Can we at least decrease the vitorol or implication around "no" regulation. It is still highly depended on where you live but we do regulate guns (in some places a great amount). We are talking about additional regulations here (AWB etc). Or the need to tighten existing regulations (national mental health check on existing national background checks).
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it.
People choose to get drunk too, we still regular that and punish them severely when they fuck up.
They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
That's nice but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is immune from government regulation. They're using dangerous weapons, that comes with enormous responsibility and it'd be unwise for the government to look the other way when accidents happen or they misuse their weapons to harm people. Also, that lifestyle isn't for every gun owner.
So what, exactly, kind of law would you make that we don't already have in regards to someone accidentally discharging their weapon and hurting themselves?
You left out the part where guns are used to murder people, we're not simply talking about accidents - which are serious concern when gun owners are irresponsible. Not a certain law, but I'd want federal gun control laws which are stronger than what have now, greater background checks, making it illegal to sell guns privately (perhaps through a government organization where it can be sold but accounted for), severe penalties for owners who aren't responsible with keeping their guns safe when unused, and make it easier for gun owners to lose their licenses.
Can we at least decrease the vitorol or implication around "no" regulation. It is still highly depended on where you live but we do regulate guns (in some places a great amount). We are talking about additional regulations here (AWB etc). Or the need to tighten existing regulations (national mental health check on existing national background checks).
Most of us were okay with heavy handed pistol regulation too, and I think it was @syndalis who mentioned that just shotgun or bolt-action rifles were okay with an emphasis on home protection and hunting, assuming the city/town/county level wanted more regulations (NYC for example).
Then most of us agreed about the safe and gun-club requiring things to be on lock down in those areas.
But this thread is a great example of why gun regulation is so terrible.
Even in places like the UK and Australia, guns are still a thing because of farming and super rural areas really necessitating them. But when we talk about regulation it's just about finding something to fight about with the pro-gun side to feel superior I guess. I don't know, suddenly hunters are a target because of something specific about the role they play in the US, and we need to regulate everything so no one ever has an accident.
I'm actually surprised that no one's advocated requiring something like a gopro attached to guns in case of an accident.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
People in America choose that lifestyle because they enjoy it.
People choose to get drunk too, we still regular that and punish them severely when they fuck up.
They like living in the wilderness and hunting. Regardless of what you do or believe, there are people that love to go camping, fishing, hunting, or live in the mountains and see their neighbors once a year and never step foot in an office or downtown.
That's nice but that doesn't mean their lifestyle is immune from government regulation. They're using dangerous weapons, that comes with enormous responsibility and it'd be unwise for the government to look the other way when accidents happen or they misuse their weapons to harm people. Also, that lifestyle isn't for every gun owner.
So what, exactly, kind of law would you make that we don't already have in regards to someone accidentally discharging their weapon and hurting themselves?
You left out the part where guns are used to murder people, we're not simply talking about accidents - which are serious concern when gun owners are irresponsible. Not a certain law, but I'd want federal gun control laws which are stronger than what have now, greater background checks, making it illegal to sell guns privately (perhaps through a government organization where it can be sold but accounted for), severe penalties for owners who aren't responsible with keeping their guns safe when unused, and make it easier for gun owners to lose their licenses.
Jesus fucking christ, we already fucking covered this.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
Let's flip the script a bit. Make your argument for the need of semi-automatic rifles over bolt-action rifles.
Hunting, pest control, target shooting, home defense, the same reasons for any gun really. It's like saying make an argument for why you need an automatic transmission instead of a manual. The operation is different but the end result is the same.
The automatic transmission has distinct advantages and disadvantages to a stick shift. Same as a semi-automatic vs a bolt-action. A bolt-action rifle will fire a single round just as fast as a semi, but if you're looking to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time (which is dependent on the person's 'people I hate' list) then the semi automatic is the go to choice.
Are the advantages that a semi-automatic weapon has for hunting, pest control, target shooting, etc. more important than the disadvantages that a bolt-action would impose on a mass shooting situation?
I think the thing that it is easy to lose sight of is that people are proposing these regulations not because "We hate guns" but because we are trying find logical public health solutions to an epidemic that has killed more than a million people in the United States in the last half century. In any other situation, these would be common sense solutions.
