Political & Elections

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

It Had to Happen Sometime: The Gun Control Thread

catahoula · Guru

Someone mind explaining to me the joy they receive from killing another living being? I'm curious
I'm not a vegan, I don't have a problem with procuring my own dinner, and... I guess I don't really understand the question.

-- Edited by catahoula on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 08:01:07 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Sorry, guys, but I have absolutely no interest in sharing a restroom with you.

I have lived in a house with guys and, well, they aren't as tidy in the washroom in my experience.

Have you ever been to a football stadium or a concert and there is a huge line outside the ladies room and the men are in and out of there in a heartbeat?

BigG · Guru

Did you even bother to peruse the German hunting link I posted? Here it is again;
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2003/HuntingGermany.htm

If hunters took joy in suffering, why would they bother to try for a clean kill or track a wounded animal to dispatch it?

Just blow their little (or big) legs off and watch them thrash about until they bleed out. That's entertainment!

You are missing the whole point.

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 07:43:46 PM

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Someone mind explaining to me the joy they receive from killing another living being? I'm curious.

Perhaps if something is killed in an orderly manner (i.e. quickly) and on one's own property, it's not a terribly vociferous practice, but I cannot empathize with the act of inducing suffering on another being in the name of one's own pleasure.

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 07:22:34 PM

catahoula · Guru

I have no problem with hungry people hunting. That doesn't include people who hunt because they like it and then just happen to eat what they kill.

Implicit in the evolution argument is change. Obviously, I have evolved. People who look into the eyes of an animal and gleefully shoot it, cut off its head and hang it for all to admire - have not.

I'm actually with you on the tropy hunting (and shooting anything that isn't a pest or you're not going to eat) but what's backwards about acknowledging the miracle of refrigeration, other than it's carbon footprint?

I think you're actually showing grasshopper tendencies here, cartera, because you seem to be saying that the ant (realizing he might be hungry in the future) is scum simply because he packs his freezer when he can.

BigG · Guru

Again, "madness" is a personal value judgement.

Cartera · Guru

Woodwork - your comments are completely irrelevant to my opinion about people who enjoy the so-called "sport" of hunting. That has nothing to do with eating meat or slaughterhouses. You are focused on the method. I am focused on the madness.

Woodwork · Senior Member

Hunting is what we do. We also eat. People enjoy hunting whether hunting for deer or shoes. Of course, you can't eat shoes.

As for the humanity in it, one need only take a brief look at a slaughter-house to know there is no glory in dying that way. There are a great many ways to die that are worse than being shot. Some even end their own lives that way rather than taking an alternative route to death.

I can understand the impulse to be a vegetarian, close to a quarter of the world's population have comfortably lived that way for centuries, but it does seem a bit rich for a meat eater to become morally indignant over hunting as opposed to getting their victuals from the slaughter-house.

geeps20 · Senior Member

I have no problem with hungry people hunting. That doesn't include people who hunt because they like it and then just happen to eat what they kill.

...but if you are hungry you can fire up the grill and eat a steak or a chicken diner....and that's OK because you didn't do the killing? Is the person who prefers venison over steak evil because he goes out and shoots a deer?

geeps20 · Senior Member

People who do this are flawed.

everyone is flawed...some people hunt, some cheat on their spouses, some cheat on their taxes, some lie. Who's to say what is worse.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

BigG wrote:

Jordcin seems to have infinite faith in the goodness and competance of government.
The government will always be there to defend and protect your loved ones. You can depend on 911 to provide instantaneous response.

I do believe that our government is basically good and as competant as a huge government can be. Of course there is always room for improvement and the government always needs to be worked on, just like any business or even any family.

BigG WROTE:
"Also I prefer to live in a country where the population has the option of at least somewhat effective armed rebellion.

This is a check against the worst abuses of government and the possibility of a military coup."

Do you really think a bunch of people with guns could defend against a US military coup? Not even possible. And it's not going to happen. If anything a revolution would be more probable and that's the reason you don't want wide spread guns. There goes democracy, there goes majority rule. It would be the extremist nuts who would revolt, the Glen Beck followers, religious fanatics, fringe elements. People you don't want having guns.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

ImSoAnarchist wrote:

I have no understanding of people who can kill something for sport. It is sick.

I'm with you there. I ran over a squirrel once and felt sick over it for days. As I was driving there were two squirrels playing in a yard. One was running in circles and the other was chasing him. Suddenly the one that was running in circles ran out in the street and I had no time to stop. The other squirrel just stood on his hind legs with a stunned look on his face. What a horrible feeling.

How anyone can think that ending a life is a fun sport is beyond me.

BigG · Guru

But the government , the government...

Its omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and every other good thing.

