Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why use guns for killing

Page 10 of 15 [ 230 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

06 Aug 2012, 12:55 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgF-KAxbTmE[/youtube] :D


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

06 Aug 2012, 8:44 am

Dox47 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
If you can't make the kill with one shot you should not be hunting :P. Besides blowing your own cover with wasted shots and thus making the local area less good for hunting temporarily (as animals panic and leave), if you hit them non-lethally it can lead to a long, suffering death that is obviously not something a hunter wants to cause (hunters are more ethically sound than the industrial meat industry, imo, and should always work to maintain this superiority). Hunt with a bow or a crossbow, they are pretty silent so a miss won't ruin your afternoon :lol:


There is actually a pretty strong argument for semi-automatic hunting rifles, as out in the woods with a living, breathing target is a whole lot different than off the bench shooting at paper. Even with perfect technique, the animal could move or the wind could gust and turn a clean shot into a wounded animal nightmare, particularly if the animal can be dangerous. With a semi, a rapid follow up shot can solve those problems before they turn into tragedy and unnecessary suffering for the animal, something not always possible with a bolt gun. Incidentally, the reason that African big game hunters used to use those huge double rifles was for the same reason someone might hunt with a semi-auto today, the availability of a rapid follow up shot, though in the case of cape buffalo, rhinos and elephants it was less about humanely taking the animal and more about having a second shot if the thing turned on you.

Bow hunting can be some of the worst for the animal, arrows just don't pack the terminal ballistics of hunting bullets, and must instead rely upon cutting surfaces (broadheads, articulated broadheads, etc) to cause enough bleeding to disable the animal. This is a much slower demise than a bullet through the vitals, and I'd have to imagine a more painful one. Hunt with a silencer if you want to be able to miss with impunity, it's becoming legal in more and more states and offers all the advantages of a hunting rifle without the noise pollution.

I've always wanted to take up bow hunting. Even with a firearm, though, there's no guarantee that you'll completely disable the animal to minimize suffering, just as you've pointed out in suggesting semis. With either a bow or with a gun, you still have to be unusually good to get a perfect shot.

With bowhunting, though, if you're not all that concerned with causing the animal short-term pain, you have a good chance at disabling the animal enough to ensure a capture, followed by a sidearm to finish the job.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtGMFRPRh8o[/youtube]



aSKperger
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 326

06 Aug 2012, 9:02 am

Quote:
So why worry about it?


Globalization is the reason. If I see people in trouble, I do what I can :wink:



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Aug 2012, 10:15 am

aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
So why worry about it?


Globalization is the reason. If I see people in trouble, I do what I can :wink:


A person who just a few days ago said that criminals are not a problem but the people who arm themselves against them are is the kind of person I only want to see behind barbed wire.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 11:34 am

Dox47 wrote:
There is actually a pretty strong argument for semi-automatic hunting rifles, as out in the woods with a living, breathing target is a whole lot different than off the bench shooting at paper. Even with perfect technique, the animal could move or the wind could gust and turn a clean shot into a wounded animal nightmare, particularly if the animal can be dangerous. With a semi, a rapid follow up shot can solve those problems before they turn into tragedy and unnecessary suffering for the animal, something not always possible with a bolt gun. Incidentally, the reason that African big game hunters used to use those huge double rifles was for the same reason someone might hunt with a semi-auto today, the availability of a rapid follow up shot, though in the case of cape buffalo, rhinos and elephants it was less about humanely taking the animal and more about having a second shot if the thing turned on you.


I wasn't saying that semi-automatic rifles should not be used, simply pointing out that hunting is not a leisurely shooting range and you don't want to waste ammunition firing in an inexperienced manner. One shot, one kill, is the maxim worth following.

Dox47 wrote:
Bow hunting can be some of the worst for the animal, arrows just don't pack the terminal ballistics of hunting bullets, and must instead rely upon cutting surfaces (broadheads, articulated broadheads, etc) to cause enough bleeding to disable the animal. This is a much slower demise than a bullet through the vitals, and I'd have to imagine a more painful one. Hunt with a silencer if you want to be able to miss with impunity, it's becoming legal in more and more states and offers all the advantages of a hunting rifle without the noise pollution.


