s/o Is it appropriate to take a concealed weapon into someone else's home

[Jenny in Florida]

Pretty much this. It's like we're so immune to gun violence, we just act like fixing it is impossible. A bunch of kids are gunned down and people say, "Responsible gun owners, blah blah blah blah."

 

Yes, it's one of those things I can't actually think about too much or I plunge into despair. It's beyond heartbreaking to me. It's like living in a carnival funhouse in which nothing you perceive actually makes sense.

 

I'll have to bow out of this discussion now, because I'm reaching that point. I wish courage to those who are more capable of continuing to speak on this issue.

[Reefgazer]

It would be interesting to see how many of those 30K deaths were purely accidental and how many were in the commissioning of a crime, an intentional suicide, and/or when not in possession of the permit owner (stolen).  I suspect relatively few of those 30K deaths are purely accidental while the gun is not in the hands of a criminal.

I've heard a lot of rhetoric spouted in this thread about the great likelihood of accidental gun deaths, and the statistics don't back up that claim either.

 

[poppy]

As a gun owner I am for sensible, simple gun laws. I wouldn't argue to the contrary on that one. One person breaking the laws and harming others doesn't mean the rights of all are forfeit. Should we argue this with drug or vehicle crime? Millions of people get into speeding projectiles every day and break the law. Well over 120,000 people die each year due to it. Shall we ban that?

 

We register cars, we have to get them inspected annually.....I'd LOVE to start treating guns like cars.   

And hey, let's start tracking how many people are injured or killed by guns.  Fund the CDC the same way we fund the NHSTA. And treating "accidental" gun deaths the same way we treat accidental vehicle deaths- just because it was an accident doesn't mean there should be no prosecution.  Sounds like a good start to sensible, simple gun laws.

 

That might go a long way towards improving the 7,000+ annual gunshot wounds to children annually. It doesn't have to be like this. 

[Joanne]

I live in Texas. I assume everyone has a gun somewhere - on them, in their vehicle, in their home.

 

The gun culture here is beyond entrenched. Trust me, there is such a thing.

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

http://americangunfacts.com/

 

There are positive gun facts as well.  The bottom line is simple.  If you want to own a weapon then the 2nd Amendment should continue to protect your right as an American.  If you don't want to own a weapon, great, your choice.  I respect that. 

 

And banning all guns is ridiculous.  How has the war on drugs gone?  I fight that fight every day and let me tell you, we are losing... 

 

I do not have a decided opinion on the gun issue.

 

I do, however, have copious amounts of informed opinion on substance abuse and addiction and even recreational use (which accounts for a small percentage of drug consumption.)

 

Don't conflate the issues.

 

Criminalizing addiction has not worked; that's for sure.

[Joanne]

I am skeptical. I just can't believe that everyone who claims to have guns and ammo stored properly, separate, and locked actually *do*. What's the point of having a gun for protection while also claiming safe, textbook gun ownership?

[Chess Dad]

I am skeptical. I just can't believe that everyone who claims to have guns and ammo stored properly, separate, and locked actually *do*. What's the point of having a gun for protection while also claiming safe, textbook gun ownership?

 

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

[Joanne]

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

 

Why are you conflating these issues? It is not logical, and I can't respond to this.

 

It *isn't* "that simple." Not even constitutionally. Maybe some respect that about that?

[luuknam]

That's why prescriptions come in toddler-proof containers: people are not sufficiently careful to keep them out of children's hands.

 

C opened a child-proof medication container at 14 months old. Took him only a few seconds at that. The lovely people at the hospital lectured me that some kids under 2 can open them (gee, no kidding). Long story short: there are NO child-proof medication containers.

 

I don't carry my meds in my purse though since I don't like the rattling noise you get when you do that.

[swellmomma]

I'm Canadian.  If someone brought a gun into my house we would have a serious issue.  I have never understood the need for CC in the first place.  But I don't even allow hunting rifles in my home (I also do not allow cigarettes in my home, as per a comment on page 1).  My exhusband bought a hunting rifle.  He has that thing locked up tighter than a max security prison because he knows my views on weapons and knows he would not be seeing the kids at him home anymore if it wasn't (plus the adoption he and his wife are working towards would not be allowed to happen if it wasn't).  This whole notion of having the right to carry around weapons just because makes no sense to me.  And yeah I get it is in the constitution but I will never be able to wrap my head around even having that.  I mean having the right to CC has not made the country's citizens any safer.

