Case Study of a Moron

[corplinx]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200302 %5CCUL20030217b.html

This is an article by Michael L. Betsch. This illustrates the ignorance of anti-gun advocates. You would think they would at least study and become experts on the topic of something they feel strongly about.

Hunting with a long barrel revolver has become a popular hunting method. Its more sporting since the the revolver is less accurate than a rifle and its harder to steady since it has no stock.

For this moron to suggest that a 5 shot revolver thats over a foot long and weighs over 6 pounds should be banned shows that he has never held a gun and doesnt understand them in the least. Right now you can buy a 44 magnum semi automatic with 10 round capacity and quick reloads. You know why criminals don't use them? They're too friggin expensive! Criminals buy cheap guns (when they buy them). When they do get a gun worth money they go into the pawn shop down the street.

Can we get _responsible_ _knowledgable_ people to take lead of the gun control movement versus uninformed, ignorant people who have no business pushing for legislation on a topic they know _nothing_ about?

Mind you, I supported the background check system, I also support mandatory education similar to Canada. I'm not exactly some right wing basket case from a Michael Moore movie.

Edited to mention that the author of the article is no the moron in question. I found the article with google and have no idea who the author is.

[corplinx]

I most likely got the gun dimensions wrong, and I think the author may have also. I started trying to find a reliable source for real info about the gun (it was just announced recently).

In any case, the gun is very heavy and very big and is not practically concealable.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by corplinx
Can we get _responsible_ _knowledgable_ people to take lead of the gun control movement versus uninformed, ignorant people who have no business pushing for legislation on a topic they know _nothing_ about?


Can we get _responsible_ _knowledgable_ people to take lead of the gun rights movement versus uninformed, ignorant people who have no business fighting legislation on a topic they know _nothing_ about?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Can we get _responsible_ _knowledgable_ people to take lead of the gun rights movement versus uninformed, ignorant people who have no business fighting legislation on a topic they know _nothing_ about?

I don't agree with everything the Wayne LaPierre (sp?)s of the world say but they tend to be much more informed and knowledgable than anti-gun advocates here in the US.

Take trigger locks, trigger locks are horrible. The only way to safely store a gun is with a locking holster that covers the trigger or in a safe. Most guns can be fired with the trigger lock still on. They can easily be pried off.

Many gun control advocates tried to force trigger locks on people through legislation.

The pro-second amendment crowd may be totally wrong about their reading of said amendment, they may be wrong about guns and crime, but they do know their guns and how they function.

[Richard G]

The 2nd amendment is all one needs to know fighting for pro gun rights. Everything else (gun size/make model) is irrelevant.

Thats a hunting gun, but it isn't the biggest. Their have been bigger, single shot hanguns for years.

[synaesthesia]

Frankly, that size of gun is considerably more effective for large game than for humans. A smaller caliber capable of accurately following up the initial shot would be far more combat effective.

That's why many prefer the 30.06 to the 30.8.

America and gun control.....

Firearm homicides annually :

USA 11,127
Germany 381
France 255
Canada 165
United Kingdom 68
Japan 39

I hereby nominate the USA for a national Darwin Award.

:)

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by corplinx

Hunting with a long barrel revolver has become a popular hunting method. Its more sporting since the the revolver is less accurate than a rifle and its harder to steady since it has no stock.

Why is it more sporting to hunt with a weapon of inferior accuracy? I used to hunt myself and I learned to shoot as precise as possible to ensure the game is killed with the first shot to prevent unneccessary suffering.
Using handguns for hunting means willfully increasing the risk of a bad shot, how intelligent is that?

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
America and gun control.....

Firearm homicides annually :

USA 11,127
Germany 381
France 255
Canada 165
United Kingdom 68
Japan 39

I hereby nominate the USA for a national Darwin Award.

:)

Do we have any per capita statistics? As they are presented they are practically meaningless - and I thought that when I watched the documentary :p

Sou

against population, I will multiply the figures for all the other countries to see the number produced at that rate for the equivalent of the population of the USA.

USA 11,127 (265M)
Canada 165 (30M) ( x 8.83 = 1456)
Germany 381 (81M) (x 3.27 = 1245)
France 255 (58M) (x 4.56 = 1162)
United Kingdom 68 (59M) (x 4.49 = 305)
Japan 39 (125M) ( x 2.12 = 82)

Looks like Darwin Award material to me.

