NationStates Jolt Archive

PETA vs. NRA

Andrew Butler is the U.K. representative of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, headquartered in Norfolk, VA. Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, headquartered in Fairfax, VA.

Should hunting be banned?
Vote during this worldwide showdown!

Look inside the minds of dangerous extremists who believe hunters are "the moral equivalent of cannibals, slave-owners and death-camp guards" - and who're willing to act on it.

PETA has contributed funds used to defend members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), two violent groups responsible for $110 million in damage through arson, pipe bombs and property destruction. In fact, the FBI has declared eco-terrorism America's #1 domestic terrorist threat.

Now two more organizations are pooling funds and consolidating power. Last November two of the richest anti-hunting groups joined forces, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Fund for Animals (FFA).

Add PETA, ALF, ELF and other hunter haters, and these groups have a collective $100+ million for an all-out assault on hunting. If you think PETA people are harmless animal lovers, don't miss this debate!

The Hunting Debate LIVE
Only on iNDEMAND® Pay-Per-View for just $9.95*
9:00-10:30pm ET,Tuesday, October 18, 2005

From the Library of King's College, London
Vote for the winner at: www.huntingdebate.com

*To order this event, check your local cable Pay-Per-View listings, call your cable company or get more information at www.indemand.com. Actual retail prices are set by individual cable companies and may vary or reflect additional fees. (Web View not possible - sorry. )

NOTE: I will pay the cost of the PPV with any USian who will tape this for me. (I don't have cable). TG/email me.

Check your E-mail.

A friend at work is going to try and tape it for me (I don't have cable either). I'll make a copy for you if it works.

Check your E-mail.

A friend at work is going to try and tape it for me (I don't have cable either). I'll make a copy for you if it works.

This just in: The debate between the NRA and PETA will become available on DVD, VHS, and on tape (audio). Please call 1-800-672-3888 option #2 Mon.-Fri. 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (EST) and they will be happy to assist you further.

So if yours doesn't work, We know where to go! :D

This just in: The debate between the NRA and PETA will become available on DVD, VHS, and on tape (audio). Please call 1-800-672-3888 option #2 Mon.-Fri. 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM (EST) and they will be happy to assist you further.

So if yours doesn't work, We know where to go! :D

That's what I did w/ the NRA/IANSA debate.

Anyone who sees this tonight, I would be obliged for an (as unbiased as possible) exposition on what you saw...

Thank you.

Preliminary First-Impression report on the Pay Per View PETA vs NRA Hunting Debate at King’s College, London:

First off, I was disappointed. Not in the “outcome”, but in the lack of substance.

Andrew Butler of PETA spent his time in Attacking the Person of hunters, Prejudicial Language, False Analogy and Appeals to Pity. Had Mr. Butler been denied the ability to use the words “barbaric”, “blasting” (and their synonyms) his part of the debate would have been much shorter.

Unfortunately, Wayne LaPierre, while better prepared with facts and supporting quotes, almost entirely failed to argue the Question (of whether or not Hunting should be Globally banned) choosing instead to rehash Pen & Teller and use highly Prejudicial Language to Attack the Person (ad hominem (tu quoque) of PETA and its larger corporate agenda). :headbang:

There were many instances where Mr. LaPierre could have specifically addressed Mr. Butler’s prejudicial language and shocking lack of education in (or willful misrepresentation of) US Game Law, Wildlife Biology, Firearms/Terminal Ballistics, etc. – but he did so only once. (When Mr. Butler asserted that hunters did not kill the old & sick, but were interested in killing only the Young and Healthy animals to display large antlers. Mr. LaPierre was forced to explain that Large Antlers = Old Animal. Unfortunately he did not have or take the time to explain that the “quest for big racks” also leads to a large number of tags going unfilled each year.) Nor did he address how a worldwide ban on hunting would impact aboriginal peoples – who Mr. Butler (and the whole “Animal Rights” faction) conveniently ignores.

Anyway – that’s my first impression. When I get a transcript done, I look forward to people discussing the point-by-points.

---------------------------------------------
"Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the circumscriptional appelations are excised."
W. Mann & S. Thompson, _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.

Preliminary First-Impression report on the Pay Per View PETA vs NRA Hunting Debate at King’s College, London:

First off, I was disappointed. Not in the “outcome”, but in the lack of substance.

Anyway – that’s my first impression. When I get a transcript done, I look forward to people discussing the point-by-points.

---------------------------------------------
"Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the circumscriptional appelations are excised."
W. Mann & S. Thompson, _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987.

I agree mostly. They didn't address the main issue very well. The same happened in the IANSA debate. Unfortunately, when you start using detailed information in debates, people tune out completely. Had LaPierre done that, he would have been smothered by PETA's rhetoric.

A PETA/NRA debate? That's hilarious.

A PETA/NRA debate? That's hilarious.

It was, the PETA people were red in the face by the end of it.

There was one girl who believed a PETA website claiming gun owners have small penises and another guy who stated that shooting varmints involved "high powered" guns that made the animals "explode from the inside".

They really didn't like it when , after stating they only supported people who "had their 1st amendments rights abused", LaPierre showed PETA tax records showing considerable funds given to support ALF/ELF and a guy convicted of bombings.

While they didn't address the debate topic at all, it was quite a show.

Syniks, Kecibukia -

I have been away from these forums until recently. I missed the debate, didn't even know about it. Damn, I would like to have seen it.

Something like this debate happens in the future, get hold of me in advance. I have cable and would be happy to record and distribute.

Syniks, Kecibukia -

I have been away from these forums until recently. I missed the debate, didn't even know about it. Damn, I would like to have seen it.

Something like this debate happens in the future, get hold of me in advance. I have cable and would be happy to record and distribute.

Check PPV, it might still be available.

It was, the PETA people were red in the face by the end of it.Maybe that's why they haven't said anything about it on their site... (to my quick look anyway)
There was one girl who believed a PETA website claiming gun owners have small penises Wayne's response there, while true, sounded petulant... "You made that up!"... I would have said somthing like "hmm maybe you're right. I'll have the X-Thousand women in the NRA who hunt let you know whether they have small penises or not...." and another guy who stated that shooting varmints involved "high powered" guns that made the animals "explode from the inside".Easy enough to dispell with simple literature on "varmint" gunns and ammo. And while Wayne brought up the necessity of varminting, IMO he didn't emphasize enough the "pro-animal" (livestock) reason for doing so.
They really didn't like it when , after stating they only supported people who "had their 1st amendments rights abused", LaPierre showed PETA tax records showing considerable funds given to support ALF/ELF and a guy convicted of bombings.I would have made the point, then simply asked what they thought of being so thouroughly discredited by those paragons of conservative virtue Penn & Teller - then went on to combat his anti-hunting rhetoric directly.

Darn it.

REPLAY SHOWTIMES:
Tuesday, October 18 10:30 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. (Replay)
Friday, October 21 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. (Replay)
Saturday, October 22 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (Replay)

Darn it.

REPLAY SHOWTIMES:
Tuesday, October 18 10:30 p.m. - 12:00 a.m. (Replay)
Friday, October 21 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. (Replay)
Saturday, October 22 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (Replay)
Order your copy from the NRA. Telephone # above.

See your TG.

I took a look at the hunting debate website -- here are the polls numbers for the internet vote taken after ther debate:

"Do you think hunting should be banned worldwide?" 84% No, 16% Yes

"Who do you think won this debate?" La Pierre 84% Andrew Butler (surprise!)16%

So that's how the viewing audience felt about it.

I took a look at the hunting debate website -- here are the polls numbers for the internet vote taken after ther debate:

"Do you think hunting should be banned worldwide?" 84% No, 16% Yes

"Who do you think won this debate?" La Pierre 84% Andrew Butler (surprise!)16%

So that's how the viewing audience felt about it.

Not surprised. The NRA had it as a headline for weeks. I didn't see it on the PETA website at all (although I didn't look that hard).

So pretty much 84% of the viewing audience were NRA members. Show's who cares more about their topic though.

Even more PETA silliness:

October 27, 2005 -- ELLE Macpherson is telling pals PETA lied when the animal-rights freaks said she wanted to get out of her Blackglama mink contract. The supermodel proudly supported the fur line...

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/56223.htm

I suspect that PETA is just too loony to ever get much popular support.

Their links to terrorism and just general foolish extremism won't get them much but some mention on a slow news day. Unfortunately they presently have the support of Hollywood, so that gets them the publicity they so desperately seek.

Here's more silliness:

"PETA's leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was "revenge" against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk "child abusers." In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks."

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

I suspect that PETA is just too loony to ever get much popular support.

Their links to terrorism and just general foolish extremism won't get them much but some mention on a slow news day. Unfortunately they presently have the support of Hollywood, so that gets them the publicity they so desperately seek.

Here's more silliness:

"PETA's leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was "revenge" against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk "child abusers." In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks."

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

In the debate, PETA stated that hunting creates serial killers and an associated group has written a paper stating that hunters just use deer as a surrogate for wanting to abuse/kill women.

I suspect that PETA is just too loony to ever get much popular support.

Their links to terrorism and just general foolish extremism won't get them much but some mention on a slow news day. Unfortunately they presently have the support of Hollywood, so that gets them the publicity they so desperately seek.

Here's more silliness:

"PETA's leadership has compared animal farmers to serial killer (and cannibal) Jeffrey Dahmer. They proclaimed in a 2003 exhibit that chickens are as valuable as Jewish Holocaust victims. They announced with a 2001 billboard that a shark attack on a little boy was "revenge" against humans who had it coming anyway. They have branded parents who feed their kids meat and milk "child abusers." In 2002 PETA organized a campaign to sabotage a popular Thanksgiving hotline, which provides free advice about cooking turkeys. The group has even contemplated (literally) dancing on the grave of Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Sanders. And in 2003, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk wrote to Yasser Arafat, pleading with him to make certain no animals are harmed in Palestinian suicide-bombing attacks."

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

LOL. PETA always makes me laugh with their stupid ways. I iwsh all PETA members who act like this would get shipped to Antarctica, that way they have to eat animals to survive.

Deer season is open in a lot of states. There's millions of woman-abusing serial killers walking in the woods in thousands of communities. And they're armed!

Better lock up your women for a month or two.

Deer season is open in a lot of states. There's millions of woman-abusing serial killers walking in the woods in thousands of communities. And they're armed!

Better lock up your women for a month or two.
Does that include the thousands of women hunting deer this season too?

Does that include the thousands of women hunting deer this season too?

Well of course, they must have a repressed desire to mutilate women as well.

Well of course, they must have a repressed desire to mutilate women as well.
:confused: But.... I thought they were being good Feminists by trying to decrease the Male (deer) population..:D
How could they be demonstrating possession of under-sized penises otherwise? :eek:

:confused: But.... I thought they were being good Feminists by trying to decrease the Male (deer) population..:D
How could they be demonstrating possession of under-sized penises otherwise? :eek:

You forgot, PETA says hunting INCREASES deer populations, remember.:p

You forgot, PETA says hunting INCREASES deer populations, remember.:p
Then that must mean the Bucks that don't get Banged are getting Banged more... errr.... right? ;)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather Bang a Doe... them's better eatin' :D

Then that must mean the Bucks that don't get Banged are getting Banged more... errr.... right? ;)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather Bang a Doe... them's better eatin' :D

Isn't there a law in the Middle East that states you can't eat an animal you've "known"? I agree w/ that one.:fluffle:

Brings a whole new meaning the the words "animal lover".

Brings a whole new meaning the the words "animal lover".Yeah. PETA = Fake Animal Lovers... they would probably want to do away with Anthropomorphic Pr0n... And then where would Phil Foglio & I be? :p

Another way Mr. Butler showed his ignorance is when he questioned how hunting could possibly be sporting...

I mean, animals and hunters work together in a symbiotic relationship to make hunting fair and interesting....

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/bl051027.gif
http://www.ucomics.com/inthebleachers/

The following is a quote from another Forum I frequent (by hunters for hunters... so the authors have nothing to "prove") This quote came from a discussion about "canned" (in a fence) "hunts" - with which the posters almost 100% disagree...

This is somthing Butler & the PETArds will never understand about hunting:
However, for me, just being out and not knowing if you will be sucessful or not is what the hunt is about. My most memorable hunts have ended with never firing a shot. Last month I was fortunate enough to get a respectable bull elk (posted in photo gallery) but what I will remember the most about it was the weekend before when I spent about 2 hours moving with a big herd that didn't know, or at least didn't care, that I was right in the middle of them. I had a cow and calf so close to me that I could have touched her with out having to fully extend my arm. That is the part I will always remember, and it wasn't inside a fence.

Oh yeah. The only reason we hunt is for the blood-lusting joy of blasting bambi. :rolleyes:

The following is a quote from another Forum I frequent (by hunters for hunters... so the authors have nothing to "prove") This quote came from a discussion about "canned" (in a fence) "hunts" - with which the posters almost 100% disagree...

This is somthing Butler & the PETArds will never understand about hunting:


Oh yeah. The only reason we hunt is for the blood-lusting joy of blasting bambi. :rolleyes:

Of course not, they don't WANT to understand. They need to believe that hunters are lower down on the evolutionary scale so they can feel better about themselves.

As for "canned hunting", I think the episode of King of the Hill put it best:

Bobby: This isn't right, is it dad?
Hank: No son, it isn't.

It's used for upperclass suberbanites that want to "experience nature" but can't do it w/o $10,000 worth of equipment and a "male encounter group", then end up at a hotel.

Question: Did any of the PETA males look "healthy" to you?

Question: Did any of the PETA males look "healthy" to you?
No. The word "emaciated" comes to mind but that would be taking somthing away from the people who are emaciated because they don't have enough to eat (rather than being too stuck up to eat properly) That said, Wayne looked too puffy to to be really healthy too. He needs to spend more time in the field and less in Hotels.

No. The word "emaciated" comes to mind but that would be taking somthing away from the people who are emaciated because they don't have enough to eat (rather than being too stuck up to eat properly) That said, Wayne looked too puffy to to be really healthy too. He needs to spend more time in the field and less in Hotels.

I liked the oft repeated mantra "if we get rid of all the livestock, we can grow enough to feed the world".

Yeah, for about 1 year before economics kicks in and all the farms go out of business because prices have dropped to nothing. Nevermind the fact that the majority of livestock are raised in areas unsuitable for largescale farming.

What pisses me off to no end is the arrogance and racisim that says "We can tell the World - and thereby Aboriginal Peoples - that Hunting is Uncivilizes and should be banned." And yet no one calls them on it. :headbang:

They are essentially saying "Them Uncivilized Darkies should not be allowed to Kill their dinners!"

But if they give Aboriginals a Pass on their Hunting Ban, then they are saying: "Them Darkies are too different from us to be Civilized"

So the only way for them to be consistant - and declare Hunting to be "Barbaric" and "Uncivilized" is for them to be utterly Racist and Eurocentric and try to force Aboriginal Peoples to give up their Lifestyles along with the Sport Hunters.

I liked the oft repeated mantra "if we get rid of all the livestock, we can grow enough to feed the world".

Yeah, for about 1 year before economics kicks in and all the farms go out of business because prices have dropped to nothing. Nevermind the fact that the majority of livestock are raised in areas unsuitable for largescale farming.

They don't understand that.... The average PETA supporter, or the people who run the organization know nothing of farming, and have never actually, lived or worked around or in an actual functioning farm.... The lot of them would have problem growing enough food to feed themselves, let along the rest of the planet.

It's Sheriff Taylor from Maybury trying to tell the Mayor of New York City how things need to be done.

They don't understand that.... The average PETA supporter, or the people who run the organization know nothing of farming, and have never actually, lived or worked around or in an actual functioning farm.... The lot of them would have problem growing enough food to feed themselves, let along the rest of the planet.

It's Sheriff Taylor from Maybury trying to tell the Mayor of New York City how things need to be done.

One of my older buddies is fond of saying "the trouble with people nowadays is they're two generations too far off the farm".

I do wonder if the lack of common sense, wisdom, and philosophy developed by closer ties with nature isn't part of the social and political problem. Common sense has always been in short supply, so maybe it's no different now than before. But we would surely resolve our differences better were there more.

PETA and common sense don't seem to be synonymous.

I suspect that PETA is just too loony to ever get much popular support.

I would say the same about the NRA...obviously the US is just loony.

Hmmm...PETA and the NRA. How do you decide which is the lesser of these two evils? I'd probably go for PETA. Probably.

I would say the same about the NRA...obviously the US is just loony.

Hmmm...PETA and the NRA. How do you decide which is the lesser of these two evils? I'd probably go for PETA. Probably.
So you would choose an overtly racist and hypocritical organization that financially supports terrorists individuals and groups, whose stated goals are the essential elimination of medical research, all animal husbandry, companion animals, etc, and kills more animals at their headquarters than any other local animal welfare agency?

Over the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"?

Nice.

So you would choose an overtly racist and hypocritical organization that financially supports terrorists individuals and groups, whose stated goals are the essential elimination of medical research, all animal husbandry, companion animals, etc, and kills more animals at their headquarters than any other local animal welfare agency?

Over the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"?

Nice.

I think it's more "I know absolutely nothing about the organization (the NRA)besides what I've heard 3rd hand so I'll just insult the US and anything that relates to it".

So you would choose an overtly racist and hypocritical organization that financially supports terrorists individuals and groups, whose stated goals are the essential elimination of medical research, all animal husbandry, companion animals, etc, and kills more animals at their headquarters than any other local animal welfare agency?

Over the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"?

Nice.

Well, I think you're being slightly harsh to PETA there. Overtly racist? And they only aim for the elimanation of medical research on animals. And what do you mean they kill more animals at their headquarters etc? You mean putting them down when they're injured?

But Jeez, I detest PETA. Bunch of idiots.

The point is the NRA isn't exactly the most angelic of organisations. Nevermind the fact that it has a hideous general outlook on the world - Hobbesian war of everyone against everyone, combined with a Libertarian ideal without any notion of "society", there's also the truly wonderful agenda of maintaining of increasing the number of dangerous weapons in circulation. Add to that the fact that it is a powerful lobbying group which generally supports the right-wing cause and you have a generally nasty organisation.

I mean lets face it, we in Europe have a much higher level of weapon control and generally, with a few exceptions, we have a lower crime rate, so most of the propaganda spouted by the NRA is demonstrably false. Similar to the argument for the death penalty...it's a deterent. Well, we don't have it and we have less crime. Hmmm...Unless there're underlying differences in our societies which make Europe naturally less violent. Which is unlikely.

