Firearm Ownership

Orange Seeds

playing with cymbals
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
784
Location
Vancouver
I'm an avid outdoorsman who spends long periods of time backpacking in some of the most remote areas in my province. Recently, one of my fellow hiking buddies suggested we plan for a Stein Valley trek. The area is heavily populated by grizzlies. Thus one of my family members recommended that I bring a firearm.

I've only once ever fired any sort of gun, and have never once thought of owning a firearm: I would have no use for it. However, after spending quite some time doing research last night, I suddenly have a significant urge to go through all the steps to acquire a rifle.

What intrigues me is that, after browsing quite a few forums, I'm not sure if gun ownership fits my character. I've always seen myself as too civilized for conversations about calibres and what-have-you. In fact I always saw weapons as a juvenile fixation. I'm a pretentious environmentalist, semi-leftist, urbanite phil major after all!

Have you ever considering acquiring a firearm? Did you face similar thoughts? Feelings of irreason fascinate me.
 
You’d be more likely to harm yourself or another person with the firearm than a being harmed by a grizzly (assuming you take normal precautions).

I have only once owned a firearm, and it was when I was in high school. I was on the indoor rifle team and my very anti-gun father bought me my own rifle. Pretty cool of him really. We sold it back after I graduated and no longer had a need for it.
 
I've only once ever fired any sort of gun, and have never once thought of owning a firearm: I would have no use for it. However, after spending quite some time doing research last night, I suddenly have a significant urge to go through all the steps to acquire a rifle.

What intrigues me is that, after browsing quite a few forums, I'm not sure if gun ownership fits my character. I've always seen myself as too civilized for conversations about calibres and what-have-you. In fact I always saw weapons as a juvenile fixation. I'm a pretentious environmentalist, semi-leftist, urbanite phil major after all!

If you are immature or irresponsible then gun ownership isn't for you. If not, and you think you'd enjoy owning and shooting one, then go for it. If you don't like it then take it back to the store and demand refund just like anything else you buy. If they don't give a refund then call the police and have them pick it up. I don't see what the big deal is here. It won't turn you into tobacco spitting right-wing gun nut, I promise.
 
Not much of a gun person myself. I'm sure it's nice for hunting and sport, but I'm really not that interested. Used a g3 in the military. Deadly scared every time it was loaded.

Fun fact: If you ever go to Svalbard, which are some Norwegian owned Islands far north, you are required to have a rifle if you go outside of the main settlements(polar bears). Perhaps there are similar rules in nothern Canada and Greenland too?
 
Yes. Even though I get nervous whenever I see one; I attribute that to how I feel powerless if they pull it on me, however. Naturally, getting one of my own is the solution; guns are called the great equaliser for a reason!

I'd keep one for self-defense purposes; a dog has too many flaws and high-tech security only works if the cops get there in time. With a firearm, you have to rely on nothing but your willingness to put a few bullets in the idiot who broke in.

I could go on about how firearms also provide the basis for an insurgency and thus are a necessity for freedom, but I'll let someone else do that.
 
I could go on about how firearms also provide the basis for an insurgency and thus are a necessity for freedom, but I'll let someone else do that.

200 years ago perhaps. It doesn't work that way now.
 
I own a bolt-action 20-gauge shotgun. Haven't actually fired it yet though, because the safety's broken.

Too civilized for gun ownership? Well, that's a myth. All sorts of people own guns, and the great majority of gun owners I know are great people.
 
200 years ago perhaps. It doesn't work that way now.

I don't know... many of the so-called awesomesauce things we attribute to the first-class military rely on actually knowing where your opponent is. You can bomb a nation; you can't bomb an insurgency. Maybe individual insurgents, but it quickly becomes cumbersome and expensive.

Insurgents hide amongst the populace, making them a very different threat; this is why different tactics are needed. And short of mass murder of everyone, it becomes practically impossible to extinguish one so long as there's a grievance and the willingness to fight for that grievance.

At the very least, insurgents tie down resources; look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Winning or not, it's apparent that even the oh so glorious US military has its hands full - the war was an issue in the election, was it not?

Now picture millions of Americans, all with far more individual money to spend on acquiring firearms.

Now add in tons of veterans whose loyalty is to the Constitution, people, and nation first and not the government, and who can provide skills and knowledge to their comrades. And possibly training if you get the right people.

Now add in the black market, which people will no longer be afraid of using to buy hardware, due to the fact they're already breaking the law by going against the government.

The government may or may not win, but at the very least, a huge headache.
 
I have a few rifles, haven't had the time to shoot them all too much but it's mostly for fun, I have no intentions of going hunting or expectations of defending myself with one.
 
...stuff...
That's one of the issues I was thinking about. But my main issue is that it will never be necessary. Most western nations have well functioning democracies, with power spread over a wide spectrum to stop individuals from getting to much power. Call me naive, but our democracies are as firm as mountains, and they depend on that the majority of the people agree with their leaders.
 
Second amendment protects us from grizzlies. I think liberals want to take our guns because they know conservatives are natures most wanted.
 
I don't know... many of the so-called awesomesauce things we attribute to the first-class military rely on actually knowing where your opponent is. You can bomb a nation; you can't bomb an insurgency. Maybe individual insurgents, but it quickly becomes cumbersome and expensive.

Insurgents hide amongst the populace, making them a very different threat; this is why different tactics are needed. And short of mass murder of everyone, it becomes practically impossible to extinguish one so long as there's a grievance and the willingness to fight for that grievance.

