Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What is there so dangerous about the American countryside that you need guns to survive?

You're kidding, right?

Well, we can use pictures to help educate him:

Spoiler:

Prairie dogs... make no mistake, these are vicious killers!!

American Cougar

Spoiler:

Coyotes

Spoiler:

Not to be confused with wolves

Spoiler:

Grey Wolf:


The Timber Wolf:


Great Plains wolf:


Arctic Wolf:

Bears:

Spoiler:

Black Bear:


Brown bear (also known alternatively as a Kodiak bear, in that region of Alaska, or the Grizzly bear)

Moose:

Spoiler:

This thing that's scary as feth:

Spoiler:

Ok, seriously, that's a wolverine... bloody hell it's scary lookin though.

And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.


I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.

Jihadin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
What is there so dangerous about the American countryside that you need guns to survive?

You're kidding, right?

Well, we can use pictures to help educate him:

Spoiler:

Prairie dogs... make no mistake, these are vicious killers!!

American Cougar

Spoiler:

Coyotes

Spoiler:

Not to be confused with wolves

Spoiler:

Grey Wolf:


The Timber Wolf:


Great Plains wolf:


Arctic Wolf:

Bears:

Spoiler:

Black Bear:


Brown bear (also known alternatively as a Kodiak bear, in that region of Alaska, or the Grizzly bear)

Moose:

Spoiler:

This thing that's scary as feth:

Spoiler:

Ok, seriously, that's a wolverine... bloody hell it's scary lookin though.

And really, that's just scratching the surface, because in the SE part of the country, you got gators and crocodiles, and some A-holes let their "pet" pythons and boas escape and now they are taking over an ecosystem out there, Across much of the "Southern" part, or rocky parts of the country, you got about 50 different types of rattle snakes.


I think we rate right up there with Australia for wildlife that wants to kill you. We're still behind though, because a bunch of our plants are good, and don't want to kill us.

Always remember. As an individual there are individuals who are out there seeing you as a target.
So always remember

Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.

Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.

It's not just about animals attacking people. But that's okay. Tell us more about how things are in the US.

I'm sure Americans in rural areas have never have a problem with wild animals destroying their property, livestock, or pets. Since animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible, there must not be anything to worry about.

I'm sure, as an American, it's not like anything I've ever had to deal with personally. I'm clearly just making all this up, rather than speaking of any life experience I might have actually had, right? But just in case it ever happens to me someday, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable on the subject, how should I deal with things like this?

I own weapons
I own a M1 Carbine
My version of the M4 I carried in combat
Double barrel shotgun (vintage)
9mm
10mm
.22 cal rifle
Winchester repeating rifle
.........
I own just to own




Edit

Ony critter I took out in the wild was



bit bigger then that pack of smokes
three shots from a 9mm Beretta. Justfied shooting

 Hordini wrote:
But even so, not everyone lives in LA, and that's part of my point. And not everyone who lives in a rural area is a farmer. People living in rural areas needing (or wanting guns) due to slow police response times is only one part of it. Yes, it was what we were originally talking about, but I figured that bit about wildlife was pertinent since Iron_Captain seemed to be confused about why someone living in rural America might feel the need to own a gun. The answer is, there are a lot of valid reasons.

Sure. And a lot of them are good reasons for allowing people in rural areas to have guns.

Quite a few of them suddenly become much less applicable when you start looking at urban areas, though. Which is why we have different rules for rural folk and city folk.

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
But even so, not everyone lives in LA, and that's part of my point. And not everyone who lives in a rural area is a farmer. People living in rural areas needing (or wanting guns) due to slow police response times is only one part of it. Yes, it was what we were originally talking about, but I figured that bit about wildlife was pertinent since Iron_Captain seemed to be confused about why someone living in rural America might feel the need to own a gun. The answer is, there are a lot of valid reasons.

Sure. And a lot of them are good reasons for allowing people in rural areas to have guns.

Quite a few of them suddenly become much less applicable when you start looking at urban areas, though. Which is why we have different rules for rural folk and city folk.

I don't see why someone living in an urban area has less of a right to a weapon in order to defend themselves though, especially considering urban areas have higher crime in general.

 Hordini wrote:
It's not just about animals attacking people. But that's okay. Tell us more about how things are in the US.

I'm sure Americans in rural areas have never have a problem with wild animals destroying their property, livestock, or pets. Since animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible, there must not be anything to worry about.

I'm sure, as an American, it's not like anything I've ever had to deal with personally. I'm clearly just making all this up, rather than speaking of any life experience I might have actually had, right? But just in case it ever happens to me someday, since you seem to be pretty knowledgable on the subject, how should I deal with things like this?

I am not denying a gun is pretty handy in (very) remote areas, and imo it is okay for folks in frontier areas to have guns, but it is far from essential. As I said, people survived in those areas centuries before guns came around.
Regarding how to deal with wild animals without guns, in Siberia most people have one or more large guard dogs that keep wild animals away.


