Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Politics, news, current affairs and anything else that you think should be here goes here.
oldjerry
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264581 oldjerry
Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:03 pm

Traditionally,round here at any rate,people hunted rabbits with snares(I did so myself when a young boy),it was cruel then,and still is now.Far crueler than a shotgun.As for the foxes,the Urban variety have 2 big advantages: Tons of food left lying around in bins everywhere,and best of all,very little long damp grass compared to their rural cousins.Grass harbours mange,which in heavily infected areas probably kills as many animals as road traffic.Most of the foxes we have shot have had it to some degree,if they live long enough,sad to say,they will literally scratch themselves to death.

User avatar
gregorach
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 885
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:53 pm
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264582 gregorach
Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:27 pm

Up here in Scotland, we have a huge ecological problem with excessive numbers of red deer. I don't see how you could control those without firearms (short of a massive re-introduction of wolves, which isn't going to happen any time soon), and I regard it as the best meat money can buy - no human food diverted to feed them, no agricultural land shifted from other uses, no cruelty (beyond that of Nature) in their rearing, no stressful transport to the slaughterhouse - just a wild and free life right up until a practically instant death in the sights of an expert marksman. And so delicious!

grahamhobbs wrote:Sorry if I'm rambling a bit, I just think guns are unnecessary and that governments should ban or at least strictly control their use, for where they are strictly needed not just for sport or 'self-protection'.


When you say "sport", do you mean "sporting" in the country sense, or target / clay pigeon shooting? I have no problem at all with that kind of sport... I used to shoot recurve bow a bit too - how you you feel about me having a 30lb takedown bow under my bed? Is it just things that go "bang!" you object to, or anything that fires potentially lethal projectiles? I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm genuinely curious... :icon_smile:
Cheers

Dunc

User avatar
boboff
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:29 am
Location: Gunnislake,Cornwall

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264584 boboff
Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:36 pm

Guns don't kill people, Wabbits Do, and nappy sacks.

And Big rocks, and land slides, and old mine shafts.

And prehistoric Anomolies where Raptors escape.

And smoking.

And running with scissors.

And forgetting to breath.

Or leaving the toilet seet up.

Guns are bad, only when in the hands of bad people, as the definition of bad is hard, it's easier to control the supply of guns as much as possible surely? But then hammers are bad in the wrong hands, but nailing up plasterboard with only a 1.75mm callibre hammer would require alot of skill and time.

There have I summed it all up nicely?
Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

http://boboffs.blogspot.co.uk/

oldfella
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:31 pm
latitude: 44.564
longitude: 0.959
Location: Lot et Garonne France

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264589 oldfella
Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:10 pm

[quote="grahamhobbs"
In France also it has only become a mass sport since the 2nd World war, talk to old people and they will tell you that the amount of wildlife has deteriorated massively since everyone took up hunting with rifles.[/quote]

This my have been true in the past, but at the moment we have a major problem with, Wild Boar, Deer, and Fox's. As for Rabbits and Hares, my three Dogs have given up chasing them as they can never remember which one they were trying to catch.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
I can't do great things, so I do little things with love.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264591 2ndRateMind
Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:42 pm

MKG wrote:2RM - You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that every adult US citizen owns and carries a gun. Not all own a gun. Not all who own guns carry them.

Mike


Thanks, Mike. I was exaggerating a little to make my argument simple to grasp. That argument is, that it is a rational choice for an American to own and carry a gun, and that the sum of these rational choices leads to a sub-optimal situation for all. However, even in the more subtle situation which you point out more correctly represents the reality, where only some people own a gun, and only some of those carry it around with them, I think the point still stands. It is the perception of danger, and the possibility of lethal force in the daily round, that makes gun-ownership rational for the individual. Whether it is 90%, or 50%, or only 10%, that in reality own and carry guns, if I think my neighbours might be armed and hostile, my best choice is to arm up also. So, this is a still a reality where authority in the guise of the nation state has a legitimate role to play, in bringing about a safer situation for all, when the social dynamic is a tendency towards a considerably more dangerous state of affairs.

Cheers, 2RM.

oldjerry
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 2101
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:57 am

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264597 oldjerry
Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:44 pm

Leaving aside the implication that up to 90% of Americans behave irrationally(by perhaps NOT owning a gun)I think you make a few sweeping assumptions.Primarily why d'you think that someone's sole rationale for owning a firearm is because they feelthreatened?There will be many reasons,different people think differently,I'm willing to bet that many people have guns just because they can.In addition, I fancy you would accept that the legitimacy of your nation state is predicated on democratic foundations,rather than just the fact that it carrys out policies that you personally agree with? Well the polls in the US contiunally show support for existing gun laws.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264609 2ndRateMind
Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:08 am

oldjerry wrote:Leaving aside the implication that up to 90% of Americans behave irrationally(by perhaps NOT owning a gun)I think you make a few sweeping assumptions.Primarily why d'you think that someone's sole rationale for owning a firearm is because they feelthreatened?There will be many reasons,different people think differently,I'm willing to bet that many people have guns just because they can.In addition, I fancy you would accept that the legitimacy of your nation state is predicated on democratic foundations,rather than just the fact that it carrys out policies that you personally agree with? Well the polls in the US contiunally show support for existing gun laws.


Hey OJ. The fact that it is rational to own a gun does not, to my way of thinking, imply that it is irrational not to. You can perfectly well have two diametrically opposed courses of action, both entirely rational, simply starting out from different premises.

