US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Coito ergo sum]

Laklak, you must be full of crap, because you obviously don't mind sharing it.
There are page after page on youtube of how to set bait for bears. And I've seen documentary film of bear hunters in Minnesota, where they "hunt" in exactly the way that C&W cunt did, from a platform up a tree, with bait in a barrel.
Here is just a couple of pages of how to bait. There are loads of others linked on the page:

Bear bait barrel

Tree stand preperation and bear feeding and baiting tips

It seems that you've been a bit economical with the truth. Why does that not surprise me?
You must have some shame then.

I either hold or have held hunting licenses in Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia. Florida does not permit bear hunting, the other three ban baiting. Only 11 states allow baiting, so you're incorrect, it is NOT the standard way to hunt bear. But don't let mere facts get in your way, you wouldn't want to turn over any new leaves this late in life.

Oh, and I have no shame about a) hunting b) owning multiple firearms c) having a concealed carry permit.

Laklak, you started off by pretending it didn't go on. Why should anybody believe you now?
I don't believe your stories of not baiting, and hunting with dogs.
I think you, like other so called "hunters" are a master baiter.

I don't think he claimed it didn't go on. What I got was that it wasn't prevalent, and wasn't the right way to do it, and that those who did it that way were exceptions, not the rule.

[Wumbologist]

It's not, but shouldn't you be quoting mistermack's post to make that point. I was responding to gallstones' response to mistermack. I could have responded in a separate post to make it distinct from my question on the thread topic, though.

Just a little confused by the Jonestown tangent, is all.

Okay, thanks for the info.

I've been considering the points of the pro-gun side and reconsidering my own stance. Not necessarily changing my personal preference, but understanding the other point of view better.

There is a rational, logical argument for gun ownership and carry. I used to be strongly anti-gun myself, and to go from that to carrying one daily, I needed to see a rational argument for it. On a personal level for me, the benefits simply outweigh the risks, especially since the risks become virtually non-existent in the hands of a responsible, competent, and sane owner. On the larger scale there's not much I can do either way, guns exist here. But I don't think that guns are the cause of America's troubles, and I don't think trying to remove them from the equation would be the solution. Our problems are massively more complex than that.

[Coito ergo sum]

We have gun laws on a federal level, and gun laws that vary wildly from state to state. On a federal level, the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System ) prohibits sales to convicted criminals, drug addicts, people adjudicated mentally defective, people dishonorably discharged from the military, subjects of restraining orders, etc.

Add to that you cannot purchase any sort of firearm from a dealer until you are 18 years old (long guns) or 21 years old (handguns).

It's also a federal felony to knowingly allow a prohibited person to even touch a gun. Additionally, whether or not a person can carry a firearm on their person outside their own home is regulated state by state, typically more stringently than ownership.

I think people get this idea from Hollywood that there is no regulation at all and that you can just walk into any store, anywhere, and buy a gun as easily as you can a pack of gum. Not really the case at all.

Florida, for example, is pretty loose on gun sales and ownership. I can go to the store today and pick up a hunting rifle.

Regarding handguns - carrying them around is regulated - like, you need a permit to conceal carry, and open carry is not permitted even with a permit. I.e., they don't let you walk around with a gun in a holster and spurs a jinglin' and janglin'....

But, to me - there is no reason why one would need a "license" to buy a deer rifle, or buy a shotgun to go skeet shooting. If the majority of people felt that these guns presented enough of a problem to require licensing, however, well, I wouldn't really care one way or the other. Licensing of rifles and shotguns, however, wouldn't make anybody any safer, IMO, but whatever.

Another point to our European friends. We don't need licenses, permits or registrations of hunting rifles in Florida because the majority of people here don't think it's necessary. Sometimes I get the impression that folks think that in the US, some small group of paranoid gun-nuts are hijacking the system and that if only the will of the majority held sway, we'd make guns illegal. That's far from the truth. Most people here just aren't as fearful about guns as some of you may be. When I was a kid, it wasn't uncommon for boys to learn to shoot as young teenagers. I see nothing wrong with that. Like everything else, the way to raise a competent adult is to teach them over time with competent adult supervision and instruction. All this garbage about keeping kids in a box until they are 21 and then opening the box and saying - "ok, now go out and avail yourself of everything in the world..." is a recipe for disaster. All that becomes is a perpetual motion machine -- first it's "no drinking until you're 18!" Then when all the douchebags who never had a drink before 18 turn 18, they go nuts and cause problems because they can't handle it. So, people cry to raise the age to 19, and that doesn't work, and then it's 21, and even that doesn't work. You wind up with college kids who act like fools, and we start calling people between the age of 21 and 25 "kids."

