4 ms·

I find the law that requires you to carry a firearm more interesting: https://www.sysselmannen.no/en/weapon/ https://www.sysselmannen.no/en/weapon/ Being a rem

I find the law that requires you to carry a firearm more interesting: https://www.sysselmannen.no/en/weapon/ https://www.sysselmannen.no/en/weapon/ Being a remote town in the far north with unusual day/nighy cycles does require some strange laws to keep everyone safe and sane I guess. Also, Tom has been there ofc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJ-ze2-SqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJ-ze2-SqU

k__ 6y ago
Gives me a bit of a Skyrim vibe, haha.
paranoidrobot 6y ago
> I find the law that requires you to carry a firearm more interesting That's not quite what it says. Firearms are only a recommendation. > Due to the polar bear threat in Svalbard, anyone travelling outside the settlements must be equipped with appropriate means of frightening and chasing off polar bears. > The Governor of Svalbard also recommends having firearms with you.
- bovermyer 6y ago
  There are levels of risk I am not prepared to accept. I'll carry an assault shotgun, an assault rifle, and a dedicated ammunition-hauling dog with me if I go outside a town in Svalbard.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    What is an assault shotgun, one painted black and with a bayonet mounted? I think you can have something like this in Fallout.
    - _bin_ 6y ago
      SPAS-12, AA-12, or similar? Or maybe he's referring to one like the Ithica 37 with slam fire capabilities? The guy really just needs a M1 Garand.
  - _bin_ 6y ago
    I hope not: although, say, an M16 is a good weapon, you'd do better with something chambered in a full rifle cartridge (e.g. .30-06) against a bear rather than an intermediate cartridge
    - bovermyer 6y ago
      Alright, fine, then an FGM-148. If a polar bear is charging me, I want his ancestors to feel what I'm going to do to him.
  - Clewza313 6y ago
    You can skip the dog. A polar bear can sprint at 40 km/h, so if you're attacked by one, you'll be lucky if you can squeeze off more than one or two shots.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  Interesting. When I visited a few years ago I was told that you were required to carry a rifle outside of town to protect from the bears and that a handgun wouldn't be sufficient to protect from a mature polar bear. I guess the guide exaggerated.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    That isn't necessarily a contradiction. A handgun may well not have the stopping power. But something like pepper spray (bear mace) might.
donw 6y ago
Requiring citizens to keep arms was actually quite common up until the 1800s, with some municipalities actually purchasing firearms for residents, with the expectation that they would be paid back as was manageable.
- iso1210 6y ago
  In which countries?
  - thrower123 6y ago
    Nearly all of them, at least up through the end of the Napoleonic Wars. I believe it became less popular with the popular revolutions of 1848 and the advent of universal conscription.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      I'm not a historian, but this doesn't match my understanding; that true weapons like swords and crossbows tended to be restricted, and peasants used scythes, clubs, etc. instead. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/268dmc/how_were_sidearms_swords_knives_etc_regulated_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/268dmc/how_w...
      - iso1210 6y ago
        Arround 1400, the King proclaimed that "every Englishman or Irishman dwelling in England must have a bow of his own height", at one point Tennis was banned to give more time to bow practice. By 1500s every man had to buy his 7 year old son a bow and teach him how to use it, and a bow+arrows must be kept in everyones house. Crossbows on the other hand were practically banned, but this was more because a highly skilled longbowman was more deadly
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        That's fairly unique to England, though, whose military power relied on longbows in a way not matched by rivals.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
Killing polar bears there is prohibited though (they're a protected species). It's only allowed if it's the absolute last resort. So it's not like people are going around shooting up polar bears for fun or anything :)

k__ 6y ago

Gives me a bit of a Skyrim vibe, haha.

paranoidrobot 6y ago

> I find the law that requires you to carry a firearm more interesting That's not quite what it says. Firearms are only a recommendation. > Due to the polar bear threat in Svalbard, anyone travelling outside the settlements must be equipped with appropriate means of frightening and chasing off polar bears. > The Governor of Svalbard also recommends having firearms with you.

bovermyer 6y ago
There are levels of risk I am not prepared to accept. I'll carry an assault shotgun, an assault rifle, and a dedicated ammunition-hauling dog with me if I go outside a town in Svalbard.
- AdrianB1 6y ago
  What is an assault shotgun, one painted black and with a bayonet mounted? I think you can have something like this in Fallout.
  - _bin_ 6y ago
    SPAS-12, AA-12, or similar? Or maybe he's referring to one like the Ithica 37 with slam fire capabilities? The guy really just needs a M1 Garand.
- _bin_ 6y ago
  I hope not: although, say, an M16 is a good weapon, you'd do better with something chambered in a full rifle cartridge (e.g. .30-06) against a bear rather than an intermediate cartridge
  - bovermyer 6y ago
    Alright, fine, then an FGM-148. If a polar bear is charging me, I want his ancestors to feel what I'm going to do to him.
- Clewza313 6y ago
  You can skip the dog. A polar bear can sprint at 40 km/h, so if you're attacked by one, you'll be lucky if you can squeeze off more than one or two shots.
ajmurmann 6y ago
Interesting. When I visited a few years ago I was told that you were required to carry a rifle outside of town to protect from the bears and that a handgun wouldn't be sufficient to protect from a mature polar bear. I guess the guide exaggerated.
- TylerE 6y ago
  That isn't necessarily a contradiction. A handgun may well not have the stopping power. But something like pepper spray (bear mace) might.

donw 6y ago

Requiring citizens to keep arms was actually quite common up until the 1800s, with some municipalities actually purchasing firearms for residents, with the expectation that they would be paid back as was manageable.

iso1210 6y ago
In which countries?
- thrower123 6y ago
  Nearly all of them, at least up through the end of the Napoleonic Wars. I believe it became less popular with the popular revolutions of 1848 and the advent of universal conscription.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    I'm not a historian, but this doesn't match my understanding; that true weapons like swords and crossbows tended to be restricted, and peasants used scythes, clubs, etc. instead. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/268dmc/how_were_sidearms_swords_knives_etc_regulated_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/268dmc/how_w...
    - iso1210 6y ago
      Arround 1400, the King proclaimed that "every Englishman or Irishman dwelling in England must have a bow of his own height", at one point Tennis was banned to give more time to bow practice. By 1500s every man had to buy his 7 year old son a bow and teach him how to use it, and a bow+arrows must be kept in everyones house. Crossbows on the other hand were practically banned, but this was more because a highly skilled longbowman was more deadly
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        That's fairly unique to England, though, whose military power relied on longbows in a way not matched by rivals.

GekkePrutser 6y ago

Killing polar bears there is prohibited though (they're a protected species). It's only allowed if it's the absolute last resort. So it's not like people are going around shooting up polar bears for fun or anything :)