Gun Related News/Control

[Larry]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

Is a Lojack type device possible for guns?  

 

REALLY doubt it.  

 

Now, I will say?  I really support gun registration.  

 

I want the cops, when a gun is used in a crime, to be able to type a serial number into the car's computer, and see the name and address of the owner.  Or, if it's been stolen, the last legal owner.  

 

If the gun's been "stolen"?  Then I want the victims of (whatever crime) to be able to sue the "responsible gun owner" who didn't secure it.  

 

To, you know, make him a responsible gun owner.  

[tshile]

56 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Arming teachers is nothing more than an admission that we won't even try to solve the problem itself. 

Of course it is. 
 

that’s why it’s at the bottom of my list in the “in absence of other ideas” section. 

11 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah.  I like the idea of a magical device that poses zero time delay to the owner, and cannot be defeated by anybody else.  

 

Don't believe for a moment that either of those goals can be met.  

 

How long does it take to unlock your smart phone?  Do you want your home defense weapon to take as long?  

 

it takes no time to unlock my iPhone or MacBooks. 
 

im worried about the reliability part

 

and of course skeptical of the security benefit

 

When I sort my list of ideas by how good they are, there’s a lot on the list before this one. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by tshile

[tshile]

Further complicating the issue is that in the tech world (not that it’s unique to anything else but certainly very prevalent) it’s very common for something new to do well in testing and demonstration, and not do too well in real world application. 
 

reliability ratings based on testing isn’t really useful. It would take years of real world data to know for sure the reliability of it (both in working for the correct person, and not working for the incorrect person)

 

it is one of the more convoluted ideas, with a lot of wishful thinking and pie in the sky inspired by movies and TV shows going on. 
 

and even if it works flawlessly you’re a decade+ before it represents sizable market share to start showing impact. 
 

not to mention the issue of SCOTUS approving and republicans fighting; couples with state by state vs federal law issues. 
 

it’s an idea that sounds nice in theory but practically sounds like a bad idea to me. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

To those reacting to my post, my BIL keeps his guns locked up.  He does keep one loaded in a in a night stand safe though.  I made the comment more to show how far I went because I was nervous having kids around.

[mcsluggo]

On 5/17/2023 at 10:25 AM, China said:

1-year-old boy will be OK after he was accidentally shot by 4-year-old brother, HCSO deputies say

 

A 1-year-old boy is expected to be OK after authorities said he was unintentionally shot by his 4-year-old brother.

 

At about 4 p.m. Tuesday, Harris County sheriff's deputies responded to a weapon disturbance call in the 17100 block of Sunshine Street after reports that the preschooler allegedly shot his sibling.

 

The children's father told Eyewitness News that the 4-year-old likes to play with toy guns and likely did not realize he found a real one that could hurt his brother. The father did not want to appear on camera but was visibly angry that an adult left a loaded gun out around his children.

 

Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said the toddler was immediately taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

 

A 7-year-old girl was also inside the home at the time of the shooting, but she was not injured.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

 

 

On 5/17/2023 at 10:36 AM, Ball Security said:

Probably wouldn’t have happened if we let the one year old have a gun.

 

 

 

c'mon,   that is just stupid.

 

 

clearly the 7 year old is the weak link in this story.  if we had just armed HER, then we'd've had a "good guy with a gun" to take down the 4 year old before he could cause any harm.   

Its math, stupid:   Do your own research

Edited May 23, 2023 by mcsluggo

[purbeast]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

To those reacting to my post, my BIL keeps his guns locked up.  He does keep one loaded in a in a night stand safe though.  I made the comment more to show how far I went because I was nervous having kids around.

LOL.

 

I just find it odd that people feel the need to do stuff like the bolded.

 

I am 41 years old and I've never known one person in my entire life who has ever had a need to use a gun for self defense in the middle of the night.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but mass shootings seem to be more common than people having to shoot intruders breaking into their house in the middle of the night.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, purbeast said:

LOL.

 

I just find it odd that people feel the need to do stuff like the bolded.

