Greased_Lightning Posted June 11, 2005 Report Posted June 11, 2005 Hunting is not BS for the simple fact that it is necessary to keep populations in check and even that isnt enough these days (case in point, Chronic Wasting Disease). The problem is that we've pushed out the natural predators through urban development, farming, and hunting. Sure, we can bring back the predators. Just eliminate farms, ranches, and cities. If you don't mind worrying about a wolf or coyote attack, that's just fine. Speaking from experience, it's not fun having a coyote come after you. Anyhoo, living in florida, you wouldn't know anything about that. Personally, I'd rather have all us redneck !@#$%^&*holes shooting deer instead of a gun-wielding serial killer because at least we have a good excuse. Unless, of course, you think an animal is more important than a human...If that's the case, why don't you invite some pigs or better yet, wolves to live in your home with you. That sure won't last long. Human Life > Animal Life.
Yupa Posted June 11, 2005 Report Posted June 11, 2005 Hunting is not BS for the simple fact that it is necessary to keep populations in checkThat's what the natural predators are for. Sure, humans were once natural predators and still are in many parts of the world, but in this age, in the Unitied States, there is no good reason to hunt deer or the like besides recreation or tradition. Hunting for recreation is bull!@#$%^&*; hunting for tradition I can abide in a few forms. Hunting (particularly by people such as yourself) is not the sole method of population control, either.and even that isnt enough these days (case in point, Chronic Wasting Disease).Population control necessary because of reckless disregard for habitat equilibrium and the slaughtering of many animals because of disease are nowhere near equivalent.The problem is that we've pushed out the natural predators through urban development, farming, and hunting.Yes, I agree, yet here you are arguing for hunting. I guess you think it's stupid and smart at the same time? Sure, we can bring back the predators. Just eliminate farms, ranches, and cities.Nah, just eliminate wasteful development of land & urban sprawl...and dumb!@#$%^&* hunting.If you don't mind worrying about a wolf or coyote attack, that's just fine.I wouldn't. I do not especially fear coyotes or wolves (maybe all of a large pack ).Speaking from experience, it's not fun having a coyote come after you.Where'd a coyote come after you?Anyhoo, living in florida, you wouldn't know anything about that.Why not? Florida has both coyotes and wolves (not a whole lot of wolves, though & probably not grey wolves, either [the wolf population in the entire continental US is pretty tiny, though).you think an animal is more important than a humanHumans are animals, but if you meant do I think my species is more important than others, then, no, I do not.If that's the case, why don't you invite some pigs or better yet, wolves to live in your home with you. That sure won't last long.I would and it would last, but I do not have the funds.
»SOS Posted June 11, 2005 Report Posted June 11, 2005 I can see the usefulness of guns when law enforcement is slow and useless... but I hope that's not very weidespread. In other cases, however, I fear that if everyone had guns, criminals would just kill the victim instead of threatening him. That way, he can't shoot back. So this makes me lean a bit against guns. Those points aside, there's one major reason that makes me very pro-gun: protection from invasion by a foreign country. If everyone had a gun, it'd be !@#$%^&* difficult to invade the country without major losses. (Hey, I live right next to Russia! I'm scared! )
MonteZuma Posted June 11, 2005 Report Posted June 11, 2005 ...there's one major reason that makes me very pro-gun: protection from invasion by a foreign country. If everyone had a gun, it'd be !@#$%^&* difficult to invade the country without major losses. (Hey, I live right next to Russia! I'm scared! )<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't think the civilian population of any country could deter a determined invasion by an army stong enough to overcome the state military. The best that a civilian population could do is act as some kind of guerilla insurgency after an invasion, like in Iraq. There might be some use for that kind of deterrent in eastern Europe, but not in most western countries.
Aileron Posted June 12, 2005 Report Posted June 12, 2005 I am somewhat concerned about the effectiveness of hunting rifles against a modern military. 5 shots bolt action versus 50 shots automatic doesn't seem like a fair fight...then again, hunting has taught me that I only need one shot. However, paintball has taught me that the ability to spray ammo in someone's general direction trumps accurate shooting, so it might be good to remove the ban on assault weapons. I wouldn't worry about cops either....training is more effective than a more powerfull weapon.
MonteZuma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 it might be good to remove the ban on assault weapons.A nutcase with an assault weapon (or any weapon for that matter) is a more dangerous and real threat to your freedom and your civil liberty than any military or militia.
Yupa Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 um...no, sorry a nutcase with an army is more of a threat than a nutcase by himself it's ridiculous how wrong that statement is
Confess Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 I say give the Canadians guns and let em go at it, that way we can sit back and laugh at em
Yupa Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 Right now the whole world is laughing at America, including a lot of America itself...and for good reason.
