&*!#@* Hunters!

[Martyn]

Martyn, I only wrote that I didn't want to debate gun control here because I was trying to keep the subject on topic. However, you obviously feel that gun ownership is an intrinsic part of the problem, and that's completely fair.

I also don't normally like to debate gun control because I've found it a quick way to destroy friendships, and I certainly would never wish to do that with you.

The reason I think debating gun control ruins friendships is that it is not a logical debate, it is an emotional one. I have found that most people who are against private gun ownership are not that way because they have examined evidence and concluded that private gun ownership correlates to higher crime (there is no such evidence, as pretty well proved by the link I posted). They are that way simply because they do not like guns and therefore do not wish anyone to have them. That's okay, too, but it doesn't foster a classical, logical debate, only argument.

If we are to debate violent crime, we need to debate the society, not its inanimate tools. Just as if we were to debate drunken driving we would discuss the root causes of alcohol abuse, not whether we should ban cars.

Jonathan

First let me say that I'm not about to lose a friendship because of a debate. My personal views on a host of subjects are so "off base" that if I did that I'd only have imaginary friends.

I conclude that any discussion of gun regulation or control can't really take place on a forum. Most people have their positions and don't want to move from them. As you say it's an emotional position for most people.

I’m disappointed that the art of debate seems to be lost, or is losing ground, and people are not exercising there mental abilities to defend or attack a position. Rather they spew forth half truths they heard from someone else, facts that have not been verified, or straight propaganda.

I'm interested in a persons rational on why they think a certain way, and I hope that by posing a different point of view I can broaden their perspective.

I learn nothing from the gun owner who states I own a gun, I have the right to own a gun, and the only way you will get it away from me is over my dead body. Accompany that with a picture of their gun collection.

I'm also not against gun ownership, I think they are good tools in the right hands. I do feel that there are many legal gun owners who probably shouldn’t own a weapon of any description, and I don’t think that everyone needs to own a gun.

I am surprised by peoples paranoia and fear when it comes to justifying their ownership of a gun. I'm also surprised by the number of anarchists among us.

Oh well, maybe this is a debate we can have around a campfire as we share each others beers.

 

[Suty]

Jonathan

First let me say that I'm not about to lose a friendship because of a debate. My personal views on a host of subjects are so "off base" that if I did that I'd only have imaginary friends.

I conclude that any discussion of gun regulation or control can't really take place on a forum. Most people have their positions and don't want to move from them. As you say it's an emotional position for most people.

I’m disappointed that the art of debate seems to be lost, or is losing ground, and people are not exercising there mental abilities to defend or attack a position. Rather they spew forth half truths they heard from someone else, facts that have not been verified, or straight propaganda.

I'm interested in a persons rational on why they think a certain way, and I hope that by posing a different point of view I can broaden their perspective.

I learn nothing from the gun owner who states I own a gun, I have the right to own a gun, and the only way you will get it away from me is over my dead body. Accompany that with a picture of their gun collection.

I'm also not against gun ownership, I think they are good tools in the right hands. I do feel that there are many legal gun owners who probably shouldn’t own a weapon of any description, and I don’t think that everyone needs to own a gun.

I am surprised by peoples paranoia and fear when it comes to justifying their ownership of a gun. I'm also surprised by the number of anarchists among us.

Oh well, maybe this is a debate we can have around a campfire as we share each others beers.

I Own 2 Bows, does that make me a anarchist ? or does that only come with Gun ownership..... .......:REOutArchery02: .. Tu Compadres, Suty

 

[jeffryscott]

to get back on topic, my first job out of college was in NW Colorado. Hunting season was like Christmas is to much of the rest of the nation's economy. We did a special hunting section each year at the newspaper, so I quickly became familiar with both good and bad. A co-workers father was a longtime game warden and one of his favorite stories was the time he was at lunch, saw a car fly by with a couple of carcasses tied to the hood. He left lunch, pulled the out-of-state licensed car over to chat. The hunters were very impressed with their game and were eager to discuss the "deer." When asked how they knew they were "deer" the gentlemen pulled out a black and white line drawing from a dictionary showing a deer. The game warden cited them and confiscated the pronghorn antelope.