In this case, you have a major industry and a minority of hobbyists paying politicians to pretend it is not a problem. And because of this, to even have the conversation in public, you have to be willing to withstand sustained bad faith attacks in a way you wouldn't in most public health debates.*
* The exceptions being other issues that could impact the profit of a major corporation. No one argues that mosquito nets help prevent malaria by screaming "People still get malaria" because mosquitoes don't own firms that trade on the national stock exchanges. But there was a lot of screaming about removing lead from gas and tying cigarette use to cancer.
Can we at least decrease the vitorol or implication around "no" regulation. It is still highly depended on where you live but we do regulate guns (in some places a great amount). We are talking about additional regulations here (AWB etc). Or the need to tighten existing regulations (national mental health check on existing national background checks).
Most of us were okay with heavy handed pistol regulation too, and I think it was @syndalis who mentioned that just shotgun or bolt-action rifles were okay with an emphasis on home protection and hunting, assuming the city/town/county level wanted more regulations (NYC for example).
Then most of us agreed about the safe and gun-club requiring things to be on lock down in those areas.
But this thread is a great example of why gun regulation is so terrible.
Even in places like the UK and Australia, guns are still a thing because of farming and super rural areas really necessitating them. But when we talk about regulation it's just about finding something to fight about with the pro-gun side to feel superior I guess. I don't know, suddenly hunters are a target because of something specific about the role they play in the US, and we need to regulate everything so no one every has an accident.
I'm actually surprised that no one's advocated requiring something like a gopro attached to guns in case of an accident.
Regulations like those countries would be a great step forward in gun control in America. Sure you can guns in Australia but it's very, very hard to get them post-Port Arthur. It's not like in America were every tenth person is packing heat and walking into bars armed. edit: The NRA would have a stroke if America had identical regulations passed.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
Hey spool, I'm trying to understand your basis for supporting certain gun regulations.
So let's suppose a certain regulation A. Because we live in a huge country, any regulation will necessarily have very real impacts on human lives, and lots of life and death situations occurring at the fringes. With 300M people, even something like regulating ice cream ingredients could result in people losing their lives, directly or indirectly. Agreed?
Further, I assume that your general support for certain kinds of regulation means you accept that regulations can save lives. Also agreed?
Let's say Regulation A pertains to a certain kind of handgun. Let's suppose that passing the regulation makes it harder for Granny Arthritis to obtain a handgun, and so she winds up using a bolt action rifle, which she is unable to properly wield. As a result, she is killed by badgers. This regulation costs her, and a small number of other people, their lives. Let us call this number X.
Meanwhile, a number of other people who would have acquired a handgun and committed murders with them are unable to do so, resulting in a number of lives being saved. Let's call this number Y.
As well, a bunch of people who like to go target shooting with this handgun are unable to do so. There is no human cost here, but several people are inconvenienced, or otherwise made to "suffer" in a non life or death manner. Call this number Z.
Given X, Y and Z, how do you determine whether or not you support this regulation? Is there a situation in which Y far outpaces X that would still make you oppose the regulation? Do you consider Y particularly relevant, or is it more about X and Z?
To start off, I don't care much about Z in your example, because they're included as you'll see. My metric is whether the regulation effectively increases Y (lives saved by restricting the exercise of a right) while also being the least-restrictive means to do it, and the only means available to the government to do it. Y is a worthy goal, we should try to do it. X has a fundamentally different character though, because:
Y deals with deaths caused by citizens breaking the law.
X deals with deaths caused by government tyranny (however mild, in this case).
To my mind, X is not just Granny Arthritis who actually died, but every person in the nation who lives under the regulation. The regulation costs them all because it reduces individual liberty. I should restate at this point that every individual right includes some point at which we should restrict or prevent altogether the exercise of the right, in service to a broader societal need. So in service to increasing Y in your example, we should find ways to do it that create the least impact to members of X (i.e. everyone), and we should ensure that the government can't come up with some other way to accomplish the goal instead.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
They can't eat because they chose to live in the mountains or rural areas that aren't population dense.
Saying "well they should live in NYC" isn't helpful because it was a choice.
Yes, there exists people in the United States live in what is basically frontier land. Yes, there exists people that chose to do such a thing.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
I think the thing that it is easy to lose sight of is that people are proposing these regulations not because "We hate guns" but because we are trying find logical public health solutions to an epidemic that has killed more than a million people in the United States in the last half century. In any other situation, these would be common sense solutions.
