Second Amendment

[Apex]

I guess my point is that we Americans seem to have a Hollywood image of self defense. The reality is much harder to deal with.

All this talk about "arsenals", guns being toys, and penises, I can see your point about some people only having a Hollywood image of self defense. Thankfully all the people I personally know who own a firearm have no such delusions about how to properly handle, store, and use them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Currently the standard is that a reasonable person would agree. I can't fault that.

For a reasonable person, "threatening" covers a range: anything from "mildly troubling" to "immediate, inescapable threat to life if you don't take action this second", with increasing levels of threateningness warranting increasing level of response.

You suggested something different: an on/off switch where we go from "that guy's gun is none of your business" to "that guy is so threatening you need to shoot him right now" with no transition in between.

So where's YOUR line? The reasonable person test doesn't help us answer this question if you aren't being reasonable.

For instance, as a test case, take a scenario that once actually happened to me:

I walk into the restroom of a Burger King around midnight on a Saturday night. There's a large man standing at the sink. As I'm doing my business at the urinal, he starts to chat with me. He turns and I see that he's making a show of trimming his fingernails with a 12" Bowie knife. He's between me and the door so that I'll have to brush up against him if I want to leave. The restroom is small - everywhere in it is within one step of knife range if he chose to start stabbing or swinging.

Which do you think would have been appropriate in this situation?

- I should have minded my own business and not cared at all that I'm in a confined space with a guy who's armed and much larger than me, as trapped as he chooses to make me. Any concern is unfounded.

- I should've (if I had the presence of mind to have a handgun with me) shot him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do, which is why I edited me post for better accuracy.
(I must fix a lot of posting mistakes. Sometimes I'm too slow.)
You're just too quick for me!

A Gish Gallop is when a debater fires off so many claims that his opponent can't possibly respond to all of them in the allotted time. Besides not being applicable to online discussion forums (since there is no "allotted time" - you can take as long as you like to respond), I actually only asked one question. All the bullets (no pun intended ) were possible answers to choose from.

 

[Revoltingest]

You say that, but that subtle difference is how a lot of the violence we are dealing with happens. It usually gets written off as mental issues, and maybe it is, but it is often an anger over "place societal ideology here".

And I am not saying love it or leave it. I'm saying our democracy is the core of what the country is. You don't have to like everything it does, but not agreeing with the vote should never be grounds for violence. The only time I would be in favor of violence would be if our leaders set aside the democracy in favor of monarchy or totalitarianism. But we have never been in danger of that...

Setting aside our current government would be a momentous step with great risks.
Tis one I don't foresee happening in my lifetime. Things would have to be bad indeed.

 

[esmith]

I guess my point is that we Americans seem to have a Hollywood image of self defense. The reality is much harder to deal with.

Well, I think it all depends on the type of training one receives. Now your average firearms owner may have or have not attended a firearms safety course, then depending of whether they want a CCW permit attends your normal 1 day course that your local state may or may not require. Then there are those of us that go the extra mile and attend advanced training classes and continue to maintain our proficiency with our firearms. So, I guess it's where you fall in the commitment to oneself.

 

[Revoltingest]

A Gish Gallop is when a debater fires off so many claims that his opponent can't possibly respond to all of them in the allotted time. Besides not being applicable to online discussion forums (since there is no "allotted time" - you can take as long as you like to respond), I actually only asked one question. All the bullets (no pun intended ) were possible answers to choose from.

In this case, it was a bunch'o red herring questions.
I stand by the Gish Gallop remark (as edited).

 

[Underhill]

All this talk about "arsenals", guns being toys, and penises, I can see your point about some people only having a Hollywood image of self defense. Thankfully all the people I personally know who own a firearm have no such delusions about how to properly handle, store, and use them.

I have no idea about the people you know, but I know plenty of people who are delusional about using them on criminals. First, 99% of them won't ever have the opportunity to use them on a criminal. Second, of those who do, chances are very good the gun will be of limited value. When you add in the risk of accidents... keeping guns lying around in the event an intruder will break in while you are home and awake seems like a bad idea.