When anti-gun activists and politicians claim 11 children a day are killed with guns in America, they have to include anyone under age 20, including teen-aged "gang bangers" as children. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1998) From NRA website (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/DidYouKnow/Default.aspx?ID=12)

Hmmm....detecting subtext of racism there. Yes, because those god-damned poor Hispanic and Black teenagers don't count do they?

I think it's more "I know absolutely nothing about the organization (the NRA)besides what I've heard 3rd hand so I'll just insult the US and anything that relates to it".

Right back atcha -

I think it's more "I know absolutely nothing about the organization (PETA)besides what I've heard 3rd hand so I'll just insult the UK and anything that relates to it".

;)

The following is a quote from another Forum I frequent (by hunters for hunters... so the authors have nothing to "prove") This quote came from a discussion about "canned" (in a fence) "hunts" - with which the posters almost 100% disagree...

This is somthing Butler & the PETArds will never understand about hunting:


Oh yeah. The only reason we hunt is for the blood-lusting joy of blasting bambi. :rolleyes:


Ah that's right, it brings you closer to nature....and then you shoot them in the head. See...you could do the whole getting close to the herd without the gun. Why spoil it by splattering the brains of the animal about the place?

No. The word "emaciated" comes to mind but that would be taking somthing away from the people who are emaciated because they don't have enough to eat (rather than being too stuck up to eat properly) That said, Wayne looked too puffy to to be really healthy too. He needs to spend more time in the field and less in Hotels.


Ha! Classic. They're Veggies, so they must be "emaciated". Loving it. Nevermind the fact that Vegitarianism is to an extent considered a healthier option than the standard diet - low on fat, high in vitamins an minerals (five portions a day people!) - although followers have to be careful to eat a balanced diet.

And no, I'm not a vegetarian.

What pisses me off to no end is the arrogance and racisim that says "We can tell the World - and thereby Aboriginal Peoples - that Hunting is Uncivilizes and should be banned." And yet no one calls them on it. :headbang:

They are essentially saying "Them Uncivilized Darkies should not be allowed to Kill their dinners!"

But if they give Aboriginals a Pass on their Hunting Ban, then they are saying: "Them Darkies are too different from us to be Civilized"

So the only way for them to be consistant - and declare Hunting to be "Barbaric" and "Uncivilized" is for them to be utterly Racist and Eurocentric and try to force Aboriginal Peoples to give up their Lifestyles along with the Sport Hunters.

Yes, you're getting your "racism" in a rather roundabout sort of way there. It's a value judgement to say that hunting is wrong and not necessarily linked to race. In fact, based on the PETA view of the sanctity of animal life, it's clearly not intended to be racist and the effect of such peoples is unintentional. And lets face it, the NRA doesn't really care about the rights of such people, it's just a convenient awkward point on which to catch PETA and try and make themselves look good.

In any case, although PETA is against killing animals for food generally, they are more incensed about unnecessary killing for sport.

PETA has killed thousands of animals collected from pet owners while leading them to believe they would be placed in homes. These were not sick or injured animals.

Numerous criminal charges have been filed against PETA employees.

"Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public..."

"...PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing..."

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134

So you would choose an overtly racist and hypocritical organization that financially supports terrorists individuals and groups, whose stated goals are the essential elimination of medical research, all animal husbandry, companion animals, etc, and kills more animals at their headquarters than any other local animal welfare agency?

Over the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"?

Nice.
As opposed to the overtly racist NRA?

PETA has been accused of overt racism, with good cause, by non other than the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Jewish people are revolted by PETA's depictions of their suffering.


"...However, officials with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People aren't buying it.

“PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can,” said John White, an NAACP spokesman. “They're comparing chickens to black people?”

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in Montgomery, Ala., called the exhibit “disgusting.”

“Black people in America have had quite enough of being compared to animals without PETA joining in,” he said.

PETA officials apologized earlier this year for a campaign that compared the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust with that of factory animals."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/13/national/main777016.shtml

Well, I think you're being slightly harsh to PETA there. Overtly racist? And they only aim for the elimanation of medical research on animals. And what do you mean they kill more animals at their headquarters etc? You mean putting them down when they're injured?

No, like putting down thousands of adoptable animals even after promising those they collected them from to find them homes.



The point is the NRA isn't exactly the most angelic of organisations. Nevermind the fact that it has a hideous general outlook on the world - Hobbesian war of everyone against everyone, combined with a Libertarian ideal without any notion of "society", there's also the truly wonderful agenda of maintaining of increasing the number of dangerous weapons in circulation. Add to that the fact that it is a powerful lobbying group which generally supports the right-wing cause and you have a generally nasty organisation.

Nope, no bias here.

I mean lets face it, we in Europe have a much higher level of weapon control and generally, with a few exceptions, we have a lower crime rate, so most of the propaganda spouted by the NRA is demonstrably false. Similar to the argument for the death penalty...it's a deterent. Well, we don't have it and we have less crime. Hmmm...Unless there're underlying differences in our societies which make Europe naturally less violent. Which is unlikely.

Yea, Europe has a real good history w/ gun control, doesn't it.



Hmmm....detecting subtext of racism there. Yes, because those god-damned poor Hispanic and Black teenagers don't count do they?

Like making things up, do we? There's nothing about hispanics or blacks there, just criminal youth. The NRA opposes "gun control" laws that are aimed at minorities.



Right back atcha -

I think it's more "I know absolutely nothing about the organization (PETA)besides what I've heard 3rd hand so I'll just insult the UK and anything that relates to it".

;)

I actually have read PETA'S website and it's own supporting liturature. I also didn't say anything about the UK.

As opposed to the overtly racist NRA?

And you get this from where, exactly?

Ah that's right, it brings you closer to nature....and then you shoot them in the head. See...you could do the whole getting close to the herd without the gun. Why spoil it by splattering the brains of the animal about the place?

A nice unbiased statement showing no knowledge of hunting.

PETA has killed thousands of animals collected from pet owners while leading them to believe they would be placed in homes. These were not sick or injured animals.

Numerous criminal charges have been filed against PETA employees.

"Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public..."

"...PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing..."

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134

Yes...from PETAkillsanimals.com run by a group called "Centre for Consumer Freedom" - a right wing group of large food corporations, alcohol and tobacco firms whose interests are damaged by the actions of PETA. Great. Corporate Disinformation. Thank you, good night!

Info on Centre for Consumer Freedom (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom)

PETA has been accused of overt racism, with good cause, by non other than the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Jewish people are revolted by PETA's depictions of their suffering.


"...However, officials with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People aren't buying it.

“PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can,” said John White, an NAACP spokesman. “They're comparing chickens to black people?”

Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project with the Southern Poverty Law Center, in Montgomery, Ala., called the exhibit “disgusting.”

“Black people in America have had quite enough of being compared to animals without PETA joining in,” he said.

PETA officials apologized earlier this year for a campaign that compared the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust with that of factory animals."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/13/national/main777016.shtml


I think that these people are being over-sensitive. PETA is not trying to be racist it is trying to use shock tactics to put it's point across. And I think that it is a fair point to compare the suffering of Jews in the holocaust to factory animals. It's pretty much the same environment as the concentration camps and unfavourable comparisons can be made either way. Admittedly it trivialises the suffering of the people, but they are trying to put across the point that animals suffer too.

A nice unbiased statement showing no knowledge of hunting.

If you actually attempted to address the argument, then it might be possible for me to reply to that, but otherwise I'm going to assume that I'm correct and you have no valid rebuke to my point.

See...you say that you are getting closer in touch with nature. One of you was talking about how he could run with a herd of deer or something without them noticing and how it was great to get in touch with nature. But why is it then necessary to blow out the brains of the animal? Explain to me how that is anything but bloodlust?

And don't give me any rubbish about necessary culls because I'm not talking about that.

And again, can I reiterate I am not a supporter of PETA, I have more sympathy for their cause than you guys, but I eat meat and I think that their tactics are often reprehensible.

I think that these people are being over-sensitive. PETA is not trying to be racist it is trying to use shock tactics to put it's point across. And I think that it is a fair point to compare the suffering of Jews in the holocaust to factory animals. It's pretty much the same environment as the concentration camps and unfavourable comparisons can be made either way. Admittedly it trivialises the suffering of the people, but they are trying to put across the point that animals suffer too.

You think the reaction to the indescriminate slaughter of millions of Jews in an attempt at genocide and the enslavement of millions of blacks being compared to chickens is being "over-sensitive"?

If you actually attempted to address the argument, then it might be possible for me to reply to that, but otherwise I'm going to assume that I'm correct and you have no valid rebuke to my point.

You can "assume" anything you like. You seem to do that alot.

See...you say that you are getting closer in touch with nature. One of you was talking about how he could run with a herd of deer or something without them noticing and how it was great to get in touch with nature. But why is it then necessary to blow out the brains of the animal? Explain to me how that is anything but bloodlust?

And it's nonsense rhetoric like this that shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Comparing hunting to "bloodlust", and "blowing the animals" brains out" shows a lack of knowledge about the topic and an inherent bias that no amount of factual information will change.

And don't give me any rubbish about necessary culls because I'm not talking about that.

And again, can I reiterate I am not a supporter of PETA, I have more sympathy for their cause than you guys, but I eat meat and I think that their tactics are often reprehensible.

Then why are you defending them? Thier organization has admitted to being against any medical research using animals and is even opposed to pet ownership and companion animals. Do you want your kids petting feral rats? PETA thinks they should.

Hunting organizations have done more to support the enviroment and wild animals than PETA, who spends most of their money on admin and PR stunts that tend to backlash thier support, yet you accuse them of "bloodlust".

No, like putting down thousands of adoptable animals even after promising those they collected them from to find them homes..

See above thread about the reliability of your source for that info.




Originally Posted by Secular Europe
The point is the NRA isn't exactly the most angelic of organisations. Nevermind the fact that it has a hideous general outlook on the world - Hobbesian war of everyone against everyone, combined with a Libertarian ideal without any notion of "society", there's also the truly wonderful agenda of maintaining of increasing the number of dangerous weapons in circulation. Add to that the fact that it is a powerful lobbying group which generally supports the right-wing cause and you have a generally nasty organisation.

Nope, no bias here.


Indeed, I am very biased against the NRA, but that doesn't address the point. Can you actually counter my point about the NRA's global outlook?


Yea, Europe has a real good history w/ gun control, doesn't it.

Err, yes. Better than the US anyway. Do you have some sort of particular point you were making here? I mean, we have tighter gun control laws than you. Is there anything particular you are talking about here, or are you just trying to snidely insinuate that I am wrong, when you really have nothing to say on the point?




Originally Posted by Secular Europe
Hmmm....detecting subtext of racism there. Yes, because those god-damned poor Hispanic and Black teenagers don't count do they?

Like making things up, do we? There's nothing about hispanics or blacks there, just criminal youth. The NRA opposes "gun control" laws that are aimed at minorities.

It's no more of a derivative way of finding implied racism than this....

Originally Posted by Syniks
What pisses me off to no end is the arrogance and racisim that says "We can tell the World - and thereby Aboriginal Peoples - that Hunting is Uncivilizes and should be banned." And yet no one calls them on it.

They are essentially saying "Them Uncivilized Darkies should not be allowed to Kill their dinners!"

But if they give Aboriginals a Pass on their Hunting Ban, then they are saying: "Them Darkies are too different from us to be Civilized"

So the only way for them to be consistant - and declare Hunting to be "Barbaric" and "Uncivilized" is for them to be utterly Racist and Eurocentric and try to force Aboriginal Peoples to give up their Lifestyles along with the Sport Hunters.

But I think I have more of a point since PETA is lefty and supports equal treatment of all living things, where as the NRA supports the right of idiots to have guns to protect them from the good damn no good marauding non-whites out there who want to kill everyone. :)

You think the reaction to the indescriminate slaughter of millions of Jews in an attempt at genocide and the enslavement of millions of blacks being compared to chickens is being "over-sensitive"?

Yes. It's not as if they are condoning what happened. What's wrong with a bit of hyperbole to get a point across?

PETA dosen't care about black people!

You can "assume" anything you like. You seem to do that alot

And I'll continue to do so until you attempt to answer the point.




And it's nonsense rhetoric like this that shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Comparing hunting to "bloodlust", and "blowing the animals" brains out" shows a lack of knowledge about the topic and an inherent bias that no amount of factual information will change.

If you attempt to address the point I will listen. How is hunting not bloodlust?





Then why are you defending them? Thier organization has admitted to being against any medical research using animals and is even opposed to pet ownership and companion animals. Do you want your kids petting feral rats? PETA thinks they should.

I'm defending them because you are making false, uninformed accusations against them. Yes, PETA is constantly going around trying to make children pet feral rats. It's one of their core policies...

"The aims of PETA...

(1) Increase the number of small children petting feral rats

(2) Insult Jewish people about the holocaust"


Hunting organizations have done more to support the enviroment and wild animals than PETA, who spends most of their money on admin and PR stunts that tend to backlash thier support, yet you accuse them of "bloodlust".

Hunting organisations only invest money in the environment either to undo damage that they have done and thus maintain the business of hunting, or as a publicity stunt so that they don't seem so bad.

PETA dosen't care about black people!

Because they're not animals, silly!

Yes, PETA cares more about animals than people, but at least it holds people in equal disdain.

Aims of the NRA...

(1) Promote the atomisation of society by saying that man is by nature like that put forward by Hobbes - incapable of any benevolence and constantly involved in a literal war of everyone against everyone. But rather than supporting a central leviathan, we'll just give everyone guns so that violence remains the prerogative of the individual.

(2) Guns good

(3) Government bad

(4) Support the right wing and general evil causes

(5) Support the arms trade and encourge the sale of guns to countries in Civil wars where they employ child soldiers

(6) Eat the dead carcasses of such children


Choose for youself which of these are serious and which aren't...

See above thread about the reliability of your source for that info.

You don't believe it? There's lots more sources than that.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/debrasaunders/2005/06/23/154713.html




Indeed, I am very biased against the NRA, but that doesn't address the point. Can you actually counter my point about the NRA's global outlook?

Sure, you believe the NRA wants everybody out killing eachother. The NRA wants people to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals or genocidal governments. Thier primary goal is the protection of AMERICAN rights but provides advice to foreign organizations when anti-gun measures are devised that would be used against the US.




Err, yes. Better than the US anyway. Do you have some sort of particular point you were making here? I mean, we have tighter gun control laws than you. Is there anything particular you are talking about here, or are you just trying to snidely insinuate that I am wrong, when you really have nothing to say on the point?

What were the crime levels BEFORE the laws were established? How many European gov'ts disarmed the people prior to executing them?





It's no more of a derivative way of finding implied racism than this....

You've taken a quote by Syniks, misconstrued it, and then attributed it to the beliefs of the NRA. "Gun Control" in the US started as a way to disarm blacks. PETA opposes all hunting, most undeveloped nations are non-white and many of the people rely on hunting to survive. PETA would rater have them starve.

I guess it's alright for you to see "implied" racism, but not for anyone else?



But I think I have more of a point since PETA is lefty and supports equal treatment of all living things, where as the NRA supports the right of idiots to have guns to protect them from the good damn no good marauding non-whites out there who want to kill everyone. :)

Now gun owners are "idiots" as well as racist. You really don't have an arugement besides "the NRA sucks" do you? Can you support any of these allegations?

And I'll continue to do so until you attempt to answer the point.
If you attempt to address the point I will listen. How is hunting not bloodlust?


You like to "assume" that hunters just want to kill things for the thrill of it. IF you actually knew anything about hunting, you'ld know that more of it involves enjoying nature, the chase, desire to supply ones family w/ food, etc. But you don't really care about that.

I'm defending them because you are making false, uninformed accusations against them. Yes, PETA is constantly going around trying to make children pet feral rats. It's one of their core policies...

They pass out comic books that encourage children to play w/ wild rats and other vermin. Do you deny this?


Hunting organisations only invest money in the environment either to undo damage that they have done and thus maintain the business of hunting, or as a publicity stunt so that they don't seem so bad.

So hunters have done all the damage to the environment? Hunters donate money as a "publicity stunt"?

Make up some more nonsense.

1. HUNTING & FISHING LICENSE SALES total nearly $1 billion annually. This contribution supplies over half the income of the state conservation agencies and is used for wildlife management, education and safety programs.

2. EXCISE TAXES on sporting equipment, such as fishing tackle, firearms and ammunition, provide another $400 million, funding thousands of conservation, habitat improvement and recreation projects across America.

3. DUCK STAMPS purchased by migratory bird hunters add another $21 million in annual funding, totaling over $500 million to date. This money has been used to purchase some 5 million acres of wetlands habitat.

4. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS by hunters and anglers to some 10,000 private organizations provide another $300 million in wildlife funding, in addition to the countless hours they spend doing vital conservation work.

5. ALL TOLD, hunters and anglers annually provide over 75% of the average funding for state conservation agencies and some nine dollars for each single taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife.

Aims of the NRA..

..according to ignorant hoplophobes


(1) Promote the atomisation of society by saying that man is by nature like that put forward by Hobbes - incapable of any benevolence and constantly involved in a literal war of everyone against everyone. But rather than supporting a central leviathan, we'll just give everyone guns so that violence remains the prerogative of the individual.

Sure. Whatever you say. Can you support any of this?

(2) Guns good

In the hands of Law Abiding Citizens

(3) Government bad

When they abuse the rights of Law Abiding Citizens

(4) Support the right wing and general evil causes

Careful, your bias is showing again.

(5) Support the arms trade and encourge the sale of guns to countries in Civil wars where they employ child soldiers

I'ld love for you to prove this one.

(6) Eat the dead carcasses of such children

But if they're as racist as you say, wouldn't eating that meat be wrong?

You don't believe it? There's lots more sources than that.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/debrasaunders/2005/06/23/154713.html

It's more ethical for them to put down animals that have been badly treated than it is to keep them alive when they can't afford to look after them properly. They have 3 options - keep the animals, but lack of funding means the animals will have to live in horrendous conditions which will make their suffering worse; release the animals back onto the streets where they will, as domesticated animals, starve to death; or, finally, put them down. Option 3 is probably more ethical.






Sure, you believe the NRA wants everybody out killing eachother. The NRA wants people to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals or genocidal governments. Thier primary goal is the protection of AMERICAN rights but provides advice to foreign organizations when anti-gun measures are devised that would be used against the US.


Yes...see point one in my "aims of the NRA". I don't think that the NRA wants people out killing each other, I'm saying that they think that humans are inately evil and that we must proetct ourselves against each other with weapons.






What were the crime levels BEFORE the laws were established? How many European gov'ts disarmed the people prior to executing them?

Disarmed people prior to executing them? What? Is this another thing about how government is evil and we must protect ourselves against it with guns?