Government is the God of liberals.

geeps20 · Senior Member

It makes no sense to me that there are actually people out that that want guns banned. Let me ask a simple question to the anti-gun crowd. If someone broke into your house with very bad intentions...what would you do? My job is to protect my family. We all sleep upstairs and if an intruder ever did break into my home, I'm 100% confident that my daughter and wife will not be raped. How confident are you? The intruder wouldn't make it upstairs without a bullet in his head. Maybe the odds are slim, but those not prepared are being foolish..and are not protecting their families.

BigG · Guru

Interesting link;
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2003/HuntingGermany.htm

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I am not a hunter and I have joked that if I had to kill my dinner before eating it, I would likely be skinny or starve.

That said, those who do hunt for sport, I am not opposed to what they do. I have never met a hunter that wasn't deeply appreciative of adding food to their tables, and far from the image of a hunter who is merely taking heads, these men and women see it as an economic reality. Very often this sport hunting is a way to provide meat for their families and also to help keep the animal population in check.

Did you know that taxes on license fees for hunters actually helps provide for forest rangers and land for habitats of animals?

Each year, nearly $200 million in hunters' federal excise taxes are distributed to state agencies to support wildlife management programs, the purchase of lands open to hunters, and hunter education and safety classes. Since 1934 the sale of Federal Duck Stamps, a required purchase for migratory waterfowl hunters over 16 years old, has raised over $700 million to help purchase more than 5.2 million acres (8,100 sq mi/20,000 km²) of habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System lands that support waterfowl and many other wildlife species, and are often open to hunting. States also collect monies from hunting licenses to assist with management of game animals, as designated by law. A key task of Federal and state park rangers and game wardens is to enforce laws and regulations related to hunting, including species protection, hunting seasons, and hunting bans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting

Cartera · Guru

I fished in the pond on our farm where I grew up. I almost always let go anything I caught, but it was frowned upon. I'm not a bad shot. I grew up around guns and did some target practicing and have done trap shooting. Most of the men, and some of the women, in my extended family hunt regularly. If I were hungry, I'd kill something to eat. I wouldn't enjoy the killing part though. It's the enjoyment part that bothers me.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

The hunter-killer instinct is useful in a lot of competitive endeavors too.

BigG · Guru

Catera,

You have made a value judgement that may have nothing to do with the long term viability of the human species.

Evolution is amoral.

In case of large scale social disruption, the ability to hunt and kill prey would facilitate survival. Certainly limiting the range of behavioral options available to an organism is contrasurvival.

How do you feel about fishing? After all they are fellow verterbrates.

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 08:02:07 AM

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> Far from being a poor argument for a behavior, evolution is the best explanation for a
> behavior.

Discoveries in genes and chemicals for human behavior are ongoing and the finds have been quite interesting.

Our teenagers spend a lot of time hunting and killing these days. Why are videogames so addictive? Perhaps they tap into genetic reasons for behavior.

Cartera · Guru

Implicit in the evolution argument is change. Obviously, I have evolved. People who look into the eyes of an animal and gleefully shoot it, cut off its head and hang it for all to admire - have not.

BigG · Guru

Evolution makes us do almost everything.
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you think humans, among all that lives, are exempt from its dictates?

Why do we want sex, food, variety, social interaction, or anything for that matter? Because we have evolved to fill a specific evolutionary niche.

Reason is a thin veneer over the dominance submission behavior of our primate ancestors.

Far from being a poor argument for a behavior, evolution is the best explanation for a behavior. Animals enjoy doing what they need to do to survive and perpetuate their genes. From the cat playing "cat and mouse" with its prey to teach young cats hunting behavior, to young bulls frolicking in a pasture to develope muscles to avoid predators, to otters diving and swimming, apparently "just for fun", but actually to improve physical skills needed for survival, animals repeat the behaviors that made their ancestors successful.

Or we could just make a religious argument that Man is God's special creation and we can do whatever we want to mere animals.

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 07:49:02 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 07:50:36 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 07:54:28 AM

Cartera · Guru

Surely, BigG, you can come up with a better argument than "evolution made me do it." Thinning a burgeoning population is a better one.

As to pmrlcomm's reply, I'll just take the advice in his signature line.

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

Because Cartera doesn't have the stomach for it and would have starved to death and it would have been the end of their evolutionary line...lol

BigG · Guru

Scientifically our teeth and digestive systems indicate we are omnivorous "killer apes". It is perfectly natural for such to hunt and kill prey. Objecting to this is simply objecting to the very nature of our being.

Can "reason" or "logic" or "morality" transend "evolution"? Why should they? Because certain people are offended by Bubba blowing away Bambi? What possible basis could there be for such morality?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I have no understanding of people who can kill something for sport. It is sick.

