Guns in America: we move onward into a new level of special thinking...

[Saracen]

Interesting Devil's Advocate there. As South Africa claims to have a degree of vetting regards gun ownership, and Pistorius held a police license for the pistol he shot and killed his partner with (and had allegedly held 6 other unlicensed firearms which he'd applied for licenses for) where does this leave the whole argument with regards the idea that responsible gun owners are nothing to worry about?

I'd say that if Pistorius didn't hold that pistol (which was licensed) he's have found it much trickier to shoot his girlfriend to death accidentally. Maybe he'd have used a golf club or similar? If so he'd have had to have got much closer, and that would make the mistaken identity angle much harder to sell.

One place it leaves us is with a question over whether he was responsible or not?

Just as not all legal gun owners will be responsible, not everyone that owns a hunting rifle is a redneck yahoo. The same argument, as I pointed out earlier, applies to cars and booze. Not all people that drink do so responsibly, and not all drivers drive responsibly, yet I don't see anyone calling for either booze or cars to be banned. By the same logic, neither the school shooting nor the Pistorius case, whatever it proves to be in the end, make the case for why all gunowners should be penalised for the crazy acts of an individual or teo, however excessive their sad attention-seeking is.

[TeePee]

Bears aren't a problem in my state. Packs of wild dogs are. Killed a kid a few weeks ago.

[xodianbarr]

Bears aren't a problem in my state. Packs of wild dogs are. Killed a kid a few weeks ago.

I bet its more common a problem with domestic dogs. Perhaps everyone in the world should be armed (just in case).

[Saracen]

My 'generalised' comments i agree are a bit too simplistic. But we arent talking about individual behaviour of gun users, we're talking about the reason why 'people' have a need for guns. Its hard to be specific about a cultural behaviour. If we were talking about the motivations of an individual however, it would be a different kettle of fish.

But that's it exactly .... the "why" for people varies hugely. And the vast majority of legal gun owners are exactly that, normal, well-balanced respectable people, and the "why" willvary, be it sport, hobby, self-protection, hunting for food, or whatever. There is no one, single "why".

Why do you want a car? Maybe you need it to get to work. Why do I want one? Maybe because I'm too lazy to walk to the shops, or maybe because I have arthritis and can't walk to the shops. The "why" varies.

[xodianbarr]

One place it leaves us is with a question over whether he was responsible or not?

Just as not all legal gun owners will be responsible, not everyone that owns a hunting rifle is a redneck yahoo. The same argument, as I pointed out earlier, applies to cars and booze. Not all people that drink do so responsibly, and not all drivers drive responsibly, yet I don't see anyone calling for either booze or cars to be banned. By the same logic, neither the school shooting nor the Pistorius case, whatever it proves to be in the end, make the case for why all gunowners should be penalised for the crazy acts of an individual or teo, however excessive their sad attention-seeking is.

Why not? I havent yet seen a perfectly justifiable reason a person (in general: im not talking about authorities here) SHOULD have a gun. I've seen reasons why people may feel that a gun would be 'appropriate'. But not one reason that cannot be replaced with a more none violent alternative.

[Splash]

One place it leaves us is with a question over whether he was responsible or not?

Is that not the job of the licensing authority?

[TeePee]

I bet its more common a problem with domestic dogs. Perhaps everyone in the world should be armed (just in case).

Dogs do kill more in the US than bears. I wouldn't hike in this area without being armed.

[Saracen]

Why not? I havent yet seen a perfectly justifiable reason a person (in general: im not talking about authorities here) SHOULD have a gun. I've seen reasons why people may feel that a gun would be 'appropriate'. But not one reason that cannot be replaced with a more none violent alternative.

You've been given a number of reasons, such as, target shooting as a hobby. It just seems none if those reasons convince you. Fair enough, you're entitled to your view.

Where it becomes a problem is when you expect to impose that view on others and restrict their freedoms.

My view is that people can do what they like as long as it does not harm others, and the state should not interfere unless there is a very good reason. Your perspective seems to be that the state tells us we can't do something, unless we can convince it to give us permission.

Taking your logic, I don't see why anyone should ve able to buy alcohol. After all, it serves little or no productive use, results in a lot of health damage for a lot of oeople, and in the absence of drink, we wouldn't have drink drivers, and we wouldn't gave people killed or seriously injured, while just going about their daily lives, by drunk drivers.

So why should people be able to drink alcohol? Well, perhaps, because they want to, whether it be a glass of fine wine with a meal, or a few beers down the pub with your mates.

[TooNice]

Problem is that freedom is ultimately weighted against responsibility, and regretfully, even a small minority of irresponsible individuals can cause a disproportionate amount of harm and damage, amplified by the lethality of the weapon. I still don't think that there is a non-subjective answer to this, as it comes down to how you want to weight the things.

