what the hell is going on - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #91 10-06-2006, 12:53 AM

Don't go after the hunters, the fisherman will be next!

Already some nut jobs are starting crap with the fishing industry, idiots. Us recreational guys donate more money and do more for the environment then Greenpeace can ever claim.

Hunters are the same way, by nature they are conservationists. Heck look at what Orvis does alone! They are constantly restoring streams.

Outdoors men put there money where there mouth is.

I was very much hoping that gun control was dead after 9/11. But it seems that like genital herpes, it just never goes away.

kamil · #92 10-06-2006, 04:23 AM

Wisconsin wants to pass a bill so teachers can carry concealed weapons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15142930/

dacia · #93 10-06-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon

Hunting = diabetes? Do you have any empirical data for this trend?
.
.
.
.Would those handguns you mention be anything like the handguns that appear in your avatar? Maybe I'm just stupid, but that cartoon sure appears g a regular basis, is very low. You act like sport hunting is as common as drivto be glorifying gun culture. Weren't you the one talking about the hypocrisy of some board members earlier in this thread? Hello, pot? This is the kettle....

Adult onset diabetes is clearly contributable to sedentary lifestyle (although natives may be predisposed to type I as well), so the very low level exercise involved in modern day hunting compared to their traditional way of collecting food may have been a contributing factor in the extensive problem those communities are facing today. Hence my comment.

That duck also has a huge beer gut, has a cigarette hanging out of its mouth and wears an East-LA style gangbanger’s apparel. Yet it doesn’t promote binge drinking, smoking or gangbanging. It is a caricature, and a funny one at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

The percentage of our population that actually hunts, especially on anything resembling a regular basis, is very low. You act like sport hunting is as common as driving or cell phone use or something!

Mike

It is not the number of number of hunters, it is the principal. In cities hunters may not be a large part of the population, on the countryside it is a different story. American hunters are flooding into Canada for bear hunts every year, not to mention other large game. It is clearly an ego boost, serves no other purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

.
.
.
Handguns are also used for recreational and competitive target shooting, etc... And there are a few who use large revolvers for hunting...

But that's beside the point.

Handguns ARE for self-defense. And if that self-defense escalates to the point of killing a violent criminal, then so what?... An innocent victim has been spared, and the gene pool has been improved. Where's the downside?

Additionally, in most cases where a handgun was used in self-defense, a shot was not even fired. More often than not, merely the sight of the weapon and/or the sound of the weapon's action, is sufficient to send the criminal running with his tail between his legs. This was true of the incident I personally experienced as well. One look at my .45 instantly sent the piece of human $h!t running for his life. Although I was quite ready and willing to do so, I didn't have to fire a shot.

Of course you never hear about this fact in the news, because most of them have the same mindless anti-gun bias that you do, and they believe their own paranoid, "all guns are inherently bad" propaganda.

If you never hear about that fact then what evidence do you have to back that claim?
I don’t have a mindless anti-gun bias, I simply realize the fact that America’s violence is clearly contributable to the readily available guns. No matter how you twist the argument the fact is none of the recent massacres could have been committed without the easily available guns and assault rifles. The Montreal massacre (14 women died) 17 years ago was committed with a rifle, John Mohamad's sniper shooting a couple of years back, the Columbine massacre etc. were all the result of the lack of effective gun control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

.
.
.
Criminals WILL find ways to commit crimes no matter WHAT you do... Until you find a cure for human nature, guns will ALWAYS be essential for self-defense and law enforcement.

Although I am not a "collector", I do own guns for self-defense and for the simple enjoyment of their engineering and craftsmanship.

I am a highly responsible owner, exercising the utmost in safety habits, and every other gun owner that I know is exactly the same.
Mike

According to Canadian laws (US laws may be different), your gun supposed to be locked away in safe storage separate from its ammunition, can only be transported to the shooting range with the appropriate permission from the police. How were you able to threaten the criminal with your gun when it was safely locked away?

It is a sad state of affairs when you feel that the only way you can feel safe in your home or community is by packing “heat”. No other nation follows the same path (Canada has strict hand gun control laws and most of its hand gun violence is attributable to guns smuggled up from the States) . There is something inherently wrong with a society where one has so much fear of his fellow citizens that he feels the need to be armed at all times. Your taxes are obviously going to waste if you feel that the police can’t protect you.

In any case the argument is pointless, you feel the need to have a gun, I have never had the urge. I couldn’t care less what people collect, but the fact is hand guns and assault rifles are used to kill people, they have no other purpose as it has been demonstrated time and time again. You look at it as a self defense instrument I look at it as a murder waiting to happen.