[Occasional Chemist]

Without taking sides on the debate on banning this particular firearm, there's a great deal of foolishness to go around on both sides here.

From the article...


"He's quite ignorant because there are people who do," Pratt said. "I do know for a fact that people take large caliber handguns with them to go hunting. And, I have no doubt that if you were lucky enough to get close enough, you could take a deer down with a .44 Magnum, which until now, was the biggest gun around."


So Pratt's point is, perhaps, that there are some stupid hunters using handguns to hunt? I mean, if you're looking to bag some game, you'd at least want a weapon that's easy to aim and shoot.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
America and gun control.....

Firearm homicides annually :

USA 11,127
Germany 381
France 255
Canada 165
United Kingdom 68
Japan 39

I hereby nominate the USA for a national Darwin Award.

:)

Yeah most all of those deaths in the USA are those stupid ignorant immigrants from Germany, France, Canada, and mostly the UK.

We have good ole boys waiting in trees and on hills for a funny accent. I have to dodge mortar rounds every morning. :eek:

[Soubrette]

Out of interest Geoff - can you break that down further into countries with similar gun laws? I mean, does France have more severe or less severe gunlaws than the UK or the US say?

And what about countries like Switzerland - do they have similar laws to the US and similar gun deaths?

Sou

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by corplinx

Hunting with a long barrel revolver has become a popular hunting method.


The idiots, it seems, have been breeding.


Its more sporting since the the revolver is less accurate than a rifle and its harder to steady since it has no stock.


I believe that rather succinctly gives the reasons its silly to hunt with a revolver, yes. :)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
against population, I will multiply the figures for all the other countries to see the number produced at that rate for the equivalent of the population of the USA.

USA 11,127 (265M)
Canada 165 (30M) ( x 8.83 = 1456)
Germany 381 (81M) (x 3.27 = 1245)
France 255 (58M) (x 4.56 = 1162)
United Kingdom 68 (59M) (x 4.49 = 305)
Japan 39 (125M) ( x 2.12 = 82)

Looks like Darwin Award material to me.

Still not very useful. This information would need to be compared to total homicide rates to be relevant.

Until then, the availability of guns makes those statistics about as useful as comparing the number of people who die from drowning for the UK and Saudi Arabia. There are plenty of other ways to kill people besides guns.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


I believe that rather succinctly gives the reasons its silly to hunt with a revolver, yes. :)

uh, some folks have fun hunting. What you have never rock hunted a puma? Make sure your aim is on, or else.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by LeFevre

We have good ole boys waiting in trees and on hills for a funny accent. I have to dodge mortar rounds every morning. :eek:

Luckily, they're using handguns - so they don't hit you too often. ;)

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by LeFevre

What you have never rock hunted a puma? Make sure your aim is on, or else.

I prefer using harsh language to hunt grizzly bears. You've really got to cuss like a sailor to take down a grizzly.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Luckily, they're using handguns - so they don't hit you too often. ;)

well I dont leave without my citizen issued USA Body Armor, you actually leave your home without it? I took a slug to the face the other day, but my USABA saved the day!

Originally posted by Soubrette
Out of interest Geoff - can you break that down further into countries with similar gun laws? I mean, does France have more severe or less severe gunlaws than the UK or the US say?

And what about countries like Switzerland - do they have similar laws to the US and similar gun deaths?

Sou

Canada has similar gun availability as the US (I believe). I think that firearm legislation across Europe is roughly in line with British laws.

Le Fevre :

Yes, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. Guns are pretty effective though, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

This sets up a circular argument anyway - if it turns out that the US has a high homicide rate in general you will say that this means that the firearm homicide rate is just a reflection of a high homicide rate in general, and if the US has a low homicide rate in comparison to the firearm homicide rate then you will say that people in the US just use guns instead of other methods.

The figures stand on their own. I do not believe that all of those firearm homicides would have been non-firearm homicides if Americans didn't take their guns to bed with them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/05/04/ncrim04.xml


.....homicide rates are lower in Britain than elsewhere. In England and Wales, the rate is 1.45 per 100,000 compared with 1.63 in France, 1.28 in Germany and 2.60 in Spain.