You've taken a quote by Syniks, misconstrued it, and then attributed it to the beliefs of the NRA. "Gun Control" in the US started as a way to disarm blacks. PETA opposes all hunting, most undeveloped nations are non-white and many of the people rely on hunting to survive. PETA would rater have them starve.

No, I haven't misconstrued Syniks argument. That was the exact argument that was made.

And I didn't apply his logic to the NRA article, I genuinely think that that is the point the NRA is making. These kids don't count, it's their own fault they shoot each other, and it has nothing to do with society. They are removing the sense of collective social responsibility.

If the US had any sense of social responsibility it would attempt to get these kids out of this kind of poverty through social welfare initiatives and decent state education, but the right-wing has such a grip on political rhetoric that there is no chance of that happening. And groups like the NRA passing off articles which essentially say that these kids don't count just adds to the problem.


I guess it's alright for you to see "implied" racism, but not for anyone else?

Look, we all know PETA cares for animals more than humans - this is not racism, just a manifestation of PETA's general disdain for mankind.




Now gun owners are "idiots" as well as racist. You really don't have an arugement besides "the NRA sucks" do you? Can you support any of these allegations?

I do have a good argument - It's basic social philosphy is fundamentally flawed, nevermind its specific policy on guns.

And not all gun owners are idiots - a lot of them have been scared by NRA propoganda and tabloid press scare-mongering.

You like to "assume" that hunters just want to kill things for the thrill of it. IF you actually knew anything about hunting, you'ld know that more of it involves enjoying nature, the chase, desire to supply ones family w/ food, etc. But you don't really care about that.

So why does enjoying nature and the thrill of the chase have to end with something dying? And why can you not supply your family with humanely killed food from the supermarket? Surely we've evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer instinct? OR is this some ridiculous phallus-substitute thing with the gun?



They pass out comic books that encourage children to play w/ wild rats and other vermin. Do you deny this?

Well...I've never seen one.



So hunters have done all the damage to the environment? Hunters donate money as a "publicity stunt"?

No...you misquote me. I didn't say they had done all the damage to the environment, but they are responsible for some major depopulations of certain creatures.


1. HUNTING & FISHING LICENSE SALES total nearly $1 billion annually. This contribution supplies over half the income of the state conservation agencies and is used for wildlife management, education and safety programs.

Not exactly provided through benevolence and genrosity, but by coercion from the state

2. EXCISE TAXES on sporting equipment, such as fishing tackle, firearms and ammunition, provide another $400 million, funding thousands of conservation, habitat improvement and recreation projects across America.

Ditto

3. DUCK STAMPS purchased by migratory bird hunters add another $21 million in annual funding, totaling over $500 million to date. This money has been used to purchase some 5 million acres of wetlands habitat.

Ditto

4. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS by hunters and anglers to some 10,000 private organizations provide another $300 million in wildlife funding, in addition to the countless hours they spend doing vital conservation work.

Possibly. But I would still say that was with the general aim of maintaining the enivronment for their own selfish purpose.

5. ALL TOLD, hunters and anglers annually provide over 75% of the average funding for state conservation agencies and some nine dollars for each single taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife.

That would be without including all the Duties and licence fees as "taxpayer dollars"

It's more ethical for them to put down animals that have been badly treated than it is to keep them alive when they can't afford to look after them properly. They have 3 options - keep the animals, but lack of funding means the animals will have to live in horrendous conditions which will make their suffering worse; release the animals back onto the streets where they will, as domesticated animals, starve to death; or, finally, put them down. Option 3 is probably more ethical.

PETA attacks hunters for being "arrogant" enough to think that animals need humans to maintain their numbers then go and kill the majority of the animals they "rescue" for population control (2/3rds to 4/5) while groups like the ASPCA adopt out over 75% of theirs. Maybe if PETA put more money into animals and not into publicity stunts, they could find more homes.

Yes...see point one in my "aims of the NRA". I don't think that the NRA wants people out killing each other, I'm saying that they think that humans are inately evil and that we must proetct ourselves against each other with weapons.

No, they say that people have the right to defend themselves against the element of society that is inately evil.


Disarmed people prior to executing them? What? Is this another thing about how government is evil and we must protect ourselves against it with guns?

More people have been killed by governments than by criminals. A gov't is not in itself evil but the people running it always have that potential. Do you deny that there have been millions of people killed by Gov't abuses?

No, I haven't misconstrued Syniks argument. That was the exact argument that was made.

And I didn't apply his logic to the NRA article, I genuinely think that that is the point the NRA is making. These kids don't count, it's their own fault they shoot each other, and it has nothing to do with society. They are removing the sense of collective social responsibility.

Yes you have. A common hoplophobe arguement is that "guns kill kids". The reality is that the numbers are inflated by increasing ages (up to 24 in one anti-gun study) and adding in gang members who are involved in the criminal sub-culture. They do count, but not for "save the children" arguements or inflated statistics.

If the US had any sense of social responsibility it would attempt to get these kids out of this kind of poverty through social welfare initiatives and decent state education, but the right-wing has such a grip on political rhetoric that there is no chance of that happening. And groups like the NRA passing off articles which essentially say that these kids don't count just adds to the problem.

In the US it was the "left wing" that created the ghettos and poverty/crime laden areas of the cities. I agree that we need to change the way education is in the US but throwing money at the poor won't fix that. A better solution needs to be found.

Once again, the NRA opposes "research" that shows "children" are being killed by guns when the numbers of "children" are inflated by increasing the ages and adding in criminals.





I do have a good argument - It's basic social philosphy is fundamentally flawed, nevermind its specific policy on guns.

In your opinion. Evidence would seem to oppose you though.

And not all gun owners are idiots - a lot of them have been scared by NRA propoganda and tabloid press scare-mongering.

More like they've realized that anti-gun groups and politicians won't be happy until the entire populace is disarmed and that disarming them didn't do a thing to lower crime. It's the "tabloid press" that opposes ownership in the US.

Originally Posted by Secular Europe
(1) Promote the atomisation of society by saying that man is by nature like that put forward by Hobbes - incapable of any benevolence and constantly involved in a literal war of everyone against everyone. But rather than supporting a central leviathan, we'll just give everyone guns so that violence remains the prerogative of the individual.


Sure. Whatever you say. Can you support any of this?

Well, you don't deny that the NRA supports the right to own guns for protection and, to some extent, to protect against government abuse?

The reasons for that are because of the political philsophy above. The policies that they support show this underlying philosophy. Some may think this is a valid philosophy, I do not.



In the hands of Law Abiding Citizens

How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen and who isn't before you give them the guns?



When they abuse the rights of Law Abiding Citizens

How do you define law without the state? The state defines who law abiding citizens are.


Careful, your bias is showing again.

Good.


I'ld love for you to prove this one.

I was being slightly flippant with that one. The NRA doesn't overtly support sending arms to areas where there are child soldiers, it just doesn't care so long as the arms trade is not reduced. Which in my veiw is equally as bad -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,10674,519689,00.html

http://www.amnestyusa.org/magazine/global_gun.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1430077.stm

The National Rifle Association's political clout
Despite the lack of data, the past year has seen a wave of initiatives to curb the illicit trade. The Organization of American States (OAS) brokered a convention outlining practical measures to notably strengthen import/export controls and increase information exchange between states. In short, states agreed that guns would be marked with the time and place of manufacture along with the name of the importer should they cross a border. Mexico turned the screws on the United States government, for whom anything resembling gun control is taboo given the political weight of the National Rifle Association (NRA), a UN accredited NGO which ferociously defends the individual's right to bear weapons. The Mexicans maintained that it was impossible to stop drugs streaming north so long as US guns inundated states south of the border.
Looking to the OAS convention as a model, the UN Economic and Social Council is now working to incorporate similar measures in the form of a "Firearms Protocol" which would fall within the Transnational Organized Crime Convention. The proposed protocol won the official support of the G-8 (Group of Eight Industrialized States) during a meeting in April 1998. And just a month later, foreign ministers of the European Union signed an ethical code of conduct essentially calling on states to refrain from transferring weapons to conflict zones or states likely to use them to commit serious human rights abuses. While a step forward, there are serious loopholes, notably in the lack of provisions for parliamentary or public scrutiny over arms exports.
With the possible exception of the EU code, these initiatives represent a law enforcement approach, the success of which depends on governments adopting and enforcing strict legal controls on weapons licenses. For some experts, it marks an important shift away from the traditional view in which guns are seen as a commodity to be traded like any other which exonerates the suppliers from responsibility over their end use.
"The focus on the illicit trade is basically an uncontroversial way of getting into the debate surrounding light weapons," says Elizabeth Clegg of Saferworld, an NGO. "While states like the United States have traditionally blocked any moves to restrict the production and sale of light weapons because there could be domestic implications, they could have little to say on attempts to curb illicit transactions.
"However, this approach does not address the problem of all the arms manufactured legally but which have gone through several chains of supply and are now in the grey and black market," says Clegg.
"It's dangerous," says Joost Hiltermann of Human Rights Watch, an NGO. "It lets governments off the hook by not holding them responsible for covert trade in the grey market. If governments have an interest in selling weapons, they will do so legally when they can and illegally if they must. You cannot get rid of the illegal trade without monitoring the legal trade. And to do that, you need to focus on government policy," says Hiltermann, who points to such classic tactics by which governments sell to second parties which then transfer the weapons to a third state, possibly in defiance of a UN embargo, or to a non-state actor.
Distinguishing between the legal and illegal trade has proven to be a political minefield. Alarms began ringing in August when Canada's Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, a key player in the campaign after his involvement in brokering the ban on landmines, began asking foreign ministers to consider a global convention to prohibit the transfer of military-specification small arms and light weapons to non-state actors. According to a discussion paper by the Canadian foreign ministry, "these non-state actors are variously termed: terrorists, gangsters, bandits, warlords, hooligans and narcotraffickers." While recognizing that the proposed convention "would deny arms to non-state actors opposing repressive regimes," the ministry maintains "that non-violent means are the best way to effect political change."

http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_11/uk/ethique/txt1.htm


But if they're as racist as you say, wouldn't eating that meat be wrong?

You assume I'm talking about non-white children? :)

So why does enjoying nature and the thrill of the chase have to end with something dying? And why can you not supply your family with humanely killed food from the supermarket? Surely we've evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer instinct? OR is this some ridiculous phallus-substitute thing with the gun?

Supermarket food is factory grown (which you have stated you oppose) and is filled w/ chemicals and preservatives. You'ld rather eat that?

Ahh, the classic "small penis" arguement. Can your arguement get weaker?


Well...I've never seen one.

So that means it doesn't exist? Try looking up PETA's comics.





No...you misquote me. I didn't say they had done all the damage to the environment, but they are responsible for some major depopulations of certain creatures.

Unregulated hunting is. Educated hunters have been supporting and been responsible for the improvement of populations and the reintroduction of numerous species.


1.
Not exactly provided through benevolence and genrosity, but by coercion from the state
Ditto
Ditto
Possibly. But I would still say that was with the general aim of maintaining the enivronment for their own selfish purpose.
That would be without including all the Duties and licence fees as "taxpayer dollars"

Supporting effective Gov't programs through licensing is now "coercion from the state"?

Well, you don't deny that the NRA supports the right to own guns for protection and, to some extent, to protect against government abuse?

That's one of their purposes.

The reasons for that are because of the political philsophy above. The policies that they support show this underlying philosophy. Some may think this is a valid philosophy, I do not.

You believe that the policies they support show this underlying philosphy. You still have provided no evidence to support it besides your "belief".


How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen and who isn't before you give them the guns?

Nobody is "given" firearms. A person who has not committed a crime is, by definition, a "Law Abiding Citizen" and has the right to own firearms in the US . I don't believe in pre-crime or thought crime.





How do you define law without the state? The state defines who law abiding citizens are.

A state can also become tyrannical and abuse it's citizens. They then have the right to overthrow that state. One of the first things a tyrannical state does is disarm the populace so it can't be overthrown.

I was being slightly flippant with that one. The NRA doesn't overtly support sending arms to areas where there are child soldiers, it just doesn't care so long as the arms trade is not reduced. Which in my veiw is equally as bad -



From your own article:

* Better control of the legal manufacture and possession of weapons
* Creation of a standardised marking system to trace arms used illegally
* Tighter export controls
* Tighter controls over possession and access to small arms by police, armed forces and civilians

Translation: More control by the UN and the disarmament of US citizens in favor of "international standards".

PETA dosen't care about black people!
No, PETA doesn't care about indigenous cultures or cultural diversity. All they care about is Savages not killing bunnies.
:headbang:

Yes, you're getting your "racism" in a rather roundabout sort of way there. It's a value judgement to say that hunting is wrong and not necessarily linked to race. In fact, based on the PETA view of the sanctity of animal life, it's clearly not intended to be racist and the effect of such peoples is unintentional.

And just what about your statement doesn't scream "White Man's Burden"? You really need to spend a few hours having Sinhue beat you around the head, since you are already senseless...

And lets face it, the NRA doesn't really care about the rights of such people, it's just a convenient awkward point on which to catch PETA and try and make themselves look good.When did I become a spokesman for the NRA. As a matter of fact I am upset they DON'T use this particular "awkward point".
In any case, although PETA is against killing animals for food generally, they are more incensed about unnecessary killing for sport.
Why? I thought Killing was Killing... unless killing by uncivilized "savages" is somehow more acceptable than by barbaric 1st Worlders... :rolleyes:

PETA attacks hunters for being "arrogant" enough to think that animals need humans to maintain their numbers then go and kill the majority of the animals they "rescue" for population control (2/3rds to 4/5) while groups like the ASPCA adopt out over 75% of theirs. Maybe if PETA put more money into animals and not into publicity stunts, they could find more homes.


You are confusing different issues here. PETA argue it is arrogant for hunters to assume that wild animals need their numbers held in check, but the animals that they are putting down are domestic. This would require a separate thread to go into, since some wild animal populations are affected by human activity other than hunting too and I think that PETA's policies on this are slightly more complex than either of us have expertise in.



No, they say that people have the right to defend themselves against the element of society that is inately evil.

Which totally ignores the social issues behind the problem and encourages the propagation of firearms. See this is the problem with the NRA, they don't acknowledge that there are ways to solve the problem and instead encourage a system of mistrust between people.


More people have been killed by governments than by criminals. A gov't is not in itself evil but the people running it always have that potential. Do you deny that there have been millions of people killed by Gov't abuses?

No...but you're suggesting that Civil War kills fewer people? Or than an individual with a gun can protect himself on his own against the might of the government?


Yes you have. A common hoplophobe arguement is that "guns kill kids". The reality is that the numbers are inflated by increasing ages (up to 24 in one anti-gun study) and adding in gang members who are involved in the criminal sub-culture. They do count, but not for "save the children" arguements or inflated statistics.

Ah, 1 survey counts 24 year olds, so they all do? Anyone under 18, or maybe under 21 counts as a kid whether they are involved in gang violence or not.


In the US it was the "left wing" that created the ghettos and poverty/crime laden areas of the cities. I agree that we need to change the way education is in the US but throwing money at the poor won't fix that. A better solution needs to be found.

It's not the left-wing that created the problem in the US, it is the system. While we have poor areas here, especially where I live in Scotland, they are nowhere near as bad as in the US because we have a much better Social Security system . Indeed, our problem has become demonstratably worse with the decline in the Welfare State. 1972, in the height of UK socialism has been found to be the "best" year for standards of living in the UK, with the least percentage of people below the poverty line and smallest gap between the rich and the poor.



Once again, the NRA opposes "research" that shows "children" are being killed by guns when the numbers of "children" are inflated by increasing the ages and adding in criminals.

But criminals are still people.




Originally Posted by Secular Europe
I do have a good argument - It's basic social philosphy is fundamentally flawed, nevermind its specific policy on guns.

In your opinion. Evidence would seem to oppose you though.

Criminality is not generally (although it can be in a small percentage of cases) an inate part of a person. Generally it is caused by social conditioning and necessity. The lack of social integrity in the West plays a large part of the problem and the emphasis of the NRA on individual protection breeds a degree of mistrust and dehumanises other people who are not within its demographic. This just exacerbates the problem.

Supermarket food is factory grown (which you have stated you oppose) and is filled w/ chemicals and preservatives. You'ld rather eat that?

When did i say I opposed factory grown food?

But in any case, you can buy organic food. At least you can in Europe.

Ahh, the classic "small penis" arguement. Can your arguement get weaker?

But you still haven't addressed the point. You say the point of hunting is to enjoy nature and frollick with the herds and so forth. It isn't necessary in the West to hunt for food anymore. So why does this enjoyment of nature have to end with killing something. Surely the only things left are bloodlust or some sort of misplaced appeal to masculinity?



So that means it doesn't exist? Try looking up PETA's comics.


Well I have looked it up. Apparently you haven't. It hardly "encourges children to pet feral rats" Although it is a rather inane piece of literature.

"A Rat's Life" AKA "Feral Rats are Fun!" (http://www.petakids.com/pdf/rats_life_book_screen.pdf)

Again, I do not support PETA and I think that animal testing is necessary, but should conform to strict ethics and necessity tests.



Unregulated hunting is. Educated hunters have been supporting and been responsible for the improvement of populations and the reintroduction of numerous species.

So that they can kill them?



Supporting effective Gov't programs through licensing is now "coercion from the state"?

No, you misconstue the use of the word "coercion". The point is that it is illegal to hunt without paying for said licensing, thus if the hunters wish to stay within the law they must pay for these licenses and therefore the payment of these fees is not "voluntary" but done with the threat that failure to comply with this law will be punishable by some form of state coercion whether criminal sanctions or civil fines.

But then they have their guns to protect themselves against this state coercion, don't they?

That was actually a pretty good comic until it came to the part about where they got the rat at, then it went full-steam ahead into crazy PETA land.

Which reminds me, I saw something somewhere the other day where some PETA person was complaining about items like animal shampoo being tested on animals. When you are complaining about animal products being initially tested on animals, I think you have gone too far in your complaints.

You believe that the policies they support show this underlying philosphy. You still have provided no evidence to support it besides your "belief".

No, my evidence is their policies. What is their underlying philosophy if not what i have put forward?

Here is my take on the philosophy of the NRA -


Promote the atomisation of society by saying that man is by nature like that put forward by Hobbes - incapable of any benevolence and constantly involved in a literal war of everyone against everyone. But rather than supporting a central leviathan, we'll just give everyone guns so that violence remains the prerogative of the individual.

Now you are trying to tell me that the NRA doesn't encourage the maintainence of the individual right to use force? That it doesn't think that people need to protect themselves from other people?


