Print

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

[Dunamisdeos]

What about licensing certain firearms (and only those firearms) for hunting/animal protection use? I don't really have a horse in the gun debate race, but I'm interested in helping drive conversation. This is a reductionist example, but what if the Superbullet Mark X Bearmower line was the one that was allowed to be sold for hunting, etc?

Is the difference between (googles madly) Remington Model 870 and Winchester Model 12 so great that you must have a dozen options for hunting ducks? Googling "guns to hunt bear" brings up like, 20 models of gun. What about the (copypasting madly) Ruger Hawkeye Alaskan (.375 Ruger) and the Winchester Model 70 Alaskan (.375 H&H)? Will one get you killed and one kill the bear? Do we really need a massive gun industry in order to provide the tools that rural folks need?

TLDR: Maybe we can reduce the overall number of guns via reduction of the for-profit momentum behind the gun industry, while also ensuring that people who need firearms have access to them.

Depends on the bear. Could it injure the bear? Absolutely it could if you hit the bear since injury is a pretty broad term. With a American black bear yeah it could if you shot it enough times since they’re considerably smaller than most other bears. Could it kill a grizzly? Once again yes but it’s going to have to be an eye shot probably or you’re going to have to hit it with every shot in the pistol and possibly even have to reload (Good luck) if attempting a body shot. What about a polar bear? The 9mm will probably wind up in its stomach with what’s left of you since adult males range from 800–1500 pounds. The skull of a bear is notoriously hard and bears have taken many a round of ammo from firearms more powerful to the body and survived. I assume in this scenario the bear is charging you or someone in your vicinity (Since why would anyone randomly pop off rounds at a bear with a 9mm). If it’s charging you it’s going to be going fast and you’re really only going an opportunity at a shot at the head/face, shoulders, or front legs. That’s going to be a hard shot to pull off and you’re likely only going to get off 1–3 rounds tops before it’s on top of you. Now you’re probably thinking “Well I’ll just shoot it in the eye or somewhere while it’s on top of me. Pull a Leo in The Revenant!” With a several hundred pound creature on top of literally chewing or scraping off your flesh you might be a little distracted, so you know best of luck with that. Even if you did manage to shoot the bear at that point you would probably not do so without serious injury to yourself as well. Say it’s charging a buddy with you though and you get a good shot at the body. Empty the magazine reload and keep firing is my best advice. Just remember your buddy is also in the same vicinity as the bear. Don’t wanna shoot him. Once again this scenario is likely not going to end without injury or death for your friend. Most seasoned hunters and outdoorsmen who frequent bear territory say that .357magnum, 10mm, or .44 magnum are the minimum safe pistol calibers for black bear territory and most agree that .454 casull is the minimum pistol caliber for grizzly and polar bears. So a 9mm is better than nothing but if you plan on traveling bear territory with a handgun only I would go with something heavier. Your best bet for surviving defending yourself against a bear is going to be a large caliber rifle, 12 gauge shotgun with slugs, or bear mace.

[McTraveller]

It doesn't matter if any/everyone "needs" something - do you really want to live in a society where if you need something, you have to jump through hoops to get it?

What about having a house? Voting? Skateboards? Swimming?  Stairs? (stairs (well, "falls") kill twice as many people per year than guns).

In other words - who am I, or you, or some committee, to say that what is a need and what isn't?

[Vector]

Birth control? Abortions? Transition-related care?

[wierd]

It depends on if you want to use the gun for more than just hunting the bear.

Take for instance, you ALSO take it moose hunting every year.



The approach I often tender, is more like this:


The need for such tools is very regional.  As is the risk for large numbers of human casualties.  The bears do not live inside the city, nor do the moose.  A person living in inner city detroit does not really need that remington hunting rifle. They arent in danger from large carnivores there.


Likewise, if woodsman brown in rural alaska goes apeshit, his closest neighbor is statistically 20 miles away, without a road to get there.  The person he is most likely to injure is himself, and nobody else.


SO-- to me at least, the sensible suggestion is to stop trying to do things at the federal level, but instead, allow cities to impose gun control rules for their municipality.

[Dostoevsky]

It doesn't matter if any/everyone "needs" something - do you really want to live in a society where if you need something, you have to jump through hoops to get it?

