Let's make a list of other live-saving limits that we need to implement

[krispos42]

There's been a lot of talk in light of the Tucson shooting about limits on magazine capacities. The number that is being commonly defined as "sensible" is 10 rounds, probably because a) it was the law previously, b) humans have 10 fingers, and c) it's the first double-digit number.

We could define it another way, such as magazines for handguns can't be longer than x.xx inches long, or they can't extend more than x.xx inches past the gun's pistol grip, but we're stuck on this 10-round number in the national psyche.


Fair enough. Using the number 10, let's make a list of other limits that would, of course, almost certainly save at least one life a year.


10.0 seconds... the minimum amount of time a car could go from zero to sixty miles per hour. Every car would have an inherent horsepower limit so that it would take at least 10 seconds to go accelerate from 0 to 60mph. There is absolutely no need for any more power than that. That is more than enough power to merge with traffic and climb steep hills. That's about 140 horsepower for a family sedan, and about 100 horsepower for a subcompact. That's enough. Anything else simply encourages dangerous driving for absolutely no benefit for society. There is no legitimate need for anything past that. None. If you need more torque, downshift into a lower gear.




10 liters of gas... the maximum amount of fuel a passenger vehicle can carry. That is more than enough for any trip of reasonable length. If you're on a long trip, stop by a gas station when you get low. If you need more capacity and you're not going to be near a gas station, buy a couple of extra gas cans. Far too many lives are damaged or destroyed by fleeing criminals and prolonged police chases, and reasonable limits on unrefueled range will seriously inhibit fleeing criminals with little inconvenience to legitimate travelers.




10 decameters... the minimum error a non-military GPS must have. It is more than enough for reasonable navigation on land, sea, and in flight. Anything finer can result in the US's GPS satellites being used by terrorists and foreign enemies to make precision strikes on American civilian and military installations. ±330 feet is more than enough for anybody except the military and some select scientific research areas.



Add your own... it's my bedtime.

[midnight]

1. We need to get that tarp money back from the banks, and house our homeless.

Create jobs, and fund health care so that it is affordable....

[SteveM]

27. I'll drink to that! nt

[Callisto32]

99. You know that this is based on a fallacy.

Using tax money to fund health care does not "make it affordable" it just changes the point at which people pay.

Nor can throwing money at something "create jobs." You may have enough to pay someone to do something for a while, but the job is not created unless there is wealth created. Moving money around does not create wealth.

[petronius]

2. Dogs should be limited to 10 kgs, anything larger is too hard to control

[krispos42]

9. Good one!

Invest heavily in miniature pit bulls!

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. 10 feet....the shortest fence allowable around swimming pools.

With a securely locked gate. Pools kill dozens of children a year.

It's a sensible means of making well-regulated pools safe.

[pipoman]

84. A recent post cited

residential swimming pools are responsible for children's fatalities at a rate of 1/11k, while firearms are at a rate of 1/1 million+. I had never seen the numbers before this.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HankyDubs]

5. more dishonest analogies

a car has a purpose, to transport persons or goods. A gun also has a purpose, to put holes in people.

a gps has a purpose, to help an individual navigate. A gun also has a purpose, to put holes in people.


"Every car would have an inherent horsepower limit so that it would take at least 10 seconds to go accelerate from 0 to 60mph."

There are many regulations on motor vehicles. I'm not aware of any HP limitations, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was one. For example, I do believe that the top speed allowable on golf carts is 25 mph.

[krispos42]

7. Regardless of purpose, would having a horsepower limit save lives?

Would preventing street drag racing save lives?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HankyDubs]

15. sure would

There are laws against street racing. Sensible laws to protect the public from irresponsible car owners who put their personal desire to drive fast ahead of other people's desire not to be killed by some dumbass racing enthusiast while they are driving home from work.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. But drag racing still takes place.

A horsepower limit would make drag racing nearly impossible. It would save gasoline and reduce emissions too. Powerful cars don't serve a purpose anyway, except an ego boost. The burden is on drivers to prove a need for a car that can go from 0 to 60 in less than ten seconds. I hope you're seeing the parallel with current gun control arguments.

[Katya Mullethov]

25. Helmets are where it's at baby

You can see em , you can write expensive tickets when you dont , and the head injury numbers in automobiles are off the charts .