Maybe a “few” nutjobs (thousands of murders are committed with guns every year, I think it is more than a “few”) ruin it for the “responsible” ones, the fact is we have speed limits because most people don’t have the ability or the inclination to drive fast ,and their safety is more important than the urge of the few to burn rubber every time they sit behind the wheel. It is the reality.
Most of those murdered in the mentioned massacres would be alive today had in not been for the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby.
People sue cigarette makers for damages, they sure as hell should sue gun manufacturers for wrongful deaths.

Alex

#94 10-06-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

I am not sure if hunting for food deserves the “outmost” respect, it is a way of life for some people. Natives have done it for millennia; I still think it is the easy way out to put a scope on a high powered hunting riffle and kill an animal from hundreds of yards. But of course they don’t hunt on foot anymore either, they roam around on ATVs. Little wonder diabetes is rampant.

Alex

If it was that easy it would be hard to make a case for 12% hunter success rates wouldn't it?

Your idea of food chain is a grocery store chain.

raymr · #95 10-06-2006, 10:55 AM

Is this the price of our freedom? The most innocent of innocent people get violently blown away, and everyone starts debating the merits of hunting. How appropriate.

You are no better than those silent Muslims who also believe their value system justifies whatever happens to someone else.

Botnst · #96 10-06-2006, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Is this the price of our freedom? The most innocent of innocent people get violently blown away, and everyone starts debating the merits of hunting. How appropriate.

You are no better than those silent Muslims who also believe their value system justifies whatever happens to someone else.

The thread shifted off-topic. Doesn't mean people don't give a damn. I think it's what psychologists call displacement activity--when a stimulus is so unpleasant that we turn out attention to something less unpleasant.

#97 10-06-2006, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Is this the price of our freedom? The most innocent of innocent people get violently blown away, and everyone starts debating the merits of hunting. How appropriate.

You are no better than those silent Muslims who also believe their value system justifies whatever happens to someone else.

I read a factoid somewhere that more people were killed with swords, arrows and spears than all other weapons combined.

dacia · #98 10-06-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

Your idea of food chain is a grocery store chain.

Actually no, we used to slaughter a pig (with a knife) every year just before christmas and then processed it all, only threw away the gall bladder. Had chickens and ducks, and a small farm. Fully aware how nature works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Is this the price of our freedom? The most innocent of innocent people get violently blown away, and everyone starts debating the merits of hunting. How appropriate.

You are no better than those silent Muslims who also believe their value system justifies whatever happens to someone else.

Actually a lager part of my reply dealt with the gun violence, perhaps you should re-read it, it is just that the gun supporters chose not to discuss it any longer, which is just fine.
The fact is the "most innocent of innocents" were "blown away" by someone wielding a firearm. No ways around it. And it happens with alarming frequency.

I am not sure what that last statement means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The thread shifted off-topic. Doesn't mean people don't give a damn. I think it's what psychologists call displacement activity--when a stimulus is so unpleasant that we turn out attention to something less unpleasant.

Nobody is holding a gun to you head (how appropriate), your input neither required nor missed.

Alex

Botnst · #99 10-06-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

..

Nobody is holding a gun to you head (how appropriate), your input neither required nor missed.

Alex

Despite my response not being directed even close to your or the topic which you are discussing, you managed to include me in your kill zone.

How inclusively insolent of you.

B

mikemover · #**100** 10-08-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

If you never hear about that fact then what evidence do you have to back that claim?

Here's a good start. Let me know if you'd like more. I have a LOT more.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/peer.html
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm
http://tafkac.org/death/gun_stats_dept_of_justice.html
http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/kasler.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/October2003/1003Kopel.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-20-02.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

According to Canadian laws (US laws may be different), your gun supposed to be locked away in safe storage separate from its ammunition, can only be transported to the shooting range with the appropriate permission from the police. How were you able to threaten the criminal with your gun when it was safely locked away?

There are no such ridiculous laws here. A gun is USELESS for self-defense if it is locked, not quickly accessible to the owner, and/or physically separated from ammunition.

I store my weapon safely, but when I am home, or traveling with it, it is CLOSE to me, LOADED, and NOT trigger-locked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

You look at it as a self defense instrument I look at it as a murder waiting to happen.

