Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Orange Seeds, Jun 29, 2010.
Why on earth would you own a bolt action shotgun?
Typically for shooting heavy slugs which is when you want a stronger action. But other than that yeah they are odd ducks.
By adding a bolt, you pretty much remove the magazine shotgun's advantages?
The advantage is that bolt-actions are generally stronger than other types of actions and so people can shoot more powerful loads in them. A bolt-action shotgun can shoot loads that would be unsafe to fire in another type of shotgun. They are good hunting guns for huge game.
Might as well just get, you know, a hunting rifle?
Which would work too but there are advantages to slugs in that they are far larger and heavier than any practical rifle caliber you can get and they tend to kill big scary stuff a little quicker I believe. For instance I think the recommended gun for defense against bears is usually some type of shotgun loaded with slugs.
There are places where hunting with a rifle are prohibited. Only shotguns or muzzle loaders.
I wouldn't object to a firearm being stored like that, no. In lieu of that, the rules the law stipulates are fair.
As JR has pointed out, the Supreme Court upheald nearly all restrictions to firearm ownership currently in place: no felonies, no history of mental illness ect ect. You have a right to own a firearm unless you nullify that right with your actions. That is all I ever said.
Of course something can be thought of as cool and fun... and still be respected. They're not mutually exclusive terms and I am at a total loss how you could have interpreted my words as saying such.
Okay? Your point? I can drive a Ferrari 180 mph on a race track and that is fun. If I drive down the highway at that speed, I'm being irresponsible.
I gave you a source. If you don't like it, find your own source comparing gun accidents compared to justified defence.
Locking them away is responsible. Hiding a gun when you're home is fine, as long as you don't live with others.
edit: I'm speaking from a local prospective. I know keeping a firearm ready to use isn't illegal there. I might have my personal opinions on that (if I were still living in the US, I would not do this) but I'm not going to tell you how to store your weapons.
You don't object to it, but you still think it should be against the law to do it? What would it hurt if Canada relaxed it's a law a little to say that you can keep a gun loaded in ready but it has to be locked up.
True but interestingly enough one of the laws that Supreme Court struck down in D.C. in 2007 was a law that required strict storage practices for firearms and declared that law to be unconstitutional because it impeded their use for self-defense. So at least similar storage laws anywhere will be under heavy question.
Then you worded the sentence poorly. It really read to me that you were saying people who think guns are fun or cool are gun nuts.
Maybe this will help. You also said:
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.
You didn't mention "don't respect what they own" in that part. So maybe you can see why I thought you were just ripping on people who enjoy owning guns.
If you're ripping on people who don't respect or behave responsibly with guns then that is a horse of a whole other color and we can agree on that.
Where did I say one should behave irresponsible with anything? Where is that coming from? I'm saying that guns can be enjoyed and used responsibly at the same time and it doesn't make one a nut.
You gave me one set of data but not the other. That really isn't a source to back up your statement.
But since you asked so nicely:
Of course I have no data for Canada so here it is for the US:
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were 108,000 cases of defensive gun use in 1993.
7 years later in 2000 there were 76,000 firearm related injuries.
So it really that doesn't look good for your statement that you're more likely to injure you're self with a gun than use it for self-defense. At least true here in the US. Yes Canada is a lot more peaceful than the USA and the need for self-defense doesn't come around as often but I really suspect that the disparity between firearm injuries and firearm self-defense aren't very big. One can always follow the four rules and never have an accident with a firearm but one cannot say he will never be in a situation were he'd have to defend himself.
If I can't trust someone then they're not going to live with me. Pretty simple code to live by.
If and when I have kids then then arrangements will be made to make it absolutely inaccessible to them but I'll still keep it loaded and in a secure place that I can get to with relative ease.
But you will say that you think I'm a nut because I believe owning a gun is a right. Anyway I'm not telling you how to store your guns either. That's your buisness. I'm only saying that I think that particular law you mentioned is strict and unnecessary. No need to take it personally. And you don't have to argue with me over it or take it as some kind of insult. I enjoy debating these issues but if you don't then feel free to back out at anytime.
Oh I don't think it should be against the law at all. Canada's gun laws are far too restrictive for my tastes.
Yeah, I didn't word myself well. When I was typing that, I had a specific memory in mind. I visited a friend's family, where a 15-year-old had numerous loaded shotguns in his bedroom, leaning against a wall in a household with children.
Yeah. A gun nut to me isn't someone who owns 50 rifles or target shoots everyday. That's an enthusiast!
I can spot a problem, though I would have to concede it's also a problem with my data. Defencive gun use is rather ambiguous. Does it require the weapon be discharged? How do we determine when the presence of a firearm was the deciding factor?
It probably sounds like I'm trying to dance around the issue. I'm not. Methodology can so easily be skewed either direction to achieve results that one wishes to get. I take a lot of pride in trying to look at things objectively as possible. Because I can't find a study that I find satisfactory (if you'd like, I can link you a few articles stating guns were magnitudes more likely to injure in an accident than to be used in defence, but the NRA vigorously contested their results so I am choosing not to), I'll change my stance to the following: I don't know if a firearm in the home is more likely to injure a resident than is to defend a resident from injury, but my intuition thinks that it would be the former, if only because gun ownership in the US is so prevalent that there must be millions of idiots with unsecured firearms.
And this is really all I want the law to require.
Unless you think anyone should be able to own a gun, then you and I are of the same opinion on the status of gun ownership rights.
My defence of Canadian laws is that our outlook on guns is different than in the US, but that doesn't make it inferior (or make us superior, which you'll see a lot of Canadians claiming... it's another topic but our lower crime rates aren't a product of gun control).
The law is written with the intent to reduce accidental deaths. The rules outlined in it would, if followed, surely decease accidental deaths. If they're redundant is another issue.
Heh, English law is the opposite; bolts and straight pulls legal, slug-shotguns illegal.
Odd. The restriction is about range here. Some places are just too close to where people live to allow rifle use. But some hunting is legal, so they allow it only with shorter range weapons.
Where's JR to make the joke when needed....
Gun rights are in the constitution. So is liberty, yet it can be taken for a crime. I think the same applies to Gun Rights. I don't think you should have to have a licsence at all, but when you do commit a felony losing the right I have no problem with.
How woudl a store that sells guns know that the person buying the gun hasn't committed a felony?
Would you agree that they have some sort of document which says: "This guy hasn't done anything that would prevent him from buying guns"?
@OP: If you do get a gun for self-defense on the trail, go through the trouble of drilling yourself. Merely knowing how to aim and fire won't be enough, you have to figure out a comfortable way of carrying the gun with a backpack and then practise getting ready to fire in a couple of seconds. You can't afford having it tangle in your pack harness if you really need it to save your life.
I'd rather the Felon be forced to carry something that says they are not allowed...
Anyhow, if the liscense was free and available to everyone who didn't commit a felony, why not? It is de facto meaningless.
And they have to promise to show it to the gun shop owner every time they go and buy a gun so they don't get a gun.
I sense a flaw in your system
I believe you shouldn't get a gun with out extensive training on how to use said gun. To often you hear stories of some dumb hick shooting himself with his on gun on accident. Furthermore I believe ownership of weapons should be limited to military and police officer\feds. All others who enjoy hunting and such should lease a weapon from an authorized distributor and after they are done for the day or 3-4 camping they should return in.
How are those two statements compatible?
Separate names with a comma.