StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I see your point, but I would like to point out that not all of us get many opportunities to practice and go out to the range, which limits the positive effect that has.

Perhaps but I would still not say the situation today warrants a rehaul or altering of the system, accidents are extremely rare and when they occur are almost always hunting accidents. There are a few accidents in every year of that kind here (scandinavia).

No, but I still think that for people in some situations it is a wise thing to do nevertheless.

P.S. you don't have to keep reminding me which part of the world Finland is in.

I use scandinavia because I refer to not just Finland but also Sweden and Norway which all have quite similar rules and gun ownership ratios. So I treat us more as a single cohesive unit rather than separate countries.

Formless wrote:I see your point, but I would like to point out that not all of us get many opportunities to practice and go out to the range, which limits the positive effect that has.

In Australia, you have to have a "genuine reason" to purchase gun, which typically means you need to have access to a farm (for pest control) or be a member of a gun club in order to have a gun. So in theory, any gun owner in Australia should have opportunities to go and practice.

It's the same here.

I might clarify something; I consider the ability to shoot a potentially useful life skill (one not everyone needs), and your need for it thankfully comes and goes over time. I might have a "genuine reason" at one point in life and later down the road no longer need it for a few years.

Take this how you will, of course. I am an American, after all, and grew up with this kind of stuff.

In Australia (and I presume Scandanavia as well) you can get your training for a gun before you buy a gun. In fact, the training is compulsory, but the purchasing of a gun isn't, so there's nothing stopping you from getting the training whenever you want. Nor is there anything stopping you from joining a gun club and hiring a gun if you want to do practice. I'm not sure if the law requires you give your gun up if your circumstances change, though.

One difference between Australia and the US, though, is that Australia doesn't consider "self-defence" a valid reason for owning a gun, unless you mean "self-defence from rabbits eating all of my wheat".

Lusankya wrote:One difference between Australia and the US, though, is that Australia doesn't consider "self-defence" a valid reason for owning a gun, unless you mean "self-defence from rabbits eating all of my wheat".

I think this may have to do with significant differences between Australia and North America.

In the US, adults walking around armed started for several reasons. There were hostile natives rightfully pissed off at being displaced, of course, and many of them acquired firearms. Australia of course had aborigines, but there were never as dense and numerous as many of the North American tribes and were never as well organized, and thus never posed the same level of threat. But we also have threatening wildlife. Australia doesn't have bears (as an example). Even today, in some places in the US carrying a gun for defense against animals is a wise precaution. For that matter, there are parts of Canada where the same is true. You are not going to discourage an enraged or hungry grizzly or polar bear from attacking you by simply waving your hand at it and saying "Shoo, shoo, go away."

Of course, times have changed and I think there is room for a valid discussion on modifying gun laws to be more appropriate for current circumstances. The US may have it written into its core that the populace has a right to bear arms, but it's never been an unlimited right. Our threats today are usually other people, not bears.

Broomstick wrote:In the US, adults walking around armed started for several reasons. There were hostile natives rightfully pissed off at being displaced, of course, and many of them acquired firearms. Australia of course had aborigines, but there were never as dense and numerous as many of the North American tribes and were never as well organized, and thus never posed the same level of threat. But we also have threatening wildlife. Australia doesn't have bears (as an example). Even today, in some places in the US carrying a gun for defense against animals is a wise precaution. For that matter, there are parts of Canada where the same is true. You are not going to discourage an enraged or hungry grizzly or polar bear from attacking you by simply waving your hand at it and saying "Shoo, shoo, go away."

Well, I'm in favour of gun control, but I have always considered that gun control best be concentrated on hand guns, because they don't really have any practical application other than shooting people. They're also easily concealed, which makes them good for crime and whatnot.

In regards to long arms, I don't really have a huge issue with them, as long as people are well-trained in gun safety, store the guns appropriately and are actually using them for purposes of hunting, pest control or (in areas that have bars) protection from bears. A rifle is a bit difficult to hide, and I'm led to believe that they're unwieldy in confined areas as well, so the potential risk for use in crimes is reduced when compared with handguns.