I heard so many stories like that from him, it scared me off of hunting and it has only gotten worse. The places I see people shooting up in Redington (over hills, into valleys) is terrifying. Education is key, but people are so resistant of it. And I'm certainly not going to approach them to suggest they shoot elsewhere when I have kids in the car.

 

[Scott Brady]

Martyn,

In my experience, it comes down to nature vs. nurture... You were nurtured to dislike guns; it is part of your upbringing and geopolitical framework. For me, it is the opposite. I was raised around weapons, trained to shoot them in the military and have had formal training to use them in the defense of my family. I am completely comfortable handling a gun. I rarely carry one, but if I do, I will not hesitate to use it in the defense of my wife.

Guns are like religion, it reflects your nurturing. If you were born in Syria, you would likely be Muslim, India - Hindu, England - Christian.

And as with most things, the key is to find the truth, somewhere between the two extremes.

 

[7wt]

I learn nothing from the gun owner who states I own a gun, I have the right to own a gun, and the only way you will get it away from me is over my dead body. Accompany that with a picture of their gun collection.

With all due respect Martyn, you have learned something. You learned that there are people that value their civil rights more than they value a debate of ideas. You also learned that to some people there is something worth fighting and possibly dying for. Guns are more than tools, they are extensions of ones personality and intentions. Any Texan will tell you, an armed society is a polite society.

 

[Ursidae69]

And as with most things, the key is to find the truth, somewhere between the two extremes.

That is the point I think, nobody will discuss the middle ground because they are entrenched. I grew up with hunting and guns. I have pictures of me with my first rifle and I cannot hold it up without my Dad's help at 6 years old! LOL... Point is, I was nurtured with guns in my family and yet today I find many reasons to move to a middle ground. Nobody wants to talk about it though, it's simply the same old "Nobody will take my guns..." stuff which is not the intent of a debate.

 

[Ursidae69]

With all due respect Martyn, you have learned something. You learned that there are people that value their civil rights more than they value a debate of ideas. You also learned that to some people there is something worth fighting and possibly dying for. Guns are more than tools, they are extensions of ones personality and intentions. Any Texan will tell you, an armed society is a polite society.

That is just inflammatory dood, discussing something is harmless and meaningful.

EDIT: I take that back 7wt, if that is your reason for not debating it, then that is your reason, and that is not inflammatory. I just wish more people would be willing to discuss the 2nd amendment more. I don't want it gone, but I think some compromise should happen. But, I'll get pounded for it, so like others have said, this is not the time and place for that debate. My Dad always told me, never talk religion or politics with your friends if you want to keep them. Good advice from an old cowboy I think. Anyway, back to bashing ATVs, I was enjoying that aspect of this thread. eepwall:

 

[7wt]

That is just inflammatory dood, discussing something is harmless and meaningful.

EDIT: I take that back 7wt, if that is your reason for not debating it, then that is your reason, and that is not inflammatory. I just wish more people would be willing to discuss the 2nd amendment more. I don't want it gone, but I think some compromise should happen. But, I'll get pounded for it, so like others have said, this is not the time and place for that debate. My Dad always told me, never talk religion or politics with your friends if you want to keep them. Good advice from an old cowboy I think. Anyway, back to bashing ATVs, I was enjoying that aspect of this thread. eepwall:

Not inflammatory at all. I am sorry you feel that way. I did not say I was one of them and that is where you made your mistake. I will discuss it with anyone that will honestly entertain my views. I used to belong to a shooting club when I was in school. I shot competitively for spot and fellowship. I know plenty of people who have no interest in discussing amending the 2nd. To them, the 2nd amendment does not give a person the right to bear arms and I fully agree with that. That is a God given right that the framers wanted to protect by writing an amendment to prohibit the government from taking away such rights. The only comment that was inflammatory was the "dood" comment that you seemed to have tried to take back or diminish without actually doing so. Examine you motives and you will agree it was an attempt to talk down to me. That being said, I am not offended in the least.

My personal lifestyle has outgrown the gun thing for the most part. I still love to shoot but the severe loss of hearing has taken away my zeal. I cannot be around most firearms anymore because I am unwilling to damage my ears anymore. I have an 85db (left) and a 95 (right) db hearing loss at 4000Hz for the audiologist out there. You know how you ears ring after a day at the range? Mine have never stopped ringing, it is with me always from here on out. That being said, I am still going to try to preserve your right to own and bear arms, regardless if you choose to do so.

