The general gun control thread

[Patridam]

There are definitely areas where the wildlife is so dangerous that civilians need firearms for their safety.

I deliberately made my NS nation one of those places so that the issue of a blanket weapons ban is rendered irrelevant.

Even where I live deer hunting is encouraged and downright necessary (despite hunters having to pay a fee [one that goes towards environmental protection efforts] for a license and only being allowed to hunt at specific times and in designated areas with specific types of weapons) because if the whitetail population was allowed to breed uncontrolled not only would crop yields be devastated, the food supply for more endangered species populations would be destroyed. So guns not only help farmers, they help the environment too.

[Diopolis]

There are definitely areas where the wildlife is so dangerous that civilians need firearms for their safety.

I deliberately made my NS nation one of those places so that the issue of a blanket weapons ban is rendered irrelevant.

Even where I live deer hunting is encouraged and downright necessary (despite hunters having to pay a fee [one that goes towards environmental protection efforts] for a license and only being allowed to hunt at specific times and in designated areas with specific types of weapons) because if the whitetail population was allowed to breed uncontrolled not only would crop yields be devastated, the food supply for more endangered species populations would be destroyed. So guns not only help farmers, they help the environment too.

Whitetails, feral pigs, coyotes, the list of animals that guns are necessary to control just drags on and on.

[Imperializt Russia]

Of course, the need for hunters (specifically for control of deer and similar populations) would be reduced if historic top predators were reintroduced.
Farmers would complain though. Rightly, arguably, since in the US predator populations are also a problem though I assume no area exists where both predator and prey populations are both problems.

[Spirit of Hope]

Of course, the need for hunters (specifically for control of deer and similar populations) would be reduced if historic top predators were reintroduced.
Farmers would complain though. Rightly, arguably, since in the US predator populations are also a problem though I assume no area exists where both predator and prey populations are both problems.

You would see more than just farmers complaining. Wolves and coyotes have a tendency to kill domesticated pets, generally cats and dogs. They can also be a danger to humans, though that isn't generally a big danger.

[Imperializt Russia]

Of course, the need for hunters (specifically for control of deer and similar populations) would be reduced if historic top predators were reintroduced.
Farmers would complain though. Rightly, arguably, since in the US predator populations are also a problem though I assume no area exists where both predator and prey populations are both problems.

You would see more than just farmers complaining. Wolves and coyotes have a tendency to kill domesticated pets, generally cats and dogs. They can also be a danger to humans, though that isn't generally a big danger.

I'm not 100% sure why, but IIRC this is more of a problem in the US where pest predator populations are quite numerous.
In Europe, plans to and programmes where top predators (wolves, lynxes etc) have been reintroduced in small numbers are typically successful.

[North Calaveras]

Since someone brought up wildlife, America has a HUGE problem with feral pigs, it's bad people.

[Diopolis]

Of course, the need for hunters (specifically for control of deer and similar populations) would be reduced if historic top predators were reintroduced.
Farmers would complain though. Rightly, arguably, since in the US predator populations are also a problem though I assume no area exists where both predator and prey populations are both problems.

California has problems with cougars and hogs. Texas has problems with coyotes and deer(and hogs, but coyotes don't normally prey on them). So yes, they do. Part of the problem is that letting predators get anywhere near a large population density(ie, suburbs or cities) is really dangerous, and because pets are confined and prey animals are not, anything but the very smallest and most timid predators are going to start going after pets when they can, so it starts getting less effective pretty fast. Many prey animals- especially deer, for some reason- have no compunction about living in suburbs, so the choice becomes to set traps, allow hunting using shorter-ranged weapons, or ignore it and hope it goes away. Most cities are going with the latter, because traps tend to be dangerous in areas frequented by small children, hunting is dangerous(although much less so than traps) and often unpopular in cities, and ignoring it and hoping it goes away mostly impacts areas with a low population density.

[Diopolis]

Since someone brought up wildlife, America has a HUGE problem with feral pigs, it's bad people.

Indeed. They taste quite good- much better(and leaner) than your average pork.

[North Calaveras]

Since someone brought up wildlife, America has a HUGE problem with feral pigs, it's bad people.

Indeed. They taste quite good- much better(and leaner) than your average pork.

carnitas...

anyways back to gun control, even if guns were banned it could never be enforced to any significant degree due to the already millions of guns and millions of gun owners that have them, many of which would simply hide them. Criminals will still get them easily enough and militia groups won't give their's up. It's not like england where you just have an island to control, we have huge open borders, if people can get in so can guns.

[Patridam]

Of course, the need for hunters (specifically for control of deer and similar populations) would be reduced if historic top predators were reintroduced.
Farmers would complain though. Rightly, arguably, since in the US predator populations are also a problem though I assume no area exists where both predator and prey populations are both problems.

California has problems with cougars and hogs. Texas has problems with coyotes and deer(and hogs, but coyotes don't normally prey on them). So yes, they do. Part of the problem is that letting predators get anywhere near a large population density(ie, suburbs or cities) is really dangerous, and because pets are confined and prey animals are not, anything but the very smallest and most timid predators are going to start going after pets when they can, so it starts getting less effective pretty fast. Many prey animals- especially deer, for some reason- have no compunction about living in suburbs, so the choice becomes to set traps, allow hunting using shorter-ranged weapons, or ignore it and hope it goes away. Most cities are going with the latter, because traps tend to be dangerous in areas frequented by small children, hunting is dangerous(although much less so than traps) and often unpopular in cities, and ignoring it and hoping it goes away mostly impacts areas with a low population density.