Definitely a very different culture for sure.  The gun culture there is a big reason why I have never travelled to the usa.  I allowed my brother to take my kids to disney but I have never been south of the border and am hesitant to ever do so because of the gun culture that seems so prevalent there.

[ssavings]

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

 

To me, the issue is that if someone is bringing this a gun into my house, I do not have any way of knowing it's there, short of actually asking every visitor "are you carrying a gun or weapon of any kind today?"

 

I find it hard to relate the idea of being upset by someone bringing a weapon into my house that I am unaware of to swimming pools - I can see the pool, I can assess the danger, I can make a decision for myself and my children.

 

However, if someone is choosing to bring a gun into my house without informing me, they've taken away my choice, they've taken away my right to make a decision about what's best for myself and my children. 

 

Again, I have no problem whatsoever with CC or even open carry - my problem comes when I'm not given the opportunity to make a decision about whether I want a gun in my house. 

[Joker]

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

 

Seriously? I can choose to have my dds around/in swimming pools. I can watch over them because I know they are dangerous. That right is taken away from me if someone brings a weapon into my home and conceals it.

 

The 2nd Amendment allows you to bear arms but I don't think it means I have to allow you to bear them inside my home. It also allows those of us who don't wish to bear arms to do so.

[frogger]

This thread has split into two arguments. The first is can someone take a gun on my personal property without my knowing but of course, the ban all guns people have jumped on. They are not the same argument so it would be pointless for me to continue.

 

I will say that these "toys" people speak of have never ever killed someone I personally know. Yes, that is anecdotal evidence but since I know hundreds of people with guns at least 5 I know for sure carry concealed pretty much all the time I'm thinking I should be attending a lot more funerals. Of course, when I look at statistics I suddenly realize why I don't know anyone who has been shot with a gun.  I also know that two family members lives were saved by guns. They would not be around with their children and grandchildren and siblings and parents if the anti-gun people had their way. Applying anti-gun logic in the same way it is used against carriers I will say the anti-gun people would prefer they be dead along with everyone else whose life was saved by a gun but of course, that would be silly.

 

I will also never understand why they think cops are immune. We know cops kill with guns when they are not beating homeless men to a merciless bloody death on a street so I'm not sure why people are so trusting of them automatically.

 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/police-shooting-frenzy-raises-concerns/

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

 

I am not going to go off and say all cops are like this but your automatic trusting of someone with a badge is a bit ridiculous. Some are probably there to protect and because they want to help people but I could spam you with hundreds of stories of rapists, wife beaters, and everything from sticking a dog on a man already subdued face down on the ground to shooting a homeless man in the back while he is calmly walking away.  I have never had a problem with police but then again I live in the wealthier part of town as a young white woman with good manners and speech that implies intelligence and the ability to get a lawyer.   Perhaps the majority are great guys but then I have to wonder why they protect the bad ones.

 

The premise that some people are irresponsible with the freedom to own a gun and therefore people should not be allowed to own guns could also apply to homeschooling. Do you know how many people use abuse or cases of negligence of why homeschooling should be illegal? They are applying the same logic many of you are applying to guns. So to be consistent I do hope you are lobbying against the freedom to homeschool. After all, many people don't give their child a decent education and use the lack of outside contact as a way to conceal that they are molesting their children.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vera]

While you're being skeptical. Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well? I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study: http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple. The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. End of story.

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be. :patriot:

I haven't had anyone come into my house carrying a concealed swimming pool and as far as I know, no one has taken a swimming pool to a school and killed people with it.

[Vera]

This thread has split into two arguments. The first is can someone take a gun on my personal property without my knowing but of course, the ban all guns people have jumped on. They are not the same argument so it would be pointless for me to continue.

 

I will say that these "toys" people speak of have never ever killed someone I personally know. Yes, that is anecdotal evidence but since I know hundreds of people with guns at least 5 I know for sure carry concealed pretty much all the time I'm thinking I should be attending a lot more funerals. Of course, when I look at statistics I suddenly realize why I don't know anyone who has been shot with a gun. I also know that two family members lives were saved by guns. They would not be around with their children and grandchildren and siblings and parents if the anti-gun people had their way. Applying anti-gun logic in the same way it is used against carriers I will say the anti-gun people would prefer they be dead along with everyone else whose life was saved by a gun but of course, that would be silly.

