And yet the NRA isn’t working to keep guns out of the hands of non-adjudicated felons, either.
1 Like
Well, I guess that just demonstrates the polarizing nature of these discussions, “you’re either with us, or agin’ us!” I was merely chiming in to say that guns can be needed on farms. (Hell, even without livestock, just merely crops, you might want a shotgun to scare away the crows. Although, good luck with that. Crafty bastards.) I’m certainly not saying that everyone should have unconditional access to guns. As to the quote from Space_Monkey, protecting livestock does seem to me a legitimate reason to have a shotgun or bolt-action rifle. (He says “at least.” Not certain why you’d need something more than those two, though.) This doesn’t mean I feel that there should be no safeguards to protect the public, that there shouldn’t be more effort to verify that there is a genuine need, that the user is trained, et cetera. I’m just saying it’s a useful tool for this particular situation.
No apology needed. I wasn’t that upset, just exasperated.
3 Likes
Well, yes, it does get emotional so I’m glad we can keep it civil.
I agree that people need to protect their property but, in my opinion, protecting people should always have precedence. Hence, guns should always be a very strictly regulated, last resort option. And from what I gather, even in the cases you mention, other places have found other, safer solutions that are just as effective.
Another example: My wife and I worked on vineyards in New Zealand for a while. They had big “cannons” which just produced really loud bangs and, as far as I could tell, were quite successful in keeping crows away. I think they were gas operated and automated, thus probably also cheaper than having a person fire shotgun rounds.
In other cases (the wild dingo example) there might of course be a trade-off between effectivity and security (for the humans involved). But, in the risk of repeating myself, with guns, I’d rather err on the side of caution.
2 Likes
Well, I’m not going to claim to be an expert on all farms, but in our situation, a non-commercial farm with no hired help, there did not seem to be other options, within our price range. The fences, around the property and internal, were planted in dirt, so determined critters could always get in if they were determined enough. It seemed necessary to (at least) put a good scare into them. (Usually, no dogs were hit, but hopefully being shot at convinced them not to come back.) Baiting the property with poisoned meat would have probably been more effective, but that would have been illegal.
(Sorry for those reading at home, if this all seems rather bloodthirsty. I like dogs, but have little patience for uncontrolled dogs savaging other animals. You do not want me to tell you about the rabbits. I’m sure that last sentence has painted a picture in most people’s minds, but I absolutely assure you it was worse.)
As for the crows, you’re probably right about the effectiveness of the technique mentioned, although I don’t know about the cost. Actually, we never had to shoot at the crows, as they recognized the shotgun and immediately fled the scene.
Again, I have not argued against better regulation. I have just (redundantly so, by now I think) claimed a specific situation where they have their uses.
And I am unconvinced that their usefulness outweighs the danger they represent, even in this situation. But as the public discussion circles around very different concepts (Freedom! Repression!), that feels more or less like a philosophical argument (and a question of, I don’t know, attitude?), so I’m not going to try and argue it further (unless you insist).
Can we all not agree that most people “need” their gun collection as much as most faux-country bumpkins need their quad cab with trucknutz?
They are not for the fetishists a utilitarian tool, just a lifestyle/identity/Tribalist marker, a hobby and fashion statement.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
