Firearm Ownership

[Zelig]

Grabbing a gun and planning on shooting any bears that bother you is a bad plan.

Do your research on how to not attract bears, and look up information on both bear mace and firearms.

 

[emzie]

The thing about gun nuts is they don't see a firearm as a tool. They see it as a right, and something that is "badass" and the such.

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.

The rules quoted are about storing a firearm in your home. If you're hiking in the mountains, you would be allowed to keep your rifle ready to fire.

Here, if you shoot someone in your home, you better be able to prove A: he was about to kill you and B: you retrieved your firearm from a secured place.

 

[Zelig]

Too strict for my tastes.

But legal.

 

[storealex]

I know nothing of bears. Is a rifle really better than a large caliber pistol/revolver? I mean, if a bear attacks, you will have to defend your self at close range very fast. I can imagine many people would struggle to shoot the bear with a rifle, before it was too late. A pistol on the other hand... it probablly wouldn't kill it outright, but I don't think the bear would continue the attack once hit? Mind you Im not talking 9mm here...

But as I said, I have no knowledge of shooting animals, so feel free to correct me. Anyways, I would bring a gun if I were you. If it makes you feel safer, go ahead - you don't need to buy your own, just get a permit and rent/borrow one. Guns are great tools and can be way cool!

storealex, who is a pretentious environmentalist and semi-left humanities member of armed forces.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The rules quoted are about storing a firearm in your home. If you're hiking in the mountains, you would be allowed to keep your rifle ready to fire.

Here, if you shoot someone in your home, you better be able to prove A: he was about to kill you and B: you retrieved your firearm from a secured place.

In other words you have a greater right to self-defense hiking in the mountains than in your own home? I'd assume grizzly bear attacks are as rare as home invasions so why the distinction? If there's any place where one should be allowed to keep a gun ready for self-defense then it would be in one's own home.

 

[CaptainF]

I know nothing of bears. Is a rifle really better than a large caliber pistol/revolver? I mean, if a bear attacks, you will have to defend your self at close range very fast. I can imagine many people would struggle to shoot the bear with a rifle, before it was too late. A pistol on the other hand... it probablly wouldn't kill it outright, but I don't think the bear would continue the attack once hit? Mind you Im not talking 9mm here...

But as I said, I have no knowledge of shooting animals, so feel free to correct me. Anyways, I would bring a gun if I were you. If it makes you feel safer, go ahead - you don't need to buy your own, just get a permit and rent/borrow one. Guns are great tools and can be way cool!

If I were up against bears, I'd choose this!

 

[emzie]

In other words you have a greater right to self-defense hiking in the mountains than in your own home? I'd assume grizzly bear attacks are as rare as home invasions so why the distinction? If there's any place where one should be allowed to keep a gun ready for self-defense then it would be in one's own home.

I think it's more an issue of from what you're defending: a person or a bear.

 

[Lillefix]

If I were up against bears, I'd choose this!

You kinda have to hit the head if it's going to have any effect. Is it easy to aim?

 

[otago]

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.

Get a pistol grip pump action 12 gauge shotgun with a sliding stock, load it with solids and buckshot one after another.
And practice with it, a solid from a shotgun is far better for stopping dangerous animals than any pistol round.

 

[PeteAtoms]

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.

I think firearms serve a purpose, and should be thought of as tools. I look down on "gun nuts" and other aficionados, that seem to be the stereotypical 'gun culture.'

My brother has an AR-15, and I really don't see the point. It's like gun nuts own guns, for the sake of owning guns. I guess I feel the same way about car nuts...

I plan on owning a gun one day. I want a shotgun and a handgun, that's it. To keep in my home for self defense. Of course I'll have 'em locked up, but they are just tools to me. I'm not a hunter, but I don't oppose hunting with firearms.

Owning more than one gun, that serves the same purpose, seems weird to me. I don't see a reason to own more than one... Unless you stash 'em across your home for easy access (even than, it's not really necessary).

I think most people should have at least one of the following:

1) a good hammer
2) a good knife
3) a lighter
4) a hatchet
5) a multi-tool (Leatherman)
6) a handgun and a shotgun
7) a decent rope*

I dunno, I think I got that from my childhood. These are some of the things that I was taught every man should own, because they are invaluable tools. You only need one of each, and if you take care of it, it should last most of your life.


*For some reason my dad goes nuts over good ropes...

 

[Cutlass]

The thing about gun nuts is they don't see a firearm as a tool. They see it as a right, and something that is "badass" and the such.



The rules quoted are about storing a firearm in your home. If you're hiking in the mountains, you would be allowed to keep your rifle ready to fire.

Here, if you shoot someone in your home, you better be able to prove A: he was about to kill you and B: you retrieved your firearm from a secured place.

The problem is that gun nuts see them as toys.

