Okay to ask guest to leave their guns at home?

[Blake]

@Argent_Towers

The very same logic - the very same logic - applies to the carrying of a firearm as to the wearing of a seatbelt. You probably won’t need it, but if you need it, you’ll really need it. Does nobody understand this but me?

I don’t think anybody else cares. It’s simply not an issue. The odds of *you * needing it or not is irrelevant. Only two points are relevant.

One is that the weapon being in my home entails an increased risk to me and mine. The other is that I have right to decide which risks I place on me and mine in my own house.

Do you disagree with either of those points?

There’s always a non-zero probability that anything might happen. To bring this up is a bunch of hyperbole and poppycock.

So you accept that it’s true, but it’s still a bunch of hyperbole and poppycock.:dubious: How does that work?

There’s a nonzero possibility that the chandelier might fall from the ceiling and smash my skull. There’s a nonzero possibility that a sinkhole might swallow up the house and kill me. There’s a nonzero possibility that I’ll set myself on fire with a candlestick.

That’s right. And would you be insulted if I told you not to install a chandelier in my house, or not to light candles in my house based on those reasons?

Not sure what the relevance is of sinkhole example, since it not something that one can bring to house.

Sure, there’s a nonzero probability that someone carrying a concealed handgun might have an accident with it. There’s also a nonzero probability that the house might get robbed. Do you see where I’m going here?

I think you’re trying to argue that *you *get to tell *me *which risks I have to place on for *my *family in *my *house. That I don’t get to evaluate the risks based on the evidence and decide that the risk from burglary is less than the risk form your weapon. That I should be forced to accept your evaluations and forced to accept the risks that you decide I have to accept.

Is that about right?

Look, Argent Towers, I’m a fair sort of fan of gun rights. I think everyone should be allowed the right to carry. But my home is my castle, and my right to choose my own risks therein trumps that right. Just as you have a right to own whatever porn you like, but you don’t have a right to bring it into my house with my family.

[Argent_Towers]

This is a dead end. I am out of this debate for good. Bye.

[bengangmo]

You may also want to remember that a request not to carry in my house is not neccessarily a judgement on my part of your skill or otherwise.

It is a statement of my level of comfort with having a handgun in the house, whether said gun is “properly” controlled or not - I simply don’t want it here.

As as side note though - I grew up in New Zealand, where our police don’t (normally) carry handguns, and where pistols are unheard of outside of a gun range. If somebody is carrying a handgun in New Zealand as they go about their everyday business it is for one of two reasons

1. They are part of a diplomatic (or VVIP) protection squad
2. They are a criminal
   We also have a strong farming and hunting culture, and people are used to being around a variety of weapons - shotguns, .22, 303 etc etc. It is normal for kids to have and shot bb guns or slug guns.

I go back to my post at the top of this page - when New Zealand asked the US not to bring nuclear weapons into our ports, it wasn’t because we thought that one would go off accidently, but rather because we didn’t (and don’t) believe in nuclear weapons.

As a separate issue, I also believe that the net effect of licensing handguns and concealed carry permits is a less safe society. Maybe in particular instances it does help to achieve a better outcome that a responsible citizen is carrying a weapon, but I would be willing to bet that if you added everything up, legally allowing citizens to keep and carry handguns is detrimental to society. Now I would not argue with the 2nd ammendment, and the right of people to do whatever the hell they please, however I do feel a right to have my beliefs respected in my house.

Much the same way that a christian family may well say grace before every meal, although I am athiest, if I am in their house you’d better believe that I would observe their (what I see as stupid) practises - I wouldn’t go around and insist on my right to freedom of religion (or freedom from religion)

[Claude_Remains]

Can anyone list a few cites that have the average Walker, Texas ranger wannabee saving the day cause they were packing?

[Blake]

@Argent_Towers

It is pure conjecture and hyperbole, the equivalent of dreaming up fictitious alternate universes and alien races or making up fantasy baseball teams.