At the very least, insurgents tie down resources; look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Winning or not, it's apparent that even the oh so glorious US military has its hands full - the war was an issue in the election, was it not?

Now picture millions of Americans, all with far more individual money to spend on acquiring firearms.

Now add in tons of veterans whose loyalty is to the Constitution, people, and nation first and not the government, and who can provide skills and knowledge to their comrades. And possibly training if you get the right people.

Now add in the black market, which people will no longer be afraid of using to buy hardware, due to the fact they're already breaking the law by going against the government.

The government may or may not win, but at the very least, a huge headache.

They already defy the constitution, I really don't know where the line is drawn. I say when the majority of Americans know that there's a problem.

If/When this happens, the citizens would not lose to the government. It just wouldn't happen. Guns are the great equalizer, as Tanicius said, hence why Bazookas, Machine Guns, grenades, and other military weapons should be able to be owned by the people.
 
Not much of a gun person myself. I'm sure it's nice for hunting and sport, but I'm really not that interested. Used a g3 in the military. Deadly scared every time it was loaded.

Fun fact: If you ever go to Svalbard, which are some Norwegian owned Islands far north, you are required to have a rifle if you go outside of the main settlements(polar bears). Perhaps there are similar rules in nothern Canada and Greenland too?

Carrying a rifle isn't mandatory, but it's legal, if not encouraged, for self defence against polar bears. The law specifies that you may not hunt with it though.

I'm an avid outdoorsman who spends long periods of time backpacking in some of the most remote areas in my province. Recently, one of my fellow hiking buddies suggested we plan for a Stein Valley trek. The area is heavily populated by grizzlies. Thus one of my family members recommended that I bring a firearm.

I've only once ever fired any sort of gun, and have never once thought of owning a firearm: I would have no use for it. However, after spending quite some time doing research last night, I suddenly have a significant urge to go through all the steps to acquire a rifle.

What intrigues me is that, after browsing quite a few forums, I'm not sure if gun ownership fits my character. I've always seen myself as too civilized for conversations about calibres and what-have-you. In fact I always saw weapons as a juvenile fixation. I'm a pretentious environmentalist, semi-leftist, urbanite phil major after all!

Have you ever considering acquiring a firearm? Did you face similar thoughts? Feelings of irreason fascinate me.

Yes. I really want to acquire a rifle here in Canada, if for nothing else than sport shooting. When my uncle used to take me to a family farm in Ohio, I got good enough to hit a small pumpkin at 300-400 yards with his M1903 Springfield.

Where you're going, a rifle for self defence against a grizzly might not be legal, but it's not an awful idea.
 
Carrying a rifle isn't mandatory, but it's legal, if not encouraged, for self defence against polar bears. The law specifies that you may not hunt with it though.



Yes. I really want to acquire a rifle here in Canada, if for nothing else than sport shooting. When my uncle used to take me to a family farm, I got good enough to hit a small pumpkin at 300-400 yards with his M1903 Springfield.

A rifle for self defence against a grizzly is a bit much.

1. You can't hunt in Norway?

2. Guns rock.
 
Being a gun owner isn't the same thing as being a gun nut. If you go to a forum based around guns, it's a pretty safe bet that the people there are going to be pretty rabid about the topic.

You have a practical reason to own a firearm (probably better than most of those people on the forums), I guess if you're a particularly irrational person owning a gun might clash with your personality here...

While on the topic of reasonableness, firearms in the home really only provide a significant threat if the owner is: a) emotionally unstable, or b) completely ******ed. If you follow the actual laws for gun storage, it's pretty hard to accidentally shoot someone:
Storing Non-Restricted Firearms
Non-restricted firearms must be stored:
1. unloaded; AND
2. unable to be fired (by using a secure locking device or by removing the bolt or bolt carrier); OR
locked in a sturdy, secure, container or room that cannot be easily broken open or into; AND
3. in a place where ammunition for the firearms is not easy to obtain. Ammunition can be stored
with the firearm, if the ammunition is stored in a securely locked container that cannot be easily
broken open or into

I doubt this really needs to be said, but I'm going for it anyway. If you're going to take a rifle (or whatever) with you, you had damn well better know how to use it.

As to your actual question, I often consider owning a gun. Of course, I don't really need one as I don't hunt and I don't think that, in the event of a break-in, firing bullets through the paper-thin walls of my apartment building is a very neighbourly thing to do.

I have never felt that gun ownership was an uncivilized act; mind you, I was raised in a home with guns (pretty much mandatory in Saskatchewan). I think that any responsible citizen can own and enjoy firearms.

And I'm a pretentious environmentalist and semi-left humanities major too!
 
Storing Non-Restricted Firearms
Non-restricted firearms must be stored:
1. unloaded; AND
2. unable to be fired (by using a secure locking device or by removing the bolt or bolt carrier); OR
locked in a sturdy, secure, container or room that cannot be easily broken open or into; AND
3. in a place where ammunition for the firearms is not easy to obtain. Ammunition can be stored
with the firearm, if the ammunition is stored in a securely locked container that cannot be easily
broken open or into

Too strict for my tastes.

I prefer:

1: Treat all guns as if they're loaded.
2: Never let the muzzle cover something you don't intend to shoot.
3: Keep finger out of trigger guard until you shoot.
4: Always be sure of your target.

With those rules it is also completely impossible to shoot someone or something unintentionally plus you can keep the gun around loaded for self-defense if you are inclined to do so.
 
Top Bottom