Political & Elections

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

RE: It Had to Happen Sometime: The Gun Control Thread

BigG · Guru

And no matter how prejudiced, senile, incompetent, or even deranged, the judge has absolutely NO legal liability for actions on the bench.

And lawyers wonder why they are hated.

Artemis · Senior Member

Finally, some common sense in this case.

A man given seven years in prison after being found with two guns he purchased legally in Colorado has had his sentence commuted, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced Monday.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/christie-commutes-sentence-man-sent-jail-owning-guns-legally/commutes/

catahoula · Guru

The prosecutor, while ignoring other less pressing matters, evidentily decided Aitken wasn't following the letter of NJ"s law.
The exemption statute, according to the prosecutor's office, specifies that legal guns can be transported "while moving." Despite testimony about his moving to Hoboken, a spokesman for the prosecutor said the evidence suggested that Aitken had moved months earlier, from Colorado to Mount Laurel. "Again, there was no evidence that he was then presently moving," spokesman Joel Bewley said.
Sucks to be a cow or a gun owner in Jersey, is all l can say.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Cat,

There is another article here which shows the judge's absolute incompetence in explaining the rules to the jury:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/will-governor-christie-pardon-brian-aitken/

Yet Judge Morley wouldn’t allow Aitken to claim the exemption for transporting guns between residences. He wouldn’t even let the jury know about it. During deliberations, the jurors asked three times about exceptions to the law, which suggests they weren’t comfortable convicting Aitken. Morley refused to answer them all three times. Gilbert and Nappen, Aitken’s lawyers, say he also should have been protected by a federal law that forbids states from prosecuting gun owners who are transporting guns between residences. Morley would not let Aitken cite that provision either.

Sounds like a good reason for an appeal.

catahoula · Guru

Looks like it.

Firearms shall be carried
unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case,
gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk
of the automobile in which it is being transported.

Ammunition must be transported in a separate container
and locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it
is being transported.If the vehicle does not have a
compartment separate from the passenger compartment,
the firearm must be in a locked container other than
the vehicle's glove compartment or console.

The problem seems to be that while he legally bought the guns in CO, he hadn't satisfied NJ requirements.

New Jersey and Colorado are on opposite ends of the gun-control spectrum. In Colorado, all he needed was the background check to own the guns.

In the Garden State, Aitken was required to have a purchaser's permit from New Jersey to own the guns and a carry permit to have them in his car.

He also was charged with having "large capacity" magazines and hollow-point bullets, which one state gun-control advocate found troubling.

"What little I can glean about the transportation issue leaves me puzzled, but a person with common sense would not be moving illegal products from one place to another by car," said Bryan Miller, executive director of CeaseFire NJ, an organization devoted to reducing gun violence.

Along with the newsflash that the executive director of "CeaseFire NJ has an opinion as to Aitken's mental capabilities, Aitken's lawyer maintains he was in the process of moving and had checked with NJ authorities as to how to transport the guns.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Are people allowed to transport guns to a gun range in New Jersey? I find it difficult to imagine how you could do that, if they weren't in your trunk.

That judge sounds like an idiot.

catahoula · Guru

This one seems to fit both the OP and the current conversation:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20101130_Family__New_Jersey_man_serving_7_years_for_guns_he_owned_legally.html

We have both a guy sentenced to 7 years - Thanks, Mom! - for a couple of pistols he legally possessed and a judge who thinks the term "dumb animal" means you don't need prior consent.

A few weeks after Aitken's trial over the summer, Morley learned that Christie was not going to reappoint him, due in part to a 2009 case in which he dismissed animal-cruelty charges against a Moorestown cop accused of sticking his penis into the mouths of five calves. Morley said there was no way of knowing whether the calves had been "puzzled" or "tormented" by the officer's actions.

Nappen thinks the animal-cruelty case exemplifies poor decision-making by Morley.

"Brian didn't receive oral sex from calves; he only lawfully possessed firearms," Nappen said.

Wonder how Morley would rule in "Caribou vs Sarah"?

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 9th of December 2010 06:46:34 AM

BigG · Guru

Hummm. Interesting variant on Old Norse beliefs.

Would she get to take turns as hunter and hunted?

We might have the start of a new religion here.

Heaven and Hell as the same place, on alternate days.