I hardly think that you changing jobs, and one of your new workmates inviting you to dinner, is equivalent to " alternate universes and alien races".

[Kimstu]

@Argent Towers

Well, I highly, highly doubt that there’s any person on the planet who will know me well enough to invite me for dinner, but not know me well enough to trust me with a handgun.

Um, if you say so. Is having someone over for dinner really such an intimate act in the crowd you hang out with? I frequently have dinner parties that include some guests whom I may have met only once or twice before.

In fact, IMO one of the chief purposes of inviting people for dinner is to get a chance to know them better. If I had to wait until I knew somebody well enough to confidently assess how responsible and conscientious they would be about concealed-carrying before I could invite them to dinner, it would definitely cramp my style as a hostess.

@Argent Towers

I personally am never going to be in this situation, ever. It is not going to happen.

You may well be absolutely right. But there are a significant number of gun carriers who are at some point going to be in a situation where they have an accident involving their gun, because they aren’t quite as totally conscientious and responsible as they thought they were. And unless I know you very well, I really can’t tell whether or not you’re one of those people. So…better safe than sorry.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

I
I think you’re trying to argue that *you *get to tell *me *which risks I have to place on for *my *family in *my *house. That I don’t get to evaluate the risks based on the evidence and decide that the risk from burglary is less than the risk form your weapon. That I should be forced to accept your evaluations and forced to accept the risks that you decide I have to accept.

I’m in agreement with you on this Blake, but I would like to add one more point from my own personal point thinking, which may surprise some people.

Even if the risk and “damage” (not sure how to define damage so put like this first) from burglary is greater than that from an accident from a concealed weapon, I would still rather the weapon NOT be carried.

This is because I don’t want to go through my life under the sort of cloud, negative perception of the world or “scared” of life attitude that requires me to carry a gun.

Carrying a gun is an action that I can take and feel responsible for - its simply not how I want to live life. Being burgled is somebody else’s action - one that they are responsible for, not one that I have to allow to affect me.

Also - to get into a stupid repetitive argument I don’t accept that when being burgled, having someone with a weapon present is going to stop the burglary, it may well also escalate the situation and its not inconceivable that the weapon could be taken from AT and used against him, thereby making the situation worse than it would otherwise have been.

[Blake]

@bengangmo

I go back to my post at the top of this page - when New Zealand asked the US not to bring nuclear weapons into our ports, it wasn’t because we thought that one would go off accidently, but rather because we didn’t (and don’t) believe in nuclear weapons.

The primary stated reasons of the politicians at the time was that it made NZ a nuclear target and because there was a risk of reactor accident. Any objection based on principle was way down the list.

[Nava]

@muldoonthief

Nava, that seems strange to me. Unless the homeowner had lockable storage large enough to hold the gun, it seems the safest place for it would have been directly under the cop’s control. Or was there going to be some drinking involved?

Well, for starters I understand that many of them are happy to lose the weight. When the house in question has a large enough safe, the guns are placed there; when there isn’t, they’re placed in a spot that can’t be reached without a ladder and from which they won’t fall unless there’s an eartquake large enough that guns will be the least of your worries.

As Stranger in a Train pointed out, carrying a loaded gun while in someone’s house implies that you don’t trust them. If I was a cop, I wouldn’t want to do that to the sergeant - even if he’s retired. So, unload it, right? OK, where do you place the bullets (loose or in a cartridge)? Remembering to ask for your gun back is easier than remembering to ask for a fraction of its weight back - and they are cops, if they forget it they can’t come pick it up a week later.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

The primary stated reasons of the politicians at the time was that it made NZ a nuclear target and because there was a risk of reactor accident. Any objection based on principle was way down the list.

Hmmm…interesting, not the way that I remember it playing out having lived through it, but then I was just sprog at the time and it was a long time ago.

[Nava]

@muldoonthief

Nava, that seems strange to me. Unless the homeowner had lockable storage large enough to hold the gun, it seems the safest place for it would have been directly under the cop’s control. Or was there going to be some drinking involved?

