Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

onelongsong

Scubascott wrote:

Yeah we skin em if we give them to the dogs. Otherwise they leave the stinking skin lying around on the veranda, or eat all the fur and end up with bits of furry crap stuck to their arses. I bet you really wanted to know that! Its late. What are you still doing up?

now that's morbid to me.

anyway; i have a buffalo cow that is absolutely beautiful. i call her indigo because she has much more black than the normal buffalo. she eats from my hand and answers to her name. i dread the day she'll die because one day she will. but i've decided i can give her imortality by stuffing the head. she'll always be with me and i'll never forget her.

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

Cool! Just wondered. I was engaged to a guy once who came from the Mallee and I remember how quickly he could skin a bunny. It was gross but fascinating at the same time. And it's funny you mention about the dogs because I can remember really grossing out at the skinning but the dogs did get one that we hadn't skinned and that's exactly what happened! There was fur everywhere!! :eek:

Yeah, so I'm up because I'm fast becoming an insomniac!
Still not sure why really. You're in Victoria too right? So we are on the same time?

you can skin a bunny without a knife if you know how.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

now that's morbid to me.

anyway; i have a buffalo cow that is absolutely beautiful. i call her indigo because she has much more black than the normal buffalo. she eats from my hand and answers to her name. i dread the day she'll die because one day she will. but i've decided i can give her imortality by stuffing the head. she'll always be with me and i'll never forget her.

Nah, it's not morbid, it's a necessity. Much as I don't like to see it. I understand why it needs to be so. Rabbits are in plague porportions here sometimes, like the prairie dogs(?) so if you need to shoot them, then they need to be disposed of. Feeding them to the dogs is a great way to dispose of them after they're killed. And as scott said they need to be skinned for the dogs to eat them other wise mess. The other thing is that if they're skinned you can sell the pelts. It's not so bad now, because we've had myxomitosis come through and cull off a lot of them. But rabbits, unfortunately for them, are vermin here and really do need to be controlled because they do a lot of damage. People even have fox terriers to help with the hunting. Coz the foxy can get down into the burrows and get them out. In the Depression, my grandfather, and practically everybody else, would go rabbit hunting and bring them home and eat them. I can still remember him having a hankering for rabbit stew on occassion. Nan had to buy them from the butcher by the time I was growing up. Not that I liked rabbit stew! :( :eek:

Indigo is a different creature entirely. I can completely understand your attachment to her. She's beautiful. And I would be devistated to lose her if I were you. You have spent a lot of time with her and have become attached to her so obviously you share a bond. She's more like a pet. And pets are very important members of the family.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

you can skin a bunny without a knife if you know how.

Yes, that's how they used to do it. It was really gross to watch! :eek:

And I've seen them skin an eel too! Only that requires a knife to get it started! But most skinning is just making an incision or break in the skin around the neck area and then peeling the flesh back over the skin right?

This really is getting to be a gooby conversation! :eek:

onelongsong

Jeanie wrote:

Nah, it's not morbid, it's a necessity. Much as I don't like to see it. I understand why it needs to be so. Rabbits are in plague porportions here sometimes, like the prairie dogs(?) so if you need to shoot them, then they need to be disposed of. Feeding them to the dogs is a great way to dispose of them after they're killed. And as scott said they need to be skinned for the dogs to eat them other wise mess. The other thing is that if they're skinned you can sell the pelts. It's not so bad now, because we've had myxomitosis come through and cull off a lot of them. But rabbits, unfortunately for them, are vermin here and really do need to be controlled because they do a lot of damage. People even have fox terriers to help with the hunting. Coz the foxy can get down into the burrows and get them out. In the Depression, my grandfather, and practically everybody else, would go rabbit hunting and bring them home and eat them. I can still remember him having a hankering for rabbit stew on occassion. Nan had to buy them from the butcher by the time I was growing up. Not that I liked rabbit stew! :( :eek:

Indigo is a different creature entirely. I can completely understand your attachment to her. She's beautiful. And I would be devistated to lose her if I were you. You have spent a lot of time with her and have become attached to her so obviously you share a bond. She's more like a pet. And pets are very important members of the family.

you don't mount family members and i wouldn't mount a dog but indigo is so unique that her beauty must live on. (and yes i do like animals more than the majority of people)

i heard some bloke from england brought the rabbits over because he liked to hunt them. you didn't have a natural preditor to keep them in check so they became over populated. that's what i heard anyway.

