HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama: Gun-control advoca...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:14 AM

 

Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more

Source: SFGate

President Barack Obama says gun-control advocates have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes in the debate over firearms in America.

In an interview with The New Republic, Obama says he has "a profound respect" for the tradition of hunting that dates back for generations.
"And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/Obama-Gun-control-advocates-have-to-listen-more-4226717.php



Three dimensional chess.

107 replies, 10767 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 107 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more (Original post)
Paul E Ester Jan 2013 OP
alittlelark Jan 2013 #1
napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #2
obama2terms Jan 2013 #15
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #16
obama2terms Jan 2013 #48
napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #78
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2013 #19
Squinch Jan 2013 #51
Purveyor Jan 2013 #3
Why Syzygy Jan 2013 #5
DRoseDARs Jan 2013 #4
hack89 Jan 2013 #17
Squinch Jan 2013 #52
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #6
tavalon Jan 2013 #12
Paladin Jan 2013 #20
tavalon Jan 2013 #23
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #28
tavalon Jan 2013 #29
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #32
tavalon Jan 2013 #36
Paladin Jan 2013 #31
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #34
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #35
Ter Jan 2013 #47
Paladin Jan 2013 #49
Squinch Jan 2013 #54
Ter Jan 2013 #70
mac56 Jan 2013 #73
Squinch Jan 2013 #85
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jan 2013 #71
oldbanjo Jan 2013 #61
BainsBane Jan 2013 #81
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #94
SheilaT Jan 2013 #7
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #21
onpatrol98 Jan 2013 #37
SheilaT Jan 2013 #72
onpatrol98 Jan 2013 #77
MJJP21 Jan 2013 #8
safeinOhio Jan 2013 #10
Kablooie Jan 2013 #9
tavalon Jan 2013 #11
truth2power Jan 2013 #39
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #42
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #56
oldbanjo Jan 2013 #65
oldbanjo Jan 2013 #63
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #13
tavalon Jan 2013 #24
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #44
tavalon Jan 2013 #57
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #62
spin Jan 2013 #79
onehandle Jan 2013 #14
hack89 Jan 2013 #18
tavalon Jan 2013 #26
hack89 Jan 2013 #45
cstanleytech Jan 2013 #64
askeptic Jan 2013 #25
tavalon Jan 2013 #27
askeptic Jan 2013 #38
tavalon Jan 2013 #60
truth2power Jan 2013 #40
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #30
krispos42 Jan 2013 #53
Dustlawyer Jan 2013 #22
onpatrol98 Jan 2013 #41
klyon Jan 2013 #33
Lurks Often Jan 2013 #43
underpants Jan 2013 #46
jbone45 Jan 2013 #50
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #58
bluestateguy Jan 2013 #55
JoeyT Jan 2013 #59
Brigid Jan 2013 #66
forestpath Jan 2013 #67
Hoyt Jan 2013 #68
spin Jan 2013 #80
Hoyt Jan 2013 #84
spin Jan 2013 #89
dickthegrouch Jan 2013 #69
Brigid Jan 2013 #74
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #75
primavera Jan 2013 #76
JVS Jan 2013 #82
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #83
primavera Jan 2013 #86
Socal31 Jan 2013 #88
primavera Jan 2013 #90
Socal31 Jan 2013 #91
primavera Jan 2013 #93
Crepuscular Jan 2013 #99
primavera Jan 2013 #102
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #104
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #92
primavera Jan 2013 #95
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #96
primavera Jan 2013 #98
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #103
primavera Jan 2013 #105
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #106
MicaelS Jan 2013 #100
primavera Jan 2013 #101
4Q2u2 Jan 2013 #87
Bonobo Jan 2013 #97
lexis Feb 2013 #107

Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:21 AM

1. He's playing to their racism....

....nice. I'd like to hear their arguments,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:27 AM

2. Obama's cool.

He gets cast as this urban president, but really I think he understands the rural situation, particularly the struggles of poor rural folks who put some game on the table because they have a tough time buying grocery store food.

The movie Winter's Bone

did a great job of portraying the kind of scenes in modern America where folks are dealing with poverty and sometimes guns equal food, and are part of daily life. I know we have a president who takes the whole American scene in and cares about people in these situations too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:29 AM

15. Omg

I'm reading this book right now and it's great I can't believe it's going to be a movie thnx for posting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obama2terms (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:31 AM

16. It's already a movie - came out in 2010. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:43 PM

48. Lol

Yeah haha I realized that when I googled it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obama2terms (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:02 AM

78. Yeah, definitely see it.

I didn't read the book, but I loved the movie. They did a really good job of portraying white rural poverty - nobody was "trash" - all were real multi-dimensional people. Very compassionate well done film making.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:39 AM

19. Do they hunt with $1500 AR15s in this movie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:17 PM

51. Yes. Because it takes about a dozen bunnies to make a decent stew.

(and yes, of course that's sarcasm.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:33 AM

3. "Hunting" wasn't even a consideration when the founding fathers installed the 2A. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:05 AM

5. Horses and bayonets



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:52 AM

4. Listen more? To what, more screaming and wailing about how teh gubbint gunna tack r gurhns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:35 AM

17. You would have thought by now that everyone would have figured

that there will no gun confiscation. The types of weapons Americans have now are the same weapons they will have in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DRoseDARs (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:19 PM

52. It would be easier for us to hear them talk about how we are going to

"grab their guns" if they would all just proceed peacefully to the FEMA camps and talk one at a time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:16 AM

6. I totally agree with Obama.

I have lived in an area in which hunting was a great sport. I love eating venison when it is well cooked.