What about having a house? Voting? Skateboards? Swimming?  Stairs? (stairs (well, "falls") kill twice as many people per year than guns).

In other words - who am I, or you, or some committee, to say that what is a need and what isn't?

I try to avoid gun debate conversations, but would note that there are licensing/testing requirements (i.e. hoops) for a number of deadly substances and/or activities such as driving cars or getting ahold of certain types of pesticides. It's not comprehensive, but the concept is already quite about.

[McTraveller]

SO-- to me at least, the sensible suggestion is to stop trying to do things at the federal level

Agreed.

[Dunamisdeos]

SO-- to me at least, the sensible suggestion is to stop trying to do things at the federal level

Agreed.

However, have we not found that municipalities and even states seem unable to enforce those laws? The Godwin's Law of gun control is Chicago, who has gun control laws but also a hella lot of guns.

There doesn't seem anywhere for gun law at this point TO go except Federal.

What about having a house? Voting? Skateboards? Swimming?  Stairs? (stairs (well, "falls") kill twice as many people per year than guns).

..... You live in that society right now. We have lots and lots of regulation on those things (maybe less so on skateboards), specifically to keep people safe and avoid abuse. You can find laws on housing ownership, building codes, and yeah, even swimming or bathing, going back thousands of years.

What if, after taking action to reduce gun numbers/profiteering as I stated earlier, we THEN gave gun industries protections? Maybe something similar to freedom of press? The government shall not interfere with the manufacture and distribution of licensed firearms, nor produce firearms of it's own accord, or some such thing.

[Micro102]

State level is not sufficient. Some states have heavy regulations on guns, but the next state over hasn't. So someone drives over to the next state, buys a gun, and drives back. It needs to be more inconvenient than an hour's drive.

It needs to be federal. Saying that federal regulations will somehow make us unable to determine who needs gun seems absurd.

EDIT: Seems I was beat to it by Dunamisdeos.

[Starver]

who the fuck uses a lego glock to fend off bears

It depends upon the bears?

(I didn't want the worse-than-are-there-Republicans-who-are-Nazis old gun-control argument, I just found the "Block" gun idea to be concerning despite any of the usual arguments supporting the right to ursine forelimbs...)

[Bumber]

State level is not sufficient. Some states have heavy regulations on guns, but the next state over hasn't. So someone drives over to the next state, buys a gun, and drives back. It needs to be more inconvenient than an hour's drive.

Pretty sure the person in your example just committed a crime.

[nenjin]

A crime that no one is willing to prosecute even when it happens. Besides, punishing someone for crossing state lines to buy a gun doesn't mean much after someone has already been killed.

[Bumber]

A crime that no one is willing to prosecute even when it happens.

Then why even bother enacting gun laws if there's no will to follow through?

[Dunamisdeos]

A crime that no one is willing to prosecute even when it happens.

Then why even bother enacting gun laws if there's no will to follow through?

A federal gun law would also remove that particular issue from the equation. State courts are required to enforce federal law. I believe this is the primary driving force behind the push for federal gun laws.

[nenjin]

A crime that no one is willing to prosecute even when it happens.

Then why even bother enacting gun laws if there's no will to follow through?

You say that like someone's unwillingness to enforce the laws we already have is some how an indication of the rightness of their position.

Let's call it what it actually is: sabotaging enforcement of established laws because of their own political beliefs.

Claiming otherwise is like saying an elected official's unwillingness to drive the posted speed limit is evidence that we don't need speed limits.

The public's elected officials voted this law into being. Ergo, not enforcing it is subverting the will of the electorate. You know, that thing that Conservative Republicans are always claiming happens. Like so many things, they only disapprove of laws when it's not in their benefit to have them. Voting restrictions? 100% Enforcing the meager gun laws we already have? TYRANNY.

[Micro102]

State level is not sufficient. Some states have heavy regulations on guns, but the next state over hasn't. So someone drives over to the next state, buys a gun, and drives back. It needs to be more inconvenient than an hour's drive.

Pretty sure the person in your example just committed a crime.

Yes, people willing to commit crimes are my primary concern here... If they don't have a problem shooting people, I doubt they give a shit about driving to the next state to get a gun.