I think an arrow/bolt through the heart, no matter the velocity, will have a pretty similar result to a bullet through the heart. I prefer bows over guns for a lot of reasons, one being the exercise involved, and the traditionalism of the weapon. It takes much more finesse than a firearm.


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


aSKperger
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 326

06 Aug 2012, 11:44 am

Quote:
A person who just a few days ago said that criminals are not a problem but the people who arm themselves against them are is the kind of person I only want to see behind barbed wire.


8O you mean me evidently. But I have never said "criminals are not a problem" and "people who arm themselves against them are" neither. My statement says "guns in hands of civilians do not lower the criminality, it increases it".

You judge me nicely, but you don't read/get me properly.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Aug 2012, 11:57 am

aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
A person who just a few days ago said that criminals are not a problem but the people who arm themselves against them are is the kind of person I only want to see behind barbed wire.


8O you mean me evidently. But I have never said "criminals are not a problem" and "people who arm themselves against them are" neither. My statement says "guns in hands of civilians do not lower the criminality, it increases it".

You judge me nicely, but you don't read/get me properly.


Backpeddling are we? :?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

06 Aug 2012, 12:25 pm

Vigilans wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Quote:
Oh man I can't wait til I get my gun licence. I wanna go rent a TAR-21 and do some plinking or something, those things cost like 3k.

Where would you find one of those even to rent?
I’d like to have one myself. :D
One silver lining in the clouds of our crappy gun laws is that we don't have import restrictions on them so we get the civilian variants here. These bad boys are non-restricted too so you could even hunt with them. Too bad you only get 5 shots from each mag ><


If you can't make the kill with one shot you should not be hunting :P. Besides blowing your own cover with wasted shots and thus making the local area less good for hunting temporarily (as animals panic and leave), if you hit them non-lethally it can lead to a long, suffering death that is obviously not something a hunter wants to cause (hunters are more ethically sound than the industrial meat industry, imo, and should always work to maintain this superiority). Hunt with a bow or a crossbow, they are pretty silent so a miss won't ruin your afternoon :lol:
What you don't "need" under ideal conditions is a necessity under less than ideal conditions. I don't "need" to go faster than 100 km/h either, I've saved my own ass numerous times when I've needed to gun it. There's always that one stupid old f**k who likes lingering on the fast lane while someone else is trying to merge into the highway so you can't clear the coast. Either I have to slam my goddamn brakes to let the person merge in or smoke them both if people are behind me. Nobody knows what's best for everyone, which is why it irritates me when other people try to tell other people what their needs are as if they do. I'm a firm believer of Murphy's Law.

I probably don't "need" more than 5 rounds under ideal conditions but under less than ideal conditions who knows what sort of scenario will come up?



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 3:07 pm

What, like fighting the government? I know you haven't referred to this specifically in our interaction here, but this is something that comes up often in gun right debates that I haven't really touched on. I notice a lot of pro-gun people claim those who disagree with them are naive to allow the government a monopoly on force. Well the truth is, I think these people are naive thinking that with their small arms they have a chance against a nations military. The government already does have a monopoly on force, de facto and de jure. Should military hardware be open to the public as well to prevent this? Wouldn't that risk national security through invalidation of security protocols previously followed to maintain secrecy? Where is the line drawn exactly? And why is it that whenever there is a tragedy involving spree killing using guns, pro gun activists always say "this is not the time to talk about this subject, stop taking advantage of this for political gain!". I mean, when is the *right* time to talk about this? Never? Since using any situation to support a political statement is apparently inappropriate, then wouldn't this also invalidate examples of people that use their weapons lawfully?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Last edited by Vigilans on 06 Aug 2012, 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aSKperger
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 326

06 Aug 2012, 3:07 pm

Quote:
Backpeddling are we?

Not at all. You didn't ask me about my views. You simply imagined them based on few sentences.
"I know people like you, I know your kind, stay behind barbed wire" etc.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

06 Aug 2012, 4:49 pm

aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
Backpeddling are we?