But I now live in a city. Just tonight, we heard gun shots. And there have been killings in our area, just a couple of blocks from where we live a couple of times this year. Kind of changes your perspective. Killing a surplus of deer in the country is very different from knowing that a neighbor was possibly shot while you sat in your living room a couple of blocks away.

It's so important for gun enthusiasts to understand the reality of city life, but also for city dwellers to understand what it is like to have deer feast on your crops or eat up your garden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:28 AM

12. I've had venison and liked it

I've never had venison that was killed with a semi automatic with 30 rounds. I suspect no one has because the deer wouldn't be anything but a splatter. Much like the children in the Newtown massacre. Associating people's fascination with weapons of war with legitimate hunting is a bizarre strawman.

Just using your post as a jumping off point. I've lived in both places and I don't advocate a no hunting stance. Without hunting season, deer populations would explode followed by their starvation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:45 AM

20. Isn't It Funny: Watching The Gun Rights People Embrace Hunting.


After years and years of ignoring it, or even insulting those who enjoy it ("Fudds").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:58 AM

23. Truth be told, I had never heard that

and have spent years working myself up to the idea of going hunting myself. I admire the self reliance of those who hunt. I'm not real sure I actually would have it in me. I know I don't have it in me to go on a shooting rampage, hunting children. I don't have it in me to even understand that, in any way, shape or form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:29 AM

28. you do realize

A semi-automatic only fires one round at a time right? And both of these rifles are functionally identical?

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-15/model-r-15.aspx

http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

I know you are smart enough to know fully automatic firing and semi-automatic firing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:35 AM

29. You got me, actually, I didn't and don't know my subject well enough

Would that I lived in a world where I didn't have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:43 AM

32. thank you for not calling me names

It does seem to be a very common mistake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:56 AM

36. I've said numerous times in this thread that I'm not against hunting

I admire hunters. I don't admire people who massacre humans. Who could?

And yeah, if I'm going to argue with any authority, I'm going to need to learn more about the types of guns. I don't think I'm alone in not knowing the different kinds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:42 AM

31. What About The 30-Round Magazine, Mr. Duckhunter?


I know you're smart enough to know that your not mentioning magazine capacity would be noticed. If you really do hunt ducks, your shotgun has a limited firing capacity, by law. How about limiting the size of magazines, as far as human targets are concerned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:46 AM

34. I have no problems

with magazine limits. Larger magazines tend to jam anyway. My limit would be 20 and what could fit in the pistol grip. I could live with less, just do not think it will do a lot in a rifle. Handguns are the biggest problem.

Do not hunt human targets, I hunt paper target and cans at a range on post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:47 AM

35. "DUCKHUNTER"

is from spending 20 years in army air defense. ADA nickname.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:35 PM

47. Would you like Tic-Tac's or Lifesavers that only hold 5 candies?

 

That's an inconvenience. 30 round clips make it easier by not having to reload frequently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:50 PM

49. Yeah, Because Gun Magazines And Hard Candy Are Pretty Much The Same.


If that's a serious response from you, I don't believe you have sense enough to be trusted with firearms. Beyond pathetic, all the way into the realm of genuinely dangerous thinking. I'll be interested to see how many of our resident Gun Enthusiasts side with you on such an asinine comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:29 PM

54. Gosh. We didn't realize. And of course, what's most important to the rest of us is

your convenience as you pursue your hobbies.

That's much more important than public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:50 PM

70. Who said anything about me?

 

I live in an abusive city that already restricts my rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:48 PM

73. Move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ter (Reply #70)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:47 AM

85. You live in an abusive city......mmmmkay....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:44 PM

71. How about a semi-automatic with a legally modified stock?

http://tinyurl.com/b33bo2l

Take that, Bambi!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

61. I've hunted with an Browning auto rifle and shotgun sense 1969,

I only fire one shot normally. Because you have many shells doesn't mean that you have to fire all of them at one deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:34 AM

81. I wish I only heard gun shots a couple of times a year

It's a lot more often than that in my neighborhood. And nope, they aren't shooting deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:09 PM

94. It's actually more than a couple of times a year here too. And, it isn't deer.

We heard some just the other night.

City life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:14 AM

7. Oh, I don't know.

The gun apologists have had the stage since the beginning. Maybe those of us who are totally against guns should have our say.

The rest of the world gets by quite fine without their citizenry being armed to the hilt. And, amazingly enough, regimes have been overthrown even without a 2nd amendment to arm the civilians.

I tell ya what. Let's let the gun apologists, each and every one, lose a child or mother or sibling to gun violence. Then let them come back and say, it's okay for everyone to be armed. And if they do, I'll make sure they get to clean up the mess, and then ask them again. Shall we arm everyone? And if they still say yes, I'll suggest that they need professional help for their addiction to guns.