 

I will also never understand why they think cops are immune. We know cops kill with guns when they are not beating homeless men to a merciless bloody death on a street so I'm not sure why people are so trusting of them automatically.

 

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/06/police-shooting-frenzy-raises-concerns/

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

 

I am not going to go off and say all cops are like this but your automatic trusting of someone with a badge is a bit ridiculous. Some are probably there to protect and because they want to help people but I could spam you with hundreds of stories of rapists, wife beaters, and everything from sticking a dog on a man already subdued face down on the ground to shooting a homeless man in the back while he is calmly walking away. I have never had a problem with police but then again I live in the wealthier part of town as a young white woman with good manners and speech that implies intelligence and the ability to get a lawyer. Perhaps the majority are great guys but then I have to wonder why they protect the bad ones.

 

The premise that some people are irresponsible with the freedom to own a gun and therefore people should not be allowed to own guns could also apply to homeschooling. Do you know how many people use abuse or cases of negligence of why homeschooling should be illegal? They are applying the same logic many of you are applying to guns. So to be consistent I do hope you are lobbying against the freedom to homeschool. After all, many people don't give their child a decent education and use the lack of outside contact as a way to conceal that they are molesting their children.

Did someone say ban all guns? I didn't read the whole thread so maybe I missed that. Every time I start arguing for stronger gun control laws, people confuse that with me wanting to ban all guns. I don't want that AT ALL! I think that it is great that people like Arctic Mama are able to have a gun to protect themselves and their kids from very real threats in their area. There are many people who have a very real need to own a gun due to their life circumstances.

[poppy]

I don't think anyone has said anything close to ban all guns.

 

 

Frogger, your family members whose lives were saved by guns..... We they saved after being threatened with a firearm? Just curious.

[ktgrok]

I am skeptical. I just can't believe that everyone who claims to have guns and ammo stored properly, separate, and locked actually *do*. What's the point of having a gun for protection while also claiming safe, textbook gun ownership?

 

As I stated in the other gun thread, it is possible to have your gun inaccessible to children and still have it available for home protection. Our guns are in safes that sit on our nightstands. The safes each have an 8 digit code, and then you have to press an additional symbol which is different on each safe. If you try to "guess" the code it locks down when you are wrong 3 times in a row and can't be opened for a period of time even with the right code, so my 5 year old can't just sit there hitting numbers for an hour. The buttons also make a loud beep when you hit them, so they can't mess with it without me hearing. My husband actually wants to switch to a biometric safe, but I'm holding out to see how well they work...my fingerprints don't seem to work on that kind of stuff (no idea why).  Inside the safe, the guns are loaded but NOT chambered. So even if they got the gun they'd have to rack the slide in order to put a bullet into position. Racking the slide takes more strength and dexterity than a child could manage - many grown women can't rack the slide of a semi automatic let alone a child. 

 

So between the combination (that is NOT written down anywhere and never has been, and is not used for anything else) and the gun not being chambered I feel confident my children can't mess with it. But, if I needed it I can open it and rack the slide in a few seconds. So it is available for home defense, as much as it would be sitting on a shelf or whatever other idiotic place people keep them. 

[wendyroo]

The premise that some people are irresponsible with the freedom to own a gun and therefore people should not be allowed to own guns could also apply to homeschooling. Do you know how many people use abuse or cases of negligence of why homeschooling should be illegal? They are applying the same logic many of you are applying to guns. So to be consistent I do hope you are lobbying against the freedom to homeschool. After all, many people don't give their child a decent education and use the lack of outside contact as a way to conceal that they are molesting their children.

 

 

Like Vera, I haven't read any posts arguing that all guns should be banned.  The thread topic was if undisclosed, concealed weapons should be allowed in private homes.

 

I don't think anyone should be allowed to come into my home and homeschool my kids without my knowledge.  Or, as mentioned in previous posts, sneak in a concealed car or pool and take my children driving or swimming.

