Yes, rifles and shotguns are incredibly bad ideas in a city. One of the biggest rules of safe shooting is "know your target and what lies beyond," and seeing as how rifles and shotguns can project a round a considerable distance, there's no way to take a "safe" shot with a rifle or shotgun within most city limits.
Also, concealing a rifle is not a trivial task, and walking around with one so concealed is also not a trivial task.
EDIT: A firearm can readily be a tool for death. They have to be treated with the respect they are due. That's not a reason to fear them, but you need to treat them as the implements that they are.
Then what do you call a tool designed to kill then? A POPsicle?
That is a great come back.
EDIT: A firearm can readily be a tool for death. They have to be treated with the respect they are due. That's not a reason to fear them, but you need to treat them as the implements that they are.
You know, there is no way to deny the fact that guns are designed for killing things, but this does not mean they automatically kill everything near them. It's better to be reasonable in your caution, rather than being freaked out by guns.
Yea, in Maine most people carry handguns because of the wolves... I think that's a reasonable reason :-p It's hard to outrun a wolf.
But the little buskerflies hardly ever eat people! I want more wolves around.
But the little buskerflies hardly ever eat people! I want more wolves around.
So if the choice is no wolves and no handguns, or wolves and handguns, I'd go with the latter. Prevents wolf-related human death while simultaneously only killing wolves that actually try to enact wolf-related human death. Everybody wins.
Yea, in Maine most people carry handguns because of the wolves... I think that's a reasonable reason :-p It's hard to outrun a wolf.
Huh? The risk of carrying the gun is much greater than the risk of a wolf that nobody can prove exists. "According to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, wolves have not re-established themselves in the state and are unlikely to do so without additional protection." Even if there are wolves, attacks are incredibly rare.
Risk of harm from wolf < risk of harm from gun.
I've spent plenty of time in various parts of Maine. Most people carrying guns in Maine are definitely not carrying them for wolf protection. Trust me.
Yea, in Maine most people carry handguns because of the wolves... I think that's a reasonable reason :-p It's hard to outrun a wolf.
Huh? The risk of carrying the gun is much greater than the risk of a wolf thatnobody can prove exists."According to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, wolves have not re-established themselves in the state and are unlikely to do so without additional protection." Even if there are wolves,attacks are incredibly rare.
I don't know, I went to school with a girl from Maine who always said she had a carry license because of the Wolf attacks maybe she meant feral dogs or coyotes?
Much more common, but much less likely to attack. However, there is VERY recent research showing that what we thought were coyotes in northern New England are really a coyote-wolf hybrid that preys on larger animals. Coyotes mostly limited themselves to mice, rabbits, etc.
A gun to protect domesticated animals from coyotes (especially now that we know they are "wolf-yotes") is reasonable.
Much more common, but much less likely to attack. However, there is VERY recent research showing that what we thought were coyotes in northern New England are really a coyote-wolf hybrid that preys on larger animals. Coyotes mostly limited themselves to mice, rabbits, etc.
A gun to protect domesticated animals from coyotes (especially now that we know they are "wolf-yotes") is reasonable.
Yea the article I was just reading, was talking about how wolves probably have not returned to Maine because when they move up they end up inbreeding with the coyotes and disappear.
I think to a layman though a wolf-coyote hybrid is probably the same as a wolf to them ;-p
I don't know, I went to school with a girl from Maine who always said she had a carry license because of the Wolf attacks maybe she meant feral dogs or coyotes?
{offcolor_joke style="South Park"}Maybe by "wolf attacks," she actually meant "minorities."{/offcolor_joke}
There are no wolves in Maine, and there haven't been for a long time. The only states of the lower 48 that have a surviving wolf population are Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, parts of Michigan, Minnesota, and Arizona. A dog is more likely to attack a human than a coyote or a wolf, especially given the non-existent status of wolves in ME. So yeah, you're more likely to be shot in Maine than to get face-bitten by a wolf. I superficially question the competence of someone carrying a gun to protect themselves from an animal that they are so incredibly ignorant to the very presence of.
