Americans with Guns Cont. +

Subject: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: InOBU
Date: 21 Apr 00 - 07:56 AM

My goodness, here I was buisy for a little while and lizzie stirs the pot. It was getting a bit long, so excuse me opening a new thread.
I have to add my concern for my brother Irish Sargent, who writes that he once fired live rounds meaning bullets through it once (his old rifle) at a demonstration for the Boy Scouts.
My father taught me to be wary of Boy Scouts as well, -Sunny Jim, Lor, my wee son, Dont join facist organizations... But even my old red dad would probubly not have shot at the boy scouts, even if the demonstration was getting a bit out of hand... after all, they are only poor wee lads being fed bad religion (all that wooheelo crap) right wing politics and someoras.
I would agree with Lonsome, that there should be better licening and an afordable insurence, like car ownership, as until the world is safe for anti facists, and as long as we must hunt dear, carabou, geese etc (until the lion lies down with the lamb - likel not tomorrow) then a right to own this particular tool is a necessity.
Remember the Warsaw ghetto, and as Phil Oachs and Geronimo have said, It can and did happen here.
All the best and peace -
Larry

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 02:35 AM

More than once,Larry--More than once!!!

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 04:34 PM

Regarding McGrath's argument that deer can be brought down with bows and arrows: Very true. They can also be killed with atl-atls, slingshots, and sharp sticks. Are these, from the animals point-of-view, more humane methods? Or would death by starvation, disease or predation be preferable?

With the disappearance of natural predators,this causes overpopulation within the habitat, and the chance of overgrazing becomes very real. This results in erosion and loss of natural resources, and herds under this kind of pressure will be thinned through disease and starvation. For these reasons, population in American National Parks and Wilderness areas will either be controlled by Forest Rangers with rifles, or by hunters with rifles. The first option costs taxpayer money. The second option is a revenue generator, helping thus to preserve these same resources.

As it is difficult for Americans to understand the reasons for strife in Northern Ireland, it may likewise be difficult for residents of the British Isles, with high densities of human population and low densities of wild animal populations, to understand the scope of parks and wilderness in the United States. It is also necessary for those of us who desire more stringent control of the use and type of firearms to realize that, the ethics of hunting aside, hunters can be very valuable allies in this effort.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 05:48 PM

It all becomes just another example of how humans have totally fucked up the planet by reducing the predators and natural resources. Because of that, we can plead the merits of one killing over another, unnatural over nature taking its course, if it had been allowed. Sorry, LeeJ, not directed at you.

here are so many hunters up here who will use any excuse they can, it sickens me. (That, and when growing up on the Western Slope of Colorado, every Tom, Dick, and Harry went out in the hills, with loaded guns and booze, and someone ALWAYS got killed each season, mistaken for prey; hell one guy's burro, dressed totally in brilliant orange, was killed by a trigger-happy idiot!) All the while they don't give a good goddamn about the land and what causes the problems for the wildlife. I will NEVER understand, nor would I even try, a person who can kill beautiful creatures of nature.

There was a fringe movement a few years back that proposed making Wyoming and, I think, some of the rest of the high plains, into a national wildlife grasslands refuge, the WHOLE state, with no people, except those visiting. Some days, I'd love to see that, even though I know it is just a dream. I would love to see people stop their incessant romp across the prairie, up the sides of mountains, onto the beaches, etc. all over, consuming everything in sight, like an increasing and neverending wave of mutant locusts.

Oh, I found this soapbox, guess I'd better put it back. Sorry,

kat

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 07:30 PM

Kat, don't apologize. You are right on.

There are ways to control ecological imbalances other than shooting animals. Indiscriminate slaughter can't be defended on any grounds.

Frank

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 08:03 PM

I'm not sure I like kat's portrait of the "American Hunter" but forgeting ecolological reasons for a moment, is it any worse killing an animal yourself for food than taking something ready prepared from the butchers or supermarket. One could even argue that some of the wild life has enjoyed a better standard of life than some of our farm animals have had to endure...