 

I am 41 years old and I've never known one person in my entire life who has ever had a need to use a gun for self defense in the middle of the night.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but mass shootings seem to be more common than people having to shoot intruders breaking into their house in the middle of the night.

 

I did the same except I din't have mine in a safe normally.   I also don't have kids around normally.  I haven't had to use but would be glad it is there if needed.  

 

*My newfound love and ability to use marijuana has greatly changed my storage and carry habits though.

[PleaseBlitz]

21 minutes ago, purbeast said:

LOL.

 

I just find it odd that people feel the need to do stuff like the bolded.

 

I am 41 years old and I've never known one person in my entire life who has ever had a need to use a gun for self defense in the middle of the night.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but mass shootings seem to be more common than people having to shoot intruders breaking into their house in the middle of the night.

 

From what I've seen recently, they like to have a gun handy to shoot people who either turned into their driveway by mistake or chased a ball into their yard. You know, THREATS.

[dfitzo53]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Of course it is. 
 

that’s why it’s at the bottom of my list in the “in absence of other ideas” section. 

Yeah I understood that part. I'm just saying it's not on my list of solutions, because it's not a solution. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, purbeast said:

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

LOL.

 

I just find it odd that people feel the need to do stuff like the bolded.

 

I am 41 years old and I've never known one person in my entire life who has ever had a need to use a gun for self defense in the middle of the night.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but mass shootings seem to be more common than people having to shoot intruders breaking into their house in the middle of the night.

on the other hand, I do know of people who have had to use it for self defense in the middle of the night. 
 

and in my personal experience, people who keep a gun in their night stand are using handguns, and mass shootings seem to mostly use rifles and shotguns. So the dots you’re trying to connect here, don’t really connect.

 

You’d be better served trying to link them to stolen guns used in more typical violent crimes. 

That connection actually makes sense and holds up in the real world, although it doesn’t make as compelling of an argument that you probably think it does (in my opinion) 

[Larry]

2 hours ago, purbeast said:

LOL.

 

I just find it odd that people feel the need to do stuff like the bolded.

 

I am 41 years old and I've never known one person in my entire life who has ever had a need to use a gun for self defense in the middle of the night.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, but mass shootings seem to be more common than people having to shoot intruders breaking into their house in the middle of the night.

 

OTOH, I recall the expression that "You never need a pistol, until you need one badly."  

[China]

Felony charges loom for gun brace owners

 

Missouri gun owners face a deadline at the end of the month to turn in or destroy so-called pistol braces or face federal prosecution.

 

Failure to observe ATF guidelines for compliance is a federal felony crime carrying up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each firearm in violation.

 

That’s the result of a final rule published earlier this year by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives which reinterprets how pistol braces are regulated under federal gun laws.

 

The Congressional Research Service estimates that between 10 and 40 million individuals across the country possess brace-equipped firearms.

 

Pistol braces were created to aid disabled shooters, allowing the user to brace a support against the forearm for shooting a larger firearm with a single, extended arm.

 

Steve Lindley, program manager at the Brady United Against Gun Violence Campaign, said that although braces were created for “a very noble cause,” the firearms industry has “used it as a loophole to make short-barreled rifles.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[tshile]

Risk assessment is interesting. 
 

i have children. The risk of a child finding a loaded handgun in a night stand outweighs the risk of someone breaking into my house and me not having a loaded handgun at the ready to do something about it. 
 

someone without children would probably say the risk of not having one ready outweighs the risk of it being stollen.

 

what I find funny, and I saw it during covid, and I see it in other situations, is when people risk assessment operates on the extremes. Ie: the potential of a child finding a gun in my house outweighs any risk related to not having a gun if I needed one

 

or you can flip it around. 
 

people seem to operate on the extremes especially if the topic is political in nature. 

[purbeast]

Just now, tshile said:

Risk assessment is interesting. 
 

i have children. The risk of a child finding a loaded handgun in a night stand outweighs the risk of someone breaking into my house and me not having a loaded handgun at the ready to do something about it. 
 

someone without children would probably say the risk of not having one ready outweighs the risk of it being stollen.

