11 ms·

This has increasingly been on my mind lately with the discussions around firearm laws. I grew up in a relatively rural state where firearm ownership and usage w

This has increasingly been on my mind lately with the discussions around firearm laws. I grew up in a relatively rural state where firearm ownership and usage was pretty much assumed and a normal part of life because law enforcement and animal control services simply aren't available at the speed you need them in an emergency. In an urban area there are different considerations that might weigh less heavily in favor of unrestricted access to firearms. It strikes me that rural area firearm ownership might warrant a different treatment than urban area ownership. And if that's the case maybe there's a wide class of these sorts of things that we should address on a similar basis.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Really well put. The reason I'm making this Reddit-style comment is because I believe this sort of nuanced perspective is exceedingly rare in any venue that actually matters. There is little to not attempt to understand or empathize with the "other side" in these sorts of debates, usually.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's also combined with years, decades, of trying to "solve problems at the highest level" which is the federal government, and those often end up being heavy handed or failures entirely.
lamontcg 4y ago
Australia's gun laws allow pump/lever/bolt action rifles for hunting along with shotguns for rural home defense (primary producers and farm workers can buy pump shotguns). Pistols and anything semiautomatic are mostly restricted to occupations that require them. There's also exceptions for sport shooters, so rural people can start an organized gun club and actively train in order to own shotguns or pistols (a "well-regulated militia"?). This means, though, that an 18 year old is only going to be able to buy a bolt action rifle without coming under some extra scrutiny of having to join a sport shooting club.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation (though the numbers there are so staggering that it feels somewhat pointless).
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
      - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
        yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
mrtranscendence 4y ago
If getting a firearm is as easy as driving forty-five minutes outside of town, then access may as well be unrestricted.
- failTide 4y ago
  Not if there's a border checkpoint to enter cities - I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of thing at some point down the line. Like customs.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Oof, no thanks. I'm pretty anti-gun, but that sort of thing is not worth it.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  If only there was a way to check from where a person is...
- acjacobson 4y ago
  True, but it could still be treated as a crime within the city and punished accordingly. This was the premise of DC vs. Heller which overturned a DC law that banned handguns in the district.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> I grew up in a relatively rural state where firearm ownership and usage was pretty much assumed and a normal part of life because law enforcement and animal control services simply aren't available at the speed you need them in an emergency. > In an urban area there are different considerations that might weigh less heavily in favor of unrestricted access to firearms. Law enforcement isn't available at the speed you need it in an emergency, anywhere. This is often recognized in the statement "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Law enforcement's job is to enforce the laws after the fact. Animal control may be available at the required speeds just because animal-related emergencies generally allow for more time. If you have a mountain lion hanging around outside your door, you can just not go outside until it's gone.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Unless the mountain lion is attacking your children or farm animals out in the yard. Humans are extremely slow runners compared to most dangerous large animals. Even black bears, who really only attack to protect their cubs, can sprint a hell of a lot faster than humans.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  >Law enforcement isn't available at the speed you need it in an emergency, anywhere. This is often recognized in the statement "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Law enforcement's job is to enforce the laws after the fact. While this is certainly true, we're talking about the difference between minutes and hours out in the country. I am reasonably comfortable walking around town unarmed because, whether it's accurate or not, I feel like there are enough police and people around that i'm not on my own. I do not have the same level of comfort 10 miles into the mountains. >If you have a mountain lion hanging around outside your door, you can just not go outside until it's gone. This might not be obvious to someone who hasn't dealt with this problem before but the issue is not just seeing one outside your house, it's coming across a moose with cubs or a bear on a hike 10 miles from home. That is a situation where being able to make a lot of noise best case or using deadly force worst case are the different between you living or not.
  - 4y ago
UIUC_06 4y ago
Once it becomes a battlefield in the Culture Wars, you may as well stop trying to use logic. Only your own side is going to listen. To people on the anti-gun-control side, NO such law is acceptable, because it's just the thin edge of the wedge. "The pro-gun-control people are just going to pocket these gains, and push for more." Can you honestly say they're wrong?
- cowtools 4y ago
  I agree completely. In the current political climate, there's no reason for the anti-gun-control crowd to compromise with the pro-gun-control crowd: their opponents do not hold strong principles. There's no middle ground or end goal at which they would be satisfied. It's not like they're gonna throw their hands up and say "Welp, we finally passed the Ban Attachable Whatevers Act, this is enough gun control, let's go home now"
bobthepanda 4y ago
This is true but also somewhat incomplete. A big source of guns in areas that do have strict gun control in the US is other states. The recent shooting in the NYC subway, for example, was perpetrated by a man from Milwaukee, WI. With no such thing as internal border checks within the US, it would be quite difficult to maintain a two-tier gun control system.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  Are you saying you consider Milwaukee rural? Half a million people live there and it's the most populous place in WI.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    More meant to illustrate how porous state borders are with guns despite the varying legal regimes en route. Rural-urban borders are even more porous, if anything. So many roads to cover.
trgn 4y ago
The distinction between rural and city life is absolutely fundamental, since the dawn of civilization that's been the case. For a relatively recent acknowledgement of this; the Kentucky flag is a frontiersman shaking hands with a city slicker. This distinction between rural and urban was still very keenly felt, only two centuries ago. That started to fray when the car allowed the city to engulf the country-side; people wanted to have their cake and eat it. The wealth and splendor of the city, with the bucolic serenity of the countryside. Cruel irony that the majority of our living environment is that we now have neither.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