No guns. Period. Other countries manage without them. We can also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:48 AM

21. I think your post shows what the President means. We are probably in near agreement on the issue.

But I would never endorse such rhetoric as you use here: " Let's let the gun apologists, each and every one, lose a child or mother or sibling to gun violence."
What do the words 'let's let them lose a child' actually mean?
There is no issue on Earth that gives one side the license to say 'let their kids die, then they might understand'. None. Sorry if that bothers you, but I think that is what the President means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:57 AM

37. Lose a child???

Have you lost your friggin mind? Let's let them lose a child??? That's your bright idea for talking to people. I bet that's what the crazy killer of children thought in Newtown. I'll show them. Your comment makes me want to throw up. I don't want anyone to ever as long as they live have to suffer the death of a child for any purpose. I find the person that does a sick and twisted individual. And, then after suggesting, that YOU would suggest they seek professional help.

We are conflating totally different things. The constitution gives a right to bear arms. If after the loss of a loved one, they were to still come back and say, we have the right to bear arms. They wouldn't be crazy. They would be stating the obvious.

I do not believe people need to own guns apart from hunting and self defense. I think more than one is too many. I think they give people a false sense of security and would love to see a gun free society...criminals included. But, the founding fathers neglected to add a caveat that said...if onpatrol approves.

So, I try to think gun safety, laws that really will save our children instead of political theater. But no matter the issue, no matter the point, I don't want a parent to have to bury a child. That was supposed to be the damn point in the first place.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:27 PM

72. I am trying to make the point that the deaths of innocents

seem to mean absolutely NOTHING to the gun apologists. Twenty kids dead in Connecticut? Ho Hum. Let's arm the teachers.

Three children and their parents slain in Albuquerque? Doesn't matter.

Every single day of the year about thirty people die in this country from guns. I just wish that every single day every newspaper and news outlet in this country would post the names and photographs of those killed in the past week or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SheilaT (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:35 PM

77. True...

I have thought this for the nameless children in urban cities that have been dying daily for the last 10 years and more.

These children are worth real reform. I honestly don't know what works. When I realized that people were making bombs out of fertilizer, I wondered just how sad and desperate people were to kill each other.

It's just sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:49 AM

8. Big Mistake

Obama is making a big mistake if he is going to link the gun issue with hunting. The real issue is the second amendment which came about to ensure the nation had a way to mount a defense if needed. The new nation did not have the resources to maintain a standing army like Europe so the common man being a member of a " well regulated militia" and his own gun would fit that bill. The fact that the local militia no longer exists mean the first part of the amendment is no longer valid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MJJP21 (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:32 AM

10. Even in urban areas, a gun in the home

for protection can make sense. I think he is correct in pointing out the regional difference in views on guns.

Reasonable restrictions on where guns are allowed, the types allowed and on the sale seem reasonable to the majority of folks. The problem is when extremist on both sides collide and muddy up the water.

As for the 2nd, it never mentions guns. This is one case where state laws make the most sense. The problem is about when those weapons in liberal gun states cross state lines. Until the gun states find a way to keep their guns out of the more urban states, it will require federal laws to do that.

I've spent about half of my long years in urban areas and the other half in rural areas. I can see the arguments on both sides. When I lived in the country, the gun shots started at sun up on a day in November and ended at sunset. In the city the shots started at sundown every night.

Looks like the President is smart enough to recognize these difference and is headed on the right track by stating this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:20 AM

11. I don't dismiss hunting

I think it's a good skill to have but it's also a skill that only requires a single shot rifle. Unless your prey is Kindergartners and then I guess you just need a semi automatic with huge numbers of rounds.

See, Mr. President, I am completely reasonable. Now, reign in the semi automatics and the large clips. Anybody who pretends they have those for any other prey than people is full of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:08 AM

39. You're correct, tavalon..The crux of the problem is the large clips and

the semi-automatics. Large clips, especially, should be outlawed.

The NRA is doing a very good job of diverting attention away from guns and onto things that are tangentially related, if at all. A mental health data base, for example, is a very bad idea.

Anyone who goes to a mental health practicioner has to have some sort of diagnosis or insurance will not reimburse. It could be something as benign as "adjustment disorder", but all these people would be folded into a gigantic database and stigmatized as mentally ill.

In any case, this wouldn't have made any difference in the Sandy Hook case because the shooter did not purchase the weapons and any mental health contact he may have had would be a moot point.

I think Pres. Obama is wrong on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:42 AM

42. This is where you are wrong

You think that the semi-automatic rifle made a difference. It could have been done with any pump shotgun or double action revolver. I know hundreds of shooters, that while they find the very though abhorrent, have the skills to have done that. There are MILLIONS of shooters in this country with those skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:31 PM

56. that is such a poorly constructed thought you should be embarrassed for putting it in public

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd. He reportedly used a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine. A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots". Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who had been shot himself, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman.

wiki it.

i can only guess that the size of your own gun wold cause you to not care about what a psychotic attacker is using for a weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:53 PM

65. You are correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:51 PM

63. I have hunted with Browning auto rifles sense 1969.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:51 AM

13. President Obama is correct

 

Some anti-gun folks really should take a step back, lose the emotion, and make a concerted effort to listen to the thoughts and concerns of the people on the other side of the debate.

And I would advise this regardless of what Obama might say.