I do eat meat and I don't think that I would be capble of doing the deed mylelf but I have friends who go out with a gun and maybe take a rabbit or a couple of pidgeons for food and I can't see any wrong in that or any reason why they should not be allowed to do this.

I tend to be a little cynical over ecological grounds and often feel they are given as an excuse to justify some form of blood lust and, living in the UK, fox hunting is, to me, a prime example. Having said that, the fox poulation does seem to get out of hand at times and I have witnessed what a fox can do when it manages to get into a hen-house... I don't know what the answer is but the more I think about it, I feel we are best off just letting nature take its course and those of us with domestic animals taking more care.

Staying with foxes, one tale I hear frequently is the fox taking a lamb. Has anybody here witnessed this because I can not imagine a fox taking on a healthy lamb and mother?

Jon

(wandering even further off subject)

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 09:25 PM

Ah, but EJ & Kat- its worse than either of you think. Having worked for a State fish & game departmentfor a quarter century, I can comment with some credibility that game animals in the US are not 'managed' to be in balance with the environment. They are 'managed' to maximize the number available for hunters to kill- because hunters pay for the licenses which fund the fish & game departments & fewer kills mean fewer licenses bought mean less revenue, etc. etc. Most states spend hundreds of times more 'managing' a single game species than they spend on all non-game species combined! It is also accepted that hunting is, in almost all cases, the least effective 'management' tool to control wildlife populations,and has virtually no effect where the whole machinery of the 'management' agency is to maximize numbers in the first place. Talk about a screwed-up system, but there you have it...

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 09:48 PM

Interesting Yank. So you're saying that basically crops of Elk and Deer are encouraged to become bumper crops to benefit the hunter, thereby benefitting the Fish and Game Dept? How, specifically does this "growth encouragement" take place? I know that corn harvests can be enhanced with fertilizers,insecticides,frequent watering, etc. But how can this be applied to wild animal populations?

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 10:17 PM

Lotsa ways, EJ- check any decent wildlife management text or course. For example, selective planting of browse/food sources,'supplemental feeding' in winter, selective woodland cutting/management, bucks-only hunting regulations (when effective population control requires killing does)... the list goes on & on. Oh, and don't forget killing off all the natural predators & fighting their reintroduction. Wolves and coyotes and pumas don't have a 'right' to kill deer- only humans do. ;-)

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 10:43 PM

Say, since y'all know somethin' about the Fish and Game folks, I was wondering, since I'm an ol' feller an I ain't got a lot of money to afford no extra licenses, if I could just use my fishing license for deer? I could kinda' bait a big ol' hook with a corn cob and cast out into a school of deer and then if maybe one of them bucks would latch onto that sucker and I could reel him in and all, then maybe I could club him or somethin'? Whaddaya' think?

Best wishes from the Mt.PiaZadora Rest Home,

Gilbert Gnarley

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Apr 00 - 11:49 PM

Oh, go suck on yer own corncob, GilGnarley!**BG**

Yank, don't I know it! Almost everyday there is something in the papers here in Wyoming about just those topics; a person just coming here would think wildlife "management" is all that it is about, along with ranching (fully involved in the former), and a few oil wells. I haven't followed it closely because it just plain hurts too much, but I know we've had big todo's in our G&F with hunitn licenses, and having the world's largest population of Pronghorn Antelope makes puts Wyoming smack dab in the middle of all this bullshit.

Frank, thanks fer yer support. When are you going to join up and become an official member of this here "wonder on the Internet"?**BG** NOT THAT YOU AREN'T WELCOME AS "GUEST, Frank Hamilton!" There've just been a couple of times I would love to have been able to send you a personal emssage with a song question or two. Joining is free and it doesn't hurt at all>:-)

Jon, I am a vegetarian for precisely the reasons you stated. If anyone ever read the book I did on factory farming they would be, too, or at least do the deed themselves.