 

Guns, cars, pools, homeschooling, jaw breaker candies, R-rated movies, third hand smoke, trampolines, essential oils and just about every other object or activity carries with it a certain level of risk or danger of abuse.  I am not advocating banning any of those things, but I do believe a homeowner should be empowered to keep those risks out of their home and off their property if they view them as posing too large a danger to themselves and their children.

 

Wendy

[Mimm]

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

 

A swimming pool isn't build for the sole purpose of killing people and animals. You don't regularly (ever?) see headlines that some crazed person showed up at a swimming pool and drowned a bunch of people before anyone could stop him. We regularly see headlines about mass gun killings. These arguments are sounding lamer all the time. "Guns are dangerous? Here, let me try to distract you with other dangerous things! Cars! Pools! AIDS!!!"

[luuknam]

I really think it's largely a cultural thing. I'm from NL, and pretty much anyone there thinks that Americans are crazy with their 2nd amendment stuff. But, almost all those same people strongly value their right to buy and use fireworks inside city limits on New Year's Eve. Including fireworks that in many places in the US would be considered to be only available to professionals. Only adults (18+) can buy fireworks in NL, and only a few days of the year right before New Year's Eve, but several times teens or even tweens have thrown fireworks at me (as well as at other people, of course), although almost always in the days leading up to NYE. Every year people suffer serious injuries (losing hands or eyes etc) or even die from fireworks in NL. Also every year some youth will drop fireworks into mail collection boxes from the post office or even in the mail slot in people's front doors. On years when NYE is foggy, it's a really good idea to make sure you keep all doors and windows firmly shut because it's really hard to breathe with all the air pollution setting off a zillion fireworks causes. The first time my wife was in NL on NYE she described midnight as being as if she were in a war zone - I'd told her about it, but she was still shocked at the amount of noise and the number of fireworks etc. So, yeah... I think it largely is cultural.

 

As far as the original question: I'd be okay with someone CC'ing on their person in my house without my knowledge, but not in their purse. Maybe I just need to ban purses from entering my house. Or teach my kids to never ever open a guest's purse and to always, always, always assume a gun is loaded and deadly and to come tell me right away if they find one without even touching it first (and yes, I'm aware that people with kids younger than my youngest are in a different situation - you cannot reliably teach e.g. a 1.5yo to not do those things - my answer is about my house with my kids).

[luuknam]

A swimming pool isn't build for the sole purpose of killing people and animals. You don't regularly (ever?) see headlines that some crazed person showed up at a swimming pool and drowned a bunch of people before anyone could stop him. We regularly see headlines about mass gun killings.

 

I'm not exactly worried about someone's CC on their person (not their purse) in my house leading to a mass gun killing. Yes, that gun could get into the wrong hands at some point, but probably not while we're drinking tea and chatting about whatever.

[Runningmom80]

I think it's inappropriate. 

 

 

I'd be p*ssed if someone brought a gun into my house.

[Samm]

What's the point of having a gun for protection while also claiming safe, textbook gun ownership?

 

You're saying a gun is ineffective for personal protection unless it is slung around unsafely?  I counter that a gun is effective for personal protection only when it's stored or carried around safely.  I am also unfamiliar with what textbook gun ownership is.  There are different states of readiness, that's all.  Each state has its well-defined best practice.

[texasmama]

As I stated in the other gun thread, it is possible to have your gun inaccessible to children and still have it available for home protection. Our guns are in safes that sit on our nightstands. The safes each have an 8 digit code, and then you have to press an additional symbol which is different on each safe. If you try to "guess" the code it locks down when you are wrong 3 times in a row and can't be opened for a period of time even with the right code, so my 5 year old can't just sit there hitting numbers for an hour. The buttons also make a loud beep when you hit them, so they can't mess with it without me hearing. My husband actually wants to switch to a biometric safe, but I'm holding out to see how well they work...my fingerprints don't seem to work on that kind of stuff (no idea why).  Inside the safe, the guns are loaded but NOT chambered. So even if they got the gun they'd have to rack the slide in order to put a bullet into position. Racking the slide takes more strength and dexterity than a child could manage - many grown women can't rack the slide of a semi automatic let alone a child. 

 

So between the combination (that is NOT written down anywhere and never has been, and is not used for anything else) and the gun not being chambered I feel confident my children can't mess with it. But, if I needed it I can open it and rack the slide in a few seconds. So it is available for home defense, as much as it would be sitting on a shelf or whatever other idiotic place people keep them. 

