3 ms·
I live in Los Angeles and I used to feel that way until this pandemic hit - I'm not saying you'll change your mind living in NYC, just sharing my change in pers
by akiselev 6y ago
I live in Los Angeles and I used to feel that way until this pandemic hit - I'm not saying you'll change your mind living in NYC, just sharing my change in perspective. I bugged out mid-March to a family farm to wait out the pandemic and since then its been a nonstop string of events reinforcing why - at least outside of cities - guns are absolutely necessary. Now, mind you, one member of the household works at a research institute in San Diego with a 40 minute commute so this isn't even really rural, just exurban, but we've got septic, well, propane tank, and depend on 4G internet.
The nearest police station is 15 minutes away if I drive 100mph but writing this post is the first time I've thought about that fact. The bigger problem is animals: we've never once been able to reach our area's animal control or get a call back from them, no matter when we call. Most situations we can handle ourselves like dealing with rattlesnakes but last year a mountain lion ate our neighbor's goat and the only way to get rid of it was to shoot at it (or over it, as I found most people here won't kill rare animals unless absolutely forced to).
We've got several pets and feral cat decided to make herself home in our shed, giving birth to a full litter right before a large group of giant raccoons migrated to our area. If the raccoons in NYC are anything like the ones here, they're huge with the mammalian equivalent of alligator hide. Scaring them doesn't really work without a gun and nothing but a proper firearm will do more than piss it off and wound it, which will just make it more dangerous. The options are a) put your pets at risk every time you let them out at night, b) weapons that will only cause inhumane damage to the animal, or c) a real gun. If you're the kind of individual that values life as an inherent good but prioritizes the safety of family and pets, guns become the only realistic humane option.
Now, the ironic part is that most people I know here should absolutely not be allowed to own a gun if they lived in the city. Some of them have really warped views of human civilization that led them to live further out (rapists and murderers around every corner) and seem to relish the idea of "defending themselves" with a gun. However, the very idea of them getting enough warning to get to their gun fast enough to actually manage to load it and shoot an assailant is just laughable. Most people here use their guns so infrequently outside of LARPing at a shooting range that when it comes time to use the workhorse gun instead of their assault rifle props, they spend 15 minutes trying to figure out how to use it while the animal just stands there, confused.
As far as I know, most countries with strict gun control still leave a loophole for rural residents big enough to drive a train through. However, most of those countries have sane gun cultures where they treat them as dangerous tools and not as religious idols. Now having experienced the damage guns do in inner cities and their necessity further out from civilization, I'm torn on the issue and I don't see a way out.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago> most countries with strict gun control still leave a loophole for rural residents The primary loophole being the ability and willingness of countries other than the rich ones to enforce laws like that in their rural areas. People having guns (or anything really) they shouldn't per the letter of the law is like bottom of the priority list. The local police in rural South America, Asia and Eastern Europe have much bigger fish to fry.
- wl 6y agoThe guns rural people tend to need are rifles. The guns that you see used in cities are almost entirely handguns. The concentration on scary black rifles is misguided unless you only focus on mass shootings, which make up a tiny fraction of firearm homicides.
- akiselev 6y ago> The guns rural people tend to need are rifles. A sibling comment mentioned the value of an AR15 for shooting at coyotes near a chicken coup without collateral damage which I hadn't even considered so I think this also depends on the geography and community. I'm in a mountainous part of the county with mostly 2-10 acre properties that often butt up against each other with buildings clustered on the largest available pieces of continuous flat land. Shooting a high powered rifle in this environment would be extremely dangerous because we've got half a dozen neighbors' houses well within the range of a rifle, all at weird angles above and below the horizon on one side of the property. Someone who hasn't had proper training in fire arm use - as in training under pressure, not just gun range safety - could easily fire off a shot that kills a neighbor. Everyone here who shoots rifles does it into an unpopulated distant mountain side or into a big hill on their property. > The concentration on scary black rifles is misguided unless you only focus on mass shootings, which make up a tiny fraction of firearm homicides. I disagree. The key to understanding the different sides gun control issue is exactly what I've been talking about - understanding different perspectives. The suburban white mom who worries about her child accidentally shooting themselves at a friend's house, the young adult who is worried about getting shot at the mall, and the urban black mom who is mostly worried about her child catching a stray bullet from a street or gang dispute are only ostensibly fighting for the same thing. Those are really three separate issues with their own really complex interactions with constitutional law, mental health, social justice, and community. The three groups are forced under one banner largely because of our two party system, but their views should be analyzed independently. That the media focuses on the group with the most disposable income and the most visceral imagery shouldn't surprise anyone