What can I say, Leej? Still luvya and we both DO like a good arguement, darlin.:-)

Thanks ya'll,

kat

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,The Yank
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 09:59 AM

Whooo Boy! Mister Gnarly, I think yer onta somethin'! Git som a them big ol' hooks they use fer shark er 'gator fishin mebbie- & thinka the marketin' potenshul fer special tackle & equipment!!! Them sportin' goods makers'll love it- a whole new growth markit! probly be on wonathem TV shows real soon. Ain't that Amerika!

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 12:33 PM

Damn, if it weren't for broccoli, cauliflower, onions, turnips, parsnips, Brussels sprouts, spinach, cooked cabbage, and leeks, I could be a vegitarian too. Options are limited when the only vegetables you like are corn, carrots, yams, beans, spuds, lettuce, and peas.

Couldn't shoot an animal unless my life depended on it. I KNOW. I'm a hypocrite. Not a contradiction I'm proud of.

Rick (wimpy carnivore)

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Amergin
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 04:57 PM

Uh, are bald eagles considered game animals?

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 05:15 PM

Ooooohhhh, baaaaaddddd, Amergin, hope starts fading....**BSEG**

Rick, being a vegetarian, for me, means very few veggies, esp. if you do low-carbs like I do. I do lots of almonds, sunflowers and other types of nuts, as well as some fruits. I am afraid I like less veggies than you, even, although I do enjoy a good salad.

An at least you admit to being a wimpy meat-eater!*smile* That's for first step iin recovery ya know.

kat

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 05:49 PM

Kat, you'll be happy to know that I'm expecting to cleanup in the asparagus market quite soon.

Wait a minute Rick.......How the hell do you do Italian food if those are the only veggies you like? Or are sauces OK if you can't identify the little "bits" of texturous matter?

Spaw

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: InOBU
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 11:12 PM

I note with some concern that there has been much more sympathy expressed for Deer and Carabou than Boy Scouts. Is it that Boy Scouts do not taste as good? Or that they are more plentiful? I think we should all send a message to the Irish Sargent... Save the Boy Scouts!
Larry

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: catspaw49
Date: 23 Apr 00 - 11:58 PM

I think its because the scouts are often stringy and tough and have damn little meat on them and are hardly worth the effort of shootin' them. Then when ya' gotta' go through all that tagging and field dressing, not to mention the bleeding and skinning.......Hell Larry, you're a LOT better off with a deer. Now if you can get a troop of really fat scouts ... well THEN ya' got somethin'. Not a lot of great meat, but the slab bacon you can get is pretty good. If you got a smokehouse, you're all set!!! Keeps well and makes great beans too!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 12:22 AM

Paw, since my allergies are all in my head....little tiny mashed up onions don't trouble me much. If I SEE them, well that's another story.

To get back to guns. Had a huge amount of fun target shooting, and proved pretty good at it. I just think that droppin' a deer (or squirrel, or fieldmouse) would make me feel rotten....well maybe not the mouse.

Have to admit though, if I DID own a firearm, I'm not sure I could be trusted to show restraint if we were being vandalised. Could I shoot someone (and not go to jail) who was torturing a dog or cat? In a heartbeat. Would I follow a superior's orders in a war situation and kill someone who wasn't trying to kill me at that moment? Seriously doubt it. No matter what the consequences. Yup, I think I'm a bit too weird to be trusted with a gun.

Rick

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Chris/Darwin
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 12:37 AM

This topic won't go away, will it? No-one has yet changed anyone else's opinion, either, so I won't even try.

Like the USA, Australia had a fairly gun-totin' history. Exploring and "opening up" a large and hostile country, with bushrangers, crocodiles, etc., demanded that the early settlers had guns.

It is easy to romanticise those times. Stories of Ned Kelly and his gang, Ben Hall & gang, Captain Moonlight, are known to most Australians. Their gun battles are legendary.