[Kennah]

38. I would vote for cell phone usage citations

[SteveM]

29. He doesn't like analogies. He thinks you're dishonest.

I do wonder about his poetry skills, and all.

[TheWraith]

11. My guns are obviously defective, since they don't put holes in people.

The insistent assertion that the ONLY purpose of guns is to kill people is as wrong as saying that the only purpose of a car is to drive while intoxicated.

[HankyDubs]

16. i wonder

Do you use your gun to slice a loaf of bread or to change the channel on your plasma screen television?

The purpose of guns is to put holes in living things.

[TheWraith]

26. Keep moving those goal posts!

Even though AGAIN, my guns are obviously defective, because the only things they put holes in are inanimate targets. But hey, you can move those goalposts again to redefine how guns MUST be absolutely evil because... well, just because.

[pipoman]

83. Tell it to these people:

US Olympic Shooting Team

Your repeated avoidance of the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of firearms in this country are used for legitimate leisure/sporting purposes doesn't eliminate this very simple truth.

[GKirk]

93. Incorrect!

Guns, or bullets to be mor precise, are designed to put holes in 'things' not necessarily living things.
In fact if they were truly designed to put holes in living things they are doing a poor job of it. I would bet that there
are thousands of rounds shot at paper targets for every one shot at a living 'thing'.

[Callisto32]

100. In fact, the most powerful small arms, like the dreaded .50 BMG are specifically intended to be used

as anti materiel weapons. Since those are NOT "made to kill" maybe we can have a rule that people can only have the most powerful of small arms, the kind use to destroy stuff, not animals.

[beevul]

13. Yes indeed.

And police carry guns...because nobody ever needs holes put in them. :eyes:

"There are many regulations on motor vehicles. I'm not aware of any HP limitations, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was one. For example, I do believe that the top speed allowable on golf carts is 25 mph."

There aren't any on motor vehicles used on ones own private property,in most places in America, that I'm aware of.


No license registration insurance, or training is required.

For ownership OR use.

[HankyDubs]

17. "And police carry guns"

We as a society have decided that police officers do need a tool that puts holes in people. Sometimes they need to use them to prevent one civilian from putting a hole into the officer or another civilian.

[NewMoonTherian]

20. We as a society...

have also decided that civilians need those same tools, for the exact same purpose. How, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, can you put so much faith in the police?

[beevul]

21. We as a society...

We as a society have also decided that people are not mentally ill or felons are allowed to own firearms.

Get over it.

"We as a society have decided that police officers do need a tool that puts holes in people. Sometimes they need to use them to prevent one civilian from putting a hole into the officer or another civilian."

Sometimes people need to use them to prevent other people from putting holes in them as well.

Its good to see you admit they're useful for such things.


There may be hope for you yet.

[jeepnstein]

32. Police are civilians.

They just have an oddly dangerous job. They are subject to the same laws as the rest of society. It's a weird calling.

Soldiers? They answer to the UCMJ and train to fight by a different set of rules. And their first rule is no fight is a fair fight.

As far as the police being armed, it doesn't have a thing to do with preventing someone from putting a hole in you.

[Callisto32]

101. I love the honest "cop talk" we get from you.

*High-Fives*

[Glassunion]

33. You do realize that the modern GPS was initially developed and funded for our military

so that lots and lots of people could be killed with precision guided missiles?

"While there were wide needs for accurate navigation in military and civilian sectors, almost none of those were seen as justification for the billions of dollars it would cost in research, development, deployment, and operation for a constellation of navigation satellites. During the Cold War arms race, the nuclear threat to the existence of the United States was the one need that did justify this cost in the view of the US Congress. This deterrent effect is why GPS was funded. The nuclear triad consisted of the US Navy's submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) along with the US Air Force's strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Considered vital to the nuclear deterrence posture, accurate determination of the SLBM launch position was a force multiplier.

Precise navigation would enable US submarines to get an accurate fix of their positions prior to launching their SLBMs.<4> The US Air Force with two-thirds of the nuclear triad also had requirements for a more accurate and reliable navigation system. The Navy and Air Force were developing their own technologies in parallel to solve what was essentially the same problem. To increase the survivability of ICBMs, there was a proposal to use mobile launch platforms so the need to fix the launch position had similarity to the SLBM situation."

[krispos42]

36. I'm proposing saving lives. Irrespective of intent, lot of people are killed by cars.

And a few of them with cars.


