Well, I’m a foreign aid worker who operates in conflict zones. I’ve been attacked while under the auspices of both the UN and the Red Cross, so trying to kill me was in fact a war crime and just a dick move, IMHO.
When my sister was raped, I assure you she did nothing to instigate the attack, I assure you.
I believe that and oh my God I am so sorry for your sister.
These are all helpful proposals but the details matter. Can I inherit a firearm without a background check? Can I give one to my spouse? Can I lend one to my hunting body when he flies into town? Can I rent one at a range to a person without a background check? When you say “limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds” do you just mean on sales of new ones or do you mean the government should confiscate the tens or hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines that are already out there?
You’ve also said nothing about handguns, which are far deadlier in bulk than long guns, mass shootings notwithstanding.
This was a savvy move on his part. Our problem with guns is people using them to kill other people. Allowing guns where there are almost no people to get into conflict with each other is a pretty low-risk thing to give up without meaningfully increasing danger. It’s hard to pin the reflexively anti-gun label on someone who does that. Didn’t much matter though because Obama still didn’t accomplish anything on gun control. He gave the inch without getting anything in return.
And you believe you are likely to need to shoot the only people you come across. I see.
There are too many out there now to do anything about. If we limit magazine capacity, we can at least slow down the rate of deaths in mass shootings and make buying new assault weapons less appealing.
Me too.
Ditto.
I do not. Many say they have such a need but they are overwhelmingly wrong. There is no reliable evidence that having a gun provides greater self defense benefits than it costs in greater risks to the carrier and those around him or her.
What evidence do you have that this is true? I would feel safer if you didn’t have a gun. Why is my feeling less important than yours?
There are in fact professional hunters who can do this. Sure, let them use arms in their jobs. They can leave them locked up at work.
But there is also evidence that hunters release them into the wild so they have something to kill later. For example, agweb.com explains how genetics show that wild pigs are spreading by car. These aren’t entirely “wild” populations just growing uncontrollably.
Define “power.” Many people think AR-15s are powerful because they can be used to quickly and easily kill 20-50 victims at a go. And they are right.
Yeah. Gun toters feel like brave self reliant heroes. The truth is they are scaredy cats. It would be better for America if we had a second amendment right to carry security blankets. And better access to therapy.
Is there any evidence this helps? Maybe it reduces accidents a little but it does presumably nothing about murder or suicides, which are the far bigger problems.
You believe this is true but what makes you think that? Why do you believe that a gun is the best way to prevent being a victim of violent crime?
Violent crime is a much bigger problem in the US than in almost every other developed country and it seems to be tied to our prevalence of firearms.
I have been a victim of a violent crime. More than one, in fact. My subsequent life would not have been better if I responded with a gun.
Warning for madmonk28, I don’t think you can say you weren’t aware this is against the rules. You are clearly attacking another poster and this is not the Pit. Please do not do this again.
I disagree about the details mattering.
I mean, the details obviously matter to an extent (and if anyone should care about the details, it’s Dopers), but in this context it matters more what broad proposals seem reasonable enough get enough gun owners and gun-curious on board in principle.
More specifically, in terms of rules on giving weapons to family members or friends or whatever, it’s pretty obvious the kinds of rules would make sense and have been implemented successfully in a number of countries. (e.g. you can supervise another person using your gun on a range, but apart from that, no you can’t give away your gun without relicensing / reregistering it). The kind of person that tries to depict such issues as intractable is usually just searching for excuses to do nothing.
With regards to the specific example of inheriting a firearm, that exact thing happened with a friend of mine in Canada about 10 years ago. He was inheriting several rifles from his grandfather, and had to apply for a possession and acquisition license before he could take possession of them. If he had failed the police check, the guns would have had to be disposed of some other way.
Has there been a response to this? If so, I didn’t hear it. Not sure why guns ought not be treated similarly to cars - another potentially lethal machine. And I would add required insurance.
But yeah - the OP’s initial suggestions (or similar variations) ought to be no-brainers. But the gun lobby, and it’s political lapdogs, make any such changes extremely unlikely. Which makes the whole situation so frustrating.
Yes I only take guns to remote areas to look for people, and shoot…
Here are my answers:
You need a background check to inherit a firearm
Your spouse needs a background check before you can give them one.
Yes, you can lend a gun to your hunting buddy (or your spouse, or your under-age child you are teaching to hunt, or anyone else) so long as you are physically present when it’s not locked up.
Yes, the range can rent a gun, so long as the gun stays physically on the premises of the range, and the range maintains reasonable regulations over the use of guns on their property.
Yes, i would want to retrofit existing magazines. And yes, i realize this isn’t feasible. Neither is most decent gun regulation in the US, sadly.
