NationStates Jolt Archive

I take it you're against all forms of hunting then?

No.

No.

Guns are often used in hunting, unless you want to suggest we should use crossbows or longbows. Those are only for killing too. Unless you hunt with a knife... I'd love to see you take down a bear or even an elk with a knife.

Guns are often used in hunting, unless you want to suggest we should use crossbows or longbows. Those are only for killing too. Unless you hunt with a knife... I'd love to see you take down a bear or even an elk with a knife.

All of which is irrelevent to the question you asked, or any of the comments, by anyone, that went before it.

An attempt at some kind of rambling hijack, perhaps?

All of which is irrelevent to the question you asked, or any of the comments, by anyone, that went before it.

An attempt at some kind of rambling hijack, perhaps?

You insulted my ownership of two guns - stating that they're only for killing. You said it with an inflection that that's a bad thing. Killing is not always bad.

Guns are often used in hunting, unless you want to suggest we should use crossbows or longbows. Those are only for killing too. Unless you hunt with a knife... I'd love to see you take down a bear or even an elk with a knife.

That's what spears are for. Never mind the fact that hunting is no longer a necessary.

You insulted my ownership of two guns - stating that they're only for killing. You said it with an inflection that that's a bad thing. Killing is not always bad.

I don't recall offering any 'insults', at all.

And, I'm not sure where you dreamed up any inflections, I'm pretty sure I didn't even italicise, and I know you didn't hear me thinking.

I'm aslo pretty sure I didn't say that killing was always bad, either.

So - from a collosal hijack, to a collosal strawman. That's got to be some kind of record.

I don't recall offering any 'insults', at all.

I dunno... it must all be in the timing.
You insinuated that there's no difference between pistols and handguns, and that the "timing" is all that matters, which you fail to understand.

Do are you saying that handguns and rifles are fine, or are you saying that neither one is ok?

Gone is gone. Your excuse fails.

Notification time only relates to helping track the weapon (maybe), and covering your own ass if it's used in a crime. The fundamental fact that you would be leaving guns behind, in one venue or the other, is unchanged by the reportage.

Are you french? Too much ennui to report crimes in a timely manner?

That's what spears are for. Never mind the fact that hunting is no longer a necessary.

I wish there were some stray cat hunters in my town. There are a million of them here and they kill all of the bunnies.:(

You insinuated that there's no difference between pistols and handguns,


No, I 'insinuated' that your claim "they serve two different purposes" was somewhere between evasive and wrong.


...and that the "timing" is all that matters,


Comedic timing. To me, killing and killing sound remarkably similar.


...which you fail to understand.


What exactly do you think I didn't understand? It looks like your collosal strawman has turned into 'just making random shit up' now.


Do are you saying that handguns and rifles are fine, or are you saying that neither one is ok?

No.

Are you french? Too much ennui to report crimes in a timely manner?

Are you deliberately trying to shift the goalposts, since your 'argument' was so obviously dismantled?

No, I 'insinuated' that your claim "they serve two different purposes" was somewhere between evasive and wrong.

Ah, I see. Well I meant one is for hunting larger targets at longer range, while one is for personal defense. However, I can see how you don't see the difference. After all, it's just killing.

Comedic timing. To me, killing and killing sound remarkably similar.

Indeed. The same way killing a rat in a trap and serial killing are both really just "killing".

What exactly do you think I didn't understand? It looks like your collosal strawman has turned into 'just making random shit up' now.

You're the one who said "I dunno" which is a shortened form of "I don't know". I just took you at your word.

No.

Well you said there's the same, so what convincing reason would you have for treating them differently?

Are you deliberately trying to shift the goalposts, since your 'argument' was so obviously dismantled?

People alwayys say that to me. I do not even understand the concept well enough to get upset about it. Looky here, the thing is that it is not good to potentially have your firearms stolen for weeks before you find out about it and report it to the law. This is not a dismantled point. It is much easier to investigate a crime if it is promptly reported. There is no value to law enforcement in an unreported theft of a firearm. So quit giving me flak about it. I am not the one who wants to trample on the personal freedom to own, carry and transport firearms here. Go pick on the thugs out there trying to limit freedom not me. I am the good guy.

People alwayys say that to me. I do not even understand the concept well enough to get upset about it. Looky here, the thing is that it is not good to potentially have your firearms stolen for weeks before you find out about it and report it to the law. This is not a dismantled point. It is much easier to investigate a crime if it is promptly reported. There is no value to law enforcement in an unreported theft of a firearm. So quit giving me flak about it. I am not the one who wants to trample on the personal freedom to own, carry and transport firearms here. Go pick on the thugs out there trying to limit freedom not me. I am the good guy.

