|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:10 am
munchkin Pick_A_Song but then again they could be abolished if tasers were used in place of the gun. people still die by tasers, though they would be better then having guns. Heres an example of police brutality and a taser death, All in one story! So some pig arrested this lady handcuffed her and she was in the back of the patrol car and she moved a little trying to adjust herself or something and the pig tasered here to death saying she was resisting arrest and all that bull. Tasers are not a sinecure. 1. Let's say you live rural. Let's further assume you have a chicken coop, as so many in the country do have. (and I hope to have as soon as we ge to Texas) Now let's say you have a thief in the night. You have 50 crazed Auracana pullets going mad because they were awakened, 1 thief, and 1 coop. And you expect a taser to do the job? I'll bet on a good old trusty Winchester type rifle anytime. Even if you don't hit the thief, there's a strong message sent. 2. No assumptions here. When we lived rural in Colorado we had coyote and one night they came close to the house and were bother Blue and Slim. Now while Blue and Slim could have taken on any coyote as they were retired Greyhounds and thus very fast and agile-- well, it's not a good idea, and they could have been hurt. A rifle shot sent in the general direction of the howling sent them scurrying back tot he arroyo and they didn't bother us so much after that. No one was killed and I don't even think any got hurt but they got the message. Slimmy, who was not prey motivated, needed a lot of comforting and Blue, who was high-prey, needed a lot of calming down time. We didn't have to risk them to stay safe. 3. That still doesn't address the collector angle. Let's take our friend who was the best man at our wedding (no it wasn't a shotgun wedding, he left the gun in the car!) He has dozens of pieces. He has one piece, a Glock, for protection. Another one or two of those are for hunting. I;s customary where he lives, good meat and the local deer herds actually need some level of thinning or they start to overrun the local tourist trap (where they are at risk of collisions with cars, etc) Aside from those few pieces, all his others need regular use to remain in the best shape. He solves that very easily. He also is in the local bowling leagues and has a deal with the alley owner to take the used-up pins. He then takes those our to the badlands north of town and practices and primes his pieces on those. He isn't harming a soul, and believe it or not, he's really a very sensitive guy inside. He's just always been in the gun culture and has a really deep appreciation of them.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:35 pm
OK, a) vegetarian b) you don't need a rifle to scare off wild animals, any loud noise will produce the same reaction and c) it is indefensible to murder someone simply because the current, unjust economic system has rendered them desperate enough to steal your chickens.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:34 pm
Forsaken_Virgin OK, a) vegetarian b) you don't need a rifle to scare off wild animals, any loud noise will produce the same reaction and c) it is indefensible to murder someone simply because the current, unjust economic system has rendered them desperate enough to steal your chickens. a) I have to eat meat to stay healthy. I tried vegetarianism once and got very ill. b0 Have you ever actually lived rural, or in the American West? Coyotes are cowards, but they are smart and crafty cowards. They react far better to the sound of rifle shot than to say, a well-cracked bullwhip. This is again first-hand experience. I am proficient with single and double latigo del diablo and 8 foot bullwhip. I still had my bullwhip when I was living there. I tried that first. It scared them a little but they came back. A few nights later we tried the rifle shot and THAT seemed to send a much stronger message. c) Who said anything about killing the thief in the chicken coop? Heck personally I'd look for the knees. Now I'm all for sharing an bumper crop-- I have a group of local kids who come by every day for my oranges, and I'd rather they have them than the guy who stole an orange once and then practically demanded that I pay him to wash the windows. The kids are nice, they ask, and they love my puppy too which sure makes Apollo one content fella. But there's the thing. I like people to ASK. I'm pretty generous and if someone desperate came up in the night and asked nicely for eggs, I'd work something out, some sort of barter or work or whatever. Ditto for a pullet if I could afford so. I don't even usually ask for payment for oranges. Literally hundreds of dollars of oranges and lemons have been given to others. So yes, I consider myself generous. So back to Mr Chicken Coop Thief. Theft out of desperation is still theft. Most people who know me know my proclivity. If you can't take the polite step of asking, you no longer qualify. Asking puts the situation into a voluntary transaction mode, rather than theft which is involuntary. Look at it this way-- if you knew that any chickens you raise could be stolen from you and very well might be, would you really bother to raise chickens (say for eggs in your case)? I think you'd reconsider!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Raccguin rolled 6 100-sided dice:
62, 15, 69, 26, 57, 44
Total: 273 (6-600)
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:40 pm
I like the Arms Race. (It's just someone's arms going in circles really fast. I had a funny World History teacher in high school. Too bad he didn't get my weirdly odd Insanity.)
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 8:41 am
But, and this is the important but, does the thief know this? Does he or she know that you are as generous as you are? No. He or she will not tell you, because then he or she is likely to get caught if he or she later tries to steal from you, asking having failed. You do not, I presume, have a vast sign over your hen coop saying 'if in need, ask at door for free eggs'?
You say that theft out of desperation is still theft, and I agree, I just don't think it's still wrong. Every human being has the right to have their basic biological needs fulfilled, including the need for food. If you do not believe this, then I ask you: how do you justify murdering animals in order to perpetuate your own survival? Surely murder out of necessity is still murder?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:58 pm
Anti gun control. 1- If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns 2- Police are unreliable. Defend yourself. 3- If the government gets oppressive we have the right to rebel, and need guns to do it
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:56 pm
slam-skull Anti gun control. 1- If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns 2- Police are unreliable. Defend yourself. 3- If the government gets oppressive we have the right to rebel, and need guns to do it 1- Outlaws will be able to attain guns no matter what our laws say. 2. That is a generalization. 3. This isn't the 1800s. Yes, we have the right to rebel [and people should ALWAYS question authority]... but violence isn't the only way to solve a problem. I think too many people [I'm not pointing at you, it's just that you reminded me] are under the impression that the best way to rebel against an oppressive government is through violence. Think of our greatest modern-day civil rights movements.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:52 am
Also, people say that Britian and Japan restrict guns extensively, and have little gun violence. What they fail to take into account is that nobody has a history of conflict quite like the U.S. British and Japanese are accoustomed to talking things out, therefore they kill each other less often. Also, they have lower crime rates. In America, we have a massive crime rate, and are accustomed to shooting each other as soon as we get a little annoyed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:55 am
My point is, the law abiding citizens would be the ones to give up their guns when they are illegal. The criminals would still have guns, and would use them.
Also, the police are unreliable because someone breaks into your house with a gun. It can take several minutes for police to arrive, during which time you could be dead. It's not that their incompetan, it's that they cant be everywhere at once.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 6:36 pm
munchkin Pick_A_Song but then again they could be abolished if tasers were used in place of the gun. people still die by tasers, though they would be better then having guns. Heres an example of police brutality and a taser death, All in one story! So some pig arrested this lady handcuffed her and she was in the back of the patrol car and she moved a little trying to adjust herself or something and the pig tasered here to death saying she was resisting arrest and all that bull. your absolutely right but bean bag rounds and other non-lethal rounds will work. And im just saying, everything is potentially deadly
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|