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 8th of December 2010 07:41:12 PM

Cartera · Guru

I saw the clip of Palin on the news. It literally made me sick to watch. If there is a God, she will spend her afterlife being hunted down - like an animal.

Artemis · Senior Member

pmrlcomm, you're such a good pot stirrer...lol

Here's Palin's response to her critics:

Tonight's hunting episode of Sarah Palin's Alaska "controversial"?
Really? Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather couch
or
eaten a piece of meat, save your condemnation of tonight's episode. I
remain proudly intolerant of anti-hunting hypocrisy. :)
Sunday at 8:44am · Like · Comment

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

If this doesn't show the divide I don't know what does. A snuff film? LOL That's funny.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/aaron-sorkin-sarah-palin

I can't stand Palin and her motives for this "reality" series is obvious. I'm quite sure the caribou sitting out there. If her family didn't take it for food it likely was donated somewhere and eaten. He's little overboard on this and I'm sure some of you will agree with him.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Zombies are incredibly dangerous.

If I ever get asked on one of those telephone gun surveys, I am going to mention that I am trying to protect myself from zombies. I am pretty sure people want to answer this way and are worried they will be made fun of, so say they are worried about escaped murderers, or scary ex-boyfriends.

In reality, it's the fear of the undead.

Donna, have you seen "Zombieland"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PapZO7NXB3Q

DonnaL · Senior Member

Jordcin wrote:

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE.org:

"The United States remains one of the few industrialized countries that place so few restrictions on gun sales. There are more than 270 million privately owned firearms in our country—the equivalent of nine firearms for every 10 men, women and children."

So, if the British ever come back for us, we can distribute a gun to just about everyone in this country and fight back.

I think that the Zombie Apocalypse is far more likely. Don't forget: shoot them in the head.

catahoula · Guru

Been there, done that, and other than pointing out that...

* Along with other questions, Cook polled DGUs - he called his respondents liars.

* Hemenway, et al, asked the question - same, but he pretty much buried the results.

* The CDC did one relating to home burglaries - about the same numbers.

.... I haven't that much interest in beating the horse again. If I did, I'd probably Google as to whether the NCVS polls for gun ownership and compare that to all the other national surveys and the number the anti-gun lobby uses.... well... nah, maybe later, if boredom rears its sleek little head.

Hey, this is the land of the free, and I've alread taken the pledge to not encroach on the rights of the gun-phobic, but on this issue "facts" are things that each side believes to be true. Not much else.

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 07:22:14 PM

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 07:23:08 PM

inthenews · Veteran Member

"You really believe everyone lie to interviewers? I mean, other than when they're sitting for the NCVS survey?

Call me a hopeless optimist, inthenews, but I have trouble believing the US citizenry is composed of Jekyll&Hyde wannabees."

No, not everyone, but his statistics and the way he extrapolates are completely misleading. With a small number of people responding affirmatively to a DGU, defensive gun use, in the last year you run into huge issues with the numbers:

If 1/100 reported YES, they had a DGU, there is one chance that a person in this scenario could have denied a DGU when this really happened to them, ie a false denial.

If 99/100 said they had no DGU in the last year, that is 99 chances for a false positive, ie someone to have said YES when they really had no DGU.

This alone puts grave doubt on his numbers, especially when it comes to an issue which, at the same time, is so tied into emotion, partisan politics and agenda. The fact that this is a random survey makes it more likely, not less in my mind, that someone would lie in order to promote their desired outcome. In addition to that, what one person reports as a necessary DGU could be another's unnecessary, ill advised, aggressive posturing. Also, the Kleck survey did not even discriminate between DGUs related to people vs. animals or even military vs. civilian incidents. Not only that, the Kleck was an anonymous phone survey. Callers asked to speak to the "man of the house?!" Not exactly an unbiased,representative survey. I've read that it overemphasized southern and western demographics as well.

Unless I've missed something that would suggest otherwise, Kleck's response to criticisms of his work didn't do much to convince me otherwise and can't possibly outweigh the alternative. He claims that for all the reasons one could falsely claim a DGU, there are also compelling reasons not to admit to a DGU, namely fear of being prosecuted for owning a nonregistered firearm and the like. I just don't see any possibility that that is worse than the potential of abuse within an anonymous, poorly structured phone survey, where the results are misleading on the basis of statistics alone, where the survey questions themselves are distorted.