As far as I know, there is no horsepower limit on cars. There is a fleet fuel-economy average, which is partially related to fleet average engine power, so Chevy can't simply drop a supercharged big-block V-8 in everything they sell. But they can and do make production cars well in excess of 300 horsepower, that can accelerate to 60mph in 6 seconds or less, in some cases under 5 seconds. These are mitigated by selling more average economy cars.

Under my proposal, cars would be air-drag-limited to about 110 miles per hour, depending on streamlining and frontal area. Currently, production cars with top speeds exceeding 150 miles per hour (sans electronic speed limiters) are pretty common.



:shrug:

The same people that would be extremely angry at legally limiting horsepower, despite the obvious advantages of better fuel economy, safer roads, and cheaper cars, would be very happy to see laws legally limiting magazine capacity.

We must add the supposition that the fictional think-tank that is pushing the horsepower limit was funded and supported almost entirely by non-car-owners. By people that walked, bicycled, and took public transportation exclusively, who had never owned a car, who never would own a car, and thinks that people that own cars are self-centered weirdos who are totally oblivious and uncaring to the costs society pays for their vehicle ownership.

[Taitertots]

115. Wow, all my guns must be broken, they have never put a hole in a person

I just use them for food, protection, and recreation.

All those regulations and more people are killed by cars than get murdered by guns. It would seem the purpose of cars is to accelerate people to deadly speeds in an unsafe manner.

[cleanhippie]

117. 10 ridiculous posts.

No more than 10 ridiculous, asinine posts where the same debunked talking point is spewed over and over. There just is no NEED for more.

[bluesbassman]

6. 10 years. The longest time anyone should serve in Congress.

Too easy to get distracted by the money after that. Plus, a hard limit would create a sense of urgency to actually accomplish something for the people who elected you.

[krispos42]

10. If it's good enough for the President... right? n/t

[beevul]

14. I was thinking along the lines of ten quarters, myself. N/T

[HankyDubs]

18. term limits are dumb.

The people most likely to be "distracted by money" are those freshman lawmakers trying to put together a war chest for their next election.

Term limits remove experienced representatives that the people want to have representing them, and replace them with inexperienced freshmen. Term limits hand more power to unelected congressional staffers and lobbyists. Term limits lead directly to increased corruption.

We have had term limit systems from the first days of the republic. They are called "elections."

[krispos42]

35. I agree.

I don't like term limits at all. However, in lieu of a viable proportional-representational system or instant-runoff voting, I half-wonder if it's the best we'll be able to manage.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Only ten years of school in one lifetime.

If you can't learn it in ten years it isn't worth knowing.

Limit of ten books owned by any one person.

[safeinOhio]

22. Post is the best example, ever, of

the straw man argument.

[krispos42]

34. I just examined the Wikipedia article on "straw man"

I don't think this qualifies, as it is not a distorted view of the original proposition, but rather an analogy.

:shrug:

So I take it you don't want to reduce annual automotive-related fatalities?

[cleanhippie]

118. Perhaps you should double check your definition.

You definition doesn't seem to be right. Here let me help you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

maybe you were thinking of the word analogy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

[shadowrider]

23. Limit of 10 stupid anti-gun posts on any gun forum in a year

That's more than enough posts for us to figure out you hate guns and want to save the children.

[Possumpoint]

24. What Gives You The Right

To impose your limits on me?

[Katya Mullethov]

28. Are you serious ?

Are you serious ?

[shadowrider]

30. Dude, it's supposed to be (picture DeNiro) - You serious bout dat? n/t

[krispos42]

37. Because I'm tired of paying the costs for your horsepower fetish

I'm tired of paying the extra car and health insurance costs, for the extra police and firemen and EMTs to scape horsepower-addicts off the tarmac. I'm tired of people that think a fancy car with plenty of power gives them the right to weave in and out of traffic 20mph above what everybody else is driving.

And I'm tired of paying more for gas because you don't care how much your shiny sports car consumes.



And in case you're wondering, I have first-hand experience with people with too much horsepower and not enough brains.




That WAS my beloved Subaru Impreza Outback Sport, until it fell victim to some idiot weaving in and out of traffic in a late-model Volvo S60. I was doing 55mph in the right lane, towing a U-Haul trailer.

