It's not feeling 'safer' or more safe. It's not the same thing in my mind, I'm sorry I'm unable to convey it in terms you understand. But it's not the same thing.
But I think I've already said above, that it doesn't decrease the chances that someone may attempt to cause bodily harm to me or my family. So, no it doesn't translate into an actual increase in safety.
Does that answer your question?
I think we're hung up on this broad idea of safety.
Having the gun doesn't make you anymore safe than not having it. It just adds another option to deal with a potential problem.
My firearm is in a secure location, and will stay there till needed.
I will not hunt an intruder down, or go seeking confrontation in my home. If an intruder comes upstairs, then I will confront him with the firearm.
I'm not going to play the what if game.You seem to be defining safety as not being attacked: "doesn't decrease the chances that someone may attempt to cause bodily harm to me or my family."
While I'm including the chances of repelling the attack in my definition.
Is that part of the misunderstanding?
Safety in my mind is not being exposed to (insert unfortunate circumstance here). Once you're exposed to it, you're no longer safe and need to mitigate the circumstance.
In other words, no one really says, "You know what, I should buy a gun just in case I want to kill myself at some point down the road."
I know someone who has (which is why I asked) but I can believe it's not a common enough occurance to upset the findings.
In other words, no one really says, "You know what, I should buy a gun just in case I want to kill myself at some point down the road."I know someone who has (which is why I asked) but I can believe it's not a common enough occurance to upset the findings.
Total aside, but really, if you're at all able (and if there's any possibility he's serious), get the guy some help (assuming he hasn't already taken his life). If he does own a gun and has had significant suicidal ideation/action, he is tremendously more likely to follow through at some point. Like, the-percentages-would-get-unwieldly more likely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a gun in order to combat the inevitable arrival of our future alien overlords.
This is the only legitimate use for an assault weapon.
Coincidentally, it is also the only legitimate use for country folk music.
Its...
Perhaps because if you really do regularly have to fight off armed criminal gangs you're going to lose eventually? Even if you have a semi-automatic rifle.
It's not a matter of being in the wrong, it's just practicality.
I know a man who doesn't dare visit his family farm in Mexico because one of the cartels would likely kidnap him. One of his cousins (who is part of the cartel) warned him that they know he works in law enforcement in the US, so they would specifically target him.
If someone is fleeing their land because the region is threatened by cross-border drug traffickers and "coyotes" smuggling illegal immigrants across the border, they're not going to get their money's worth for their land. It's not a matter of moving, it's a matter of fighting for their rights or losing their family's land for no gain.
More importantly, once criminals know that you're prepared to fight them, they'll go after easier targets. I once took my kids camping near the Arizona border with a church group. To my surprise, every adult with the group was carrying a pistol and a rifle or shotgun. I asked what the deal was, since I didn't expect a bunch of Baptists to audition as the NRA's poster children. They explained that the group had repeatedly run into trouble with smugglers or illegals while camping near the border, but once they all started packing "shootin irons", the smugglers gave them a wide berth.
This is the only legitimate use for an assault weapon.
Coincidentally, it is also the only legitimate use for country folk music.
I disagree.
Mexico banned guns for the greater good of its citizens and now look at the mess. The citizens gave up their guns and now are caught in a war. 30,000 people in TJ alone are dead. The cops will not help and the cartels will chop you up and dump you in a 55 gallon drum of acid. How do you protect your family? Go along with the cartel which is terrorizing and taking over the country so you can stay alive.
I guess I should point out we have a total ban against home invasion robberies, murder and rape in this country, but we still have all those things. Misinformation about guns is rampant so is the ignorance of what they are capable of thanks to the media, movies and video games.
For instance did the media point out that the Aurora Colorado shooter drove to a movie theater that posted that it prohibited concealed weapons of any kind? He had four closer movie theaters to his house, but chose the one that he was sure he would be unopposed in.
Or how about all the shootings that are stopped by armed citizens? MSN likes to leave those details out like this one here.
