Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

1…1213151718

Comments

  • Scubascott
    Scubascott Posts: 815
    Jeanie wrote:
    Hiya scott, so you're saying not necessary for hunting, but you don't mean for farming do you? :)

    Ok, here is my position, just for the sake of clarity.

    For animal control/hunting purposes, there is absolutely no need for automatic OR semi-automatic firearms, or firearms with a magazine capacity of more than five or ten rounds. If hunting is done in an ethical manner, the person handling the firearm should not be firing more than two shots at any animal. I say two shots, because although one is preferable, sometimes the first shot does not kill the animal outright, and a second is neccessary to finish it off. A bolt action rifle with a low capacity magazine or similar firearm in the hands of properly skilled operator is sufficient for that purpose. If the weapon is of insufficient calibre to stop a large animal with one or two shots, it shouldn't even be aimed at that animal. Hunting animals like pigs, deer or kangaroos with a .22 for example, is inhumane, as it will most likely take several shots to kill them.

    Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines, and since they are completely unneccessary for hunting, they should not available to the general public.
    It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!

    -C Addison
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    FYI I pick up my Armalite AR-50 on Friday! Gotta get one before the hippies try to ban it ;)

    http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar50.htm

    :D:D:D:D
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    anyone that needs a "military-style assault rifle" to hunt an animal is a fucking joke. period.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    69charger wrote:
    FYI I pick up my Armalite AR-50 on Friday! Gotta get one before the hippies try to ban it ;)

    http://www.armalite.com/sales/catalog/rifles/ar50.htm

    :D:D:D:D


    why the hell would you ever need that fuckiing thing?

    any gun that weighs 34 pounds and comes with tylenol is not designed for hunting.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Jeanie wrote:
    I guess because many Americans in general feel under attack. So coming from that view point it's hard for them to have this discussion without feeling that it's an attack on their constitutional freedoms. Which maybe it is. For them. I guess from our point of view it isn't. Right? We'd just like to know why right? :)

    didn't england take your freedom not too long ago? maybe i'm wrong but isn't that what austrailia day commemorates? england took control of your country and disarmed you.
    looking back at the last century; old societies that felt the need to disarm had been taken by other forces. iraq was disarmed and taken by a dictator. but a better example is europe. twice in the last century europe has been taken by a dictator. WWI and WWII. both times it took a free nation to pull europe out of the fire. a young nation. a nation that gave the lives of it's young males to save those who oppressed it. only to condemn it for helping others obtain their freedom in the same manner it helped them.
    oz is different in that it's an island. but america is a country of "outsiders". each day thousands of people sneek into america illegally. we have no idea who or what their purpose is. so for a country constantly under invasion; it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have. why doesn't anyone jump on the swiss? the last i heard it's swiss law that every head of household MUST own and know how to operate an automatic weapon. YET IT'S AMERICA EVERYONE SHITS ON ABOUT LOOSE GUN LAWS. i guess americans are good targets.
    now if oz was constantly being invaded by outsiders; i think things would be different. your number of invaders is so small that you put them in consentration camps. we can't do that because all humans have rights here. human rights. just because you fell to your knees when the queen arrived on your doorstep; doesn't mean we will.
    so maybe it is a false sense of security for americans to think we could defend ourselves. it was twice that americans owning guns twarted the queens attempt to take our country. and we won't forget that. nor will we forget hitler and the kaiser taking europe; or musillini taking italy. all in recent history. and that is why we would fight our own government if it tried to disarm us. however misguided; we've learned from other societies. and we learned that a small group of terrorists could attack america and almost take out the pentagon and almost our capital. yes i'm talking about 9/11. so as a country under attack; we'll keep our guns.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Scubascott wrote:
    Ok, here is my position, just for the sake of clarity.

    For animal control/hunting purposes, there is absolutely no need for automatic OR semi-automatic firearms, or firearms with a magazine capacity of more than five or ten rounds. If hunting is done in an ethical manner, the person handling the firearm should not be firing more than two shots at any animal. I say two shots, because although one is preferable, sometimes the first shot does not kill the animal outright, and a second is neccessary to finish it off. A bolt action rifle with a low capacity magazine or similar firearm in the hands of properly skilled operator is sufficient for that purpose. If the weapon is of insufficient calibre to stop a large animal with one or two shots, it shouldn't even be aimed at that animal. Hunting animals like pigs, deer or kangaroos with a .22 for example, is inhumane, as it will most likely take several shots to kill them.

    Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines, and since they are completely unneccessary for hunting, they should not available to the general public.

    hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies? as for the ability to kill; i have a single shot bolt action. in 2005 i had to kill a deer for food. i killed it with 1 shot from 300 yards. i couldn't have done that with an assault rifle. the bullets are too small for one. assault weapons are made to injure and that's the second reason. in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.
    as for hunting; if an animal hears a twig snap; all you'll see is tail for a brief moment.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    it makes sence for the CITIZENS to be able to defend themselves in the same manner the swiss have.