My personal tragedy trumps your theoretical arguments! So there! :P :-)

[Katya Mullethov]

39. You really should be wearing a helmet

[krispos42]

40. LOL n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

82. And you deny it ?

It is pretty common sense stuff

[krispos42]

86. I had an instant flashback to an episode of "CHiPs"

that I saw when I was a teenager. Or maybe even younger. Something about a scam of people crashing into cars for the insurance money.

The driver of the scam car wore an old-style football helmet that he donned before each crash. :-)

[Katya Mullethov]

92. And then you OBFUSCATE !

That was my fav-o-rite show when it was on , but the only one I can remember is the Brawny paper towel dude used hay hooks to move a VW buginto the street and steal his parking place and got caught .

And back to the serial denial and obfuscation . I can certainly understand any concerns you may have about messing up your hair or looking very stupid in front of your friends . But the numbers vindicate me , and by such a margin as to require immediate attention from whomever might be in charge of paying for all my shit .

"" According to the Brain Injury Association, over 1.9 million Americans suffer a brain injury each year, and approximately 80,000 of those injuries result in long-term disability. The estimated cost of caring for traumatic brain injury victims is over $48 billion dollars per year.""

[GKirk]

94. "a scam of people"

Is that what you call a group of corporate CEOs?

[Taitertots]

116. The Constitution does

You would be hard pressed to find a constitutional scholar who wouldn't agree that the Constitution gives the people the authority to regulate automobiles.

[cleanhippie]

119. Exactly!

What gives anyone the right to impose their limits on how many bullets my magazine can hold?

I am glad we agree.

[SteveM]

31. I got one! 1 bag/mo. of Hershey Almond Kisses. Cuts down on diabetes. nt

[Maine_Nurse]

41. Aspirin, Tylenol, and ibuprofen.

You unlicensed, average citizens kill yourselves, usually unintentionally, to the tune of about 7-20 thousand people per year (the numbers vary wildly even within the CDC) with these three OTC drugs. Obviously you cannot be trusted and we must schedule these meds so that the next time you have a headache or shovel too much snow, you have to see your PCP for a prescription of 2.

[petronius]

42. How about a limit of just 10 pills per container, and you're only allowed to buy

a container every 10 days?

[Maine_Nurse]

46. Well, ok but...

If you buy any 2 of the product types within 30 days, we'll be forced to report you to NICS (Nsaids Incident Command System).

[Francis Marion]

43. A) Ten assaults on the Bill of Rights per year per legislature.

After all, no legislator 'needs' to gut the Bill of Rights more than ten times in one working year. That puts a nice, rational ceiling on the damage which makes me (siiiigggghhhh,) feel so much better.

[CreekDog]

44. you want your right to own instruments designed to do nothing but kill

and the same goes, no limitation on the rate of ammunition delivery for which to kill with.

is this your god? the right to own a machine designed only to kill and kill as much as humanly possible?

[krispos42]

45. No artificial limit on the rate of ammunition delivery.

Past that, inflammatory pejorative rhetoric aside, yeah. I especially don't want people who's goal it is to have a disarmed citizenry determining how much ammo I'm allowed to have. Conflict of interest, you might say.

[CreekDog]

47. are they not instruments of killing? and do you not want any limitation on how fast they can kill?

inflammatory?

but it's accurate.

that's what you want. it's a tool for killing and you support no law restricting it's ability to kill as quickly and as much as possible.

i'm tired of the euphemisms. this is what it's all about.

[krispos42]

48. If you insist.

Should circumstances arise that I need to use lethal force to defend myself or my son, I do in fact want a tool for killing and I want that tool to have sufficient ammunition to incapacitate or kill the threat(s) as quickly as possible.

[CreekDog]

49. yup you want to be able to kill as much as possible and as quickly as possible

and you think you're arguing rationally.

if there were a limit of 100 rounds per magazine, you'd oppose it.

restricts your killing ability too much.

i'm not dealing with someone who is rational about gun rights.

that's verifiably true and being true, why should anyone listen to you?

[Maine_Nurse]

52. Yes, quickly and effectively.

Last month a homeowner in a small town like mine in the next county over had two armed (tazer, pepper spray, handcuffs, and an ILLEGAL firearm) lured him outside with a tale of a car accident. Then they sprayed him and proceeded to beat him. He drew his firearm and killed one of them. GOOD FOR HIM. What do you think he should have done? He (and I) live in rural areas with no police force. We average a 45 minute response time from the sheriffs department unless we are lucky enough to have one driving through our towns on the way to somewhere else.