You are not going to get the meanigful weapons restrictions you want until you can convince gun owners to voluntarily relax their death grip on their weapons. And that will only happen when their concerns are addressed. This is not a left versus right issue, it's not conservatives versus liberals, it's gun rights versus gun restrictions. And right now we are surrendering many of these voters to the GOP by default.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:13 AM

24. I don't think losing the emotion is the way to go, actually

Yeah, I see how that alienates some, but without the emotion around Newtown, we wouldn't be on the verge of passing any kind of sane gun laws. Remember the last time we had any kind of sense around guns was after President Raygun got shot and the bill was named after his Communication Director, who was also shot and paralyzed? We all know his name, to this day.

It's sad that we need that emotion to galvanize us, but there it is. We fight because we are enraged that children are dying so that gun nuts don't have to give up their precious and many guns. We fight because we've found the will to care and the voice to go with it.

No one and I do mean no one, should have the right to have semi automatic (or worse, automatic) weapons. Period. Yes, I'm including the military in that. If we aren't willing to stand face to face with a man we are going to kill then we shouldn't kill him. Yeah, I know the others aren't following that. So what.

What kind of NRA fueled crap have we been fed that I'm extreme for saying that guns that are only meant for murdering people en masse, shouldn't be allowed in any household?

I'm with the blessed and very missed, Molly Ivins on this one. I'm pro-knife.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930315&slug=1690536

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:49 AM

44. Nice post! (text below)

 

Great post. You talk about keeping the emotions then discard them to pen a thoughful reasoned argument and a proposal that would actually accomplish what you want. Anyway...

You (or I) might want to ban all semi-automatic weapons, but this is not going to happen. It cannot pass the House, it cannot pass the Senate, President Obama would not sign it, and the USSC would strike it down. And even if we could magically change all of that, it would result in violence on an unimaginable scale. If only 1% of the current NRA membership (never mind gun owners at large) became potentially violent or otherwise refused to comply, we are talking about 400,000 armed and potentially violent militants -- all CONVINCED that they are the good guys, that they are righteous freedom loving Patriots willing to lay down their lives for you and your children.

Crazy or not it irrelevant, this is what they believe. And the real number isn't 400,000 -- it's MILLIONS.

Efforts to make them change their mind through name-calling and villification cannot work, nor will gun bans. Both simply validate their beliefs. They fear people are coming for their weapons, and look at that, they're right! And further, they are also correct about the secind amendment, the founding fathers did include that as a defense against a tyrannical government (among other things). How relevant that is today is another topic entirely.

We can only win by understanding what they believe, accepting the reality of their concerns and opinions, and by working with them to accomplish meaningful reform that addresses their concerns. We must make them part of the solution or they will become the problem.
How is a another question.

Final note: You said you are PRO-KNIFE

Are you aware that many places have fanatical laws against knives and other non-firearm self defense tools? I currently live in Texas, where you would think carrying a freaking Claymore would be totally cool, and even here knives are strictly controlled. As is, amazingly, pepper spray. I looked into this last year and I was astonished. If I want a weapon I can carry basically anywhere, including almost any state, the only choice I have is a gun. Even pepper spray is not necessarily legal, and a canister that was fine in this town is a felony the next city over. It's ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:33 PM

57. It was a stab at a joke that Molly Ivins first said in her amazing way

She's pro knife because then the killing is intentional and bystanders rarely get hurt. As well, it's pro physical fitness since you have to run your victim down before stabbing them - cardiovascular health, right? I'm paraphrasing her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:47 PM

62. Gotcha. I learn something new every day :)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:19 AM

79. My Florida concealed weapons permit allows me to carry a concealed knife...

in Florida. That seems to be only commonsense to me but in most states a carry permit only applies to a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:18 AM

14. Swell. Now get rid of assault weapons, assault clips, and 'semi-automatic' functionality...

...that basically makes it a machine gun.

Nothing to do with hunting, unless you're talking about Kindergartners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:37 AM

18. What does " get rid of" mean to you?

ban further sales? Does it apply to handguns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:20 AM

26. I know you didn't address that to me, but I'm going to answer it anyway

"Get rid of" to me means remove them from society. Melt them down. Tie the possession of them to the highest penalties possible (no, not death, but extreme. Not just a slap on the wrist).

Sadly, I know this won't happen. I get the politics and the extreme obscenity that is the NRA lobby, so I'll scale it back a bit. Get rid of the larger magazines for now. When the next atrocity that inflames our nation happens, take away new sales of semi automatics. When the next tragedy unfolds, offer amnesty for people to turn in their semi-automatics and then make possession illegal. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Ad Fucking Nauseum.

Does that help clarify things?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:55 AM

45. Ok

don't see any of that happening but you are honest as to your intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:52 PM

64. The politics of it is a minor issue the major issue thats standing in the way is

the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:14 AM

25. Obama talking to you - old west revolvers and other "semi-auto" guns here to stay

You are delusional if you think otherwise

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:22 AM

27. Call me delusional

I hope We the enraged people, have enough moxy to say, No More!

On edit: Obama wasn't talking to anyone, really. He was giving gun nuts a reach around

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:59 AM

38. Then no need to look up what the word "infringe" means

...as you don't really care. Bill of Rights doesn't really care what you think, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

60. About a well armed militia?

Sure, but they couldn't have imagined that we would have a well organized and well armed militia already in place now. There is no need for the guy down the street to sign up for a state militia unless red dawn really comes to pass or our government suddenly finds they need JQ NRA card carrying gun nut to somehow organized with a bunch of other fetishists to what end I cannot imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:11 AM

40. "giving gun nuts a reach around". Yes he was. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:37 AM

30. hunting rifle, get rid of this



even though there is nothing that covers hunting in second amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:27 PM

53. If you get rid of semi-automatics...

...you by extension get rid of all "assault weapons", because one of the defining characteristics of an "assault weapon" is that it is semi-automatic in nature.