Saying a solution to this is banning guns is like a doctor saying a solution to a broken wrist is cutting your arm off. The gun isn't the problem. The fact a person for some reason decides they need to go out and kill a bunch of people in a short period of time is the problem. The fact those people can then get ahold of a gun is the problem. You have eighty million people in the US who legally own guns and somehow manage to not go firing them into crowds. The 11,000 homicides last year, even if you assume every single one was committed by a different person, and they were all legal gun owners, means you want to take something away from eighty million people because of the actions of .01375%.
the "that's a shame" people are imagining a situation where you're out in the forest and if you don't find a deer to shoot that day
you don't eat
i doubt that's the reality of things for people who do choose to subsist on hunting, but i don't know anyone who hunts without the intent of any game they retrieve being purely supplemental to food they'd buy (hey i got all this venison, i'm gonna make some jerky and share it with my friends!)
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
They can't eat because they chose to live in the mountains or rural areas that aren't population dense.
Saying "well they should live in NYC" isn't helpful because it was a choice.
Yes, there exists people in the United States live in what is basically frontier land. Yes, there exists people that chose to do such a thing.
And in most cases, they're not in danger of outright starvation. What the problem becomes is that they don't have ready access to fresh processed meat, so without hunting, they're forced to subsist on non-perishables.
(Food deserts - it's not just an urban thing!)
So, by hunting, it gives them access to fresh meat that they can actually afford.
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
A single deer can fill a freezer, feeding a family for months. A family can, with cost of a hunting license, fill their "meat budget" for the next year in a single season with a couple of trips.
It's less that they need to eat that day, and more that it is possible to cheaply acquire the equivalent of thousands of dollars of non-processed, natural protein. There really aren't many government programs that can match that, even in urban areas.
For a lot of the nation, hunting, fishing and gardening are actually the differences between being poor and impoverished. Nature is, and always will be, more generous than the federal government. It's a reason why people even hunt in Detroit.
Hey spool, I'm trying to understand your basis for supporting certain gun regulations.
So let's suppose a certain regulation A. Because we live in a huge country, any regulation will necessarily have very real impacts on human lives, and lots of life and death situations occurring at the fringes. With 300M people, even something like regulating ice cream ingredients could result in people losing their lives, directly or indirectly. Agreed?
Further, I assume that your general support for certain kinds of regulation means you accept that regulations can save lives. Also agreed?
Let's say Regulation A pertains to a certain kind of handgun. Let's suppose that passing the regulation makes it harder for Granny Arthritis to obtain a handgun, and so she winds up using a bolt action rifle, which she is unable to properly wield. As a result, she is killed by badgers. This regulation costs her, and a small number of other people, their lives. Let us call this number X.
Meanwhile, a number of other people who would have acquired a handgun and committed murders with them are unable to do so, resulting in a number of lives being saved. Let's call this number Y.
As well, a bunch of people who like to go target shooting with this handgun are unable to do so. There is no human cost here, but several people are inconvenienced, or otherwise made to "suffer" in a non life or death manner. Call this number Z.
Given X, Y and Z, how do you determine whether or not you support this regulation? Is there a situation in which Y far outpaces X that would still make you oppose the regulation? Do you consider Y particularly relevant, or is it more about X and Z?
To my mind, X is not just Granny Arthritis who actually died, but every person in the nation who lives under the regulation. The regulation costs them all because it reduces individual liberty.
Everyone in the country is impacted by the regulation, but the people in category X are directly, physically, and very negatively impacted. You could curtail the crap out of gun rights and it probably wouldn't bother me at all, whereas the people in X would be dead. I don't think those two groups should be considered equally, not discounted entirely, but they're definitely not equal.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
They can't eat because they chose to live in the mountains or rural areas that aren't population dense.
Saying "well they should live in NYC" isn't helpful because it was a choice.
Yes, there exists people in the United States live in what is basically frontier land. Yes, there exists people that chose to do such a thing.
So it's both. I know that those lands exist and that people hunt there, I was going into their choices about why they're there. It's not about population density, it's about opportunities and they'd be less of them in that kind of lifestyle than living in cities. Though it does put kids who don't want to be there and have less opportunities to leave if they don't have the resources their families have (or refuse to give them).
