Guns,guns, and more Guns

[selectortone]

Only the bears? OK to bear a bear repellent of some sort, if you are out there at risk.
Not many prowling about in inner cities, or almost anywhere else for that matter

I'm no gun fan but I absolutely see the point of a gun in that scenario. There was a story only last week of a guy who was killed by a grizzly bear which was subsequently shot when it attacked a group searching for him. Both the bear and the dead man had traces of bear repellent spray on their bodies. Obviously didn't work.

 

[Jacob]

Yes I realise there are instances where guns do act as protection.

However, how many people lives do guns save each year by preventing deaths by bears?
For context, there were 15,000 deaths in 2019 from guns. (Not including suicides).

Or to put it another way, if there no guns at all, would the number of deaths from wild animals be greater than deaths from people shooting each other.


I fully accept America has a culture which includes guns. I don't know if it stems from the Wild West frontiers or what but it is a fact; guns are part and parcel of America. Guns are a huge sport / hobby in America.

"There were 46 bear attacks in North America between 2000-2017. Sadly, these 46 attacks resulted in 48 deaths. Data reveals that 19 of the incidents happened in Canada."
How many threatened bear attacks were averted by guns? More than or fewer than 15000?

 

[D_W]

That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue.

I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.

 

[D_W]

Release a few wolves?
Could "bear repellent" include guns which just produce a very loud bang?
Just wondering.

Standard procedure here is to fire warning shots and shoot bears only if they don't leave. If they are stalking or protecting cubs, sometimes they're really aggressive, and some, like black bears are dangerously curious and don't do the whole play dead routine.

It's not legal to shoot them just because they're on your property, so wardens or police will shoot them here on the odd occasion they wander through and get arrogant. I think what draws them here is the abundance of fawns, which are like little burgers for them. Out west, other than garbage dumps, not sure. Stalking videos on YouTube are interesting when people are being followed, but actual injuries on this side of the country are rare.

 

[D_W]

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/12/bear-attacks-drags-woman-more-than-80-yards-outside-home.html
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-2005-05-03-3607608-story.html

I think the only deaths here have been pets. The second one makes for an interesting story because the bear was saving the lady for later and tried to cover her with sticks and leaves. She employed the play dead thing which is advised for grizzled. Black bears prefer it rather than people giving up when all else falls, and the game commission here advises screaming, waving your arms and throwing things.

Only death I can find in this state is a lady who kept a bear as a pet. This seems like a stupid idea to me.



(giggle...not police encounter results in a shooting.)

i case anyone is wondering whether or not you can hunt and eat bear in general - you can here. I have a relative who hunts bear every year and when he gets one, he butchers it and eats it. But there is a limited bear season, and it's probably limited geographically depending on what the game commission is doing to manage the population. If you shoot one, you're legally required to take it to a game station (like a police station for hunting related issues only) with a tag on it and confirm that you took it legally (and the game commission likes to weigh and collect data on what's been shot).

 

[Louie10]

There is a permanently armed branch of the UK mainland police - the Civil Nuclear Constabulary.

Whilst there are a decent number of licensed FAC holders in the UK, the process of acquiring a licence or getting a renewal (every 5 years) is onerous (amongst the most stringent in the world) and requires quite serious vetting, including a doctor's certificate - if you're an FAC holder, that's on your medical record and doctors are required to notify the police of changes in mental health etc. FAC licencing in the UK

The UK FAC also specifies the number and types of weapons and the calibres and quantity of ammunition you are allowed to hold at any time. Serial numbers of all guns and (where available) moderators (see below) are recorded. Also, how and where the guns and ammunition are stored is inspected and required to be a certain standard of security. It's a serious criminal offence to breach any regulations around an FAC. Moderators (silencers in the USA) are also regulated and licensed and individually mentioned on your FAC - you have to separately justify the need for a moderator.

As far as I'm aware, the last time a civilian FAC holder committed a crime involving a firearm in the UK was over 10 years ago (June 2010, Cumbria). The problem, if there is one here, is not with licensed firearms, but with illegally held and fake-but-authentic-looking weapons.

Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!

 

[TRITON]

Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!

I think you'll find police in the UK, especially London have been armed since the invention of the gun. And as to routinly, this appears to only be when the Royalty or members of government are about, as threats come from those who are sometimes on the suffering end of British foreign policy.

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.

I am sorry I should have been clearer, this point I made: "That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue" was in context of the claim guns are a protection against mass shootings, criminals etc.

but in the context of animals, it is clear that very few people are killed per year from bear attacks.

 

[D_W]

Interesting, as London has sadly become in parts an extremely dangerous city gun crimes has exploded. Police in England now routinely carry side arms and machine guns as the threat is extreme in many areas, we can see this everyday throughout London and England in general. The days of Police fighting crime gangs with night sticks is long over!

Interestingly enough, in the old days here, the county sheriff and others would carry a 38, but most never had to use one. A 38 at standard pressure isn't that effective, but they weren't really that concerned as the sidearms were more decorative and they felt going to something more threatening looking would interfere with day to day relations with the community. Times have changed, but strangely, that mentality was in place at a time where the murder rate and gun violence rate in the US was actually much higher per capita (and even nominally) than it is now.

Most of the local departments have been tooled up with retired military material now, but I think that's more of a "you can have it and it won't cost us to dispose of it or store it" as we only see such equipment when they have a "come meet the police day" type thing.

Maybe I'm off, but showing your desert storm retired armored vehicles now painted black is sending an odd message. They train in them - and I could only guess that they have the stuff in case they'd be called in to assist in a worse area or some kind of riot.