Well, for starters I understand that many of them are happy to lose the weight: taking the gun off is sort of a gesture that’s intended both to say “look, I’m not armed” and part of their own mental “unloading” process. A cop with a gun is a cop that’s not relaxed and who won’t accept even a glass of water, much less ask for a beer. When the house in question has a large enough safe, the guns are placed there; when there isn’t, they’re placed in a spot that can’t be reached without a ladder and from which they won’t fall unless there’s an eartquake large enough that guns will be the least of your worries.

As Stranger in a Train pointed out, carrying a loaded gun while in someone’s house implies that you don’t trust them. If I was a cop, I wouldn’t want to do that to the sergeant - even if he’s retired. So, unload it, right? OK, where do you place the bullets (loose or in a cartridge)? Remembering to ask for your gun back is easier than remembering to ask for a fraction of its weight back - and they are cops, if they forget it they can’t come pick it up a week later.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

The primary stated reasons of the politicians at the time was that it made NZ a nuclear target and because there was a risk of reactor accident. Any objection based on principle was way down the list.

OK…just to continue the hijack a bit, when I looked at your cite a bit furter and saw who it was put out by I decided to google a bit more…

A couple more relevant points

Wiki…

“Anti-nuclear sentiment had triggered the election of 1984. In the context of a global nuclear free movement caused by mounting Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, visits to New Zealand by US navy ships caused publicity and protest. In June 1984 Labour MP Richard Prebble introduced a bill (one of a series since the 1970s) to ban nuclear armed and powered ships, as well as nuclear reactors and waste. The National government at the time had a majority of one, and MP Marilyn Waring crossed the floor to support the nuclear free legislation. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon claimed that Waring’s “feminist anti-nuclear stance” threatened his ability to govern, and called a snap election. After winning the election Labour entered office with the intention of declaring New Zealand nuclear free; the party had proposed to renegotiate the ANZUS treaty to incorporate a nuclear free nation. The critical moment in relations with the US came when in 1985 when New Zealand refused a request from the destroyer USS Buchanan (DDG-14) on the grounds that it was capable of carrying nuclear weapons. New Zealand was subsequently ejected from the American Alliance”

and
Auckalnd University

"In July 1984 a newly elected Labour government implemented a policy which dissociated New Zealand’s military establishment from the nuclear component of the then-Cold War confrontation. In 1987 the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act was passed, giving legal force to the policy. Although the passage of the Act was regarded by the United States as a near-hostile action on the part of New Zealand, none of its three explicit purposes would have been expected intrinsically to evoke international controversy. These purposes are:

(i) to establish a Nuclear Free Zone in New Zealand,

(ii) to promote and encourage an effective contribution by New Zealand

to international disarmament and arms control,

and (iii) to implement locally a number of treaties to which New Zealand is

party, specifically, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty, the Sea-bed Treaty, the Biological Weapons

Convention and the Treaty of Rarotonga (which created the South

Pacific Nuclear Free Zone)."

Bear in mind this was around the time of Rainbow Warrior bombing, which was tied to Nuclear Bomb testing in the Pacific by the French. I may be conflating the issues a little.

I certainly remember the BOMB part getting much more play than the power part - so much so that I was surprised to find the ban on power is included in the original act.,

Butr going by those two sources, non-proliferation was a major driver of the legislation. Nuclear power is a much smaller issue for New Zealand, and I would have thought if that was the only issue, then an accomodation would have been made.

[Blake]

Since the issue seems to have been resolved, I’ll continue the antipodean hijack.

@bengangmo

Butr going by those two sources, non-proliferation was a major driver of the legislation. Nuclear power is a much smaller issue for New Zealand, and I would have thought if that was the only issue, then an accomodation would have been made.