Nobody is "given" firearms. A person who has not committed a crime is, by definition, a "Law Abiding Citizen" and has the right to own firearms in the US . I don't believe in pre-crime or thought crime.

Oh jeez you don't hand out guns for free? Silly me!

Originally Posted by Secular Europe
How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen and who isn't before you give them the guns?


How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen and who isn't before you let them buy the guns?

Don't try and tell me that all the states have an in-depth look at the criminal record of the person and give them a psych-profile before hand, because I know that the laws differ dramatically in the states and that some of them have very lax process.

And how do you determine that someone isn't buying the gun with the intention of ending their status as a law abiding citizen?


A state can also become tyrannical and abuse it's citizens. They then have the right to overthrow that state. One of the first things a tyrannical state does is disarm the populace so it can't be overthrown.

Well, how do you decide that a state is becoming tyrannical? What gives you the right as a individual to do this? You as an individual with one gun cannot take on the government and hope to win.

This can only be done by a mass-organisation which could either pressurise the government through peaceful means (which is possible - look at South Africa, although violent revolt was tried, it was not this action which ended apartheid, it was political and economic pressure at domestic and international levels) or, in the worst case senario, by violent revolt, in which case the en-mass movement can supply weaponary. And you will probably find that smalll arms aren't enough. Are you now suggesting that we should be allowed to keep tanks and cruise missles.

And what about people who choose to abuse this "right to revolt" What if a large organisation of extremists decide they want to use their right to take over a state or the entire country? How do you safeguard against this when they can act for all intents and purposes within the law until they decide to revolt?


From your own article:

* Better control of the legal manufacture and possession of weapons
* Creation of a standardised marking system to trace arms used illegally
* Tighter export controls
* Tighter controls over possession and access to small arms by police, armed forces and civilians

Translation: More control by the UN and the disarmament of US citizens in favor of "international standards".

Yes, because what the US does affects the whole world and therefore we should be able to curb your excesses.

And just what about your statement doesn't scream "White Man's Burden"? You really need to spend a few hours having Sinhue beat you around the head, since you are already senseless...

White man's burden applies to imposition of Western cultural and political systems, not animal rights. Besides there are animal rights groups across the world.


Why? I thought Killing was Killing... unless killing by uncivilized "savages" is somehow more acceptable than by barbaric 1st Worlders... :rolleyes:

Again, I did say I don't support PETA, I'm just saying that there is more ethical justification for hunting for necessity than there is in hunting for sport.

And I never used the word "savages". I think that you will find that you introduced that terminology. You assume a lot about my stance on indigenous peoples without a lot of background knowlege about myself or my political position.

That was actually a pretty good comic until it came to the part about where they got the rat at, then it went full-steam ahead into crazy PETA land.

Which reminds me, I saw something somewhere the other day where some PETA person was complaining about items like animal shampoo being tested on animals. When you are complaining about animal products being initially tested on animals, I think you have gone too far in your complaints.


Very true.

I love the way you think you can dismiss my arguments by repeatedly calling me a hoplophobe. Really, it's great. I'm going to address you as "gun-nut" from now on just to counter your amazing name-calling abilities.

White man's burden applies to imposition of Western cultural and political systems, not animal rights. Uh huh. A Political position developed in the West (not even the Jainists are PETA crazy) that demands political action and controls on behavior is not an imposition of a Western Cultural value on indigenous peoples? :rolleyes:
Besides there are animal rights groups across the world.Started and funded by Westerners.
Again, I did say I don't support PETA, I'm just saying that there is more ethical justification for hunting for necessity than there is in hunting for sport.And yet, PETA and the other Animal Rights types want it banned... utterly. Without regard to Subsistance or Culture.
And I never used the word "savages". I think that you will find that you introduced that terminology. You assume a lot about my stance on indigenous peoples without a lot of background knowlege about myself or my political position.No, I assume a lot about the stance of the people who would try to unilaterally ban hunting - people who lay caim to compassion but advocate laws that would have extreme detrimental effect on indigenous culture. Unless you fit that criteria, I am not speaking about you... you are projecting.

Yes, because what the US does affects the whole world and therefore we should be able to curb your excesses.
And here is the rub. You believe you hold the moral authority to tell an entire nation how to live. If you do, then we do - so all this talk about how bad the US is for imposing ourselves on Iraq is moot right?

Likewise, if the US has no right to impose itself on places like Iraq, then YOU have no right to "curb our excesses" either.

Take your pick. Consistancy is a bitch eh?

You are confusing different issues here. PETA argue it is arrogant for hunters to assume that wild animals need their numbers held in check, but the animals that they are putting down are domestic. This would require a separate thread to go into, since some wild animal populations are affected by human activity other than hunting too and I think that PETA's policies on this are slightly more complex than either of us have expertise in.

You obviously didn't watch the debate where the PETA rep. stated that ANIMALS regulate themselves then went on to say they needed to regulate domestic animals. PETA's 'expertise' is in PR stunts and have very little "complexity" behind them. This is almost an ID arguement for "animal rights".





Which totally ignores the social issues behind the problem and encourages the propagation of firearms. See this is the problem with the NRA, they don't acknowledge that there are ways to solve the problem and instead encourage a system of mistrust between people.

They ignore other social issues and don't acknowledge them? You'r bias is clouding reality again. They only "encourage propagation of firearms" to those who use them responsibly.




No...but you're suggesting that Civil War kills fewer people? Or than an individual with a gun can protect himself on his own against the might of the government?

I never said that and an armed society can protect themselves from a tyrannical gov't.




Ah, 1 survey counts 24 year olds, so they all do? Anyone under 18, or maybe under 21 counts as a kid whether they are involved in gang violence or not.

Now you're creating strawmen and just did the same thing as the Hoplophobes. A 20 yr old gang-banger is not a "kid".




It's not the left-wing that created the problem in the US, it is the system. While we have poor areas here, especially where I live in Scotland, they are nowhere near as bad as in the US because we have a much better Social Security system . Indeed, our problem has become demonstratably worse with the decline in the Welfare State. 1972, in the height of UK socialism has been found to be the "best" year for standards of living in the UK, with the least percentage of people below the poverty line and smallest gap between the rich and the poor.
You're the one that started the whole "right wing = evil " nonsense. Since you don't know anything about the US system, it was the Democrats in the 60's that created the ghettos where most crime is located w/ the "Great Society" programs.
Comparing US to UK political systems to make your "NRA=evil" arguements is inane.





But criminals are still people.

Now say that when you see one stabbing his ex-wife or is raping your sister or mother.





Criminality is not generally (although it can be in a small percentage of cases) an inate part of a person. Generally it is caused by social conditioning and necessity. The lack of social integrity in the West plays a large part of the problem and the emphasis of the NRA on individual protection breeds a degree of mistrust and dehumanises other people who are not within its demographic. This just exacerbates the problem.

I don't follow the belief that allows criminals to blame everything else for their problems. You don't "need" to rob a store or murder someone and a person who is "socially conditioned" to crime and is incapable of rising above it is not a complete person. I also don't believe in "Nanny states" that should coddle and protect like sheeple. Once again, you're making assumptions about self-defense. Do you have anything that endorses your "mistrust and dehumanises" hypothesis? Howabout that an emphasis on self-defense encourages self-reliance and a positive self image. It also encourages a stronger community that opposes crime.

When did i say I opposed factory grown food?

But in any case, you can buy organic food. At least you can in Europe.

You stated that you thought the factory process whas inhumane, yet the majority of supermarkets get theirs from those sources. Do you buy "organic food"? If you don't, the meat you're eating is killed more inhumanely and is less healthy than almost any free-range hunted animal.



But you still haven't addressed the point. You say the point of hunting is to enjoy nature and frollick with the herds and so forth. It isn't necessary in the West to hunt for food anymore. So why does this enjoyment of nature have to end with killing something. Surely the only things left are bloodlust or some sort of misplaced appeal to masculinity?

Once again you're assuming "bloodlust" or "small penises" . I have adressed this point before(as have others).






Well I have looked it up. Apparently you haven't. It hardly "encourges children to pet feral rats" Although it is a rather inane piece of literature.

"A Rat's Life" AKA "Feral Rats are Fun!" (http://www.petakids.com/pdf/rats_life_book_screen.pdf)

Again, I do not support PETA and I think that animal testing is necessary, but should conform to strict ethics and necessity tests.

Sure, but PETA is against all of it. What's you're point?





So that they can kill them?

More ignorant stereotyping.





No, you misconstue the use of the word "coercion". The point is that it is illegal to hunt without paying for said licensing, thus if the hunters wish to stay within the law they must pay for these licenses and therefore the payment of these fees is not "voluntary" but done with the threat that failure to comply with this law will be punishable by some form of state coercion whether criminal sanctions or civil fines.

But then they have their guns to protect themselves against this state coercion, don't they?

More stereotyping, strawmen, and moved goalposts.

Hunters support the laws and licensing and you don't need a license in all states especially if you're hunting on your own land. But you would rather believe they would do anything to sate their "bloodlust".

No, my evidence is their policies. What is their underlying philosophy if not what i have put forward?

Here is my take on the philosophy of the NRA -

You keep repeating that but have not put forward one "policy" that actually endorses that in any way. You just keep repeating" NRA=rightwing=evil".

The NRA promotes education, the enforcement of laws against criminals, and the rights promoted in the US constitution which includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.




Now you are trying to tell me that the NRA doesn't encourage the maintainence of the individual right to use force? That it doesn't think that people need to protect themselves from other people?

Where are you getting this nonsense? I stated earlier that the NRA supports the right of self-defense from criminals.




How do you determine who is a law abiding citizen and who isn't before you let them buy the guns?

Don't try and tell me that all the states have an in-depth look at the criminal record of the person and give them a psych-profile before hand, because I know that the laws differ dramatically in the states and that some of them have very lax process.

And how do you determine that someone isn't buying the gun with the intention of ending their status as a law abiding citizen?

Yes I can say that except for a "psych profile". It's called NICS. National Instant Check System. A FEDERAL program that all dealers have to use.

You must believe in pre-crime. I don't.




Well, how do you decide that a state is becoming tyrannical? What gives you the right as a individual to do this? You as an individual with one gun cannot take on the government and hope to win.

This can only be done by a mass-organisation which could either pressurise the government through peaceful means (which is possible - look at South Africa, although violent revolt was tried, it was not this action which ended apartheid, it was political and economic pressure at domestic and international levels) or, in the worst case senario, by violent revolt, in which case the en-mass movement can supply weaponary. And you will probably find that smalll arms aren't enough. Are you now suggesting that we should be allowed to keep tanks and cruise missles.

And what about people who choose to abuse this "right to revolt" What if a large organisation of extremists decide they want to use their right to take over a state or the entire country? How do you safeguard against this when they can act for all intents and purposes within the law until they decide to revolt?

You like quoting Hobbes as a source. Look up "natural rights". SA's "revolts" failed because the ruling gov't DISARMED the blacks. You can also make up all the hypotheticals you want. An armed society would also defend agaisnt extremist organisations if the majority oppose them. You're use of the "owning a hangun=support of owning missiles" slippery=slope is also noted.




Yes, because what the US does affects the whole world and therefore we should be able to curb your excesses.

And now back to the US bashing.

I love the way you think you can dismiss my arguments by repeatedly calling me a hoplophobe. Really, it's great. I'm going to address you as "gun-nut" from now on just to counter your amazing name-calling abilities.

I never once called you a hoplophobe, just that the arguements you are using are the ones used by them. You also started w/ the US bashing, right-wing=evil, etc.

I never once called you a hoplophobe, just that the arguements you are using are the ones used by them. You also started w/ the US bashing, right-wing=evil, etc.
It's just Projection dude. SE also seems to think my aspersions against PETA's unconcionable stand vis-a-vis Cultural Diversity is directed against him/her...

It's just Projection dude. SE also seems to think my aspersions against PETA's unconcionable stand vis-a-vis Cultural Diversity is directed against him/her...

I like that SE supposedly opposes PETA but is using all the same arguments and terminology to oppose hunting that PETA does.

See...you say that you are getting closer in touch with nature. One of you was talking about how he could run with a herd of deer or something without them noticing and how it was great to get in touch with nature. But why is it then necessary to blow out the brains of the animal? Explain to me how that is anything but bloodlust?
I'm not coming at this from a pro or anti stance towards PETA or the NRA, but you seem to be making some sort of assumption here about hunting that I need to address. Not all hunting is equal. I abhor 'sport' hunting. But I hunt to feed my family, as my people have done for thousands of years. Now, I may be in a financial situation where I do not necessarily HAVE to hunt game, but I choose to for the following reasons:

1) Despite the picture you've painted about brains spattering, and bloodlust moving people to kill animals, taking the life of an animal still remains within the realm of the sacred for me, and my family. Frankly, I believe that if you can not stand to kill, and butcher your food, you shouldn't be eating it. I give thanks to the spirit of the animal, and I am bound by very strict guidelines as to which animals I can hunt and when...guidelines that have nothing to do with hunting restrictions, by the way, as I am not bound by them. I would say our restrictions are harsher, because to abuse our food supply is an invitation for disaster. Hunting is an integral part of my culture, and is a very respectful act.

2) When we hunt, we share our bounty with those who are less fortunate. Elders first, then anyone who needs it. A quarter of the game I bring in goes to family, or friends, usually on the Reserve who can not hunt for themselves. That is also part of our culture. What would putting down my rifle and eating (less humanely raised) beef do? Literally take food from the mouths of others.

3) Game is healthier. It hasn't been pumped full of hormones, the meat is leaner, and it tastes a hell of a lot better. You DO have to be careful that you aren't hunting in areas with a lot of environmental pollution, but you're still likely better off eating wild game than domestic animals.

And no, I am not an isolated case. Many hunters are respectful and not full of 'blood lust'. Trophy hunters enrage me...and I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint me with the same brush as you've painted them.

I'm not coming at this from a pro or anti stance towards PETA or the NRA, but you seem to be making some sort of assumption here about hunting that I need to address. Not all hunting is equal. I abhor 'sport' hunting. But I hunt to feed my family, as my people have done for thousands of years. Now, I may be in a financial situation where I do not necessarily HAVE to hunt game, but I choose to for the following reasons:

1) Despite the picture you've painted about brains spattering, and bloodlust moving people to kill animals, taking the life of an animal still remains within the realm of the sacred for me, and my family. Frankly, I believe that if you can not stand to kill, and butcher your food, you shouldn't be eating it. I give thanks to the spirit of the animal, and I am bound by very strict guidelines as to which animals I can hunt and when...guidelines that have nothing to do with hunting restrictions, by the way, as I am not bound by them. I would say our restrictions are harsher, because to abuse our food supply is an invitation for disaster. Hunting is an integral part of my culture, and is a very respectful act.

2) When we hunt, we share our bounty with those who are less fortunate. Elders first, then anyone who needs it. A quarter of the game I bring in goes to family, or friends, usually on the Reserve who can not hunt for themselves. That is also part of our culture. What would putting down my rifle and eating (less humanely raised) beef do? Literally take food from the mouths of others.

3) Game is healthier. It hasn't been pumped full of hormones, the meat is leaner, and it tastes a hell of a lot better. You DO have to be careful that you aren't hunting in areas with a lot of environmental pollution, but you're still likely better off eating wild game than domestic animals.

And no, I am not an isolated case. Many hunters are respectful and not full of 'blood lust'. Trophy hunters enrage me...and I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint me with the same brush as you've painted them.


But since you don't "need" to, it must simply be inate bloodlust and having a small penis. :)

I love animals. They taste GREAT! :D

So why does enjoying nature and the thrill of the chase have to end with something dying? And why can you not supply your family with humanely killed food from the supermarket? Surely we've evolved beyond the hunter-gatherer instinct? OR is this some ridiculous phallus-substitute thing with the gun?
Humanely killed food? What...are they given lethal injections? Cows are generally shot, or bludgeoned before they are slaughtered...how is that any more humane? You kill the animal, either way. And chickens, depending on the size of the operation, are either strangled, or have their heads cut off. Dead is dead. Neither method makes the animal suffer unduly.

I find it horrifying that people so distance themselves from their food, that they can not reconcile the nicely cut and packaged steak with the fact that it had to come from a living animal first. That separation is dangerous...it breeds contempt. Feed farms raise animals in terrible conditions...but as long as we don't have to get our hands bloody, who cares? Food comes from the supermarket, right?

No, not all hunters hunt to feed themselves...some just do it for sport. But many eat what they catch. How is that so horrible?

No...you misquote me. I didn't say they had done all the damage to the environment, but they are responsible for some major depopulations of certain creatures. Yes, they are. As are commercial fishing operations, which make sure that fish finds it's way to the consumer's table, and that Red Lobster can have all you can eat sales. There are two issues here...extremely wasteful sport hunting (a la Buffalo hunts during the colonisation of North America), and extremely intense commerical ventures. The first is as abhorant as the second, but in the second case, the consumer really needs to point that accusing finger at his or herself.

But since you don't "need" to, it must simply be inate bloodlust and having a small penis. :)
Yeah, mine is so small it's actually inside out, and called a vagina:D

I personally do not HAVE to hunt to feed my family (as in there is no other avenue), but I choose to, rather than eat domestic animals. Many of my people, however, live in extreme poverty, and would be eating mac and cheese from the Food Bank three times a day could they no longer hunt. Now stick that in a peace pipe and smoke it:D

I find it horrifying that people so distance themselves from their food, that they can not reconcile the nicely cut and packaged steak with the fact that it had to come from a living animal first. That separation is dangerous...it breeds contempt.YAY! :fluffle: IMO if there is ever any sort of mandatory "national service" it should start with a year or so on a (small) farm or on the 'Rez learning a bit about our connection to Food.
No, not all hunters hunt to feed themselves...some just do it for sport. But many eat what they catch. How is that so horrible?I know a conservative Rabbi who hunts "for sport" because to him, the meat is tamei/traif. However, he donates all of the meat to Food Programs and/or needy Goyim. Nothing better than a Rabbi giving meat to a family of Poor Jew-Hating Rednecks! :D

It seems to be a European thing...this misunderstanding (or whatever it is) about hunting. One thing I'd like Europeans to remember is that our situations are very different in many ways. Europe doesn't have a lot of wild game running about, and there is a very concentrated population living in a fairly small area. In North America, we are much more spread out, and game is still plentiful. Yes, we need to preserve that game, and not hunt it into extinction. Yes, I think we need to have tighter restrictions on sport hunting...that meat should not be left to rot in the woods. However, many people in Canada, most of aboriginal decent, rely on game as the main source of their animal protein. THE MAIN SOURCE. It may seem archaic and primitive to you...but tread carefully. Our relationship with the land is an integral part of our culture. You may consider THAT archaic and primitive, but rethink that cultural arrogance.