I have weighed the risk of keeping my guns out and ready to use, verses the odds of needing them, and come to the easy conclusion that keeping my guns locked up is the only sensible approach. If more people did the same, there wouldn't be nearly as many guns in the hands of criminals.

 

[esmith]

I have no idea about the people you know, but I know plenty of people who are delusional about using them on criminals. First, 99% of them won't ever have the opportunity to use them on a criminal. Second, of those who do, chances are very good the gun will be of limited value. When you add in the risk of accidents... keeping guns lying around in the event an intruder will break in while you are home and awake seems like a bad idea.

I have weighed the risk of keeping my guns out and ready to use, verses the odds of needing them, and come to the easy conclusion that keeping my guns locked up is the only sensible approach. If more people did the same, there wouldn't be nearly as many guns in the hands of criminals.

It all depends on your personal situation, for example who lives in your home and who are regular visitors.

 

[Underhill]

Well, I think it all depends on the type of training one receives. Now your average firearms owner may have or have not attended a firearms safety course, then depending of whether they want a CCW permit attends your normal 1 day course that your local state may or may not require. Then there are those of us that go the extra mile and attend advanced training classes and continue to maintain our proficiency with our firearms. So, I guess it's where you fall in the commitment to oneself.

No it really doesn't unless you are a hermit. Training yourself is all well and good. But are you going to make it mandatory for everyone who lives in your home? How about visitors? What about the potential thief when you aren't home... while I couldn't care less about their safety, they will certainly steal guns laying around.

I'm all for safe handling of firearms. I've assisted in teaching scouts these techniques for years. But safety courses or not, bad things happen. In my tiny town, we've had 3 incidences where kids, young kids, were shot or shot someone with a gun left unlocked or locked with a key laying around.

 

[esmith]

No it really doesn't unless you are a hermit. Training yourself is all well and good. But are you going to make it mandatory for everyone who lives in your home? How about visitors? What about the potential thief when you aren't home... while I couldn't care less about their safety, they will certainly steal guns laying around.

No, we are not hermits and there is only two of us and the only visitors that we have are adults. As far as potential thief, I guess I'm going to probably lose a shotgun.

 

[Revoltingest]

No it really doesn't unless you are a hermit. Training yourself is all well and good. But are you going to make it mandatory for everyone who lives in your home? How about visitors? What about the potential thief when you aren't home... while I couldn't care less about their safety, they will certainly steal guns laying around.

I'm all for safe handling of firearms. I've assisted in teaching scouts these techniques for years. But safety courses or not, bad things happen. In my tiny town, we've had 3 incidences where kids, young kids, were shot or shot someone with a gun left unlocked or locked with a key laying around.

Why presume the guns are just "lying around"?
;Instead of the false dichotomy of no guns at all vs guns scattered about, I keep mine in a convenient (but hidden) rapid access safe.
Life is about making intelligent compromises.
Guns are no exception.
Mine is accessible enuf, while being secure from improper use.

 

[Underhill]

Why presume the guns are just "lying around"?
;Instead of the false dichotomy of no guns at all vs guns scattered about, I keep mine in a convenient (but hidden) rapid access safe.
Life is about making intelligent compromises.
Guns are no exception.
Mine is accessible enuf, while being secure from improper use.

That has often been my suggestion (rapid access safes). But my experience is that very few people use them. Esmith's comments made me think he did not.

In my situation it isn't worth the cost. I live in the middle of nowhere. The only real crime is when some kids break into a camp or a new meth lab is busted up.

The only time I was nervous was when the 2 escaped cons were running around back in July (you may have seen it on the news). At one point the cops were searching within a couple miles of my house. At the time I was away with my family on vacation but my parents were house sitting. Now we know they were never within a hundred miles, but at the time, watching the search from a hotel room in Reno... it made me think.

 

[Revoltingest]

That has often been my suggestion (rapid access safes). But my experience is that very few people use them. Esmith's comments made me think he did not.