Also, a wolf-coyote hybrid likely would not exist without human-forced breeding, since wolves will almost always kill any coyote on sight or scent. Which is why I find that article confusing. Also the fact that hybrid animals can't usually reproduce. o_o Whatever.
Hunting, sport shooting, and perhaps self-defense (though it hopefully never has to come to that).
no reason to own them
See the above reasons. Also, you can own a piece of history by owning an antique rifle, and they can be decorative.
and if I ever saw one I'd probably know that something went very wrong or that I live somewhere where I probably don't want to live
This is a veiled judgment against those who do own firearms. You don't have to have something go "very wrong" in your life in order for gun ownership to seem like a good idea. The gun owners I know are all extremely well-adjusted people who happen to enjoy hunting or target shooting.
I understand perfectly well that your reasons are your own, but your reasoning here is weak and flimsy.
I was speaking of reasons for me personally. I see no reason why I should want to own one and I do not have a use for them. I also later corrected myself that if I saw a reason to own one I would know that either something went wrong or I lived somewhere where I don't want to live. I did not mean if I saw a physical gun. I have seen a few guns in my life due to the fact that we do have weaponized law enforcement and there are a few two military bases close to the city where I go to school at which I occasionally pass by. (Just for explanation, one is a motor pool on the outskirts, the other is a training facility within the city limits).
However, it is my opinion that it is your reasons that are weak and flimsy. Hunting and sports shooting have no practical purpose in our modern society and their recreational purpose can also be accomplished with other things aren't designed to kill living things. As for self-defence, I already explained that it is my opinion that as a private citizen you ever think you have to own a gun for that purpose, something is wrong in your life.
Yes, rifles and shotguns are incredibly bad ideas in a city. One of the biggest rules of safe shooting is "know your target and what lies beyond," and seeing as how rifles and shotguns can project a round a considerable distance, there's no way to take a "safe" shot with a rifle or shotgun within most city limits.
Quite. And even if you know what lies beyond, you shouldn't expect it to stop an assault rifle round. I forget the exact circumstances, but as I recall, a family member of mine in Trauma at Cook County Hospital was brought woman who was mortally wounded while sitting with her family when the AK-47 of someone who lived 4 doors down the hall accidentally discharged. The bullet passed through every wall between that apartment and hers to reach her. Or, in a story that I remember better, a young girl in Chicago's Inglewood neighborhood was shot in the head at her 9th birthday party when a gang member praying-and-spraying sent a round from a submachine gun or an assault rifle (I forget which) in her direction. I believe said gang member was more than five blocks away at the time.
Chicago is a model for why we need gun control. I don't care about hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns, but there's no reason to own a high-capacity magazine or an assault rifle in a city (I could see it being different for shooting clubs in the country). None whatsoever.
That's a bit misleading. They surveyed homes in which a homicide occurred and determined that when a gun was present in the home, the homicide was 2.7 times more likely to be a gun homicide. This says nothing about whether or not the presence of a gun in a home makes any homicide more likely; this study only indicates that when a homicide is committed in the home, and a gun is present, it is more likely to be committed with the gun.
Note that there is a large association with incidences of domestic violence, and most of the victims were male. I see a large proportion of these homicides really being cases of self-defense during a domestic violence incident.
I started to dig around a little more, and all I can safely say is that the stats are so contested, that it's going to take more time than I have to sort through them. It's got parallels to the global warming debate. Both sides are dug in.
I feel like the self-defense argument could be put down by simply selling less-lethal projectiles to civilians. Sure, a man won't rape you if you send a lead slug through his head, but he won't rape you if he's blacked-out with pain from a rubber bullet or beanbag to the sternum, either.
EDIT: Or by selling something like this in the US. Why should the Russians get all the cool defense tech?
I feel like the self-defense argument could be put down by simply selling less-lethal projectiles to civilians
Tasers are much easier and safer to use than handguns in self defense situations, as are stunguns. It was a felony to carry them in Michigan, but most everyone I knew had one.
