Climbers and Guns....? Hunting this fall?

I'm with Nick on this. I'm no Trumper, but I am a responsible hunter/gun owner/shooting enthusiast. I am also a veteran of the cold/secret wars of the 80's, and have seen first hand what a "socialist" state in the hands of a tyrant looks like(Nicaragua/Panama/Honduras/El Salvador/Venezuela).  

Most of the gun violence in America is people shooting themselves, then shooting each other, in that order. The root cause of both is mental health and substance abuse related. Normal people have a strong aversion to pulling the trigger when they know what the outcome is going to be. The military actually has to work very hard to get people to kill other people. 

So say what you will about the evil black guns and pistols, they just allow people that already have evil in their hearts/minds to do what they do more efficiently. And that is sad and frustrating to the VAST majority of us that don't shoot innocent people, but own guns.  

Bruno Schullwrote:

Hey Folks, 

@Zippy, the "mess" you describe is simply quotes cut and pasted from this thread--not my words.  But you know that.  If you would like examples well-written, well-reasoned posts (whether or no you agree with them) see my earlier posts.  Did you read them? Would you care to respond, point-by-point, with careful, logical, counter arguments?  

As to why I keep coming back here, I think that should be clear from my earlier posts, for anybody who took the time to read them.  I would like to provide a counterpoint to the fevered, paranoid, gun positive culture presented in this thread.  I think this thread reflects and promotes gun culture, a culture that leads to widespread gun violence.  I object to this thread, in the same way that I would object to a threads about murder, child abuse, robbery, or whatever. 

If this thread were really about hunting, sure, I think it would belong in "other sports."  But this thread is not about hunting.  It is, or it became, a place for gun folks to celebrate their obsession with weapons, and express their opinions on politics, other people, other nations, COVID-19, women, and so on.  

That's why I don't think it belongs on MP.  

If anybody wants to have a discussion, feel free to PM me...I had a really productive exchange some time ago with a gun owner who I met through this forum.

B

There are all sorts of tools available here to graphically separate your words from quotes, different quotes, and identify who said what. You couldn't even make the one click effort to move the cursor outside of the quote box. 

Claudine Longetwrote:

There are all sorts of tools available here to graphically separate your words from quotes, different quotes, and identify who said what. You couldn't even make the one click effort to move the cursor outside of the quote box. 

+1 trolling of the worst kind. not even funny.

@ Pinhead and Dave, 

I like how you call it "trolling" when all I did was cut and paste comments :)  Actually, I intentionally didn't include names.  I didn't want to call somebody out for something that they might have written in haste, with little forethought.  There are some pretty extreme comments in this thread.  Just go and re-read the thread...it's all there.

Anyway, it's pretty clear you don't really want to really engage with the issues.  It seems you just want a protected safe space where you don't have to consider alternative views.  

Did you read the links?  Care to have discuss any particular point?  

I've stated my opinions, and backed them up with peer-reviewed evidence, including, I should add, a paper that presents a great diversity of views, including views you might agree with (the nature article).  It's a good article.  

Bruno

Go away.  Hassle  someone else.  

Bruno Schullwrote:

  It seems you just want a protected safe space 

how's that for ironical?

PWZwrote:

how's that for ironical?

Pretty ironic I'd say.

Bruno Schullwrote:

Hi BigCountry, 

I appreciate that you wrote back!

OK, so you feel that I have opinions only and no facts.  Here are some research articles with facts:

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home      

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/

and

Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study    

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15522849/

Here's an interesting article about finding common ground in the gun debate.  I quote one paragraph to provide evidential references to support my statements above. 

The psychology of guns: risk, fear, and motivated reasoning

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0373-z

"Despite the 1996 Dickey Amendment’s restriction of federal funding for research on gun violence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Rostron, 2018), more than 30 years of public health research supports thinking of guns as statistically more of a personal hazard than a benefit. Case-control studies have repeatedly found that gun ownership is associated with an increased risk of gun-related homicide or suicide occurring in the home (Kellermann and Reay, 1986; Kellermann et al., 1993; Cummings and Koepsell, 1998; Wiebe, 2003; Dahlberg et al., 2004; Hemenway, 2011; Anglemeyer et al., 2014). For homicides, the association is largely driven by gun-related violence committed by family members and other acquaintances, not strangers (Kellermann et al., 1993, 1998; Wiebe, 2003)."

Those links relate to just one of my points.  We could finds research, evidence, and facts about every thing else I stated, as well.    For example, you mentioned the 2nd amendment.  Well, what does it actually mean?  What was the intention behind it?  How are we supposed to interpret it now?  Although everybody thinks they know the answers (which usually conventiely fit their own beliefs) the history of the amendment, what the words were intended to mean, how they should be interpreted and applied today, even the broader question of what role a document like the constitution should play in society, is far from clear.  