Out of curiosity, what compromise in the 2nd are you seeking? What would help you feel better about someone owning a gun? The problem is not the people who abide by the laws. The problem is with those who break the laws so any additional law would be more for them to break. The only compromise I am interested in is one that would make it easier for people without criminal records to buy firearms. I would also like to see educational programs in school so that children understand that a gun is not a tool in a video game and there are no resets. Vilifying firearms will not make anyone’s life safer. In fact it will only serve to endanger the lives and sovereignty of our nation. Make not mistake, the American way of life is under attack from both within and abroad. Guns are merely another point of division for us to get distracted over while our rights are systematically removed.

 

[Ursidae69]

I was not talking down to you 7wt, I do not know you personally and would have no basis to do so. I use 'dood' frequently in casual conversation written and verbal. No worries.

I take exception to statements like "an armed society is a polite society..." and would call statements like that 'inflammatory' because there is no way to back that claim up. Additionally, by my personal experiences in my life, I find that statement incorrect. Having lived part of my life in Texas and graduating high school in Texas, I can make that judgement. Nothing personal against you, I just disagree with that statement.

 

[7wt]

I take exception to statements like "an armed society is a polite society..." and would call statements like that 'inflammatory' because there is no way to back that claim up.

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

http://thekeymonk.blogspot.com/2005/11/armed-society-is-polite-society.html

Mr Heinlein makes perfect sense to me. In earlier ages, men carried around rapiers to defend their honor. Later it was dueling pistols. Now is it a keyboard and venom. Seems something is missing if you ask me.

 

[VikingVince]

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
Robert A. Heinlein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

http://thekeymonk.blogspot.com/2005/11/armed-society-is-polite-society.html

Mr Heinlein makes perfect sense to me. In earlier ages, men carried around rapiers to defend their honor. Later it was dueling pistols. Now is it a keyboard and venom. Seems something is missing if you ask me.

What's missing are people with good minds who can think beyond quoting a science fiction writer and believing it's credible.

 

[1leglance]

all this gun talk is well and good and worthy of a seperate thread...
however being a solutions oriented person and with full knowledge that Jonathan & Roseanne might like some ideas on practical things they can do...I would like to ask that this thread come back on topic and any futher gun control talk go to a new thread...

There have been some great ideas...
getting hunting right to the hill so they can keep the other hunters away
posting signs
programing all relevant numbers into phones to call in violantions in real time
talking and educating the offenders
and more I have missed I am sure since I lost track of the solutions with all the control talk.

Lets hear more good practical ideas for all the wise ones out there.....

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Thanks, Lance.

We have decided to take a several-pronged approach. First, we know the local Game and Fish officer well, so the next time we have a situation in progress we'll call him. Second, the next time we see someone glassing so close to our house we'll walk over and talk to him, ask him if he knows there's a house within prohibited shooting distance, if he knows he is on private property, and then mention that the deer nearby come into water in our yard two or three times a day even when we're sitting on the porch, and that we're sure shooting such an animal wouldn't meet his definition of fair chase.

But if I catch fat guys throwing beer cans off ATVs while driving through virgin desert, diplomacy is off.

 

[7wt]

What's missing are people with good minds who can think beyond quoting a science fiction writer and believing it's credible.

So you don't like my point of view. I can respect that but I haven't once attacked anyone here and I don't appreciate your implying that that I haven't thought beyond a quote or that I am lacking a good mind. I was simply pointing out that I was not the originator of the deemed terribly offensive comment. Go ahead and impune the originator all you want, however his profession does not mean he is wrong on the topic. I love how personal attacks come from the "open minded". If you or anyone else want to remove your gloves please PM me and maintain the integrity of this site. Attack the argument, not the person.

 

[Lost Canadian]

With all due respect Martyn, you have learned something. You learned that there are people that value their civil rights more than they value a debate of ideas.

With all due respect to you 7wt, Civil rights are simply legal rights provided by man, for man. Man is inherently flawed, to suggest that the laws written by men are beyond debate reads like an emotional responce and not one that had been given much thought.