We can't stop all tragedies and we should not rush to relieve ourselves of all our rights either. As a LEO I can assure you weapons are used for self defense all the time, but somehow those stories are not publicized.
LEO?
EDIT: Law Enforcement Officer?
I'm having a hard time seeing how the family in the original story would have been in LESS danger if they didn't have a gun available.
To assume that they would have made an escape plan ahead of time in that case seems a bit pie in the sky thinking. More likely they never made an escape plan for a home evasion because they never considered it was a likely occurrence (maybe something on the order of 0.05% likely), not because they thought they had a gun and so could handle it.
I'm having a hard time seeing how the family in the original story would have been in LESS danger if they didn't have a gun available.
To assume that they would have made an escape plan ahead of time in that case seems a bit pie in the sky thinking. More likely they never made an escape plan for a home evasion because they never considered it was a likely occurrence (maybe something on the order of 0.05% likely), not because they thought they had a gun and so could handle it.
OK, I'm not a paranoid sort (if I did I'd own guns) and I live in a middle of the road 'hood with lots of nonviolent crime. I leave my door unlocked by accident sometimes and no one wanders in. I don't have kids, and can only marginally be considered a responsible adult.
>>I<< have a home invasion escape plan.
Mexico banned guns for the greater good of its citizens
No, they didn't. Mexico has placed significant restrictions on the ability to own firearms, but they are far from banned. Extensive background checks are required, but there is no ban on firearms ownership in place. In fact, the right to bear arms is enshrined in Mexico's Constitution in a manner similar to our own.
Besides, even if you tried to blame Mexico's rampant crime situation on its strict gun laws (rather than on the fiction that firearms are banned there), you'd be wrong. Mexico's issues with rampant drug-related crime are tremendously complex, with roots in bureaucratic corruption, difficulty of enforcement in rural areas, the lucrative nature of the Mexican-American drug trade, and many other issues. Blaming the problem on guns - or claiming that Mexico is proof that gun restrictions are ineffective - is irresponsible.
As a law enforcement officer, you should know this.
EDIT: Oh god there's more.
For instance did the media point out that the Aurora Colorado shooter drove to a movie theater that posted that it prohibited concealed weapons of any kind? He had four closer movie theaters to his house, but chose the one that he was sure he would be unopposed in.
No, he didn't. He had one theater closer to him, not four. The theater he chose was eight minutes from where he lived. There was another theater only three minutes away that he did not choose to attack, though as far as I can tell it's not clear why (I haven't found anything suggesting that it was because the theater banned firearms, just speculation from a Fox News opinion piece). The next theater was ten minutes away, and after that six different theaters about twenty minutes away.
EDIT: You're kidding
Or how about all the shootings that are stopped by armed citizens? MSN likes to leave those details out like this one here.
You mean the "detail" that there was a CCW on scene that was pointed at the shooter at some point? Nick Meli never fired, and the shooter continued to unjam his weapon while being "covered" by Meli. Meli then retreated, himself. The shooter took off down a hallway and encountered another employee, but did not fire. There is no evidence that Meli prevented further casualties - had the shooter chosen, he could have continued killing until the authorities showed up. Meli wasn't mentioned because he didn't really do anything - even the police made no mention of his contributing to stopping the shooter (and they typically do if a private citizen played a role). Stop looking for liberal bias behind every corner.
Furthermore, Meli has stated that he did not fire for two reasons: 1) he felt outclassed by the shooter's AR-15 rifle and 30-round magazine, and 2) he did not have a clear backdrop. He credited his extensive firearms training as a security officer with giving him the level head needed to decide not to open fire, which he contends would have endangered the other civilians behind the shooter. If anything, Meli is evidence that firearms belong in the hands of professionals with robust, regular firearms training and practice.
Misinformation about guns is rampant
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I'm having a hard time seeing how the family in the original story would have been in LESS danger if they didn't have a gun available.
