 |
So what do you think of the old days when you had to leave your gun when you came into town? Should we return to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Should we start a new thread with the sole purpose of finding middle ground or lines where we agree to disagree ?
Naw this thread will do nicely and as far as leaving your gun at home when you go to the city, wouldn't that depend on the city? Good luck with thinking your hunting rifle is approriate to carry in Chicago. Or Aurora, Colorado, or Newtown, Ct.
That's not even reasonable in the modern times.
I never said anything about semi auto rifles and 60 shot clips... I have a semi auto .22 caliber rifle with a 10 shot clip that I love shooting at targets with, its fun. I do it in an extremely safe manner with my kids. It allows me to TEACH gun safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I'm saying if the U.S. Govt tells us tomorrow that we have to "turn in your guns" there would be complete anarchy. Riots, revolts, a completely broken country that would over shadow any cotostrophy that has happened. It would be a living hell in my opinion. Turning in your guns before you go into a city?? Cmon Man.
I saw Crocodile Dundee and they had lots of guns in Australia:)
You see this whole debate goes from the sublime to the ridiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
First; no one said there weren't guns in Australia but not the types of weapons we are talking about, and you don't really believe that Australia is anything like the characters in Crocodile Dundee do you? We have laws here and they are strictly enforced in a non partisan way
Second: what are you hunting in a city? Why do you need to take a hunting rifle into a city? Now if you live in a city and you go out into the "woods" to hunt, entirely different proposition, How often do you do that anyway?
Third; the gun you have is probably acceptable in that configuration, but there is a big difference between that weapon and weapons of higher calibre and magazine configuration
In teaching gun safety we assume you are talking about shooting targets in a properly constructed range where casual passersby couldn't walk into the line of fire. Look, there was a time when I had a Gun like the one you describe, used to carry it in my golf bag, crows! You know, big nuiance on a golf course. I have grown up a little since then and the laws have changed and some of my life experiences have changed my opinion and my behaviour
You are complaining about use of an armory to store weapons because of inconvenience but such measures don't impinge your 2nd amendment rights. What it does do is ensure only those who should have access, do and that weapons are stored in a properly supervised manner
I think you might find there are more reasonable people in your country than you think there are, oh, the loonies and the moonies will react, you can expect that, you have to ask how appropriate is their behaviour anyway, there will be much nashing of teeth and beating of breasts and more beating of breasts and a few politicians might pay a penalty
Let me address the hunting issue. As far as seasons there are 3 and it lasts for a few months. The first is Bow season. Only Bow hunters are allowed to take game (deer). Second is Black Powder. And last is Rifle. That is what makes up most deer seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Other types of hunting can be year round. Mostly it depends on where you live. In Florida for example if you live near swampy areas you might want one for alligator. Also another in the varmit class is nutria. A rodent that lives in marshy areas and causes great destruction to the eco system. Many areas now are being over run by wild boar. They tear up everything and are a dangerous animal. They travel in packs.
Link for nutria:
Home - Nutria.com
Also most states have varmit laws on the books and you can shoot them year round. Squirels and cyotes and others that can cause harm to property or domestic animals. That also can include Bear.
I can understand the wish to deal with small varments but I expect you need something heavy to deal with alligator and bear and perhaps they are better handled by wildlife experts and licensed hunters, I also expect they are confined to certain areas and are not a reason for the general ownership of firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Wild boar is an animal also better left to experienced hunters. We have have people here who hunt them very effectively with dogs and a knife, obviously once the hunting season is over there is little reason for the weapons to be generally accessible but how many hunters do you actually have? With 270,000,000 weapons there really can't be that many weapons being discharged or even hunting would become a public nuiance
Interesting question as to how many hunters. Here is your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
How many hunters are there in America today?
23 million to 43.7 million
The total population of registered hunters in America today is ranging from 23 million to 43.7 million individuals. This estimate came from the 2001 National Survey Of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Related Recreation, which was based on the annual data provided by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Ref:
Number of Hunters in America | Number Of | How Many
Side note: as far as the protection goes with the larger animals is what drives the need not for actual hunting of them. Almost any animal requires a license to hunt. But farms across america are being invaded and owners are hunting actively Boar and Nutria. As well as coyote.