I believe recognizing what you have said in the first sentence, and then abstaining from the conclusion you came to in the second is the definition of tolerance.

Cartera · Guru

How do you feel about people who hunt for food?

I have no problem with hungry people hunting. That doesn't include people who hunt because they like it and then just happen to eat what they kill. People who truly hunt for food most likely consider it a chore, not a sport. I have no understanding of people who can kill something for sport. It is sick. To display it after they kill it is even sicker.

-- Edited by Cartera on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 08:18:24 PM

berurah · Senior Member

Cartera wrote:
If we were a more civilized country

You missed the most important part of the statement.

There is no excuse for hunting animals for sport, however. People who do this are flawed.

How do you feel about people who hunt for food?

BigG · Guru

"People who do this are flawed"

I find this startlingly akin to Ann Coulter's dismissal of liberals.

If you don't believe as I do you are flawed.
If you don't believe as I do you are not a thoughtful and intelligent person.
If you don't believe as I do you are not a true American.
If you don't believe as I do you will go to Hell.

Tolerance for everything but disagreement with one's own beliefs.
That's a really viable basis for a civilized society.

We must all think the same, else how can we stamp out difference!

-- Edited by BigG on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 03:10:30 PM

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

Cartera wrote:

If we were a more civilized country

You missed the most important part of the statement.

There is no excuse for hunting animals for sport, however. People who do this are flawed.

Sure there is. Deer kill more humans in the United States than any other animal. Not to mention the fact that overpopulation of deer can result in the death of more animals than hunting ever could. Hunting is an important means of controlling the deer population.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> There is no excuse for hunting animals for sport, however.

What do you do when the deer population is too big in your area?

> People who do this are flawed.

Merely an opinion.

Cartera · Guru

If we were a more civilized country

You missed the most important part of the statement.

There is no excuse for hunting animals for sport, however. People who do this are flawed.

BigG · Guru

Jordcin seems to have infinite faith in the goodness and competance of government.
The government will always be there to defend and protect your loved ones. You can depend on 911 to provide instantaneous response.

Also I prefer to live in a country where the population has the option of at least somewhat effective armed rebellion.

This is a check against the worst abuses of government and the possibility of a military coup.

As far as banning guns being equated to being more civilized, what about the Swiss? They are generally regarded as being very civilized and gun ownership is MANDATORY.(although their lefties are trying to change that).

-- Edited by BigG on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 12:06:42 PM

pmrlcomm · Senior Member

Jordcin wrote:
"If we were a more civilized country we would get rid of the second amendment. No one needs guns. No one needs to kill animals for sport.

So, we do away with the 2nd Amendment. Law abiding citizens do what they do, abide by the law and turn in their firearms. Poof! No more guns, right? Are you that foolish to think that the criminals would turn in their firearms? The only thing that would happen is every 7/11 across the country would get knocked off overnight. No fear of the clerk behind the counter pulling out a sawed-off and blowing their heads off. You'd better be able to afford to double the police force's across the country to deal with the crime spree's that would take place. Welcome to a lawless society when only the criminals have the weapons. There are already too many in play to push the rewind button now.

-- Edited by pmrlcomm on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 10:10:44 AM

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> You know gun control has nothing to do with that. No one lives in New Hampshire, Maine
> or Vermont, that's why.

New Hampshire has a number of cities on or near the border with MA.

Manchester is probably the most troubled of the NH cities. I'd say that Nashua is next. Despite this, both are in much better shape than a lot of cities in MA. I happen to have a second residence in one of those MA cities. The city has had a fairly big problem with teenagers and young adults randomly shooting in the city for kicks.

> If we were a more civilized country we would get rid of the second amendment. No one
> needs guns. No one needs to kill animals for sport.

Well, this is a common problem in social engineering. How do we get from here to there. The criminals generally hang out in MA because they know that the average person doesn't have a gun. There are criminals in NH but they can flow freely to the MA cities and commit crimes there and then come back to NH to live.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

"I heard that NH was the safest state in the country on the radio last week. Third year in a row. I also heard that MA was the most violent state in New England. NH is relatively liberal on gun laws while MA is extremely strict in terms of laws on the books."

You know gun control has nothing to do with that. No one lives in New Hampshire, Maine or Vermont, that's why.

If we were a more civilized country we would get rid of the second amendment. No one needs guns. No one needs to kill animals for sport.

Protection from the government? How would that work? Since the overwhelming amount of gun owners come from the south, do they get to be in charge?

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

Something that I heard on the radio this morning in a Wikileaks discussion: if we can't prevent top secret cables from getting hacked, how are we going to secure electronic medical databases?

berurah · Senior Member

What is a gun nut?