The highest murder rates are in South Africa, where there were 23,800 homicides in 1999 at a rate of 56.49; Russia with nearly 30,000 (20.5); and America, where there have been dramatic falls in crime, with 15,000 homicides at a rate of 6.26 per 100,000 population.


So the homicide rate in America is 4 or 5 times that in the European countries mentioned.

[Victor Danilchenko]

As I recall, once you take USA out of the picture, there is no significant correlation between firearm homicide rates and ownership rates across all the other countries; which is to say that, statistically, USA is an anomaly, and that USA firearm homicide statistics cannot be construed to say anything useful about the danger of gun ownership.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by LeFevre

well I dont leave without my citizen issued USA Body Armor, you actually leave your home without it?

Actually, there are those (mostly in law enforcement) who think that Joe Citizen should not be allowed to wear that body armor. For example, let's hear what Saluda County (SC) Sheriff Joe Booth has to say on the matter:


"I don't think anyone who is not in law enforcement should own body armor."

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant



Le Fevre :

Yes, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. Guns are pretty effective though, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:

This sets up a circular argument anyway - if it turns out that the US has a high homicide rate in general you will say that this means that the firearm homicide rate is just a reflection of a high homicide rate in general, and if the US has a low homicide rate in comparison to the firearm homicide rate then you will say that people in the US just use guns instead of other methods.

The figures stand on their own. I do not believe that all of those firearm homicides would have been non-firearm homicides if Americans didn't take their guns to bed with them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/05/04/ncrim04.xml



So the homicide rate in America is 4 or 5 times that in the European countries mentioned.

sure thing there UCE, but that doesnt matter to me. I am a selfish American pig :D . Well really I am. I am mostly only concerned with myself and my family. I haven't killed anyone (with a firearm :) ). I dont currently own a gun, but my parents do (and I am very glad for that). When I lived with them, I didn't steal their guns and go on a killing spree.

I guess many (me included) are more interested in our own personal protection. I would rather have the option to call the cops and still have a firearm for a last resort. I accept the dangers that come along with it.


Rock hunting pumas is still fun!

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Yes, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. Guns are pretty effective though, wouldn't you say? :rolleyes:



So are vehicles. So are knives. So what?



This sets up a circular argument anyway - if it turns out that the US has a high homicide rate in general you will say that this means that the firearm homicide rate is just a reflection of a high homicide rate in general, and if the US has a low homicide rate in comparison to the firearm homicide rate then you will say that people in the US just use guns instead of other methods.



Don't you think that an assumption of what someone will claim before the fact is a little intellectually dishonest?




The figures stand on their own. I do not believe that all of those firearm homicides would have been non-firearm homicides if Americans didn't take their guns to bed with them.



Why not?



So the homicide rate in America is 4 or 5 times that in the European countries mentioned.

Why the assumption that this has to do with gun control?

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
You would think they would at least study and become experts on the topic of something they feel strongly about.

Probably because the one's I've seen, like John Lott, end up switching sides after they study it.

Can we get _responsible_ _knowledgable_ people to take lead of the gun control movement versus uninformed, ignorant people who have no business pushing for legislation on a topic they know _nothing_ about?

I'd like to see a responsible, knowledgeable gun control advocate in the first place.

From the article:

He claimed handguns in general are specifically designed kill fellow human beings, whereas rifles and shotguns are typically relegated to hunting animals.

In the past five years in my home county, there have been four murders committed with firearms. All of them were with shotguns. There has not been a single handgun murder in this county in at least five years, despite a higher-than-average rate of gun ownership.

According to the 2001 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, of 13,752 total murders, less than half (6,790) were committed with handguns.

In other words, it's not true.

"You don't go out hunting deer with a revolver," Davis said.

Check the sig.

[shanek]

UCE: Why don't you include figures from Switzerland? Amazing how gun control advocates always seem to leave that country out...

[fishbob]

We Americans like our toys. We don't need 200 mph motorcycles, but we can have them. We don't need 150 mph sports cars, but we can have them. We don't need 60 mph jet boats, or 100 mph snow machines, or hang gliders, or skate boards but we can have them. And we don't need 50 caliber hand guns, but we can have them.

Car wrecks kill 4 or 5 times as many Americans per year than guns. And we like it.

