## View Poll Results: What is your position on firearms?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
• The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

8 42.11%
• Some people should be excluded from the 2nd amendment rights.

7 36.84%
• Some firearm types (e.g., machine guns) should be banned.

8 42.11%
• Ownership is unrestricted, but carry rights are conditional.

3 15.79%
• Ownership only by 'law-abiding citizens" is permitted.

3 15.79%
• Both ownership and carry rights are only for trained and screened people.

4 21.05%
• Citizens should "prove a need" to own or carry firearms.

0 0%
• Both ownership and carry rights are only for trained and screened law enforcement and security.

1 5.26%
• Only Law Enforcement should have firearms.

2 10.53%
• All firearms that can be found should be banned and destroyed.

1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.

# Thread: Firearms in the USA

1. ## Firearms in the USA

We have been talking about this, and arguing, so maybe it's time to take the pulse of HT to see where we stand.

You may make MULTIPLE selections, and it's anonymous, so be honest.

Where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment rights, and on guns/firearms in general?
Last edited by Kaonohi; January 23rd, 2011 at 03:54 PM.

2. Alii
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
1,427

## Re: Firearms in the USA

We are all very thankful for Rep. Giffords good recovery but not all shootings have what could be called such happy endings. More typical, the recent accidental shooting at an LA school where a boy put down a sack with a gun in it, the gun discharged and shot two students. Unlike Rep. Giffords, in the case of one student the bullet fragmented parts of the victim's skull leading to massive brain damage. Innocent, just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and condemned to God knows what. And tonight, four shot at a Walmart in Washington St. Its a hell of a price to pay for gun rights, but the guns ARE out there, restrictions would only fall on harmless law abiding citizens who aren't a problem. Criminals and determined wackos will never have a problem getting all the guns they want. And truly, do we want to live in a world where only Big Government has the guns? Looking at past history, would that really be wise? I think not. Just don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Easy, right?

3. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kalalau
Its a hell of a price to pay for gun rights, but the guns ARE out there, restrictions would only fall on harmless law abiding citizens who aren't a problem. Criminals and determined wackos will never have a problem getting all the guns they want. And truly, do we want to live in a world where only Big Government has the guns? Looking at past history, would that really be wise? I think not. Just don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Easy, right?
Not so easy. From statistics I have seen it is usually, or at least often, that guns used in violence, accidental or other, are illegally obtained.
It's like, 'Why have laws when nobody adheres to them?' I can give millions of examples, and we have so many restrictive laws that people don't even know what they are!

Driving slower than following traffic in the left lane = illegal!

But these laws are NOT enforced, so what good are they?

AFAIK, there's no way to keep illegal guns out of illegal hands, so the law is toothless and we suffer.

4. Alii
Join Date
Aug 2005
Posts
9,558

## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
Well, only in Hawaii (IIRC), but other states are considering it as well.

5. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Training.
Exclusionary.
Open and closed carry.
Do not infringe.

6. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

While I am currently not a gun owner, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should not be infringed on.

I went to the shooting range once. It was fun. Unfortunately I shot mostly at the dirt instead of hitting the target. 9mm Glock.

7. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
From statistics I have seen it is usually, or at least often, that guns used in violence, accidental or other, are illegally obtained..
And where do the illegal guns come from? Stolen from people who obtained them legally! Case in point. A few years ago, someone broke into my borther's house and stole his handgun that he kept for "protection." That was the most valuable item taken.

A majority of the illegal guns captured in Mexico from the drug gangs, are imported illegally from the US.

8. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by mel
the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should not be infringed on..
There is significant disagreement among Constitutional scholars about what was meant by the writer's of the Second Amendment. Therefore, arguments of "the Second Amedment shall not be infringed" have little Constitutional merit.

9. ## Where illegally held guns come from.

Originally Posted by matapule
And where do the illegal guns come from? Stolen from people who obtained them legally!
That's a bit of a simplification, actually. Illegally owned guns do come from illegal activities, but this can occur anywhere from the factory (diversion of goods), the police (reporting guns as MIA, but selling them), the military, smuggled from overseas (most fully-automatic weapons are acquired this way, and there are criminals in Hawaii who have them), or stolen/diverted from dealers.

An aside: It's usually not the guns that are illegal, only banned types of guns are rightly called 'illegal guns,' (such as full-auto machine guns). More properly the guns should be called "illegally owned guns."
We don't really know where they all come from, only the ones that are recovered by police.

According to an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) source, only about 10% of illegally owned guns come from thefts! An enlightening article!

10. ## Re: Where illegally held guns come from.

