Guns. Please vote.

[jokemaster]

I think you should be able to have guns, but it should be limited, I mean, don't have automatic weapons, but hunting rifles and certain handguns should be OK.

[Spider AL]

why can't you do what you wan't, If it isn't harming anyone else then let people do it.

I think the foxes might have something to say about that, had they our vocal chords.

[Darth333]

Originally posted by jon_hill987

I think that people should have the right to do what the funk they like on there own land, not just guns [......If it isn't harming anyone else then let people do it.

 

Err...guns can actually harm someone that's the problem.

[Spider AL]

Well firstly, I regard comparing foxes to mute children quite absurd, not to mention offensive to the disabled children.

Vocal chords trippy, vocal cords. You opened the door to this line of questioning, etcetera Law and Order script to follow.

 

Human qualities do not imply "worth". I know some humans who certainly deserve hunting down, for instance... Naming no names.

 

As long as issues don't effect them, people are quite happy to cast an ignorant opinion on matters they know little about.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

 

Aww, aren't foxes cuddly and cute? When's the last time you saw a fox as a pet? Take it down the park for a walk?

Unlike yours, my stance on animal welfare does not revolve around which animals I consider to be the cutest.

 

Who said it was efficient?

You said it was pest control. It is NOT pest control because it doesn't cull efficiently enough to qualify. QED.

 

Surely a bunch of people killing 45 foxes a year isn't making that much difference?

It's taking pleasure in another creature's suffering, it is therefore inhumane and therefore amoral. There is no defence.

 

Finally, if you ban fox hunting, I believe you need to set a precedent to ban all other types of hunting, as well as other forms of animal farming, more specifically battery farming.

 

Banning one type of hunting SETS a precedent sonny, that's why it's called a precedent, it precedes the flood of similar actions. Fingers crossed!

 

there seems no legitimate reason to ban fox hunting, other than as a diversionary tactic unite a deeply fragmented party.

There are simple, obvious, moral AND civic reasons to ban fox hunting. Not only is it inhumane, but causes expense to the farm owners whose land the hunt rides rampant over.

 

Secondly the Labour party isn't banning hunting to unite their party, it's an attempt to lull the fringe of the party into a false sense of security, and an attempt to convince the public that the party is living up to its pre-election promises.

 

Got anything else?

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by iamtrip

As long as issues don't effect them, people are quite happy to cast an ignorant opinion on matters they know little about.

 

That's funny, because that's exactly what I thought of you and your statements in the other gun thread regarding the ban lift on so called assault rifles. What was it you were saying? Some nonsense about a 126 round clip for an M16? That would drag the friggin' ground.

[primalunderdog]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

 

Oh and if someone breaks into my house with me there, they are not there to steal. If it comes down to me or them, you bet your ass it will be them. [/b]

 

Yeah man you can't just not do somthing,A man(or women)has a right to protect his property and his life!The right to bear arms(if your in america)was put there for a reason.You have the right to defend your family and yourself.You can bet i am not going to let my family get hurt,the intruder is going to get shot i don't care who it is,or what he is doing.Guns are for protection not assault,people just turn it into a bad thing,those are the ones that screw it up for us.Besides even if they are outlawed people will still own one.It will just make them harder to get.

 

PS. who ever said that a 126 round clip would drag the ground you are full of....well i can't type it,maybe you haven't herd of it but they have an invention called the C-mag!It only extends maybe 4-5 inches down at the most and it holds 200 rounds.

[CapNColostomy]

Right, I know what a c mag is. I was talking about things lifted from a recent ban on assault weapon accessories. Since the C Mags were not in that ban to my knowledge, I didn't see fit to mention them. We're talking about just a regular magazine which he claims can hold 126 rounds of 7.62's. Horse-Poop.

[Darth Groovy]

I wish I could walk into a fast food joint with two holstered guns on each leg, right out in the open where everyone can see. I should be able to do this without breaking the law.

 

Everyone should have guns. There would be alot less **** talking going on. Think about it?