Unless you're planning on expanding the definition of "assault weapon" (again) to include guns that are not semi-automatic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:55 AM

22. My father was born in Pistol Hill, Tx., which is no longer there. During the Great Depression,

he and my Uncle had to hunt for food. My father took me hunting only once, and it was b/c it was with my Grandfather. We hunted squirrels with 22's. Back at the truck, my cousin and I were trying to shoot down a pine cone from a far, tall tree with no luck (seemingly impossible shot). My dad took my 22 which had been his as a boy, aimed, and shot the stem that connected the cone to the tree so it dropped straight down. He said that you had to get real good b/c bullets costs money. They were not allowed to miss! Only later in life did I start to realize why it was no fun for him. I guess that is why my dad loved to go fishing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:27 AM

41. In a past life...

I have lived in a household that was supplemented by hunting and fishing. I'm not a hunter though. But one good sized deer a year and a whole lot of fishing went a long way. I don't know any one who hunts or fishes for sport, but I realize people do. Add what you catch or kill to what you grow and you never needed to ask another person for help. You could actually offer help. My grandparents also killed rabbits or squirrels, raised chickens, cows, pigs...some to sell, some to keep. They had a big family, lots of grand kids. It was also helpful for keeping animals away from the chickens.

A gun was a tool. It was a survival tool. They didn't have one "for" self defense. But, I have no doubt my grandfather would have used it for that purpose.

I don't live there anymore. But people still do. And, they're still living the way I used to have to live. Some by choice. Some out of need.

I feel no need for a gun for me as I live my life today. But I realize not everyone lives the same life.

The predators we worried about were either small and four legged or snakes. It didn't take much to put them down. Now, for folks that live near bears and such, they may require more firepower and more opportunities for success unless they're Daniel Boone. I don't know. We need to talk to each other.

I don't think "real" gun control is going to happen until we can talk to people without the the condescending, smugness that poisons and paralyzes the debate. We'll just pass a bunch of stuff that'll make us think we've won one over the opposition. All that gun nut talk is divisive and juvenile, and usually incorrect. Stoking divisiveness may win elections, but it's no way to run a country or solve tough problems.

We won't fix this problem unless we come together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:45 AM

33. they need to realize that rural life and city life have different needs and expectations

guns in the urban areas are more of a problem than a solution

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to klyon (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:46 AM

43. ILLEGAL guns in the urban areas are the problem

and the use of a gun to commit a crime should result in the criminal going to jail for a long time.

We have plenty of laws on the books, they just aren't enforced.

Straw buying, the purchase of a gun for some else is supposed to be a 10 year sentence in a Federal jail. Why isn't that enforced?

Why doesn't ATF investigate and prosecute those people who fail a NICS check because they have a criminal record?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:59 AM

46. Obama is falling prey to the pro-gun's rhetoric - it is not all or nothing

it isn't a choice of having guns everywhere or confiscating ALL guns.

We simply want simple common sense speed bumps that WILL have an effect. Oh and we DO want a tracking database -that we need to ....ahem....stick to our guns on.

Good read here

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/the-simple-truth-about-gun-control.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:13 PM

50. While I support the president...

 

in the fight against domestic terrorism I don't think that Ted Nugent offers any reasonable insite into the terror shooter problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jbone45 (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:36 PM

58. good point. same here...

as far as ted stoogent goes, you can't polish a turd, and there's no reason to leave it floating around.

flush that crap and turn on the exhaust fan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:31 PM

55. Obama is right. Ignore what he says at your peril.

The large majority of people who own guns are not rednecks, racists, hayseeds and psychotics.

If the debate is framed that way it will not end well for our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:37 PM

59. Good luck with that.

While the "No regulation at any cost!" side has very little to offer, some won't even listen to other gun control advocates. It promises to be interesting in a not-very-interesting-at-all-can-we-please-get-some-regulation-that-we-probably-won't-get kind of way.

Sensible regulation like a minimum prison sentence for twenty-five syllable hyphenated words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:10 PM

66. I, for one . . .

Have been listening to gun nut rhetoric for as long as I can remember. I have no idea why some people, like my brother and my brother-in-law, are capable of owning and using hunting rifles without becoming like Gollum obsessed with his "precious," while others are not; and I no longer care. All I do know is, military-grade assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and clips have no business in civilian hands. And I'm sick and tired of waiting for the next gun-related tragedy to hit the news. Let's start enforcing the laws that are already on the books, and pass new ones as needed. Let the gun nuts howl all they want; we need to stop the carnage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:17 PM

67. President Obama never misses a chance to scold his base.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:25 PM

68. Problem is, a lot of hunters won't go to the big city without a gun in their car, and

Many tuck one or two away when walking in public. That junk needs to stop. Ask hunters if they only have a few for hunting. You'll find most are armed everywhere. Many have quite a weapons cache, with mostly guns designed (and acquired) for killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:26 AM