Not at all. You didn't ask me about my views. You simply imagined them based on few sentences.
"I know people like you, I know your kind, stay behind barbed wire" etc.


I've formed as much of an opinion of you as I need based on what you've provided so far.
'Nuff said.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AspieRogue

06 Aug 2012, 6:37 pm

Vigilans wrote:
What, like fighting the government? I know you haven't referred to this specifically in our interaction here, but this is something that comes up often in gun right debates that I haven't really touched on. I notice a lot of pro-gun people claim those who disagree with them are naive to allow the government a monopoly on force. Well the truth is, I think these people are naive thinking that with their small arms they have a chance against a nations military. The government already does have a monopoly on force, de facto and de jure. Should military hardware be open to the public as well to prevent this? Wouldn't that risk national security through invalidation of security protocols previously followed to maintain secrecy? Where is the line drawn exactly? And why is it that whenever there is a tragedy involving spree killing using guns, pro gun activists always say "this is not the time to talk about this subject, stop taking advantage of this for political gain!". I mean, when is the *right* time to talk about this? Never? Since using any situation to support a political statement is apparently inappropriate, then wouldn't this also invalidate examples of people that use their weapons lawfully?


It's not about protection from the government, it's about protection from each other.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

06 Aug 2012, 9:14 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
What, like fighting the government? I know you haven't referred to this specifically in our interaction here, but this is something that comes up often in gun right debates that I haven't really touched on. I notice a lot of pro-gun people claim those who disagree with them are naive to allow the government a monopoly on force. Well the truth is, I think these people are naive thinking that with their small arms they have a chance against a nations military. The government already does have a monopoly on force, de facto and de jure. Should military hardware be open to the public as well to prevent this? Wouldn't that risk national security through invalidation of security protocols previously followed to maintain secrecy? Where is the line drawn exactly? And why is it that whenever there is a tragedy involving spree killing using guns, pro gun activists always say "this is not the time to talk about this subject, stop taking advantage of this for political gain!". I mean, when is the *right* time to talk about this? Never? Since using any situation to support a political statement is apparently inappropriate, then wouldn't this also invalidate examples of people that use their weapons lawfully?


It's not about protection from the government, it's about protection from each other.


I understand, but I was focusing on the argument offered that armed citizens are a check against government corruption. It does not seem to be a very realistic view in my opinion when the government has attack helicopters and satellite surveillance


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

07 Aug 2012, 12:24 am

Vigilans wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
What, like fighting the government? I know you haven't referred to this specifically in our interaction here, but this is something that comes up often in gun right debates that I haven't really touched on. I notice a lot of pro-gun people claim those who disagree with them are naive to allow the government a monopoly on force. Well the truth is, I think these people are naive thinking that with their small arms they have a chance against a nations military. The government already does have a monopoly on force, de facto and de jure. Should military hardware be open to the public as well to prevent this? Wouldn't that risk national security through invalidation of security protocols previously followed to maintain secrecy? Where is the line drawn exactly? And why is it that whenever there is a tragedy involving spree killing using guns, pro gun activists always say "this is not the time to talk about this subject, stop taking advantage of this for political gain!". I mean, when is the *right* time to talk about this? Never? Since using any situation to support a political statement is apparently inappropriate, then wouldn't this also invalidate examples of people that use their weapons lawfully?


It's not about protection from the government, it's about protection from each other.


I understand, but I was focusing on the argument offered that armed citizens are a check against government corruption. It does not seem to be a very realistic view in my opinion when the government has attack helicopters and satellite surveillance

You forget that technological dependence was how 9/11 was able to happen in the first place.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

14 Aug 2012, 1:46 am

Not sure if this relevant to the debate:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/fam ... -1.1134880

Crazy knife wielding man takes six blasts of pepper spray to the face to no effect, two officers open fire shooting the guy seven times and it seems to the job.

It would appear that bullets are a lot more effective than pepper spray...



aSKperger
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 326

14 Aug 2012, 12:16 pm

Great example how to f**k up the intervention. 12 bullets in Times Square while full of people. Luck from hell they didn't kill anybody else.