Like most young men, I grew up with a fascination for guns. My father was a trained gun instructor, and I knew more about the workings of a 357 Magnum when I was 12 than an engine. That translated into gun ownership when I was old enough, and I spent many a time happily shooting rabbits and foxes on friends' farms. I only rid myself of these when the kids came along, and I was concerned about their safety.

To this day I, and most Australians, will defend the right of farmers to shoot introduced vermin like rabbits, foxes, boar, etc., that damage the rural environment. Similarly, professional hunters who do this are widely accepted by the community.

However, these guns represent a very small number. It seems to me that most guns in the USA have nothing to do with hunting at all. Australian law now makes it much harder to own a gun than in the USA, and most Australians applaud that. The result of low gun ownership is a very low level of gun-related death and injury. In Australia, the gun death of a child would make national news for a week, whereas in the USA, people are so used to child gun death (12 EVERY day) that only a Columbine High School penetrates the national consciousness.

Most gun deaths occur just because the gun is there. My best friend when he was 16 (did not know it was loaded), my next door neighbour (had argument with girl friend's father and became depressed), etc etc. Guns are so easy to kill with - that is what they are designed for.

People who I call "gun nuts" (remember I was one) cannot be convinced by logic. They love the raw power of squeezing a trigger and seeing a puff of dust 100 metres away, or an animal fall, or a hole appear in a target. And yes, these are harmless pursuits in themselves, and even promote healthy lifestyles for many people. I can't argue that every gun is used badly. Quite the contrary, 99% of guns are used carefully and correctly by their owners - law abiding and decent people.

However, most Australians have come to accept that the greater good is achieved by drastically reducing the number of guns, particularly concealable and rapid-fire weapons. The gun nuts are still out there trying to change things - there is even a gun political party (the Shooters Party!) - they have had to concede much in the last few years.

I often wonder if the USA had a free vote on whether most guns should be banned. I suspect that the vote for gun abolition would be higher than the NRA would like to admit.

Australians have also been less than impressed by the outright lies being peddled by the NRA about crime in Australia since tightening of gun laws. The fact is that Australians have less than 10% of the chance of being shot in their own home as Americans. And that is not because we have a lower criminal element, but because we have very few guns. Yes, there are stabbings, poisonings, and all the rest, but Australian homes are still 5 times safer than American homes. I would not in a fit agree to going to USA-style gun ownership, nor would most Australians.

As I said, I will not change anyone's mind, but please Americans, don't bother about trying to change mine!!

Regards
Chris

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 01:40 AM

Chris, very well put, thank you. Today, I read in the paper, there is a group of mothers in Utah who are protesting for gun ownership, touting the estimated number of people, 2.5 million, whom guns have supposedly saved. All I can do is shake my head; it seems a surreal landscape is upon us, sometimes.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 09:19 AM

Chris, you haven't changed my mind, because I already agreed with you. But you have stated your position very eloquently, without resorting to name-calling or insults, and I applaud you for that.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Jim the Bart
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 10:13 AM

Well said Chris! Maybe this thread should not worry about changing people's minds as much as finding some common ground. Rather than insisting on banning guns, or on arming everyone, why not find some point on which all of us (unless "us" includes the NRA) might be able to agree? For example, why do we need armor piercing ammunition? Why do we need semi-automatic weapons, outside of the military? Why can't we require the licensing of gun owners, along with pre-requisite training in the use and handling of firearms?

On the other side of the coin, why not recognize our hunter/gatherer origins and quit trying to disarm those who are responsible gun owners and users? To not eat meat is a matter of personal choice. I don't personally feel the need to kill a deer, either with a gun, or a bow or with my bare hands, for that matter. But I recognize the roots of this desire as a human trait, as deeply rooted in our genes as the desire to make music (or babies).

We (here in the States)will never be able to put in place the controls that seem reasonable and necessary if every move toward control is seen by law-abiding gun owners as a step toward confiscation.