 

[Spectric]

I must say that we may have the wrong impression of a bear, when out in Jackson I was shown a Grizzly fur and the feet were huge, with massive claws and when alive can run so not the best thing to bump into. All right for carnivores as they also sold black bear sausage.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/...8FXiclivDQnof69TlCeE0rAhj6HUpXkw/IMG_0306.jpg

 

[RobinBHM]

I'm sure there are poor rural areas where they are, even if the balance of illegal use is higher. I don't think anyone in England has an idea of what it's like to live in a really rural area where police are 20 minutes away.

Yes I realise there are instances where guns are beneficial

the point I am trying to get to on guns is this:
if we remove all the peripheral arguments, it can be simplified down to:


1. there are thousands of people killed every year in America because of guns
2. if civilians were not allowed to have guns, or the controls were very very strict, those deaths would reduce to almost zero



if we look at the deaths from guns, they are peoples children, people parents, wives, husbands -there are thousands of people in America suffering huge grief every year because of gun deaths and life changing injuries......and there is only one way to stop it, only one way.

Or are the benefits of guns so great that the killing must continue?

 

[AJB Temple]

People who deliberately kill using guns are not worried about breaking the law.
There are millions of guns in circulation.
They are very easy to hide and conceal.
Only law abiding citizens who don't believe they have a right to arms will willingly relinquish guns.
Criminals will not.
Gun collectors will simply take their collections out of sight.
This horse bolted long ago.

It is not at all obvious what the solution is.

 

[TRITON]

are the benefits of guns so great that the killing must continue?

They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them and are more than willing to overlook cases of entire families being wiped out for just that fact.

Of course should the US government ever go fascist your average wouldnt stand a snowdrops chance in hell, with tanks, drones,hellfire missiles and millions of 50 cal rounds against what are effectively the equivalent of pop guns, ie small caliber handguns or hunting rifles.
But they seems to ignore that little point and think in such an event they could stand up and take the country back. In truth they'd all be wiped out.
They think they can hold up in an apartment, firing out the windows, but in reality a tank takes out the entire building.

So they'll fight to keep this useless guns and allow any number to die, no matter their age. Some nut could go and wipe out a kindergarten school of 500 4yr olds and the Americans wouldn't bat an eye really. They would be happy about it rather than allow the government to ban firearms.

 

[Jacob]

...

It is not at all obvious what the solution is.

I'm sure they could wind them in slowly, with a well argued campaign of persuasion followed by incremental increases in taxation, control/regulation and penalty.
Taking them out of legal circulation and distribution also hits the illegal side in that they become less available. Increase in penalties would be a disincentive too.

 

[D_W]

I am sorry I should have been clearer, this point I made: "That is because the argument that guns are protection is untrue" was in context of the claim guns are a protection against mass shootings, criminals etc.

but in the context of animals, it is clear that very few people are killed per year from bear attacks.

They are protection against criminals. In mass shootings, running away seems to be more effective - just guessing. (i looked it up - only 10 have been stopped by individuals shooting a mass shooter - out of 316. 50 total have been stopped by bystanders, with the other 40 being stopped by who knows what....).

For someone living in a rural area, I'm sure guns are used defensively (across the entire population, not per individual) on a fairly regular basis. Tony atlas tells an interesting story about his mother getting gifted or loaned a .38 by his *father's* coworkers after they found out that his father beat his mother on a regular basis. She "pulled the rod" the last time he made such an attempt and he left and never crossed the doorstep again.

Personally, I don't figure they have a part in my life. I'm not that interested in demanding in the US that they are taken from everyone else, no matter how much of a fascination people in other countries have.

 

[D_W]

They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them and are more than willing to overlook cases of entire families being wiped out for just that fact.

I think that while that's given on paper or sensationalized, the greatest % of people feel like they'd just be rolled if the government so chooses (which nobody really expects in the first place), and the average person has the right to have and use firearms recreationally, and that's really why they want to continue the right.

 

[Spectric]

Ok so Mr Biden decides to scrap the 2nd ammendment and restrict guns in the public domain to just hunting riffles and politely request everyone hands in all other weapons, what happens next?

I think that if I lived in the states I would want a couple of handguns just to feel safe in my house, I don't think they will ever solve the issue and it would make me a nervous wreck, but they teach children how to use a gun so perhaps growing up with guns makes you feel safer.

 

[D_W]

this last part was covered already, so I'm guessing that you're offering it in jest. Choose your neighborhood well and you don't need to have handguns (which is a pretty significant responsibility) and you won't have a need to use them in the first place.

Gun and hunter safety is something here, though, but it's not mandatory for anyone who isn't hunting also. That is, I had to go through a hunter's safety course to get my first hunting license, and it involved several days' worth of instructions, and constant "every gun is loaded whether it is or isn't. Get that into your head as a constant thought. It's loaded. Check to make sure it's not, and then treat it as it is after the fact, anyway".

The other constant with hunting was "identify your target positively and then determine the ending point for your shot and thirdly, that you have a shot that will ensure a humane dispatch. If you're missing any of those three, pass on the shot".

Interestingly, folks here may be surprised to find that it's legal to shoot over a road, or at least was then. The three rules above apply - if you're way up in a tree in a stand and a road is between you and your quarry, then as long as rules 1-3 above are satisfied, no problem.

 

[D_W]

oh yeah, and in my state - "get a concealed carry permit unless you have a great reason not to. If gives you far more leeway in going to and from hunts, and if you never carry concealed, but you violate a transport law that isn't violated if you have a concealed permit, it'll be worth it".

 

[gregmcateer]

They offset it as an excuse so they can stand up against the government if the government ever went fascist on them.....

And the irony is, the gun loons stormed, (or in their apologists view 'walked quietly and peacefully to'), the seat of government the moment the government actually upheld democracy