's the outrage that he was able to get his hands on the gun? Why isn't his father an idiot?

Also on the dogs... I love having (and will always have) 2 large dogs. 2 dogs are seriously no more work than having 1 dog, and in many ways less work (they entertain each other, and us, a whole lot!) OK, the once a year vet visit - but I bring them both at the same time. I have 2 bowls of food I have to fill instead of 1, and I open the door to let them out for 1 second longer for the 2nd dog to go through (actually we have a doggie door, so this doesn't really apply to me usually). Just food for thought... I think someone hearing 2 loud barking dogs inside a house would really rethink their intentions ("ok, I can tangle w/ one dog, but 2??")

And I don't have all the facts on the school shooting, but if the dad is an officer, and didn't have his gun locked away from his kid, that dad IS a total idiot and should be held 100% accountable for his sons actions. My dh often comments on how he notices that police officers are sometimes the worst offenders of NOT locking up their guns properly (his own dad didn't). Maybe they get SO comfortable with them, it's just not on the forefront of their minds - I don't know. But it's not ok!

 

[bicker]

I'm making a point on gun control in general-which is the topic of this conversation.

Well, no, not exclusively, and more specifically, the comments you were replying to said nothing about people not being able to have guns - not at all.

If your neighbors want to own guns for protection, that's their right

Correct, but the point is that practically no rights are absolute, unconditional and unequivocal. You may want it to be that way - or more likely, want it to be that way for this specific issue, but probably not for several others - but, either way, it just simply isn't the case.

Who cares if you don't like it or are worried about it.

I'm sure you realize that people have the right to be safe (not to mention the right to be worried). So your question is off-target.

I do grant that reasonable people can disagree with my perspective. I'm not trying to change your perspective, I'm just pointing out my perspectives on your perspectives, the same thing you are doing.

Uh, no. I'm saying that the law could go either way. You're saying that the law must be the way you want it. See the difference now?

 

[bicker]

We don't allow searches of "persons" without either consent or probable cause

First, consent can be a condition of gun registration, and gun registration a condition of gun possession and/or ownership. Second, we do randomly search people without probable cause. Again, it is a matter of consent; you're subject to search if you consent, explicitly or implicitly, to certain things. And there is no reason why registering a gun cannot be one of those things.

 

[SaraJayne]

I'm honestly not much worried - we live right in town, and in a frequently patrolled neighbourhood, so the police are literally seconds away. They'd get here faster than I could assemble a properly secured and locked gun. Not to mention, in our town, owning a gun immediately makes you a target for thieves.

The big debate locally is over whether or not to lock our doors, not whether we should have a gun in the house. I don't actually know anyone who owns a gun. My FIL (who lived in the country and was a hunter) used to have a couple rifles he kept disassembled in a safe, but he died some ten years ago and his guns were sold. My MIL didn't want to risk someone breaking into her house to steal them.

My town has a murder rate of approximately 1 per 100,000 people and they're usually domestic in nature, and involve knives. Sometimes there's a bar fight between strangers. There's a rash of burglaries going on right now, but the way they work is the robbers look for empty houses in the middle of the day and then they knock on the door to ensure no one is home. A couple times in the last fifteen years I'm pretty sure I've caught people casing our house, but we have so many folks living here the house is never empty. Maybe twice a year we all go out together. And then dog freaks, because she's not used to her humans leaving!

Once the cops chased a drug dealer into our back yard... that was as much excitement as we've ever seen. The kids slept right through all the commotion and flashing lights.

To be fair, the Canadian viewpoint on guns is very different than the American one.

 

[Magpie]

To be fair, the Canadian viewpoint on guns is very different than the American one.

Very true!

 

[Planogirl]

First, consent can be a condition of gun registration, and gun registration a condition of gun possession and/or ownership. Second, we do randomly search people without probable cause. Again, it is a matter of consent; you're subject to search if you consent, explicitly or implicitly, to certain things. And there is no reason why registering a gun cannot be one of those things.

Bicker, in some of your posts you sound very much like you believe that any right can be taken away and that those we have are only there for the time being contingent on the authorities. I have no firm convictions one way or the other when it comes to gun ownership but I do believe that our system of government and the documents that set up that same government do guarantee us certain rights. I don't think that the authorities can do whatever they wish but perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comments.