Perhaps you don't trust yourself not to "murder" someone with a handgun... But I have no such insecurities. I am quite confident that I will not "murder" anyone with it, and I am also quite certain that my gun is incapable of murdering anyone on its own, so... I'm not worried.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia

Most of those murdered in the mentioned massacres would be alive today had in not been for the gun manufacturers and the gun lobby.
People sue cigarette makers for damages, they sure as hell should sue gun manufacturers for wrongful deaths.

No, most of those victims would be alive today if it weren't for the ACTIONS OF THE PERPETRATOR.

A gun is an inanimate object. Guns to do get up and go out to kill people. PEOPLE do.

The lawsuits against cigarette makers are absurd... No one is FORCED to smoke.

Equally ridiculous is the concept of suing a manufacturer for the actions of some random individual.

I don't know what kind of nonsense you guys are up to in Canada... but HERE, many of us still want to hold INDIVIDUALS responsible for their OWN actions.

And lastly... You should look into the definitions of "attributable" and "contributable"... I don't think "contributable" is even a word....

Mike

cmac2012 · #**101** 10-08-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MedMech

I read a factoid somewhere that more people were killed with swords, arrows and spears than all other weapons combined.

And you can take that one to the bank.

What, you talking historically?

cmac2012 · #**102** 10-08-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

These guys say 2.5 million times a year, crime is prevented because of a private gun -- well, they referred to it as "defensive gun use." That seems high to me. That would mean that every year, about 1 out of every 100 Americans has such an experience.

I've not run into anywhere near that common of an incidence of that.

mikemover · #**103** 10-08-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

These guys say 2.5 million times a year, crime is prevented because of a private gun -- well, they referred to it as "defensive gun use." That seems high to me. That would mean that every year, about 1 out of every 100 Americans has such an experience.

I've not run into anywhere near that common of an incidence of that.

Sounds about right to me. Such incidents involving the use of a handgun for self-defense are VERY under-reported.

Also... Obviously the distribution is not even across the population. People who live in higher-crime areas or work in higher-risk occupations are more likely to be in that situation more than once, while people in low-crime areas are more likely to not ever have such an incident.

I personally know a liquor store owner whose place of business is a few miles from my house. He is FAR from being the kind of guy many would consider a stereotypical "gun-nut, NRA-type". He wears his handgun on a belt holster daily at work. No doubt, it is a highly visible deterrent. However, he STILL was forced to draw the weapon to prevent a robbery and/or a violent attack in his store FIVE different times in just the past YEAR.

If he had been unarmed, and just had relied on the police to provide protection, as some here advocate (as well as many anti-gun folks in general), it is highly probable that he would be either out of business, or dead, or both.

Mike

raymr · #**104** 10-08-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Sounds about right to me. Such incidents involving the use of a handgun for self-defense are VERY under-reported.

Also... Obviously the distribution is not even across the population. People who live in higher-crime areas or work in higher-risk occupations are more likely to be in that situation more than once, while people in low-crime areas are more likely to not ever have such an incident.

I personally know a liquor store owner whose place of business is a few miles from my house. He is FAR from being the kind of guy many would consider a stereotypical "gun-nut, NRA-type". He wears his handgun on a belt holster daily at work. No doubt, it is a highly visible deterrent. However, he STILL was forced to draw the weapon to prevent a robbery and/or a violent attack in his store FIVE different times in just the past YEAR.

If he had been unarmed, and just had relied on the police to provide protection, as some here advocate (as well as many anti-gun folks in general), it is highly probable that he would be either out of business, or dead, or both.

Mike

No doubt guns are a very good means of self defense. However, to maximize you security and safety via firearms you need to:

-Keep your gun within 2 feet of yourself at all times, including while you're in the shower or taking a crap.

-Never sleep.

-Always worry about kids, etc getting hold of your weapons when you're not looking or distracted.

-Never get distracted.

AustinsCE · #**105** 10-08-2006, 04:11 PM

Imagine how scary this country would be if only cops and criminals had guns. It's getting there. I dont know anyone thats used a gun for defense but I know a bunch of people who've had guns held to them. And lost their cars, purses, wallets, watches, etc. Which pretty much shows how it would happen everytime, thats something I hate about this country, everybody turns to the cops when something bad happens, like they do anything or care, rather than grow some nuts and prevent this crap. It trickles down to all society, and people who are willing to defend what they have are forced to live in fear, can't legally carry a gun, because the weak make up the majority? Funny thing happened to a guy I heard about, someone carjacked him, held a gun to him said drive, they went out to a remote field, thief told him to walk and dont turn around, then the thief was laughing and firing off a bunch of dry shots from an empty gun and took off in this guys truck. Cops never found the thief or the truck.