The point is 'dismantled' because (after introducing the concept of the second home, to which you would be carrying your guns) it was pointed out that first OR second home, unless you are carrying your entire collection with you, you're ALWAYS leaving (Some of?) them somewhere.

Thus, the durations for which stolen weapons go unreported... irrelevant.

Ah, I see. Well I meant one is for hunting larger targets at longer range, while one is for personal defense. However, I can see how you don't see the difference. After all, it's just killing.


Dead is dead.


Indeed. The same way killing a rat in a trap and serial killing are both really just "killing".


Again, dead is dead.


You're the one who said "I dunno" which is a shortened form of "I don't know". I just took you at your word.


I said I don't know, it must be in the timing... (or words to that effect). It's a comedic timing reference - when you say it, it gets a laugh, but when I say it... it doesn't. Why? Must be in the timing.

I could have said "It's the way I tell 'em" instead.


Well you said there's the same, so what convincing reason would you have for treating them differently?

You often seem to ask questions that you didn't really want answered... or at least, that you wanted answered with something other than... well, the answer.

Here, you seem to be asking me a question based on something I didn't even say.

Dead is dead.Again, dead is dead.

Yes, it is.

I said I don't know, it must be in the timing... (or words to that effect). It's a comedic timing reference - when you say it, it gets a laugh, but when I say it... it doesn't. Why? Must be in the timing.

I could have said "It's the way I tell 'em" instead.

Either it doesn't come through well in text, or I simply didn't get the joke.

You often seem to ask questions that you didn't really want answered... or at least, that you wanted answered with something other than... well, the answer.

Here, you seem to be asking me a question based on something I didn't even say.

You said killing is killing. Which is akin to saying a grape is a grape or an apple is an apple. It really means nothing. So, when you say killing is killing, what were you trying to convey?

That's what spears are for. Never mind the fact that hunting is no longer a necessary.

Sure, hunting is no longer necessary. We can just watch as deer, elk, moose, etc overpopulate, and end up dead by the side of the road from being hit, or dead in fields from starvation, or dead in the woods from disease.

Sure, hunting is no longer necessary. We can just watch as deer, elk, moose, etc overpopulate,

Nature can handle its own populations. It did it for thousands of years before us.

or dead in fields from starvation, or dead in the woods from disease.

Hey, humans can end up dying in such a manner too! Lets kill them!


God, what a shit arguement. Ive seen some bad arguements for hunting, but the "we'll theyll just die of starvation anyway!" has got to be the worst so far.

You said killing is killing. Which is akin to saying a grape is a grape or an apple is an apple. It really means nothing. So, when you say killing is killing, what were you trying to convey?

Killing is killing. If I learned anything from Ayn Rand, I learned that much.

What I was trying to convey is - you made a bold assertion that the two different things serve two different purposes. Which is less than strictly true. It's not like you pull the trigger on one and it radios a contact in Tokyo, and you pull the trigger on the other and it waters your begonias.

God, what a shit arguement.

Actually, that's a fucking awesome argument, and I dearly look forward to extending it to some of my more right-wing Republican associates, and then switching it on them to justify abortion...

*cackles, gleefully*

Killing is killing. If I learned anything from Ayn Rand, I learned that much.

What I was trying to convey is - you made a bold assertion that the two different things serve two different purposes. Which is less than strictly true. It's not like you pull the trigger on one and it radios a contact in Tokyo, and you pull the trigger on the other and it waters your begonias.

Oh, so your attempt at humor which sounded like a major philosophical disagreement was about a little point that you thought to be incorrect - that two different guns have two different purposes. Is that correct?

Nature can handle its own populations. It did it for thousands of years before us.

And humanity doesn't even enter the equation of whether something is overpopulated or not. We just have no bearing on that "nature" thing.



FWIW: Deer in Phoenix Park(a large and famous public park in Dublin) are going to be/have been culled for the safety of the herd and the public. Nature would have deer leaving the safe confines of the park and dying in traffic, and smashing up cars and the people inside them in the process.

...that two different guns have two different purposes. Is that correct?

I'm imagining a squirrel, falling from a branch, his last dying thought being "oh, I was shot dead by the SMALL animal gun. How lucky I am that I wasn't shot like a bear"...

Or some such.