 

what I find funny, and I saw it during covid, and I see it in other situations, is when people risk assessment operates on the extremes. Ie: the potential of a child finding a gun in my house outweighs any risk related to not having a gun if I needed one

 

or you can flip it around. 
 

people seem to operate on the extremes especially if the topic is political in nature. 

Having that gun in the nightstand, even without kids, adds an additional risk of someone in the house getting into some kind of domestic dispute and using it.  I'd say more so if they are a family that likes to drink and party.

 

There are plenty of studies I've seen over the past couple of years that show having a gun in your home raises the risk of someone being shot in your home.

 

And I'm sure nobody thinks it will happen to them, until it does.

[Larry]

Just now, tshile said:

i have children. The risk of a child finding a loaded handgun in a night stand outweighs the risk of someone breaking into my house and me not having a loaded handgun at the ready to do something about it. 

 

Yeah, but that's because you're weighing the risk that your decision poses to others.  

 

Need to stop that, if you're going to be a "responsible gun owner".  

[tshile]

1 minute ago, purbeast said:

Having that gun in the nightstand, even without kids, adds an additional risk of someone in the house getting into some kind of domestic dispute and using it.  I'd say more so if they are a family that likes to drink and party.

 

There are plenty of studies I've seen over the past couple of years that show having a gun in your home raises the risk of someone being shot in your home.

 

And I'm sure nobody thinks it will happen to them, until it does.

well. Context matters. 
 

and I’m sorry but “having a gun in the house raises the risk of someone being shot in the house” is an lol nothing of a statement. 
 

Riding in a car raises the risk of being in a car accident, too. And that doesn’t really mean anything more about whether it’s a good idea for a particular person to ever ride in a car. 
 

Im also willing to bet you’ll find domestic violence is significantly more prevalent than home invasion. 
 

The real problem here is people using general statements that mean nothing, to support their political worldview. 
 

there are so many factors that go into all of this that even pretending you can generalize is hilariously naive. Where you live, household composition, what you have and how you store it, training, are a couple of things on the large list of factors. 
 

not to mention - handguns are rarely the issue with mass shootings which is the one people care so much about (my personal opinion is general gun violence is more important and a bigger issue, but that’s just me)

 

 

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, but that's because you're weighing the risk that your decision poses to others.  

 

Need to stop that, if you're going to be a "responsible gun owner".  

Hah. Well. Honestly. When it comes to productive discussion about guns I don’t find the gun nuts any worse than the ones only in it for increasing gun control 

 

their arguments are just as disingenuous and ignorant. 

[purbeast]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

well. Context matters. 
 

and I’m sorry but “having a gun in the house raises the risk of someone being shot in the house” is an lol nothing of a statement. 
 

Riding in a car raises the risk of being in a car accident, too. And that doesn’t really mean anything more about whether it’s a good idea for a particular person to ever ride in a car. 
 

Im also willing to bet you’ll find domestic violence is significantly more prevalent than home invasion. 
 

The real problem here is people using general statements that mean nothing, to support their political worldview. 
 

there are so many factors that go into all of this that even pretending you can generalize is hilariously naive. Where you live, household composition, what you have and how you store it, training, are a couple of things on the large list of factors. 
 

not to mention - handguns are rarely the issue with mass shootings which is the one people care so much about (my personal opinion is general gun violence is more important and a bigger issue, but that’s just me)

 

 

My point is that people think it makes them safer, but statistics show it makes them less safe.

 

Sure, if you don't ride in a car, you won't be getting anywhere quick.  You're going to be walking everywhere and taking forever.

 

But if you don't have a gun in your house vs. you do have one, nothing changes at all in your day to day life.  You just have a tool used to kill sitting there doing nothing, until it does something.

 

Comparing riding in a car to having a gun sitting in your night stand is a pretty dumb comparison.

 

It has nothing to do with political views at all.  It's pretty basic statistics.  Just like how we're the only country in the civilized world with a gun problem and the only country in the civilized world with a gun obsession and very lax rules to them.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

Hah. Well. Honestly. When it comes to productive discussion about guns I don’t find the gun nuts any worse than the ones only in it for increasing gun control 

 

their arguments are just as disingenuous and ignorant. 

