Guns used for lawful self defense Pt. 4

[FBM]

Not as much as they like bragging about it.

People do tend to brag about--or celebrate (word choice is everything)--their accomplishments.
Is this somehow "wrong" or detrimental to humanity and/or the universe?

Didn't say it was. I implied that it is obnoxious, which is how I find such braggarts. What's the "accomplishment"? Having enough money to fly to another country, pay someone who actually is a good hunter to do your tracking for you, driving out the the spot and squeezing trigger? Yay. Helluvan accomplishment there, Kemosabe.

I don't even like hunting whitetails with dogs. The few times I did were the most boring hunting experiences I can remember. You take up assigned positions and wait for the guy with the dogs to chase the deer in front of you. I'd rather learn the deer's habits and habitat, prep your scent, creep in as quietly as your skill allows, looking for fresh tracks and scat, etc. If you kill a deer like that, you have a right to call it an accomplishment. I still don't like braggarts, but someone who tracks or even still hunts is at least doing all the work him/herself. I can admire their efforts, even more so if they don't brag about it.

[Blind groper]

I agree absolutely - 100% in the same sense that I'd agree to a similar argument for the abolishing of nuclear weapons. Nice, but no where near to reality.

Nice that you agree.
Obviously a total ban is not going to solve all hand gun problems overnight. These things take time and effort. However, a reduction in the number of hand guns would result in a reduction in murders, and you have to start somewhere. The longer that Americans knuckle under to gun nutters, and fail to take measures to reduce the number of hand guns, the more Americans who will be murdered.

All those deaths are unnecessary in the sense that sensible measures can cut down on the toll. If American politicians had the balls to stand up to the NRA and its nut case allies, and work towards a reduction in hand gun numbers, the whole American people would benefit.

As long as its politicians remain as arrant, yellow bellied, lily livered cowards who refuse to do what is right, people will continue to be victims.

[FBM]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

[JimC]

I have asked you twice already which firearms--specifically--do you IYO think should be banned?
Why, IYO, those particular firearms?
What is it about them, IYO, that warrants banning them?

I have been away for a few days, and missed a lot of posts. But I will answer the query above, from my very logical, rational and sensible view point.

The guns to be banned are any gun small enough to be concealed on a person. Mostly, that means hand guns.

Why? For the simple reason that such guns are the ones that kill the most humans. 50% of all murders in the USA are carried out with hand guns. Rifles, shotguns, machine guns etc., all kill a total of only one sixth of all murders.

In addition, hand guns are decidedly inferior for legitimate uses such as putting meat on the table, and eliminating pests.

So the focus should be on banning hand guns, and thus reducing the death toll from homicide.

That makes sense to me.

I agree absolutely - 100% in the same sense that I'd agree to a similar argument for the abolishing of nuclear weapons. Nice, but no where near to reality.

Go scuba diving. Photograph some nice fish. The rest of us will live in the real world.

As far as the US goes, you are probably right.

Seen as an argument for maintaining strict gun controls in countries that already have them, it works.

As I have said many times, I think that the gun nuts have won the battle in the US, and that will not change anytime soon.

[Clinton Huxley]

Not as much as they like bragging about it.

People do tend to brag about--or celebrate (word choice is everything)--their accomplishments.
Is this somehow "wrong" or detrimental to humanity and/or the universe?

Trophy hunting is about as much of an accomplishment as swatting a fly. Presumably you have an array of fly heads mounted on your wall.

The desire to want to kill something, for "sport" is psychotic.

[JimC]

Not as much as they like bragging about it.

People do tend to brag about--or celebrate (word choice is everything)--their accomplishments.
Is this somehow "wrong" or detrimental to humanity and/or the universe?

Trophy hunting is about as much of an accomplishment as swatting a fly. Presumably you have an array of fly heads mounted on your wall.

The desire to want to kill something, for "sport" is psychotic.

Basically I agree with you, but I think that you underestimate the degree to which the hunter-killer is impressed on many of us.

In my day, I absolutely loved hunting rabbits in country Victoria. It certainly wasn't "trophy" hunting, and I could rationalise it in that they are an introduced pest, and their bodies either fed me, or the farm dogs.

But, the thrill of the hunt was there, was real, was highly enjoyable...

[Clinton Huxley]

Not as much as they like bragging about it.