It seems to be a European thing...this misunderstanding (or whatever it is) about hunting. One thing I'd like Europeans to remember is that our situations are very different in many ways. Europe doesn't have a lot of wild game running about, and there is a very concentrated population living in a fairly small area. There is a reason Hunting was known as the "Sport of Kings". In most Euro countries, England in Particular, all Game beloned to the King. Hunting without His express permission/leave was often punishable by death. Non-professional hunters were, by definition, Criminals or Aristocracy. In the Large, the whole of urban UK society maintains this view of Hunters to this day. In North America, we are much more spread out, and game is still plentiful. Yes, we need to preserve that game, and not hunt it into extinction. Yes, I think we need to have tighter restrictions on sport hunting...that meat should not be left to rot in the woods. However, many people in Canada, most of aboriginal decent, rely on game as the main source of their animal protein. THE MAIN SOURCE. It may seem archaic and primitive to you...but tread carefully. Our relationship with the land is an integral part of our culture. You may consider THAT archaic and primitive, but rethink that cultural arrogance.
There are current regulations that demand that a Hunter bring to the Game Warden's "check station" certain body parts in order that the State be able to track Species, Sex and Age of all kills. I (and most hunters I know) would not be adverse to that reg be expanded to "Whole Carcass minus entrails" - if only to be used/collected by Food Programs (Safari Club International has a good one) if the Hunter only wants the "Trophy".

Humanely killed food? What...are they given lethal injections? Cows are generally shot, or bludgeoned before they are slaughtered...how is that any more humane? You kill the animal, either way. And chickens, depending on the size of the operation, are either strangled, or have their heads cut off. Dead is dead. Neither method makes the animal suffer unduly.

I find it horrifying that people so distance themselves from their food, that they can not reconcile the nicely cut and packaged steak with the fact that it had to come from a living animal first. That separation is dangerous...it breeds contempt. Feed farms raise animals in terrible conditions...but as long as we don't have to get our hands bloody, who cares? Food comes from the supermarket, right?

No, not all hunters hunt to feed themselves...some just do it for sport. But many eat what they catch. How is that so horrible?



Because it's easier to feel superior if one is detached from the reality of a situation. Besides hunters support the "evil right wing" and are filled w/ "bloodlust" to compensate for having small penises. At least that's what PETA and SE believe.

And here is the rub. You believe you hold the moral authority to tell an entire nation how to live. If you do, then we do - so all this talk about how bad the US is for imposing ourselves on Iraq is moot right?

Likewise, if the US has no right to impose itself on places like Iraq, then YOU have no right to "curb our excesses" either.

Take your pick. Consistancy is a bitch eh?


What is this with putting words in my mouth. Have I mentioned Iraq at all?

And in any case, I am talking about the right of the international majority to control how an individual state acts on an international level . I think this is fair enough. That is what international law is and it is necessary for the smooth functioning of international society. We are talking about the international arms trade, and so long as this is on the international arena, international law can dictate how it is conducted. We are not talking about whether there is a right for an individual nation to interfere in the internal affairs of another. Different things my friend.

I like that SE supposedly opposes PETA but is using all the same arguments and terminology to oppose hunting that PETA does.

I didn't say that I OPPOSED PETA, I said I didn't SUPPORT PETA. I sympathise with some of PETA's policies to an extent, but I do not support their argument to the extremist extent that they do.

Humanely killed food? What...are they given lethal injections? Cows are generally shot, or bludgeoned before they are slaughtered...how is that any more humane? You kill the animal, either way. And chickens, depending on the size of the operation, are either strangled, or have their heads cut off. Dead is dead. Neither method makes the animal suffer unduly.

In Europe, it is required that animals are killed instantly with a bolt to the brain. Or "stunned", ie knocked unconcious, before being killed. Unless they are Halal killings, which are treated differently under Human Rights (Art 9 ECHR) requirements. Personally I would consider that halal is a lot more inhumane than the other method, and generally the other method is the most humane to treat animal slaughter.

I find it horrifying that people so distance themselves from their food, that they can not reconcile the nicely cut and packaged steak with the fact that it had to come from a living animal first. That separation is dangerous...it breeds contempt. Feed farms raise animals in terrible conditions...but as long as we don't have to get our hands bloody, who cares? Food comes from the supermarket, right?

Society has adapted and I fail to see how this "breeds contempt". Separation from contact with animals perhaps "breeds contempt" against animals, but I fail to see how this applies in the food chain.

No, not all hunters hunt to feed themselves...some just do it for sport. But many eat what they catch. How is that so horrible?

I do not thing that it is horrible if it is done correctly, but the risk is that no matter how expert the person is, hunting from a distance can lead to animals being injured rather than killed outright and this is inhumane.

Yes, they are. As are commercial fishing operations, which make sure that fish finds it's way to the consumer's table, and that Red Lobster can have all you can eat sales. There are two issues here...extremely wasteful sport hunting (a la Buffalo hunts during the colonisation of North America), and extremely intense commerical ventures. The first is as abhorant as the second, but in the second case, the consumer really needs to point that accusing finger at his or herself.

Yes...2 words. Fish farming.

You are talking about over-fishing, right?

Uh huh. A Political position developed in the West (not even the Jainists are PETA crazy) that demands political action and controls on behavior is not an imposition of a Western Cultural value on indigenous peoples? :rolleyes:

Started and funded by Westerners.

Well...personally I haven't investigated the origins of every single animal rights organisation in the world. Clearly you have. But, for the meantime, lets say this. Even if these organisations had been started by people from the region, it is perfectly possible to argue that this concern for animal rights was induced by Western Colonial influence in the first place. But even if these organisations were founded by Westerners, they do have some level of "native" (for want of a better word) support.

It has to be recognised that there is some degree of Western influence inherent in most societies which makes it difficult to determine what is a true "local culture". It is also debatable that much of so-called "Western Culture" is not a true continuation of original Western culture, but is a development of "modernity", since original Western culture shares a lot with so called local cultures which people so often place so much stock in. Therefore, it is arguable that there is a developing "International" Culture.

So really, all this talk about cultures is pretty academic.





And yet, PETA and the other Animal Rights types want it banned... utterly. Without regard to Subsistance or Culture.
No, I assume a lot about the stance of the people who would try to unilaterally ban hunting - people who lay caim to compassion but advocate laws that would have extreme detrimental effect on indigenous culture. Unless you fit that criteria, I am not speaking about you... you are projecting.

Yes, PETA's ultimate aim is to ban all hunting, but they prioritise unnecessary hunting for sport over hunting for food or necessity. And again, it's not racist, since it is done with the welfare of the animals in mind, rather than an intention to discriminate against people. And I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that cultures can and should adapt (not necessarily to hunting, I just mean that the expectation that cultures are so 'sacred' that they should remain stagnant and not adapt is unrealistic and unhealthy)

You obviously didn't watch the debate where the PETA rep. stated that ANIMALS regulate themselves then went on to say they needed to regulate domestic animals. PETA's 'expertise' is in PR stunts and have very little "complexity" behind them. This is almost an ID arguement for "animal rights".

Yes...animals regulate themselves, but domestic animals haven't been left to regulate themselves because they are raised purely through human influence. So, you see, they are not part of the natural ecosystem.



They ignore other social issues and don't acknowledge them? You'r bias is clouding reality again. They only "encourage propagation of firearms" to those who use them responsibly.


How do you know who will use them responsibly?

You keep on going on about me believing in punishing "pre-crime", but you are missing my point. You are saying that the NRA only encourages the propagation of firearms to the "law abiding" and "those who use them responsibly". What I want to know is how you can encourgae propagation ONLY to these groups? To me propagation can only be to all or to none. Are you saying that NRA pro-gun advertising and assistance has some sort of special targeting system that seeks out those who are inately law abiding? There is some way that the permissive attitude to guns somehow by-passes those who are not law-abiding and not responsible?

I'm not talking about "pre-crime" at all.




I never said that and an armed society can protect themselves from a tyrannical gov't.

No? -

The NRA wants people to be able to defend themselves against violent criminals or genocidal governments.






Now you're creating strawmen and just did the same thing as the Hoplophobes. A 20 yr old gang-banger is not a "kid".

But not all of them are 20 year olds. A lot of them are younger. The NRA implies that these statistics are all "20 year old gang-bangers". This is not necessarily the case, but the NRA implies this. I have no idea about the specific study, but the NRA doesn't provide particular statistics, it just implies that they are all 25 or something. And don't ask me to quote it, because I already did.




You're the one that started the whole "right wing = evil " nonsense. Since you don't know anything about the US system, it was the Democrats in the 60's that created the ghettos where most crime is located w/ the "Great Society" programs.
Comparing US to UK political systems to make your "NRA=evil" arguements is inane.

Part of the "Great Society" scheme was the building of social housing. This does not equate to the creation of ghettos. Indeed, from what I have read, the "failure" of the scheme was due to diversion of funds to the Vietnam war and underfunding from subsequent Republican governments. Add that to the fact that the Democrats at best align with the Centre-right in Europe and as a result never implemented as wide-ranging other social-security benefits, meaning that these people have never had the same advantages as many in similar situations in Europe,


Nevertheless, much the same happened in the UK with social housing, and indeed some of these areas are pretty bad today, but they are not "ghettos" by any means. Indeed, what would these people (in the US) have had if it had not been for the provision of affordable social housing. Nothing? Would they not have been left without shelter and had to relocate, or would they have died? Sure, social housing generally compartmentalised them, but this would probably have happened anyway due to economic pressures - these people could not afford to live in the same areas as the more affluent people. Compartmentalisation in this way would happen in the Freemarket too. Indeed it is the wider existence of the free-market in housing which prevented social housing from alleviating the problem of compartmentalisation, since the right to freely dispose of property means that even if socialised housing was intermixed with private housing, the private householders would have moved away and thus compartmentalisation of the poor would have occured anyway.


Now say that when you see one stabbing his ex-wife or is raping your sister or mother.

Yes, but the role of the state is to stop man acting as a judge in his own disputes. Society and state civilise us and stop us acting on animal instincts like revenge.


I don't follow the belief that allows criminals to blame everything else for their problems. You don't "need" to rob a store or murder someone and a person who is "socially conditioned" to crime and is incapable of rising above it is not a complete person. I also don't believe in "Nanny states" that should coddle and protect like sheeple. Once again, you're making assumptions about self-defense. Do you have anything that endorses your "mistrust and dehumanises" hypothesis? Howabout that an emphasis on self-defense encourages self-reliance and a positive self image. It also encourages a stronger community that opposes crime.

I don't think it totally absolves them from responsibility for their actions, but it must be recognised that these factors play an important part in crime and as such, crime could be greatly reduced by addressing these contributing factors.


And jeez man, what is it with you and making logical links in things? Right look at it this way. The NRA is saying that you need guns to protect you against criminals. This suggests that you are not safe in your society, without some sort of weapon, which in turn leads to mistrust of other people. And linking in with the "atomisation of society" point, this mistrust leads to disconnection with others, with the unfamiliar, and eventually to the dehumanising of sections of society.



You stated that you thought the factory process whas inhumane, yet the majority of supermarkets get theirs from those sources. Do you buy "organic food"? If you don't, the meat you're eating is killed more inhumanely and is less healthy than almost any free-range hunted animal.

I never said anything like that about the factory process. When? Where?

Fair enough though, I agree it is, but the EU has much stricter controls on how animals are kept than the US. The only animals that are really produced in a "factory" setting are chickens. Yes, they are kept in horrible conditions, but it is easy to go out and by free-range chickens.

Other animals are kept on farms and are slaughtered with a bolt to the head which kills instantly. Although there are issues with animal transportation, but I believe that the EU has dealt with most of the issues on the point.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
But you still haven't addressed the point. You say the point of hunting is to enjoy nature and frollick with the herds and so forth. It isn't necessary in the West to hunt for food anymore. So why does this enjoyment of nature have to end with killing something. Surely the only things left are bloodlust or some sort of misplaced appeal to masculinity?

Once again you're assuming "bloodlust" or "small penises" . I have adressed this point before(as have others).

No, the only one who has made an attempt to address the point is Sinuhue.

(Also, it is a valid argument to say that it is a misplaced appeal to masculinity and not the same as, although closely linked to the "small penises" argument which I admit I used earlier, mainly to irritate people.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
Well I have looked it up. Apparently you haven't. It hardly "encourges children to pet feral rats" Although it is a rather inane piece of literature.

"A Rat's Life" AKA "Feral Rats are Fun!"

Again, I do not support PETA and I think that animal testing is necessary, but should conform to strict ethics and necessity tests.

Sure, but PETA is against all of it. What's you're point?

The point was that you said that "PETA encourages children to play with feral rats" I showed you said comic, which clearly does not mention petting feral rats, thus disproving your point.

The last statement was a disclaimer to make sure no one started a convo about animal testing, by making clear my stance on it did not conform with that contained in the document.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
So that they can kill them?


More ignorant stereotyping.

Can't remember what this was about.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
No, you misconstue the use of the word "coercion". The point is that it is illegal to hunt without paying for said licensing, thus if the hunters wish to stay within the law they must pay for these licenses and therefore the payment of these fees is not "voluntary" but done with the threat that failure to comply with this law will be punishable by some form of state coercion whether criminal sanctions or civil fines.

But then they have their guns to protect themselves against this state coercion, don't they?

More stereotyping, strawmen, and moved goalposts


Hunters support the laws and licensing and you don't need a license in all states especially if you're hunting on your own land. But you would rather believe they would do anything to sate their "bloodlust".

No, you tried to claim that hunters voluntarily pay licencing fees in a charitable act to support the countryside and so forth. But licences are not voluntary, they are prescribed by law, so there is no way that any money contributed through licencing can be considered charitable. Where licences are not required, clearly they do not pay license fees. Or are you trying to say that when they are on their own land or in a state where licences are not required, that hunters then voluntarily pay "licence fees"? Really? I don't think this is counted in what you were talking about earlier. This would be an actual charitable donation rather than being included in the licence fee revenues which made up 75% of your so-called "charitable donations" earlier on.

You also say that the laws ares supported by hunters unanimously now? Interesting claim.



You keep repeating that but have not put forward one "policy" that actually endorses that in any way. You just keep repeating" NRA=rightwing=evil".

The NRA promotes education, the enforcement of laws against criminals, and the rights promoted in the US constitution which includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Look, it's deductive reasoning here. The NRA does promote the propagation of guns for self-defence against other individuals and against the government. Therefore the NRA supports individuality rather than social collectivism. Indeed, this reservation of the "use of force" (theoretical use of force) is so extreme (in terms of the social contract theory on which the US constitution is based, which reserves the "use fo force" to the State) that it tends towards atomisation of society and Libertarianism. This is not something which they are actually going to say specifically, because the NRA is not engaged in legal theory rhetoric. It is plain to see that NRA policy corresponds to this political philosophy. I am not at this point making a value judgement about this philosophy. I did originally, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am just saying that this is what the philosophy is. I will not repeat this again, and I will not debate this point further unless you argue a decent point against it.

Oh...and in support, I quote Syniks, in a statement which you later agreed with

...the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"?

Can you get more individualist and anti-society?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
Now you are trying to tell me that the NRA doesn't encourage the maintainence of the individual right to use force? That it doesn't think that people need to protect themselves from other people?


Where are you getting this nonsense? I stated earlier that the NRA supports the right of self-defense from criminals.

I'm not saying that the NRA is encouraging people to use force, I am talking about the use of force which is theoretically reserved to the government in social contract theory.



Yes I can say that except for a "psych profile". It's called NICS. National Instant Check System. A FEDERAL program that all dealers have to use.


Fair enough.

Although what about the lack of a waiting period which existed under the previous law?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
Well, how do you decide that a state is becoming tyrannical? What gives you the right as a individual to do this? You as an individual with one gun cannot take on the government and hope to win.

This can only be done by a mass-organisation which could either pressurise the government through peaceful means (which is possible - look at South Africa, although violent revolt was tried, it was not this action which ended apartheid, it was political and economic pressure at domestic and international levels) or, in the worst case senario, by violent revolt, in which case the en-mass movement can supply weaponary. And you will probably find that smalll arms aren't enough. Are you now suggesting that we should be allowed to keep tanks and cruise missles.

And what about people who choose to abuse this "right to revolt" What if a large organisation of extremists decide they want to use their right to take over a state or the entire country? How do you safeguard against this when they can act for all intents and purposes within the law until they decide to revolt?

You like quoting Hobbes as a source. Look up "natural rights". SA's "revolts" failed because the ruling gov't DISARMED the blacks. You can also make up all the hypotheticals you want. An armed society would also defend agaisnt extremist organisations if the majority oppose them. You're use of the "owning a hangun=support of owning missiles" slippery=slope is also noted.


"Right to revolt" is actually Kant. Whether or not the SA Govt disarmed the blacks, they were in receipt of illegal arms and were involved in armed training camps across the border, so there were plenty of weapons about and, indeed, SA still suffers from the problem of so many unlicensed guns remaining from the Apartheid struggle.


An armed society would also defend agaisnt extremist organisations if the majority oppose them.

So, if an armed society defended against extremist organisations, would this not be a Civil War? Is it not the role of the state to act against this extremist organisation rather than the other citizens, otherwise what is the purpose of the state?

Anything about Citizens defending themselves against the Govt ends in some level of Civil War since the individual cannot hope to defend themselves against the government no matter what type of weapon they have. Action against the government can only be achieved en-mass, and this would be Civil War. Therefore the NRA's policy of keeping guns to protect against government is futile unless they promote Civil War as a valid response in a democratic society.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Europe
Yes, because what the US does affects the whole world and therefore we should be able to curb your excesses.

And now back to the US bashing.

That's not US bashing, it is true. Americans seem very sensitive about criticism of their foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that all criticism of your policies is invalid, just because you call it "US-bashing". The UK gets its foreign policy criticised all the time and we UK citizens don't take offence. I frequently think our foreign policy is shocking and I do think it is the right of other members of the international community to curb our excesses too.

Why should the world suffer from pollution from the US just because the US refuses to sign up to Kyoto?

Equally, why should the world suffer because China and India refuse to sign Kyoto.

(This is just an example of how the actions of individual nations can effect all nations. I don't want to debate Kyoto. Yes it is deeply flawed. But it is something at least. Still don't want to debate it)

What is this with putting words in my mouth. Have I mentioned Iraq at all?