 

I suppose there might be someone, somewhere "only in it for increasing gun control".  

 

I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding one.  But there probably is one.  

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, purbeast said:

My point is that people think it makes them safer, but statistics show it makes them less safe.

 

Sure, if you don't ride in a car, you won't be getting anywhere quick.  You're going to be walking everywhere and taking forever.

 

But if you don't have a gun in your house vs. you do have one, nothing changes at all in your day to day life.  You just have a tool used to kill sitting there doing nothing, until it does something.

 

Comparing riding in a car to having a gun sitting in your night stand is a pretty dumb comparison.

 

It has nothing to do with political views at all.  It's pretty basic statistics.  Just like how we're the only country in the civilized world with a gun problem and the only country in the civilized world with a gun obsession and very lax rules to them.

“pretty basic statistics” is pretty standard for pushing lots of politically motivated arguments. 
 

like suggesting having a gun makes it more likely someone gets shot. It’s just an myopic statement that means nothing. Much like my car analogy. The fact you see more utility in a car doesn’t really change that. 
 

Using general statistics the way you are, isn’t making any compelling argument whatsoever. I know you think it is, but it isn’t. 
 

just like you relating someone keeping a gun in their nightstand to mass shootings, doesn’t really work, even if it sounds good to you. 
 

im just providing feedback on your arguments. I couldn’t care less if you accept it or think it’s dumb. 
 

I don’t find people who argue about the subject the way you have, so far today, any more compelling or intelligent than the gun nuts. 

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I suppose there might be someone, somewhere "only in it for increasing gun control".  

 

I'd bet you'd have a hard time finding one.  But there probably is one.  

 

Some of them on this forum have admitted it in the past. Along with admitting if they got what they were arguing at the time, they’d continue to argue for more, and that their desired endstate is guns being banned. 
 

you can feel that way and also care deeply that people are killed in mass shootings. 

[purbeast]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

Using general statistics the way you are, isn’t making any compelling argument whatsoever. I know you think it is, but it isn’t. 
 

just like you relating someone keeping a gun in their nightstand to mass shootings, doesn’t really work, even if it sounds good to you. 

I'm not trying to make a compelling argument lol.  I'm not even trying to make any argument.  I was bringing up stats.  

 

And I am not trying to make any kind of corelation between keeping a gun in a night stand to a mass shooting.  I said it seems like there are more mass shootings than people using guns to shoot at an intruder breaking into their home in the middle of the night.

 

But you do you.

[skinsmarydu]

It's a really long story, I'll brieferize it for y'all. 

My accountant's a gun nut, has tons of 'em in a safe in his office.  I usually have to move at least one just to sit down.  His vehicle was stolen a couple weeks ago with 2 handguns and a rifle in it.  Everyone knows the local towing company that has the contracts for all of the local parking lots, and they found it, snagged it and brought it over to his office...but the guns were missing.  So he's freaking out. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

59 minutes ago, tshile said:

Risk assessment is interesting. 
 

i have children. The risk of a child finding a loaded handgun in a night stand outweighs the risk of someone breaking into my house and me not having a loaded handgun at the ready to do something about it. 
 

someone without children would probably say the risk of not having one ready outweighs the risk of it being stollen.

 

what I find funny, and I saw it during covid, and I see it in other situations, is when people risk assessment operates on the extremes. Ie: the potential of a child finding a gun in my house outweighs any risk related to not having a gun if I needed one

 

or you can flip it around. 
 

people seem to operate on the extremes especially if the topic is political in nature. 

 

Reminds me of the discussion about shooting an intruder that steals your TV.  "I can't believe you value your tv more than his life."  "I can't believe he valued my tv more than his life."

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Larry]

Well, hey. It's not like he's exercising his first amendment rights by, say, reading a children's book to them. 

[China]

22 minutes ago, Larry said:

Well, hey. It's not like he's exercising his first amendment rights by, say, reading a children's book to them. 

 

While wearing a dress.