Lung cancer caused by smoking kills even more Americans each year. And we apparently like that too.

I wonder if is even possible to to legislate bans on our toys and remain as free a society as we are.

[Richard G]

As a hunter, I'm taking serious offense to these claims that hangun hunting isn't sporting. Get your ass out in the bush with me, and, highlighting a point made previously that handguns are less accurate, get within the 20 yards it takes to accurately bring down a bear. You see, using a hangun means one has to get CLOSER to the game. Hunting bear with a handgun takes alot more guts, and skill than picking them off from over 100 yards with a rifle.

Even more challenging, are the fellows that bow hunt. That is the ultimate test of ones hunting skill.

Arguing over calibre size is stupid. A well placed shot with a .22 is just as lethal as one placed with a .50 cal BMG.

As a result of the freedoms I enjoy here, like no other place in the world, I and my family are safe, even my daughters when I am not home to protect them, I have a relaxing hobby, I can bag free steaks every year, and no corrupt govt. will infringe my liberties without paying a dear price.

The United States will not surrender their arms. We are free, and with freedom comes personal responsibility. You cannot breach the freedoms and rights of everyone because of the irresponsible actions of a few.

That being said, reflect on this:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99-100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." George Washington

[shanek]

Okay, here's a site which uses the same "logic" as the gun control advocates to "prove" that it's actually a failure to prosecute adultery laws which leads to higher homicide rates.

http://christianparty.net/murdrateworld.htm

As far as I know, this site is serious.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


This sets up a circular argument anyway - if it turns out that the US has a high homicide rate in general you will say that this means that the firearm homicide rate is just a reflection of a high homicide rate in general, and if the US has a low homicide rate in comparison to the firearm homicide rate then you will say that people in the US just use guns instead of other methods.



It is necessary to look at the overall homicide rate in order to be known if a society is more or less violent. To look only at gun homicides gets you nowhere since gun are not equally available in all countries. What you are left with is apples and oranges.

If I wanted to kill some one in Japan, would I use a gun? How would I get it? Use a knife instead?

If the US has a higher homicide rate per capita and a higher gun homicide rate per capita, then the gun may play be part of the problem. Not absolute proof, since other factors are involved.

If the US has a lower overall homicide rate per capita, then the guns may be helping prevent some killings. Again, this is not an absolute proof.

UCE,

You assume too much. You looked at a few raw figures that are inflammatory and don't provide a useful measure by themselves. When challenged by Sou, you did look a little closer, but again those numbers only tell us about a homicide rate with little additional context. But when I challenged you, you suddenly decided to not look. Bias problem? You figure that since I am an American that I must be pro-gun? Neither the world nor my view of it are that simple.

The funny thing is I would bet that the per capita homicide rate in the US is probably higher than most countries.

Your approach to reason appears to be as follows:

1.) Look for numbers that appear to support your position.
2.) Don't look any further.

Not very skeptical.

Originally posted by shanek
UCE: Why don't you include figures from Switzerland? Amazing how gun control advocates always seem to leave that country out...

I didn't have them. I have spent a lot of time working in Swizerland though. It has the lowest crime rate in Europe. Bern is the only European capital where you can leave a car unlocked with a briefcase on the back seat, and come back fully expecting it still to be there.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, here's a site which uses the same "logic" as the gun control advocates to "prove" that it's actually a failure to prosecute adultery laws which leads to higher homicide rates.


As far as statistics goes, you won't find many particularly good arguments on either side of the gun control fence - mainly because of the number of uncontrolled variables in the data being presented. Whenever politics is involved, you can be sure statistics will be abused.

This site, though, is particularly silly. Good link! :)

[Soubrette]

Just a quick point.

I wasn't challenging Geoff - I genuinely wanted to know more.

I'm ambivalent towards the pro/anti gun issues in the US. I'm happy with our tougher gun laws in the UK

I could change my mind on both though - given convincing information (sorry Richard G - rampaging squirrels ain't convincing enough for me :p)

Sou

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


I believe that rather succinctly gives the reasons its silly to hunt with a revolver, yes. :)

Look, hunting isn't much of a sport sitting up in a deer stand with a high powered rifle with a scope with enough magnification to see up a deer's nose.