[CreekDog]

54. i can see where this would be necessary

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. You are putting words in the mouth of (and impuning the sanity of) another DUer.

But let's put that aside, and address another question:


You claimed (not demonstrated, mind you, but merely claimed) that "i'm not dealing with someone who is rational about gun rights.

that's verifiably true..."


How can you verify this beyond labeling his behavior irrational, when in fact you have claimed something not in evidence, i.e.

"you want to be able to kill as much as possible and as quickly as possible"


As far as I can tell, your metric is "it's OK to have a deadly weapon, as long as it's not too deadly."

You might also want to look up the relevant state laws in California regarding justifiable homicide. I'd venture to

say you'll be quite surprised if and when you do so.

[CreekDog]

75. they've agreed with me, in fact, before this post

they agreed with other posts like this one.

you should apologize to them for saying telling the truth was "impugning" them. they are not ashamed of wanting the ability and the right to kill as many as quickly as possible should they feel they need to.

[Maine_Nurse]

77. No apologies here, CreekDog.

When my life or that of my wife is threatened by either human or animal, it will definitely be met with lethal force.

[CreekDog]

88. you aren't asking to defend your life --you are asking for unlimited firepower

and delivery of it at unlimited speed.

many posters here also think there should be no licensing or tracking of all the weaponry and ammunition and related items fulfill those desires.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Then show us some, with quotes if you don't mind. n/t

[CreekDog]

91. the OP for example

take a look at the OP's statements in other threads.

or ask the OP directly.

there will be a song and dance about supporting registration, but when pressed, they will tell you, as they told me, it should be "voluntary". why did i have to press? well that's a good question isn't it?

as for me, i'm not ashamed of my positions.

[Callisto32]

103. Maybe we should register everybody with a computer and internet connection.

After all, it is those pesky ideas that impel people to do all these things, right.

That is a nasty, sarcastic way of saying why do you think you should get to register me if I have not yet done anything wrong?

[krispos42]

87. Man, it must drive you absolutely nuts every single day

To venture out into the world and have to trust literally thousands of people to not kill you simply because they can. I imagine that long trips on the highway, passing all those cars chock-full of deadly kinetic energy, must require some sort of potent calming pharmaceutical(s).



There are, literally, tens of millions of 11+ gun magazines in the country. Almost certainly hundreds of millions of 11+ magazines. And you're worried about the extremely tiny fraction of murders that have multiple victims AND were done with an 11+ magazines.




If you're worried about being the victim of a mass shooting enough to demand political action be taken, then I hope you're also wearing a helmet so that the meteorites don't give you a concussion.


You do take precautions against meteorites, right?

[Maine_Nurse]

51. Killing is not always a crime or wrong. nt.

[CreekDog]

55. how many do you need to kill?

i'm just wondering?

how bad a shot does a person need to be in order to need a 30 round magazine?

[Maine_Nurse]

61. You obviously don't really understand things do you?

Police have a hit rate of about 9%. The homeowner that killed the criminal last month had been sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray. Shooting a moving human, especially if they are fighting or firing at you, is not easy to due with that much stress. Your own physiological reactions, such as the adrenaline dump and elevated respirations, make it all the harder. Trust me, when you are facing a threat severe enough to justify the use of deadly force, what you really want is a phalanx system or a minigun with a few thousand rounds. I have a bullet wound in me and when that happened I'd have called for a tactical nuke strike if I had it available to me.

[CreekDog]

64. you need the ability to spray bullets, most of them missing their target

you shouldn't be armed at all, based on those statements.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Neither should cops, by your *own* metric. Most of them are lousy shots.

ISTR only one out of eight shots fired by cops actually hits what they aim at.

[CreekDog]

70. well that justifies the other poster within arm's reach of a loaded weapon while they sleep

and able to spray bullets, mostly not hitting their target.

in a house.

faster than they can think of why. :crazy:

except it doesn't justify it. :crazy:

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. They don't have to justify it to you, simple as that. I know that's hard to accept....

...given your purported expertise on what is and isn't acceptable or rational.


I am going to say this to you as gently as possible:

You don't know as much about guns as you claim you do.

