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.

Presumably you also need to be registered, and your guns need to be registered.

The system in the UK is similar, except you cannot have a pistol or a semi-automatic weapon.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Making political points about a tragedy in the first post already, dakka is getting faster!

Dude. Give credit where credit is due. He got in the first line.

Well, your possession and acquisition license is government issued, so yes, you register through gaining the license. No additional registration is required, though you must renew your license every 5 years, and if you change your address that also needs to be updated.

Only restricted and prohibited firearms need to be registered. Non-Restricted firearms, such as most rifles and shotguns [with a magazine of 5 cartridges or less] do not need to be registered.

For the sake of putting it out there, most pistols are Restricted firearms, and can only be used for target practice and sport purposes [competitive target shooting]. You can't hunt with a pistol, to the best of my knowledge, and you can't carry a loaded firearm anywhere other than for the purpose of hunting, so there is no notion of "personal defense" associated with owning a pistol. With the exception of Law Enforcement, Military, and certain Security personel. Probably obvious.

So not all firearms need to be registered, only those whose design is deemed... overkill... for lack of a better term, in regards to hunting. Or whose purpose is specifically killing people, like pistols or "assault" weapons. [Assault being a loose term not personally defined by any particular attribute.]

Personally, I understand "small capacity" semi-automatic weapons for hunting. You might come upon a group of prey, particularly when hunting fowl. You could conceivably kill multiple game in a single event. I'm personally against the general public being able to own pistols [outside of Law, Military, and Security] and think they should all fall into the Canadian category of prohibited, but that's me. Hell, I'm for tighter firearm control in Canada, and much more for our neighbour to the South.

I agree. Why would you even want to hunt with a pistol in the first place?
The only thing a pistol is good for is killing people or shooting at stuff for fun (in which case the weapon could just stay at the firing range) If there is any kind of weapon in need of restrictions, it would be pistols. There is a reason they are used in most murders and crimes involving firearms.
The same goes for other weapons you don't normally use for hunting. IMO, hunting weapons should be the only unrestricted weapons you are allowed to have at home. If you want other weapons for sport or fun, you can keep those at a firing range. That would be a great solution. You get to have as much weapons and shoot as much as you want, while still greatly reducing the amount of weapons around in normal society. What problem could anyone have with that?

 Chongara wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Making political points about a tragedy in the first post already, dakka is getting faster!

Dude. Give credit where credit is due. He got in the first line.

The title already. Faster is literally not possible, unless posting in a different thread a political point about a thread one is going to make in the future.

Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.

There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.

Then I suppose you can add on the fun and challenge of getting the paperwork so you can own them

There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.

Or, you know, bear mace?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.

Then I suppose you can add on the fun and challenge of getting the paperwork so you can own them

Paperwork is neither fun nor challenging

 SilverMK2 wrote:

There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.

Or, you know, bear mace?

Hey, if that's what someone would like to carry for handling bears, that's up to them. I'd rather have a large caliber revolver. To each their own.


Anyway I think the merits of taking a pistol on a hunt are a bit off topic, I just wanted to answer Iron Captain's question, so I'll go back to lurk mode.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Lots of people hunt with pistols for the same reasons they hunt with bows or muzzleloaders; the challenge, or because it's their preferred firearm, or both.

There's also the reason of taking a pistol on your hunt in case you encounter hostile wildlife. If you're out in muzzleloading season hunting deer, and a bear comes along, you might appreciate a large revolver on your person.

Seriously? Hunting with a pistol? Hunting with bows or antique rifles I understand, but pistols? No sorry. I am afraid I just can't get that. For challenge, you should take the bear spear!


The defense against bears is an argument I can get behind, altough I would like to argue that people in other countries (even in those where bears are far more common than in the US) do not need to have revolvers for that. Such situations are extremely rare, and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.

If you can't understand that, even after having the reasons explained to you, that's your problem. I'm just answering your question is all.

Anyway, as I said, it's OT.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.

Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Paperwork is neither fun nor challenging

Having spent a lot of time filling out Homeland Security and USICS paperwork I can confirm

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Paperwork is neither fun nor challenging

Having spent a lot of time filling out Homeland Security and USICS paperwork I can confirm

My own experience of the same ordeal is what I had in mind when writing that

If the countries laws state people can have firearms, it's to be expected that this sort of crime will occur.