And if your guard dogs are not enough to deal with an angry bear, there is always the rogatina:

Oh good, we're back to 'but my rights!'...

At which point I think I'm stepping off this merry-go-round.

Why am viewed for being a evil person for owning weapons I do not have a real practical use for. Plinking fun on the range

Justification for me not owning weapons?
Anyone?
One solid good reason why I should not be allowed to own a weapon?

 insaniak wrote:
Oh good, we're back to 'but my rights!'...

At which point I think I'm stepping off this merry-go-round.

Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?

Sorry, I'm really not trying to turn it into a merry-go-round and I'm not trying to talk in circles with you or talk past you. I think this is a fundamental part of where we either agree or disagree, and I'm trying to figure it out.

Cultural clash

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.

Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.

Yes, really, wild animals. And sure, there are plenty of ways you could deal with animals that don't involved a firearm, but pretty much all of them involved higher amounts of risk to the person.

And there are some animals that are becoming more and more bold. When I lived in Colorado Springs, my supervisor lived on the west side of town, yet he was a good ways "in" town (as in, the untamed wilderness areas were more than 2-3 miles from his house) and his garbage cans were knocked over on a weekly basis by black bears. There were even several days where he "couldn't" get to work, due to a bear loitering outside his place, near the rear end of his vehicle. In that situation, the wild animal's behavior is predictable in that it's unpredictable. And, he was within city limits, so no firing off a shot from a gun to scare off the bear.

Ohh, and doing a quick search of "dangerous wildlife in Siberia" nets a near identical list of creatures that the US has, so... nice try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

One solid good reason why I should not be allowed to own a weapon?

Because you're a Vet, and that means you're just a ticking timebomb of PTSD, flashbacks and unchecked rage kept just below the surface

 Psienesis wrote:


Are you kidding? We restrict people's rights based on comfort level all the freakin' time! It took massive social unrest to decriminalize mixed-race marriages and extend basic civil rights to people freed from slavery a century prior. We're seeing the same thing going on with abortion rights, gay rights, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues. We *absolutely* legislate on people's comfort levels!

So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.

 Psienesis wrote:


As far as "accidental shootings" go:

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

... which posits that 851 people died due to accidental discharge of firearms in 2011 (the year of the report). Those numbers do not include suicides, assaults or other actions of a similar nature. Simply accidental shootings. A further 222 people died due to firearm discharge under "undetermined intent".

So, in other words, a completely insignificant number of people given a population of over 300 million. That's a far cry from the "massive" number claimed by Insaniak. How do these accidents compare with other accidental deaths?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

By "completely insignificant" I mean less than 1 130th of all accidental deaths. Kind of a pathetic number upon which to hinge your argument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Oh good, we're back to 'but my rights!'...

At which point I think I'm stepping off this merry-go-round.

Yes, in America we have rights. I'm not at all sure why this issue befuddles foreigners...

Kick me in my nuts next time there Ensis

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Wild animals? Really? There is plenty of ways you can deal with wild animals without guns. Seriously, for centuries humans have lived right in the midst of wild animals without guns and without being killed on any significant scale. Besides that, animal attacks on humans are incredibly rare. Animals tend to avoid humans as much as possible. Humans are apex predators even without guns. Not to mention you can just sit inside your house and be completely safe.

Siberia has far more dangerous animals than the US, yet people survive there in rural areas without guns and people getting killed by animals is almost unheard of.

Yes, really, wild animals. And sure, there are plenty of ways you could deal with animals that don't involved a firearm, but pretty much all of them involved higher amounts of risk to the person.

And there are some animals that are becoming more and more bold. When I lived in Colorado Springs, my supervisor lived on the west side of town, yet he was a good ways "in" town (as in, the untamed wilderness areas were more than 2-3 miles from his house) and his garbage cans were knocked over on a weekly basis by black bears. There were even several days where he "couldn't" get to work, due to a bear loitering outside his place, near the rear end of his vehicle. In that situation, the wild animal's behavior is predictable in that it's unpredictable. And, he was within city limits, so no firing off a shot from a gun to scare off the bear.

Ohh, and doing a quick search of "dangerous wildlife in Siberia" nets a near identical list of creatures that the US has, so... nice try.

Sure, guns can be very handy for scaring off wild animals. Only thing I was trying to say is that they are not essential. You could live in the wilderness without guns without problems.
And wildlife in Siberia is roughly similar to that in Alaska (http://rbth.com/articles/2011/04/26/the_twelve_most_dangerous_russian_animals_12694.html) in Siberia wildlife is more numerous and bears etc. are far more common (120.000 brown bears in Siberia vs 32.500 in the US for example).

So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.

Are you trying to debate me on the topic or just racing to the bottom? Do you have a point to counter my claim that our cities and states do not pass legislation based on the feelings of either those in power, or a section of the population that wields significant political and/or financial influence, regardless of whether or not they are a majority of the population in those areas?

