If you can’t survive without four guns, I have to ask…
What the hell is wrong with you?
An 12gauge over and under for bird hunting
A 22 for small game
A 308 for larger game
A 338 for long distance targets and buffalo’s
A 4570 as a backup if you miss with the 338 and they’re not happy about it
A 410 shotgun for snakes
That’s what I personally own. Different tools for different jobs.
This 4 gun limit is a joke
I also own a 1941 303 all matching serial numbers as a collectors item.
People who don’t shoot have literally no idea. It’s as ignorant as someone asking why a family might want more than one car.
I think stockpiling guns in the same calibre is a bit iffy, particularly once you’re past the point where you might want to use irons. Imho the nsw regs are a little cooked, you usually face more scrutiny for the first gun in a category than any other when it seems that maybe the reverse should be true after a couple.
I also think stockpiling ammo is a concern, since ammo is actually the hard bit to make and the dangerous part.
At least in nsw though we had laws and regs that just needed adjustment. You had to give reasons for each gun. Strengthen checks there, have a look at limiting ammo stockpiles/requiring reasons if you buy a whole lot.
Being spoken down to by people who have only ever seen guns in a war museum is a bit painful.
Yeah, owning 6 of one gun and 1000 rounds is so different to 6 different tools and am hand full of rounds for each.
Hell i can’t even afford to have rounds for the 338 at 16 dollars a round or so it’s expensive.
303 rounds are like 10 a round now it’s crazy to have them sitting around for 5 years without using them
This is why I plink with my great depression era Winchester budget target rifle.
100 years of use and still shooting clovers.
Cool, I have zero guns, and can still survive just fine.
My point is that being limited to four guns is not an existential issue.
Well he certainly answered that question. I was initially like “yeah who tf needs more than 4 guns” but yeah I guess this does make sense.
Yeah i can’t make an argument for 10 or more beyond collecting for fun and sports shooting. But hunting you need different tools
4 ‽
How about 1 revolver and 1 hunting rifle/shotgun?
Enough for anyone. Anywhere.
They’re supposed to be tools, dangerous tools. That’s a bit like saying you’re allowed a 12mm spanner, one screwdriver and one pair of pliers for your tool kit. Deer hunting VS rabbit vd rodent, you don’t want to be firing dollar coins at rats when a high powered air rifle will do the trick. That same air rifle is useless for the deer.
you could try not wasting ammo on rats full stop
Cant bait rodents eating chicken feed as the chooks’ll eat the bait too.
High powered air rifles have very cheap ammo.
Would you deny someone that ability to have more than 4 pairs of shoes? They need to be able to accessories. /s
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
You can survive without lots of things people want.
You can survive with one outfit, without ever going camping (harms the environment after all), without soft drink or fast food, without recreational drugs, without a video games or books.
That’s poor framing. The question is does the activity someone wants to engage in (and the tools involved) represent an unfair burden or risk to others in society. Now we can have that conversation about firearms in general but this limit is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It’s entirely vibes based.
stoy@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I mean it is the gun lobby who called it “the fight of our lives”…
Also, farms can own ten guns according to the limit.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Is English a second language for you?
They did not say “this is a fight for our lives” they said “this is the fight of our lives”, for vs of do you see?
It reads as “This political fight is likely to be the most significant fight — in the context of gun regulation — that we will participate in during our time alive”.
It’s meladramatic, but that’s part of politics and rhetoric. You have to rile people up.