[Samuel Dravis]

The only problem I have with guns is that assault weapons etc. should not be allowed to civilians. There is absolutely no use for them. I wonder how many people outside of the NRA (and evildoers) will buy them...At a guess, not many at all. My parents own several guns, and I used to enjoy shooting them. ~3-4 years ago, I started liking compy games more than guns. Now, I just don't even mess with them at all, mainly because I can do a similar thing on my games, and there's no possiblility of people being hurt (and I don't have to physically reload either!).

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

I wish I could walk into a fast food joint with two holstered guns on each leg, right out in the open where everyone can see. I should be able to do this without breaking the law.

 

Everyone should have guns. There would be alot less **** talking going on. Think about it?

 

True. Infact, I watched a history channel show about guns in the 20's and 30's; it said that the main reason why people were polite was because every gentleman carried a small pocket-pistol.

[Samuel Dravis]

Originally posted by Tyrion

True. Infact, I watched a history channel show about guns in the 20's and 30's; it said that the main reason why people were polite was because every gentleman carried a small pocket-pistol.

Heh, I can see how that would discourage potential muggers. You might actually get some retaliation...

[CapNColostomy]

Originally posted by Samuel Dravis

The only problem I have with guns is that assault weapons etc. should not be allowed to civilians. There is absolutely no use for them. I wonder how many people outside of the NRA (and evildoers) will buy them...At a guess, not many at all. My parents own several guns, and I used to enjoy shooting them. ~3-4 years ago, I started liking compy games more than guns. Now, I just don't even mess with them at all, mainly because I can do a similar thing on my games, and there's no possiblility of people being hurt (and I don't have to physically reload either!).

 

No offense Sam, but just because you have no use for so called "assault weapons" doesn't mean nobody else does. And I'm not talking about criminals. Also, I'm not a member of the NRA. As stated several times by myself in the other thread, the only thing that makes an assault weapon fall into that category, is not the weapon, it's power, or rate of fire. It's the accessories placed on them. The same guns not considered "assault weapons" have always been for sale, only they weren't called assault weapons because they didn't have a colapsable stock, or a flash suppressor, or whatever else. The guns were no less lethal when they weren't called assault weapons. They fired the same rounds at the same rate as their assault weapon counterparts. I really don't see how keeping people from customizing their weapon makes it any less dangerous a gun. No colapsable stock? Hunting rifle. Colapsable stock? ASSAULT WEAPON! PREPARE FOR THE ASSAULT! It's rediculous the things our law makers come up with in this country.

[Samuel Dravis]

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

No offense Sam, but just because you have no use for so called "assault weapons" doesn't mean nobody else does. And I'm not talking about criminals. Also, I'm not a member of the NRA. As stated several times by myself in the other thread, the only thing that makes an assault weapon fall into that category, is not the weapon, it's power, or rate of fire. It's the accessories placed on them. The same guns not considered "assault weapons" have always been for sale, only they weren't called assault weapons because they didn't have a colapsable stock, or a flash suppressor, or whatever else. The guns were no less lethal when they weren't called assault weapons. They fired the same rounds at the same rate as their assault weapon counterparts. I really don't see how keeping people from customizing their weapon makes it any less dangerous a gun. No colapsable stock? Hunting rifle. Colapsable stock? ASSAULT WEAPON! PREPARE FOR THE ASSAULT! It's rediculous the things our law makers come up with in this country.

What I meant was, people shouldn't have guns that have extremely high rates of fire etc. I don't think people would use those for hunting. And entertainment value? Anyone willing to buy a 1200 dollar gun has more than enough money to buy a computer or console with the guns they want. The thing is, the only need for such weapons is to be used on humans, and I don't see Joe needing to go on a killing spree every monday.

[Rogue15]

give me guns. lots of guns. and some assault rifles and you might as well through in some m136's and frag grenades.