I personally have no interest in changing laws in other countries as I don't live there. This sort of crime comes in line with the availability of weapons and opportunity to commit the crime - it's up to the inhabitants to decide if they want to change the law or move country.

What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.

Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.

Bears have outflank.

 Wulfmar wrote:

What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

Because some people are donkey-caves. Nothing you can do to change them. Just ignore them and go on with your life. It's like when I was in London and I asked a ManU fan what was wrong with Liverpool...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.

Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.

Bears have outflank.

It would take some kind of tactical ge... YOOOOOOGGGGGIIIIIIII!

Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on

yellowfever wrote:
Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on

Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.

 Wulfmar wrote:

What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

I think because most of the time gun owners are asked this question, it's in the context of anti-gun proponents trying to make some sort of arguement as to why guns need to be banned, and we grow tired of it.

Rarely is it from someone with an open mind on the topic who is genuinely interested in the answer.

Take your post here, it uses phrases like "what the point is" and "over the top". Those kinds of triggers will indicate that, yet again, we're probably dealing with someone who sees no value in our activities and thinks our possessions are capable of more than we should have access to. Whether that is genuinely the case or not, and whether you genuinely want to learn our culture, I don't know. But the impression given is one that is in opposition to us, and that might be why you seem to generate hostile responses.

But again, all this is OT...

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Rarely is it from someone with an open mind on the topic who is genuinely interested in the answer.

This. And not just on Gun Control. It's any controversial topic. It's rare that a person with an "Honest question" doesn't actually have strong opinions or an axe to grind.

Anyhow, stay warm folks. It's still cold out there and those sneaky Canadian Ambush Bears are everywhere!

I really wouldn't cosider bears that much of a threat if you take basic precautions. They want about as much to do with you and you want to do with them. I'd certainly not consider a need to bring a pistol with you to defend against them anywhere near valid. Moose are far more dangerous than bears, especially if you aren't an idiot about basic safety.

My perception isn't coloured by some political ideology, it's coloured by:

Hours of lying prone in icy mud while a bootneck in love with his own voice rattles off instructions followed by looking at groupings and analysis.

Spending hours in the same room firing and getting a sore shoulder, with the only variation being kneeling, laying or standing.

The constant banging noise (and associated defender discomfort).

As I said in the other thread though, this was in the Naval Reserves. So it is a question of - what's fun about it.

as for the 'over the top' comment on guns - I'm referring to the idea that many people say defence or target practice, but I don't see how owning a minigun or many of the rifles/guns designed for warfare can be considered practical for defence (unless defending against a swarm of zombies) or for target practice (unless you truly suck at hitting the target and need to go full-auto to stand a chance of hitting it with hundreds of rounds.

Collecting some of the antiques makes sense to me though, some of the old duelling pistols are gorgeous with the metal sculpting - but that's just as a show piece rather than a functioning tool

I could spend 12 hours on a boat in the middle of a lake and catch nothing and STILL have the time of my life.

Some people would rather drown.

To each their own!

 Nostromodamus wrote:
If you can't understand that, even after having the reasons explained to you, that's your problem. I'm just answering your question is all.

Anyway, as I said, it's OT.

Well then, you failed to convince me. Pistols are not at all neccessary nor effective tools for hunting, and "I think hunting with pistols is fun" is not a good argument for allowing the civilian population free access to pistols. The small increase of fun a tiny group of people gets from hunting with pistols instead of other weapons does not weigh up against the easy access to easily concealed and deadly weapons for civilians. Again, it is pistols that are used in most gun-related violence.

 kronk wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
and you probably should have noticed that bear earlier. Always maintain situational awareness! At least, that is what they told me when I went along on a hunt once.

Stay out of the woods. You have no idea what you're talking about. You could be 10' away from a bear (or her cub) or other large mammal and not fething know it.

Sure, mista know-it-all.
Well, as the wise Kronk knows, I am not an experienced hunter of any kind, so I can only speak from what I was taught on the survival courses and rare hunting trips I attended, which is that while of course it is possible to be surprised by a bear, if you are well aware of your surroundings and bear behaviour, look for tracks, trails, marks, poop or other things that indicate bears might be present in the area and leave no food or meat that could attract bears to you, it should be possible to avoid most bears. Again I am not an experienced hunter, so if you are, I will yield to your superior knowledge.