[Wumbologist]

I can tell all the Europeans out there who want to pretend like Americans walk around with sidearms every day, and that we munch our McDonald's burgers daily with background music in the form of gunfire, that that isn't the case.

I'm planning a trip to the range to test out my new gun this weekend... I doubt they allow food in the range but I'm tempted to bring McDonald's just because of this post.

If you come to the US and walk around New York City, you won't see a gun, most likely, except on the belt of a police officer. I've run into many Europeans in Florida, because despite your abject scorn for the US, you folks seem to come here in droves - and bleat on about how much you love it here. Not a single one of them encountered a gun in the US.

Yup. I grew up in suburban Massachusetts, and until I was 21 and went to Nashville with friends who brought me shooting for my first time, I had never even seen a real gun that wasn't on a police officer's belt. Of course, I see plenty now, since I've figured out where to look.

[mistermack]

I don't think he claimed it didn't go on. What I got was that it wasn't prevalent, and wasn't the right way to do it, and that those who did it that way were exceptions, not the rule.

Actually, Laklak was VERY economical with the truth.

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

Not quite matching reality is it? Now he admits it's legal in 11 states, but doesn't mention that that is 11 out of the 27 that allow bear hunting. That's almost half.
And it's generally ignored in the others anyway. There's not too much chance of getting caught, and you will only get a slap on the wrist at the worst. More usually, just a warning.
This is how people "hunt". It's a fact. Master baiters, all of em.

[Wumbologist]

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

Not quite matching reality is it? Now he admits it's legal in 11 states, but doesn't mention that that is 11 out of the 27 that allow bear hunting. That's almost half.
And it's generally ignored in the others anyway. There's not too much chance of getting caught, and you will only get a slap on the wrist at the worst. More usually, just a warning.
This is how people "hunt". It's a fact. Master baiters, all of em.

It sounds to me like he might have been speaking from his own personal experience, in which bear hunting has been illegal and frowned upon. That'll teach him not to exercise his right to use Google to prove that he's super smart and knows everything.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think he claimed it didn't go on. What I got was that it wasn't prevalent, and wasn't the right way to do it, and that those who did it that way were exceptions, not the rule.

Actually, Laklak was VERY economical with the truth.

How so? What did he actually say - rather than what you re-wrote his comments to say - that wasn't true?

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

Not quite matching reality is it? Now he admits it's legal in 11 states, but doesn't mention that that is 11 out of the 27 that allow bear hunting. That's almost half.
And it's generally ignored in the others anyway. There's not too much chance of getting caught, and you will only get a slap on the wrist at the worst. More usually, just a warning.
This is how people "hunt". It's a fact. Master baiters, all of em.

Let's assume, without admitting, that you are correct about that. So what? People raise cows, sheep, coats, chickens, pigs and all sorts of animals and slaughter them without even giving them a chance. Is this a Yogi Bear thing?

[mistermack]

I don't think he claimed it didn't go on. What I got was that it wasn't prevalent, and wasn't the right way to do it, and that those who did it that way were exceptions, not the rule.

Actually, Laklak was VERY economical with the truth.

How so? What did he actually say - rather than what you re-wrote his comments to say - that wasn't true?

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

Not quite matching reality is it? Now he admits it's legal in 11 states, but doesn't mention that that is 11 out of the 27 that allow bear hunting. That's almost half.
And it's generally ignored in the others anyway. There's not too much chance of getting caught, and you will only get a slap on the wrist at the worst. More usually, just a warning.
This is how people "hunt". It's a fact. Master baiters, all of em.

Let's assume, without admitting, that you are correct about that. So what? People raise cows, sheep, coats, chickens, pigs and all sorts of animals and slaughter them without even giving them a chance. Is this a Yogi Bear thing?

No, it's a WILDLIFE thing, and a pathetic wanker bullshitting hunter thing.
It's hardly surprising that they come across as retarded on youtube.
They are probably highly inbred.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think he claimed it didn't go on. What I got was that it wasn't prevalent, and wasn't the right way to do it, and that those who did it that way were exceptions, not the rule.

Actually, Laklak was VERY economical with the truth.