As for democracy - well, I have tried to show that the individual citizen has a different perspective to that of, say, a benign dictator. (Before you all jump down my throat, I do not advocate dictatorship, benign or otherwise). The point is, that what is ideal for society does not necessarily follow from a collection of individuals all following, and voting for, their individual best interests. That is why representative democracy works better than direct democracy in many instances.

Finally, about feeling threatened. This is a direct response to the well-made contention, on this thread, that because the baddies would probably disobey any restrictions on gun ownership, no restrictions should be imposed. It's a common argument in debates on this topic, and demonstrates, I think, the genuine concern Americans feel about a genuine threat.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Last edited by 2ndRateMind on Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Crickleymal
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:16 pm
Location: Gloucester

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264610 Crickleymal
Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:14 am

But is it a genuine concern? Apart from security staff and police I've not seen anyone obviously carrying a gun in the US. So if people are worried why aren't they carrying guns. If they are and the guns are concealed then they won't be much use if you're suddenly confronted by a "bad guy". How many times do people have to defend themselves?
Malc

High in the sky, what do you see ?
Come down to Earth, a cup of tea
Flying saucer, flying teacup
From outer space, Flying Teapot

User avatar
MKG
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5010
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: North Notts.

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264611 MKG
Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:42 am

Most states allow concealed carrying of guns, so it isn't going to be obvious. But an interesting snippet I've just dug up. Washington DC has had a no-carry (except for obvious exceptions) law for over 25 years now. Apparently, it's made very little, if any, difference to the amount of gun crime.

Mike
The secret of life is to aim below the head (With thanks to MMM)

Mustardseedmama
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 11:40 am
Location: Central United States

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264612 Mustardseedmama
Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:59 am

"Most" Americans who own guns don't actually "carry" the guns. They own them, and keep them, for various reasons. Many of the people I know who own handguns only keep them for home protection (meaning FAMILY protection---not protecting a house).
What if you're wrong? What if there's more? What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?
Nichole Nordeman----Brave

Crickleymal
Living the good life
Living the good life
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:16 pm
Location: Gloucester

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264613 Crickleymal
Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:28 pm

MKG wrote: But an interesting snippet I've just dug up. Washington DC has had a no-carry (except for obvious exceptions) law for over 25 years now. Apparently, it's made very little, if any, difference to the amount of gun crime.

I thought that might be the case.
Malc

High in the sky, what do you see ?
Come down to Earth, a cup of tea
Flying saucer, flying teacup
From outer space, Flying Teapot

User avatar
boboff
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:29 am
Location: Gunnislake,Cornwall

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264614 boboff
Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:52 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Interesting though that D 0f C shows 16 murders per 100,000, which is by a factor of 4 higher than any other state, and highest by a factor of 5 on armed robberies.

So Gun Control has in effect made crime with guns allot more prevalent. Presumably as there is less likelihood of getting shot back!
Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

http://boboffs.blogspot.co.uk/

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Tom Good
Tom Good
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264615 2ndRateMind
Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:49 pm

boboff wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Interesting though that D 0f C shows 16 murders per 100,000, which is by a factor of 4 higher than any other state, and highest by a factor of 5 on armed robberies.

So Gun Control has in effect made crime with guns allot more prevalent. Presumably as there is less likelihood of getting shot back!



Great link.

But I think the data and article supports the case for a federal approach to gun control, rather than a state legislating on it's own.

Cheers, 2RM.

User avatar
frozenthunderbolt
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 2:42 am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264622 frozenthunderbolt
Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:34 pm

Crickleymal wrote:But is it a genuine concern? Apart from security staff and police I've not seen anyone obviously carrying a gun in the US. So if people are worried why aren't they carrying guns. If they are and the guns are concealed then they won't be much use if you're suddenly confronted by a "bad guy". How many times do people have to defend themselves?


Most states have some form of concealed carry permit. A good number of those with a CCP have speed draw holsters and practice with them. IN many cases it is bystanders rather than the intended target who respond to a lethal threat with lethal force.

Case in point would be a Darwin Award recipient who tried to hold up a gun store, having walked past a police cruiser parked outside - waved his gun in the store owners face demanding money or he would "f****** kill him" at which point he was ventilated 14 times within a few seconds by the cops out side and many of the patrons browsing in the shop.

How many times do people have defend themselves, well in Denver 'justifiable homicide' is up 1200% as the economy falls apart, police numbers are cut and gang members flood the town.
Note: these are cases where joe blow has acted in defense of life (their own or others) and had a court rule as such, without personal firearms there's a pretty good chance it would't have been some gang-banger that was killed but instead an everyday someone with no ill intent instead
Jeremy Daniel Meadows. (Jed).

Those who walk in truth and love grow in honour and strength

User avatar
boboff
A selfsufficientish Regular
A selfsufficientish Regular
Posts: 1809
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:29 am
Location: Gunnislake,Cornwall

Re: Shooters can't shoot if they have nothing to shoot with

Post: #264624 boboff
Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:30 am

2ndRateMind wrote:Great link.

But I think the data and article supports the case for a federal approach to gun control, rather than a state legislating on it's own.

Cheers, 2RM.



Statistics are one thing, the point I was not trying overly hard to point out was that Mike was wrong.... sorry Mike.

As always though, this doesn't show what it was like before the rules came in, and other specific causes of what is the highest gun crime state.

But the point is valid that if you arm the citizens then you effectively increase the "Police" albiet untrained, who can fight crime. This is a scary notion.
Millymollymandy wrote:Bloody smilies, always being used. I hate them and they should be banned.
No I won't use a smiley because I've decided to turn into Boboff, as he's turned all nice all of a sudden. Grumble grumble.

http://boboffs.blogspot.co.uk/


Return to “I read the news today, oh boy.”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest