> ... the only thing I
> take exception to is when a poster assumes that "we all" share the same
> opinion on heated topics.
Very well put, David!!!
> 1. Guns are designed to kill. It's that simple.
And computers were designed for ... Certainly not for posting Spridget
questions, but they do it quite well. What's your point?
> 2. There is no such thing as a sporting gun. What kind of sport
> results in death?
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. The English language, otoh, is
beyond your control and hunting has been a "sport" longer than the stick and
ball nonsenses.
> 3. Target practice isn't a sport either. It is killing practice. That's
> why many targets are the silhouette of a human. Like practicing your
> aim? Take up darts.
More pedantics. I have never used people-shaped targets, they do not give
you as good of an indication of your aim.
> 4. Hunting isn't a sport. In a true sport there is an equal chance that
> either side can win or loose, and awake tomorrow to play again.
> Since the animal always looses, I doubt he would find the act of being >
hunted "sporting". Hunting for food also is not a reason to own a
> gun. Last time I was at the grocery store, there was no shortage of
> meat. If it were a good reason to own a gun, we should issue one
> gun to each homeless person so they could feed themselves. Hunting
> doesn't get you closer to nature, it kills a part of it. If you want to
get
> closer to nature, take the scope, and leave the rifle at home. Get up
> close and yell "BANG" and watch Bambi
> run away. If you had a gun, you probably would have missed
> anyway. Same end result. If you miss walking away from the hunt
> with something to show for it, take a camera, and hang an 8x10 on
> the wall instead of a set of horns. Hunting as population management > is
flawed.
Spoken like a true non-hunter. I know of many hunters who have never gotten
their Bambi. The animals win quite a few. Just like humans, deer have a 100%
mortality rate. Every one that is born, dies. Deal with it. Food is a very
good reason for hunting and I do not hold with people who shoot things and
do not eat them. Hunting pays for far more in the way of forests and animals
than the "environmentalists" do. Hunting as population management can work
quite well. Take a good look at Pennsylvania's programs (financed primarily
by hunting and fishing licenses, BTW). Now go take a look at the last 25
years of Florida deer, especially the year when the game management people
said that they needed to thin the herd and the bleeding hearts said no; the
bulk of the Florida deer population starved to death in the next winter. I
think that was far more "cruel".
>Animals can be trapped, and euthanized humanely.
Let me see, rather than using a system that has worked well for a long time
and actually brings in money, lets spend more tax dollars and have
government workers screw it up. Great idea!
> 5. Guns are useless as self defense. If the criminal has one the only
> thing you can accomplish is a stalemate. Usually the stalemate results
> in your death.
Stalemates occur on TV where people seem to be determined to discuss the
"stalemate". Real life stats don't support your contention very well.
> 6. The slippery slope argument between the outlaw of spidgets,
> corvairs, and guns is flawed. The only persons killed in a spridget
> crash due to the design of the car is the driver and willing passenger
> "if" an accident occurs. Most the time, guns kill the other guy. I do
> oppose helmet laws on motorcycle riders because I do see a similarity
> between a motorcycle rider being forced against his will to wear a
> helmet, and the eventuality of a spridget driver being forced to wear a
> helmet.
Every analogy in the world is flawed. That is why analogy is called the
weakest form of logic. On the other hand, it does allow for the audience to
relate to the issue more easily. It can be a very compelling form of logic.
That is why Jesus used analogy (parables) in much of his teaching.
Just because I am the only one who is at risk does not mean I am allowed to
do it in this country. Suicide seldom hurts other people (physically), but
it is illegal and much money is spent every year to persuade people that
their life does not belong to them.
> 7. You are probably right that the outlaw of guns won't reduce
> crime, it will only reduce the number of 15 year olds mowing down
> their classmates, curious children blowing their brains out and stuff like
> that.
Not as long as they can still do it with cars and other weapons. The fact
that they used a gun does not mean that they would not have done it with
some other tool.
> 8. I actually support everyone's right to own and collect guns. I
> simply believe that ammunition and reloading equipment should be
> outlawed.
And your Spridget sits on a trailer and gets carried around to shows, right?
I do not at this time own a gun. I am a lousy hunter (but not vegetarian,
thanks to grocery stores), but eating meat requires death; you are killing
cows by eating beef just as surely as if you were shooting Bambi. I find it
very hypocritical when people can't bring themselves to hunt for meat, but
are perfectly happy to let other people do their killing for them.
For that matter, eating vegetables requires death, too ;-)
If you look at that second amendment in light of the intent of it, it was
not merely granting people the right to hunt, it was preserving the right of
revolution. They had just won their way out from under what they considered
to be an unjust rule by virtue of the fact that they had guns; that was
their ultimate "check and balance".
But, as one of my old college teachers used to say after a long involved
argument, "we can still be friends". Friends can accept other people having
a different opinion.
David Lieb
no guns
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/spridgets
|