You don't know as much about gun owners as you claim you do.

You don't know as much about your fellow DUers as you claim you do.

You don't seem to know anything about self-defense law, as you have yet to cite a single one, or give a link to

an online discussion of same.


You don't seem to know much about self-defense, as you have not cited even an advocate of unarmed self-defense

(of which there are several good ones).


You have offered up several amateur diagnoses of mental illness amongst people that you disagree with, apparently

on the singular grounds of their choice of self-defense tools, without any evidence of any qualifications whatsoever.

on your part. All in violation of DU rules, to boot.


In conclusion, I'd suggest a search of DU for the term "Paisley Syndrome", or a general search for "Dunning Kruger effect"

[CreekDog]

80. i know what they tell me about themselves in these posts

and i know their style of argument.

and that's what i comment on.

i'm surprised you don't realize how much their posts tell about their views.

[CreekDog]

89. keeping an unsecured, loaded weapon within arms reach of you when you sleep is irrational

and defending it, also irrational.

for that reason, i don't believe you offer anything constructive in terms of creating sensible gun laws.

[Katya Mullethov]

109. I sleep with one on me everytime

I fall asleep in my chair . Being so very small ,it's not much different than falling asleep toting your wallet . In fact I have noticed that as I prance about , it totes just like a wallet or a cell phone .

[shadowrider]

110. I have a friend that carries a .380. His holster prints like a wallet

so he just keeps it in his back pocket.

I must admit, I've never seen him prance though.

[Callisto32]

104. To the list above I would like to add.

You don't understand the difference between homicide and murder.

[shadowrider]

81. You're an expert at strawman arguments

Twisting what someone said into what you think or wanted them to say, then attacking them based on your interpretation.

Yet another to add to the list.

[YllwFvr]

53. the weapons that kill as fast as possible

like WMDS and fully automatic weapons ARE regulated. semi autos cant touch the fire rates of full autos. They dont fire that fast. The faster you try to shoot, the less accurate you become. Its a waste to even try to shoot too fast

[Callisto32]

102. They are instruments that lauch ballistic projectiles.

What one chooses to launch them AT is a personal choice.

[Maine_Nurse]

50. Yes I do

It is my absolute right to protect myself and my family. Have you ever been the victim of a home invasion? We have and I'm very thankful that the wife was near her nightstand and pistol.

I hunt. I target shoot with the kids and grandkids. I even manufacture my own ammunition and sometimes build and repair firearms. Those things are all hobbies and activities to me, but when it comes right down to it, I want to have something that will kill effectively.

[CreekDog]

56. that sounds smart

then you can shoot people that sneak up on you.

as someone who was almost bludgeoned by my grandfather's baseball bat in the middle of the night.

no thanks.

[CreekDog]

57. you keep a gun in the nightstand, quickly accessible

with children in the house?

i think you're a danger to them. seriously.

is the gun loaded? is it locked up?

how fast can you pull the trigger from a deep sleep? how many seconds?

[Maine_Nurse]

58. My kids are grown and gone.

My firearms are not locked up and yes they are loaded. The rifle on the wall over my bed is loaded, the handgun next to my bed is loaded and the shotgun over in the corner is loaded. It used to be just the handgun until I woke up one night to my dogs chewing the face off a bear that had crawled halfway through my kitchen window. Then the rifle started staying loaded too.

When the kids were here, up until they had firearms of their own, the handgun stayed loaded in a small safe opened by a finger combination lock, and everything else was unloaded and secured.

[CreekDog]

59. so that's all safe, having all those weapons loaded and ready to shoot within seconds of waking up

unless you take Ambien.

:rofl:

just because you haven't killed anybody or yourself by accident, doesn't mean that what you're doing is responsible --not does it mean that it should be legal.

:crazy:

[Maine_Nurse]

65. Wow. Just plain wow.

Lets see, I've owned firearms of my own since I was 7 and I'm now sliding towards 50. I was an infantry soldier and, between that and civilian life, I've probably fired over a half a million rounds. I've had more formal firearms training than most police in my state (my kid is a deputy sheriff, I know about this). I manufacture my own ammo and sometimes my own firarms and, oh by the way, my job is to administer potentially lethal medications and to make life or death decisions about people. I'm still here and I obviously haven't accidentally killed anyone. I think I'm good, thanks.