It seems to me, though, that too often the focus on "guns for protection" is for protection against criminals, and I'm of the belief that in most cases anyone who expresses that belief is too paranoid to be trusted with a gun. Obviously some areas are bad enough that the fear of criminals is a reasonable one, but in those cases, I much prefer a solution that involves socio-economic reform, rather than giving a gun to everyone who wants one.

I wonder whether buying a weapon to defend your shop would count as a legitimate example of self-defence. In certain areas, shops do get robbed frequently, despite security measures.

There is the background checks job then, if they are in the registry for any of those things it'll stop a purchase. Ofcourse it's not going to stop a violent psychopath who has yet to do anything violent and get listed for it. Such people get licenses in europe too because nobody has a magic psycho-detector.

But you can check for mental illnesses, such as being bipolar or any form of mental retardation.

It won't eliminate every psycho, that even impossible if on-the-spot evaluations could be made, but it will reduce their number.

They do check for a history of mental illness, each state has differing criteria though.

Broomstick wrote:... But we also have threatening wildlife. Australia doesn't have bears (as an example). Even today, in some places in the US carrying a gun for defense against animals is a wise precaution. For that matter, there are parts of Canada where the same is true. You are not going to discourage an enraged or hungry grizzly or polar bear from attacking you by simply waving your hand at it and saying "Shoo, shoo, go away."...

Hehe, you are telling the aussies of all the peoples that they don't have threatening wildlife? I mean come on, saying it to the scandinavians/europeans I would get... but to the aussies?
The australian wild life is aggressive and usually full of venom. I mean even the ones that look cuddly like the koalas and wombats are downright viciuos in the wrong season. Then you have crocs, snakes and spiders. I mean even the friendliest wallaby can give you a whopping if you tease them on a bad day.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that australia is all that dangerous but compared to europe or even the US it can definately hold its own, and yes, of course if I went for a stroll in Alaska I'd be sure to bring a gun as a precation in bear territory.

There might be dangerous stuff in Australia, but with the exception of crocodiles*, the danger can be averted by a) not acting like a dick and b) not getting in the water. While everything may be poisonous, none of it (except for crocodiles) wants to eat people.

*When I say crocodiles, I mean salt water crocodiles, obviously. Nobody's scared of fresh water crocs, except for wusses.

Bears are unusually threatening in the sense that you can't just run away from them. A lot of dangerous animals like snakes and scorpions are irrelevant to the firearms issue because if you see it in time you can simply avoid it, and if you don't see it in time, then a gun wouldn't help you anyway.

A bear, on the other hand, can and will effortlessly run down a fleeing human. If the bear decides to kill you, you're dead, unless you have a powerful weapon.

Darth Wong wrote:Bears are unusually threatening in the sense that you can't just run away from them. A lot of dangerous animals like snakes and scorpions are irrelevant to the firearms issue because if you see it in time you can simply avoid it, and if you don't see it in time, then a gun wouldn't help you anyway.

A bear, on the other hand, can and will effortlessly run down a fleeing human. If the bear decides to kill you, you're dead, unless you have a powerful weapon.

He can do twice your speed, he can climb better than you can and he does not need to see you to follow you. Plus bears in the wild are generally speaking very quiet animals. I know I've run into bears a time or six while out hiking and trust me unless your by yourself and just walking and listening you won't hear them until they are right up on you.

Plus the very real issue of rabies which is still common in America, there are half a dozen species in America that will be happy to chomp on a human normally and when rabid might seek them out.

We do have bears in Finland, brown bears. Not as common as in america but more than once we've seen bear tracks near my parents. One time when out walking my dad saw fresh tracks across an asphalt road, that is the bear had crossed the road and a ditch and so had been wet when crossing the road, leaving wet footprints and splashes of water that where easy to identify. You could see the tracks on the ground beside the road as well. Given that it was in summer and the water had not yet evaporated that indicated that the bears visit had been quite recent. He was clearly moving away from the lake into the deeper woods, probably gonefor a drink.