What the actual drivers were we’ll never know. Ultimately I imagine it was votes, as with 99% of legislation. But the politicians (and activists) at the time were quite clear that the threat of NZ being nuked and the threat of a reactor accident were the main reasons. Following that was the issue of sovereignty.

Whether that was because those issues were easier to sell to the public than an issue of principle or nebulous international treaties I couldn’t say. Given that this was 5 years after Three Mile Islandand the height and at the height of the 80s nuclear war panic either one seems plausible. But at the time if you had asked someone in NZ what the issue was I’d wager five to one they wouldn’t invoke any principle, because that’s not how it was sold to the public.

Now that the nuclear paranoia of the 80s has subsided somewhat it is primarily held up as an issue of principle because the threat issues seem so tiny that it seems they could be accommodated. But you have to remember that in the mid 80s the public attitude to “radiation” and “nuclear” was akin to the reaction of medieval peasants to the devil. Hard to believe if you weren’t there, but true.

[Nava]

@Argent_Towers

When you get into this issue of “I don’t see the need,” the argument loses traction. You don’t see the need…so what? That’s enough of a problem for you that you would really ask someone in advance to not do it? Just because you don’t think they need to? Would you say the same thing about someone wearing a medallion of St. Anthony under his shirt or carrying a lucky bottle cap in his pocket?

If I was having lunch with Der Trihs I’d make sure there wasn’t a rosary hanging from my rearview mirror.

Your mileage evidently varies.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

Since the issue seems to have been resolved, I’ll continue the antipodean hijack.

What the actual drivers were we’ll never know. Ultimately I imagine it was votes, as with 99% of legislation. But the politicians (and activists) at the time were quite clear that the threat of NZ being nuked and the threat of a reactor accident were the main reasons. Following that was the issue of sovereignty.

At the time of the legisalation being passed I was about 10, and lived in New Zealand.

Now as a 10 year old I wouldn’t have thought that I had the maturity, or was well read enough to appreciate national issues and drivers. I do have memories of the discussions at the time, as well as the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior (in 1985).

I can recall that testing of bombs on Murora Atoll was a big issue - I don’t recall 3 mile island even getting a mention at the time (these are all my impressions 25 years later ok). I can also recall watching Nuclear Winter themed movies from around this time.

Going from what I remember, the “tipping point” of the argument over ANZUS was weapons, much more so than power. Precipitated by the visit of a US warship, which was ultimately denied entry because the US would not make a public statement as to whether it was nuclear armed. I need to go do some googling on this - from what I remember the ship was already enroute and denied entry at the last moment, which seems a bit silly if the issue was nuclear power. After all -what powered the ship would have been known at the outset.
This could be bias speaking, memories clouded by time, poor understanding from a 10 year old or any other reason.

I see and agree that the officially recorded reasons are different to what I recall of the atmosphere of the time - so it would be interesting (for me) to go back and do a search through newspaper articles and other commentary leading up to the law being enacted in 1984 to see how far off I am in my perceptions.

At the present moment though I really don’t have time (or energy) for such a tromp through history.

You also sound like you have some personal experience of what was happening - care to share at all

[bengangmo]

Cherry picking from here…http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/asb90.cfm

“In February 1985, New Zealand refused port entry to the conventionally powered destroyer USS Buchanan on suspicion that it might be carrying nuclear weapons. Last year, New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange rejected the whole concept of nuclear deterrence.” - so I have conflated things a bit, the election was held in 1984 and the no nukes allowed law was passed in Jan 1985…

Also from this A Nuclear-Weapon-Free South Pacific: A New Zealand Perspective on JSTOR site I get that the first order of business for our regional countries was the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone…something that had been under discussion since 1975.

[Blake]

First off I’m only 4 years your senior, so I may not personally be that much ahead of you, but I was reading the papers at that stage. I was in Oz at the time, but living with Kiwis, so the issue was pretty prominent in discussions.

But I’ll stand by what I said simply because that’s my memory, and it’s backed up by all I can find online form the time. The issues being sold were “nuclear target”, “reactor leak” and “sovereignty” in that order. Principle and treaties were way down the list.