Isn't the game license for both hunting and fishing, so you are counting fishermen there too.
WG... licensure varies by location. In my location you can get a fishing license, a hunting license or a combo.
Yes and no. A gaming license is a start but it doesn't encompass everything. You usually need stamps for certain classes of hunting fishing. Like rainbow trout or salmon may require a stamp. To take deer or duck will require separate stamps. The stamps generate revenue that is normally returned to wildlife preservation and conservation. Some states have reintroduced species from the money and brought now extinct elk and other wildlife back into the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Its like having a drivers license. It allows you to drive a car only. But should you wish it can also cover driving a big rig or driving a bus or limo as well as a motorcycle. It is still a license but it covers a much broader range.
Yes so maybe 10% hunters population and gun population 80% so it starts to beg the question about gun population. No one is concerned about vermin control, it really isn't the issue, I understand the problems of rural areas, we have vast populations of kangaroo and even boar and camel as well as fox, dog and rabbit and even horse. There aren't too many farmers who go mad with a gun, but of course you do get weapons stolen in rural areas just as you do in urban areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
No the question truly goes to gun populations in urban areas and undoubtedly that is a law and order question as much as it is attitude or rights, just because a right exists doesn't mean everyone should have an excuse to exercise it, I'm sure most people don't want to exercise their marander rights
Im one of those "hunters" and it truly is a big part of who I am as a person, father, role model, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I don't and have never seen anyone walking around in town with a 30 cal. rifle or sorts and also agree it's not acceptable. If guns were banned in cities it wouldn't be any skin off my teeth except that I fear that they would be banned for hunting some day then to.
As for the armory rent a gun scenario. NO WAY. We need to keep guns out of wackos hands.
Even in Australia I read homocides are down only 9% and assaults up 40%
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com
I'm simply questioning that hunters and fishermen are all lumped together under "game," so real numbers of actual hunters aren't available by using this method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Lets look at this for a minute. Just the hunting aspect. Most persons that are avid hunters don't just own one gun. You don't go squirel hunting with a 30-30. So there might be a few different ones more suited for the game your after. The casual number would be 4 or 5 per hunter on average. Small ones for little game and larger ones for larger game. Also most carry a sidearm when they hunt because you always need a backup for oh crap situations. Even highly experienced hunters have misjudged when an animal has passed or had a weapon failure. And for that matter also for putting an animal down in a humane fashion instead of a slow kill because of a missed shot.
They are valid because of the stamps that are required. Also if you take an animal (except on private land) then you have to have it tagged and inspected. There are limits set by local law on how much you can take during a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
A back up gun is always along on my hunting trips as well. How many guns do I own now? Three Shotguns, Two rifles. I would like to purchase a hand gun as well for target shooting purposes only. I don't intend to carry nor would want to take on that responsibility while in town/city. Its not something I want to have to be concerned about. If others want to fine with me. Ive never seen a lay person shoot a gun in a city in a "self defense" moment and hope I never do.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
Statistics like that lie, we are coming off a low base so it doesn't reflect anything like the level of incidence over there
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]?opendocument
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/...d-States/Crime
I think the statistics embedded in this article, particularly the graphics, speak for themselves
http://guncontrol.org.au/2012/09/our...tralian-lives/
Lol NY Andy Cuomo was so knee jerk to move on gun bans ,that he banned most of the weapons that law enforcement uses in the state . The law bans clips over 7 rounds (which of course almost no guns use so in effect he banned bullets) . But ;most of the standard issue revolvers for the police forces use 15 rounds.(and of course their rifles are 30 round "assault rifles") .
In their haste to beat the President ;and to prove that NY will have the toughest laws ,they forgot to add appropriate exemption for law enforcement .
Now I'm sure that when the Legislature is back in session tomorrow ,they will pass some kind of amendment to the law.
But today is MLK day ,and the State Government is taking the day off.
So any cop that uses their standard issue weapon today will be using an illegal gun.
Frankly I don't understand the police concern. After all ;the new law makes weapons with higher capacity magazines illegal ,then theoretically they will never have to take on a criminal with such a weapon.