 

[CaptainF]

You kinda have to hit the head if it's going to have any effect. Is it easy to aim?

It's not too difficult. I once managed to hit a milk jug cap from 50 feet away.

.44 magnums are definitely suitable for shooting down a brown bear. Wikipedia says that they have even been used to take down elephants.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Grabbing a gun and planning on shooting any bears that bother you is a bad plan.

Do your research on how to not attract bears, and look up information on both bear mace and firearms.

I've been carrying bear spray for a while. I am also very knowledgeable about how to avoid attracting bears (and mice) while at camp or while hiking.

I know nothing of bears. Is a rifle really better than a large caliber pistol/revolver? I mean, if a bear attacks, you will have to defend your self at close range very fast. I can imagine many people would struggle to shoot the bear with a rifle, before it was too late. A pistol on the other hand... it probablly wouldn't kill it outright, but I don't think the bear would continue the attack once hit? Mind you Im not talking 9mm here...

But as I said, I have no knowledge of shooting animals, so feel free to correct me. Anyways, I would bring a gun if I were you. If it makes you feel safer, go ahead - you don't need to buy your own, just get a permit and rent/borrow one. Guns are great tools and can be way cool!

I don't like the idea of owning anything other than a long-gun. The bear spray is hooked normally on the waste strap of my pack or on by belt depending on the weight of my pack. In the event of an emergency encounter the bear spray is the immediate option. It will certainly force the bear to retreat. Grizzlies, however, have a tendency to stalk their prey much like cougars and will occasionally continue to pursue a hiker (not normal behavior. Such a bear would be sick or starving). A bottle of bear spray is only good for 2-3 uses at it's most effective.

There is a significant debate over whether a firearm is worthwhile during treks in predator territory. Even so, I would still like to learn to shoot. And that is where I begin to have mixed feelings. I fear that it's my testosterone and not my reason that desires this weapon, but I'm unsure.

 

[taper]

Owning and carrying a gun is a big responsibility. You need to be willing to put in the training time to be able to use it safely and effectively. You'd be surprised how fast you go through a few hundred rounds in practice.

Your first gun should be a .22lr rifle or pistol. The Ruger 10/22, Savage Model 64, Remington 597, and Marlin Model 60 are all excellent, popular rifle choices. You can get these new for $200-400. Ammo is 3-5 cents a shot, compared with 50 cents to a dollar or more for full power rifles. Don't worry, no one at the range will ever make fun of you for having such a small caliber rifle, odds are almost everyone there also has one too. The low cost, reliability, low recoil, and accuracy make these some of the most popular guns around. Check with your local gun ranges to see if they offer any training. Professional classes are an amazing boost at the beginning, and can help prevent bad habits from forming.

As far as bears go, if you're willing to carry an extra 6-10 lbs for a long gun, for close range emergency defense, a 12ga shotgun is king. The Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 are very good choices, $200-600 depending on features. The nice thing about shotguns is their versatility. With one gun and a couple different types of ammo, you can take anything from bear to snakes to birds to small and medium game for dinner.

When I was 16 I was at a scout camp and woke up to the sound of a black bear sniffing around my tent. Luckily black bears, unlike grizzlies, tend to leave people alone and ran away as soon as we made some noise, but it was still pretty scary. The biggest weapon we had was a camp axe, which would have been almost useless if the bear had decided to attack. I wouldn't go into a known grizzly area without something more powerful.

Feel free to PM me if you want more advice on getting started.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I think it's more an issue of from what you're defending: a person or a bear.

The former being the most dangerous of the two IMO.

 

[PeteAtoms]

Owning and carrying a gun is a big responsibility. You need to be willing to put in the training time to be able to use it safely and effectively.

This cannot be said enough.
It's also worth mentioning that we let 16 year olds (younger in some places), get behind the wheel of a huge piece of metal capable of speeds 50mph+.

I'm not sure what the law is on driving (is it a right analogous to firearms?), but driving down the freeway surrounded by people as young as 16 and people too old to be driving, scares me as much as letting people have guns.

I don't know what's worse, getting hit by a 2ton piece of steel at 60 mph, or getting hit by a piece of metal small enough to put in your pocket at several times that speed.

 

[emzie]

The former being the most dangerous of the two IMO.

Yes, but also more worthy of not using lethal force unless necessary. We do not have things like Castle Doctrine here in Canada. We, as a country, have chosen this. I will not sit here and lecture Americans about how silly it is to have lax handgun laws, or how silly it is that an AK47 can be anything other than illegal. In return, I ask that you respect the fact that we do things a bit differently here.