 

I think assault rifle is pushing it a bit, unless it's semi-automatic.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yeah defend your home with grenades

 

That would be a sight

[Rogue15]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Yeah defend your home with grenades

 

That would be a sight

 

oh...forgot....land mines. no kids will ever play in my yard. hahaha

 

and if it came down to it, yeah i'd use a grenade. lock the bastard in the house and blow it up!

[Breton]

Originally posted by Darth Groovy

I wish I could walk into a fast food joint with two holstered guns on each leg, right out in the open where everyone can see. I should be able to do this without breaking the law.

 

Everyone should have guns. There would be alot less **** talking going on. Think about it?

 

So you think we should have a society where everyone fears each other, 'cause everyone can kill others when they feel like it? And should the motivation for being polite be that your life is in danger if you aren't? I don't get it.

 

That would only make the gun culture in the States a lot worse, a gun culture that already kills thousands upon thousands of people every year. It would flood the market with guns, making them easy accessible for criminals and angry school kids.

[toms]

yeah, cos i watch westerns and the world was so much safer when everyone walked around with guns on their hips....

 

Just because everyone has weapons doesn't mean that violence will go down, or that "ordinary people" will better be able to stand up for themselves. Bullys, those with the will to use violence and tose with power will still abuse the situation, they will just do it more openly...

[Spider AL]

Criminals are far more likely to use a gun, if they suspect your carrying one

You're a bit wrong there. Most of the leading self-defence experts agree that criminals don't like to play on a level playing field.

 

If you're not armed, they bring a knife to mug you with. If they think you might have a knife, they bring a gun to mug you with.

 

If they think you have a gun, they'll go and find someone else to mug.

 

The real hazard of carrying a gun is that it's more than likely TOO CONCEALED to effectively deter predators.

 

This might therefore increase your chances of having to shoot someone. Not a desirable outcome.

[Samuel Dravis]

Originally posted by Spider AL

The real hazard of carrying a gun is that it's more than likely TOO CONCEALED to effectively deter predators.

 

This might therefore increase your chances of having to shoot someone. Not a desirable outcome.

Exactly. If they can't see it, it might as well not even be there.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by Spider AL

You're a bit wrong there. Most of the leading self-defence experts agree that criminals don't like to play on a level playing field.

 

If you're not armed, they bring a knife to mug you with. If they think you might have a knife, they bring a gun to mug you with.

 

If they think you have a gun, they'll go and find someone else to mug.

 

The real hazard of carrying a gun is that it's more than likely TOO CONCEALED to effectively deter predators.

 

This might therefore increase your chances of having to shoot someone. Not a desirable outcome.

 

Maybe you have a gun, they get an m16 with flash suppresser?

 

 

You think guns are a deterrent. I still disagree, but surely a 6 bullet handgun will deter a criminal. Do we all really need to carry ak-47's around with us?

Why are these rifles even allowed to be sold anyway? (not related to assault weapon ban)

 

 

Whether you think guns should be allowed or not, even in the situations you described, what possible good can selling grip, larger clips and flash suppressers be, other than to be used to a malicious extent?

What can a regular person do with an m16 with flash suppresser and larger clip than he can't do with a regular m16?

 

 

In other words, the only reasons provided for people to have gunsare: in sport and as a deterrent.

Now I think we established we can deter people with a handgun rather than a sub machine gun.

And has wildlife really become that viscous that we need to riddle animals with bullets just to be safe? I know there's a few mean ass pigeons out there, but come on....

 

 

And what's this 'criminals go one better'. Are we about to start licensing flash bangs, smoke grenades and RPG's next? There has to be a line somewhere.

[Spider AL]

iamtrip:

Maybe you have a gun, they get an m16 with flash suppresser?

Impractical and not cost-effective for the average mugger.

 

You think guns are a deterrent. I still disagree, but surely a 6 bullet handgun will deter a criminal. Do we all really need to carry ak-47's around with us?

No, we don't need to carry Kalashnikovs around with us on the merry old streets of the west. We agree there, much as it pains me to agree with someone of your ilk on any issue.

 

Not the point I was commenting on, however, was it? Just the point I quoted.