Spoonist wrote:Hehe, you are telling the aussies of all the peoples that they don't have threatening wildlife? I mean come on, saying it to the scandinavians/europeans I would get... but to the aussies?
The australian wild life is aggressive and usually full of venom. I mean even the ones that look cuddly like the koalas and wombats are downright viciuos in the wrong season. Then you have crocs, snakes and spiders. I mean even the friendliest wallaby can give you a whopping if you tease them on a bad day.

This has been covered, but seriously dude, you don't shoot funnel web spiders and box jelly fish in order to deal with them. Koalas have teeth and claws, yes, but they aren't predators evolved to hunt prey in your size range. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between those threats and appropriate measures to take when dealing with them.

I wonder whether buying a weapon to defend your shop would count as a legitimate example of self-defence. In certain areas, shops do get robbed frequently, despite security measures.

I think the same can also be said of home defense. If your house gets broken into at night, you don't necessarily have time to wait for the cops to show, and some home invaders are not nice guests.

Yes, but arguably a handgun is not the ideal choice for home defense. Around here, shotguns seem preferred for that use.

A hand gun is for personal carry. They are designed primarily to shoot other human beings, or for target practice.

A long gun is for hunting.

A shotgun is for defending the home.

(Opinion subject to change without notice)

Pistols are harder to shoot accurately anyway. You're much more deadly and reliable with a rifle or shotgun.

That's why pistols are used for target practice - it's too simple with a scoped long gun, it needs to be challenging. Hence, the use of handguns where being accurate takes real skill.

Broomstick wrote:

Spoonist wrote:Hehe, you are telling the aussies of all the peoples that they don't have threatening wildlife? I mean come on, saying it to the scandinavians/europeans I would get... but to the aussies?
The australian wild life is aggressive and usually full of venom. I mean even the ones that look cuddly like the koalas and wombats are downright viciuos in the wrong season. Then you have crocs, snakes and spiders. I mean even the friendliest wallaby can give you a whopping if you tease them on a bad day.

This has been covered, but seriously dude, you don't shoot funnel web spiders and box jelly fish in order to deal with them. Koalas have teeth and claws, yes, but they aren't predators evolved to hunt prey in your size range. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between those threats and appropriate measures to take when dealing with them.

From what I've heard about funnel webs, I think I might rather have a firearm on hand...

Also [for your amusement] on pistols, the clear answer is to use one that is large enough to qualify as a rifle:



That picture does not do it justice. The one I just acquired (From family, I'm not the type to go and BUY one, also essentially identical to the one pictured) is large and heavy enough that it feels as though it is missing a foregrip and perhaps a stock. The idea of holding it like a rifle seems most fitting.

Broomstick wrote:

Spoonist wrote:Hehe, you are telling the aussies of all the peoples that they don't have threatening wildlife? I mean come on, saying it to the scandinavians/europeans I would get... but to the aussies?
The australian wild life is aggressive and usually full of venom. I mean even the ones that look cuddly like the koalas and wombats are downright viciuos in the wrong season. Then you have crocs, snakes and spiders. I mean even the friendliest wallaby can give you a whopping if you tease them on a bad day.

This has been covered, but seriously dude, you don't shoot funnel web spiders and box jelly fish in order to deal with them. Koalas have teeth and claws, yes, but they aren't predators evolved to hunt prey in your size range. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between those threats and appropriate measures to take when dealing with them.

I know, I know. It was tounge firmly planted in cheek territory, hence the reference to koalas (~10kg/20lb), wombats (~25kg/55lb) and Wallabies (~20kg/45lb), all three of which are herbivores. Compare that to a brown bear or grizzly bear (~250kg/550lb)... Polars are even worse, more than half of polar bear attacks in alaska results in fatalities. The attacks are very few but when they do attack they consider you to be prey.
Do you know the most dangerous animal in Australia? (Number of injuries)
Horse. (Appart from humans of course. )
Do you know the second most dangerous animal in Australia? (Number of injuries)
Cow.

His Divine Shadow, I did ask earlier in the thread that people keep their replies pertinent in a topical discussion. Your one-liner has been sent to the Barrel.