The fact that this has been cited in so many political debates, including the Supreme Court testimony, unfortunately doesn't tell you much. Justice Breyer, who came down on the minority side of the 5-4 Heller opinion in 2008, said that the very most anyone on the opposite side could say is that there is room for questioning.

The Center for Disease control had 2.1 million dollars earmarked for a study that would directly answer the questions involved in this debate. It was summarily voted down by Republican members of Congress in a purely partisan move and kept out of the budget in an ongoing basis.

Many politicians who are personally big believers in tightening gun control laws and eliminating the loopholes, don't necessarily want to rock this boat where their constituencies are concerned. It's a very divisive and political issue. Anyone who takes this on does so at his or her own risk.

By the way, Kleck himself does not deny that having guns around the house may lead to bad outcomes and does not commit himself in any way to what extent that may be true, much to the dismay of many in the gun community. What he does do is defend his research and his methods. His reputation in the academic community relies on that much.

-- Edited by inthenews on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 12:30:07 PM

-- Edited by inthenews on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 12:32:05 PM

-- Edited by inthenews on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 12:33:44 PM

Artemis · Senior Member

SamuraiLandshark wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. That is how long hunting season lasts, according to the article.

I am not a hunter, so I am not sure. Is hunting season only two weeks out of the year for deer?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every state has its own regulations and they're always subject to change from year to year. Deer season can span several weeks. In VA, we have bow season, muzzle loader only season, and gun season. Within those times, there can also be special rules set such as buck only. I *think* in VA, deer season begins sometime in mid October with the start of bow season and runs throughout the remainder of the year with different rules depending on the day/week you're hunting. The typical gun season (some areas require shot gun only while others allow rifles depending on the concentration of people who live in the area) runs two weeks in the couple states that I'm familiar with.

We've donated deer to Hunters for the Hungry in the past, but most places charge the person donating their deer for the cost of processing the meat. Even when we don't donate a deer, we make monetary donations every year to help offset the cost for people who want to donate their deer but can't afford the processing fee.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Yes. That is how long hunting season lasts, according to the article.

I am not a hunter, so I am not sure. Is hunting season only two weeks out of the year for deer?

geeps20 · Senior Member

300,000 deer in a 2 week span...is that right?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101206/lf_nm_life/us_food_hunters

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters Life!) – Deer hunters in Pennsylvania are expected to donate about 100,000 pounds of venison to help meet the surging demand from the state's food banks.

Hunters will shoot about 300,000 deer during the two-week hunting season that began on November 29. Some of their haul will be given to Hunters Sharing the Harvest, a program run by the state's agriculture department.

It provides meat to local food banks which redistribute the venison to more than 4,000 local food-assistance organizations that help people unable to feed themselves because of the economic downturn.

"Quality food donations are a rare commodity," said Kendall Hanna, executive director of the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank. "Hunters Sharing the Harvest provides us with lean meat that's high in protein, and that's hard to come by."

His organization normally receives between 10,000 and 15,000 pounds of venison through the program each year. The meat is typically made into hamburgers or chili.

Demand for food of all kinds is up about 75 percent from two years ago. The bank feeds about 250,000 people across a 27-county area, Hanna said. Statewide, 1.3 million people are at risk of hunger, according to the Agriculture Department.

Donations from major food manufacturers are the bank's main source of food, but the increased demand in recent years has forced it to buy more supplies at a cost of about $1.5 million this year, Hanna explained.

The state's estimated 750,000 first-day hunters can donate their deer to any of the 125 participating butchers. The state pays the butchers 85 cents per pound of venison processed.

In 2009, hunters shot 108,000 bucks and more than 200,000 does, according to the Pennsylvania GameCommission, in a state where deer are so numerous they are seen as a pest.

Joyce Rothermel, chief executive of the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, said venison donations are particularly valuable in rural areas served.

Some 600 local pantries served by the Pittsburgh bank feed an average of 120,000 people a month, representing an increase of 20 percent over the last two years, Rothermel said.

Rothermel's group has kept up with the demand thanks to assistance from food manufacturers, food stamp programs and individual donations. But she thinks demand will rise due to the estimated 16,000 people whose jobless benefits recently expired.