Indeed, these would seem to be obvious answers (including the impracticality of making the mag capacity limit retroactive)
And really, folks, someone says “as a gun owner I believe these minimal regulations would be a reasonable start”, and y’all start answering “NOOO you do NOT need to have a gun at all”?
Gun owner here. I own 12. No assault type guns.
Every single one of them has been inherited/given to me by family. I started target shooting when I was 9 years old. Gun safety was drilled into me at a very young age.
I live remote in the Colorado mountains. Black bears have broken into both my wife’s and my cars and our shed more than once. It’s to the point where it’s hard to keep track. Luckily, they have not tried for the house. I think having 2 very alert dogs has prevented that.
I totally understand that I’m in a unique situation.
I have related on the dope that I have used a gun to scare bears away. ~Three times now. I’ll use a large caliber handgun or rifle and shoot into a tree near the bear projecting all the noise right at it. I’ve tried other noise, doesn’t work. The most recent time was when one had broken into our cars. I didn’t know if a bear was still in a car and did not want to approach the car without being sure. I shot into the ground behind the cars from above. I looked for movement, and was ready to retreat into the house at any sign that they had not left.
Bears are smart, and very fast.
I have zero need for 12 guns though. I’ve been trying to figure out what to do with them. They are heirlooms to me. I don’t want to sell them. That’s pointless, some crazy asshole might end up with one. I have a nephew in law or two that I would trust though. I need to get that done.
Or maybe my guns should be destroyed. That would make me quite sad though.
To address the OP - I, as a gun owner support more restrictions. I donno what’s going to really help, but we have to start somewhere.
…
I did purchase for myself a very nice air rifle (so one not inherited). It requires a special compressor (not something you would use for putting air in your tires, talking scuba tank levels of psi) to charge up. It’s crazy accurate, and satisfies my desire to target shoot. After the initial expense, it’s very, very cheap to shoot.
Yes, I think we have a gun violence problem. We’ve had one for many decades. As mentioned, I am against any and all additional restrictions on the possession, purchase, and sale of firearms. (I am actually a proponent of less restrictions.) There’s no quick solution or easy answers to curtailing gun violence, IMO. The best we can do is provide better funding and access to services that address mental health, drug dependency, and the needs of children & teens.
I have no idea what type of gun you need to neutralize a bear; usually people talk about .340 Weatherby Magnum or similar kinds of cartridge. Which is a different kind of weapon than an X95 or “assault rifle” or concealed compact handgun or air rifle…
A lot of “common” hunting rifle cartridges will kill a black bear without any serious issue, and are commonly used by actual black bear hunters:
.308 Winchester (165gr)
.30-06 Springfield (165gr)
7mm Remington Magnum (150gr)
I have hunted black bear in rural Virginia and West Virginia since the 1970s, I currently use a 7mm Remington for this.
In a non-hunting situation, you could reliably down a black bear with 12ga slug or 00 buck, or .45 handgun.
Like with basically all hunting, effective killing requires a good shot aimed in an area of the animal that will cause very rapid death.
All of the above listed cartridges are more powerful (in terms of muzzle energy) than typical 5.56mm rounds in common AR-15 variants.
I’ve a Marlin 336er chambered in .356 Winchester. Dad gave it to me years ago. It’s basically a .308 necked up to .356. A rare caliber that I doubt is made any longer.
Ah, the 1980s era Marlin lever actions, those were fun guns.
You can still buy .356 Winchester but you are correct that as far as I can tell it isn’t manufactured at scale. The places selling it are all custom ammo shops that are basically making it on demand (and it isn’t terribly cheap.)
It looks like factory boxes of the ammo still appear on various third party sites somewhat irregularly.
Why less restrictions on the possession, purchase and sale of firearms?
How does that help people, children already at risk of violence in their community, or family?
Waiting on funding to identify and help someone who is prone to committing gun violence is NOT the best we can do.
Wikipedia says
The .338 in (8.6 mm) is the caliber at which medium-bore cartridges are considered to begin. The .338 Winchester Magnum is the first choice among professional brown bear (specifically grizzly bear) guides in Alaska to back up clients where a powerful stopping caliber is required on charging bears. It is also the most popular medium-bore cartridge in North America and has the most widely available choice in rifles among medium bore rifles.
The link also pictures a .375 H&H Magnum (apparently the parent case)
Is that “Yes I agree, but I am not going to do anything to actively support such a plan”, or “Yes I agree and I will actively promote such a plan”? Too many times when I hear people say, “That is a good idea” I hear an unspoken “…,good luck with that”.
I may be missing something but I don’t entirely see the relationship between the post of mine you are responding to and the wiki link you posted. The .356 Winchester and the .338 Winchester are quite different, they have different parent cases etc. The .356 Winchester despite its name is actually a .358.