How often are assault weopons used in self & home defense?
Until guns can be made so they don’t shoot children, they belong under lock and key, unloaded:
Noone has asked that question before because it is so irrelevant but we do know that it has been used in self and home defense in the past. We do know how frequently it is used in homocides, the number is a I believe something like 400 since the AWB expired (i don’t remember if thats per year or total). Out of something like 100,000 gun homocides its a pretty small number.
The reason I say it is irrelevant is because a ten year AWB had no discernible effect on gun violence.
If you want to make a law that requires people to have secured weapons, thats fine, how do you enforce such a law (do you arrest the grieving parents or do you do home inspections?). What if you don’t have kids, can you keep a loaded gun under your pillow then? What if you have a biometric smart gun (they don’t exist yet but lets just say).
Secondly, I am pretty sure that SCOTUS has said that trigger locks and gun safe requirements are unconstitutional.
I am in favor of responsible gun ownership laws. Gun owners are responsible for what happens with their guns. If kid is found in possession of a gun, the gun owner is guilty of a misdemeanor; if the kid hurts himself or others, the gun owner is guilty of a felony. No inspections or mandatory locks are necessary; gun owners are free to secure their weapons any way they wish, so long as they know they assume the responsibility for any mayhem or injuries caused by their use.
I just realized that until you mentioned it, I had pretty much assumed that was already the case. Silly me.
I suppose so.
All those maybe’s are in your imagination. I can play that game too. Maybe I’d forget to set the alarm, maybe the intruder snuck in before the alarm was set, maybe my dog ran away, maybe my dog was taken by the humane society for attacking a child…
The fact is, I’m alive because I have my gun. I would have been dead without it. Likely my girlfriend too. Is that how you prefer things went down?
And I did something with it, and it was useful? Disagree?
True security in my case.
I don’t think any such thing. Where did you get that idea?
Kable, I’m not saying a gun is useless. I’m saying a gun is woefully insufficient if it is the only thing used for home security. There are so many ways that a gun will fail to protect you. I iterated some of the failures which you didn’t address. Just because other systems also have failures doesn’t mean that guns are sufficient. You’re relying way too much on your gun. Any system which depends on you waking up and confronting the threat is not a good safety situation.
You’re putting so much faith in your gun that it’s giving you a false sense of security. You’re ignoring other real threats because you think the gun is all you need.
Why do you seem to think that you are incapable of defending yourself without a gun? All your posts have this same attitude: guns are the ONLY means of defense, and without them you would be utterly defenseless. What is it that has happened to you or that you have seen that engendered this?
No gun ≠ no self-defense
Did you all see the anecdote about the shooting in Switzerland that resulted in 3 dead and 7 wounded? Apparently it is their second multiple fatality shooting in as many months.
Breaking news - guns don’t shoot people, dogs shoot people.
Ok, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one confused. Hard to keep up when we only quote a bit of each other’s stuff and respond to that.
Again, I don’t believe it had no discernible effect, nor would I believe, if data was shown to me proving it, that it was the fault of the AWB rather than the short length of time in which it was in effect.
What I would accept as evidence is something along the lines of looking at the specific weapons banned in the AWB, and if there were loopholes around that, and taking the ones that don’t have them, then looking at their availability. If you don’t think it affect gun violence, fine, but if it can be shown to have an effect on the type of guns it sought to reduce, then extrapolating that logic, I can say it would have had a great effect on gun violence had it been more ironclad and longer
We’ll just have to wait for the CDC to come back with their study I suppose
Because the NRA is crazy. Do you really think they’ll accept any research, no matter who does it, if it points to widespread gun availability being one factor in our high gun violence rate?
You will admit it was 100% sufficient for me, when I needed it though, won’t you?
The gun is what best fits my lifestyle, and I can take it with me outside the home, which is a benefit an alarm doesn’t share. That’s good too don’t you think? What home security measures do you take?
Staying as far away from people like you as humanly possible.
1/3 of all accidents occur within a mile of his house, so your strategy has merit.
The dog is not facing charges. 
While I favor gun rights in general, this is the kind of carelessness/stupidity that should get this guy’s gun rights removed.
He doesn’t know it’s loaded and it’s bouncing around loose on the floor of his truck. Brilliant.
I’m looking for the word frightening in the Scalia opinion and I cannot find it. Can you provide a cite?
People have all sorts of reasons for buying an AR-15. In my experience, the primary reason is because they are ex-military and the AR-15 is a platform they are familiar with. This creates a large market for parts and accessories. As a result the AR-15 is the most customizable rifle out there. This makes them very attractive rifles for the rest of the market.