Although the Pittsburgh bank has provided a basic level of nutrition for its clients, some don't eat as much as they should, Rothermel said.

"There are people who only eat two meals a day," she said.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Tuesday 7th of December 2010 07:45:25 AM

catahoula · Guru

But it's not just some random criminal you have to worry about with a firearm in the house. It's depressed teenager or the drunk or spurned spouse.
You really believe everyone lie to interviewers? I mean, other than when they're sitting for the NCVS survey?

Call me a hopeless optimist, inthenews, but I have trouble believing the US citizenry is composed of Jekyll&Hyde wannabees.

geeps20 · Senior Member

Geeps, what are the odd of an intruder breaking into your house?

probably very slim, but if it did ever happen, I'm prepared. I live in a pretty rural area, shotguns and .22s are very common for hunting purposes(geese, rabbits)..that's all I need to protect my family.

Your question is similar to.. what are the odds of getting into a major accident, why wear a seat belt.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

I guess it could if one deliberately disabled it and sabotaged the furnace. The Malfunction of something meant to protect could be a de facto weapon. :) Just saying.

inthenews · Veteran Member

Cuse, A carbon monoxide detector can't turn into a lethal weapon.

inthenews · Veteran Member

Geeps, But it's not just some random criminal you have to worry about with a firearm in the house. It's depressed teenager or the drunk or spurned spouse. Nobody ever thinks it could happen to their family. And as already mentioned, if the gun is properly secured, then it's not going to be of much use to you, anyway. If it's not, well then I stand by my opinion.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

I was driving in the city where my kids go to school yesterday and I saw a convoy of police vehicles including and armored vehicle. The convoy was annoying because I needed to turn left through the convoy. I had to wait for it to go through.

I read in the news today that a SWAT team had raided a two-family four blocks from our apartment. A father and son had a bunch of weapons and drugs and the son was charged with selling the guns illegally and possession with intent to distribute. The father only had unlicensed firearms. This is in the good section of the city.

It still seems to me that it's the crooks that have the guns. The police do what they can when they have the intel.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Jordcin wrote:

Geeps, what are the odd of an intruder breaking into your house?

I know break-ins happen all the time. But usually when there is no one home.

Usually being the key word. When it is your house that is targeted in the middle of the night when you are inside, "usually" doesn't mean a thing though. People usually won't have a problem with, carbon monoxide, for instance, but that shouldn't stop anyone from installing a detector in their home.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

Geeps, what are the odd of an intruder breaking into your house?

I know break-ins happen all the time. But usually when there is no one home.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE.org:

"The United States remains one of the few industrialized countries that place so few restrictions on gun sales. There are more than 270 million privately owned firearms in our country—the equivalent of nine firearms for every 10 men, women and children."

So, if the British ever come back for us, we can distribute a gun to just about everyone in this country and fight back.

geeps20 · Senior Member

^that actually makes no sense. The criminals will always have guns, why is that so hard for some to grasp? If an intruder breaks into my house, I'm protected....period

inthenews · Veteran Member

The needs and security of the many have to be taken into account. Individual states and cities ought to have the right to invoke gun control laws that make sense in their communities.

Woodwork · Senior Member

for whatever it's worth, there are a great many things in any particular home that, from the point of view of busy-bodies, righteous do-gooders and concerned citizens, would serve no discernable purpose. They may even be deemed to be counter-productive. Still, it does not seem to me that this amounts to any kind of an argument for or against the 2nd amendment, or any other one of the bill of rights; privacy is not always a good and social value, either.

Most people will never need, nor use, their right to free-speech; that would not be an argument, however, to ban the right to speak non-sense in the home...even if not in the theatre.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Jordcin wrote:

Cuse, We need cars and therefore take the risks that go with it. We don't need guns in our home, they serve no purpose. There is no reason so compelling that a person should want to risk an accident by having a gun in the house.

Can anyone think of a reason to have a gun in the house? Besides the intruder? (but with state of the art security systems, that reason should be obsolete).

You can't put a premium on protection. Just like most people hope they will never have to use airbags or seatbelts but buy vehicles with them anyways, purchasing a gun for home defense is a precautionary measure. Security systems can't solve everything-residential alarms get very little priority in many areas. The ones that are connected to the police don't help much, as the police can take up to half an hour to respond. Not to mention the fact that a good burglar knows how to disable/turn the alarm off.