Originally Posted by mel
I went to the shooting range once. It was fun. Unfortunately I shot mostly at the dirt instead of hitting the target. 9mm Glock.
Glad you enjoyed your experience. One of the main reasons for missing the target is jerking the trigger at the last second. It's difficult to notice yourself doing it; it's a lot easier with someone watching your hands. The main cause of jerking is anticipating recoil; which even champion shooters suffer from, time to time. It's like catching a cold, with dry firing being the chicken soup.

Originally Posted by matapule
A few years ago, someone broke into my borther's house and stole his handgun that he kept for "protection." That was the most valuable item taken.
I consider securing your firearm an important responsibility of gun ownership. Some people think "hiding" it is good enough. Some people mistakenly think putting it in a safe or lock box is good enough. Did you bolt that safe into the foundation of your house or a part of your home's superstructure? If the criminal can carry the safe away, they'll have all the time in the world to open it up. Did you spend the money on a quality safe which can't be pried open with a crowbar? If you use an external padlock, is there a lock shroud to prevent the criminal from simply using a sledge hammer or bolt cutters on it?

I've wondered if there should be a law that made the gun owner partially responsible for crimes committed using their stolen gun. I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that, though.

A majority of the illegal guns captured in Mexico from the drug gangs, are imported illegally from the US.
I haven't done any research on the topic. Some people say most of the drug cartels get their guns from corrupt Mexican military and police. Perhaps the U.S. gives the Mexican government the guns, and they give them to the criminals? But as I've said, I haven't done the research to check their claims.

Originally Posted by matapule
There is significant disagreement among Constitutional scholars about what was meant by the writer's of the Second Amendment.
Thank goodness there is only one version of the Constitution and it was written in English. I think there are at least 8 major translations of the Bible?

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
According to an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) source, only about 10% of illegally owned guns come from thefts! An enlightening article!
Thanks for the link. That's an interesting read. I wonder what happens to a FFL holder whose guns are used in a crime? I'm guessing they just say, "Hey, the customer passed the FBI's NICS check, what can I do?"

I assume the customer in a strawman deal gets a felony on their record, so they can no longer purchase a firearm, but criminals breed like roaches and there will a new "adult" with a clean record to make another purchase.

I heard a story of a young street punk walking into a gun store and asking to buy 10 Hi-Point (cheap) guns. Luckily the store owner refused to sell them to him.

11. ## Re: Where illegally held guns come from.

Originally Posted by MyopicJoe
I consider securing your firearm an important responsibility of gun ownership. Some people think "hiding" it is good enough. Some people mistakenly think putting it in a safe or lock box is good enough. Did you bolt that safe into the foundation of your house or a part of your home's superstructure? If the criminal can carry the safe away, they'll have all the time in the world to open it up. Did you spend the money on a quality safe which can't be pried open with a crowbar? If you use an external padlock, is there a lock shroud to prevent the criminal from simply using a sledge hammer or bolt cutters on it?
Something I forgot to mention. Securing your firearms against theft while absent is essential! It is part of safety training from the schools in Hawaii I know about. Of course, if you have 24/7 concealed carry it ceases to be a problem (unless you have an arsenal!).
Criminals already know the best 'hiding places.'

Joe gives good recommendations!

12. Kiaaina
Join Date
May 2008
Posts
259

## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by MyopicJoe
I've wondered if there should be a law that made the gun owner partially responsible for crimes committed using their stolen gun. I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that, though.
Similarly, I wonder if there should be a law to make the owner of a stolen automobile partially responsible for crimes committed using their stolen car...

No.

In most (if not all) states, if your legally owned possession is stolen and used to commit a crime, you are actually a victim of the original crime (theft), and your responsibilities are absolved. (This is not the same as neglect, such as leaving an unlocked loaded firearm in a closet and having a child find it and shoot someone.)

Using my slightly sarcastic response above, cars are way easier to steal, and more likely to be used to commit crimes (joyriding, robberies, hit & runs). You as the car owner certainly wouldn't want the responsibilities of the thief just because your car was used in the crime, right? This goes for any of your property, including firearms.

The gray area, where states aren't in agreement, is when your property is not actually stolen. If you loan your possessions to a "friend" and they go out and commit a crime with it, some states may or may not hold you partially responsible (and in extreme cases, consider you an "accessory" to the crime!). The easiest example of this is if you're the owner of a car, and your 16 year-old child uses it and gets in an accident that results in a fatality. Since a minor (most likely) can't be prosecuted for the death, the civil suit will end up on the parent and the title holder of the vehicle. THIS is where the similarities lie with a firearm. It's just really gray because who can prove that you legitimately loaned your possession to someone?