Really well put. The reason I'm making this Reddit-style comment is because I believe this sort of nuanced perspective is exceedingly rare in any venue that actually matters. There is little to not attempt to understand or empathize with the "other side" in these sorts of debates, usually.

bombcar 4y ago
It's also combined with years, decades, of trying to "solve problems at the highest level" which is the federal government, and those often end up being heavy handed or failures entirely.

lamontcg 4y ago

Australia's gun laws allow pump/lever/bolt action rifles for hunting along with shotguns for rural home defense (primary producers and farm workers can buy pump shotguns). Pistols and anything semiautomatic are mostly restricted to occupations that require them. There's also exceptions for sport shooters, so rural people can start an organized gun club and actively train in order to own shotguns or pistols (a "well-regulated militia"?). This means, though, that an 18 year old is only going to be able to buy a bolt action rifle without coming under some extra scrutiny of having to join a sport shooting club.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation (though the numbers there are so staggering that it feels somewhat pointless).
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
    - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
      yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.

mrtranscendence 4y ago

If getting a firearm is as easy as driving forty-five minutes outside of town, then access may as well be unrestricted.

failTide 4y ago
Not if there's a border checkpoint to enter cities - I wouldn't be surprised to see that sort of thing at some point down the line. Like customs.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Oof, no thanks. I'm pretty anti-gun, but that sort of thing is not worth it.
Kbelicius 4y ago
If only there was a way to check from where a person is...
acjacobson 4y ago
True, but it could still be treated as a crime within the city and punished accordingly. This was the premise of DC vs. Heller which overturned a DC law that banned handguns in the district.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> I grew up in a relatively rural state where firearm ownership and usage was pretty much assumed and a normal part of life because law enforcement and animal control services simply aren't available at the speed you need them in an emergency. > In an urban area there are different considerations that might weigh less heavily in favor of unrestricted access to firearms. Law enforcement isn't available at the speed you need it in an emergency, anywhere. This is often recognized in the statement "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Law enforcement's job is to enforce the laws after the fact. Animal control may be available at the required speeds just because animal-related emergencies generally allow for more time. If you have a mountain lion hanging around outside your door, you can just not go outside until it's gone.

zdragnar 4y ago
Unless the mountain lion is attacking your children or farm animals out in the yard. Humans are extremely slow runners compared to most dangerous large animals. Even black bears, who really only attack to protect their cubs, can sprint a hell of a lot faster than humans.
idiotsecant 4y ago
>Law enforcement isn't available at the speed you need it in an emergency, anywhere. This is often recognized in the statement "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Law enforcement's job is to enforce the laws after the fact. While this is certainly true, we're talking about the difference between minutes and hours out in the country. I am reasonably comfortable walking around town unarmed because, whether it's accurate or not, I feel like there are enough police and people around that i'm not on my own. I do not have the same level of comfort 10 miles into the mountains. >If you have a mountain lion hanging around outside your door, you can just not go outside until it's gone. This might not be obvious to someone who hasn't dealt with this problem before but the issue is not just seeing one outside your house, it's coming across a moose with cubs or a bear on a hike 10 miles from home. That is a situation where being able to make a lot of noise best case or using deadly force worst case are the different between you living or not.
- 4y ago

UIUC_06 4y ago

Once it becomes a battlefield in the Culture Wars, you may as well stop trying to use logic. Only your own side is going to listen. To people on the anti-gun-control side, NO such law is acceptable, because it's just the thin edge of the wedge. "The pro-gun-control people are just going to pocket these gains, and push for more." Can you honestly say they're wrong?

cowtools 4y ago
I agree completely. In the current political climate, there's no reason for the anti-gun-control crowd to compromise with the pro-gun-control crowd: their opponents do not hold strong principles. There's no middle ground or end goal at which they would be satisfied. It's not like they're gonna throw their hands up and say "Welp, we finally passed the Ban Attachable Whatevers Act, this is enough gun control, let's go home now"

bobthepanda 4y ago

This is true but also somewhat incomplete. A big source of guns in areas that do have strict gun control in the US is other states. The recent shooting in the NYC subway, for example, was perpetrated by a man from Milwaukee, WI. With no such thing as internal border checks within the US, it would be quite difficult to maintain a two-tier gun control system.

idiotsecant 4y ago
Are you saying you consider Milwaukee rural? Half a million people live there and it's the most populous place in WI.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  More meant to illustrate how porous state borders are with guns despite the varying legal regimes en route. Rural-urban borders are even more porous, if anything. So many roads to cover.

trgn 4y ago

The distinction between rural and city life is absolutely fundamental, since the dawn of civilization that's been the case. For a relatively recent acknowledgement of this; the Kentucky flag is a frontiersman shaking hands with a city slicker. This distinction between rural and urban was still very keenly felt, only two centuries ago. That started to fray when the car allowed the city to engulf the country-side; people wanted to have their cake and eat it. The wealth and splendor of the city, with the bucolic serenity of the countryside. Cruel irony that the majority of our living environment is that we now have neither.