Silvermoonlock · Veteran Member

My husband is a cop. We've had guns in the house for over 20 years. He's had .38's, .45's, a big ass Magnum, service revolvers and personal weapons. I lost track after the Glocks. They are locked up and taken apart when he is off duty. This was, of course, necessary when the kid was young. I know where the guns are and I know how to assemble them and I know how to use them.

Should anyone unlawfully enter my home, I could not possibly get to a gun, reassemble it and discharge the weapon. Frankly, it would never cross my mind to do so. I am fine with this.

I really don't have much of a problem with people carrying guns, I just have a problem with open carry. I am not impressed with the need of some to march into Starbucks with a weapon holstered. I don't get it....

Jordcin · Veteran Member

Cuse, We need cars and therefore take the risks that go with it. We don't need guns in our home, they serve no purpose. There is no reason so compelling that a person should want to risk an accident by having a gun in the house.

Can anyone think of a reason to have a gun in the house? Besides the intruder? (but with state of the art security systems, that reason should be obsolete).

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Jordcin wrote:

catahoula wrote:
would you mind sharing the author of that study or studies?
I don't think anyone really needs a study to know that accidental gun deaths in homes, especially among children far outnumber the amount of people who protected their family against the boogyman.

More kids are killed by cars each year than are killed by guns. Perhaps we should outlaw automobiles? After all, getting to work and to the grocery store every day isn't worth a child's life.

-- Edited by Cuse0507 on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 10:20:13 PM

Jordcin · Veteran Member

ImSoAnarchist wrote:
You don't need to actively use a firearm to benefit from its protection.

That kind of thinking is exactly why so many people have a false sense of security in having a gun in their home.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

[...] far outnumber the amount of people who protected their family against the boogyman.

You're able to measure the amount of people protected just by virtue of them possesing a firearm? You don't need to actively use a firearm to benefit from its protection.

catahoula · Guru

Whatever works for you, jordcin.

Trying to convince someone their facts don't carry the weight they wish they did is difficult enough that I've no real desire to argue with someone who doesn't feel the need for them.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

catahoula wrote:
would you mind sharing the author of that study or studies?

I don't think anyone really needs a study to know that accidental gun deaths in homes, especially among children far outnumber the amount of people who protected their family against the boogyman.

catahoula · Guru

I agree with you that people will continue to believe what they want to believe, along with who they want to believe.

Personally, I not only fully support the decision of some to not hunt, not carry, not even allow a family member to catch a whiff of gun oil, I swear I'll never vote for someone who expresses a desire to take that right away from them.

inthenews · Veteran Member

Beaten to death is right. I'm not going to go there. Neither side will believe anything but what they want to believe. If Kleck is your guru, nothing is going to change your opinion. Studies by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Hemenway et. al contradict your numbers, with discrepancies for his statistics to verifiable ones on almost every count. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in between,, but how often the presence of a gun incites more violence than ever would have ever occurred to begin with?

There are also various studies on suicide - some suggesting that the incidence is greater in homes with a firearm - others finding the opposite. I will continue to believe what I see right in front of me, on the headlines of every news feature every night. As I said before, perhaps there are regional differences to this.

catahoula · Guru

There is more of a chance that a gun kept in the home will be involved in an accident or against you than to protect you.
These kind of arguments were beat literally unto death on the CC thread, and its only nostalgia that makes me ask, but would you mind sharing the author of that study or studies?

I know that, regardless of its provenance or validity, it's simply one part of a complicated issue and as such pretty much irrelevant but I've forgotten who pushed it out there.

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 12:18:42 PM

inthenews · Veteran Member

There is more of a chance that a gun kept in the home will be involved in an accident or against you than to protect you. I know that many in this crowd believe in independence and above all responsibility to self and family, but the risks speak for themselves every day in this country. I wish that the NRA would look at what is happening in the inner cities and at least support strict gun control measures in areas where they are so desperately needed. Of course, they won't, because they are nothing if not a self-serving organization. Instead, their lobby is responsible for much of the political polarization in this country and the fact that so many people vote against policies and politicians who would otherwise represent their interests. It's a strategy that works, sadly. Appeal to fear, not reason.