[CreekDog]

67. of course you think you're good

and it sounds like the more guns you have around you, almost within arm's reach, the better you think you are.

i can't burst that bubble. but it is a bubble.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. How many seconds will it take for the police to get to your home, if necessary?

Remember, you do not have a right to their protection, so any home safety is pretty much up to you, in extremis.

[Maine_Nurse]

62. Absolutely!

My best hope would be 45 minutes in good summer weather where I am. That really isn't out of line here in rural Maine. My son is a deputy with the department and that 45 minute time is with the expectation that him or his buddies would go "oh shit" and push the limits to get to me.

In reality, unless you have an officer in your living room when something happens, it doesn't much matter if you live next door to a PD, they won't be there in time and you better be able to take care of yourself.

[CreekDog]

63. what does keeping a loaded gun in the nightstand have to do with police?

i could live a state away from a policeman or 100 feet away and in neither case would I be safer with a loaded gun in my nightstand.

and neither are you, that poster or anyone else.

you just *think* you are. doesn't mean you are.

all these cowboys.

[Maine_Nurse]

69. You are right, you wouldn't be, but I am.

I have training, skills, and experience. You do not. I have been in life-threatening situations and protected myself. As has my wife, with a firearm in our home. Some have the ability, others do not.

[CreekDog]

72. training doesn't make you responsible

as your keeping a loaded weapon within arm's reach of you while you sleep proves.

which is incredibly foolish. honestly, that weapon is safer with me than you, because i'd unload it and lock it up before i went to bed.

you? in a dreamworld and armed.

[Maine_Nurse]

76. You live in a different world than I do

I am in rural Maine. Firearms are a way of life up here. They are tools that serve a purpose. Hell, firearms safety and handling is often taught in grammar school here and that is a very good thing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a loaded weapon in a home with no children and both adults trained and experienced in their use. We have had a home invasion where a firearm was needed instantly here at my house. I am just thankful that the wifey practices enough and understands things well enough that her first instinct was to arm herself when she saw the intruder (her just coming out of the shower and being buck-naked might have bought her some time too, hehehe). We also had a black bear in our kitchen at 3am. When you need a firearm, you need it immediately.

You are obviously not comfortable with them and shouldn't ever own one, but that is your choice. My choice is to own and use them. There is nothing at all irresponsible with either of our stances. But I'm never going to tell you you HAVE to have one and you will never tell me I CAN'T have one.

[CreekDog]

74. but don't worry about me, you won't convince me and I won't convince you

but most people who read this thread --they'll come to judgments about you.

your posts are helping them understand what they are dealing with.

one of many people who have traded all rationality for guns.

[GKirk]

95. "they'll come to judgments about you"

I know I did! I think he is taking reasonable steps to protecting himself and his family.
You on the other hand are being irrational, you imagine that his guns are going to attack
him in the middle of the night.

[CreekDog]

97. "Reasonable steps" is not having several weapons in your bedroom

some at arm's reach from your bed, unsecured and loaded.

that's not reasonable, that's stupid.

and not having shot himself or anybody else does not make it smart.

[Callisto32]

105. Hey, if you think YOU aren't capable of having dangerous things around, by all means don't.

Last I checked I have a "loaded," razor-sharp chef's knife that is in easy reach in a wooden block every time I am in the kitchen. It is a tool that I use on a daily basis to CUT UP PREVIOUSLY LIVING THINGS. O NOEZ!

I have managed to handle (not the same knife, of course, they used to be my mother's) that for the past 15 years.

If you seriously think that the danger posed by the improper use of a tool is a reason to ban it, nothing would be allowed.

[CreekDog]

111. so you think it's a good idea to keep that knife in your nightstand then?

within arm's reach of you when you're sleeping? i don't.

all that said, knives serve a purpose other than killing. it's hard to function in life without using a knife to cut on a daily basis.

it's quite good and quite typical to not need a loaded killing machine(s) within arm's reach of you while you sleep.

[Katya Mullethov]

112. My wife sleeps with a loaded killing machine

When I am not sleepin' in that chair .