Mind you, I do not hunt, but I have family who do. The harder it is to bag your game, the more sporting it is. This is why bowhunting is considered to be one of the most sporting ways of hunting.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
which is to say that, statistically, USA is an anomaly,

I'm completely with you here :D

Schtonk

Zee

[shanek]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I didn't have them. I have spent a lot of time working in Swizerland though. It has the lowest crime rate in Europe. Bern is the only European capital where you can leave a car unlocked with a briefcase on the back seat, and come back fully expecting it still to be there.

And all that, with the highest rate of gun ownership. Imagine...

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As I recall, once you take USA out of the picture, there is no significant correlation between firearm homicide rates and ownership rates across all the other countries; which is to say that, statistically, USA is an anomaly, and that USA firearm homicide statistics cannot be construed to say anything useful about the danger of gun ownership.

No, just something useful about being trigger-happy gun freaks. ;)

shanek


And all that, with the highest rate of gun ownership. Imagine...


This isn't anything more surprising than Michael Moores comments about Canada. Similar gun availability, quarter the firearm homicide rate. The rate of Americans firearm homicides is not because of the availability of the guns - that just makes it possible. The difference between the US and Canada is the attitude of the person holding the gun. Shoot first. Think later.

[Shane Costello]

Undercover Elephant,

You're forgetting that one part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is creaking under the weight of illegal firearms, and despite Tony asking them very nicely, the murder gangs don't want to give them up.

[Jon_in_london]

Look, Im not anti-hunting so long as what you shoot is for the pot. But I just cant see how anyone can call it sport.

Sport involves a contest between two roughly equal sides. So until the deer/bear/fox/platypus whatever also get firearms it aint sport to me!

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G

Even more challenging, are the fellows that bow hunt. That is the ultimate test of ones hunting skill

Great. Killing animals for fun. That is REALLY a great "sport".

[Shane Costello]

Considering the brutality that's inherent in the natural world, the deer/bear/fox/platypus that's clinically dispatched by the hunters bullet is a very lucky animal indeed.

[armageddonman]

An arrow doesn't "clinically dispatch" an animal. Besides that, an animal that lives is certainly happier than his fellow that was killed by someone who gets a kick out of doing so.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
An arrow doesn't "clinically dispatch" an animal.

I've wondered about that myself. Bears are hunted with bows, and I'd like to know if this is an humane means of killing them.

Besides that, an animal that lives is certainly happier than his fellow that was killed by someone who gets a kick out of doing so.

That an animal lives is beside the point. It will die sometime. Some end up starving and freezing to death in the winter. Some are killed and eaten by other animals. Some will sustain injuries and endure very painful, lingering deaths. Older animals will be killed by rivals or end up enduring one of the above exits. A painless death simply isn't an option in the natural world. Mother Nature doesn't run a welfare state. LIvestock have better living conditions than wildlife, simply because it is in our selfish interests that it be so.

So maybe you should stop and think before mindlessly peddling the PETA line.

[Jon_in_london]

Shane, by your logic- it would be fine for me to shoot you since you are going to die at some time anyway.

That an animal lives is beside the point. It will die sometime.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_London:


Shane, by your logic- it would be fine for me to shoot you since you are going to die at some time anyway.

Sweet Divine, we should start a "Strawman of the Year" competition around here! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

How on earth could my point about the harsh realities of the natural world be construed as an endorsement of the culling of old, infirm and terminally ill members of society! Are you drunk? :confused:

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
So maybe you should stop and think before mindlessly peddling the PETA line.

The intention of the hunter is NOT sparing the animal from a painful or miseable death but to enjoy killing it. I totally agree that there are cases where hunting is neccessary, e.g. to keep the population on a healthy level, but hunting for "sport" is IMHO plainly wrong.

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Undercover Elephant,

You're forgetting that one part of the UK, Northern Ireland, is creaking under the weight of illegal firearms, and despite Tony asking them very nicely, the murder gangs don't want to give them up.

Maybe true, but I think NI is a bit of a special case.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant:
Maybe true, but I think NI is a bit of a special case.

It could also be argued that the US is a special case, consdering its diverse ethnic structre, and the divergence of homicide rates between those ethnic groups.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
The intention of the hunter is NOT sparing the animal from a painful or miseable death but to enjoy killing it.