 

jon_hill987:

There are scientific studies to back this up, though i don't have any to hand,

You don't have any evidence for that odd claim, in other words.

 

the hounds don't touture the fox, a fox hound is about 5 times the size of a fox and they are trained to kill the fox quickly by biting the neck, though I admit there will be some cases where the fox takes some time to die.

Five times the size? That WOULD be large.

 

Anyway, you admit that there are foxes hunted with dogs that take some time to finally croak. That's sufficient to prove my point. It's inhumane.

 

Personly I don't like fox hunting and wouldn't do it myself, I was mearly saying that if someone wants to do something that dosn't harm anyone its up to them.

So you're saying that torturing stray cats is okay?

 

I do go fishing, I don't wan't that banned, now fox hunting is going to be banned what are the legue against cruel sports going to do now?

Fishing... that's another debate. But if your entire argument is based around the fact that you fear that a ban on fox hunting, which you yourself prove is inhumane, will lead to bans on other sports, you're missing the moral point behind it.

 

No sport is worth giving such suffering to creatures and cost to landowners as fox hunting does.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Spider AL

If they think you have a gun, they'll go and find someone else to mug.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. But since having a gun obviously increases you to be shot in a mugging, will you take that risk?

 

When getting mugged, why not just give the mugger what he wants, and then afterwards report it to the police? You won't lose anything, the police will hopefully get the mugger, and no one will get shot.

 

Besides, even if they would just find another person to mug, what is gained? You think it's all right as long as some other poor bastard gets mugged and not you? Maybe you think "if everyone had guns, the criminals wouldn't mug anyone". Well, think again. The criminals need money, and will try to get it somehow.

 

Keeping a gun for safety is very much hypocritical, because having a gun makes you and others anything but safe. Did you know that guns kept in house for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self defense? Well, now you know.

 

America has the most excessive gun culture in the western world. They also have the most gun homicides per capita. Go figure.

[iamtrip]

Originally posted by Spider AL

No, we don't need to carry Kalashnikovs around with us on the merry old streets of the west. We agree there.

 

Congrats on making an intelligent comment . You'll get there eventually, I know you will.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

Anyway, you admit that there are foxes hunted with dogs that take some time to finally croak. That's sufficient to prove my point.

 

 

Pest control (...pest control doesn't have to be efficient). The alternative is they nibble some poison, fall ill and die a few days later. This happens in most cases. Thats humane too?

If foxes weren't pests, there would be a reason to ban their hunting. As they are pests, whats the problem with hunting them? Both ways of death are equally painful, but maintining hunts grants entertainment to the riders, aids the local economy and maintains thousands of years of History.

 

 

Originally posted by Spider AL

It's inhumane.

 

And overfeeding chickens in a 2 foot *3 foot cage at 30 C, so we can slaughter them is ok?

The number of chickens slain numbers hundreds of thousands per year. The number of foxes killed numbered just 45 (in Europe).

 

Before you say it, we don't need to eat chicken. Yet we do. We could give them the occasional jog around the farm for an hour a day and call the free range too.

Yet people don't want to suffer the effects of high prices and reduced availability.

 

 

 

However, many people don't know about such issues, despite their much greater impact on society and animals.

Fox hunting is a just a meaningless 'scapegoat issue'. An issue to unite a nation and a party, deeply divided.

[jon_hill987]

Ok, Scientific research:

 

"Whatever one's opinion may be of 'blood sports', it cannot be denied that if it were not for the interest in fox-hunting in Britain, the red fox may well have been persecuted into extinction by now, going the same way as the wolf did in the 18th Century."

 

From: http://www.yptenc.org.uk/docs/factsheets/env_facts/world_con_probs.html

 

I'm sure I could find some more but most people on the internet seem to have a rather biased veiw on the subject.

 

Anyway the whole fox hunting thing is somewhat off toppic isn't it, I only used it to show why freedomes should not be taken away from people. I don't fox hunt as I said, and I rarely use guns (and then only for clay (Skeet in america I think) or target shooting) I do however beleive I should have the right to if I wan't.