I recall being surprised at how much strength it requires to rack the slide.

[redsquirrel]

Injury by firearm in children 1-24 years of age is under 7,000, and that includes both intentional and accidental shootings.

 

The number you're citing includes suicides by firearm, which is a different issue than accidental discharge by a minor. You can argue about that rate but it outside this discussion.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

 

Oh my god, that is worse than I thought. That is terrible!  7,000?

[wendyroo]

Oh my god, that is worse than I thought. That is terrible!  7,000?

 

And that only counts children injured, not adults injured or killed by kids (or adults) accidentally wielding guns such as this mom killed by her toddler shooting her with her own gun in Walmart.

 

Wendy

[Samm]

Which is why the absolute irrefutable #1 cause of gun accidents is being in the presence of a gun. 

Huh?? If this were true, places like the Smith & Wesson plant in Springfield, MA would have experienced 0 continuous accident-free days since it was built in 1856.  

 

The #1 cause is several pounds of force (up to 20# of hand force for a particular HK pistol with a special fail-safe) pulling back the trigger of a chambered gun or loaded revolver. 

 

There are many different types of guns and they possess different levels of fail-safes.  Exposure of the trigger is the only non-concealable commonality to all discharges.  Any method of carry or transport, concealed or non, of a pistol or revolver that does not completely guard (intimately protect) the trigger is idiotic. This is a commonly held belief of all responsible gun owners.  General purse or fanny pack carry ... bad idea in general.  General purse carry without a holster slid onto the firearm itself ... idiotic.  Even without human factors, a pencil or lipstick in your bag might jiggle around and accidentally pull back the trigger if it got jammed just right.  If the material is soft, someone could pull back the trigger just grabbing your entire purse.

 

[Murphy101]

Oh my god, that is worse than I thought. That is terrible! 7,000?

Well the numbers aren't that bad according to the CDC.

 

There were 32,351 gun related deaths in 2011

591 were deemed accidental

102 people killed in these accidental death were younger than 18, with half of those children younger than age 13.

 

Also there is some debate about how the numbers are tallied.

 

For example, a teen thinks a gun is empty, points and shoots - that's homicide. If you purposely point a gun at someone and purposely pull the trigger and it results in death - that's homicide, even if your intent was not to kill them. From a responsible gun owner perspective that is how it should be bc you should never ever point any kind of weapon at a person unless that is your intent and that's why the law is set up that way. Thus the claim of "It was an accident!" Is often not accepted legally if you pointed the gun and pulled the trigger."

 

Also, the shooter is not reflected in those numbers. Was it another kid? An adult? Was the gun legally owned by the person who shooted? Or was it a stolen gun that a sibling found? Gang related? This data is hard to find but most certainly very relavent to CC discussion. Because not all gun ownership is equal and shouldn't be judged or treated the same. The vast majority of gun problems are illegal use and of questionable ownership, so the harping on the few who are responsible legal gun owners seems counter productive to solving the bigger problem.

[Caroline]

In 2011, automobile deaths were 32,409. Just for comparison.

 

Well the numbers aren't that bad according to the CDC.

 

There were 32,351 gun related deaths in 2011

591 were deemed accidental

102 people killed in these accidental death were younger than 18, with half of those children younger than age 13.

 

Also there is some debate about how the numbers are tallied.

 

For example, a teen thinks a gun is empty, points and shoots - that's homicide. If you purposely point a gun at someone and purposely pull the trigger and it results in death - that's homicide, even if your intent was not to kill them. From a responsible gun owner perspective that is how it should be bc you should never ever point any kind of weapon at a person unless that is your intent and that's why the law is set up that way. Thus the claim of "It was an accident!" Is often not accepted legally if you pointed the gun and pulled the trigger."

 

Also, the shooter is not reflected in those numbers. Was it another kid? An adult? Was the gun legally owned by the person who shooted? Or was it a stolen gun that a sibling found? Gang related? This data is hard to find but most certainly very relavent to CC discussion. Because not all gun ownership is equal and shouldn't be judged or treated the same. The vast majority of gun problems are illegal use and of questionable ownership, so the harping on the few who are responsible legal gun owners seems counter productive to solving the bigger problem.