With regards to deer, its the mule deer out west that aren't intimidated by humans. They have no problem with standing close to humans, walking in front of cars, and sometimes even wandering into houses. White tail deer in the east are much more skittish around humans and are thus mostly in rural areas, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem. I've been in no less than three car accidents involving whitetail deer.

[Diopolis]

California has problems with cougars and hogs. Texas has problems with coyotes and deer(and hogs, but coyotes don't normally prey on them). So yes, they do. Part of the problem is that letting predators get anywhere near a large population density(ie, suburbs or cities) is really dangerous, and because pets are confined and prey animals are not, anything but the very smallest and most timid predators are going to start going after pets when they can, so it starts getting less effective pretty fast. Many prey animals- especially deer, for some reason- have no compunction about living in suburbs, so the choice becomes to set traps, allow hunting using shorter-ranged weapons, or ignore it and hope it goes away. Most cities are going with the latter, because traps tend to be dangerous in areas frequented by small children, hunting is dangerous(although much less so than traps) and often unpopular in cities, and ignoring it and hoping it goes away mostly impacts areas with a low population density.

With regards to deer, its the mule deer out west that aren't intimidated by humans. They have no problem with standing close to humans, walking in front of cars, and sometimes even wandering into houses. White tail deer in the east are much more skittish around humans and are thus mostly in rural areas, but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem. I've been in no less than three car accidents involving whitetail deer.

Damn. Whitetails are bad enough.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

I support the right to bear arms, but believe that groups such as the NRA are completely misguided in their interpretation. Background checks and assault weapons bans would not limit the ability of the people to defend themselves.

[Imperializt Russia]

I support the right to bear arms, but believe that groups such as the NRA are completely misguided in their interpretation. Background checks and assault weapons bans would not limit the ability of the people to defend themselves.

If there was a point to "assault weapon bans" I might be on board with such an idea.
But there is no factual basis in the consideration, until the point where "assault weapon" is expanded so broadly to reduce semi-automatic firearms available that it has the effect of reducing the number of new semi-automatics.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I support the right to bear arms, but believe that groups such as the NRA are completely misguided in their interpretation. Background checks and assault weapons bans would not limit the ability of the people to defend themselves.

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

[Roosevelt and Truman]

I support the right to bear arms, but believe that groups such as the NRA are completely misguided in their interpretation. Background checks and assault weapons bans would not limit the ability of the people to defend themselves.

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

[Diopolis]

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

That assault weapons ban didn't ban actual assault weapons either. It banned semiautomatic weapons that look scary.
This is a much better solution.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

I fail to see how that's the best solution given the weapons the ban targeted are rarely used in crimes compared to things like handguns.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

He said, citing no evidence which even suggests such actually was even a beneficial policy solution, much less the 'best' one.

[Imperializt Russia]

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

Why? It didn't do anything.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Real "assault weapons" are already more or less banned, given how hard it is to get one.

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

Are you referring to the Federal AWB, which really didn't have much of an affect? Why?

[North Calaveras]

The best policy solution would be re-instituting the gun ban present in the 1990's, not expanding it to other firearms.

That assault weapons ban didn't ban actual assault weapons either. It banned semiautomatic weapons that look scary.
This is a much better solution.

it's because the left doesn't know what it's talking about over half the time(sorry for those of you who identify as leftist/democrat, but unfortunately it's your camp that does it, just like the republicans and their silly notion of marriage)

[Diopolis]

That assault weapons ban didn't ban actual assault weapons either. It banned semiautomatic weapons that look scary.
This is a much better solution.

it's because the left doesn't know what it's talking about over half the time(sorry for those of you who identify as leftist/democrat, but unfortunately it's your camp that does it, just like the republicans and their silly notion of marriage)

What do you expect when you have people who have a strong emotional reaction to guns and no experience with them make policy on the subject? Sorry, but if you want to regulate guns, go to the firing range so you can know what you're talking about.

[North Calaveras]

it's because the left doesn't know what it's talking about over half the time(sorry for those of you who identify as leftist/democrat, but unfortunately it's your camp that does it, just like the republicans and their silly notion of marriage)

What do you expect when you have people who have a strong emotional reaction to guns and no experience with them make policy on the subject? Sorry, but if you want to regulate guns, go to the firing range so you can know what you're talking about.

agreed, but even then some people will remain blind.

All these people talk about banning or heavily regulating firearms until they need one.

[Diopolis]

What do you expect when you have people who have a strong emotional reaction to guns and no experience with them make policy on the subject? Sorry, but if you want to regulate guns, go to the firing range so you can know what you're talking about.

agreed, but even then some people will remain blind.

All these people talk about banning or heavily regulating firearms until they need one.

I'd also say they should take up hunting, so they don't claim idiotic things like "pump action shotguns can only be used for crime, and have no hunting use"(an exaggeration, but similar claims happen all the time), but most people don't have the patience.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Which also might get you killed. Why is 'fight' preferable to 'flight'?

And you would consider yourself to be a safe and responsible gun owner? Because I'm not sure that people who would seek out an armed confrontation and write off any possibility of avoiding it could necessarily be so considered.

Because the way my house is laid out any attempt at 'flight' will lead me directly into the person breaking in and even if I make it outside I wouldn't have anywhere to go and I'd probably just get shot in the back. If I have ways to defend myself more efficiently (in this one of the guns in the house) I'm going to use it. And yes, I do consider myself a safe and responsible gun owner. I've been around guns my entire life, I get range time in when I can, I know how to be safe with one and not hurt or accidentally kill anyone etc etc.