You're not even allowed to hunt wild boars in Germany with .223 Rem, I think. For boars you need at least 6.5 mm and 2000 J at 100 m. So that's usually full rifle calibers.
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Wow you have quite the restrictions for what you can use to hunt. I am familiar with some areas here in Canada the regulate ammo for hunting, but it is usually just caliber not energy at 100m as well. Where I am we have guidelines, but no hard rule. I have heard of plenty of guys hunting deer with .223 or 7.62x39, but most would still use 30.06 or .308, or something along those lines. No rules for what we can use on wild hogs, just kill'em all year round as they are considered an invasive species and a pest. Most prefer the smaller caliber as it allows for easier follow up shots for pests.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I'm personally not sure what the right balance is with hunting etc. Sort of deals with the whole "what is the overall human impact on nature"-thing. I was once in a really really near moose crash/close call and moose are hunted around here. So on the one hand I understand hunting but on the other it should be limited to preserve nature and how things are naturally in nature.
Agree on some level. We shouldn't hunt things to endangerment or anything like that but we should be allowed to hunt. We're part of nature, something we like to forget. Unless we speak in some religious sense, we did not manifest here as intelligent bipedal toolmakers with opposable thumbs. We are a product of nature. We essentially got to where we are and then started manipulating our resources much more efficiently and often than other species can. We're essentially just the most advanced. Look at our stature and barefisted capabilities. Can you ward off predators two or three times your size? Simple weaponry made this more possible for us. That's where we win out because we have the ability and the intelligence to create tools.
We should be allowed to hunt, it's something we naturally do in nature, even with tools.
I think something you have to consider is that Germany is a very urbanized country. As far as I can tell - but I am not an expert here mind you! Canada is really big where you can get easily lost in the woods. But here in Germany? Many boars can be actually found in densely populated areas. So maybe that is one of the reasons why we have so many restrictions about weapons. I don't know. Just guessing.
That's how quite a few species in central Europe died out. And only due to very good protections some of them make a return after decades - like the Wolf. And what is the first thing people demand? To hunt it again ... they say for safety reasons because those wolfs sometimes kill sheep.
I do not have an issue with hunting in general. Some people simply love it. So there is that. But should it be a right? I am not so sure about that. Hell not even in medieval times have you been allowed to just hunt the forests as you please. In fact hunting without the approval of the land owners could get you executed in some cases. People very early realized that if everyone hunted just how they saw fit, there would be very soon no more game to hunt in the first place.
Last edited:
This also has to do with land ownership and the act of trespassing onto someone else's land. Even though I'm in support of hunting if I owned my grandfather's land, I wouldn't let it be open ground to everyone.
I get that in a world where we farm and compress our needed food into very efficient space, hunting becomes more irrelevant. I don't think we should just hunt things until they're endangered/extinct but we should be allowed to hunt, just not everything and at all times.
I also don't like the idea that man and nature are two wholly separate things. Nature has nearly killed us before too. The difference is we can take responsibility in large scales for our impact on nature and should do so to minimize things that are caused by our population size and our efficiency at doing what we do as a species.
I don't know if I'm making any sense at this point though but dammit we're part of nature.
If we aren't the cause for a species's disappearance maybe we shouldn't save it. If we do it, we should definitely restore their population to the best of our ability. Like rhinos, eagles, etc. whatever else we've hunted to endangerment/near-extinction. And I say this because there are so many of us and we could kill most larger landlife off if we tried without even taking extreme measures.
Planet's fine, the life on it might not be.
Your second point relates to the first. We have so many weapon restrictions in Germany (and most of Europe) because it's historical. Our society slowly evolved from a feudal system where an armed populace is not really wanted. That also means highly restricted land ownership and thus hunting privileges. The US started out as a frontier, so self defense and hunting were a necessity right from the start. Gaining independence from the british crown also added the civil freedom factor, something Europe apart from Switzerland never had.
Yes different cultures with different mindsets so obviously this plays a huge role as well. But I do believe we should keep the difference in size in mind here as well. It's easy to forget how damn big the US is. How remote some locations and rural some states are. If I would live in some of the more rural parts as a farmer in the US or Canada, I would probably get my self a weapon too. Just in case. But is it really wise to have an armed population in dense urban areas? Particularly with high powered weapons which eventually penetrate doors, cars and most walls? I think this is something authorities consider as well in their decision making.
I know North Americans like to take the piss out of us Europeans due to our habit to regulate everything - which we really do. But when you have 500 Million people living in such urban environments it's somewhat of a necessity. That doesn't mean it makes always sense. But as Hass correctly said. Europe was never having something like the "frontier", vast lands where no human soul ever set a foot in. There are many different nations with long and in many instances bloody history living next to each other under one Union - hard to imagine that just 2 in some cases 1 generation ago people stopped killing each other in wars you know. Particularly the last 2 world wars are engraved in the history of the European continent.
Again Germany is compared to Canada or the US really small and we are very densely populated on top of it. It's not Mexico City but many places are urbanized, farmland or something in between. There are hunters here but it's heavily restricted. Same with fishing. If you want to do it you need a license for it. You have to know which fish to go for, what their mating seasons are and so on. We don't just have those regulations to harass people but because before we implemented them some species have been facing their extinction.