And in any case, I am talking about the right of the international majority to control how an individual state acts on an international level . This is a reference to US international activities, which includes Iraq, no? I think this is fair enough. That is what international law is and it is necessary for the smooth functioning of international society. We are talking about the international arms trade, and so long as this is on the international arena, international law can dictate how it is conducted. No, this is a thread about making an International law banning Hunting. Only You have tried to link the NRA, a civillian NGO, with international arms dealing. We are not talking about whether there is a right for an individual nation to interfere in the internal affairs of another. Different things my friend.Yes we are. It's called PETA arguing in support of a GLOBAL ban on hunting. You are trying to deflect the issue to support your prejudices.

Well...personally I haven't investigated the origins of every single animal rights organisation in the world. Clearly you have. But, for the meantime, lets say this. Even if these organisations had been started by people from the region, it is perfectly possible to argue that this concern for animal rights was induced by Western Colonial influence in the first place. But even if these organisations were founded by Westerners, they do have some level of "native" (for want of a better word) support. So? There are Euro born & bred Muslim Suicide Bombers too.
It has to be recognised that there is some degree of Western influence inherent in most societies which makes it difficult to determine what is a true "local culture". It is also debatable that much of so-called "Western Culture" is not a true continuation of original Western culture, but is a development of "modernity", since original Western culture shares a lot with so called local cultures which people so often place so much stock in. Therefore, it is arguable that there is a developing "International" Culture.

So really, all this talk about cultures is pretty academic. Great. "International Culture" is so much better that Aboriginal Culture belongs only in academia/museums. Tell that to Sinuhue. :mad:
Yes, PETA's ultimate aim is to ban all hunting, but they prioritise unnecessary hunting for sport over hunting for food or necessity. Show me where. And, as I said, such "prioritization" is a-priori racist because it assumes that subsistance hunting is only necessary in as-of-yet "uncivilized" cultures. And again, it's not racist, since it is done with the welfare of the animals in mind, rather than an intention to discriminate against people. The "intent" is immaterial. Discrimination is discrimination. They intend to impose a radical (certainly not universal) Western value set on non Western peoples simply so they can "feel good". And I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that cultures can and should adapt (not necessarily to hunting, I just mean that the expectation that cultures are so 'sacred' that they should remain stagnant and not adapt is unrealistic and unhealthy)Not by force - which is exactly what a LAW is. FORCE demanding that "adaptation". :headbang:

How do you know who will use them responsibly?
How do YOU know who won't? But not all of them are 20 year olds. A lot of them are younger. The NRA implies that these statistics are all "20 year old gang-bangers". This is not necessarily the case, but the NRA implies this. I have no idea about the specific study, but the NRA doesn't provide particular statistics, it just implies that they are all 25 or something. And don't ask me to quote it, because I already did.You are entirely wrong here - so wrong that it smacks of intentional obtuseness. The problem is that the statistics that are cited for "children and gun violence" imply that the children in question are not actively engaged in criminal activity - i.e. innocents injured/killed with firearms. The NRA specifically asserts that those gang members under the age of 21 should NOT be considerd "children" in that context because their activities are specifically criminal - i.e. they are NOT innocents and should not be included in the same statistics. Yes, but the role of the state is to stop man acting as a judge in his own disputes. Society and state civilise us and stop us acting on animal instincts like revenge.Another obfuscation. In no way do Pro Gun Choice advocate people acting as "Judges" or engage in Revenge. Neither can be considered self defense. I am not judging anyone when I stop an attacker from attacking me, nor am I acting from revenge. i am simply defending my Right to Exist from a Predator who is attempting to deny me that Right. Look, it's deductive reasoning here. The NRA does promote the propagation of guns for self-defence against other individuals and against the government. Therefore the NRA supports individuality rather than social collectivism. DUH! We are not Socialists in the US, nor, thankfully, is our System based upon Collectivisim. Why should the NRA support it? Indeed, this reservation of the "use of force" (theoretical use of force) is so extreme (in terms of the social contract theory on which the US constitution is based, which reserves the "use fo force" to the State) The US Constitution is based on quite a bit more than simple Laviathanesque social contract theory that it tends towards atomisation of society and Libertarianism. I wish. This is not something which they are actually going to say specifically, because the NRA is not engaged in legal theory rhetoric. It is plain to see that NRA policy corresponds to this political philosophy. Duh. I am not at this point making a value judgement about this philosophy. But you are. You are asserting that Collectivisim is superior to individualisim. Oh...and in support, I quote Syniks, in a statement which you later agreed with ...the NRA - whose whole agenda is "Leave our members alone"? Can you get more individualist I hope not. and anti-society? How is it anti-society to not want the government to use violence and the threat of violence against people who are causing no harm? I'm not saying that the NRA is encouraging people to use force, I am talking about the use of force which is theoretically reserved to the government in social contract theory. Which, in all practicality, does not work. The Government (Police) cannot be everywhere at all times. Criminals will be criminals regardless of social contract theory. Therefore Criminals will prey on INDIVIDUALS - especially when and where the Government can't support them. INDIVIDUALS must protect themselves when the Government can't (or won't). Firearms are currently the singularly most effective way of doing this. That is why the NRA fights to keep them from being banned. Although what about the lack of a waiting period which existed under the previous law? Oh, you mean like up untill the GCA of 1968 when virtually anyone could order/purchase a firearm - including handguns - through the Post? When there weren't cities full of mandatorily disarmed citizens to be preyed upon by thugs who are armed anyway? When there were no records of purchases at all because we didn't have a Government that might want to come to your house to confiscate the gun they just declared "illegal"? When children took firearms to school for "show and tell" and after school Hunting trips - and nobody freaked out? Why have all the really bad things about guns in the US happened after gun control laws went into effect?

Yes...animals regulate themselves, but domestic animals haven't been left to regulate themselves because they are raised purely through human influence. So, you see, they are not part of the natural ecosystem.

So there are no wild "domestic" animals? PETA has stated ANIMALs, not wild, not domestic but ANIMALS. Then contradicts themselves.






How do you know who will use them responsibly?

You keep on going on about me believing in punishing "pre-crime", but you are missing my point. You are saying that the NRA only encourages the propagation of firearms to the "law abiding" and "those who use them responsibly". What I want to know is how you can encourgae propagation ONLY to these groups? To me propagation can only be to all or to none. Are you saying that NRA pro-gun advertising and assistance has some sort of special targeting system that seeks out those who are inately law abiding? There is some way that the permissive attitude to guns somehow by-passes those who are not law-abiding and not responsible?

I'm not talking about "pre-crime" at all.

So give guns to all or give guns to none? So everyone should be allowed to drive or noone as all? The NRA can't force people to obey laws. It encourages its members by providing training and educational resources.

You are clearly talking about restricting people based on what they "may" do w/ something. That is "pre-crime". There is no system in the world that can GUARANTEE that noone will break the law. You're in the UK where guns are effectively banned yet gun crime has increased since the laws since it only took firearms away from those who actually followed it


But not all of them are 20 year olds. A lot of them are younger. The NRA implies that these statistics are all "20 year old gang-bangers". This is not necessarily the case, but the NRA implies this. I have no idea about the specific study, but the NRA doesn't provide particular statistics, it just implies that they are all 25 or something. And don't ask me to quote it, because I already did.

The NRA provides many statistics, so do other organizations that do research. If you look at the numbers, the majority (well over 80%) of murders that are included as "children" are in the 18-21 year old demographic. In the US, 18 is legally an adult. If you want to consider them "children", that's your choice but the anti-gun organizations here use those numbers to present the mindset of ACTUAL children being killed by firearms.


Part of the "Great Society" scheme was the building of social housing. This does not equate to the creation of ghettos. Indeed, from what I have read, the "failure" of the scheme was due to diversion of funds to the Vietnam war and underfunding from subsequent Republican governments. Add that to the fact that the Democrats at best align with the Centre-right in Europe and as a result never implemented as wide-ranging other social-security benefits, meaning that these people have never had the same advantages as many in similar situations in Europe,

Do you have any sources to back that up or is it just more "right-wing=evil" ?



Yes, but the role of the state is to stop man acting as a judge in his own disputes. Society and state civilise us and stop us acting on animal instincts like revenge.

So you don't feel someone has the right to defend themselves or their property? Now you've moved the goalposts from hunting and self-defense to "revenge" killings.

BTW, SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that the state has no obligation to protect the individual from crime.


I don't think it totally absolves them from responsibility for their actions, but it must be recognised that these factors play an important part in crime and as such, crime could be greatly reduced by addressing these contributing factors.

I agree with you, however there will still be violent crime and people have the right to defend themselves from it.


And jeez man, what is it with you and making logical links in things? Right look at it this way. The NRA is saying that you need guns to protect you against criminals. This suggests that you are not safe in your society, without some sort of weapon, which in turn leads to mistrust of other people. And linking in with the "atomisation of society" point, this mistrust leads to disconnection with others, with the unfamiliar, and eventually to the dehumanising of sections of society.

You BELIEVE it suggests mistrust and atomisation. Firearm owners tend to be very social. You still have presented no evidence ecxept for your "belief".


Fair enough though, I agree it is, but the EU has much stricter controls on how animals are kept than the US. The only animals that are really produced in a "factory" setting are chickens. Yes, they are kept in horrible conditions, but it is easy to go out and by free-range chickens.

Really? Souce it.

Other animals are kept on farms and are slaughtered with a bolt to the head which kills instantly. Although there are issues with animal transportation, but I believe that the EU has dealt with most of the issues on the point.

That's how most animals are killed in the US. How is a boltgun different from a firearm? Are you saying all slaughterhouses train their people to the extent it is instant every time?

No, the only one who has made an attempt to address the point is Sinuhue.

(Also, it is a valid argument to say that it is a misplaced appeal to masculinity and not the same as, although closely linked to the "small penises" argument which I admit I used earlier, mainly to irritate people.)

Synics and I have also adressed the point several times. The "misplaced appeal" arguement is a joke that is used as an insult that you also have no evidence for.


The point was that you said that "PETA encourages children to play with feral rats" I showed you said comic, which clearly does not mention petting feral rats, thus disproving your point.

I never said it directly stated that. I said it "encourages" it by telling kids that rats are nice creatures that wouldn't harm you w/o presenting the potential dangers.

Can't remember what this was about.

More baseless hunting stereotypes.

No, you tried to claim that hunters voluntarily pay licencing fees in a charitable act to support the countryside and so forth. But licences are not voluntary, they are prescribed by law, so there is no way that any money contributed through licencing can be considered charitable. Where licences are not required, clearly they do not pay license fees. Or are you trying to say that when they are on their own land or in a state where licences are not required, that hunters then voluntarily pay "licence fees"? Really? I don't think this is counted in what you were talking about earlier. This would be an actual charitable donation rather than being included in the licence fee revenues which made up 75% of your so-called "charitable donations" earlier on.

You also say that the laws ares supported by hunters unanimously now? Interesting claim.

Now you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said ALL hunters. If you want to attack generalizations, we'll go over your posts with a fine tooth comb.

Since you apparently have never protested a law or written letters to your MP's, laws can be revoked or not passed. Hunters support the licenses and fees that directly contribute to the activity. IF there was one that didn't support it (as happened in Florida), the law would be changed or revoked.

Look, it's deductive reasoning here. The NRA does promote the propagation of guns for self-defence against other individuals and against the government. Therefore the NRA supports individuality rather than social collectivism. Indeed, this reservation of the "use of force" (theoretical use of force) is so extreme (in terms of the social contract theory on which the US constitution is based, which reserves the "use fo force" to the State) that it tends towards atomisation of society and Libertarianism. This is not something which they are actually going to say specifically, because the NRA is not engaged in legal theory rhetoric. It is plain to see that NRA policy corresponds to this political philosophy. I am not at this point making a value judgement about this philosophy. I did originally, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am just saying that this is what the philosophy is. I will not repeat this again, and I will not debate this point further unless you argue a decent point against it.

Oh...and in support, I quote Syniks, in a statement which you later agreed with

Can you get more individualist and anti-society?



"Social Collectivism"? So you're stating that encouraging an individual to rely on themselves and not necessarily the Gov't is Anti-society and leads to a breakdown of said society? I counter that the strong individual makes for a stronger society. You can have your sheeple collectivism where everyone bows down to the Gov't.




I'm not saying that the NRA is encouraging people to use force, I am talking about the use of force which is theoretically reserved to the government in social contract theory.

The use of force is NOT reserved to the Gov't.

Although what about the lack of a waiting period which existed under the previous law?

There are still waiting periods in various states. There is also NO conclusive evidence that they had any deterrent on crime whatsoever. Just another loop to make those who actually follow the laws have to jump through.

"Right to revolt" is actually Kant. Whether or not the SA Govt disarmed the blacks, they were in receipt of illegal arms and were involved in armed training camps across the border, so there were plenty of weapons about and, indeed, SA still suffers from the problem of so many unlicensed guns remaining from the Apartheid struggle.

Right, so what is the Gov't doing now? Disarming those who actually followed the laws. And crime keeps increasing.

So, if an armed society defended against extremist organisations, would this not be a Civil War? Is it not the role of the state to act against this extremist organisation rather than the other citizens, otherwise what is the purpose of the state?

You seem to keep referring to the "state" as some sort of all knowing, all powerful Godhead that can fix all the problems. It's not. The state has caused just as many problems as it's solved.

Anything about Citizens defending themselves against the Govt ends in some level of Civil War since the individual cannot hope to defend themselves against the government no matter what type of weapon they have. Action against the government can only be achieved en-mass, and this would be Civil War. Therefore the NRA's policy of keeping guns to protect against government is futile unless they promote Civil War as a valid response in a democratic society.

The FF of the US actually encourage the populace to rise up against the Gov't if it becomes tyrannical, it's not an "NRA exclusive" thing. It could be a Civil War, it could be a que. Either way, leaving a tyrannical gov't in charge will lead to deaths anyway. If you believe that an armed populace of 80 million can't defend themselves against a gov't, you go right ahead.


That's not US bashing, it is true. Americans seem very sensitive about criticism of their foreign policy, but that doesn't mean that all criticism of your policies is invalid, just because you call it "US-bashing". The UK gets its foreign policy criticised all the time and we UK citizens don't take offence. I frequently think our foreign policy is shocking and I do think it is the right of other members of the international community to curb our excesses too.

Why should the world suffer from pollution from the US just because the US refuses to sign up to Kyoto?

Equally, why should the world suffer because China and India refuse to sign Kyoto.

(This is just an example of how the actions of individual nations can effect all nations. I don't want to debate Kyoto. Yes it is deeply flawed. But it is something at least. Still don't want to debate it)

OK, so basically you're talking about "social collectivism" and a one world Gov't. I think Gov'ts should have as little power as possible. The UN's goal is to severely limit private ownership of firearms in the US even though it can't show that the problem is coming from the US. Try looking up IANSA's desired limitations of firearms.

So? There are Euro born & bred Muslim Suicide Bombers too.

And?


Great. "International Culture" is so much better that Aboriginal Culture belongs only in academia/museums. Tell that to Sinuhue. :mad:

No, the point is "International Culture" is not necessarily "Western Culture" since a lot of "International Culture" is opposed to historic (for want of a better word, again) Western Culture. For example hunting was very much a part of culture in Scotland and the Secular nature of "International Culture" often opposes the native Kalvinist culture of Scotland.

Therefore, to characterise this as the imposition of "Western Culture" is false, since international culture is a product of modern globalisation and of a metropolitan culture that can be found in cities across the globe



Show me where. And, as I said, such "prioritization" is a-priori racist because it assumes that subsistance hunting is only necessary in as-of-yet "uncivilized" cultures. The "intent" is immaterial. Discrimination is discrimination. They intend to impose a radical (certainly not universal) Western value set on non Western peoples simply so they can "feel good". Not by force - which is exactly what a LAW is. FORCE demanding that "adaptation". :headbang:

To be fair, the effect only occurs in so far as these "uncivilised" cultures take part in legal society. A lot of the cultures you are referring to are sort of Amazonian tribes and so forth that aren't really touched by the law. As for Amerindian culture, I'm not so sure, and I know Sinuhue will love me for saying this, that this hasn't largely been assimilated into American culture and the majority of it is people who are holding onto it are no different from every other US citizen holding vice-like onto cultural connections they lost long ago.

Yes, my great, great, great, great grandfather was Scottish, so lets go and wear a kilt. Aye, right! Not Scottish, I'm afraid.

How do YOU know who won't?

Well..you see, me not giving someone who won't use a gun irresponsibly won't result in that person shooting someone. So I don't really see what difference that makes.

Whereas you giving, sorry, allowing someone who will use a gun irresponsibly to have one, could result in that person killing someone. So the onus really is on you.


You are entirely wrong here - so wrong that it smacks of intentional obtuseness. The problem is that the statistics that are cited for "children and gun violence" imply that the children in question are not actively engaged in criminal activity - i.e. innocents injured/killed with firearms. The NRA specifically asserts that those gang members under the age of 21 should NOT be considerd "children" in that context because their activities are specifically criminal - i.e. they are NOT innocents and should not be included in the same statistics.


No, you are wrong here. I don't see you giving up these statistics. But then statistics in these circumstances are generally meaningless since some anti-gun groups will include children and equally, the NRA is likely to highlight surveys where they have included over 18s, rather than ones where they haven't.

And as I said before, the fact that they are engaged in Criminal Activity doesn't make a difference to their inclusion in child gun fatality statistics. To say that they don't count ignores wider social problems and can be considered racist since these kids are generally poor, which means generally Black or Hispanic while the NRA is largely white.



Another obfuscation. In no way do Pro Gun Choice advocate people acting as "Judges" or engage in Revenge. Neither can be considered self defense. I am not judging anyone when I stop an attacker from attacking me, nor am I acting from revenge. i am simply defending my Right to Exist from a Predator who is attempting to deny me that

The whole "judges" thing is Hobbes rhetoric, not to be literally interpreted. What if you shoot someone who you thought was an attacker, since the NRA propoganda makes you think everyone else is a "predator"? You are "judging" that they are going to attack you and therefore deserve to die.


Right. DUH! We are not Socialists in the US, nor, thankfully, is our System based upon Collectivisim. Why should the NRA support it? The US Constitution is based on quite a bit more than simple Laviathanesque social contract theory I wish. Duh. But you are. You are asserting that Collectivisim is superior to individualism. I hope not. How is it anti-society to not want the government to use violence and the threat of violence against people who are causing no harm? Which, in all practicality, does not work.

Society is a collective. Without "collectivism" you do not have a society, you only have individuals. Family is a type of "collectivism". I am not talking about communism.

The Government (Police) cannot be everywhere at all times. Criminals will be criminals regardless of social contract theory. Therefore Criminals will prey on INDIVIDUALS - especially when and where the Government can't support them. INDIVIDUALS must protect themselves when the Government can't (or won't). Firearms are currently the singularly most effective way of doing this.