Given his advanced age (he personally knew Lincoln), it's likely he has no young'ns in his home.
Even a gun on a nite stand could be reasonable.

In my situation it isn't worth the cost. I live in the middle of nowhere. The only real crime is when some kids break into a camp or a new meth lab is busted up.
The only time I was nervous was when the 2 escaped cons were running around back in July (you may have seen it on the news). At one point the cops were searching within a couple miles of my house. At the time I was away with my family on vacation but my parents were house sitting. Now we know they were never within a hundred miles, but at the time, watching the search from a hotel room in Reno... it made me think.

Thinking is the best defense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why presume the guns are just "lying around"?
;Instead of the false dichotomy of no guns at all vs guns scattered about, I keep mine in a convenient (but hidden) rapid access safe.
Life is about making intelligent compromises.
Guns are no exception.
Mine is accessible enuf, while being secure from improper use.

At the same time, though, I've heard plenty of anti-gun-control people argue against making things like rapid access safes mandatory, since they're expensive (and could therefore stop poorer people from arming thrmselves legally). They seem to not only acknowledge that there are armed people without these sorts of safety measures, but argue that this *should* be the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

At the same time, though, I've heard plenty of anti-gun-control people argue against making things like rapid access safes mandatory, since they're expensive (and could therefore stop poorer people from arming thrmselves legally). They seem to not only acknowledge that there are armed people without these sorts of safety measures, but argue that this *should* be the case.

Odd....I don't see an <alert> for your quoting me.
I could'a missed your post.
Clean up yer act, RF!

Rapid access safes are cheap.
The NRA even sells my favorite at a heavily discounted price now & then.
I say safes are a reasonable requirement.

 

[esmith]

At the same time, though, I've heard plenty of anti-gun-control people argue against making things like rapid access safes mandatory, since they're expensive (and could therefore stop poorer people from arming thrmselves legally). They seem to not only acknowledge that there are armed people without these sorts of safety measures, but argue that this *should* be the case.

I see no reason why some people would not have a rapid access safe, while on the other hand I see no reason for someone to not utilize one. It all depends on their personal situation. If, I had the collection of firearms that I used to have, I would have a very large safe. Those firearms were expensive and some of them were almost irreplaceable except at now a ridiculous exorbitant price. What I don't want is the government, federal, state, or city, to tell me what I have to do when it comes to my pesonal firearms in my residence.

 

[esmith]

Given his advanced age (he personally knew Lincoln), it's likely he has no young'ns in his home.
Even a gun on a nite stand could be reasonable.

Thinking is the best defense.

Lincoln? Heck, I remember when William Wallace was just a glimmer in his father's eye.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I don't want is the government, federal, state, or city, to tell me what I have to do when it comes to my pesonal firearms in my residence.

Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. Unsecured firearms represent a risk to the community as a whole, and it's legitimate for a government to take steps to reduce or mitigate that risk, including imposing conditions on you.

It's also legitimate for the government to see to the safety of a person's family if the person doesn't see to it themselves.

Also, keep in mind that you're living in the country that banned Kinder Surprise eggs because of the risk they pose. This should give an indication of how little danger it takes for your society to treat something as too dangerous to allow.


... except for guns.

 

[Revoltingest]

This should give an indication of how little danger it takes for your society to treat something as too dangerous to allow.
... except for guns.

....& knives, car keys, liquor, clubs, Drano, & peanuts....you know, cuz they're allergenic.

 

[esmith]

Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. Unsecured firearms represent a risk to the community as a whole, and it's legitimate for a government to take steps to reduce or mitigate that risk, including imposing conditions on you.

It's also legitimate for the government to see to the safety of a person's family if the person doesn't see to it themselves.

Also, keep in mind that you're living in the country that banned Kinder Surprise eggs because of the risk they pose. This should give an indication of how little danger it takes for your society to treat something as too dangerous to allow.


... except for guns.

and your rights ends at my door.