Might I suggest that your memories as a 10yo on a complex issue were coloured by your parents’ explanations? What issues did they think important on this topic?

I don’t doubt that for a moment that academics, and perhaps some politicians and even some activists, held principle to be paramount. My point is that this is contrary to what the politicians and activists told the media/public at the time. That’s not unusual or unexpected, I only mentioned it because it suggests that the NZ people rejected nukes not because of some high principle, but out of self interest. Not that that’s a bad thing.

If you can find any popular press material from the time I’m open to changing my mind. I don’t think Google and the memories of a 14 YO are necessarily the best source for political history.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

First off I’m only 4 years your senior, so I may not personally be that much ahead of you, but I was reading the papers at that stage. I was in Oz at the time, but living with Kiwis, so the issue was pretty prominent in discussions.

But I’ll stand by what I said simply because that’s my memory, and it’s backed up by all I can find online form the time. The issues being sold were “nuclear target”, “reactor leak” and “sovereignty” in that order. Principle and treaties were way down the list.

Might I suggest that your memories as a 10yo on a complex issue were coloured by your parents’ explanations? What issues did they think important on this topic?

I don’t doubt that for a moment that academics, and perhaps some politicians and even some activists, held principle to be paramount. My point is that this is contrary to what the politicians and activists told the media/public at the time. That’s not unusual or unexpected, I only mentioned it because it suggests that the NZ people rejected nukes not because of some high principle, but out of self interest. Not that that’s a bad thing.

If you can find any popular press material from the time I’m open to changing my mind. I don’t think Google and the memories of a 14 YO are necessarily the best source for political history.

I’m going through google now, most of the stuff I have found so far are focussed around the issues of Nuclear Testing and Nuclear war - encouraging nuclear non-proliferation.

Part of that was a stand of Principal, part was self interest, but I also see that there was a lot of fear at the time of a nuclear winter harming NZ even if there wasn’t a war we were involved in. In actual fact one study cited the fear of a nuclear winter as the biggest security concern of New Zealanders,

Here are a few more resources for those that care…the first sums up my recollection of the era quite well.

http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/huntle41.pdf (got tables inside of security concerns)

against this background of nuclear testing in the region, movement toward establishing a South Pacific NWFZ began in 1975, when the South Pacific Forum (SPF) supported New Zealand’s proposal to create a NWFZ in the region. The UN General Assembly endorsed this proposal the same year in Resolution 3477. In 1984, the SPF endorsed a set of principles, proposed by Australia, as a basis for establishing a NWFZ source - http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/nwfztutorial/chapter05_03.html
http://lcnp.org/disarmament/nwfz/NewZealandExperience.htm - a study done in the 1990s on “The New Zealand Experience” which sums up the issues quite well.

[bengangmo]

@Blake

But I’ll stand by what I said simply because that’s my memory, and it’s backed up by all I can find online form the time. The issues being sold were “nuclear target”, “reactor leak” and “sovereignty” in that order. Principle and treaties were way down the list.
.

What I am getting is similiar, the issues were

1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation / Nuclear target
2. Anti Nuclear weapons testing
3. Wanting a patina of indpendence in Foreign Policy (reference here that jogged my emotions http://archive.sgir.eu/uploads/Catalinac-Catalinac%20Nuclear-Free%20NZ.pdf)

Not sure if this moves me from my original thought or not - which was simply that New Zealand didn’t like nuclear weapons, and didn’t want them in the country much as someone may not like guns and not want them in the house.

I have also discovered that nuclear power was a way bigger issue in Australia than it was in New Zealand due to your uranium mining. It could be the search terms that I am using, but it appears to me that nuclear reactor meltdown was an “add on” issue rather than the driver of our policy.

[Scumpup]

In response to the OP, I’d secure the gun in the car. If the host is such a control freak that even that offends him, then I’d decline the invitation.