I am not against guns being used for sports, provided that everything stays on site and locked in a vault after use. I am 50/50 in regards to allowing guns at home (in a country where guns are generally outlawed): on one hand, it is reasonably safe to assume that an intruder in your house is not up to any good, and guns can provide an even things up if the intruder is physically stronger. On the other hand, it would give the intruders all the more reason to be similarly armed and more prepared to kill (though the flip side is that those unprepared to murder may give up the idea altogether). And I'd also need to trust the gun owner to store the weapon appropriately.

Where I'd have an issue is people walking the streets with a piece. Or carrying them on a plane. If freedom is the single most important thing to protect at any and all cost, then anyone should be allowed to carry guns and explosive in a commercial jet. I wouldn't be surprised if most flights would still arrive safely as the majority of people do not have a death wish. But to me, "majority" alone is not good enough in this case. Incidentally, allowing weapons on a plane *might* have stopped 9/11. But we will never know, and to me the pros do not outweigh the cons. I'll have to extend that to arming teachers.

[Larkspeed]

All good points, but i think in your answer, you've missed 'my' point. Merely that there are always other ways at looking at a problem. Not just the 'shoot first, think later' approach, which is no more effective than most of the options i have suggested. As for the fence idea: firstly, i'd like to see a bear traverse a cattle grid. Secondly, the fence doesn't have to be heavy duty necessarily, it was only a thought. Merely being electrified would probably work well enough, and that's a pretty inexpensive solution.

Oh, and your answer to 1: yeah probably, but scaring it is what the intention! Antagonise - certainly, i agree it would have to be tested. It may be very effective. Or not.

Sorry but I have to say your responses on this subject are very uninformed.

First off an electric fence would do nothing more than piss a bear off, you could make it stronger of course but then you would kill anything else that made contact with it including humans.

Scaring a bear is all well and good, we used to carry whistles that we blew at random intervals, if a bear hears you coming it is likely to run away, unless of course it's a mother with it's cubs in which case she will stand her ground and defend. Now startling a bear face to face has the exact opposite reaction they don't run, they charge and I can tell you this they can run a lot faster mad than you can scared.

You mention there are bears in zoo's so there must be an alternate way to catch them.

You are totally right, there are humane bear traps and as you say there are tranq darts.

However neither of these options does the average person any good.

When they use tranq darts to take down bear is usually done by a team of experts with all manner of special safety equipment to protect them if something goes wrong.

Bear traps are huge, expensive and again they have teams of trained experts that tranq the bear and remove it from the trap. We had them around the town I lived in.

You have clearly never lived in any area where the wildlife is any more dangerous than the Rottweiler next door.

Having living in the wilderness myself and personally getting charged by a rather large bear, I can honestly say the only option there was time for was the rifle I was carrying, and even then it took 3 shots to bring it down.

This was in Canada for the one that asked about bears in Canada

So before you continue saying you should use other means to defend yourself against wild animals may I suggest you go and spend a few months living in the wilderness and learn whats it's like so you can make an educated comment on this subject.

oh and if you think bears are not that dangerous if you handle yourself around them properly, ask Timothy Treadwell about it..... Oh wait you can't he was killed and partially eaten by the bears he loved and lived among.

[xodianbarr]

You've been given a number of reasons, such as, target shooting as a hobby. It just seems none if those reasons convince you. Fair enough, you're entitled to your view.

Where it becomes a problem is when you expect to impose that view on others and restrict their freedoms.

My view is that people can do what they like as long as it does not harm others, and the state should not interfere unless there is a very good reason. Your perspective seems to be that the state tells us we can't do something, unless we can convince it to give us permission.

Taking your logic, I don't see why anyone should ve able to buy alcohol. After all, it serves little or no productive use, results in a lot of health damage for a lot of oeople, and in the absence of drink, we wouldn't have drink drivers, and we wouldn't gave people killed or seriously injured, while just going about their daily lives, by drunk drivers.

So why should people be able to drink alcohol? Well, perhaps, because they want to, whether it be a glass of fine wine with a meal, or a few beers down the pub with your mates.

Thats exactly my sentiment. If i really objected i would be on the streets of the UK condemning it. But im not, im just merely voicing a point of view. Having a lethal weapon (we could be potentially abused) for the purposes of sport is not what i would call 'justifiable'. Even so, what would be the problem of only be able to use loaned weapons at a shooting centre? Is it really necessary to have to 'own' one. At least that would be safer.

[xodianbarr]

Sorry but I have to say your responses on this subject are very uninformed.