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
A single deer can fill a freezer, feeding a family for months. A family can, with cost of a hunting license, fill their "meat budget" for the next year in a single season with a couple of trips.
It's less that they need to eat that day, and more that it is possible to cheaply acquire the equivalent of thousands of dollars of non-processed, natural protein. There really aren't many government programs that can match that, even in urban areas.
For a lot of the nation, hunting, fishing and gardening are actually the differences between being poor and impoverished. Nature is, and always will be, more generous than the federal government. It's a reason why people even hunt in Detroit.
Granted it was decades ago, but when my dad was young he would be dropped off in the woods every weekend to hunt for the rather huge extended family he lived in. Even though they lived within walking distance of Cannery Row, the price of good protein was just way too high. As he put it, "meat was wealth."
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
It is, however, far cheaper.
Paying someone to crawl up your ass like NZ apparently does is, without a doubt, probably the MOST effective way to keep would-be killers from owning guns while minimizing false positives.
But that is going to be cost prohibitive. If the goal is "don't let bad people have guns," bans, rigorous investigations, and piles of red tape are all viable means, each with their own draw backs.
If anything, the fact that the NZ and AU approaches have similar effects wrt to mass shootings, while outperforming the US's efforts, should indicate that both have merit, not that the AU approach does not.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Incidentally, I do support the ability to own a larger variety of weapons so long as they are stored with registered and regulated gun clubs. Just like Australia does.
Ah, I see.
I posted a link to the Wikipedia page because it contained a summary of the gun laws in Australia. You countered with that study found in the "Research" section of the article, so I followed up with the Vox article.
Then I learned more about the New Zealand model (turns out it is really restrictive, beyond both Canada and Australia). This was interesting new information, but it also makes me really wonder about the efficacy of that linked study.
Of course, the Wikipedia article also contains research that showed the gun ban did increase the rate of gun violence (except for suicide). And the Vox article cites research that shows much stronger links than any in the Wikipedia.
My takeaway on all of this:
New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all have much more stringent controls on gun ownership and on the proper use and storage of guns among the licensed owners, and their rates of gun violence are in line with the rest of the Western World. The United States does not have any of these legal mechanisms, and thus has much higher gun violence.
So you're saying it's not the type of gun that's the problem then, it's the regulation or lack thereof.
Well, if you want to ignore that all of the regulations I cited are extremely stringent about banning or limiting access to certain types of guns along with being very thorough about vetting the fitness and need of license applicants, I guess you could say that. For my arguments, I am not ignoring that fact.
Your argument was that you wanted everything but bolt action rifles and shotguns banned, though. No one is arguing less regulation in the US besides possibly spool32 in a few specific cases. Most people on both sides are arguing for more comprehensive regulation that isn't simply "this looks scary, ban it." I'd also contend the Australian model of outright banning is just a bit more restrictive than the New Zealand model of thorough checks.
It is, however far cheaper.
Paying someone to crawl up your ass like NZ apparently does is, without a doubt, probably the MOST effective way to keep would-be killers from owning guns while minimizing false positives.
But that is going to be cost prohibitive. If the goal is "don't let bad people have guns," bans, rigorous investigations, and piles of red tape are all viable means, with their own draw backs.
If anything, the fact that the NZ and AU approaches have similar effects wrt to mass shootings, while outperforming the US's efforts, should indicate that both have merit, not that the AU approach does not.
I think the big ideal many of us are trying to convey is logistics. The models may be present but the scale, even with Canada is no where near the same. In both landmass and population. Setting up a bureaucratic system would require, in a real world sense, at least one "station" per county in the US to handle the red tape paperwork, etc. That is almost a 5th of a billion dollars (~160mil) to just staff one individual at 50k per year at each of those locations. Just for salary alone.
That is small I suppose in grand scheme of national budgetary concerns but it would balloon up fast from that one simple cost. Logistics of this nature, and who will pay for it (as many opinions say tax the gun owner which is hogwash), is what many of us find as a major point of contention.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
I'm talking about any gun, if a hunter turns homicidal they'll victims as easily with a rifle as with a handgun or little Jimmy shoots his head off when the owner didn't lock away their gun properly. As well as irresponsible owners hurting themselves or their kids with their guns accidentally through incompetence. Those problems don't disappear by what gun a hunter has.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
I'm for gun control, not gun banning. It's not about inheritance or that rural people still need guns - inheritors can go through the paperwork like everyone else when they're willed over and rural people can do paperwork for their guns. If they want them, they'll follow the rules and if the break them they should be punished appropriately for it, including losing their licenses temporarily or permanently.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
speaking of sustenance, I need to go eat. Back later! jeffe please @ me on the reply.
dave, reread those two posts... I don't think you're arguing what you mean to be.
X in that example is people who died because of the government's action to restrict access.
Yah, got that. Gonna quote this out so I'm clear here.
ElJeffe:
Let's say Regulation A pertains to a certain kind of handgun. Let's suppose that passing the regulation makes it harder for Granny Arthritis to obtain a handgun, and so she winds up using a bolt action rifle, which she is unable to properly wield. As a result, she is killed by badgers. This regulation costs her, and a small number of other people, their lives. Let us call this number X.
spool32:
To my mind, X is not just Granny Arthritis who actually died, but every person in the nation who lives under the regulation. The regulation costs them all because it reduces individual liberty.
It looks like you're expanding the definition of group X to include the population of the United States, not just the unfortunate victims of roaming badgers. Am I off base here? Because I see a major difference between people who are actually physically harmed by a regulation and people who merely have to deal with a regulation.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
I'm talking about any gun, if a hunter turns homicidal they'll victims as easily with a rifle as with a handgun or little Jimmy shoots his head off when the owner didn't lock away their gun properly. As well as irresponsible owners hurting themselves or their kids with their guns accidentally through incompetence. Those problems don't disappear by what gun a hunter has.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
I'm for gun control, not gun banning. It's not about inheritance or that rural people still need guns - inheritors can go through the paperwork like everyone else when they're willed over and rural people can do paperwork for their guns. If they want them, they'll follow the rules and if the break them they should be punished appropriately for it, including losing their licenses temporarily or permanently.
No one said otherwise.
Like I said, a few pages back we already agreed on that stuff.
I didn't make stipulations really on it because I had assumed you understood we already wanted that stuff and it seemed like you were all "pft, hurgle burgle fuck guns" now because of it.
Apologies.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
And yeah, if Jim-bob can't pass the tests for gun ownership, welp, time to move to the city so big government can make sure he doesn't hurt himself anyways.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
I'm talking about any gun, if a hunter turns homicidal they'll victims as easily with a rifle as with a handgun or little Jimmy shoots his head off when the owner didn't lock away their gun properly. As well as irresponsible owners hurting themselves or their kids with their guns accidentally through incompetence. Those problems don't disappear by what gun a hunter has.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
I'm for gun control, not gun banning. It's not about inheritance or that rural people still need guns - inheritors can go through the paperwork like everyone else when they're willed over and rural people can do paperwork for their guns. If they want them, they'll follow the rules and if the break them they should be punished appropriately for it, including losing their licenses temporarily or permanently.
Exactly this: there is no hunting scenario where people do not ably have time to go through proper screening.
For people in extremely remote areas, it would make a lot of sense to have broader exemptions or leeway on timeframes. We can revisit those issues if those exemptions create a suspicious amount of city-bound traffic.
Gun control in the US can be rolled out gradually, since your target areas are high population regions first where logistics is no problem. You can deal with rural by gradually bringing dealers into the program (the old "incentivize then legislate" approach works well) and for people in truly isolated parts of the country you could simply allow blanket exemption for some time provided they don't want to carry those weapons to other areas.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And yeah, if Jim-bob can't pass the tests for gun ownership, welp, time to move to the city so big government can make sure he doesn't hurt himself anyways.
Are you commenting on my post? I didn't say or imply that Jim-Bob has to do that. If he can't pass gun tests where he's from, going to the city won't change much. It also depends why he failed the tests.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
Hey so you know what's interesting about sustenance hunting? You still only need like, 1 gun and a small supply of ammo to do it.
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
Shotguns > handguns when it comes to dealing with small predators. We kept a snake charmer in my dad's closet for that reason.
As a bonus, it would be really hard to go on a mass shooting spree with a snake charmer. It will fuck up a snake, boar, or bobcat real good, though.