To assume that they would have made an escape plan ahead of time in that case seems a bit pie in the sky thinking. More likely they never made an escape plan for a home evasion because they never considered it was a likely occurrence (maybe something on the order of 0.05% likely), not because they thought they had a gun and so could handle it.
OK, I'm not a paranoid sort (if I did I'd own guns) and I live in a middle of the road 'hood with lots of nonviolent crime. I leave my door unlocked by accident sometimes and no one wanders in. I don't have kids, and can only marginally be considered a responsible adult.
>>I<< have a home invasion escape plan.
Good for you, I am not saying it isn't a good idea to have. But people don't have plans for lots of things that they think are unlikely to happen. I bet there are situations even your methodical mind has not properly prepared for. Not because you believe you are more than capable of handling it, but because you consider, perhaps unconsciously, that the likelihood is so small as to be not worth the consideration.
LEO?
Law enforcement officer.
Good for you, I am not saying it isn't a good idea to have. But people don't have plans for lots of things that they think are unlikely to happen. I bet there are situations even your methodical mind has not properly prepared for. Not because you believe you are more than capable of handling it, but because you consider, perhaps unconsciously, that the likelihood is so small as to be not worth the consideration.
Granted, but I think your point is rather pedantic given that "intruder in the home" is a pretty widespread fear. If this woman genuinely never considered that her kids might be put at risk by any number of things, she's a bad parent.
Like, I never thought my kid would choke on something/eat laundry detergent and so I never bothered to look up the number for 911/poison control.
It's better to have an escape plan or a weapon and not need it than to need it and not have it.And that's my point. As long as you feel the need to have that philosophy, you're not really feeling safe. Not really.
You can put the precautions in and then feel safe.
The problem is when someone devots too many resources to the precautions, or worse keeps devoting more and more resources to it while only fueling their increasing paranoia.
Or only ever considers guns as a potential remedy, rather than other, safer options.
I mean, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but let's not entertain illusions that it is the safer option in the majority of cases (this particular case being a potential exception).
All privately-owned firearms must be registered with the Mexican army.
Owning a gun for personal protection
Types of guns allowed
Article 11 of Ley Federal de Armas de Fuego y Explosivos lists prohibited "military firearms" in México.
Permitted firearms include:
Allowed hand gun calibers are .380 auto, .38 and .22.
Allowed long guns: rifles no larger the 30 caliber; shotguns 12, 20 and 410 with barrels longer than 25”
Buying from the government
There is only one legal gun store in the country; it’s at an army base in Mexico City. There you can legally buy a gun and get a 24 to 72 hour transport permit back to your home. You can buy two boxes of ammo with the gun. You will need a letter from the local police department attesting that you have no criminal record. You will also need your immigration document (or voter ID card if you are a citizen) and passport with copies, your CURP and proof of address. When you arrive at the army base you will not be allowed to enter with any electronic device – cell phone, computer, camera, etc.
Buying from a private person
You can buy from a private citizen, but you must register the gun at the nearest army post.
Registering a gun
You must fill out an application which you can get at any army base. In addition to the completed application, you will need your immigration document (or voter ID card if you are a citizen) and passport with copies, your CURP and proof of address. When you have all of this, you may then transport the weapon to the Army base for registration. The registration application is your permit to transport the gun to the base. The gun must be in a box or wrapped so that it is not visible. The approved application will serve as your carry permit on the way home. Thereafter, you must not take the gun out of the house without a special carry permit.
Carry permits
The right to keep arms in your home is not the right to transport them outside your home; this is a crime. If you want to target practice or engage in competitive shooting or hunting, you will need to be a member of a gun or hunting club that can arrange the proper permissions. Even then there are restrictions on days and places you can transport.
Importing guns for hunting or competition
There are ways to temporarily import a weapon for hunting or a shooting competition. In those cases special paperwork and guidance will be provided by the outfitter or sponsoring club. Getting permission to import the guns on your own is so complicated and restrictive that the only practical way is through a licensed gun or hunting club.