Laws don't mandate firearms be locked away so that they're inaccessible in a crisis. The law mandates securing weapons so they aren't used by anyone but responsible adults. Given that a firearm in the home is more likely to lead to accidental injury than to defend one's family, I dare say our way of doing it has its merits.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Yes, but also more worthy of not using lethal force unless necessary. We do not have things like Castle Doctrine here in Canada. We, as a country, have chosen this.

Allowing people to keep loaded guns in their home for self-defense is not the equivalent of Castle Doctrine. The rules for lethal force would still be in place.

I will not sit here and lecture Americans about how silly it is to have lax handgun laws, or how silly it is that an AK47 can be anything other than illegal.

Didn't you just say in an earlier post that people who believe it is a right are 'nuts'? I'm in that category so I'll take that personally if you don't mind. If you meant it in a joking manner then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Given that a firearm in the home is more likely to lead to accidental injury than to defend one's family, I dare say our way of doing it has its merits.

Source? And why so defensive? I just asked why the law is how it is.

If the four rules I quoted are followed then no accident will happen either. Difference?

 

[emzie]

Allowing people to keep loaded guns in their home for self-defense is not the equivalent of Castle Doctrine. The rules for lethal force would still be in place.

There's no rational for having a firearm loaded unless you wish to be able to fire it. If you live alone or with an equally responsible adult, I don't care about this.

Didn't you just say in an earlier post that people who believe it is a right are 'nuts'? I'm in that category so I'll take that personally if you don't mind. If you meant it in a joking manner then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Kinda. Firearm ownership should be compared to a licence to drive: strictly it's a privileged, but one that should be extended unless the person in question has disqualified themselves (DUI / felony conviction).

A gun nut, to me, is someone who doesn't respect what they own, who considers firearms to be fun or cool.

Source?

From a public health perspective, firearms deaths and injuries, whether intentional or unintentional, are a serious threat to the health of Canadians. An average of more than 1200 Canadians have been killed and over 1000 have been injured with firearms each year during the past 10 years. For example, in 1995, 911 Canadians committed suicide with firearms, 145 were killed with firearms in homicides, 49 died in "accidents," 6 were killed in legal interventions and 14 deaths were undetermined, creating an overall firearms death rate of 3.8 per 100,000.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-1/d_e.html
(Government of Canada)

49 accidents compared to 6 legal interventions.

And why so defensive? I just asked why the law is how it is.

I may have jumped the gun, so to say, and for that I apologize. So often, I see people compare something foreign to how they are accustomed to doing things, not taking into account the bias of familiarity.

If the four rules I quoted are followed then no accident will happen either. Difference?

If, and only if, you live by yourself and never have company. Your rules also make the assumption that a weapon won't be stolen.

 

[Bugfatty300]

There's no rational for having a firearm loaded unless you wish to be able to fire it. If you live alone or with an equally responsible adult, I don't care about this.

So that storage law doesn't apply to them or at least you think it shouldn't? Couldn't a household with say small kids keep a gun that is loaded but kept in a safe with a key pad/finger print recognition for quick access?

Kinda. Firearm ownership should be compared to a licence to drive: strictly it's a privileged, but one that should be extended unless the person in question has disqualified themselves (DUI / felony conviction).

Fine if you don't happen to live in a country who's supreme court just held that it is indeed right to keep and bear arms. Am I nuts for stating something that is fact?

A gun nut, to me, is someone who doesn't respect what they own, who considers firearms to be fun or cool.

Well honestly I don't get this. Where is it that something cannot be thought of as fun and cool while at the same time not be respected or enjoyed with safety responsibility?

The vast majority of gun owners from Alaska to Finland own them for sport. They target shoot, they shoot trap, they hunt, they shoot just to feel the recoil and see a milk jug explode. It's fun. If guns weren't fun then hardly anyone would own or bother with them.

From a public health perspective, firearms deaths and injuries, whether intentional or unintentional, are a serious threat to the health of Canadians. An average of more than 1200 Canadians have been killed and over 1000 have been injured with firearms each year during the past 10 years. For example, in 1995, 911 Canadians committed suicide with firearms, 145 were killed with firearms in homicides, 49 died in "accidents," 6 were killed in legal interventions and 14 deaths were undetermined, creating an overall firearms death rate of 3.8 per 100,000.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/.../19-1/d_e.html
(Government of Canada)

OK 1,000 injuries from accidents in 1995 (most of which I'm willing to bet took place outside of the home). So where is the number or estimate of Canadians who used a gun for lawful self-defense in the home or do they not bother to gather or publish those statistics? You can't base that statement on a single set of data now can you?

If, and only if, you live by yourself and never have company. Your rules also make the assumption that a weapon won't be stolen.

Well why can't you just lock it in the safe when you have company over then?

Also they're all locked in a safe when I'm not home. And even when I am home they're all locked in safe except for one which is loaded and close by or at least hidden from plain view. Anyone who tries to steal it while I'm home is going to have a really hard time.