But regardless, carrying firearms for bear defense is a pretty poor argument. If you should stumble upon a bear with cub only 3 metres away, a revolver isn't going to do you any good anymore, I think. Even if you manage to get your revolver out in time, You will be startled, which will negatively affect your aim, and a single revolver shot is more likely to make a bear angry than it is to kill the bear in time to prevent her from killing you.

Firearms are actually a pretty horrible defense, better take bear spray. That is what I got from looking up what the US government recommends anyways: http://www.bearsmart.com/docs/BearSprayVsBullets.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.bearsmart.com/docs/BearSprayVsBullets.pdf

Co'tor Shas wrote:I really wouldn't cosider bears that much of a threat if you take basic precautions. They want about as much to do with you and you want to do with them. I'd certainly not consider a need to bring a pistol with you to defend against them anywhere near valid. Moose are far more dangerous than bears, especially if you aren't an idiot about basic safety.

Well I just used bears as an example of potentially hostile wildlife, and hopefully even the most basic-minded people can understand that some folks might want to carry a sidearm to defend themselves against any wildlife that may attack them while out on a hunt.

Wulfmar wrote:So it is a question of - what's fun about it.

Honing my shooting skills, appreciating construction and operation of machinery, even the smell of powder and the loud noises are all enjoyable for me. That's what I find fun about it.

Wulfmar wrote:as for the 'over the top' comment on guns - I'm referring to the idea that many people say defence or target practice, but I don't see how owning a minigun or many of the rifles/guns designed for warfare can be considered practical for defence (unless defending against a swarm of zombies) or for target practice (unless you truly suck at hitting the target and need to go full-auto to stand a chance of hitting it with hundreds of rounds.

Well not many people in the US own any guns designed for warfare or that are capable of full-auto. The only guns I own that were designed for warfare are my Lee-Enfields, my Webley, my SKS and my 1860 New Army revolver. I use none of them for self defense.

Wulfmar wrote:Collecting some of the antiques makes sense to me though, some of the old duelling pistols are gorgeous with the metal sculpting - but that's just as a show piece rather than a functioning tool

Many people consider modern firearms show pieces too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
"I think hunting with pistols is fun" is not a good argument for allowing the civilian population free access to pistols.

Well I never made that arguement. I just answered your question as to why people take pistols on hunting trips. There are far better arguements for allowing the general public access to pistols, which have been said time and time again on every gun thread in OT.

 Wulfmar wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on

Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.

Imagine the gall of not wanting a productive thread to be locked because someone misunderstood it's purpose.

 Wulfmar wrote:
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

 Wulfmar wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
Well at least you picked the right thread to post your opinion on

Indeed I have now, only one person was truly civil with their response and they did a great job explaining, as for the rest of you... pfft. Do nothing for stereotyping.

That thread has been running for nearly 3 years now continuously, despite the very best efforts of posters routinely popping up in it every couple of weeks and starting a huge row with "why you guys need all them guns for ", which starts off a big poop fling and then warnings. If you come into a long established thread disrupting it with a chip on your shoulder, maybe you're the rude one.

 Wulfmar wrote:

What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

The same guy wrote a couple paragraphs explaining his personal reasons ( and was assuming your question genuine), before he then stated he does not feel required to justify exercising a constitutionally protected right. And that particular song is VERY appropriate when asked repeatedly to justify exercising a constitutionally protected right, as he and others have been.

You guys are so touchy about your guns, twitchy even...

 Wulfmar wrote:
What I have noticed is the utter amount of venom from some people in the US when you ask a question about *why* owning guns means so much and what the point is - they assume you're some 'lefty-communist' and start posting songs stating 'feth-you' for not sharing their views and supporting their God-given right to make holes in things with over-the-top weapons - when all you ask is why is it appealing because you have no real reference or understanding of the culture.

Whenever someone is continually called upon to explain, and justify, why they enjoy something doing something entirely legal that is not a burden to anyone else, and is a not a threat to anyone else, by people who often exemplify the maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" I'm sure you can imagine that wears a little thin.

If you want to start an honest conversation that;s fine. But when many of these conversations start with assumptions and incorrect information to lead to the preformed conclusion that "I don't need one, therefore neither do you" then most people will give the respect that those comments deserve.

 Wulfmar wrote:
You guys are so touchy about your guns, twitchy even...

Remember that comment that I just made about starting an honest discussion?