The federal government sets the gun laws. The states set the hunting laws – season, bag limits, etc.
You see they limited the caibers you could own, that disarmed the majority of the population who owned anything other than a popgun 380 or a 38 special revolver, marginal defense calibers, then they eliminated gun shops so there is only one place to buy from, the government at an army base in Mexico City, who decides who can get a permit. The average citizen cannot afford to join the pistol or hunting club or the permitting process. So they are either disarmed or have to own firearms illegally.
The average citizen cannot afford to join the pistol or hunting club or the permitting process. So they are either disarmed or have to own firearms illegally.
You do not need to join a hunting club to own a firearm - that is only a requirement if you plan on hunting with that firearm. The permit process is relatively inexpensive (the equivalent of less than $15 USD) and is substantially less than the cost of a firearm - in other words, if the citizen is in a position to be able to purchase a firearm, they can afford the permit process. The biggest hurdle is getting to Mexico City.
Either way, guns aren't banned, and strict gun laws aren't to blame for what you see in Mexico.
Good for you, I am not saying it isn't a good idea to have. But people don't have plans for lots of things that they think are unlikely to happen. I bet there are situations even your methodical mind has not properly prepared for. Not because you believe you are more than capable of handling it, but because you consider, perhaps unconsciously, that the likelihood is so small as to be not worth the consideration.Granted, but I think your point is rather pedantic given that "intruder in the home" is a pretty widespread fear. If this woman genuinely never considered that her kids might be put at risk by any number of things, she's a bad parent.
Like, I never thought my kid would choke on something/eat laundry detergent and so I never bothered to look up the number for 911/poison control.
Or perhaps they considered they had already addressed the issue by moving to a "good neighborhood" and thus had subconsciously moved that possibility to the meteor hitting my car level.
On some level, this is starting to feel like people should not be allowed to have a reasonable expectation of safety in their own home. They should expect to be victimized. That it is something of a normal part of life and if they don't prepare for it, then they deserve what they get. On some level, that is a bit of a disgusting viewpoint for one to have. Whether it is someone saying that you should get a gun to protect yourself or someone saying you should have an escape plan to get away.
I don't think it is mandatory that anyone feel either is necessary.
The average citizen cannot afford to join the pistol or hunting club or the permitting process. So they are either disarmed or have to own firearms illegally.You do not need to join a hunting club to own a firearm - that is only a requirement if you plan on hunting with that firearm. The permit process is relatively inexpensive (the equivalent of less than $15 USD) and is substantially less than the cost of a firearm - in other words, if the citizen is in a position to be able to purchase a firearm, they can afford the permit process. The biggest hurdle is getting to Mexico City.
Either way, guns aren't banned, and strict gun laws aren't to blame for what you see in Mexico.
Funny because this is what National Public Radio reports
A citizen who wants a permit for a weapon must apply to the Mexican military — a process that can cost upward of $10,000. Then they pay to have the permit renewed annually. The military further regulates the caliber of weapon, how many guns a person can own, how much ammunition they can buy each month, and where in the country they can take the weapon.
The government abolished the last private gun store in 1995. Today, the only legal gun store in the country is in Mexico City, guarded and operated by the armed forces.
"In Mexico, the laws effectively don't allow you to purchase weapons," says Dr. Oscar Urrutia Beall, a longtime member of the Paquime Shooting Club. "There are some weapons they sell in Mexico City, but the paperwork is difficult. Here, they won't let us buy a gun, but they let us own a gun. It's an incongruity, a failed law."
On some level, this is starting to feel like people should not be allowed to have a reasonable expectation of safety in their own home. They should expect to be victimized. That it is something of a normal part of life and if they don't prepare for it, then they deserve what they get. On some level, that is a bit of a disgusting viewpoint for one to have. Whether it is someone saying that you should get a gun to protect yourself or someone saying you should have an escape plan to get away.