    In the same manner? It's not in the same manner at all. I'll try and find a link that explains the Swiss system for you.

    And as for why people "shits on about loose gun laws" in the States in stead of on Switzerland, it might have something to do with school shootings, which acted as a catalyst in the gun debate. There hasn't been a single school shooting in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong) and how many in the States, dozens?
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    hi scott. i beg to differ again. if automatic weapons were more likely to kill humans; wouldn't battlefields be littered with dead bodies?

    I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak argument, imo.

    Scott said: Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines

    So you'd have to compare battle that were fought with manual action firearms with battles fought with automatic weapons. A comparison like that isn't really possible. And there's not ethical way of testing this.

    I'm going to go with logic here and agree with Scott.
    in WWI the british bayonet killed more than bullets. and it was promptly banned. military weapons were then designed to injure to keep one country from killing off another and thus came the rules of war.

    But people have been very innovative since WWI and weapons have become far more effective than the weapons used in WWI.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    In the same manner? It's not in the same manner at all. I'll try and find a link that explains the Swiss system for you.

    And as for why people "shits on about loose gun laws" in the States in stead of on Switzerland, it might have something to do with school shootings, which acted as a catalyst in the gun debate. There hasn't been a single school shooting in Switzerland (correct me if I'm wrong) and how many in the States, dozens?

    so we punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of a dozen? i recall a school shooting in canada not too long ago. WTF? they have strict gun laws. so strict that i personally brought a handgun into canada several times.
    so that's the way we think now, huh? we rewrite our inalienable rights and our constitution for the crimes of a dozen when it will have NO IMPACT AT ALL on illegal guns. sounds like conveluted logic to me. does this mean we should imprison ALL mexicans because of the actions of a few? let's imprison all middle easterners for 9/11 too. it all fits into that train of logic.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    I'm sorry but that's a pretty weak argument, imo.

    Scott said: Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines have far more potential for killing humans than manual action firearms with low capacity magazines

    So you'd have to compare battle that were fought with manual action firearms with battles fought with automatic weapons. A comparison like that isn't really possible. And there's not ethical way of testing this.

    I'm going to go with logic here and agree with Scott.



    But people have been very innovative since WWI and weapons have become far more effective than the weapons used in WWI.

    then why were more people killed (per capita) in WWI than in WWII? WWI used heavier bullets with the capacity to kill humans. with an automatic weapon you "spray and pray" as it's almost impossible to control because of muzzle lift. with single shot or low capacity magazines a soldier aims at his target.

    the "44 minutes" incident in california proved that modern automatic weapons are inferior. on the other hand; the washington sniper incident proved that low capacity manual weapons are superior as evidenced in their kill rate.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    so we punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of a dozen?
    Who said anything about punishment?
    so that's the way we think now, huh? we rewrite our inalienable rights and our constitution for the crimes of a dozen when it will have NO IMPACT AT ALL on illegal guns.
    Google the school shootings and see how many were with illegal guns.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    then why were more people killed (per capita) in WWI than in WWII?

    Any evidence?
    the "44 minutes" incident in california proved that modern automatic weapons are inferior. on the other hand; the washington sniper incident proved that low capacity manual weapons are superior as evidenced in their kill rate.

    Actually, that doesn't prove a single thing.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Who said anything about punishment?

    Google the school shootings and see how many were with illegal guns.

    i can walk into any big city and buy an illegal gun within hours. as for school shootings; google the school shootings and see how many of the shooters were old enough to legally own a gun. if they were under age; it was illegal for them to carry that gun. guns are not allowed on school property which also made it illegal. it's illegal to kill by any means so that made it illegal too. as i recall; some had pipe bombs capable of killing many more people. so how many laws do we need to make the same crime MORE illegal?
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    Ooooo guns guns guns...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    Any evidence?

    yes; check your history.
    collin wrote:
    Actually, that doesn't prove a single thing.

    thousands of bullets sprayed at hundreds of police and bystanders without a death doesn't prove anything? what the hell kind of proof do you need?
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    i can walk into any big city and buy an illegal gun within hours. as for school shootings; google the school shootings and see how many of the shooters were old enough to legally own a gun. if they were under age; it was illegal for them to carry that gun. guns are not allowed on school property which also made it illegal. it's illegal to kill by any means so that made it illegal too. as i recall; some had pipe bombs capable of killing many more people. so how many laws do we need to make the same crime MORE illegal?

    You made it sound like crimes were only commited with illegal firearms. Yes, it was illegal for the kids to have these etc. but most likely their father or mother bought them legally.

    The pipe bombs didn't go off.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    warning...lame thread alert...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    onelongsong wrote:
    yes; check your history.

    I don't have info on the deaths per capita.
    thousands of bullets sprayed at hundreds of police and bystanders without a death doesn't prove anything? what the hell kind of proof do you need?

    Real proof, not a single event.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    warning...lame thread alert...

    so why keep coming back?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Collin wrote:
    I don't have info on the deaths per capita.

    you seem to know everything; do some research.

Categories