I'm imagining a squirrel, falling from a branch, his last dying thought being "oh, I was shot dead by the SMALL animal gun. How lucky I am that I wasn't shot like a bear"...

Or some such.

Does he have the little cute voice when he says it? Because that would be really cool...

Really though, a small gun is more for a rabid raccoon or an aggressive wild dog or something along those lines. I suppose if there were a rabid squirrel I could shoot it in defense, but I'd probably just kick it or throw it if I could move fast enough.

Squirrels are really quick, you know.

Nature can handle its own populations. It did it for thousands of years before us.
Yeah, through predation. Where more powerful animals (like tigers or rednecks) hunt and kill weaker animals (like antelope or deer).
"we'll theyll just die of starvation anyway!"
While I laud your erudition in recognizing that a comma belonged in that statement, I'm afraid your particular write-from-the-hip style failed to uphold the nobility of your initial intention.

Does he have the little cute voice when he says it? Because that would be really cool...

Really though, a small gun is more for a rabid raccoon or an aggressive wild dog or something along those lines. I suppose if there were a rabid squirrel I could shoot it in defense, but I'd probably just kick it or throw it if I could move fast enough.

Squirrels are really quick, you know.

Hence the flystrips. Make them really sticky, and they're pre-peeled for the pot, by the time you've unstuck them.

Hence the flystrips. Make them really sticky, and they're pre-peeled for the pot, by the time you've unstuck them.

I don't eat squirrel, hence I don't hunt them. However, if one attacked, I would kill it. Really, though, I think they move too quickly for a gun.

Like I said, a handgun is more appropriate for a rabid raccoon, wild dog, a wolf, something along those lines.

Hence the flystrips. Make them really sticky, and they're pre-peeled for the pot, by the time you've unstuck them.

You really have been in rural GA too long.

You really have been in rural GA too long.

*hangs head in shame*

I was speaking hypothetically...

<_<

>_>

Nature can handle its own populations. It did it for thousands of years before us.



Hey, humans can end up dying in such a manner too! Lets kill them!


God, what a shit arguement. Ive seen some bad arguements for hunting, but the "we'll theyll just die of starvation anyway!" has got to be the worst so far.

Animals have been displaced by an increasing human population, with less room available for animals. Not only that, but humans have reduced or eliminated many of these animals natural predators. That's the difference between now and "thousands of years before us".

The difference between animals and humans is sapience. That's why your suggestion of "Hey, humans can end up dying in such a manner too! Lets kill them!" is wrong. Humans know to look before they cross the road, whereas non-sapient animals don't. Humans know how to produce food, whereas non-sapient animals can't. If humans are sick or diseased, they can go to other humans to get better, whereas non-sapient animals can't go to other non-sapient animals to get better.

Also, I noticed that you neglected my other reasons for hunting (including editing one out). Besides starvation, overpopulation can lead to property damage through auto accidents (which can also lead to injuries), and disease spread (like Lyme Disease). Here's a report drafted by the Greenwich Conservation Commission that helps back up my side of the discussion. http://www.deerfacts.org/GreenwichReport.pdf

Well if they get better terrorist pilots they could come in guns blazing, kill anyone in their way until they reach planes then take off in them. It takes time to scramble fighter planes and even if they are shot down the debris would hurt alot of people on the ground.

I'm imagining a squirrel, falling from a branch, his last dying thought being "oh, I was shot dead by the SMALL animal gun. How lucky I am that I wasn't shot like a bear"...

Or some such.

Most idiots use a shotgun for squirrel. Only a real craftsman uses a .22 for it...

And squirrel taken in the woods is nummy. Squirrels from cities are gross.

The main reason that I have a pistol in my car is in case I hit an animal with my car so I can euthanize it.

Its actually a crime to euthanize an animal with a pistol. Or at least in my State. Its against the law to discharge a weapon within a certain range of a road or house, and its against the law to shoot a deer without a permit, even though you have already injured it with a car.

Its actually a crime to euthanize an animal with a pistol. Or at least in my State. Its against the law to discharge a weapon within a certain range of a road or house, and its against the law to shoot a deer without a permit, even though you have already injured it with a car.

what state is this. that's why hunters take pistols hunting so if they have a nearly dead animal they can finish off it.

Its actually a crime to euthanize an animal with a pistol. Or at least in my State. Its against the law to discharge a weapon within a certain range of a road or house, and its against the law to shoot a deer without a permit, even though you have already injured it with a car.