I think that most of us arguing in favor of gun control feel that it's pretty unlikely that we will be victimized in such a way, and that even if we are, repelling the attack with a firearm is one of the least desirable ways to handle the situation. We also tend to feel that the demonstrated dangers of firearm ownership/access far outweigh any self-defense benefit (real or imagined).
A citizen who wants a permit for a weapon must apply to the Mexican military — a process that can cost upward of $10,000.
Do you have a source on where those costs are listed? I'm finding no evidence of costs even approaching that. The only associated costs with registering a firearm are the $7.60 USD for a Permit to Purchase Firearm, Accessories and/or Ammunition, and the $3.12 USD to file a Registration of Firearm.
Are you looking at the prices for a sport hunting permit for a US sportsman going into Mexico by chance?
could be the result of government corruption.
In Mexico? How dare you even suggest a thing.
Are you looking at the prices for a sport hunting permit for a US sportsman going into Mexico by chance?
Nope. Instructions for requesting special permit to purchase firearms and cartridges by civilians, translated from the SEDENA site (and with currency conversion, obviously).
If anything, I'd be willing to bet that the NPR report is rolling all potential costs into that figure (including bribes to government officials, as pointed out above). By law, it looks like it's pretty inexpensive to register yourself to own a firearm (especially if you live in or around Mexico City). Now, this is probably evidence that the Mexican government/military are corrupt as all hell, but that's not particularly surprising.
From Wikipedia, although the law states Mexican citizens may own certain weapons this is how it plays out:
. . . Under these two articles, private citizens are generally restricted to semi-automatic handguns or revolvers of a caliber no greater than .380 (for home defense)[27], rifles no greater than .22, and shotguns no greater than a 12-gauge (hunting and shooting when a member of a club). Anything bigger than those calibers is considered for exclusive use of the military and strictly forbidden for civilian possession, as defined by Article 11 of the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives.[28]
Here is some of the government corruption at work and Mexico is pay to play just like South Africa, in other words you must make a bribe unless you are someone powerful or well connected.
. . . current federal law does not set a limit on how many firearms may be owned. However, the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA) has set its own rules (in Spanish: Disposiciones giradas por la propia Secretaría), and while neither federal firearms law nor its regulation set a limit on the amount of firearms a person may own, SEDENA has determined that only nine long guns and one handgun for hunting or shooting activities will be authorized.[30] Consequently, those who do not belong to a hunting or shooting club, will only be authorized one handgun for home defense, per household.
As a part of the process you have to provide them with proof of income by submitting original employment letter stating position, time of employment and salary. If self-employed or retired, proof of such status. Not sure how that makes people safer, but it is helpful for setting the level of the bribe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stupid sensationalist headline to grab views. Stupid of anybody to wonder about it or gripe about it. Stupid, panicky woman. Stupid as@#l^& burglar. Stupid people afraid of everything. Stupid laws. Stupid guns. Stupid people who worship guns. Stupid people who demand gun rights but do not respect life. Stupid world filled with people who cannot feel important unless they feel dangerous. Stupid world, period.
Move on.
I think that most of us arguing in favor of gun control feel that it's pretty unlikely that we will be victimized in such a way, and that even if we are, repelling the attack with a firearm is one of the least desirable ways to handle the situation. We also tend to feel that the demonstrated dangers of firearm ownership/access far outweigh any self-defense benefit (real or imagined).
Right. And so in your desire to inflict your opinions on the rest of us, you seek to remove or alter the constitutional enumerated rights of the rest of us.
Regarding the position that guns aren't banned in Mexico:
Website of the mexican government says in five years it issued (less revocation) 40K gun permits, in a nation of 112 million.
Or roughly 1 per 15 thousand people. That is, effectively, banned.
Just like everyone else in the political arena.
That line of reasoning didn't work in kindergarten. It doesn't work here.
In this argument, when have people on the 2nd amendment side argued to remove the constitutional rights of gun-control nuts?