We are not vegetarians, but I do try to buy meat from sources that are committed to humane treatment of the animals. I would not live with a gun in my home or with someone who enjoyed hunting as sport. Those would be deal breakers for me, personally, although I know there are perfectly nice people who pursue this hobby because they were raised that way or who own guns because it's truly unsafe where they live or work. For most people, that is not the case, though.

Woodwork · Senior Member

SL,

Any praise from you is high praise. I will keep an eye open for the movie you mentioned.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Woody,

Nicely said.

I grew up the daughter and granddaughter of several generations of meat cutters. It's an actual trade for which we don't give them credit. Maximizing the value of the whole animal who has been sacrificed to provide sustenance to dozens of people. I couldn't have done this job, but I have always valued those who do.

I don't see any difference whatsoever in a hunter killing for food or an industrial slaughterhouse in the moral high ground department. Except odds are better that the hunter will be kinder to the animal than a meat packing house (the new, less horrifying term).

Do animals suffer? Yes, they do. But there are ways to make it less so. For an interesting perspective on how one autistic woman's journey into making the lives of animals destined to be meat more humane, read up on Temple Grandin. There was a recent HBO movie made which is captivating.

Woodwork · Senior Member

It may be that the innate desire to compete, to struggle to achieve a fundamental necessity of life (food, in this case...hunting , fishing, gardening) is something that prohibits those repulsed by hunting or fishing from seeing the virtues in, or the drama of, hunting and surviving in nature –even hunting for mushrooms. I mean next to the ground, not in the abstract sense of the grocer (though, to be fair, even the desire to shop derives from that same competitive impulse to hunt). It is also my personal experience that a hunter is also more likely to be a gardener than not. I am. Gardening is to me an extension of the impulse to be close to the ground in nature. It is an archaic desire that draws one to the soil…and in some sense to the constant reality of death and dying.

I do not doubt that there is a similar disconnect in those that oppose guns in the home for protection and much prefer being protected by armed institutions as such, through police and law enforcement, just as there seems to be a disconnect with the impulse to hunt and fish in nature. As for me, sometimes I get a little twinge of remorse when I pick a favorite tomato or flower from my garden in order to bring into the house for food or natural beauty. It was beautiful and alive on the vine or bush, as well. It's natural. I assume one of the reasons why each successive generation has distanced itself from the natural fact of death and dying --their own and others-- is connected to the average individuals increasing distance from the act of death and dying in nature through the acts of hunting, fishing and gardening.

Those that do not understand the ritual of killing for food, or the natural disposition to protect your family or self at your own risk, rather than having these things done by some organization, no doubt feel civilized by the distance they keep from these ancient bits of our grungy heritage as human beings. I get it. I do not, however, share their idea of being civilized by distancing myself from the responsibility of the deaths that are inevitably brought about in the interest of my personal survival over that of the animals, fish and vegetables my family consumes. Like it or not, there is a wisdom in it.

Now, no longer in the modern world is death just an inevitable part of our nature: it is now disgusting.

-- Edited by Woodwork on Thursday 2nd of December 2010 06:08:49 AM

Cartera · Guru

BigG - I did read the article you posted and if that is truly the only kind of hunting that goes on in Germany, then bully for them. They have evolved.

I don't know how to explain my feelings any more clearly than I have. I know that population control is an issue. I say hire sharpshooters to dispatch the deer so they will truly get a bullet to the heart or head. Anyone who has run across a wounded deer in the woods will not likely forget it.

This has nothing to do with eating meat. In my opinion, anyone who gets even a tiny bit of joy or thrill up their leg by killing an animal is deficient in some way. I don't care if you are starving to death. Jump for joy because you will eat but not because you have bagged a ten point buck.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

You cannot save or improve their lives by not hunting them. Without predation, they over populate and starve to death.

In the cases in which this is true, I have little opposition. But then, hunting in this scenario is not solely for "entertainment".

Hunting in Germany is seen as an activity with serious ecological responsibilities. Sensible in a region with no other large predators left other than humans.

It is sensible.

BigG · Guru

Hunting in Germany is seen as an activity with serious ecological responsibilities. Sensible in a region with no other large predators left other than humans.

To take the example of white tail deer in my home area;
You cannot save or improve their lives by not hunting them.
Without predation, they over populate and starve to death.
Is starving a kinder and gentler death than a bullet in the heart?

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 08:32:09 PM