If a firearm is stolen, chances are you will never get it back. Insurance will more than likely cover it in excess of the worth of the firearm, and therefore you can buy another one. The responsible owner/victim will report the theft to the police, ensuring the serial number and model is included, such that if it actually does end up used to commit a crime, it's already flagged as stolen. In a rare case of recovery, if it's not used in a crime, you 'might' get it back. But if it is used in a crime, it will fall in the never-ending evidence chain-of-custody, and after the proceedings are complete, may never be released back to the original owner. By then, your insurance company should have already compensated you on the loss.

13. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
Of course, if you have 24/7 concealed carry it ceases to be a problem
I agree. The safest place to keep your firearm is on your body, where you have control over it.

I'm not ready to actually sleep with a firearm. I'd be too worried about having a nightmare and waking up with it in my hand. Maybe leave the chamber empty with the gun decocked? Anyways, I'd be a 16/7 carrier.

I heard of people who will put their gun in a ziplock bag and bring it in the shower with them. I think that's unnecessary, if you lock your bathroom door, lock your bedroom door, and have a security alarm. That should cause a lot of noise and give you enough time to get ready.

A bit paranoid, if you ask me. Then again, everyone lives in different circumstances.

Originally Posted by bjd392
In most (if not all) states, if your legally owned possession is stolen and used to commit a crime, you are actually a victim of the original crime (theft), and your responsibilities are absolved. (This is not the same as neglect, such as leaving an unlocked loaded firearm in a closet and having a child find it and shoot someone.)
Ahh, so the main thing is whether the owner was negligent in the security of their firearm.

easier to steal a car than a firearm.../nod
negligence vs. victim of theft.../nod
using gray font to talk about gray areas.../nod
having your gun disappear in the pit of evidence.../nod

You made a lot of good points, BJD. Well thought out and written. Definite food for thought. Thanks!

14. Kiaaina
Join Date
May 2008
Posts
259

## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by MyopicJoe
Ahh, so the main thing is whether the owner was negligent in the security of their firearm.
There are more laws that narrow a focus on firearm negligence when children are around, because of the whole "they don't know any better" mentality. Leaving an unlocked loaded firearm in the same house where children live is asking for trouble. If they can climb counters and cabinets to get to a cookie jar 8 feet off the ground, a kid will be resourceful enough to snoop around a closet or drawer and find guns. The negligent part is knowing there are people around who don't know the consequences that could result from an action you didn't proactively pursue.

On the other hand, if you decide to leave an unlocked (or locked) loaded (or unloaded) firearm (or any other weapon) anywhere in your house, whether hidden or in plain sight, and someone breaks in and steals it, you are still a victim of theft/burglary, and you have no responsibility to the results of your weapon being used in a future crime.

15. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by bjd392
There are more laws that narrow a focus on firearm negligence when children are around, because of the whole "they don't know any better" mentality. Leaving an unlocked lo
Oops, deleted more than intended.
Still:

Allowing innocents to access non-innocent devices is (AFAIAC) a violation\in itself.

16. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by bjd392
By then, your insurance company should have already compensated you on the loss.
Are you an insurance agent or an insurance sucker? Why insure your possessions against loss below an easily replaceable limit, say $2,000? That's just throwing money away as the actuarial tables nearly guarantee your loss, unless you game the system with false reporting [to compensate for others doing the same]. 17. Kiaaina Join Date May 2008 Posts 259 ## Re: Firearms in the USA Originally Posted by salmoned Are you an insurance agent or an insurance sucker? Why insure your possessions against loss below an easily replaceable limit, say$2,000? That's just throwing money away as the actuarial tables nearly guarantee your loss, unless you game the system with false reporting [to compensate for others doing the same].
Neither. Are you a professional gamer? I have filed receipts, warranties, photocopies of serial numbers and anything else pertinent of whatever I consider valuable to me, so it's pretty plain-as-day what the price of each item is should they be lost.

Having a high deductible and footing most of the loss out of pocket makes insurance cheaper. Submitting too many insurance claims also flags on applications and makes rates go up.

When it comes to most belongings, you'll be compensated after an estimate and depreciation on the value. Having one thing stolen, or maybe a window broken is an easy repair that you more than likely won't even call the insurance agent for. It's there in the event of something big, like a fire, ransacking, catastrophe, other damages... Those "little things under $2000" all start to add up. But if you want to pay for their replacement on your own, feel free. When it comes to certain high-value or irreplacable items, like jewelry, computers, cameras and some models of firearms, sometimes the only suitable replacement value is worth more than the original price. Some belongings do appreciate, like a 1954 Fender Stratocaster. Perhaps you should look into some insurance options. High-value coverage can sometimes only run an extra$15/month.

Insurance is that thing you pay for and hope to never have to use. If one goes a whole lifetime without making a claim, you would have spent thousands of dollars and the only thing you really paid for was peace of mind.

18. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

So far the poll seems to indicate HT's support for the 2nd Amendment - with conditions - that 'some people' (felons, MI, etc.?) be restricted and that some weapons (machine guns) should be banned. Also there's support for training and screening. Healthy choices, I think.

19. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by bjd392
Perhaps you should look into some insurance options. High-value coverage can sometimes only run an extra $15/month. Insurance is that thing you pay for and hope to never have to use. If one goes a whole lifetime without making a claim, you would have spent thousands of dollars and the only thing you really paid for was peace of mind. Sorry, insurance is a sucker's game, even at$15/month.

20. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
So far the poll seems to indicate HT's support for the 2nd Amendment - with conditions - that 'some people' (felons, MI, etc.?) be restricted and that some weapons (machine guns) should be banned. Also there's support for training and screening. Healthy choices, I think.
Wouldn't want the poll to be skewed wrong, so I added my vote. I know some of you think I live in an ivory tower - but, I don't believe in guns or violence. I have never seen a gun in real life (except a revolutionary war gun in a frame). I have never experienced violence of any kind. I wouldn't allow my son to play with toy guns or GI Joe or army men for that matter. I believe all conflicts can be resolved through peaceful means - yay, matapule!. I know - I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses, but my feeling is..... somebody's gotta

21. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

I believe all conflicts can be resolved through peaceful means - yay, matapule!. I know - I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses, but my feeling is..... somebody's gotta
There are many ways to live one's life. Good ol' cultural diversity. I do have an objection to the banning of G.I. Joe; that's just cruel! ;_D

22. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Wouldn't want the poll to be skewed wrong, so I added my vote. I know some of you think I live in an ivory tower - but, I don't believe in guns or violence. I have never seen a gun in real life (except a revolutionary war gun in a frame). I have never experienced violence of any kind. I wouldn't allow my son to play with toy guns or GI Joe or army men for that matter. I believe all conflicts can be resolved through peaceful means - yay, matapule!. I know - I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses, but my feeling is..... somebody's gotta
Thanks for your input. We WANT the poll to be reflective of HT's beliefs and values, collectively. Otherwise it is useless.

Please understand: I also believe all conflicts can be resolved peacably, but I prepare for the contingency that they guy with the weapon crawling in my window (gun, knife, chainsaw, bat, etc.,) may think otherwise. Often they do.

Who was it who said, 'preach peace, but be ready for war?' That is my stance. I don't want want my friends/country/family/etc., to be decimated by those who don't share my values.

Though we may not like it, this is still a violent world, and the violence is mostly perpetrated by criminals looking for a free ride.

Now there is a subject for a Sci-Fi story..... Joe, are you listening?

Eeither you protect yourself or you don't. The police say it's not their job. So, how are you being protected? Or do you believe protection is unnecessary?

23. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
The police say it's not their job.
Where do you get that? Please verify that outrageous statement!

Paranoia rules in some circles.

24. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
So far the poll seems to indicate HT's support for the 2nd Amendment - with conditions - that 'some people' (felons, MI, etc.?) be restricted and that some weapons (machine guns) should be banned. Also there's support for training and screening. Healthy choices, I think.
Au contraire! You should say that those that have responded to your poll favor personal gun ownership. The second amendment is unclear what is meant by a regulated militia. You are too quick to look for unsubstantiated support for your position.

25. ## Re: Firearms in the USA

Originally Posted by Kaonohi
Eeither you protect yourself or you don't. The police say it's not their job.
Originally Posted by matapule
Where do you get that? Please verify that outrageous statement!
I'm guessing the source of that statement is the Supreme Court ruling declaring: "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

Of course there's a big difference between saying "the police aren't forced to protect you" vs. "the police don't care".

I'm sure most police officers want to help others, but that doesn't always mean they are able to. There might not be enough man power to protect everyone, due to budget problems or perhaps a lot of emergencies happening at once. And I wouldn't be surprised if an officer abandoned their public duty to take care of their own family in a disaster.

As others have said, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." In the end, your personal safety and that of your family are in your hands.

Having said that, compared to the rest of the world, America is a pretty safe place to live in (at least for now). Unless you have a risky lifestyle, most of us don't have to deal with violence on a daily basis. Awareness and preparation remain our most powerful defense against violent crime.

With the current state of our country, my security priorities are:

1) Financial security (remaining debt free except for a mortgage on a modestly priced home)
2) Food security (food quality and adequate food supply in case there are disruptions to the oh so profitable just-in-time inventory system)
3) Health/Medical security (from having extra medication on hand to being able to avoid hospitals as much as possible)
4) Physical security (with a flashlight and pepper spray being very useful less-than-lethal tools)
Last edited by MyopicJoe; January 28th, 2011 at 07:37 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 Last