Skip to main content

View Diary: I have been a gun owner for more than 30 years…and 365 days (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  I agree. (17+ / 0-)

      Used to be that there was an ethic attached to one-shot kills on game. It demonstrated the intersection of skill, patience, and concern for making as humane a shot as possible. Wish we could recover that.

      Peace, Love, and Canoes!!!

      by OldJackPine on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:22:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is still there. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, OldJackPine, Renfriend

        Where did you get the idea that we 'lost that'?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:25:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Lost" may be an overstatement. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Mark Mywurtz, Mike Kahlow

          But it is not a prevalent or prominent as it once was.

          Peace, Love, and Canoes!!!

          by OldJackPine on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:41:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I haven't seen that at all. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Renfriend

            Hunting accidents are way down.
            Hunting groups are the most effective conservation groups in the nation.

            I think this is a case of people having a tendency to have a false idea of a 'golden past'.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 11:53:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Perception Becoming Reality? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, True North, sydneyluv

          [OldJackPine]

          Used to be that there was an ethic attached to one-shot kills on game. It demonstrated the intersection of skill, patience, and concern for making as humane a shot as possible. Wish we could recover that.
          [FrankRose]
          It is still there. Where did you get the idea that we 'lost that'?
          Oh, I dunno, maybe people buying semi-automatic assault weapons and claiming that they were for hunting?

          "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor." ~ Pope Francis

          by paz3 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 12:36:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Semi-autos are used for hunting. (0+ / 0-)

            The existence of semi-autos is as irrelevant to a discussion of 'hunting ethics' as the existence of bolt-action, pump-action, or any other mechanical action is to it.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 12:43:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you just proved the point above, didn't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, samanthab

              you?

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:14:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

                One shot kills are still the ethic and the goal, but that doesn't mean that proceeding shots aren't still occasionally needed.
                Further, particularly with bird hunting there can be more than one.

                Do you think that the existence of double-barrel shotguns preclude a one-shot ethic?

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:30:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Not Quite What I Meant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              I said, "semi-automatic assault weapons," like civilian versions of the AR-15. The increase in sales of the assorted versions of a combat weapon, despite folks claiming to use same to hunt with, is fueling a sense of fear and near anarchy that will eventually lead to political and voter backlash against same. And the ammo for these (generally 5.56 mm /.223-caliber) will sure mess up your meat unless you get a head shot.

              I mean, I have a semi-automatic .308, sometimes it's useful to be able to keep the rifle up when shooting across a distance at large game such as elk. And considering how fast a person can pump a Mossberg, one may as well be semi-automatic.

              No, it's the combat people-killers and their offspring - the public perception of those - that's going to undo much of the Second Amendment as people tire of the blood and dead kids. Folks can go on and on about how most gun murders involve handguns, and that's true, but it's the scary "see how fast I can fire this" and "look how many rounds I can clip on to this" video game look-alikes that will force the issue. Through public perception that gun regulation opposers want this type of weapon everywhere. And that their rights override the rights of those who want to feel safer in public.

              You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

              by paz3 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:28:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Back in the fifties, persons using artificial (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero

            aiming devices, like scopes, were looked down upon, at least in some circles. And, yes, you're right, in those same circles, it simply was not acceptable to hunt big game with a semi automatic rifle.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:18:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually it wasn't there even when some of it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          existed (and likely still does to some limited extent). I trained in wildlife and fisheries biology in the late sixties, and work some in the field after that. Hunting then, as now, is largely about big noisy "hunting parties", lots of booze and driving around looking for something to shoot. Then as now there are exceptions, but, simply put, most hunters have no spiritual connection with nature whatsoever. I mean, goddamn man, we're in the era of the $100,000 auctioned trophy animal special hunt permit.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:13:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Despite your personal feelings: (0+ / 0-)

            Ducks Unlimited has conserved 13,000,000 acres.

            Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever have enhanced over 6,100,000 acres (24,700 km2)—including planting grasslands, restoring wetlands, planting woody cover or food plots and purchased lands to provide habitat for pheasant, quail and other wildlife. This total also includes approximately 400,000 wildlife habitat projects, which have helped pheasant, quail and other wildlife.

            Meanwhile your 'spiritual-connection' has accomplished only two things: Jack and Shit.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:37:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Different subject than the one you started on. And (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              I don't blame you for trying to change, because you were absolutely out in left field on the first one. You do jump around. Are you sure you're alright?

              You didn't mention any organization originally, and neither did I. How, then, I wonder, can you pick a fight with me on something I never even mentioned? Probably win a lot of "debates" that way, though, don't you?

              I've never met a true "conservation organization", ever, that I have a problem supporting.

              So now let's get back to you. You're alright with some "Dick Cheney wannabe" getting first crack at all of the choicest publicly owned wildlife, as long as they're willing to pay up for the privilege? Privately owned hunting marshes, clubs, and preserves also do some things for natural populations in general, but I still don't encourage them. I don't know, maybe it's the Democrat in me.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:13:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Why not single shot? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MertvayaRuka

      In hunting, the first shot is oftentimes the only shot.

      Of course, we should keep in mind that you don't need a gun for hunting.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:24:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree: if a six-shooter won't take care of your (0+ / 0-)

      needs, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      But I despise blaming guns instead of culpable people, and I think it's wrong to say we should excuse killers because of mental illness or bullying. They're murderers. Sometimes we just have to admit that the human mind works, or breaks, in ways we don't -- maybe even can't -- understand, and go forward from there.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:30:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are talking about what happens after (8+ / 0-)

        the kids have been shot. We can blame the shooter, or we can excuse him because he was mentally ill or bullied in school. Neither one of these responses will bring the kids back to life.

        This diary is about what happens before, to keep the gun out of the hands of the bad/victimized by fate or society person, so that they can't shoot a bunch of kids in the first place.

        Since you recognize that a person with a mental illness can in fact shoot a bunch of kids whether he gets blamed for it or not, maybe you could agree that A can cause B whether society blames A for it or not. The question isn't whether guns are "to blame" for kids getting killed. The question is whether guns play a causal role in kids getting killed. They do. In other countries where people have far less access to guns, people with a mental illness do on occasion attack a school full of kids with some other weapon, like a knife or a machete. They succeed in killing few or no people, because it's much easier to overpower someone armed with a blade than it is to overpower someone armed with a gun.

        The question is how do we prevent people who are likely to kill innocents from having access to guns. We can't prevent it entirely, but we can reduce the likelihood by agreeing as a society that people with schizophrenia, and/or people with a history of domestic violence, and/or people with a criminal history, and/or minors, should not be allowed to have access to guns, and by putting into place universal background checks, with no loopholes for gun shows or private sales, to enforce this principal as law.

        Obviously we should also realize that untreated schizophrenia is a horrible thing, not only for the person suffering it, but for the rest of us as well. Treatment for schizophrenia should be free, and people suffering from schizophrenia should also receive regular, life-long help from social workers to help them stay on a healthy course.

        Ending outrageous economic inequality, the ghettoization of poor and dark-skinned people, jobs that are so brutally exploitative that they fill people with rage, an economy that has millions fewer job opening that it does adults of working age, yada yada yada.... would also do a lot to reduce the likelihood that someone will flip out and decide to shoot a lot of people.

        •  My contention is that even in Paradise (0+ / 0-)

          with no firearms, there are people who will attack and injure, maim, and yes, kill children. Or other strangers. Because the human mind is ingenious even when it's broken, and sometimes that breakage feeds on pain, terror, misery, death.

          LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Sun Dec 15, 2013 at 10:38:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site