80. The criminal element in the big cities totally agrees with you. ...

No honest citizen should be allowed to carry a gun in public as it makes for a dangerous workplace environment for street thugs, rapists, store robbers and carjackers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #80)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:39 AM

84. Your paranoia is noted. I know thy gun comforts you, but ever really needed a gun in the city?


Or do you just just enjoy subjecting the 93+% who don't tote to your need for lethal weapon support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:50 PM

89. No. I have never had to use my firearm for self defense but ...

I have never had a house fire, yet I have fire alarms and extinguishers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:45 PM

69. So write different laws for the urban environment

Seems perfectly simple to me.
Carry a hunting rifle or automatic weapon without a valid license/registration/permit/uniform inside the city limits with ammo and go to jail.
This bs about protecting one's family is pure fantasy. If the gun and its ammo are properly stored away from the kids, there is just about zero chance of using it to protect anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dickthegrouch (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:55 PM

74. And proper storage is key.

My brother-in-law, for example, has a six-year-old (my nephew) in the house. So of course his hunting rifle must be kept locked up--useless, like you said, if someone should break in. But the risk of his son getting hold of it is far greater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:51 PM

75. bwhahahaha

losers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:59 PM

76. Anyone know anything about the frequency of hunting accidents?

I was out at a very, very rural retreat not long ago and was warned by the hosts that one needed to be cautious about going down by the river because there were a lot of hunters around and, if one wasn't careful, one might get shot. Is the state of hunting such that I am legitimately at risk if I take a stroll through a forest without wearing optic orange? Or is that just paranoia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:41 AM

82. Is Dick Cheney there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:35 AM

83. Better safe than sorry.

Total gun deaths by accidents per year is around 700. Assuming 2-3 hunting death accidents per state per year would probably average around 250 deadly accidents per year.

Some hunters tend to shoot at things before they have fully identified their target. As a former hunter, I would not go into the woods during deer or bear seasons unless I was wearing orange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 10:01 AM

86. Sigh

So my right to enjoy the forest without getting shot is yet another thing trumped by the present understanding of the 2nd amendment. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #86)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 01:45 PM

88. You can enjoy the forest all you want, but doing it irresponsibly carries with it risk.

As does walking down the street at night, or riding a bicycle near the road with no lights or orange vest.

Anyone entering nature should be fully educated on the subject environment. Wearing earth-tones in a popular legal hunting area during deer season and wandering around at 6:00am is a bad idea.

Going near certain streams during a salmon run can also be a bad idea, due to a different type of "hunter."

You always have to know your area, if you are a hunter or a hiker.

I am for increasing penalties substantially for irresponsible hunters or poachers who are caught on land that is either marked as a no-hunting area, or hunting out of season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:23 PM

90. And whom do I thank for that added risk?

If I can't walk down a street at night without fearing for my life, the persons I have to thank for adding that unwelcome risk to my life are criminals, whose conduct we generally consider to be unacceptable, precisely because it threatens the well being of others. If I wish to go birdwatching (for which activity early in the morning is the most productive time of day) in a forest and have to worry about getting shot, it's not the birds I have to worry about, is it? Were hunters not out there blasting everything in sight, I wouldn't have to modify my behavior in order to accommodate the hazard posed by their behavior. It's understood, though, in this country, that my liberty to go birdwatching or hiking without fear of being shot is less valuable than the liberty of hunters to kill things. I can't help but wonder: what makes their liberty more important than mine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:08 PM

91. Saying hunters "blast everything in sight"...

....would be like claiming motorists are trying to hit every cyclist without proper lights and reflective gear in sight.

Every person driving adds to the risk. And every driver who hits a pedestrian or cyclist due to being irresponsible displays unacceptable conduct.

If you knowingly enter an active hunting territory without taking proper precautions, you are playing with your own life, just as if you decide to go on a bike ride next to a road with no lights and reflective gear.

The level of risk rests with the individual. The great part is, there are acres upon acres upon acres where you can birdwatch or bike ride with the only likely causes of death being wild animals, injury, the elements, intentional murder, or your ticker giving out on you.


We all modify our behavior to accommodate the behavior of others, both legal and illegal. Hunting and driving are legal when done in the regulated times/places, and it is wise to make your presence known to others in places where driving or hunting is going on. Burglary and theft are illegal, and it is wise to lock your doors at night.

I am sure you understand all of this, but you refuse to accept it, and you revealed why:

"....my liberty to go birdwatching or hiking without fear of being shot is less valuable than the liberty of hunters to kill things"

If you just don't like hunting in general because animals are being killed, that is a completely valid yet different subject. Pretending that bird-watching is an extreme sport is not the way to discuss animal rights, at least in my opinion. Although I can understand the desire to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:54 PM

93. It's a little different

I disagree that the "level of risk rests with the individual." The individual has the ability to mitigate risk by modifying their behavior in such a way as to reduce their risk of coming to harm in an environment for which others bear the responsibility of creating the hazard. If there were no muggers, I wouldn't need to take precautions when walking down the street at night; if there were no cars, I would not need to wear brightly colored clothes and lights in order to go cycling at night; and, if there were no hunters, I would not have to wear neon clothing in order to avoid being shot while out minding my own business in a public forest.