People do tend to brag about--or celebrate (word choice is everything)--their accomplishments.
Is this somehow "wrong" or detrimental to humanity and/or the universe?

Trophy hunting is about as much of an accomplishment as swatting a fly. Presumably you have an array of fly heads mounted on your wall.

The desire to want to kill something, for "sport" is psychotic.

Basically I agree with you, but I think that you underestimate the degree to which the hunter-killer is impressed on many of us.

In my day, I absolutely loved hunting rabbits in country Victoria. It certainly wasn't "trophy" hunting, and I could rationalise it in that they are an introduced pest, and their bodies either fed me, or the farm dogs.

But, the thrill of the hunt was there, was real, was highly enjoyable...

Indeed but one isn't forced to act on those atavistic instincts. It's not difficult to not do it.

[JimC]

Or one can regard them as a perfectly natural component of the human psyche, but only indulge when there are compelling reasons to do so, and endangered species are not involved. To me, there is nothing intrinsically unethical in hunting, if it is sustainable, and is for food to be consumed, or to cull feral species. When indulged merely for pride, it becomes highly questionable...

[Clinton Huxley]

Or one can regard them as a perfectly natural component of the human psyche, but only indulge when there are compelling reasons to do so, and endangered species are not involved. To me, there is nothing intrinsically unethical in hunting, if it is sustainable, and is for food to be consumed, or to cull feral species. When indulged merely for pride, it becomes highly questionable...

There are plenty of things which could be defined as "natural" that we don't do. We have laws to restrain the more "tooth and claw" aspects of our nature. The fact that someone may eat or otherwise use the trophy animal or parts of it afterwards is not pertinent. The fact is, the person who shot it got some weird kind of thrill from snuffing out the life of another creature and that is extremely distasteful, to say the least.

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about trophy hunters here. Pest control, hunting for food or even culling an animal population in a controlled way, for its own good, are different issues.

[JimC]

Or one can regard them as a perfectly natural component of the human psyche, but only indulge when there are compelling reasons to do so, and endangered species are not involved. To me, there is nothing intrinsically unethical in hunting, if it is sustainable, and is for food to be consumed, or to cull feral species. When indulged merely for pride, it becomes highly questionable...

There are plenty of things which could be defined as "natural" that we don't do. We have laws to restrain the more "tooth and claw" aspects of our nature. The fact that someone may eat or otherwise use the trophy animal or parts of it afterwards is not pertinent. The fact is, the person who shot it got some weird kind of thrill from snuffing out the life of another creature and that is extremely distasteful, to say the least.

To be clear, I'm talking specifically about trophy hunters here. Pest control, hunting for food or even culling an animal population in a controlled way, for its own good, are different issues.

But I'll push a little, here. Those doing "pest control, hunting for food or even culling an animal population in a controlled way" may well get a lot of pleasure from the hunt, and the exercise of the undoubted skill required (we'll take for granted here that part of the pride is making single shot kills that give a painless death to the animal concerned, no sadism involved...)

I would contend that, at least in part, the pleasure derives from the fact that hunting is embedded in our evolutionary heritage. I sense in your replies a feeling that the enjoyment of hunting itself is something best extirpated from the human experience, and that necessary hunting be done by unemotional necessity...

[Clinton Huxley]

The primary point of pest-control is......the control of pests. If someone shoots some rabbits that are, say, causing damage to arable land, or if deer are culled to protect regenerating woodland, I don't have too much of an issue. If the primary point of killing something is so that the "hunter" can pose for a photograpth of a corpse to show how macho they are - well, I've expressed my opinion on such people.

[rainbow]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah. We need a government that makes and enforces their own laws instead of listening to the citizens' opinions like a bunch of pussies.

"We need a government that sees what needs to be done and then does it." Annakin Skywalker.

[Clinton Huxley]

Sometimes, governments should not accede to the wishes of their electorate. Capital punishment, for example, would be re-introduced into the UK (were it not illegal under EU rules) if the people had their way.

The people are cretins. For example, they read The Daily Mail.

[klr]

Sometimes, governments should not accede to the wishes of their electorate. Capital punishment, for example, would be re-introduced into the UK (were it not illegal under EU rules) if the people had their way.

The people are cretins. For example, they read The Daily Mail.

Dammit, if that post had not included a Hate Mail reference, it would have been as incomplete as a one-legged man on a unicycle with a flat tyre.