Hello, again,
Let's see if we can solve this CONSTITUTIONALLY.. Right wingers LOVE the Constitution, don't they? Let me quote the 2nd Amendment;The National Guard is the militia. THEY'RE the ones who are authorized to bear arms. Let's round 'em up, and turn 'em over.Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Excon
The Federal Government routinely calls up the National Guard to serve the interest of the government . Your definition of militia is distorted . The militias at the time were to mobilize against a tyrannical government ;not to serve it.
And we have no militia in this country -- unless you mean the NRA members. The "tyrannical government" will have tanks and drones and lots of bombs and even nuclear warheads at the ready. Bring on your blunderbusses (bunderbussi?).Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:
Ok, then. Let the STATE hire the militia, build an armory, and put the guns there.
But, you don't get to pick the militia.. That sounds like Syria or Libya. Or some other banana republic.
excon
PS> Let's be CLEAR. The people who you want to SHOOT are our sons and daughters who have JOINED the National Guard. You want to SHOOT your local cops. That IS who you're arming yourself against, isn't it?
Dog gonnit TOM, this ain't 1776! The founders did the best they could with what they had, and we have to do the best we can with what we have NOW.
We don't need a gun to change the government, we turned bullets into ballots long ago. Well some of us did. So take off that silly old hat you have been wearing for more than two hundred years and comb that gray away and get you a hoodie.
I don't want to shoot anyone. But if our sons and daughters became the instruments of a tyranny then yes I would have no choice but to defend myself . You would too .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Our police are also our sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and moms and dads. And I cannot imagine all (okay, most!) of them in the military or in law enforcement jumping on a tyrannical government's bandwagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah maybe I'll get one of those detection proof hoodiesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Avoid snooping UAVs with a Stealth Wear hoodie
I was wearing hoodies before they became popular. Now that they are popular ,they are over priced .
LOL, we agree. So are the gym shoes. The free market at work.
I'll just have to pioneer a new fashion trend.
Tried that, they called me a bum! Bought me new clothes. Made me wear them. Made me shave. My name is the same but everything looks different. I long for the good old days.
These are the good old days Tal things will never be as good as they are now
I think better days lie ahead, but sometimes memories of past happiness sneak into your thoughts
That hurt wondergirl. All were fighting for is the right to bear arms. It has gotten far to political, even for me. A guy that just wants to hunt and own a gun and hunt things. Maybe I should spend the rest of my days making bird houses and peace signs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Never be afraid of having the debate, as crazy as it can get, and its important you state your case and to be honest it makes a lot of sense. All my friends are hunters, and respect the woods and the tools they use to hunt. Bambi may be cute but can be as dangerous as any animal. I would sure hate to be in a situation where one more shot is the difference between life and death and you are alone in the wilderness. Like I say ranchers/farmers/hunter should have whatever they need to survive.
I think wondergirl is being realistic, there are two forces in the gun debate, the NRA and the government and to coin an old cliché "It's nearing High Noon". No one is worried about your hunting but they are worried about those who hunt things other than game. This is about big issues now, not the backwoods issues, this is about violence, death, lawlessnessQuote:
Originally Posted by bigwig
Then of course there would be no reason to exercise that aspect of the 2nd amendment right . But ;as everyone here likes to remind me.. things today were unthinkable in the past. You can't envision a time where a great freedom loving people gave in to tyranny... even embracing it ? Just look at the history of Europe in the last 200 years. There are enough examples there to keep you busy .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Tom a great freedom loving people gave into the tyanny of the gun, and without a wimper. Tyranny comes in many forms and not all of it is centred on the Potamac
But they didn't have the kind of government we do with its checks and balances and with voting system we have. And each president can undo what the previous one did.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes ;so far it hasn't been an issue . What does that mean though ? The French thought they were forging a free loving nation... then they willing surrendered all that to an Emperor . Economic forces in the 1930s was enough to end democracies in more than one nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You don't see that happening here ? Just ask the Japanese Americans who were alive in 1942 .
We're improving, not regressing and going back to redo old mistakes. We've learned since 1942. The American public is a lot smarter now than it was and communicates a lot better than it did in 1942.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 AM. |