I firmly believe that we will get there someday. But we have a heck of a lot of evolving to do as a species first.

P.S. Maybe if the boy scouts would start selling cookies they'd be off the endangered species list. . .

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: SDShad
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 10:22 AM

I have just as little patience for the disrespectful, gun-totin', hootin', hollerin', indiscriminately shootin', whiskey-sodden, mouth-breathin' Bubba hunter type as you do, kat.

But as with all stereotypes, it's untrue in general, and true only of those who fit it either because a) they're the type whose behavior inspired the stereotype in the first place, or b) for perverse reasons, they revel in the stereotype (which explains the continuing popularity of Dukes of Hazzard reruns). It's an image foisted unfairly on all hunters because of the excessive behavior of a few. I know lots of hunters, and the stereotype just doesn't stick.

As the inheritor of I don't even really know how many generations of hunting tradition, I know better. When I was growing up, a considerable majority of the adult males of both my mother's and father's families hunted. I don't hunt myself, and have fired guns only a few times in my life. But I'm married to a hunter (impressed the hell out of maternal grandpere that my fiance had her own shotgun and hunting dog), one who unfortunately hasn't really had the opportunity to hunt since we were married. But in the tumult of my parents' divorce, I was given my father's .308 deer rifle, and when aforementioned grandfather died, I was given his old Browning Auto-5 12-guage shotgun, which has returned home to Dakota where he used it so many times to hunt pheasant.

I am troubled by the conditions of the meat industry, as much for how they mistreat animals as for how unclean and unsafe they are for our consumption (especially in the area of poultry). But I have no moral compunctions about eating meat per se. I realize it's impossible in this day and age to hunt for all your meat, but I intend, if opportunity allows, to learn how to properly shoot my guns, and try my hand at bringing home some meat that was more cleanly and honestly killed, and whose sanitary processing I have personally guaranteed. I guess I don't quite get the logic that opposes commercial meat precisely for the reasons mentioned above, but also seeks to ban people from getting their meat in a way that is cleaner and that forces them to take more responsibility for the fact that eating meat can't happen without the death of another animal.

Now, these above words probably draw a picture of me as some sort of right-wing, pro-hunting, Dakota Drugstore Truck Drivin' Man. But in point of fact, I'm a bearded, Jerry-Brown-votin', Earth-day-attendin', braid-down-to-my-waist hippie. But I've done a 180 on gun control for two simple reason: 1) I own guns and know that I'm responsible about them, and know it would be hypocritical of me to feel that I should be able to own them, but others shouldn't; and more importantly, 2) living in a part of the country where some people did get sucked into the Militia movement, I don't want Nazi outlaws like the ones who bombed the OKC Federal Building to be the only people in my countryside who are armed. My guns are never loaded inside the house, and never will be unless those yahoos try to unleash their Turner-Diaries-inspired apocalypse on us.

Which is a big digression from what I was originally talking about, which is huntin'. Just seems to me that shooting and dressing one's own deer is a heck of a lot closer to the natural circle of life than eating feedlot beef that comes from an animal you've never seen. Mind you, I'm a hypocrite on that score right now, as I don't hunt. Yet. But trust me, deer are not in any way endangered where I live.

Oh, yeah: as a fellow low-carber, my hat's off to ya, kat, for doing it without meat. Not easy at all to do low-carbing that way. So just how vegetarian are ya? Ovo-lacto, vegan, etc.? Fish?

Chris

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 10:39 AM

Hi Kat,

Thanks for the invite to Mudcat. I've tried to become one of the gang but everytime I try to "enroll" they ask me for a number or refuse a made-up password. I'm not too good with this kind of thing so I don't have the procedure right I guess.

Could use some help here.