As you say, we all make adjustments to our behavior to adapt to the reality of the environment in which we live. But there's still a cost-benefit analysis to be performed with every such decision. I could give my toddler a vial of Hanta virus to play with and ask everyone else in my community to take precautions against accidentally being infected. But that would be insane. Because there's no benefit to giving my child a vial of Hanta virus to play with when a rattle would be a more gratifying toy anyway and the potential risk of causing harm to others is sky-high. We perform the same analysis with automobiles. There is undeniably a risk associated with automobiles. However, our entire economy and way of living would collapse without automobiles, so the benefit from automobiles outweighs the risks associated with them. Even so, we continue to have an obligation to be continuously making vehicles as safe as we possibly can, so as to make that cost-benefit ratio as advantageous as possible. If someone was indifferent to that duty and felt it was just fine to operate an unsafe vehicle, that person would appropriately be considered a selfish asshole, right?

So, if one applies the same sort of reasoning to hunting, how do the benefits and costs stack up? I'm not sure what benefits it offers, but I do perceive that there is some cost to myself and others who might like to enjoy wild areas without being shot. And, to some extent, you're right that I'm a treehugger at heart and I'm not a great fan of going into an unspoiled wilderness and killing things in it. I mean, that is the purpose of hunting, right? You don't go into the wilderness with a gun looking for animals for the purpose of wishing them a nice day, do you? Many species have been hunted by humans to the brink of extinction or beyond. Even if you don't hit anything, studies show that there is a growing problem in frequently hunted areas with animals contracting lead poisoning from eating lead shot and/or lead that has percolated down into the water table. Yeah, I know, I'm one of those obnoxious ecoterrorist types who thinks that animals have a moral right to live and that biodiversity is a thing to be valued. But, from my point of view, disruption to and destruction of wildlife fall into the "cost" column. Now I can't enter into that environment without adjusting my behavior to accommodate the rules that hunters necessitate to avoid being shot. Another tally stroke in the "cost" column. Is there some indispensable benefit on the other side, that can't be accomplished through other lest costly means, to outweigh these costs? If the "benefit" is the adrenaline rush of seeing another living creature's head explode, that doesn't seem like all that great a benefit when weighed against the costs. So the question as far as I'm concerned is not so much whether I like hunting (fine, you got me, I don't care for it, but that's actually beside the point), but whether it generates enough positives to outweigh its negatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #93)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:17 PM

99. Cost / benefit

There are substantial benefits accruing as the result of hunting, since you are apparently ignorant of what they are, let me share some of them with you. First, let me comment regarding your statement that many species have been hunted to the brink of extinction by humans. Instances of that occurring took place long ago and were the result of commercial or market based hunting, where animals were killed for food or hides or feathers, which were then sold in commercial markets. With very few exceptions, market hunting of game animals was banned in the early part of the 20th century. Around the same time, most states adopted what is know as scientific or modern game management practices, which allow hunting for recreational purposes but which preclude the sale of any animals harvested.

Modern game management has been on of the greatest success stories in natural resources management that this country has ever seen. It's been responsible for bringing many of those populations of game animals back from the brink of extinction that was caused by market hunting, the result being the healthy and viable populations of a wide range of animals that we enjoy today. Another huge benefit resulting from hunting managed under modern game management practices has been the billions of dollars which has been generated specifically by a tax on firearms and ammunition, which is then earmarked for habitat restoration, acquiring increased amount of public land that can be used by all public stakeholders, including birdwatchers like yourself, environmental education and a number of other outdoors related purposes that benefit everyone, not just hunters. I'd suggest that you Google Pittman Robertson excise tax for more information. Since 1937 this tax has generated about $250 million dollars a year that is put back into programs that benefit our natural resources. Another huge benefit is the fact that hunters are the most effective tool that wildlife professionals have in managing game populations and keeping certain species, such as white tailed deer, at reasonable population levels. Absent hunting, those populations would explode and cause billions of dollars in agricultural damage, personal property damage, increased human injuries and fatalities and increases in diseases such as Lyme disease, which deer serve as a vector for. In my home state there are 50,000 car/deer accidents every year, that number would easily double or triple if hunters were not removing around a half a million deer annually. Hunting also generates billions of dollars of economic activity in this country, providing many people with the means of earning a living.

Those are just a few of the benefits resulting from modern game management that utilizes hunting, there are many, many others, as well. So that public land that you want to bird watch on and are upset about having to wear orange to enhance your level of safety? There is a good chance that hunters paid for the acquisition of that property, that provides you with the opportunity, as well as bringing a number of spectacular avian species, such as the wood duck, back from the brink of extinction, to numbers that we enjoy today.

Cost/benefit? The benefits derived from modern game management far outweigh the potential costs, which you noted, not even close, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #99)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:39 PM

102. Thank you, that's good information

Most of which I was not aware of, thank you for taking the time to share that information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #99)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:59 PM

104. Excellent post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:00 PM

92. There are always a few trouble makers in the crowd for any given group of good size.

Hunters are no different from any other group in that respect. You need to watch how broad your paint brush is.

