America's Gun Violence
Options
Comments
-
It’s our people.tweedyfanjen said:
Well put. And again our government will do nothing.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:One guy killed or injured over 500 people in (roughly) one hour?
One guy. From one vantage point. Wow.
I was in Seattle this weekend at the Seahawks game. I picked up the Pearl Jam Rolling Stone magazine on Saturday. As I was browsing the magazine rack... I saw a Guns n' Ammo magazine titled... simply... 'AR15'. There's a magazine for the gun 'enthusiast' where they can look at pictures of an AR15? At the time I saw the title... I kind of chuckled. Looking back at that moment... it seems almost a it of a foreshadowing event.
When we got back to the hotel after the game... I was mortified by the news that was unfolding in real time. Absolutely horrific.
Sorry to put it this way to the 'defenders of the right', but now is actually a moment that is supposed to concern you for the safety of your neighbours and children... not a moment where you feel the need to concern yourself for the preservation of your hobby.
This is the blueprint for the next mass murder: stay outside of security checkpoints... let people clump together... and then open fire with your rapid fire weapons coupled with large capacity magazines into hordes where you simply cannot miss and they simply cannot flee fast enough. Scary.
This was at the hands of an amateur too. This shithead was a pencil necked coward that wreaked havoc from his makeshift rat hole. As devastating as he proved to be... it could have been worse if it had been a shithead skilled with weapons.0 -
Three guns. No American needs more than three guns. Want a hunting rifle? Fine. A handgun for self-defense? Fine. A shotgun for...whatever people do with shotguns? Fine. That's it. All registered to you. If they go missing and end up on the street, making that magical transformation from legal gun to illegal gun, you need to explain how that happened.
___________________________________________
"...I changed by not changing at all..."0 -
http://toofab.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-josh-abbott-band-gun-control-caleb-keeter-2nd-amendment/
this is the kind of shit that pisses me off too. so now this guy wants gun control because it affected him. so you didn't care until it affected you?0 -
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
unfortunately human nature for a lot of people.pjhawks said:http://toofab.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-shooting-josh-abbott-band-gun-control-caleb-keeter-2nd-amendment/
this is the kind of shit that pisses me off too. so now this guy wants gun control because it affected him. so you didn't care until it affected you?Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
TO ALL OF YOU WHO SAY GUN CONTROL WOULD HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THIS SITUATION:
from www.cnn.com:
-- Paddock bought multiple firearms in the past, but investigators believe the firearms were purchased legally, a law enforcement official said. The official said initial reports suggest at least one rifle was altered to function as an automatic weapon.-- A North Las Vegas gun store sold a shotgun and a rifle to Paddock in the spring. All state and federal requirements, including an FBI background check, were met, said David Famiglietti, president of New Frontier Armory. He said that neither of the weapons "leaving our store (are) capable of what we've seen and heard in the video without modification."Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Ugh. I wish I didn't know that existed.Thoughts_Arrive said:The following thread says it all....
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/248178/the-gun-thread/p10
A thread where people can masturbate over their precious guns.
0 -
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
well I'm not against it, but it's good to know you like to shut down discussions with people who don't agree with you.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more to the environment than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
people who hunt for food, I have zero problem with. it's the losers that have a deer or moose head on their wall to lie to the world about the size of their penis.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more to the environment than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Only good part about hunting is sometimes they shoot each other.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...
0 -
Well that's just as dumb a thing to say as that CBS VP. Statements like that feed the opposition.Smellyman said:
Only good part about hunting is sometimes they shoot each other.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...It's a hopeless situation...0 -
I saw a quote online today (again, one of those quotes with someone's picture next to it, so the veracity can easily be questioned) that said "I don't feel sorry for those people....most country music fans are republicans and gun owners anyway".
YIKES.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Hey, I apologized haha. Usually that’s not the case. Just stating that I have little respect for those against farming and ranching. If you believe otherwise, that’s fine, just don’t waste your breath on trying to convince me because our core beliefs obviously conflict. As for your last comment about skulls of animals on people’s walls...I never really understood the fascination with displaying “trophies”, but they are being perfectly legal and that is their own prerogative.HughFreakingDillon said:
well I'm not against it, but it's good to know you like to shut down discussions with people who don't agree with you.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more to the environment than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
That was the CBS VP who was fired.HughFreakingDillon said:I saw a quote online today (again, one of those quotes with someone's picture next to it, so the veracity can easily be questioned) that said "I don't feel sorry for those people....most country music fans are republicans and gun owners anyway".
YIKES.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Meh. I won't shed a teartbergs said:
Well that's just as dumb a thing to say as that CBS VP. Statements like that feed the opposition.Smellyman said:
Only good part about hunting is sometimes they shoot each other.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...