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

some are not worth commenting on like the bloke that considered a .50 caliber maching gun an assault rifle. but i like a good debate

My bad, i thought you guys were talking about all automatic weapons at that point, not just assualt rifles. But even if assualt rifles are designed to maim and not kill, why don't they use .22 or 9mm cal? the most widely known and widely used assualt rifle in the world uses 7.62 mm cal which has more stopping power and longer range than .22 or 9mm.


Also, where did you get that information on the brits on their bayonets? I've looked through the rules of war, the history of the bayonet...ect....and can't find anything that even hints at the banning of a bayonet. Like I said before, the brits even used a bayonet charge in iraq.


(By the way, after reading about the bayonet charge, I've concluded that you brits are crazy bastards)

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

you don't mount family members and i wouldn't mount a dog but indigo is so unique that her beauty must live on. (and yes i do like animals more than the majority of people)

i heard some bloke from england brought the rabbits over because he liked to hunt them. you didn't have a natural preditor to keep them in check so they became over populated. that's what i heard anyway.

I agree. Probably not my cuppa. But I can see why you would want to.

Yes, I can understand that. But as I've mentioned before not all people are bad.

You're right. Both foxes and rabbits were introduced to Australia by wealthy land owners looking to hunt. And no, there was no natural predator for the bunnies so they reached plague proportions.
Foxes are different.

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

My bad, i thought you guys were talking about all automatic weapons at that point, not just assualt rifles. But even if assualt rifles are designed to maim and not kill, why don't they use .22 or 9mm cal? the most widely known and widely used assualt rifle in the world uses 7.62 mm cal which has more stopping power and longer range than .22 or 9mm.


Also, where did you get that information on the brits on their bayonets? I've looked through the rules of war, the history of the bayonet...ect....and can't find anything that even hints at the banning of a bayonet. Like I said before, the brits even used a bayonet charge in iraq.


(By the way, after reading about the bayonet charge, I've concluded that you brits are crazy bastards)

the us uses the .223 round. it is a .22 caliber with much more power to pass through the body.

it was the triangular bayonet used in WWI. because of the triangular shape; doctors couldn't stich up the wound. bayonets were not banned; only the triangular ones. i learned this is gunsmithing school. i'll try to find the textbook and scan it.

Vedderlution_Baby

onelongsong wrote:

the us uses the .223 round. it is a .22 caliber with much more power to pass through the body.

it was the triangular bayonet used in WWI. because of the triangular shape; doctors couldn't stich up the wound. bayonets were not banned; only the triangular ones. i learned this is gunsmithing school. i'll try to find the textbook and scan it.

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. No need to look it up, I already knew those were no longer used. Thanks for the info.

onelongsong

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Oh, that makes a lot more sense. No need to look it up, I already knew those were no longer used. Thanks for the info.

like i said earlier; i need to learn to be more specific in my communication skills. i still need to find it for collin b/c it states that more men died of bayonet wounds b/c the triangular bayonet caused much more bleeding and it was too hard to repair the wounds.

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

Australia Day January 26 is merely a recognition of the landing of James Cook in Botany Bay and the beginning of colonization. And certainly not something celebrated by all Australians. Most of us just enjoy the sleep in on the public holiday.

um jeanie, australia day commemorates the establishment of the colony at sydney cove in 1788, not the landing of james cook at botany bay, which actually occurred in april 1770.

Jeanie wrote:

Our numbers of "invaders" is not small. What is small is our governments ability to police our borders successfully. Our coast line being as big as it is. A practically impossible task. The influx is greater than our governments ability to police it. And they aren't trying that hard anyway, because if they were fair dinkum they'd have had a bit more of a discussion with Indonesia about stopping the people smuggling trade that they got going on.

sorry i disagree. firstly over the use of the term invaders. and secondly over the number. the influx is not greater than our government is capable of policoing. what the problem is, is their basic inability to police supposedly illegal immigrants that come in by boat. as well as the lack of any empathetic approach to the plight of such people be they political or economic refugees by our current government. what one also needs to take into consideration is the currency such scare tactics have when an incident does accur. you will find that the coverage the arrival of 'illegals' generates is dependant upon how close the federal government is to an election and whether or not they are trying to distract us from their own incompetence or transgression. we are no more in danger from an overwhelming influx of 'invaders' as we are being invaded by martians.