And more to the point, if you are so enamored of the constitutional rights of victims as zombie purported to be, you should be equally zealous to defend the constitutional rights of regular citizens.
|
How is restricting what is available for sale taking gun rights away?Just like everyone else in the political arena.That line of reasoning didn't work in kindergarten. It doesn't work here.
In this argument, when have people on the 2nd amendment side argued to remove the constitutional rights of gun-control nuts?
And more to the point, if you are so enamored of the constitutional rights of victims as zombie purported to be, you should be equally zealous to defend the constitutional rights of regular citizens.
If you can only vote in one city per state have we taken away anyone's vote?
|
|
On some level, this is starting to feel like people should not be allowed to have a reasonable expectation of safety in their own home. They should expect to be victimized. That it is something of a normal part of life and if they don't prepare for it, then they deserve what they get. On some level, that is a bit of a disgusting viewpoint for one to have. Whether it is someone saying that you should get a gun to protect yourself or someone saying you should have an escape plan to get away.I think that most of us arguing in favor of gun control feel that it's pretty unlikely that we will be victimized in such a way, and that even if we are, repelling the attack with a firearm is one of the least desirable ways to handle the situation. We also tend to feel that the demonstrated dangers of firearm ownership/access far outweigh any self-defense benefit (real or imagined).
And every time a woman is attacked because she dare leave her home alone you can congratulate yourselves that despite what happens to her at least she was no danger to anyone else
Because it takes away your right to own what they ban. And the truth is the anti-gun lobby wants to keep chipping away slowly until nothing is left. In the 1980s they tried to go for an outright ban on handguns and failed. Now they are working on a successful slow erosion strategy. As soon as they succeed in national gun registration they will have won, because every registration scheme eventually leads to confiscation or the ability to decide certain guns are too dangerous, or not necessary for the registrant to own and will be taken. Just ask the former pistol shooters of the UK, Australia, Cuba, South Africa, And many others how it works.
Because it takes away your right to own what they ban. And the truth is the anti-gun lobby wants to keep chipping away slowly until nothing is left. In the 1980s they tried to go for an outright ban on handguns and failed. Now they are working on a successful slow erosion strategy. As soon as they succeed in national gun registration they will have won, because every registration scheme eventually leads to confiscation or the ability to decide certain guns are too dangerous, or not necessary for the registrant to own and will be taken. Just ask the former pistol shooters of the UK, Australia, Cuba, South Africa, And many others how it works.Ah yes, the slippery slope theory.
It's slippery in the other direction too: The gun lobby wants to keep expanding access to guns until there are no limits left. They've opposed background checks so that even criminals and the dangerously insane could get weapons without difficulty. In recent decades they've been winning, both gun ownership and the places you can carry have been increasing. We have to stop them now before you're mandated to buy guns, as several cities already do!
Does it sound as silly from this side?
Yes because the slippery slope is a reality. Interstingly it was the ACLU that has opposed the implementation of the national registry of mentally ill and unstable people that was passed from becoming a reality. Reonsible gun owners do not want felons and mentally ill persons armed, how would that help responsible citizens?
The background checks are fine and are the law of the land.
Gun ownership is increasing greatly in part due to the increased threat of imposition of draconian gun restrictions.
Concealed gun carry permits have increased in conservative states and their crime rates have gone down.
As far as the government forcing people to buy and carry guns, that is absurd. I assume you are talking about places like the housing development in AZ where all the homes were marketed to gun owners.
No, he is talking about a couple of towns that have laws on the books that each house should have a firearm. Those who can't legally own firearms are obviously exempt as are those that have a moral objection to it. They are more of a political stand than actual enforceable laws, still it is a bit disturbing trend especially since it seems as if a lot of people that support gun rights support it. The right to own a gun should also be the right to not own a gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is still going on? I thought for sure y'all would have all come to an agreement by now and solved gun violence for ever. Guess I'll check back in an hour or two.