»SOS Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 (edited) MonteZuma: how big is the active military in a country? 0.5% of the population? I don't really know. !@#$%^&*, even if it was as high as 10%, any potential invader would have to face up to 10 times as many armed people as normally. And a sizable portion will have served in the army at one point in their lives, so they wouldn't all be untrained. That would be a serious deterrent, I'd say. Simply the fact that the army could not easily move through major towns without razing them would help a great deal. They'd have to p!@#$%^&* many towns if moving on roads. And near all those would be armed people in the treeline and on high buildings, just waiting for the soldiers to pass.. Although I agree that in a modern western country, the chance of war is already so incredibly low that such a thing would not be needed. Edited June 13, 2005 by SOS
MonteZuma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 um...no, sorry a nutcase with an army is more of a threat than a nutcase by himself it's ridiculous how wrong that statement is <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You and I are more likely to be deprived of life and liberty by a nutcase with a gun than an army. Which army do you feel threatened by? If Aileron was an Iraqi I might agree with you.
MonteZuma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 MonteZuma: how big is the active military in a country? 0.5% of the population?Maybe even less. any potential invader would have to face up to 10 times as many armed people as normally. And a sizable portion will have served in the army at one point in their lives, so they wouldn't all be untrained. That would be a serious deterrent, I'd say.I'm not convinced, especially for western countries with well-resourced militaries and allegiances with powerful allies. It is too hard to organise a rag-tag group of individuals into a fighting force. I suspect that if the invader can get past the military in the first place, you're screwed. Simply the fact that the army could not easily move through major towns without razing them would help a great deal. They'd have to p!@#$%^&* many towns if moving on roads. And near all those would be armed people in the treeline and on high buildings, just waiting for the soldiers to pass..Would they be waiting like that? And if they were, wouldn't the soldiers have a huge advantage, with things like rpgs and tanks. I can't think of any examples of a civilian militia being so effective. Can you think of any?
»SOS Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 I can't think of any country that has a civilian militia like this Maybe Switzerland but afaik that has not been attacked in a while. So yeah, this is all theoretical guesstimation
Yupa Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 You and I are more likely to be deprived of life and liberty by a nutcase with a gun than an army.Life, maybe, but you only said freedom/civil liberty (before).
MonteZuma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 You and I are more likely to be deprived of life and liberty by a nutcase with a gun than an army.Life, maybe, but you only said freedom/civil liberty (before).<{POST_SNAPBACK}>That too. I think we are much more likely to suffer any sort of deprivation at the hands of some random idiot with a gun than an army.
Yupa Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 Well I've been alive for 22+ years and have even had an idea of what was going on for maybe half of that. I have never been threatened by some random idiot with a gun. I have had my freedom continually abused by the leader of the armed forces, among others. Some random idiot with a gun can probably do the most damage to me in a short amount of time, but the most loss of freedom I will ever endure will probably be because of some government and its forces.
MonteZuma Posted June 13, 2005 Report Posted June 13, 2005 Jails are full of people that commited crimes with guns. It happens. By the same token, I'm a bit older than you and I've never felt that my freedom has been abused by a military - or the government for that matter. I guess it is a matter of perspective.
Confess Posted June 14, 2005 Report Posted June 14, 2005 Maybe the reason that it hasnt been abused is because people like Americans have kept that liberty availible to you, with, by the way, guns
SeVeR Posted June 14, 2005 Author Report Posted June 14, 2005 That can't be right because i live in the UK and feel the same way as Monte. Pretty much anyone in any country without guns will also tell you that they haven't been abused by the military or the government. If for some reason they did want to abuse you then having a gun isn't going to make a difference... it might get you killed or locked up but i can't see any positive differences.
MonteZuma Posted June 14, 2005 Report Posted June 14, 2005 Maybe the reason that it hasnt been abused is because people like Americans have kept that liberty availible to you, with, by the way, guns <{POST_SNAPBACK}>What SeVeR said. I don't have a problem with soldiers having guns (in democratic nations). The US military did a lot to protect my liberty, especially before I was born (WW2). But civilian gun owners (in the US or anywhere else) have done nothing to preserve my liberty. If anything, they have done the opposite.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 15, 2005 Report Posted June 15, 2005 Would they be waiting like that? And if they were, wouldn't the soldiers have a huge advantage, with things like rpgs and tanks. I can't think of any examples of a civilian militia being so effective. Can you think of any?<{POST_SNAPBACK}> As you said above, ragtag groups dedicated to G. Warfare is where the effectiveness would be. The reason the vietcong were so effective was because they knew the terrain, and were very effective in small groups that performed hit and run tactics. Here where I live in the foothills of the Boston Mountains in Arkansas, it would be !@#$%^&* for an organized force to clear people out, for the most part the population isn't centralized, and the combat would be infantry v infantry, heavy armor would be useless. And to comment on the hunting discussion above. Someone said about how pointless hunting is and that it has no practical use, or something along those lines. Living in a state with one of the highest poverty rates in the United States, and knowing more families than I can remember living on well under 20,000 dollars a year, hunting and fishing provides a very cheap food source. Though I recognize your arguement, just wanted to point out that some people do still hunt to feed themselves and their families, however foreign the idea may or may not be to you.
Recommended Posts