And yeah, if Jim-bob can't pass the tests for gun ownership, welp, time to move to the city so big government can make sure he doesn't hurt himself anyways.
Are you commenting on my post? I didn't say or imply that Jim-Bob has to do that. If he can't pass gun tests where he's from, going to the city won't change much. It also depends why he failed the tests.
Kind of.
It was mostly tounge-in-cheek because hillbillies are inbred and probably dangerous to themselves in general. They likely wouldn't pass the screening course.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I also said I think its sad that people are so poor in my country that they have to forage/hunt to feed themselves. And I think that's awful, not because of the hunting, but because of the poverty. The rest of the shit you have attached to what I have said says more about you than any argument I'm making.
Sorry, but that's gooseshit. Sustenance hunting (which is a pretty big thing here) is not an indictment of our society. It isn't about poverty, and it's a bit insulting for you to say that.
(Yes, you can all get your jaws off the floor. I live in a rural state, and the people who hunt to fill their freezers are my colleagues and friends.)
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
And this is, again, not the same situation. You are putting another condition on this situation (ie - staying in a particular very remote location) that doesn't apply to the point being made.
If people want to live far enough from every service that hunting becomes easier then buying food, that's not a big deal and no one has said otherwise.
Posts
You left out the part where guns are used to murder people, we're not simply talking about accidents - which are serious concern when gun owners are irresponsible. Not a certain law, but I'd want federal gun control laws which are stronger than what have now, greater background checks, making it illegal to sell guns privately (perhaps through a government organization where it can be sold but accounted for), severe penalties for owners who aren't responsible with keeping their guns safe when unused, and make it easier for gun owners to lose their licenses.
Most of us were okay with heavy handed pistol regulation too, and I think it was @syndalis who mentioned that just shotgun or bolt-action rifles were okay with an emphasis on home protection and hunting, assuming the city/town/county level wanted more regulations (NYC for example).
Then most of us agreed about the safe and gun-club requiring things to be on lock down in those areas.
But this thread is a great example of why gun regulation is so terrible.
Even in places like the UK and Australia, guns are still a thing because of farming and super rural areas really necessitating them. But when we talk about regulation it's just about finding something to fight about with the pro-gun side to feel superior I guess. I don't know, suddenly hunters are a target because of something specific about the role they play in the US, and we need to regulate everything so no one ever has an accident.
I'm actually surprised that no one's advocated requiring something like a gopro attached to guns in case of an accident.
Jesus fucking christ, we already fucking covered this.
I think the thing that it is easy to lose sight of is that people are proposing these regulations not because "We hate guns" but because we are trying find logical public health solutions to an epidemic that has killed more than a million people in the United States in the last half century. In any other situation, these would be common sense solutions.
In this case, you have a major industry and a minority of hobbyists paying politicians to pretend it is not a problem. And because of this, to even have the conversation in public, you have to be willing to withstand sustained bad faith attacks in a way you wouldn't in most public health debates.*
* The exceptions being other issues that could impact the profit of a major corporation. No one argues that mosquito nets help prevent malaria by screaming "People still get malaria" because mosquitoes don't own firms that trade on the national stock exchanges. But there was a lot of screaming about removing lead from gas and tying cigarette use to cancer.
Regulations like those countries would be a great step forward in gun control in America. Sure you can guns in Australia but it's very, very hard to get them post-Port Arthur. It's not like in America were every tenth person is packing heat and walking into bars armed. edit: The NRA would have a stroke if America had identical regulations passed.
Needing to hunt to be able to put food on your table is most certainly an indictment of society.
Being able to hunt to put food on your table isn't, but that is not the same thing.
To start off, I don't care much about Z in your example, because they're included as you'll see. My metric is whether the regulation effectively increases Y (lives saved by restricting the exercise of a right) while also being the least-restrictive means to do it, and the only means available to the government to do it. Y is a worthy goal, we should try to do it. X has a fundamentally different character though, because:
Y deals with deaths caused by citizens breaking the law.
X deals with deaths caused by government tyranny (however mild, in this case).