 Jihadin wrote:
Kick me in my nuts next time there Ensis

It really is a BS excuse, but I figured better a fellow vet came out with that "legitimate" reason than someone else

 insaniak wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why shouldn't someone want the most effective weapon to protect themselves?

Someone wanting something isn't automatically a good reason for them to have it.

How come you folks never demand justification/good reasons for us not wanting to change or further further limit the 1st or 4th amendments?

feth your desire for justification for the 2nd. Want/Need, makes zero difference at all. There is a mechanism in the constitution to change or even repeal the constitution to include previously adopted amendments. If folks in the US really think the 2nd needs updating, let them use the correct procedure and update it.

I know wiki isn't the best source, but according to wiki (and looking at their sources (at least the free abstracts for the pay to view papers) Australia really can't thank the NFA for their reduced gun problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Measuring_the_effects_of_firearms_laws_in_Australia

It seems that studies are showing your reasons to desire to limit my freedoms don't hold water. And people DO need good reasons to limit my freedoms. And frankly, those reasons need to be really damned good and backed up for me to even begin to consider relinquishing any of my freedoms. Usually, the reasons to limit freedoms we see are based on emotion, that does not cut it.

The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

 motyak wrote:
The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

Then I guess you'll find more recent studies that contradict them. And since you are so passionate about the issue, you can edit the wiki.

 CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

Then I guess you'll find more recent studies that contradict them. And since you are so passionate about the issue, you can edit the wiki.

Your references summed up to the NRA and then the Australian organisations of a similar vein who hold similar views. You aren't providing valid data to refute. I'm not saying it has to be perfectly unbiased, but if you're only throwing out one side and then saying "well prove my data wrong" what is the point trying to argue? You're arguing, either intentionally or not, from a dishonest position. Knowing when to drop something on the internet when the person opposite you is uninterested in ever changing their mind or acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is a useful skill, one I'll exercise now.

 motyak wrote:
The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

I'm curious about the references; are they scientifically unsound, outdated, statistically invalid?

Well, no. Unless the American countryside is actually plagued by roving bands of marauders and highwaymen.

And thats just at school. You should see how it is outside.

 motyak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

Then I guess you'll find more recent studies that contradict them. And since you are so passionate about the issue, you can edit the wiki.

Your references summed up to the NRA and then the Australian organisations of a similar vein who hold similar views. You aren't providing valid data to refute. I'm not saying it has to be perfectly unbiased, but if you're only throwing out one side and then saying "well prove my data wrong" what is the point trying to argue? You're arguing, either intentionally or not, from a dishonest position. Knowing when to drop something on the internet when the person opposite you is uninterested in ever changing their mind or acknowledging an opposing viewpoint is a useful skill, one I'll exercise now.

It seems many the studies and statistics shown in this thread show the same thing, gun control measures don't do what they claim they do, and yet folks who advocate them are seemingly unable to show better data.

 Psienesis wrote:

So you are pro-life, anti-gay rights, anti-same sex marriage, and anti-whatever else you can think of? I'm guessing the answer is no, because legislation based on feelings is absurd and people who espouse it should be treated like the idiots and bigots they are. This issue is no different.

Are you trying to debate me on the topic or just racing to the bottom? Do you have a point to counter my claim that our cities and states do not pass legislation based on the feelings of either those in power, or a section of the population that wields significant political and/or financial influence, regardless of whether or not they are a majority of the population in those areas?

Restricting the rights of others based on personal comfort level IS a race to the bottom. Nowhere in any American legal documents does it say that you have the right to feel comfortable. I am not, and have not, made the claim that legislation to this end has never been passed, only that it is wrong, and the people who push it are typically bigots.

 motyak wrote:
The problem with your link there isn't wiki, it is the sources wiki references...

Now you know how I feel when there's a healthcare debate... trying to compare data between nations.



FWIW, I did look at those wiki sources and it does seem a bit, dubious.

 Hordini wrote:
Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?

I agree. Law abiding people should be allowed to own weapons. The problem is, it's impossible to distinguish who is going to be "law abiding".

That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.

I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen have the right to own a weapon?

I agree. Law abiding people should be allowed to own weapons. The problem is, it's impossible to distinguish who is going to be "law abiding".

That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.

I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.

And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?

Driving and doing drugs are not constitutionally protected rights. That really is what it boils down to. As mentioned, folks are free to attempt to change or even repeal the 2nd amendment.

Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours. The UK bill of rights equivalent does not protect the right to bear arms. Again, that is great. We chose a different path for ours.

Oh man back to the feeling arguments. threads gone full circle.

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Well:

Report says 44 out of 105 fatal shootings in the past 22 years were of people with mental illness

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/30/half-shot-police-mentally-ill

Adam Salter is less than impressed. Shot in the back for trying to stab himself. Nice.



You may have less incidents, but you still have incidents.