How so? What did he actually say - rather than what you re-wrote his comments to say - that wasn't true?

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

Not quite matching reality is it? Now he admits it's legal in 11 states, but doesn't mention that that is 11 out of the 27 that allow bear hunting. That's almost half.
And it's generally ignored in the others anyway. There's not too much chance of getting caught, and you will only get a slap on the wrist at the worst. More usually, just a warning.
This is how people "hunt". It's a fact. Master baiters, all of em.

Let's assume, without admitting, that you are correct about that. So what? People raise cows, sheep, coats, chickens, pigs and all sorts of animals and slaughter them without even giving them a chance. Is this a Yogi Bear thing?

No, it's a WILDLIFE thing, and a pathetic wanker bullshitting hunter thing.
It's hardly surprising that they come across as retarded on youtube.
They are probably highly inbred.

Well, you're advancing the false notion that the junk on youtube is representative of hunting in general. If you're against hunting in general, that's fine for you, but to argue your point by citing an extreme example of something most hunters don't ever do, isn't particularly persuasive. And, closing with an insult is typical of a certain political persuasion, but not particularly persuasive either.

[mistermack]

Well, you're advancing the false notion that the junk on youtube is representative of hunting in general. If you're against hunting in general, that's fine for you, but to argue your point by citing an extreme example of something most hunters don't ever do, isn't particularly persuasive. And, closing with an insult is typical of a certain political persuasion, but not particularly persuasive either.

All of those youtube videos are posted BY hunters FOR hunters. Many are posted by hunting magazines.
I'm not selective, they are VERY TYPICAL videos. And you can't insult hunters. They are below anything I might say.

[Coito ergo sum]

And you can't insult hunters. They are below anything I might say.

If you're not a vegetarian, you're a giant hypocrite.

[mistermack]

And you can't insult hunters. They are below anything I might say.

If you're not a vegetarian, you're a giant hypocrite.

Have I ever posted anything against farming? Or factory farming? You want to sort out your logic.
I'm against the killing of animals for fun. EVEN if they get eaten.
I used to fish and hunt when I was juvenile. I don't any more, even though I enjoyed it.

[colubridae]

I've been considering the points of the pro-gun side and reconsidering my own stance. Not necessarily changing my personal preference, but understanding the other point of view better.

That’s mighty big of you, considering that:-

1 No-one has yet given a valid reason for banning guns other than some convoluted version of “guns kill people”.

2 Given this reason for a gun ban, when I made the point that “if that’s the case why aren’t cars banned?”. All I got was insults and drivel. Especially from ClintonHuxley, who performed the most amazing logic contortions whilst accusing me of “Olympian logic failures”!
The closest that any one came to a valid reason for not banning cars, when guns are banned, was pappa’s lame version of ‘car deaths are what people accept for car usage’

Someone actually said “well guns were invented for killing”. Really? Well in that case why ban smoking in public places?
Smoking was not invented with the intention of killing. No smoker ever went into a room thinking “when you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucker in the room - Malboro Lights, accept no substitutes”.

True there is a component of unpleasantness in the smoking ban, but it is as much to do with ‘smoking kills’.

But I never really got the ideology that some people seem to hold that if there are bad things happening in the world, therefore it's okay to happen more bad things.

perfectly valid point except completely arse about face. That’s my point! Ban guns because they kill - ok, but then utterly refuse to use the same logic for a much more serious loss of life e.g. road deaths.

I don’t expect (or want) a car ban. All I point out is that a gun ban perforce demands a plethora of more restrictive bans, otherwise it’s just an anti-X lobby forcing their phobia onto others.

[klr]

...

I don’t expect (or want) a car ban. All I point out is that a gun ban perforce demands a plethora of more restrictive bans, otherwise it’s just an anti-X lobby forcing their phobia onto others.

I'm afraid that's just NRA-style propaganda. To be exceedingly wary of lethal weapons is hardly a phobia.

[Wumbologist]

...

I don’t expect (or want) a car ban. All I point out is that a gun ban perforce demands a plethora of more restrictive bans, otherwise it’s just an anti-X lobby forcing their phobia onto others.

I'm afraid that's just NRA-style propaganda. To be exceedingly wary of lethal weapons is hardly a phobia.

I've known people who wouldn't knowingly step into a house with guns, not necessarily because of the gun owners, but literally because they're afraid the guns might somehow go off by themselves and they'd be in the line of fire and die. That's not a rational fear.