Not sure if this is an accurate representation of hunting and hunters. If you get your jollies from killing animals then you could always get a job in an abbatoir or at the dog pound. Or go on the road with Ozzy Osbourne.

I totally agree that there are cases where hunting is neccessary, e.g. to keep the population on a healthy level, but hunting for "sport" is IMHO plainly wrong.

IIRC recreational hunting is an integral part of conservation efforts to keep animal populations at manageable levels.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Jon_in_London:




Sweet Divine, we should start a "Strawman of the Year" competition around here! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

How on earth could my point about the harsh realities of the natural world be construed as an endorsement of the culling of old, infirm and terminally ill members of society! Are you drunk? :confused:

Not a strawman. Its what your logic implies.

There is a difference between culling and hunting. I must also say that you are right in saying that hunting can be important for game-park management, also good if hunters have to pay for their licenses and that money is ploughed back into the park.This is very important in the African context. Like I said earlier, i have no probs with hunting for the pot or culling for game managment but please dont try and call it a sport.

Also, there may be times when its neccesary to cull a predator (we dont tend to eat predators) but this is rare and IMO best left to rangers. So I find it hard to condone bear hunting for ex.

[Jon_in_london]

btw- Im not drunk yet but Im doing my best :p

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Jon_in_London:
Not a strawman. Its what your logic implies.

Only if you're mad enough to presume I believe there's no distinction between animals and people.

btw- Im not drunk yet but Im doing my best :p

I'm taking tomorrow off to go drinking tonight so who am I to preach.

[Richard G]

The intention of the hunter is NOT sparing the animal from a painful or miseable death but to enjoy killing it. I totally agree that there are cases where hunting is neccessary, e.g. to keep the population on a healthy level, but hunting for "sport" is IMHO plainly wrong.

Holy ****, what an incredible amount of ignorance being displayed here. We are at the top of the food chain. We are natural predators. I eat everything I kill. Where do you think that Big Mac comes from? Think they grow that stuff on trees buddy?

People today are so far removed from the food chain, unless its pre-packaged in a styrofoam box for them, they would be too stupid to go out and get it.



Great. Killing animals for fun. That is REALLY a great "sport".

I must address this idiocy. I hunt to eat. Do you think dolley the cow has any chance of surviving the slaughter house, born and bread on the farm for that very purpose? Chance of survival is zero.

Every animal I hunt is in its natural habitat, and their senses are far better than mine. They have every chance in the world to escape, and if I make one mistake, they get away every time.
As an added bonus, my meat is CLEAN. All that solmanella, and other food born disease comes from the workers and processing plants where the meat is butchered. This isn't a problem with meat I've taken myself.

IIRC recreational hunting is an integral part of conservation efforts to keep animal populations at manageable levels.

Absolutely correct. Nobody, and I mean nobody does more for wildlife conservation in this country than hunters, and hunter organisations. When the inept. Dept of Natural Resources has questions, they ask the hunters. Many time we have to get in their ass because they do more harm than good.

[Victor Danilchenko]

bjornart

No, [USA's anomalously high firearm homicide rates says] something useful about being trigger-happy gun freaks. ;)Don't be a jerk. USA has higher non-firearm homicide rates, too. Yes, USA has a cultural problem, but guns ain't it, nor are the gun owners.

Oh yeah, and your previous post says something about you being a jibe-happy unthinking freak. America-hatin' and freedom-hatin' and apple-pie-hatin' freak, too. I betcha you want to have sex with the terrorists' sheep, you evil pervert, you! :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Richard G


Holy ****, what an incredible amount of ignorance being displayed here. We are at the top of the food chain. We are natural predators. I eat everything I kill. Where do you think that Big Mac comes from? Think they grow that stuff on trees buddy?

People today are so far removed from the food chain, unless its pre-packaged in a styrofoam box for them, they would be too stupid to go out and get it.



I agree with you here, what I cant fathom is meat-eaters who are against hunting. Where do they think meat comes from???????????????????????????????????????????? :rolleyes:

But I still dont think that hunting is a sport. Kill animals for food-OK. Kill animals for the thrill- you sick cnut.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G
We are at the top of the food chain. We are natural predators.


We are neither. We have laughable claws, teeth and sense of smelling. How many animals have you caught and killed using only your hands and teeth?