Thanks,

Frank

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Gary T
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 11:50 AM

Frank, click on "Help" at the menu across the top of the page (starts with "Lyrics, Forum and Chat"; "Radio"; etc.). Pose your question/complaint there and someone knowledgeable should be able to help you work it out.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 12:13 PM

Hi, Frank, glad to hear you want to join, wasn't sure. If a password is rejected, it might be because it's already been used. Weren't you a member last summer? If so and you don't have it quite right, it may think you are someone else trying to use the same "nickname" and password and it won't let you. The HElp forum GaryT mentioned should garner soem answers. Also, you could always send an email to Max at [e-mail].

SD Shad: thank you for your thoughtful posting. I thought I was ca reful in pointing out that it was only some hunters who were the bubbas. I didn't get that impression of you at all....afraid you were pegged from the outset as a nice feller.:-) We have lots of militia types in Wyoming, too, but I do not fear them coming to my home.

I think I said in the very old thread from last eyar on this, that I do have a gun, a very old single shot .22 rifle which was my dad's. It hasn't been used for targetshooting in over 20 years, has never been loaded except for targetshooting and has always, always been put away out of reach of little ones. A can of spray paint would serve me better if anyone ever broke into my house, as it would take forever for me to get it out, load, haev the room to point and shoot. I did call the sheriff once, when about 26 yrs ago, when I was a single mom selling a car, gave a phoen caller directions to my house and then he got obscene. I thought he was on his way, so I told the sheriff's dept that I ahd a dog that would go for the throat and a loaded rifle and would not hesitate to sue it in self-defense. They said fine, just drag him across my threshold if I had to shoot, so it would be an official "breakin" type thing! Fortunately the guy never showed.

I, like Rick, would have no problem going after someone abusing an animal or one of my family or a child. You've got me on the farm stuff & hunting. I'd prefer the whole world go veggie. 10 acres of land (equivalent to 5 football fields)will support:

61 people on a diet of soy,
24 people on a diet of wheat,
10 people on a diet of corn,
and, 2 people on a diet of beef.

I am not suggesting we exist only on soy or wheat or corn, just that meat eating costs us a LOT, environmentally.

Thansk re' the low carb...it's what has helped me lose over 50lbs and make my heart happier! I do still do fish occassionally and wouldn't be able to do it without eggs and cheese, but try to do more nuts etc, than those. Sure helps witht eh blood sugar, too.:-)

All the best,

katwhofeelslikeamassofsemi-contradictions....noeasyanswers

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Midchuck
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 02:50 PM

"10 acres of land (equivalent to 5 football fields)will support:

61 people on a diet of soy, 24 people on a diet of wheat, 10 people on a diet of corn, and, 2 people on a diet of beef."

So you're saying we all ought to become vegihooligans so that we can go on breeding like rats?

We could also get serious about controlling population growth and eat whatever we wanted.

I can see the planet in a generation or two with 50 billion people trying to choke down tasteless (IMNSHO)food.

Yuck.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Amergin
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 03:03 PM

Well there is soylent green.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 04:03 PM

I am not suggesting we exist only on soy or wheat or corn, just that meat eating costs us a LOT, environmentally.

How important is your only home, our planet?

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,Blind Desert Pete
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 04:41 PM

Chris: SD shad or whomever. If you have inherited an old muzzel sp? loader the first thing you must do is make sure the damn thing is unloaded. Im deadly serious. Mostly they were left loaded, due to the slowness of loading and the dificulty of unloading. If the ramrod does not go to the very bottom best asssume ist a laod in there

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: catspaw49
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 04:57 PM

For some temptasting meat recipes that LOOK "Oh Soooo Good"..........Whet your appetites right HERE !!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: SDShad
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 05:03 PM

Actually, Pete, of the two guns I mention above, both are of quite modern manufacture and use cartridges: a bolt-action .308 and an automatic 12-guage. But in another thread I guess I did mention my wife's muzzle-loader, which her dad gave us several years ago. I know that my father-in-law had fired it within the last 10 or 20 years, and is not the sort of gunowner to leave any gun, especially a seldom-used antique, loaded. I can see why they did in the old days though. So, if there is a load in the bottom of the barrel, what should we do 'bout it?

