Myspace to blame for colorado shooting

12467

Comments

  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    zstillings wrote:
    Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.

    The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.

    I just checked. Actually, lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned in the U.S., way back in 1991! You guys did it before we did.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I just checked. Actually, lead shot for waterfowl hunting was banned in the U.S., way back in 1991! You guys did it before we did.

    I had no idea. I used to hunt pheasant, quail and dove. We would just buy what they had at the store.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    zstillings wrote:
    Probably not but they are the only environmentalists I have ever met who think that they can do good by living the way that the annoing ones only preach.

    The vast majority of people who constantly preach about how environmentally aware they are really are nothing but hypocrites.

    But there are respectable environmental organisations, that oppose hunting wildfowl in conserving the wetlands, with guns or without:

    http://www.wwt.org.uk/Research/WildlifeConservation.asp
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    But there are respectable environmental organisations, that oppose hunting wildfowl in conserving the wetlands, with guns or without:

    http://www.wwt.org.uk/Research/WildlifeConservation.asp

    They don't really seem to say what they do except collect money to take a position.

    The only environmental organization I have ever given to is the Nature Conservancy because the money goes into buying what they want to protect rather than solely into the pocket of some SUV driving, dreadlocked, stoner who wants to come and tell me that I need to ride a damn bike to work every day, quit eating meat and quit smoking or he won't let me get on the fucking Metro.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    But there are respectable environmental organisations, that oppose hunting wildfowl in conserving the wetlands, with guns or without:

    http://www.wwt.org.uk/Research/WildlifeConservation.asp


    I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.

    Exactly my point. Thank you. And sorry for the tangent but I was late to a meeting the other day because of that exact scenario that my rant was about.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    reborncareerist wrote:
    I agree that one doesn't need to hunt to conserve, and that wasn't zstillings' point. The point is, hunters do a lot of good conservation work in North America.


    Of course they do. If the wetlands go, the wildfowl die. You wouldn't be able to kill 'em, then. ;)
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Of course they do. If the wetlands go, the wildfowl die. You wouldn't be able to kill 'em, then. ;)

    Most hunters enjoy the wilderness as well. Even more than the city living tye dye wearing street preachers.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    zstillings wrote:
    Most hunters enjoy the wilderness as well. Even more than the city living tye dye wearing street preachers.


    I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, and with my own practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.
  • rebornFixer
    rebornFixer Posts: 4,901
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, with practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.

    Most country people here have a very practical view of guns ... They are tools, part of rural life. Somehow, they avoid becoming murderous scoundrels just the same.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    I'm sure. As the son of two Irish farming families, and with my own practical work experience in river conservation, I agree. But I think that one is one very shaky ground, defending gun ownership on "superior knowledge of the country", when people from the city and the country alike can argue otherwise.

    Once again, I am very sorry for the rant. I have no intention of lumping you in with the smelly kids who blocked my way to my meeting the other day just because I wouldn't sit and listen to their little preaching session. I am just reminded of that with this debate about hunting.

    Most hunters are very good about following limit laws and not taking more than they consume. Most are also very concerned about losing their camp-sites, wetlands, etc... because they love being there. It is not only for the sport of hunting.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    Well, let's be constructive, here. How about far more stringent gun licence application laws, favouring licenced, rural huntsmen? Then we can take the ethical discussion about hunting, from there? Meanwhile, Mad Jack McMadd of Madtown, Maddest County, Maddington, is restricted from getting his hands on a sawn off.
  • dunkman
    dunkman Posts: 19,646
    miller8966 wrote:
    According to fellow poster dunkman guns are to blame for the school shooting..which i agree that a gun was used in the school shooting that left an innocent teenager dead.

    that sounds like you agree with me... you even admitted that a gun killed that girl... the mitigating circumstances that drove the retard to shoot that girl dont play a significant part really... he didnt throw a myspace at her and it exploded


    see Finsburys analogy about Chapman... should the beatles be banned because Manson heard something weird? pointless and sensationalist nonsense aside... his mental state was the contributing factor.. had he no access to a gun he might just have wanked a lot over the monitor...
    oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    I might add to my last point, sure, there'll always be a market for contraband weapons, run by big drug gangs and sold to smaller ones. But restricting gun ownership is surely a step in the right direction, especially in preventing loner types from going into schools, and shooting away.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    Well, let's be constructive, here. How about far more stringent gun licence application laws, favouring licenced, rural huntsmen? Then we can take the ethical discussion about hunting, from there? Meanwhile, Mad Jack McMadd of Madtown, Maddest County, Maddington, is restricted from getting his hands on a sawn off.

    I'm not sure I agree with actual licensing. I am all for background checks and those sorts of things but allowing the government to consistently add bureaucracy is never a good idea.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    I might add to my last point, sure, there'll always be a market for contraband weapons, run by big drug gangs and sold to smaller ones. But restricting gun ownership is surely a step in the right direction, especially in preventing loner types from going into schools, and shooting away.

    Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    zstillings wrote:
    Most hunters are very good about following limit laws and not taking more than they consume. Most are also very concerned about losing their camp-sites, wetlands, etc... because they love being there. It is not only for the sport of hunting.
    I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    zstillings wrote:
    I'm not sure I agree with actual licensing. I am all for background checks and those sorts of things but allowing the government to consistently add bureaucracy is never a good idea.

    In issues such as healthcare, I agree. If a patient is ill, and their doctor recommends a consultant, bureaucrats shouldn't step in between them and do means tests, to clog the system. But that's an issue of a patient's right to treatment, something which is acknowledged in our free National Health Service, in the UK. But with the "right" to own a gun, something which kills or maims in the hands of an inexpert user, I think the more vetting, the better. We want to minimise all risk of accidents while hunting, surely? Dick Cheney would never get a licence, for a start! ;)
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    cutback wrote:
    I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.

    They enjoy living off of the nature as well. Like I said, most hunters do not kill what they can't consume. I'm sure you have hobbies and enjoy some activities that I see as unneeded. I will not come and try to take that away from you though just because it is not something that I fully enjoy.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    zstillings wrote:
    Sometimes though a step in the right direction completely defeats the purpose of what is intended. Handgun ownership in DC is illegal. We have one of the highest per capita murder rates in the country. Obviously this step is in no direction except to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

    Is that a sound argument for reintroducing handgun ownership? Or a reason for the authorities to work harder, to crack arms traffic?

Categories