I'm sorry, but where I come from you don't generally get armed thugs chasing after you. Society is generally peaceful. And if you have a weapon of any kind, it is more likely that any weapon that was only going to be used to threaten you will actually be used against you in a physical attack.

There is very little crime that consists of random attacks. Most are commited with a purpose - ie, revenge or theft.

That is why the NRA fights to keep them from being banned. Oh, you mean like up untill the GCA of 1968 when virtually anyone could order/purchase a firearm - including handguns - through the Post? When there weren't cities full of mandatorily disarmed citizens to be preyed upon by thugs who are armed anyway? When there were no records of purchases at all because we didn't have a Government that might want to come to your house to confiscate the gun they just declared "illegal"? When children took firearms to school for "show and tell" and after school Hunting trips - and nobody freaked out? Why have all the really bad things about guns in the US happened after gun control laws went into effect?

I mean you should have the two of them in combination. NICS and a waiting period. And I fail to see how gun control has lead to kids massacring people at school.

And? The level of native-born activisim in a particular group does not give it local basis. That was a simple example.
No, the point is "International Culture" is not necessarily "Western Culture" since a lot of "International Culture" is opposed to historic (for want of a better word, again) Western Culture. For example hunting was very much a part of culture in Scotland and the Secular nature of "International Culture" often opposes the native Kalvinist culture of Scotland.

Therefore, to characterise this as the imposition of "Western Culture" is false, since international culture is a product of modern globalisation and of a metropolitan culture that can be found in cities across the globe.Animal Rights/Liberation is most certainly a product of Western Culture - as not even the Far Eastern (Vegitarian) Religions hold such a foolish postiton as to make an international law banning Hunting.
To be fair, the effect only occurs in so far as these "uncivilised" cultures take part in legal society. A lot of the cultures you are referring to are sort of Amazonian tribes and so forth that aren't really touched by the law. As for Amerindian culture, I'm not so sure, and I know Sinuhue will love me for saying this, that this hasn't largely been assimilated into American culture and the majority of it is people who are holding onto it are no different from every other US citizen holding vice-like onto cultural connections they lost long ago. Simple Bigotry. Welcome to SE's Bland, undifferentiated, Collectivist World. All Hail! :rolleyes:
Yes, my great, great, great, great grandfather was Scottish, so lets go and wear a kilt. Aye, right! Not Scottish, I'm afraid.My maternal family is Clan Buchanan. I have full Kit and participate in Highland games when possible. Why should I ignore/give up my heritage?

SE, this thread is about PETA wanting an International Ban on Hunting. The NRA was simply the most internationally prominant Pro Choice (Hunting) organization with a PR department equivilent to PETAs. Frankly, I would have preferred that the United States Sportsmans Association, or a similar org had done the debate - if for no other reason than to keep people like you from trying to hijack the issue and making it about ownership of guns, not Hunting.

If you want to debate the NRA and US 2nd Am issues, go here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=451824

Now, back OT.

Society is a collective. Without "collectivism" you do not have a society, you only have individuals. Family is a type of "collectivism". I am not talking about communism.

"Collective" action taken in the form of International law that restricts non-socially harmful activities of individuals is simple authoritarianisim. It becomes Racist when the majority of the impact of such legislation falls on specifically identifiable cultural groups who are causing no harm to any of the other individuals of of the "greater society" or the society in large. What PETA proposes does this. Your insistance that Culture is immaterial in this debate is pure bigoted arrogance.

So there are no wild "domestic" animals? PETA has stated ANIMALs, not wild, not domestic but ANIMALS. Then contradicts themselves.

Sorry, but it's not necessary for them to spell these things out.


So give guns to all or give guns to none? So everyone should be allowed to drive or noone as all? The NRA can't force people to obey laws. It encourages its members by providing training and educational resources.

You are clearly talking about restricting people based on what they "may" do w/ something. That is "pre-crime". There is no system in the world that can GUARANTEE that noone will break the law. You're in the UK where guns are effectively banned yet gun crime has increased since the laws since it only took firearms away from those who actually followed it

Yes, give guns to all or give guns to none. If you are saying that you will only allow guns to those who are responsible you are obviously implying the ability to tell who is responsible and who is not. You must be supporting some sort of ability to detect thought crime.

I am saying give guns to none.



The NRA provides many statistics, so do other organizations that do research. If you look at the numbers, the majority (well over 80%) of murders that are included as "children" are in the 18-21 year old demographic. In the US, 18 is legally an adult. If you want to consider them "children", that's your choice but the anti-gun organizations here use those numbers to present the mindset of ACTUAL children being killed by firearms.

Really? Where? I'm sure that you have studied all the processes involved in these statistics and found out that these evil statistics are clearly all aiming to characterise 18-21 year olds as children.



Do you have any sources to back that up or is it just more "right-wing=evil" ?


Do you have any sources to support that the left-wing is responsible for the said ghettoisation? Because I can go and get the statistics on Social Security provsions in the US and EU for the last 50 years, but it will make long, boring reading and the statistics will be largely incomprensible and it will require you to engage in deductive reasoning, which you don't seem to be able to accept.



So you don't feel someone has the right to defend themselves or their property? Now you've moved the goalposts from hunting and self-defense to "revenge" killings.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves proportionally to the level of attack against them. They can only ward of the attack. It is never proportional to seriously maim or kill someone in self-defence and this is all a gun can be used to do. Therefore, it is never proportionate to use a gun. (In my opinion :) )

Equally, I would argue that the use of a weapon by a victim, makes it more likely that any weapon in the possession of an aggressor will be used by the aggressor. If you wish, I can provide you with specific Scottish (court) cases where this was the case. (Maybe...not entirely sure that they can be released on the internet, and you might need a password to access them if I give you a link. Will look into it though.)


BTW, SCOTUS has ruled numerous times that the state has no obligation to protect the individual from crime.

Fabulous. What exactly is the purpose of a state then?



I agree with you, however there will still be violent crime and people have the right to defend themselves from it.

Fair enough, we agree to differ then.



You BELIEVE it suggests mistrust and atomisation. Firearm owners tend to be very social. You still have presented no evidence ecxept for your "belief".

Yes, social within their own groups. Just because society is atomised doesn't mean it is impossible to form social bonds, it just means it leans towards individuality. Complete desocialisation is not possible.

Look there is a difference between belief and deductive reasoning. If I had made my assertion about the NRA philosophy without referring to, or basing it in, their core beliefs (self-defence and protection against the state, which you don't refute), then I would have been expounding a belief. But I have based it in these two believes, therefore it is a product of deductive reasoning - applying a paradigm to the facts. It is therefore valid for me to say this. It is not a matter of faith, it is social science! You have done nothing to counter this argument.



Really? Souce it.

OK :)

BACKGROUND

8 The Union’s own animal welfare legislation goes back several decades already,
beginning with a 1974 Directive on the stunning of animals before slaughter5.
9 From 1986 onwards Directives on pigs, calves and laying hens and on animal
transport were adopted (and later refined in the light of new scientific data). A
Directive banning the keeping of pregnant sows in segregation was adopted in June
2001.
10 A 1998 Regulation made export refunds for live cattle conditional on compliance
with Community law on animal protection during transport.
11 Directive 1999/74/EC lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying
hens, and a Council Regulation in December 2000 introduced a mandatory labelling
system for eggs based on these standards (a system also applicable to imported eggs).

EU breifing on Animal Welfare (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/international/2002_0626_en.pdf)

US comparison of EU/US farming practice (http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0404/WRS0404.pdf). - You will need to search for things about welfare, and it doesn't talk specifcally about laws unless you read the stuff about the 10 accession countries to the EU where it implies that EU controls are stricter than US controls which will make it difficult for US firms investing in farming in the accession states

5. Conclusions

The analysis of standards showed that there are still a number of areas where a harmonisation of the requirements is needed. The EU regulation will force countries and certification organisations to adapt their standards, especially with regard to stable requirements, veterinary treatments and feedstuff requirements.

If countries outside the EU want to fulfil the EU regulation and be able to export animal products to the EU, important areas need to be adapted or even regulated. The comparison has shown even higher deficits than in the EU countries.

The comparison of national and international organic livestock standards showed that the new EU regulation has set a relatively high ethological standard compared with the existing standards. However, there are still ethological deficits. Areas that have to be developed in the future include outdoor runs for meat animals, mutilations and requirements for stables (calving pen, activity area for pigs, etc.) and feed requirements.

On an international level (IFOAM, Codex), there is a need for clearer standards regarding tethering for milk cows, management systems for pigs and poultry for meat.


From a study (http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/proc/schmid1.htm) analysing EU regulations in comparison with international standards - mainly the US, Canada, Argentian and NZ


That's how most animals are killed in the US. How is a boltgun different from a firearm? Are you saying all slaughterhouses train their people to the extent it is instant every time?

Difference is the distance. A bolt is done up close, at point blank range and is more difficult to miss than a long-distance shot in hunting.


Synics and I have also adressed the point several times. The "misplaced appeal" arguement is a joke that is used as an insult that you also have no evidence for.

No you didn't. You stated some points which I refuted and then failed to address my argument against them. Hunting does appeal to masculinity - the primeval sense of satisfaction in killing which many people enjoy, but which I don;t think counts as a valid reason for killing. I think the same thing is pretty much inherent in Sinuhue's sense of "sacredness".



I never said it directly stated that. I said it "encourages" it by telling kids that rats are nice creatures that wouldn't harm you w/o presenting the potential dangers.

But it isn't talking about feral rats.



Since you apparently have never protested a law or written letters to your MP's, laws can be revoked or not passed. Hunters support the licenses and fees that directly contribute to the activity. IF there was one that didn't support it (as happened in Florida), the law would be changed or revoked.

I write to my MP quite regularly. But it doesn't mean they listen to these people - just because these licensing laws exist doesn't mean the majority of hunters support it. It could be hypothetically, the result of the rest of the populace restricting the excesses of hunting.


"Social Collectivism"? So you're stating that encouraging an individual to rely on themselves and not necessarily the Gov't is Anti-society and leads to a breakdown of said society? I counter that the strong individual makes for a stronger society. You can have your sheeple collectivism where everyone bows down to the Gov't.

Again, collectiveism is necessary for society to exist. It is impossible to remove completely collectivism as essentially this would mean that people either ignored each other or killed every person the saw. A family is a type of collective, a group of friends is a type of collective, a society is a type of collective.

I am very involved in Human Rights and therefore cannot be said to be an extreme collectivist. But a degree of collectivism is necessary for the effective functioning of society, and it would appear that the NRA tends towards individualism. It is extremely Libertarian. I doubt that many at the head of the NRA would deny this, and many would consider it a compliment.

When I say collectivism, I do not mean communism.



The use of force is NOT reserved to the Gov't.

Due to the 2nd Amendment. But in the Social Contract theory which inspired the US constitution, it was very much reserved to the state.



There are still waiting periods in various states. There is also NO conclusive evidence that they had any deterrent on crime whatsoever. Just another loop to make those who actually follow the laws have to jump through.

It does mean that someone can't in a fit of anger go and buy a gun and kill someone. It is supposed to make them think about it and cool down.



Right, so what is the Gov't doing now? Disarming those who actually followed the laws. And crime keeps increasing.

Disarming those who followed the laws? Is it? And crime keeps increasing? Does it?

SA suffers many problems and crime is an indicator of these.


You seem to keep referring to the "state" as some sort of all knowing, all powerful Godhead that can fix all the problems. It's not. The state has caused just as many problems as it's solved.

I don't think the State is perfect. In a democratic state you change things by democracy and consensus, not be armed conflict.

The FF of the US actually encourage the populace to rise up against the Gov't if it becomes tyrannical, it's not an "NRA exclusive" thing. It could be a Civil War, it could be a que. Either way, leaving a tyrannical gov't in charge will lead to deaths anyway. If you believe that an armed populace of 80 million can't defend themselves against a gov't, you go right ahead.

What about the armed populace of the USSR. Tyrannical governments work in much more subtle ways than just with the gun. How could the USSR kill millions of its own people without causing a civil war? Ever heard of the banality of evil?

The whole argument about "protection against the government" over simplifies the complexity of totalitarianism.



OK, so basically you're talking about "social collectivism" and a one world Gov't. I think Gov'ts should have as little power as possible. The UN's goal is to severely limit private ownership of firearms in the US even though it can't show that the problem is coming from the US. Try looking up IANSA's desired limitations of firearms.

No, the aim of the US is to prevent weapons manufactured in the US being sold to subversive agents fighting against legitimate democratic governments. It wants to assist other states to have safe systems like NICS.

I am not talking about one world government. If I was talking about one world government I would have said the UN should ban private arms ownership in the US and we should all be allowed to directly vote in US affairs.

The UN does not seek to regulate internal trade of weapons within the US, but to regulate the international trade of weapons from the US to other states. This is perfectly acceptable, since this affects other states more than it affects the US. Other countries should have a say in states affairs to the extent that the effect their own, which occurs in a number of circumstances.

The US is not afrraid to use this doctrine to its own advantage - look up the International Law case of US v Canada "Smelter" (something smelter, I can't remember the first part at the moment, but that should be enough to go on)

The level of native-born activisim in a particular group does not give it local basis.

Don't have time for further comment at the moment, but Islamic extremism is a product of an interaction of Western and Islamic culture and is therefore a synthesis of them both. And I say that coming from the UK. The suicide bombers in London were a product of UK culture.

I am not talking about one world government. If I was talking about one world government I would have said the UN should ban private arms ownership in the US and we should all be allowed to directly vote in US affairs.
And how does an International Ban on Hunting NOT indicate a "world government" or "we should all be allowed to directly vote in US affairs"? Simply, you are advocating exactly that - total Control over the behavior of others, whether it is harmful to another human or not.

All hail Leviathan!

Sorry, but it's not necessary for them to spell these things out.

Yes it is.




Yes, give guns to all or give guns to none. If you are saying that you will only allow guns to those who are responsible you are obviously implying the ability to tell who is responsible and who is not. You must be supporting some sort of ability to detect thought crime.

I am saying give guns to none.

I kind of figured that's what you were saying. You oppose private ownership for any reason.


Really? Where? I'm sure that you have studied all the processes involved in these statistics and found out that these evil statistics are clearly all aiming to characterise 18-21 year olds as children.

And you have studied none. Look up the CDC.






Do you have any sources to support that the left-wing is responsible for the said ghettoisation? Because I can go and get the statistics on Social Security provsions in the US and EU for the last 50 years, but it will make long, boring reading and the statistics will be largely incomprensible and it will require you to engage in deductive reasoning, which you don't seem to be able to accept.

GO right ahead. It will fit well into your "right-wing = evil" meme.




Everyone has the right to defend themselves proportionally to the level of attack against them. They can only ward of the attack. It is never proportional to seriously maim or kill someone in self-defence and this is all a gun can be used to do. Therefore, it is never proportionate to use a gun. (In my opinion :) )

Equally, I would argue that the use of a weapon by a victim, makes it more likely that any weapon in the possession of an aggressor will be used by the aggressor. If you wish, I can provide you with specific Scottish (court) cases where this was the case. (Maybe...not entirely sure that they can be released on the internet, and you might need a password to access them if I give you a link. Will look into it though.)

Statistics and interviews w/ criminals show you're wrong. In the US, CC laws have increase to over 40 states and crime has continued to drop. Numerous studies of criminals have shown that criminals prefer unarmed victims and avoid areas w/ CC. I can provide you w/ hundreds of cases of armed citizens defending themselves.




Fabulous. What exactly is the purpose of a state then? To handle international issues and security. You seem to believe that the "state" only includes the Gov't. I beleive the state IS the people.



Yes, social within their own groups. Just because society is atomised doesn't mean it is impossible to form social bonds, it just means it leans towards individuality. Complete desocialisation is not possible.

Look there is a difference between belief and deductive reasoning. If I had made my assertion about the NRA philosophy without referring to, or basing it in, their core beliefs (self-defence and protection against the state, which you don't refute), then I would have been expounding a belief. But I have based it in these two believes, therefore it is a product of deductive reasoning - applying a paradigm to the facts. It is therefore valid for me to say this. It is not a matter of faith, it is social science! You have done nothing to counter this argument.

I have presented many issues to counter you beleif. Your "social science" has no backing.


I write to my MP quite regularly. But it doesn't mean they listen to these people - just because these licensing laws exist doesn't mean the majority of hunters support it. It could be hypothetically, the result of the rest of the populace restricting the excesses of hunting.

So now you're stating that the state is working against the interests of the people?

Again, collectiveism is necessary for society to exist. It is impossible to remove completely collectivism as essentially this would mean that people either ignored each other or killed every person the saw. A family is a type of collective, a group of friends is a type of collective, a society is a type of collective.

I am very involved in Human Rights and therefore cannot be said to be an extreme collectivist. But a degree of collectivism is necessary for the effective functioning of society, and it would appear that the NRA tends towards individualism. It is extremely Libertarian. I doubt that many at the head of the NRA would deny this, and many would consider it a compliment.

When I say collectivism, I do not mean communism.

I never stated communism at all, I mentioned a monolithic world gov't which is what you appear to support. You keep mentioning that the "state" should be in charge of defense etc. because it is better at it yet keep stating areas where "states" are failing. Just because a group encourages "individualism" does NOT mean they want a collapse of society. A strong INDIVIDUAL is necessary for a strong society. It's SOCIAL SCIENCE.


Due to the 2nd Amendment. But in the Social Contract theory which inspired the US constitution, it was very much reserved to the state.

Which is based off of English "casle law".
.

It does mean that someone can't in a fit of anger go and buy a gun and kill someone. It is supposed to make them think about it and cool down.

Another myth that has no support.


Disarming those who followed the laws? Is it? And crime keeps increasing? Does it?

Yes, Yes, Yes.

SA suffers many problems and crime is an indicator of these.

And disarming the LAC's has done nothing to alleviate it.


I don't think the State is perfect. In a democratic state you change things by democracy and consensus, not be armed conflict.

Until the state becomes tyrannical. The order is :Soap Box, Ballot Box, Ammo Box.

What about the armed populace of the USSR. Tyrannical governments work in much more subtle ways than just with the gun. How could the USSR kill millions of its own people without causing a civil war? Ever heard of the banality of evil?

The whole argument about "protection against the government" over simplifies the complexity of totalitarianism.

Because the USSR DISARMED its populace. One of the first things Stalin did. "We don't let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns"





No, the aim of the US is to prevent weapons manufactured in the US being sold to subversive agents fighting against legitimate democratic governments. It wants to assist other states to have safe systems like NICS.