And once again, if there is no discernible reduction in gun violence when you ban AR-15s, then what is the point in banning them? What is the consitutional argument for instituting an ineffective ban?
In no other case is this sort of strict owner liability imposed. If some underage kids raid my bar and get caught, I am not liable for giving those underage kids liquor. But you would make me liable for an underage kid possessing my firearm as if I had given it to them?
If I have a bottle of rat poison and a kid gets into and kills himself, I am not liable. But if a kid gets a hold of my gun and shoots himself, I’m guilty of a felony? Which felony? Murder?
If I leave my car keys in in the ignition and some kid takes my car for a joyride and runs over a bunch of people, I am not guilty of anything but if a kid gets a hold of my gun and shoots a bunch of people, then i am guilty of something?
You are applying a stricter standard to my cosntitutionally protected firearms than youa re applying to a range of other things that I own that do not enjoy specific constitutional protection.
Why is that? It doesn’t seem rational, certainly not when taken in the context of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Why would you assume that?
Are you liable if someone steals your poorly secured car and runs someone over with it? Are you liable when a kid gets into your liquor cabinet?
I think dogs are great. They can be great watchdogs and the larger breeds can provide very good physical security (I don’t know if anyone has been mugged while walking a rottweiler but I doubt it), unfortunately my wife is allergic and is generally against animals roaming her house. I have a deep and abiding hatred of alarm companies dating back to my childhood.
Guns on the other hand has saved the livelihoods of friends and family during the LA riots and they have foiled robberies at family owned businesses. So when given a choice between owning a gun or being unarmed, I want to have a gun.
From “Think Progress” “A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm”
I’m glad to see this and hope the issue gets explored further. The second ammendment does not give unfettered access to any and all guns in any and all situations. The responsibly part is missing from the pro-gun side.
It was a DECADE!!! How much longer does the test period have to be before its a valid test of then policy? The DoJ says that an AWB is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. At this point you are dangerously close to saying that you cannot be swayed by facts. You sound like Republicans who try to justify supply side economics when they say that the only reason it didn’t work was because it needed more time to become effective.
You can’t tell legal gun owners that its ok to ban assault weapons because there are so many other weapons to choose from but assume that the same choice is not going to be available to criminals who aren’t nearly as likely to comply with any law. Of course the AWB was effective in banning the weapons it actually banned, thats not the question. The question is whether banning any small subset of guns is going to have any impact at all on gun violence generally. The vast majority of criminals use a 38 special, a .380, or a 9 mm. If we banned these calibers, I am confident, that it would have no discernible effect on gun violence no matter how long the ban was in effect. Similarly, banning a small subset of guns will have no effect on gun violence no matter how long that ban remains in effect.
We have had a ban on machine guns since 1986. That ban has had no discernible effect on gun violence in the 25 years since it was passed. How much longer before we can expect to see the impact of THAT ban?
Simply put, gun bans on some small subset of guns will have no effect on gun violence. A ban on handguns might have an effect but you would probably have to repeal the second amendment to get that.
Why? There have been several studies already. What makes the CDC so qualified to research gun violence while other government agencies that have already studied this are not? Looking to the CDC for a more favorable report is really an exericise in forum shopping, or do you think the DoJ is a pro-gun outfit?
We don’t need the NRA to accept it. They are not omnipotent, they are a lobbying group that probably spent less on the last election cycle than dozens of individuals did on their own. And frankly, I think it is an exercise in stating the obvious if you say that widespread gun availability being one factor in our high gun violence rate. THAT horse left the barn a looong time ago, there are over 300 million guns floating around society already. Short of repealing the second amendment and confiscating guns, you are not going to change the widespread availability of guns in our society, and a ban would only restrict access to law abiding citizens.
If you want to ban guns entirely then repeal the second amendment and just ban the goddam things but trying to ban guns one small subset at a time is a horrible policy and IMHO unconstitutional.
There are several cases being set up for SCOTUS. We will see what SCOTUS has to say about it. I think the second amendment says “keep and bear arms” not just “keep arms” so while they can restrict ther ight to carry concealed, I don’t think they can restrict the right to carry concealed AND open as much as these places do.
Damuri Ajashi, your rank ignorance of research and how it is done is shocking.
You keep saying that the NCVS survey is research, and in a broad sense it is, but what you keep saying about the CDC and DoJ is akin to saying “Why should the NIH do research on cancer, since the American Cancer Society already did a survey and found out how many people have cancer.”
CDC is an agency of the federal government, like NIH and DoJ. They do some internal stuff and a lot of external funding of research. DoJ is not particularly involved in research, although they do also do some funding of external research projects.
Basically you’re coming off like a fool on the subject.