Your frustration must be nearly incapacitating , and I can certainly sympathize . If only the rest of the country were as reasonable,intelligent,and judgmental as yourself , you'd be getting what you want . But apparently they are not .
Come to think of it , if my wife was more like that , falling asleep in that chair would be "saying something" about the "precariousness of our relationship" . Fortunately, the heel to toe rocking rain man demographic is sparsely distributed at best . All they ever need do is start running their mouths and the rest takes care of itself . Hundreds of people will read this very thread , and many will ponder " Is it quite good and typical to have a bear in your kitchen at 3am ?" While a few will simply speed read right on past and start running their mouths .

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Why not? It's not going to leap out of the drawer and slash his throat while he sleeps

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. You are capable of making that decision for yourself- and only yourself.

You do not have the right, the power, and judging by your posts, the technical knowledege to make that determination for

anyone else.

[CreekDog]

73. no, it's not all up to you

that's what laws are for

some people, left to their own devices would kill themselves, someone else, or lots of someone else's.

some through the negligence of poor weapon handling (and keeping) would be a risk for others getting killed by innocents or criminals who steal their weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Out of curiousity, what gun laws are you familiar with? Or self-defense laws in general...

...as you yourself know that guns are not the only deadly weapon around.

[oneshooter]

98. So then YOU are the only authority of what we do in our own homes?

If we follow YOUR rules to the letter then YOU will guarantee our safety?

If the answer is "no" then why should we do it.
If the answer is "no" then why do you propose it?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Callisto32]

106. Is it not one's right to commit suicide?

Does that person not own his/her body and thus have a right to destroy it if they desire?

If someone steals my stuff and harms someone with it that is my fault? What if my car was stolen and someone was hurt (much more common than being hurt by a gun) would I be responsible for that too?

[pipoman]

85. You saying,

instruments designed to do nothing but kill, only makes you look silly.


US Olympic Shooting Team

[Francis Marion]

113. The Lords of Design speak, and the robot-people must obey...

-y-e-e-s-s-s- m-a-a-a-s-te-r-r-r-
... pay no attention to the flawed rhetoritician behind the curtain...

Yes- ALL guns do NOTHING except kill, kill, and kill, all the time, till they jam, smoking, from gore and overuse.

Because, as we all know, guns are designed only to kill, and since the entire mass of humanity has all promised to respect your posited design intent, maybe your Police Department should melt down all their guns into a giant peace pipe.

By the way, I can confirm that this is true- I have a channel of communication with the secretive gun use oversight committee, RIGID: Reinforcing Intent for Guns In Design)

Flint, too, is designed only to kill, kill kill; from paleolithic times to this very day, mankind has hunted animals and killed people with stone tipped arrows and spears. Assault stones, such as obsidian, have no legitimate lapidary use.

Please do the right thing and use all of the rocks nearby for their correct, and only, purpose: to kill mammoths, cave bears, game animals, tribal enemies or Cro Magnons which happen by.

The only reason you have stones in your yard is to kill people and animals: a selfish, dangerous, and morally bad decision deserving introspection and corrective action.

Bronze and iron blades were designed to do nothing but kill-chop chop chop! Museums have plenty of ancient swords and daggers to prove this. I am sure you don't have any steel kitchen knives; their only purpose is to kill, and we must not have things at hand which can do nothing but kill. Get those things out of the kitchen and melt 'em down. Whew.

Lumber is only used to construct gallows; therefore all stud framed houses...

Really- Design intent, as you have chosen to define it, is THE ONLY use to be considered of any given tool?

And your understanding of design intent, for all guns, is correct in the first place? Really.

How about defining and punishing bad behavior, instead of taking away everybody's tools.

[cleanhippie]

120. 10 fallacious arguments. You have 9 left.

[GKirk]

96. If it save's one life!

How often do we hear that old phrase in situations like this? But do we ever mean it?
For example if we wanted to save a lot of lives today, we could lower the speed limit on all highways to 45mph and city streets to 15mph. That would save lives, right? But we willing to trade lives for the right to get places a little sooner, aren't we?

[Euromutt]

107. Bingo!

"One life lost is too many" only as long it's due to an item or activity the speaker wants to ban. The rest of the time, who gives a fuck? Who cares that four 9 year-olds have been killed in motor vehicle collisions since January 8th? Why should we ban hiking and mountain climbing even though both claim a handful of lives every year (but hey, every life lost is one too many, right?)

No, somehow those arguments only apply where those icky guns are concerned.

[shadowrider]

108. Afraid I have to fix this for you

No, somehow those arguments lives only apply count where those icky guns are concerned.