First off an electric fence would do nothing more than piss a bear off, you could make it stronger of course but then you would kill anything else that made contact with it including humans.

I think it is YOU that is misinformed old boy They are already used all the time at zoos and by farmers and they are proven to be effective.

[xodianbarr]

Scaring a bear is all well and good, we used to carry whistles that we blew at random intervals, if a bear hears you coming it is likely to run away, unless of course it's a mother with it's cubs in which case she will stand her ground and defend. Now startling a bear face to face has the exact opposite reaction they don't run, they charge and I can tell you this they can run a lot faster mad than you can scared.

You mention there are bears in zoo's so there must be an alternate way to catch them.

You are totally right, there are humane bear traps and as you say there are tranq darts.

However neither of these options does the average person any good.

When they use tranq darts to take down bear is usually done by a team of experts with all manner of special safety equipment to protect them if something goes wrong.

Bear traps are huge, expensive and again they have teams of trained experts that tranq the bear and remove it from the trap. We had them around the town I lived in.

You have clearly never lived in any area where the wildlife is any more dangerous than the Rottweiler next door.

Having living in the wilderness myself and personally getting charged by a rather large bear, I can honestly say the only option there was time for was the rifle I was carrying, and even then it took 3 shots to bring it down.

This was in Canada for the one that asked about bears in Canada

So before you continue saying you should use other means to defend yourself against wild animals may I suggest you go and spend a few months living in the wilderness and learn whats it's like so you can make an educated comment on this subject.

oh and if you think bears are not that dangerous if you handle yourself around them properly, ask Timothy Treadwell about it..... Oh wait you can't he was killed and partially eaten by the bears he loved and lived among.

As for your further comments. If you read back through the threads in depth you would see that i myself personally admitted i was no authority on bears, and that there was also other ways at approaching a problem if you're prepared to consider it. What i offered was some quick suggestions off the top of my head of ideas i thought provide a possible alternative. Im not arguing that these methods are 'rock solid', only that there ARE other ways to approach a problem.

As for your 'not living there so not being educated' comment, its a pretty weak argument - im sure there are more than enough 'uneducated Canadians' who have ended up on the wrong side of a bear due to poor planning. We are not talking about how I would approach the problem if i was in the situation, are we? If i WAS in bear territory i would at least have the common sense to PLAN how i would deal with the situation BEFORE it arose. I gun wont necessarily help you, and its NOT the only way. Thats the only point im trying to make here. Truth be told, bears have as much right to live in the world as we do. You go messing in THEIR territory, you run the risk of an unfavourable encounter. Is that the fault of the bear? Does the bear HAVE to pay the price because you value your life as more important than the bears? I dont. My life (or anyone elses) is no more important than the bears, and i say you should show the bear some respect. That bear had to die just because you like messing about in the woods.

[Larkspeed]

I think it is YOU that is misinformed old boy They are already used all the time at zoos and by farmers and they are proven to be effective.

You are correct they are but you will also notice if you look thay any large animal enclosure in a zoo that has an electric fench around it it also surrounded by a secondary fence or gully to prevent the public making contact with the fence.

We have the largest city zoo in europe here and some of my friends work there so I know from people who work in the field how they set them up.

The ones used by farmers for sheep and cows are way too low power to use against anything like a bear.

So again for publicly accessible areas electric fences at the power levels required are not feasible.

[xodianbarr]

You are correct they are but you will also notice if you look thay any large animal enclosure in a zoo that has an electric fench around it it also surrounded by a secondary fence or gully to prevent the public making contact with the fence.

We have the largest city zoo in europe here and some of my friends work there so I know from people who work in the field how they set them up.

The ones used by farmers for sheep and cows are way too low power to use against anything like a bear.

So again for publicly accessible areas electric fences at the power levels required are not feasible.

Purely pointing out that fences can work in practice, nothing more. All you're really arguing about it is an acceptable way to implement them.

[Jay]

As for your 'not living there so not being educated' comment, its a pretty weak argument - im sure there are more than enough 'uneducated Canadians' who have ended up on the wrong side of a bear due to poor planning. We are not talking about how I would approach the problem if i was in the situation, are we? If i WAS in bear territory i would at least have the common sense to PLAN how i would deal with the situation BEFORE it arose. I gun wont necessarily help you, and its NOT the only way. Thats the only point im trying to make here. Truth be told, bears have as much right to live in the world as we do. You go messing in THEIR territory, you run the risk of an unfavourable encounter. Is that the fault of the bear? Does the bear HAVE to pay the price because you value your life as more important than the bears? I dont. My life (or anyone elses) is no more important than the bears, and i say you should show the bear some respect. That bear had to die just because you like messing about in the woods.

This made me lol.