Chris (SDShad, Shad, Shad O'Spawn, Marie of Roumania, chosen one of the Skridnor of Algos VII, depending on what the voices are saying)

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: DonMeixner
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 05:27 PM

As a shooter, gun owner and former hunter I have read this and the previous related threads with interest. I have made the realization that neither side will convince the other that their side is right or wrong. I will post my feelings tho'

1. I can no more cut wild flowers for a display of narure indoors that I can shoot a deer anymore and have the head monted for the wall. Both are trophys of the hunt and both are impermanent. More importantly both are lives wasted for human admiration. I'd now rather see them in the wild.

2. I am glad that there are those who hunt. The great New Jersey experiment to let deer maintain themselves and stop the barbarous practice of hunting meant several winters of deer, starved slowly by over population on too limited graze.

3. The sale of hunting and fishing liscenses in NY State has guaranteed development of wild bird sanctuaries (No Hunting Zones) and wetlands where the upland birds and water fowl may safely breed and re populate. This practice has returned ring-neck pheasant, wild turkeys, and grouse from the edge of endangerment to a viable population in the state once again.

My fishing liscence also helps to maintain two fish hatcheries that are helping to populate trout, salmon, walleye and norlunge in the lakes of central NY. Creating a valuable fishing industry for some under invested and utilized lower economic regions in the state.

4. I own several guns. 3 shotguns, 2 muzzleloading rifles, a 45-70 Springfiled, .32 Special Winchester. # Pistols of various caliber, (Calibre for the Brits.) The pistols are in the safe, the long guns in closet, all stored in different rooms on different floors from the catridges which are also locked. I shoot targets only anymore with them but I shoot carefully on ranges and I am very good. Before the saw injury I would have been ranked expert with a pistol with both hands.

5. My favorite weapon for wildlife is a Killians Red Longneck or Bombay Gin and Tonic. I prefere on or two long slow rounds. Any more is too much fire power for me. I also like the 85-205mm on a Minolta auto advance. Brings 36 rounds in under 11 seconds. With that kind of fire power I don't even have to aim. One of those shots is sure to hit something worth keeping.

This is the face of this American with a gun. Middle aged, slightly short for my weight, and carefull and considerate. Just like nearly all the people I know who shoot.

And I can only speak for the people in my neck of the woods. Because its the only place I know for sure.

Don

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: GUEST,Blind Desert Pete
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 05:55 PM

Dear Cris, I think I over reacted. As a child my friends and i played cowboy, with an old "decommisioned musket.We shot the thing with caps, matchheads, etc. 20 years later my friend took it to a gunsmith, thinking it might have some antique value, and found that it was still loaded.If your father-in-law fired it 10 or 15 years ago, chances are he unloaded it. However 1. easy way. fire the load out. 2. hard way. special tool called worm to extract ball and wad if any. fits on ramrod. 3. Best way. take it to a gunsmith if you have any doubts. best of luck,better safe than...

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: SDShad
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 06:03 PM

Thanks, Pete! I'll ask Beth about the last-firing thing when I see her later. But I'm pretty sure it's not loaded.

And, of course "pretty sure it's not loaded" usually is found under the heading of "famous last words," so we'll make sure. :-)

Chris

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: SDShad
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 06:25 PM

Oh, yeah. And kat, while I don't too much expect my house to be stormed by militia types any time soon, I have in my more contentious online past quite publically ridiculed White Aryan Resistance members and other various Holocaust deniers, neonazis, and self-styled "sovereign patriots" on Usenet using my real name, so I imagine somewhere, my name is way down on some loner skinhead flamer's list of "race traitors" and "people to be put against the wall when the revolution comes." I imagine their "revolution" will very well fizzle before they get that far down the list, though.

