Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Requiring current log hours on your pea shooter can have all manner of positive impact.

See for instance, if you also tied it to ammo sales.  EG-- "Ok, you want ammo for a .40 pistol--- Show me your log sheet for this month for that weapon.--- Sorry sir, but you are behind on your logged hours, I can't sell you these."  Or "Sorry sir, these are .357, not .40. I cannot sell you these with the paperwork you have given me."

It means that people who illegally keep firearms will have increased difficulty in no only getting the gun to begin with, but also keeping ammo for it. 

"Farmer Joe" is a population anomaly, and most people who live in a rural jurisdiction are not going to be willing to mass-purchase ammo for inner city hoods. (Again, the restriction is in place for persons who live in/near a city. Farmer Joe would be naturally exempted, because he lives 30+ miles outside of any major civic center.) Those that DO, will quickly draw attention, because they are buying absurd amounts of ammo at a time. (Kinda like how buying lots of cold medicine will get you flagged.)

[Rolan7]

I suppose that makes sense.  As long as I, as an urbanite, have the option to own and practice with a personal defense firearm, albeit with extra documentation.
I don't feel like my rural family members are at all more deserving of anti-human firearms.  Yeah the police won't arrive in time - they won't arrive in time for me either, in a city, unless I manage to sneak out.

It doesn't reassure me that they're so eager to be armed for political reasons.  Frankly encourages me to follow suit.
Currently I rely on my housemate being armed and somewhat experienced.  Though in an actual burglary he would probably be deep asleep or away at work.  I have handled rifles on enough occasions to threaten an intruder with an unloaded gun until they leave.

And if they also have a gun, well shit, they can just take what they want and I'll count myself lucky.  They're massively inflating their jail time when they inevitably get caught, which means they're desperate.

[redwallzyl]

A lot of the gun for self defense is nullified by the fact that you are way more likely to be caught unprepared then have a chance to defend yourself if someone was really trying to kill you.

[Rolan7]

I did imply that the burglar (not assassin) I was hypothesizing was likely unarmed, or holding a gun without intent to shoot.
Certainly not trying to kill me.  Just interested in my stuff.

It's still valid to have a gun for personal defence in case of, let's say, irrational actors.  Not every burglar is a philosophy major ready to negotiate the ideal robbery.
And then there's malicious actors.  Very rare, but present.

Also that, constitutionally, we're expected to... well, rather than say it in words, considering recent legislation, I'll link it this way:
https://youtu.be/6L1s5HI7SNw?t=289

Guns generally scare me and I desperately support our nation, but I think there is a necessary check invested with the people.

[Digital Hellhound]

It blows my mind that judging by the discussion, even in rural areas the prime reason for owning guns seems to be self-defense and not, y’know, hunting. Finland has a lot of guns - which, yes, end up in the hands of shooters here sometimes too - but I don’t know a single person who owns one for anything other than hunting. We have a lot of wilderness, so those guns see plenty of use there. Surely a lot of US weapons are for hunting too?

[Egan_BW]

The thought of shooting an animal other than another human bores us, I suppose.

[smjjames]

Theres certainly plenty of guns that are used for hunting. I don't know the ratio of owning a gun for hunting vs owning a gun for protection from human intruders (as opposed to wildlife) in rural areas, or the ratio of what guns are owned only for hunting and what are meant for self defense.

[wierd]

It blows my mind that judging by the discussion, even in rural areas the prime reason for owning guns seems to be self-defense and not, y’know, hunting. Finland has a lot of guns - which, yes, end up in the hands of shooters here sometimes too - but I don’t know a single person who owns one for anything other than hunting. We have a lot of wilderness, so those guns see plenty of use there. Surely a lot of US weapons are for hunting too?