To my mind, X is not just Granny Arthritis who actually died, but every person in the nation who lives under the regulation. The regulation costs them all because it reduces individual liberty. I should restate at this point that every individual right includes some point at which we should restrict or prevent altogether the exercise of the right, in service to a broader societal need. So in service to increasing Y in your example, we should find ways to do it that create the least impact to members of X (i.e. everyone), and we should ensure that the government can't come up with some other way to accomplish the goal instead.
It really is not.
Logistics and all that.
Unless you think the government should put a grocery store in rural areas that only have 10 customers.
Are they hunting because they can't eat or because it's a sport they enjoy? If it's hunting to eat that day, then yes it is a statement the government has failed providing them with opportunities.
They can't eat because they chose to live in the mountains or rural areas that aren't population dense.
Saying "well they should live in NYC" isn't helpful because it was a choice.
Yes, there exists people in the United States live in what is basically frontier land. Yes, there exists people that chose to do such a thing.
what about the opportunity to hunt that they have
I daresay this is a model we can ably accommodate under any practical US gun regulation plan. Especially since all these people already have guns, or are more likely to inherit then buy them.
Saying a solution to this is banning guns is like a doctor saying a solution to a broken wrist is cutting your arm off. The gun isn't the problem. The fact a person for some reason decides they need to go out and kill a bunch of people in a short period of time is the problem. The fact those people can then get ahold of a gun is the problem. You have eighty million people in the US who legally own guns and somehow manage to not go firing them into crowds. The 11,000 homicides last year, even if you assume every single one was committed by a different person, and they were all legal gun owners, means you want to take something away from eighty million people because of the actions of .01375%.
the "that's a shame" people are imagining a situation where you're out in the forest and if you don't find a deer to shoot that day
you don't eat
i doubt that's the reality of things for people who do choose to subsist on hunting, but i don't know anyone who hunts without the intent of any game they retrieve being purely supplemental to food they'd buy (hey i got all this venison, i'm gonna make some jerky and share it with my friends!)
And in most cases, they're not in danger of outright starvation. What the problem becomes is that they don't have ready access to fresh processed meat, so without hunting, they're forced to subsist on non-perishables.
(Food deserts - it's not just an urban thing!)
So, by hunting, it gives them access to fresh meat that they can actually afford.
A single deer can fill a freezer, feeding a family for months. A family can, with cost of a hunting license, fill their "meat budget" for the next year in a single season with a couple of trips.
It's less that they need to eat that day, and more that it is possible to cheaply acquire the equivalent of thousands of dollars of non-processed, natural protein. There really aren't many government programs that can match that, even in urban areas.
For a lot of the nation, hunting, fishing and gardening are actually the differences between being poor and impoverished. Nature is, and always will be, more generous than the federal government. It's a reason why people even hunt in Detroit.
Everyone in the country is impacted by the regulation, but the people in category X are directly, physically, and very negatively impacted. You could curtail the crap out of gun rights and it probably wouldn't bother me at all, whereas the people in X would be dead. I don't think those two groups should be considered equally, not discounted entirely, but they're definitely not equal.
dave, reread those two posts... I don't think you're arguing what you mean to be.
X in that example is people who died because of the government's action to restrict access.
So it's both. I know that those lands exist and that people hunt there, I was going into their choices about why they're there. It's not about population density, it's about opportunities and they'd be less of them in that kind of lifestyle than living in cities. Though it does put kids who don't want to be there and have less opportunities to leave if they don't have the resources their families have (or refuse to give them).
Granted it was decades ago, but when my dad was young he would be dropped off in the woods every weekend to hunt for the rather huge extended family he lived in. Even though they lived within walking distance of Cannery Row, the price of good protein was just way too high. As he put it, "meat was wealth."
Yup.
No one is contesting that at all.
My friend and I might get our permits because our family wants to will us guns. But nothing lasts forever, so we probably shouldn't outlaw buying guns either. I'm also not really okay outlawing gun ownership for people that don't sustenance hunt. It is a sport as well as a means to feed ones self. I realize people die every day from hand guns, no need to have that reiterated every other page, I just don't feel as strongly about "prevent access to weapons" as most people do because I have... actually a lot of weapons.
Because hunters are people, and they will come across the same problems as city owners do.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
It is, however, far cheaper.
Paying someone to crawl up your ass like NZ apparently does is, without a doubt, probably the MOST effective way to keep would-be killers from owning guns while minimizing false positives.