I do not understand the characterization of people who support citizens' rights to bear arms as "gun nuts." Are the people who support a woman's right to choose "abortion nuts"? Are the people who support gay marriage "homosexual nuts"? Are the people who support the TSA's efforts to inappropriately fondle random passengers "security nuts"?

I grew up in a home without guns and with parents who were terrified of them. I am now married to a hunter who owns guns (which are always kept unloaded in the home). I am not as comfortable with guns in the home as many people are, but I would be fully against any legislation that would make gun ownership illegal (in fact, we just had an opportunity to vote on this here in Kansas).

I agree with those who would say that gun control would leave guns only in the hands of the government and the criminals. It would also increase criminal endeavors around the procuring and purchasing of illegal guns. As BigG so aptly pointed out, government prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and abortion did not stop the activity...just forced it underground in a more dangerous and less regulated way.

BigG · Guru

I am amused and a bit frightened by the very concept of "gun control".

Who wants to give the government enough resources and sheer power to remove guns from society?

People with criminal intent will get guns. How well has the "War on Drugs" gone? How well could a "War on Guns" be expected to fair?

There are limits to available resources and exercise of state authority.

Why, if we passed a law against abortion, it would cease to happen.
If we made alcoholic beverages illegal, no one would drink.
If marijuana were illegal, no one would sell it or use it.
If Ponzi schemes were illegal, no one would conduct them.

Bear in mind that ANY new government initiative from "gun control" to fallout shelters for homeless kittens must be paid for with borrowed or "printed" money.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

I heard that NH was the safest state in the country on the radio last week. Third year in a row. I also heard that MA was the most violent state in New England. NH is relatively liberal on gun laws while MA is extremely strict in terms of laws on the books. The liberal judges, however, tend to be fairly lenient which is why MA has mandatory sentencing on their gun laws - the legislature felt that they needed to take decisions out of the hands of the judicial system.

I don't own any guns, nor do I know how to use them. But a lot of people in my state do. And I'm probably safer because criminals can just go down to MA to commit crimes with much less concern about homes owning guns that could confront them.

The criminals have no problems at all getting guns in MA however.

Woodwork · Senior Member

And here I was thinking the civil-rights folks won that one. Nutty civil-rights loons. They remind me of those individualist free-the-people types, you know, hippies...glide on the peace-train. Don’t trust the government and all. Why must we go on hating, why can’t we live in bliss. Cat Stevens felt it...until that whole Ayatollah thing harshed his buzz.

I figure the only reason these civil-rights folks don't wear patchouli and smoke blunts is because the wild-game they're hunting might scatter at the smell well before they can get a shot off.

Civil-rights nuts!

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I thought this was over and the gun nuts won. Why are we even having this discussion?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Just let the government and the criminals (redundant?) have the guns.

Even if the empirical facts weren't overwhelmingly supporting of gun ownership, I'd still advocate them. Too many people seem to be oblivious to the fact that it is governments of world history, by unbelievable margins, that commit atrocities, not private individuals.

As for the second amendment, it doesn't even make sense.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I am just glad in the natural order of things people were called "idiots" on the board before the gun thread popped up. That was such a volatile thread with unbelievably huge post counts and views and lots of insults.

I am not a gun fan. I don't like shooting, personally. From that thread, you would have thought I had a pistol on my belt and a gun rack in my car. I have shot them and we do have a few in our house for shooting practice and home security. I am not under any delusions that it may not be accessible in a home invasion, but after living through the LA riots, I am on board with having something in the house...just in case.

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

any reason an 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy a pistol?

I admit to not being a gun person.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:24:01 PM

I'm not sure what the reasoning is for the cutoff age of 21, but to me 18 year olds are still, for the most part, pretty unstable. Since a huge percentage of gun deaths in this country are suicides, perhaps regulators don't want to make it any easier for teens who have a hard time looking past the immediate future and their boy/girl trouble? That's my theory.

soccerguy315 · Guru

any reason an 18 year old shouldn't be able to buy a pistol?

I admit to not being a gun person.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:24:01 PM

Cuse0507 · Veteran Member

I realize that we spent a trillion pages talking this one over a couple of years ago on CC, but this is a new board and my post count is lagging so I feel like now is as good a time as ever to bring the issue back up. How do people here feel about the second amendment?

Personally, although I don't own any firearms, I am very much in favor of the individual's right to own guns. Not only for home protection or for hunting, but also for protection from the government in the highly unlikely event that our political system comes crashing down somehow. I believe that the current laws that we have (18 to purchase a rifle/shotgun, 21 for a pistol, background checks, expensive permits to own machine guns, etc) are completely adequate and that the focus needs to shift to taking guns from those who cannot lawfully own them (i.e. felons).

Anyone else want to jump in?