[poppy]

Like I said earlier. There are a whole lot of people who think gun accidents involving children are an acceptable risk.

 

It's also worth noting that the debate about the numbers exists because of the extremely powerful gun lobby and the legislators who put barriers in place so that it's really really hard to track injuries and deaths. It's very much by design.

[Clear Creek]

I am skeptical. I just can't believe that everyone who claims to have guns and ammo stored properly, separate, and locked actually *do*. What's the point of having a gun for protection while also claiming safe, textbook gun ownership?

 

As I mentioned in another thread, I live in a rural area in TX. If I call 911, my call is forwarded to the local county sheriff's office. That office is almost an hour from my house, and they told us that a minimum response time to my call would be 15 minutes. I can open the gun safe, unlock the trigger lock, load the shotgun, and be defending myself while waiting the other 14 minutes (or more) for law enforcement to arrive.

 

[Word Nerd]

Like I said earlier. There are a whole lot of people who think gun accidents involving children are an acceptable risk.

 

It's also worth noting that the debate about the numbers exists because of the extremely powerful gun lobby and the legislators who put barriers in place so that it's really really hard to track injuries and deaths. It's very much by design.

 

So the CDC is an accurate source when you're looking for statistics about mortality rates and causes in general, but it can't be relied on for accurate information about guns. OK, then. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

While you're being skeptical.  Why don't you go after the swimming pools as well?  I mean, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect swimming pools and they are very dangerous.

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

 

another study:  http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming-pools.php

 

 

Again, this issue is simple.  The 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.  End of story. 

 

Of course it isn't, but it should be.   :patriot:

 

I'll bite.  A local 12 year old boy was shot by a friend because his friend took out his father's gun that was loaded, unlocked, and easily assessable.  It was an accident.  They were playing around with it.  Nobody was held responsible.  I suppose what is the point, the boy is dead either way.  His parents had to bury their 12 year old child.  They were told they had no right to know the family had unsecured guns.  They also weren't required to secure them.  They can leave the loaded unlocked gun on the kitchen table. 

 

HOWEVER, had the 12 year old drowned in their swimming pool because he climbed the fence to use it, the parents would have had their @$$ dragged through the mud.

 

Amendmentshmendment.  That is not the end of the story.  It's one thing to allow gun ownership.  It's another to not require responsible behavior so stuff like that does not happen.  And to add insult to injury the family has been working to change some of these rules.  They are not against gun ownership even after what happened, but they believe some of the rules should be changed.  While the woman was meeting with officials at government offices, someone stole her car.  Someone who was angry that she was trying to get laws changed.  What monster does crap like that.  She has every right to lobby for that and it is completely understandable. 

[poppy]

So the CDC is an accurate source when you're looking for statistics about mortality rates and causes in general, but it can't be relied on for accurate information about guns. OK, then. 

 

It's true, the CDC does not track gun violence.  "The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms." Source

 

[December]

I'm not really a fan of guns, but the idea of someone concealed carrying on their person (NOT in a bag) at my house doesn't really bother me.  If I thought that someone else CCing put my children at risk, I'd pretty much have to never take them anywhere, because where I live anywhere you go there could be someone CC.  I am really curious, do the people who think CC at their home puts their family at real risk, would you avoid taking them to a store you knew was frequented by CCers? Like say you needed to stop by your local outdoor gear store to get some camping equipment, but you know this is a store where CC is extremely popular among its clientele.  Do you refuse to go and just order what you need online instead (pretend it is the only store that carries what you need to buy locally)?

 

[unsinkable]

I'll bite. A local 12 year old boy was shot by a friend because his friend took out his father's gun that was loaded, unlocked, and easily assessable. It was an accident. They were playing around with it. Nobody was held responsible. I suppose what is the point, the boy is dead either way. His parents had to bury their 12 year old child. They were told they had no right to know the family had unsecured guns. They also weren't required to secure them. They can leave the loaded unlocked gun on the kitchen table.

 

HOWEVER, had the 12 year old drowned in their swimming pool because he climbed the fence to use it, the parents would have had their @$$ dragged through the mud.