I am not talking about one world government. If I was talking about one world government I would have said the UN should ban private arms ownership in the US and we should all be allowed to directly vote in US affairs.

The UN does not seek to regulate internal trade of weapons within the US, but to regulate the international trade of weapons from the US to other states. This is perfectly acceptable, since this affects other states more than it affects the US. Other countries should have a say in states affairs to the extent that the effect their own, which occurs in a number of circumstances.

The US is not afrraid to use this doctrine to its own advantage - look up the International Law case of US v Canada "Smelter" (something smelter, I can't remember the first part at the moment, but that should be enough to go on)

You obviously have not read IANSA's liturature. THey are the ones pushing for the UN treaty. It clearly states limits on CIVILIAN gun ownership to one shot rifles for hunting and removes CC.

You keep bringing up that other countries should be able to assert their views on others "excesses". That is a one world Gov't.


Nice job on the insults BTW. Just because I don't accept your "deductive reasoning", I must be stupid. Nice that your "arguement" has boiled down to that.

Dude - SE is just Trolling at this point, and he knows it. I refuse to feed him further (on the 2am issue)

Well..you see, me not giving someone who won't use a gun irresponsibly won't result in that person shooting someone. So I don't really see what difference that makes.

Whereas you giving, sorry, allowing someone who will use a gun irresponsibly to have one, could result in that person killing someone. So the onus really is on you.

No, since self-defense is considered a "natural right", and the ownership of firearms is in the US, it is the banners who need to justify themselves.


No, you are wrong here. I don't see you giving up these statistics. But then statistics in these circumstances are generally meaningless since some anti-gun groups will include children and equally, the NRA is likely to highlight surveys where they have included over 18s, rather than ones where they haven't.

Prove it, show that the NRA has done this. I've told you to search the CDC for the stats.

And as I said before, the fact that they are engaged in Criminal Activity doesn't make a difference to their inclusion in child gun fatality statistics. To say that they don't count ignores wider social problems and can be considered racist since these kids are generally poor, which means generally Black or Hispanic while the NRA is largely white.

Ah, the "NRA is racist" meme while it is the NAACP that advocates disarming minorities and the original "gun control" laws were aimed soley at blacks.


The whole "judges" thing is Hobbes rhetoric, not to be literally interpreted. What if you shoot someone who you thought was an attacker, since the NRA propoganda makes you think everyone else is a "predator"? You are "judging" that they are going to attack you and therefore deserve to die.

If you're being attacked, by your definition, the state has failed and it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to protect themselves. You have also yet to show where the NRA "makes you think everyone else is a "predator".




Society is a collective. Without "collectivism" you do not have a society, you only have individuals. Family is a type of "collectivism". I am not talking about communism.

Having a society does not mean complete subjugation of individuality. It is strong individuals that can make a strong society.

I'm sorry, but where I come from you don't generally get armed thugs chasing after you. Society is generally peaceful. And if you have a weapon of any kind, it is more likely that any weapon that was only going to be used to threaten you will actually be used against you in a physical attack.
Another myth. Violent crime in the UK has actually surpassed the US. Can you provide evidence that your weapon will be used against you?


I mean you should have the two of them in combination. NICS and a waiting period. And I fail to see how gun control has lead to kids massacring people at school.

The "waiting periods" are no more than a beaurocratic hinderance and have never been shown to reduce crime.

There is no direct causality to "gun control to massacred kids" but you have claimed teh reverse causality of "more guns = more crime"

Dude - SE is just Trolling at this point, and he knows it. I refuse to feed him further (on the 2am issue)

Perhaps he should join the Borg. That would fit into Social Collective mindset.

How are you coming on typing out the debate?

Perhaps he should join the Borg. That would fit into Social Collective mindset.

How are you coming on typing out the debate?
Slow. I have never been particularly good at taking notes - and I want to be 100% accurate. I might wear out the tape before my DVD comes in. :eek:

Slow. I have never been particularly good at taking notes - and I want to be 100% accurate. I might wear out the tape before my DVD comes in. :eek:

I take it you're "old ironsights" ?

I take it you're "old ironsights" ?
Firing Broadsides at Boneheads. ;)

And how does an International Ban on Hunting NOT indicate a "world government" or "we should all be allowed to directly vote in US affairs"? Simply, you are advocating exactly that - total Control over the behavior of others, whether it is harmful to another human or not.

All hail Leviathan!

See, this thread has developed into a complex argument with lots of different points and you keep confusing them.

"Collectivism" related to the general philosophy of the NRA in terms of domestic society, not international law.

The point where I said I was not talking about "world government" related to international regulation on international trade in arms.

I don't support an "international ban on hunting" referred to in the main part of the thread. I think hunting is wrong, as I have been arguing, but I do not think that in the current state of international relations it is possible or desirable to introduce an international ban.

Ok..this is getting ridiculous.

Kecibukia, you keep on making assertions without proving them, while asking me to do things like "prove it makes you think that"

"prove it makes you think that"??? What? How can you prove what something makes you think??

You prove that violent crime in the UK has risen above violent crime in the US.
The UN recently tried to claim that Scotland was the most violent developed nation in the world (in terms of crime), but they retracted the claim after they realised that they had completely buggered up their statistics. (Plus, Scotland isn't technically a nation, nor is it a separate member of the UN, so it is bizarre that the UN was even considering it in this respect.) And I live in the biggest city in Scotland, with the worst crime rate in Scotland and I would be amazed to see a gun, or see anyone get stabbed or murdered. Most of our crime comes from drunks hitting drunks, so they're all anesthetised anyway...it's not really that big a problem. (:))


Actually, we're about to outlaw airguns because of the number of idiots who keep on getting hold of them and shooting people. (2 deaths in the last year) And it's not as if there's a major demand for guns in self-defence.

And as for the "prove the NRA does this with statistics" - I already quoted an NRA article which just denounced a set of statistics as false without providing any sort of counter-source.

And you keep on taking "collectivist" as relating to the borg or communism or something when it only means society as a collective. Society is a collective by definition. Therefore more social means more collective. There is a balance to be found between the individual and the collective. I am not advocating communism, I am showing that the NRA is libertarian and individualist, which some people may think is a good thing (most of the members I would imagine). I think it is too individualist.

And as for your "prove you are more likely to get killed by a weapon when you have a weapon" point. I can quote you several Scottish Legal Cases, but then you'll accuse me of "trolling". I have no idea what this means, presumably it means determinedly arguing a point.


It's also funny how you aim arguments about PETA policy being "racist" but when I employ the exact same logic to NRA policy this is apparently totally wrong.

Oh yes...the purpose of a state is to handle international issues and security??? But international relations and the need for security against other states exist because of the existence of states, they are not the purpose of states. They are ancilliary to states. Without states there is no such thing as "international". So, unless states are created purely for the purpose of playing international relations games there must be some other point to them.

And there is a whole movement called "control arms" run by Oxfam and Amnesty which seeks to control the international arms trade only. (Oh, and while we are picking up my type on "arguement", there is no such thing as "liturature")

More guns do not necessarily = more crime, they make it easier to use guns in violent crime because there are more of them. They increase the likelihood of violent crime, especially when combined with other social factors.

And no, I don't consider you Scottish because your great uncle Jim came from somewhere down the road. You are American. I am Scottish...actually my Grandfather and mother are clan Buchanan. I am clan Robertson. But we don't talk about clans at all, unless talking to daft american/canadian/australian,etc tourists or covering Scottish history in school. Yes, we do mock Americans who come over here claiming that they are Scottish.

meh, fed up looking for more points.

but then you'll accuse me of "trolling". I have no idea what this means, presumably it means determinedly arguing a point.

And no, I don't consider you Scottish because your great uncle Jim came from somewhere down the road. You are American. I am Scottish...actually my Grandfather and mother are clan Buchanan. I am clan Robertson. But we don't talk about clans at all, unless talking to daft american/canadian/australian,etc tourists or covering Scottish history in school. Yes, we do mock Americans who come over here claiming that they are Scottish.

Your second quote in this post would be considered trolling. Trolling is posting in an inflamatory or insulting manner such as you just have. There was no reason to go after the guy saying he's not scottish at all. That was just being a jerk.

Ok..this is getting ridiculous.

Kecibukia, you keep on making assertions without proving them, while asking me to do things like "prove it makes you think that"

"prove it makes you think that"??? What? How can you prove what something makes you think??

You've made many allegations as to what the NRA's policies are (mostly incorrect)and what they result in w/o any evidence to back it up. Since you've made these allegations, it's your responsibility to provide sources.

You prove that violent crime in the UK has risen above violent crime in the US.
The UN recently tried to claim that Scotland was the most violent developed nation in the world (in terms of crime), but they retracted the claim after they realised that they had completely buggered up their statistics. (Plus, Scotland isn't technically a nation, nor is it a separate member of the UN, so it is bizarre that the UN was even considering it in this respect.) And I live in the biggest city in Scotland, with the worst crime rate in Scotland and I would be amazed to see a gun, or see anyone get stabbed or murdered. Most of our crime comes from drunks hitting drunks, so they're all anesthetised anyway...it's not really that big a problem. (:))

The UN study has been withdrawn? Show me a link.


Actually, we're about to outlaw airguns because of the number of idiots who keep on getting hold of them and shooting people. (2 deaths in the last year) And it's not as if there's a major demand for guns in self-defence.

Just a call for a clarification in the laws to allow people to defend their homes w/o being arrested or sued by the criminal.

And as for the "prove the NRA does this with statistics" - I already quoted an NRA article which just denounced a set of statistics as false without providing any sort of counter-source.

You provided an article that you claimed made the NRA racist that had nothing in it about race. I directed you to the CDC for the numbers.

And you keep on taking "collectivist" as relating to the borg or communism or something when it only means society as a collective. Society is a collective by definition. Therefore more social means more collective. There is a balance to be found between the individual and the collective. I am not advocating communism, I am showing that the NRA is libertarian and individualist, which some people may think is a good thing (most of the members I would imagine). I think it is too individualist.

I never said anything about "communism". That's your redherring. I think that that a strong, independent individual makes for a strong society. I also don't believe that individualism makes one more "anti-social". Firearm owners in the US tend to be very social. By your definition, the NRA is an " collective of individuals" of over 4 million people w/ over 80 million "like-minded" individuals across the US. Sure sounds like part of a society to me.

And as for your "prove you are more likely to get killed by a weapon when you have a weapon" point. I can quote you several Scottish Legal Cases, but then you'll accuse me of "trolling". I have no idea what this means, presumably it means determinedly arguing a point.

And I can quote you hundreds of US cases showing people successfully defending themselves w/ firearms as well as various studies (done by the Gov't and other organizations) numbering it well over 1 million / year. I didn't accuse you of trolling. That would be Syniks. Since you don't know what it means :

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

Since your first post on this thread started w/ US bashing, along w/ the "rightwing=evil=NRA" tripe, and the above bit about Scott heritage along w/ comments like this "it will require you to engage in deductive reasoning, which you don't seem to be able to accept."
, you've defined yourself as a troll.


also funny how you aim arguments about PETA policy being "racist" but when I employ the exact same logic to NRA policy this is apparently totally wrong.

I didn't call PETA racist. You, however, openly claimed the NRA is.


And there is a whole movement called "control arms" run by Oxfam and Amnesty which seeks to control the international arms trade only. (Oh, and while we are picking up my type on "arguement", there is no such thing as "liturature")

Oh, do we want a spelling war now? That "international arms trade" control would restrict the rights of US citizens. Ever seen the statue in front of the UN building?

More guns do not necessarily = more crime, they make it easier to use guns in violent crime because there are more of them. They increase the likelihood of violent crime, especially when combined with other social factors.

Conversely, social factors increase the likelyhood of violent crime, not firearms. Most violent crime is committed w/o firearms. The level of ownership has increased in the US while crime has continued to drop.

And no, I don't consider you Scottish because your great uncle Jim came from somewhere down the road. You are American. I am Scottish...actually my Grandfather and mother are clan Buchanan. I am clan Robertson. But we don't talk about clans at all, unless talking to daft american/canadian/australian,etc tourists or covering Scottish history in school. Yes, we do mock Americans who come over here claiming that they are Scottish.



I never claimed that. That would be Syniks again.

Ok..this is getting ridiculous.

Kecibukia, you keep on making assertions without proving them, while asking me to do things like "prove it makes you think that" <snip> And as for your "prove you are more likely to get killed by a weapon when you have a weapon" point. I can quote you several Scottish Legal Cases, but then you'll accuse me of "trolling". I have no idea what this means, presumably it means determinedly arguing a point. You are confused. I (Syniks)accused you of trolling because of your continued divergence from the thread topic, no matter how often I tried to steer it back.
It's also funny how you aim arguments about PETA policy being "racist" but when I employ the exact same logic to NRA policy this is apparently totally wrong.Not Kecibucki, Syniks. It is wrong because your logic is faulty. If the NRA were racist they would advocate the disarmament of minorities rather than point out how most US gun control laws began as Jim Crow laws. But that is not the issue at hand.
Oh yes...the purpose of a state is to handle international issues and security??? But international relations and the need for security against other states exist because of the existence of states, they are not the purpose of states. They are ancilliary to states. Without states there is no such thing as "international". So, unless states are created purely for the purpose of playing international relations games there must be some other point to them. Like protecting people from criminals? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/winnipeg911.html Eight hours and 5 calls to the police before they were murdered... in CANADA where there is no NRA to advocate for Self Defense. But again, this has nothing to do with Hunting. And there is a whole movement called "control arms" run by Oxfam and Amnesty which seeks to control the international arms trade only. (Oh, and while we are picking up my type on "arguement", there is no such thing as "liturature")
More guns do not necessarily = more crime, they make it easier to use guns in violent crime because there are more of them. They increase the likelihood of violent crime, especially when combined with other social factors. These ARE in response to Kecibukia... and not germain to the hunting debate.
And no, I don't consider you Scottish because your great uncle Jim came from somewhere down the road. You are American. Yep. Of recent Scots ancestry. Orin J Buchanan was my maternal Grandfather. I trace his family to both Scot & Irish Buchanans. My paternal grandfather was English - A Chesterton to be exact. I have been to the Grounds on Loch Lomond. I bought my Prince Charlie in Glasgow - to the tune of about £500. I am American, but my ancestry is important too. I am Scottish...actually my Grandfather and mother are clan Buchanan. God forbid that we are related. I am clan Robertson. But we don't talk about clans at all, unless talking to daft american/canadian/australian,etc tourists or covering Scottish history in school. Too bad you find your own history less important than do forgeiners. :rolleyes: Yes, we do mock Americans who come over here claiming that they are Scottish. Nice. And I mock arrogant Scots who think that all the world should be like Glasgow.

The PETA rep. made some interesting causality claims. He stated that 50% of drugs tested on animals were later withdrawn by the various health organizations implying it is not useful. He neglected to state how many "not" tested on animals were withdrawn, which ones tested on were withdrawn and which ones were not.

Another was that EVERY individual involved in a school shooting had been taken hunting. Can anyone verify this seperately?

The PETA rep. made some interesting causality claims. He stated that 50% of drugs tested on animals were later withdrawn by the various health organizations implying it is not useful. He neglected to state how many "not" tested on animals were withdrawn, which ones tested on were withdrawn and which ones were not.

Another was that EVERY individual involved in a school shooting had been taken hunting. Can anyone verify this seperately?
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel101602.asp (October 2002)

Only one of the recent youth school shooters, the youngest — Andrew Golden in Jonesboro, Arkansas — had passed Hunter Education, and he has had a history of severe emotional problems.

On another note: Hunters vs PETA - Who helps more people?
New York Post columnist Ken Moran hits the jackpot in the opening of a Nov 2004 column,
For years, hunters quietly have helped the needy by donating part of their harvest to food banks throughout New York and the rest of the country.

On the other side of the coin, you have animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS who raise millions of dollars, most of which is spent on salaries for officers and publicity for their organizations.

Moran notes that over the past four years, two New York groups -- the Venison Donation Coalition and SCI's Sportsmen Against Hunger -- have donated more than 250,000 pounds of venison that have been distributed through New York's Food Bank network. That's about 1 million servings of venison, according to Moran.

Of course animal rights activists are free to disagree. For example, I can imagine a PETA activist explaining that PETA's video of half-naked women wrestling in tofu is a far, far better thing than feeding the hungry. And, given PETA's ethical priorities, it would be hard to argue with that logic.

Source:

Hunters' Venison Donations Hit 230 Million Meals. Ken Moran, New York Post, November 14, 2004.

The PETA rep. made some interesting causality claims. He stated that 50% of drugs tested on animals were later withdrawn by the various health organizations implying it is not useful. He neglected to state how many "not" tested on animals were withdrawn, which ones tested on were withdrawn and which ones were not.

Another was that EVERY individual involved in a school shooting had been taken hunting. Can anyone verify this seperately?

I don't think 15y/o Brenda Spenser (1st US School Shooting, and only one perpetrated by a girl, 1979) ever went hunting, but I may be wrong.

Here's another good bit:

http://www.connectforkids.org/node/565?tn=lc/ra

What have you learn about kids and guns that most surprised you?

Rob Capriccioso: I was intrigued by how much young girls and teens enjoy hunting and recreational shooting. While some people might find it politically incorrect for girls to enjoy gun use, there are many girls – 33,000 through 4-H programs alone – who love to practice their skills. They also really enjoy sharing an activity with their dads and male relatives and friends that wins them respect, especially from men.

What struck me in studying the school shootings in the suburban schools was how lonely and angry the teens were – and that in 81 percent of cases, other students knew an attack was being planned and told no one. This is truly extraordinary to me and I have seen little media attention paid to this silent complicity. If you know a fellow student is planning a massacre, how can you possibly not speak up? I would be very interested to see further research into this. Is this a lack of trust in school authorities? In parents or other adults? A fear of retaliation from the students planning the attack? A fear that their suspicions would be dismissed or minimized?

I don't think 15y/o Brenda Spenser (1st US School Shooting, and only one perpetrated by a girl, 1979) ever went hunting, but I may be wrong.

Here's another good bit:

http://www.connectforkids.org/node/565?tn=lc/ra

Along those lines:

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/1782474.html

Montana school psychologist Noelle Naiden reports she has taught archery to a select group of kids with attention deficit disorder and finds they are better able to manage their energy as their archery proficiency develops...

...The safety and success of programs like Archery in the Schools, the Scholastic Clay Target Program and other similar efforts, suggests that giving kids a chance to develop maturity by learning to use guns and bows in an adult, responsible manner, is a much more positive approach than trying to operate on the fantasy that you can erase all aggressive energies out of them — a practice that may conceivably create more anxiety and tension.

The reports from Nugent's kid camp also seem encouraging.