I eat everything I kill. Where do you think that Big Mac comes from? Think they grow that stuff on trees buddy?



I thought it was clear that I was referring to those hunters who hunt for sport. Besides that, I don't eat Big Macs or any other meat.

[Richard G]

I thought it was clear that I was referring to those hunters who hunt for sport. Besides that, I don't eat Big Macs or any other meat.

I think at last we get to the root of the matter.

[corplinx]

Jeez, the thread I started has become a debate on the ethics of hunting. That's a subject I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

[shanek]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The rate of Americans firearm homicides is not because of the availability of the guns

At least that much we agree with.

What do you think of the fact that 2.4 million crimes are prevented every year in America by armed citizens?

[shanek]

You want one reason for the high murder rate in the US? How about the War on Drugs?

http://w3.ag.uiuc.edu:8001/Liberty/Tales/homic.gif

The first peak happened during alcohol Prohibition. The second peak starts at the onset of the War on Drugs.

I think it speaks for itself.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


At least that much we agree with.

What do you think of the fact that 2.4 million crimes are prevented every year in America by armed citizens?

Just curious, but where does this figure come from and how do they reach it?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
I prefer using harsh language to hunt grizzly bears. You've really got to cuss like a sailor to take down a grizzly.
When I go hunting, I prefer to use Daisy cutters. Sure, its expensive to call in air support, but hey, I live for the thrill of the hunt. (Plus, the food is already cooked by the time I find it.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by armageddonman
We are neither. We have laughable claws, teeth and sense of smelling.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that humans are designed to eat meat (not exclusively, but as a part of our diet)
- Our digestive system is shorter than you would expect if we were pure herbivores (plant-eaters usually need longer digestive systems to process hard-to-digest plant materials)
- Some important parts of our diets cannot easily be obtained from sources other than meat
- It is believed that protein from meat was a factor in the expansion of the human brain

And while we don't have effective claws and teeth, our intelligence as a species makes us effective predators. (Even without guns, in a pinch a group of humans can come up with a coordinated plan to kill prey.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian


Just curious, but where does this figure come from and how do they reach it?

Criminologists Dr. Gary Kleck's and Dr. Marc Gertz's National Firearms Defensive Use Survey.

You might also want to read More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by armageddonman


We are neither. We have laughable claws, teeth and sense of smelling. How many animals have you caught and killed using only your hands and teeth?




umm yeah we are predators. And a good thing too, else I dont think we would be near as smart as we are.

We used to use our hands and teeth to catch food, thinks like bugs and small animals (lizzards, rats, gods errr dogs). Then some brain picked up a nice rock and beat down a larger animal.

From our predatory intelligence we made our own claws, and really feckin long ones too (spears). We even started to make claws that could attack from a distance (chunck the spear. With an atlatl it will go further, what a breakthrough that had to be).


If we weren't predatory, we would probably have our face in the grass chewing the cud.



Do all predators need massive teeth and claws? Sharks do but that weird fish with a fleshy appendage on its face that is uses as a lure doesn't. That fish lacks the speed, power, and weapons of sharks; but it has a different method to hunt. It may be a wuss predator compared to the shark, but its belly gets filled enough that it can survive to have little fish with weird fleshy appendages on their faces.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

On the Internet, everyone knows you're John Lott (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/6/111014/4476)
"We're a little old to be playing dress up, aren't we Dr. Lott?" weblogger Julian Sanchez asked the gun rights advocate. Lott, scholar of the anti-big-gubmint American Enterprise Institute and author of More Guns, Less Crime, had used the fake identity "Mary Rosh" to promote his research.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
On the Internet, everyone knows you're John Lott (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/6/111014/4476)


And this has what, exactly, to do with the validity of his findings?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Nothing. I thought it was funny.

Criticisms of his findings here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/duncan1.html
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Criticisms of his findings here:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/lott.html

Lott's response:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Response_to_Lambert.htm

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html

Lott's response:

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_v_HCI.htm

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/duncan1.html

Lott's response:

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncan.html

Hmmm...argumentum ad hypertextium. Interesting...

[fishbob]

Shane, by your logic- it would be fine for me to shoot you since you are going to die at some time anyway.

And then you have to eat him.