 

Amendmentshmendment. That is not the end of the story. It's one thing to allow gun ownership. It's another to not require responsible behavior so stuff like that does not happen. And to add insult to injury the family has been working to change some of these rules. They are not against gun ownership even after what happened, but they believe some of the rules should be changed. While the woman was meeting with officials at government offices, someone stole her car. Someone who was angry that she was trying to get laws changed. What monster does crap like that. She has every right to lobby for that and it is completely understandable.

I know of this story. The father DID plead guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. And the son was sentenced to 2 years probation.

 

Also, the state assembly recently passed a law in the name of the victim. It continues to move through the legislature.

 

None of this will bring the boy back but both the boy and the father did face some responsibility.

 

I do think weapons should be in safes and accessible only to the owner.

 

Edited to add: the victim's family has filed a civil suit.

[Word Nerd]

It's true, the CDC does not track gun violence.  "The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms." Source

 

What does research on the causes of gun violence have to do with whether the CDC's statistics on the total numbers of injuries and accidental deaths caused by firearms are accurate? 

[Amira]

I'm not really a fan of guns, but the idea of someone concealed carrying on their person (NOT in a bag) at my house doesn't really bother me.  If I thought that someone else CCing put my children at risk, I'd pretty much have to never take them anywhere, because where I live anywhere you go there could be someone CC.  I am really curious, do the people who think CC at their home puts their family at real risk, would you avoid taking them to a store you knew was frequented by CCers? Like say you needed to stop by your local outdoor gear store to get some camping equipment, but you know this is a store where CC is extremely popular among its clientele.  Do you refuse to go and just order what you need online instead (pretend it is the only store that carries what you need to buy locally)?

 

In one way, there's a huge increase in the risk of a gun death happening in my house if someone brings a gun in, with or without my knowledge, in relation to our usual risk which is extremely low because there are no guns allowed here.  But I would imagine that statistically the risk is very low of an accidental gun death in my house if someone brought a gun in without my knowledge.

 

As I've said before, this isn't about a fear of guns or about concealed carry.  It's about whether *I* get to make the choice about guns in my house or the person with the concealed weapon- my reasons should not matter.  Just like I get to make the decision about whether I go into a store where people are likely to be carrying concealed weapons.

[poppy]

What does research on the causes of gun violence have to do with whether the CDC's statistics on the total numbers of injuries and accidental deaths caused by firearms are accurate? 

 

The CDC does not track gun injuries as a public health issue.  It makes estimates based on hospital samples.  The NRA takes data and comes up with different conclusions.  The Brady Campaign has different conclusions still. It's muddy.  I'd say deliberately muddy.

 

In contract, the CDC has a budget for auto safety and for environmental safety that is fairly enormous, and consumer safety in those areas has increased steadily.  You can look at this handy map to see if you state is one where gun-related deaths exceed auto-related deaths.

[Samm]

 

 It's about whether *I* get to make the choice about guns in my house or the person with the concealed weapon- my reasons should not matter.  

 

Why do you feel this choice is withheld from you?  You tell everyone not to.  Anyone who knows and doesn't comply is a criminal.

[Lisbeth]

Just ignore. Some people just like arguing against whatever the majority opinion is.

Do you feel that way about every issue? Majority rule, dissenters have no right to their say?

[Amira]

 

 

Why do you feel this choice is withheld from you?  You tell everyone not to.  Anyone who knows and doesn't comply is a criminal.

 

 

 

Because in some states, people can still CC in a private home against the owner's wishes.  The owner can only ask the carrier to remove their weapon if they know it's there.  

 

Because I think every state should place the burden on the carrier to find out if their gun is acceptable in my home rather than placing the burden on me to ask every visitor whether they have a weapon.  And I still won't know because some people feel it's their right to carry everywhere and will not tell me.

 

Because I have no way to know if there is a concealed weapon in my home if someone ignores my request unless it becomes unconcealed.  And in some states, there is no punishment for carrying a weapon inside someone's home without permission.  They are not a criminal.

 

I think it's entirely possible to write CC laws in a way I could handle them.  I wouldn't like them and I wouldn't support them, but they could be better.  I am very much not satisfied with them now in many states.  And since I move a lot and have lived in a lot of states and don't always have much say in it, I can't just pick to live in a state where I like the law.