0 -
well, this isn't the place for it, but it can be argued that agriculture is having a massive negative impact on the planet we reside on. of course, when it started, no one was even close to understanding how it would impact. However, I think human waste of the products of agriculture have a massive part of it, but that's another thread....PJPOWER said:
Hey, I apologized haha. Usually that’s not the case. Just stating that I have little respect for those against farming and ranching. If you believe otherwise, that’s fine, just don’t waste your breath on trying to convince me because our core beliefs obviously conflict. As for your last comment about skulls of animals on people’s walls...I never really understood the fascination with displaying “trophies”, but they are being perfectly legal and that is their own prerogative.HughFreakingDillon said:
well I'm not against it, but it's good to know you like to shut down discussions with people who don't agree with you.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more to the environment than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
wow. I was hoping that was just another meme that wasn't true. what a twit.tbergs said:
That was the CBS VP who was fired.HughFreakingDillon said:I saw a quote online today (again, one of those quotes with someone's picture next to it, so the veracity can easily be questioned) that said "I don't feel sorry for those people....most country music fans are republicans and gun owners anyway".
YIKES.Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall0 -
Says the sociopath...Smellyman said:
Only good part about hunting is sometimes they shoot each other.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...0 -
PJPOWER said:
Says the sociopath...Smellyman said:
Only good part about hunting is sometimes they shoot each other.PJPOWER said:
The problem is that humans have already changed the ecosystem by introducing invasive species/poor farming practices, cities, etc. In many of the southern states, wild hogs (an invasive species that man introduced to the country) have cause millions upon millions of dollars of damage to agriculture and have destroyed the habitat for other animals as well. Same with pythons in Florida. If deer overpopulate, there is something called Chronic Wasting Disease that will wipe out entire populations of them. Some invasive species will even overpopulate and bring diseases like the plague or rabies into domestic areas. There are plenty arguments for wildlife population control that I have not mentioned here. Myself, I am a hunter. I usually harvest two deer a year and it feeds my family almost all year long. I hunt wild hogs because they destroy my family’s farmland that is used to produce wheat, livestock feed. If you are simply against farming and ranching, then do not even bother commenting because I will not respect you from the start...sorry.HughFreakingDillon said:
yeah, I've never understood the whole "controlling the (insert animal here) population" argument. nature, as you said, takes care of it on its own. always has. long before humans were here. humans need to stop fucking with nature as if we're the caretakers of the earth. we're not.PJ_Soul said:
I am aware of the culling theory... and I strongly disagree with it, just because that argument boils down to humans thinking they matter more than the wild animals in the area do. I don't give a shit if humans are inconvenienced because they have encroached upon the animals' habitat. I don't care if the deer snarl traffic (build more crossings for them) or eat everyone's vegetable gardens because they didn't fence it well enough. Yes, I am an avid wild animal welfare advocate, and I'm aware that my views might seem extreme to some, but that's fine with me. Besides, nature tends to take care of these things, if only people would give it the opportunity to. And even with dangerous wild animals in populated areas, I strongly disagree with killing them. I think every single effort should be made to relocate them, and if I have to pay more taxes for that to happen, I'm happy to do so. If the authorities could shoot a bear or cougar dead, then they could have shot it with a tranquilizer dart. No excuses work for me unless we're talking about a mauling/attack situation, literally (obviously all bets are off during animal attacks, and FWIW, I think if someone lives in an area where a bear or cougar (or whatever) attack is a valid concern, carrying a gun for protection is perfectly fine).ledvedderman said:I'm no hunter. I hate guns. I hate that my 9 year old son has guns and hunts with his step dad. Having said that, where I am in southern IL, deer hunting is quite important for over populating concerns. Do people use that as justification to hunt when they know nothing of what curbing the population really entails? Yes. But it's still important. So it serves a purpose in theory. So, while you don't agree with it Soul (like me), it's not as simple as just not liking how animals are killed.
But really, that isn't all that relevant to me at the end of the day, because these hunters who use culling as a justification to go sport hunting are still going out to kill for pleasure. Culling is just a convenient excuse to talk away the fact that they are murdering wild animals for fun. I think people who do that have a bit of a screw loose (and some a really big, really lose screw, like those fuckers who go to Africa and kill endangered species like the fucking Trump sons do - that is purely psychopathic IMO). Sorry hunters, but that's just how I feel.
I think this is just another in a long list of weak arguments for gun ownership.
As far as the “three guns is all you need” comments...You obviously know nothing about hunting. Different calibers are used for different animals. Who are you to decide what someone else needs to protect their home/land or feed their family? Animal rights activists are often the ones responsible for fucking the environment by releasing wolves into areas that they do not belong, invasive species of fish into lakes, etc. I would say that hunters have actually contributed to the environment way more than your average PETA supporter, if by nothing else purchasing hunting licenses which funds go towards habitat restoration efforts. Get off your high horse...
and gun owners who want their right to guns more than rights of others to be alive.
or to kill other living creatures.
Yup, I am a sociopath.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help