I know North Americans like to take the piss out of us Europeans due to our habit to regulate everything - which we really do. But when you have 500 Million people living in such urban environments it's somewhat of a necessity. That doesn't mean it makes always sense. But as Hass correctly said. Europe was never having something like the "frontier", vast lands where no human soul ever set a foot in. There are many different nations with long and in many instances bloody history living next to each other under one Union - hard to imagine that just 2 in some cases 1 generation ago people stopped killing each other in wars you know. Particularly the last 2 world wars are engraved in the history of the European continent.
Last edited:
I grew up on a farm and moved to a "city" in my county. And looking it up, my "city" is about two thirds the population of Vegesack, Juelich, or Leer if I looked it up correctly. It's also the largest city in my county. They still don't have high speed internet where I grew up, they were stuck with satellite when I moved out and now they have some phone service internet with a little block you turn on (essentially satellite but the latency isn't causing 2000 ping in most connections).
I'm not big on hunting but I think the basics of how to be better at it should be known and practiced some. It's a regular thing here though. We have limits on what you can hunt, how much of it you can legally hunt, and seasons for which type of weapon you can use. Starting with bow and then they allow rifles later on in the season.
I understand your concern in a city environment though. But living in my city now, I'm finding myself wanting a gun more than ever. I lock my doors, I hear people outside after midnight in the suburbs, it's weird. I go to hobby shops and if I leave after midnight I'm thinking that I might have to defend myself.
Calling the cops in some areas here has the arrival time being above 15-20 minutes and sometimes more. In the city I live in, it still takes about 5-10 on a normal response. Where I grew up, there were no police in those neck of the woods, 15 minutes was lucky. I don't want to be unarmed in a home while someone comes in there for 15 minutes.
No, I get that. I'm not trying to take the piss out of Europeans at all. I'm just explaining how I see it. If Europe doesn't need guns, that's great. I don't think the same really applies here however. Not culturally, not geographically. Maybe one day it will though. But not yet.
I know some people will hate me for this but ... *le sigh*. I think Europe could deal better with more armed people than the US currently does. Not because we are the better people or because we are the better culture. But because we have in general better safety nets for poor people. And I believe this makes a huge difference. So even if you have many firearms in circulation there is less reason to use them for crime because there is less crime in general caused by poverty. We have also not even nearly the incarceration rates like the United States. Particularly Germany has, compared to other countries, a pretty decent welfare. I think economic stability is a very important part of the equation to gun safety or decreasing violence and crime in general. Particularly with the look on school shootings and mass shootings which are a relatively new epidemic issue for the US.
I agree that a better system to help people in need and with mental health issues would reduce more crime than banning guns. I've always advocated that if we're to have a government, it needs to provide help to people not just punishments.
People who live more stable lives are less likely to commit crime and helping reduce these types of crimes is a good thing.
Privatization of the prison system probably worsened incarceration rates as well.
People who live more stable lives are less likely to commit crime and helping reduce these types of crimes is a good thing.
Privatization of the prison system probably worsened incarceration rates as well.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Hispanic male kills four in Kansas. Gun control by kicking illegals out. Trump 2020.
Last edited by a moderator:
Weapons save lives as often as they take them. But don’t forget, spooky black rifles, and scary bump stocks. It all comes back to what people perceive as an “assault weapon”. A customized Ruger .223 can be made to look like an “assault rifle” but still be the same gun.
Just shows you how much people’s personal perception of things effects their poor decision making.
Just shows you how much people’s personal perception of things effects their poor decision making.
Why not concentrate them in camps first? Will save you a lot of bullets.
Leave it to a German to come up with that efficient idea.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
"4 Dead in shootout in bar in Kansas City"
Did you crackers know where you were?
Did you crackers know where you were?
HelloLleh
LaLaLow
The NRA sucks
Remember when the Black Panthers started arming themselves because they had the right to do so and then all the Republicans and even the NRA who used to be for gun rights and the “right to bear arms”, they all started to ask for more gun control? Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford act which banned open carry of loaded firearms
I am pro-gun but I absolutely do not trust the NRA and I do not trust Republicans who claim that they’re “pro gun”, chances are the reason they’re pro gun is not because of their principles but because the firearms industry is incredibly wealthy including the NRA and they sponsor these politicians.
also, for the record, I am not a Conservative/Liberal
Remember when the Black Panthers started arming themselves because they had the right to do so and then all the Republicans and even the NRA who used to be for gun rights and the “right to bear arms”, they all started to ask for more gun control? Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford act which banned open carry of loaded firearms
I am pro-gun but I absolutely do not trust the NRA and I do not trust Republicans who claim that they’re “pro gun”, chances are the reason they’re pro gun is not because of their principles but because the firearms industry is incredibly wealthy including the NRA and they sponsor these politicians.
also, for the record, I am not a Conservative/Liberal
HelloLleh
LaLaLow
Also, shootings like the one in El Paso, Dayton, and the other School shooting, they get a lot of press coverage and in other forms of media, they sound way too common but one thing about them is that they’re a statistical anomaly, America is a big county with the third largest population count of any country
Yes, that's why they are often compared with other nations and you see that statistically they happen more often in the United States, even if you go per capita.
Besides if you really want argue like that you could throw out any kind of anti-terrorism measure because statistically? It's just a tiny anomaly.
Besides if you really want argue like that you could throw out any kind of anti-terrorism measure because statistically? It's just a tiny anomaly.
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
I don't think they are a statistical anomaly in USA anymore.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/