I feel like the self-defense argument could be put down by simply selling less-lethal projectiles to civilians
Tasers are much easier and safer to use than handguns in self defense situations, as are stunguns. It was a felony to carry them in Michigan, but most everyone I knew had one.
The primary issue I can see with tasers and stunguns is the extremely limited range; if an assailant is close enough that you have to use a taser, you're in extreme danger. A gun can stop a situation at a much safer range. If the attacker is already on top of you, the situation has gone very badly.
However, I agree that less lethal weapons are a far better thing to carry for defense than a gun. Everyone knows that guns kill, and that adds a lot of intimidation factor to a situation (many defensive gun uses don't involve the weapon being fired at all - its presence is enough), but they're also very intimidating for the user for those same reasons. Less lethal weapons aren't as intimidating for the user, but they can be an equally effective deterrent.
However, I would say that you should absolutely require training to carry a less lethal weapon. Less lethal does not mean "non-lethal," and people need to show that they understand that.
A gun can stop a situation at a much safer range. If the attacker is already on top of you, the situation has gone very badly.
I can't grab any data now, but I'm pretty sure the majority of violent attacks and personal robberies are initiated at extremely close range and by surprise. You cannot effectively wield a handgun against too close of an adversary, but you can a stungun.
I recall a police documentary showing how, even as far as 40' out, an assailant with a knife is a deadly threat to even a trained handgun user.
Also, tasers have long range, and are pretty easy to use.
Comments
Also, concealing a rifle is not a trivial task, and walking around with one so concealed is also not a trivial task.
EDIT: A firearm can readily be a tool for death. They have to be treated with the respect they are due. That's not a reason to fear them, but you need to treat them as the implements that they are.
Risk of harm from wolf < risk of harm from gun.
I've spent plenty of time in various parts of Maine. Most people carrying guns in Maine are definitely not carrying them for wolf protection. Trust me.
A gun to protect domesticated animals from coyotes (especially now that we know they are "wolf-yotes") is reasonable.
I think to a layman though a wolf-coyote hybrid is probably the same as a wolf to them ;-p
Also, a wolf-coyote hybrid likely would not exist without human-forced breeding, since wolves will almost always kill any coyote on sight or scent. Which is why I find that article confusing. Also the fact that hybrid animals can't usually reproduce. o_o Whatever.
However, it is my opinion that it is your reasons that are weak and flimsy. Hunting and sports shooting have no practical purpose in our modern society and their recreational purpose can also be accomplished with other things aren't designed to kill living things. As for self-defence, I already explained that it is my opinion that as a private citizen you ever think you have to own a gun for that purpose, something is wrong in your life.
Chicago is a model for why we need gun control. I don't care about hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns, but there's no reason to own a high-capacity magazine or an assault rifle in a city (I could see it being different for shooting clubs in the country). None whatsoever.
Note that there is a large association with incidences of domestic violence, and most of the victims were male. I see a large proportion of these homicides really being cases of self-defense during a domestic violence incident.
EDIT: An analysis of the Kleck study demonstrating at least 2 million defensive gun uses per year. The analysis includes a link to the study itself.
The Kellermann study seems persuasive. But then there is controversy over the study.
EDIT: Or by selling something like this in the US. Why should the Russians get all the cool defense tech?
However, I agree that less lethal weapons are a far better thing to carry for defense than a gun. Everyone knows that guns kill, and that adds a lot of intimidation factor to a situation (many defensive gun uses don't involve the weapon being fired at all - its presence is enough), but they're also very intimidating for the user for those same reasons. Less lethal weapons aren't as intimidating for the user, but they can be an equally effective deterrent.
However, I would say that you should absolutely require training to carry a less lethal weapon. Less lethal does not mean "non-lethal," and people need to show that they understand that.
I recall a police documentary showing how, even as far as 40' out, an assailant with a knife is a deadly threat to even a trained handgun user.
Also, tasers have long range, and are pretty easy to use.