Sadly, there is a big issue with things like idiots in the city "disposing" of their now "nuisance" large breed dog (that they have abused/conditioned to be violent) out in the county.  Those animals dont suddenly get free food, water, or housing. They dont know how to survive, and they have their latent hunting instincts go active from neglect. They go after livestock, and sadly, small children and pets.  That handgun Farmer Joe carries is more for the feral dog than it is against Mr Burglar.

[Rolan7]

The thought of shooting an animal other than another human bores us, I suppose.

I fed deer for one side of my family as I fed on deer felled by the other side.
I personally killed two squirrel for the *former* side, since they were overeating the pecan tree.  We ate them, it's okay.

It has jack all to do with boredom.  The idea of killing a person is almost as horrifying as the idea of being murdered by one, even accidentally/by bad decision making.

Imagine those oh-so-nightmarish specters, the police, and strip away all their training and most of their responsibility.

[wierd]

Mob justice is not justice at all.  I agree.

But again, the pea shooter that Joe Farmer carries is not meant for humans 9 times out of 10.  It is meant for that fucking dirtbag that just *HAAAD* to buy a rottweiler puppy, because it made his testicles feel bigger than they actually are, who then discovers that his now 70lb dog is knocking his 3 year old toddler over and nearly hurting them-- who cant be bothered to try to re-home an adult large breed dog--- Deciding that dumping said dog 20 miles outside town on a dirt road is a fantastic idea-- Or more specifically, for said dog that this dirtbag dumps.

50% of the time of that 1:10 that it *IS* for a human, it is to scare away idiots who think that large appliances are biodegradable.

[smjjames]

Pretty sure those sort of 'fucking dirtbags' exist everwhere, the US doesn't have a monopoly on such types. Which doesn't explain how rural people owning guns (or the desire for that kind of protection) for that exact reason isn't equally prevalent in other countries around the world.

[wierd]

Never said it was.  Just that it is a sufficiently large problem (Most of the land area of the US is rural area, making this a common problem), coupled with a nation that enshrines the right to carry weapons, that also just so happens to be very degenerate on providing quality civil services outside of civic centers. (It took an act of congress to get landline telephone out there. Chew on that.)

Gun ownership might not be the ideal solution, but it is an effective one in the absence of better options. I am merely acknowledging the lack of quality elsewhere in the system by suggesting the exception.

Most farmers dont have a need, nor a want for an uzi. Dunno about AR-15s... I dont think you really need something like that, but I know folks who own AK-47s for shooting coyotes from a distance. NOT intended for use on humans.  Usually, the confrontation with human weapon of choice is a nice shotgun.

[SalmonGod]

I'll also repeat my assertion that we did just fine hunting with bow & arrow.  Anything more was invented purely for the purpose of making it easier to kill human beings.  Might make it easier to hunt, also, but not necessary.  Not unless you're hunting especially large, aggressive creatures, which very few people in the world at this point should be doing.  Most are endangered.

[smjjames]

Never said it was.  Just that it is a sufficiently large problem (Most of the land area of the US is rural area, making this a common problem), coupled with a nation that enshrines the right to carry weapons, that also just so happens to be very degenerate on providing quality civil services outside of civic centers. (It took an act of congress to get landline telephone out there. Chew on that.)

Gun ownership might not be the ideal solution, but it is an effective one in the absence of better options. I am merely acknowledging the lack of quality elsewhere in the system by suggesting the exception.

If the police is going to take hours to get there or you're that far from civilization (hah, just made a rural/urban joke), sure, it makes sense, but somehow I don't think your average farmer wields an uzi or an ak-47 or ar-15 just to scare people off.

[wierd]

Again, as per above--

Most farmers dont have a need, nor a want for an uzi. Dunno about AR-15s... I dont think you really need something like that, but I know folks who own AK-47s for shooting coyotes from a distance. NOT intended for use on humans.  Usually, the confrontation with human weapon of choice is a nice shotgun.


I will go so far as to say that the idiots that DO buy an uzi out in the county, tend to anger their neighbors, who call them idiots openly.