Chris

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 06:39 PM

Haha, Chris, just like me and the others who write for the Liberal Opinion Week (www.liberlopinion.com)! I know I am on an ex-husband's family's list, have been since 1975. I am SURE I am on a lot of lists here, too. just as sure I can meet with you nearer the bottom of the lists, though.

Don, thank you for a thoughtful posting. I LOVE that "slightly short for my weight!" I am going to use that!**BG**

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: SDShad
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 06:45 PM

Cool, kat! Any publication with Miz Molly Ivins as a contributor get a tip o' my hat. And your own self, of course. :-)

Chris

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Petr
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 07:50 PM

Heres another canadian anecdote. One of my friends was at a session in Portland Oregon. The subject of guns came up so just out of curiousity they did a little straw poll as to who had a gun and it turns out he was the only one out of a group of 8 musicians who didnt have a gun. Of course Ive told this story to my american musician friends and they thought it was funny (like every american carries a gun). Petr.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 08:00 PM

Thanks, SD, I had the addy wrong, it is www.liberalopinion.com! Proud to say I've actually been on the same page as Molly, Hillary, Nadar, and a few others whom I consider to be "notables."

Petr, interesting, I trust our Brother Fielding was not among them?**BG**

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 24 Apr 00 - 11:08 PM

I Never carry a gun to a session..and sometimes I'm the only one in the room without a capo either!

Rick

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Jim Krause
Date: 25 Apr 00 - 05:52 PM

I tried being a vegetarian once. Made me fart a lot. Them beans and boiled cabbage, brussels sprouts, & cauliflower just did a number on my insides. Learned how to make bread though.

But back to this gun thing, all kidding aside, I use mine mostly for target shooting. And believe it or not, it rather reminds me of what acquaintances mean when they talk about meditation. They talk about controlled breathing, being very mindful of the present, and so on. I realized that I was doing the same thing, controlling my breathing, and being very mindful of the present. Now I have always shot muzzloloading rifles and shotguns. I don't have much experience with modern suppository guns. I did shoot one once. After shooting muzzloloaders for twenty years, I thought the repeater was pretty tame. As far as the actual eating of meat, I prefer buffalo, deer, or elk when I can get it to beef many times over. Chicken is ok, but I'd rather have phesant. And I guess that means I gotta go out and get my own.

I think all the above postings are interesting. Perhaps not everyone in the US should have the right to own guns. But who is to say? And how does a nation shut down a black market? That's basically what any prohibition does is to create a black market. It's a tough nut to crack.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 26 Apr 00 - 09:38 AM

Soddy, I know what you mean about target shooting being a meditative act. In my shooting days I experienced the same thing, and it was one of the main reasons I liked it so much. Target shooting is all about focusing, centering, calming yourself -- otherwise you jerk the trigger, or the end of the muzzle drifts, or your hands shake when you're zeroing in. Any slight imprecision at the end of the barrel is magnified enormously downrange, and can result in pretty poor accuracy. You really need to master your body, mind and emotions to shoot well.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I love shooting, principally for the reasons you mention. But I love my kids more, and I'm frightened by the proliferation of guns throughout our society, so the choice for me is an easy one -- no guns. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to take them away from responsible hunters, but I think we need to raise the bar on what we consider "responsible," and I think we need to dramatically clamp down on guns in other contexts in our society. This wouldn't solve all of our problems with gun violence, but I'm confident that it would substantially reduce gun violence, and for me that's a good enough reason to do it.

Subject: RE: Americans with Guns Cont. +
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 00 - 04:21 PM

I saw a bumper sticker today that said ATTITUDES ARE HANDICAPS. It's attitudes, not guns, that create all these deaths. With the possible exception of a small child accidently shooting a playmate, it is the wrong headed thinking of the mind behind the gun that must change. Guns are rare in England, so, gun related deaths are also rare in England. But, if the English had the same mind set that we do, there are plenty of other weapons that they could carry and use. Let's face it..we are a violent society. That is the main reason for shootings. The secondary reason is, we can get a gun to carry out our violent tendencies.