But that is going to be cost prohibitive. If the goal is "don't let bad people have guns," bans, rigorous investigations, and piles of red tape are all viable means, each with their own draw backs.
If anything, the fact that the NZ and AU approaches have similar effects wrt to mass shootings, while outperforming the US's efforts, should indicate that both have merit, not that the AU approach does not.
My point is they don't have an excuse to not have the same regulations city gun owners do.
Most people don't hunt with a hand gun, it happens, but I would not weep significantly for that if rural people got hit with a hand gun ban just like city owners. Syndalis' ideas make sense, and don't exclude hunters or rural communities. You don't really need hand guns there.
But I said "we shouldn't outlaw buying guns" and I think that's what you're referencing. We shouldn't. And we won't. Just because people inherit something doesn't mean it will last forever, so rural people still need their guns.
I think the big ideal many of us are trying to convey is logistics. The models may be present but the scale, even with Canada is no where near the same. In both landmass and population. Setting up a bureaucratic system would require, in a real world sense, at least one "station" per county in the US to handle the red tape paperwork, etc. That is almost a 5th of a billion dollars (~160mil) to just staff one individual at 50k per year at each of those locations. Just for salary alone.
That is small I suppose in grand scheme of national budgetary concerns but it would balloon up fast from that one simple cost. Logistics of this nature, and who will pay for it (as many opinions say tax the gun owner which is hogwash), is what many of us find as a major point of contention.
I'm talking about any gun, if a hunter turns homicidal they'll victims as easily with a rifle as with a handgun or little Jimmy shoots his head off when the owner didn't lock away their gun properly. As well as irresponsible owners hurting themselves or their kids with their guns accidentally through incompetence. Those problems don't disappear by what gun a hunter has.
I'm for gun control, not gun banning. It's not about inheritance or that rural people still need guns - inheritors can go through the paperwork like everyone else when they're willed over and rural people can do paperwork for their guns. If they want them, they'll follow the rules and if the break them they should be punished appropriately for it, including losing their licenses temporarily or permanently.
Yah, got that. Gonna quote this out so I'm clear here.
ElJeffe:
spool32:
It looks like you're expanding the definition of group X to include the population of the United States, not just the unfortunate victims of roaming badgers. Am I off base here? Because I see a major difference between people who are actually physically harmed by a regulation and people who merely have to deal with a regulation.
No one said otherwise.
Like I said, a few pages back we already agreed on that stuff.
I didn't make stipulations really on it because I had assumed you understood we already wanted that stuff and it seemed like you were all "pft, hurgle burgle fuck guns" now because of it.
Apologies.
When hunting in west Texas, I dont HUNT with a hand gun, but i certainly carry one on me at all times.
Mostly due to personal protection. Not from people, but from snakes, hogs, bobcats etc.
So there is that.
Exactly this: there is no hunting scenario where people do not ably have time to go through proper screening.
For people in extremely remote areas, it would make a lot of sense to have broader exemptions or leeway on timeframes. We can revisit those issues if those exemptions create a suspicious amount of city-bound traffic.
Gun control in the US can be rolled out gradually, since your target areas are high population regions first where logistics is no problem. You can deal with rural by gradually bringing dealers into the program (the old "incentivize then legislate" approach works well) and for people in truly isolated parts of the country you could simply allow blanket exemption for some time provided they don't want to carry those weapons to other areas.
Ah I didn't know how prevalent it was, worst I deal with up here is deer and maybe a mountain lion or black bear if you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Moose though, you better be running away.
Are you commenting on my post? I didn't say or imply that Jim-Bob has to do that. If he can't pass gun tests where he's from, going to the city won't change much. It also depends why he failed the tests.
Shotguns > handguns when it comes to dealing with small predators. We kept a snake charmer in my dad's closet for that reason.
As a bonus, it would be really hard to go on a mass shooting spree with a snake charmer. It will fuck up a snake, boar, or bobcat real good, though.
Kind of.
It was mostly tounge-in-cheek because hillbillies are inbred and probably dangerous to themselves in general. They likely wouldn't pass the screening course.
And this is, again, not the same situation. You are putting another condition on this situation (ie - staying in a particular very remote location) that doesn't apply to the point being made.
If people want to live far enough from every service that hunting becomes easier then buying food, that's not a big deal and no one has said otherwise.