 

I honestly think most gun owners are reasonable and polite and would not carry a gun in my home.  I don't like the assumption that it's okay to do it unless I say it's not. It's not okay unless you get permission to do it.

[Samm]

Because in some states, people can still CC in a private home against the owner's wishes.  The owner can only ask the carrier to remove their weapon if they know it's there. 

 Which states are these?  

[Amira]

 Which states are these?  

 

Previous posters in this thread have mentioned this.  I don't know which specific states.

[mamajag]

It appears that many states allow concealed carry on private property, including homes, unless the owner posts a sign stating otherwise or verbally states that guns aren't allowed.  Even if it is legal for someone to carry a concealed weapon into someone else's home without asking, do you think it's appropriate to do so?

 

It's kind of the norm around here with people and their concealed carry. It's a very gun friendly area, though.

 

Personally, I wouldn't do it. I'd leave it in my van.

[Samm]

Previous posters, or anyone -- please chime in.  In which states is the following true?

Because in some states, people can still CC in a private home against the owner's wishes.  The owner can only ask the carrier to remove their weapon if they know it's there. 

 

 

I contend this is false in all 50 states.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I know of this story. The father DID plead guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. And the son was sentenced to 2 years probation.

 

Also, the state assembly recently passed a law in the name of the victim. It continues to move through the legislature.

 

None of this will bring the boy back but both the boy and the father did face some responsibility.

 

I do think weapons should be in safes and accessible only to the owner.

 

Edited to add: the victim's family has filed a civil suit.

 

Well at least that is something.  I did not hear about that.

 

That case haunted me. At the time my son was 12 and it just killed me to see his picture and think about what the family had to go through.  All over something so damn stupid. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Previous posters, or anyone -- please chime in.  In which states is the following true?

 

 

I contend this is false in all 50 states.

 

 

Yeah except maybe a law enforcement officer with a permit to search your home, when would someone be required to let someone come into their home who has a gun on them?  How would such a law even come about?  I never heard of such things. 

 

I suppose there may be no consequences if someone lies and enters your home with a gun and you try to sue them or call the police.  But if you know they have a gun, I don't see why you would be required to let them into your home. 

[Word Nerd]

 

Previous posters, or anyone -- please chime in.  In which states is the following true?

 

 

I contend this is false in all 50 states.

 

 

I think you're mistaken. I checked my state's regulations after seeing comments in the other CC thread, and I didn't see any mention of requiring a property owner's permission to CC unless they have signage posted.

[Guest]

Well the numbers aren't that bad according to the CDC.

 

There were 32,351 gun related deaths in 2011

591 were deemed accidental

102 people killed in these accidental death were younger than 18, with half of those children younger than age 13.

 

Also there is some debate about how the numbers are tallied.

 

For example, a teen thinks a gun is empty, points and shoots - that's homicide. If you purposely point a gun at someone and purposely pull the trigger and it results in death - that's homicide, even if your intent was not to kill them. From a responsible gun owner perspective that is how it should be bc you should never ever point any kind of weapon at a person unless that is your intent and that's why the law is set up that way. Thus the claim of "It was an accident!" Is often not accepted legally if you pointed the gun and pulled the trigger."

 

Also, the shooter is not reflected in those numbers. Was it another kid? An adult? Was the gun legally owned by the person who shooted? Or was it a stolen gun that a sibling found? Gang related? This data is hard to find but most certainly very relavent to CC discussion. Because not all gun ownership is equal and shouldn't be judged or treated the same. The vast majority of gun problems are illegal use and of questionable ownership, so the harping on the few who are responsible legal gun owners seems counter productive to solving the bigger problem.

Yes, the numbers I pulled were firearms related injuries, not deaths (almost the entirety of the death statistics involve intentional discharge by adults either in murder or suicide). The accident statistic covers any and every discharge, including domestic violence, gang and drug violence, accidents while on the range, camping or hunting accidents, a parent being fired at and a child being hit, etc etc.

 

There is indeed data on stolen guns vs personally owned and legally acquired guns and the rate of criminal and accidental discharge, but tracking down that statistic is very difficult. The older data I have easier access to is from about ten years ago and indicated that upwards of 30% of those discharges involved a stolen or illegally acquired firearm. That's essentially a code word for intentional, premeditated shootings involving criminal misconduct, not anything accidental like a child touching a loaded gun.