Regulations like this always work, you know.

http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/No_Target_Shooting.jpg

what state is this. that's why hunters take pistols hunting so if they have a nearly dead animal they can finish off it.

New York. But your example is different. Presumably if your hunting, your not near a road or a home, and also presumably you have a licence to kill and tag such animal. However if your driving home from Grandmas house and hit a deer on the road and its twisting in a ditch, you have neither of these things.

Never mind the fact that hunting is no longer a necessary.

And what made you determine that hunting is no longer necessary? I dont know where you live, but i live in upstate NY in redneck country. The town practically closes down on the first day of deer hunting season. A huge number of low income people rely on deer hunting to fill their freezer to feed their family for the winter. Im glad you and your family are doing well enough that you dont find that nessesary, but not everyone is as fortunate as you.

Uh no. You stated that no gun proponents seriously think people should always carry a gun with the everywhere. If we assumed this very court case didn't prove you wrong, simple observation does as I have observed two gun proponents make that very statement just today.

This court case does not deal with gun proponents needing to carry their guns everywhere. This court case deals with the same thing that the ACLU might deal with in one of their cases. The right to carry their guns everywhere, not the necessity. And despite your compelling personal evidence, I am once again going to refer to my previous post.

Its actually a crime to euthanize an animal with a pistol. Or at least in my State. Its against the law to discharge a weapon within a certain range of a road or house, and its against the law to shoot a deer without a permit, even though you have already injured it with a car.

I know and I do not care. I am more concerned with compassion than a fine.

I know and I do not care. I am more concerned with compassion than a fine.

Unlawfully discharging a firearm is a lot more then a fine, its jail time. i dont like deer THAT much. Also i think shooting a deer without a tag is a 5 digit fine or more. Its no $100 problem.

I'm sorry but IMHO the gun nuts are being ridiculous. Airports are a reasonable place to restrict the carrying of guns.

There's a reason they are called "gun nuts", rather than rational, firearm posessing citizens...

There's a reason they are called "gun nuts", rather than rational, firearm posessing citizens...

And that reason is?

New York. But your example is different. Presumably if your hunting, your not near a road or a home, and also presumably you have a licence to kill and tag such animal. However if your driving home from Grandmas house and hit a deer on the road and its twisting in a ditch, you have neither of these things.

I think Georgia actually theoretically operates on similar laws. What you are supposed to do, if you hit an animal, is call it in - since every hit on a road or road-side is supposed to be recorded, and the mess is supposed to be cleaned up by 'the appropriate authorities'.

That's even if it's in the middle of hunting season, and you're 'permitted' to the gills.

But then, in Georgia, it's supposed to be illegal to drive drunk, too. Georgia law enforcement seems to be somewhat optional and discretionary.

Unlawfully discharging a firearm is a lot more then a fine, its jail time. i dont like deer THAT much. Also i think shooting a deer without a tag is a 5 digit fine or more. Its no $100 problem.

I do not think a judge would give me jail time for it.

I do not think a judge would give me jail time for it.

They might not have a choice in the matter.

This court case does not deal with gun proponents needing to carry their guns everywhere.

...
I have no rebuttal that wouldn't result in an insult to your intelligence.

...
I have no rebuttal that wouldn't result in an insult to your intelligence.

You wouldn't be the first, and I'm sure you'd be nicer about it than some.

My point was that "need" and "desire" are different. We don't always have the "need" to use our freedom of speech but we do have a "desire" to always be able to. In the same vein (if you believe that carrying firearms is a right akin to freedom of speech), a gun advocate [hopefully] doesn't think he will "need" is firearm in an airport, but would still "desire" to carry it there, as per his rights.

Educate me, pantless one.

I wonder how many of the people who are upset about not allowing guns at the airport also see nothing wrong with preventing passengers from flying if they're vaguely Middle-Eastern-looking and speaking excitedly in Arabic.

I wonder how many of the people who are upset about not allowing guns at the airport also see nothing wrong with preventing passengers from flying if they're vaguely Middle-Eastern-looking and speaking excitedly in Arabic.

I speak excitedly in Arabic all the time in airports just to see what people do.

Frankly though, I think the southern accent gives me away.

i speak excitedly in arabic all the time in airports just to see what people do.

Frankly though, i think the southern accent gives me away.

أنا أمريكيّ
لا أدرُسُ أللغة ألعربيّة

Just keep shouting "!أنا أمريكيّ". They won't hurt you.

Now how will passengers shoot people while they wait for their flight?