I'm happy to discuss any of these issues--provide a counterpoint.  Find your facts and evidence.  Lay it out.  Convince me. 

Bruno

Try as I might to resist, I’ll bite.  

I stopped reading after looking at the abstracts of the first two “studies” you referenced.

Study 1: Analyzed a 12 month and 18 month period in three cities in the US. If you believe that a sample size that small has any hope of representing, oh I don’t know, the other 98% of the country, you may need to go back to the drawing board regarding how you interpret and apply results from one study to the entire population of the target group.  Disclaimer: I arbitrarily used 98%; I don’t know exactly what proportion of firearm owners reside in those three cities, but you get my point.

Study 2: Summarized- “If there’s a firearm in the home, the chances of suicide or homicide by firearm increase.” Umm, no shit?  Similarly, if a person has access to a vehicle, I’d imagine the chances of them getting a ticket or causing a collision go up as well.  A more meaningful (and impossible) metric would be “of all those who attempt or commit suicide or homicide with a firearm, what proportion of people chose to commit/attempt said suicide or homicide BECAUSE a firearm was available, when in the absence of the firearm they wouldn’t have committed or attempted the suicide or homicide."

Those two studies, to me, present no statistically significant or practically applicable results or info from which anyone can draw any truly meaningful conclusions about legal and responsible firearm owners in the aggregate.

You seem sincere, and I do appreciate that sincerity and your convictions. But so far, I think you have yet to meaningfully substantiate your opinions and feelings using meaningful “research” and “facts”.  I don’t say that to imply your opinions are wrong (even though I think they are indeed wrong), I say that to illustrate that you haven’t presented any evidence to back up your claims.

Edited to add the unquote at the end of study 2 paragraph.

Bruno quite frankly why are you so special? There's obviously plenty of interest in this thread from plenty of people. But since it hurts your special feelings it doesn't belong? Kick rocks dude

I completely agree that most of the folks who have guns shouldn't but the fact is we do and we were just talking about hunting and stuff so please give us our  safe space .. thank you. 

 When did peer reviewed science become opinion is what I want to know.

M Mwrote:

 When did peer reviewed science become opinion is what I want to know.

About the time when it was declared that the Artic would be ice free by 2000

Oh lookie! The “hunting thread” turns into a climate change denial thread. What a surprise! 

If anyone is interested, I'd like to get back on topic for a moment. I'm looking to get into hunting, probably for deer but maybe other things too. I live in CT, so getting a permit is taking forever, but when I eventually do, what kind of gun would be my best bet for a first one to hunt with? 12 guage shotgun? My family was pretty anti gun growing up, so mostly everything I know about guns comes from a few summers at boy scout camp and the required gun safety course I needed to apply for my permit in CT. 

chris pwrote:

If anyone is interested, I'd like to get back on topic for a moment. I'm looking to get into hunting, probably for deer but maybe other things too. I live in CT, so getting a permit is taking forever, but when I eventually do, what kind of gun would be my best bet for a first one to hunt with? 12 guage shotgun? My family was pretty anti gun growing up, so mostly everything I know about guns comes from a few summers at boy scout camp and the required gun safety course I needed to apply for my permit in CT. 

Are the other things likely going to be other mammals or birds? Or both?

chris pwrote:

If anyone is interested, I'd like to get back on topic for a moment. I'm looking to get into hunting, probably for deer but maybe other things too. I live in CT, so getting a permit is taking forever, but when I eventually do, what kind of gun would be my best bet for a first one to hunt with? 12 guage shotgun? My family was pretty anti gun growing up, so mostly everything I know about guns comes from a few summers at boy scout camp and the required gun safety course I needed to apply for my permit in CT. 

Shotguns are amazingly versatile in that you can use slugs for big game, and all sorts of shot sized appropriately for medium and small game. You can hunt birds and mammals. The downside is that for deer hunting with slugs, you are realistically limited to 75-100 yard shots. 

If I were in your shoes, I would budget for a bolt action rifle in a common deer cartridge (.308, 30-06, .243, etc) and a 12 gauge with a 28" barrel. This will allow you to hunt big, medium and small game, including mammals and birds. 

Next up would be a .22LR for target practice and small game hunting. Then you'll want a magnum deer rifle for that big elk hunt in Colorado. Then you'll want a lightweight bolt gun for a goat hunt. Like with climbing gear, the correct number of firearms is n+1, where n is the number that you currently own...

chris p wrote:

You should also look into tags in neighboring states if you want to hunt public land. Also consider a lever action gun, many available capable calibers in that frame. Really you gotta lotta options

Claudine Longetwrote:

About the time when it was declared that the Artic would be ice free by 2000

Are you referring to when in 2009 Al Gore said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013?  

Inherited a .32 Special rifle from my father - what game is it good for? I would imagine deer, but could I do elk or caribou with it? Currently the only game I'm doing with it is the "where the hell can I buy ammo for this thing?" game