Your liberty is not more or less important than theirs. Toss on a orange vest and have a good time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #92)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:19 PM

95. You don't see a certain cart-before-the-horse issue here?

Consider it this way. We're talking about public land here. This is not private land upon which you can do whatever you please. Public land should be open to all equally. If there were no hunters out on that public land, I would not have to wear neon clothing; I could just go out, mind my own business and, as long as I did no harm, all would be well, right? Now, along come hunters and claim the right to fire lethal weapons in the environment that belongs to everyone to enjoy equally. As a direct result of hunters claiming that right, now I'M the one who has to change my behavior to accommodate the threat that THEY have introduced into that environment. You say I should "toss on an orange vest and have a good time." Why should I be the one who has to modify my behavior? As previously explained, I'm just out there minding my own business, doing no harm, posing no threat to anyone. So shouldn't your advice be to the hunters to "toss that gun on the scrap heap and have a good time"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #95)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:34 PM

96. If you don't want to share the woods with the hunters, then wait for hunting season to end.

It is that simple. It is your choice. However, they are willing to share with you.

Since you are not hunting, wearing the orange is optional for you. It is in your best interest, but it is your choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #96)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:13 AM

98. Such munificence!

If I'm willing to subscribe to rules established by hunters, they will magnanimously allow me to share a public space to which I am equally entitled to enjoy as they are. Good to know.

So, listen, I've decided that I want to practice my self defense skills on public land by hurling hand grenades at anything that moves. But don't worry, if you carry an air raid siren sounding continuously with you when you enter the area, I promise I'll try to not lob a grenade at you. And, of course, if you don't like having to carry a siren around with you at all times, you can just stay away, it's entirely your choice; after all, I'm willing to share as long as you play by my rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #98)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 04:56 PM

103. The woods are not for your exclusive use.

If I'm willing to subscribe to rules established by hunters, they will magnanimously allow me to share a public space to which I am equally entitled to enjoy as they are. Good to know.

As a non-hunter, you are not required to follow to the rules forced on the hunters, but it might be helpful for you. The hunters are happy to share the space with you since they know the space is not exclusively theirs.

So, listen, I've decided that I want to practice my self defense skills on public land by hurling hand grenades at anything that moves. But don't worry, if you carry an air raid siren sounding continuously with you when you enter the area, I promise I'll try to not lob a grenade at you. And, of course, if you don't like having to carry a siren around with you at all times, you can just stay away, it's entirely your choice; after all, I'm willing to share as long as you play by my rules.

You are a riot!
Plus, the sirens you want would scare away the birds you are searching for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #103)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:17 PM

105. Exclusive use

Well, I suppose I have a choice in that I can choose to adhere to rules for hunters or I can choose to get shot. I suppose that's a choice of sorts. So, if I tell you to give me all of your money or I'll shoot you, you're making a free choice to give me your money, right? No responsibility attaches to me, does it? Besides, it was your choice to wander into my neighborhood in the first place, which I was happy to share with you, provided that you don't mind either giving me all of your money or letting me shoot you, of course.

Unfortunately, orange vests are nearly as effective at scaring away birds as air sirens are. Birds are visually oriented animals; visual stimuli are the first things they react to. So wearing an orange vest makes it kind of hard to get close enough to identify and/or photograph them.

Nevertheless, although I still think there's something skewed in unilaterally requiring other wildlife appreciators to change their behavior to accommodate your behavior when they make no such demands upon you, Crepuscular's post was very helpful and informative. I always thought that hunting seasons existed for one type of wildlife or another for much of the year: as soon as the season for one animal ended, the season for another started up, and then another, and so on. But, inspired by Crepuscular's post, I went and did a little digging online and learned that, at least in the state where I live, hunting seasons overlap with all occurring at pretty much the same time and they don't last very long. So it sounds like the inconvenience to others is less than I thought - I at least don't have to avoid forests for fear of noisy, disruptive, dangerous gun slingers for any significant period of time. And it sounds like hunting produces some benefits with respect to keeping lands free from commercial development and the habitat disruption that accompanies it, so there that adds more tick marks in the "benefit" column.

In sum, I'm persuaded that there are benefits to hunting and limitations on the costs to hunting that make it less onerous than I had initially thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #105)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 06:56 PM

106. Glad we could help!

Love to see some of the pictures you get. There are a few bird threads currently in the Photography forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to primavera (Reply #95)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:34 PM

100. Hunting seasons do not exist year round..

Only for limited seasons out of the year. If you can't see to share the public lands with hunters for a short period of time each year, then you're the one who is selfish.

And hunters contribute an enormous amount of revenue by licensing and other fees. A lot more than you do with your bird watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #100)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 02:38 PM

101. I wasn't aware that appreciating nature needed to generate revenue

I'm happy to share wilderness. I can absolutely, 100% guarantee that I will never shoot anyone with my binoculars. I would ask that hunters extend to me the same courtesy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 10:46 AM

87. Being Presidential

I think he is doing the country a service by keeping his promise to be the President to all Americans. Representing not only those who voted for him, but all those he is obligated to serve. If the rePubs would do the same while in office this country would be a lot better off and our National Debates may not be so full of vitriol. He definitely sees the need for change, and knows that the best change will come from all of us in the country, not just one side. Just think of all the money wasted, Freedoms infringed on, and Lives lost that could have been averted if Bush served the whole country. Like a President should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 12:12 AM

97. There can only be one gun law for the whole country.

Otherwise it is self-defeating.

To pretend otherwise is to either BE stupid or to be playing politics at the cost of effectiveness.

Obama is not stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paul E Ester (Original post)

Reply to this thread