By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Democratic congresswoman shot in Arizona.

Kasz216 on 19 January 2011
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

This is quite odd. Western Pennsylvania is heavily hunting country, but i don't know anyone that seriously eats venison (or even likes it). If they eat the deer, it's for deer jerky, which is hardly any sort of serious sustenance.

 

Though this argument's gone severely off-topic. I'm no fan of guns in the home, just because of the tendency to lead to tragedy (mostly either suicidal or accidental), and i'm a stringent foe of guns that have no viable purpose other than aggressively killing lots of people (assault weapons and the like), but hunting i feel is ultimately a benign cultural thing, and should be left alone, though ideally i'd have some technique for isolating hunting rifles outside the home

Accidental I can see, though accidental gun deaths are very low.

But suicidal?  It's not like people say "Oh I want to kill myself, but darn it... I don't have a gun."

I would also mention that if those are his views (left of center), I would imagine he may not be in the type of kill-it-and-eat-it crowd, and is unlikely to know people that are serious about both hunting for food. I live close to him (central Ohio), and can say that we hunt likely as much as western PA, and everyone does it for food.


I'd also say he's totally underestimating Deer jerky.  It's not bad.  Healthier then Beef Jerky and more humane in anycase. 

Still I was trying to stick to the cons at the moment.  Which are far below the cons of many things legal, with less pros.  It's really illogical to be anti-gun and pro alchohol as I mentioned above... with the only reason really being "more people like beer." which is just... a dumb reason.

Heck, i'd be more suicides involve alchohol then guns.  Would those people have been able to kill themselves if they hadn't gotten themselves drunk for courage before hand?  Seems less likely then someone who was suicidal and drunk being able to kill themselves without a gun.



Around the Network
Mr Khan on 19 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

This is quite odd. Western Pennsylvania is heavily hunting country, but i don't know anyone that seriously eats venison (or even likes it). If they eat the deer, it's for deer jerky, which is hardly any sort of serious sustenance.

 

Though this argument's gone severely off-topic. I'm no fan of guns in the home, just because of the tendency to lead to tragedy (mostly either suicidal or accidental), and i'm a stringent foe of guns that have no viable purpose other than aggressively killing lots of people (assault weapons and the like), but hunting i feel is ultimately a benign cultural thing, and should be left alone, though ideally i'd have some technique for isolating hunting rifles outside the home

Accidental I can see, though accidental gun deaths are very low.

But suicidal?  It's not like people say "Oh I want to kill myself, but darn it... I don't have a gun."

But it is easier to take people down with you. One of my grandfather's brothers went out that way



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan on 19 January 2011
mrstickball said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

This is quite odd. Western Pennsylvania is heavily hunting country, but i don't know anyone that seriously eats venison (or even likes it). If they eat the deer, it's for deer jerky, which is hardly any sort of serious sustenance.

 

Though this argument's gone severely off-topic. I'm no fan of guns in the home, just because of the tendency to lead to tragedy (mostly either suicidal or accidental), and i'm a stringent foe of guns that have no viable purpose other than aggressively killing lots of people (assault weapons and the like), but hunting i feel is ultimately a benign cultural thing, and should be left alone, though ideally i'd have some technique for isolating hunting rifles outside the home

Accidental I can see, though accidental gun deaths are very low.

But suicidal?  It's not like people say "Oh I want to kill myself, but darn it... I don't have a gun."

I would also mention that if those are his views (left of center), I would imagine he may not be in the type of kill-it-and-eat-it crowd, and is unlikely to know people that are serious about both hunting for food. I live close to him (central Ohio), and can say that we hunt likely as much as western PA, and everyone does it for food.

My politics has never determined my circle of friends, and i knew quite a few people who hunted routinely (my other grandfather being one of them, and a few of my close friends from high school), and if they actually reclaimed the carcass for anything aside from trophying, it was for jerky

Not to be argumentative at all. You're probably just as correct in this as i am, but my exposure to it has been far more for sport (and i'm talking about some medium-low income families, too)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 19 January 2011
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

This is quite odd. Western Pennsylvania is heavily hunting country, but i don't know anyone that seriously eats venison (or even likes it). If they eat the deer, it's for deer jerky, which is hardly any sort of serious sustenance.

 

Though this argument's gone severely off-topic. I'm no fan of guns in the home, just because of the tendency to lead to tragedy (mostly either suicidal or accidental), and i'm a stringent foe of guns that have no viable purpose other than aggressively killing lots of people (assault weapons and the like), but hunting i feel is ultimately a benign cultural thing, and should be left alone, though ideally i'd have some technique for isolating hunting rifles outside the home

Accidental I can see, though accidental gun deaths are very low.

But suicidal?  It's not like people say "Oh I want to kill myself, but darn it... I don't have a gun."

But it is easier to take people down with you. One of my grandfather's brothers went out that way

Was he drunk while he did it? (I'd guess yes.)

However now we are talking about such an obscure and tiny situation it's ridiculious to even consider crafting legislation around it.



mhsillen on 19 January 2011

I fell into a deep dark barrel and found this at the very bottom:

http://www.page2live.com/2011/01/18/palm-beach-folks-of-giffords-doc-supported-tea-partier-christine-odonnell/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss 



Around the Network
FreeTalkLive on 20 January 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

@FreeTalkLive:

And neither should owning a gun be a right. As I said, it's unnecessary in today's society.

It's unnessisary to own a gun in todays society?  Aren't you the one who just said people need to overthrow their corrupt governments?  Kinda hard without any access to guns when their militaries DO have guns.

Furthermore.  Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't make driving a car anymore dangerous for anyone but you.

The stats on seat belt useage go in several ways and could be used to indicate pretty much anything.  Some research shows that people that don't wear seat belts are better drivers.  Some research shows that people without seat belts are more likely to be thrown from the car.  Some research suggests that people that don't wear a seat belt are less likely to get in crashes and so on. 

There is really no point in even using stats when arguing about seat belt useage. Typically the big government types push the I was in an accident and I would have been thrown from the car and died if I didn't have a seat belt on.  The most common arguement from the people that like liberty is people have a right to not wear a seat belt.  Some of them will quote up to 4 different sections of the NH Constitution which they say prove that it is a right.

At least that's how the arguement usually goes in NH.  I don't think there is much of an arguement in many other places because in most places it is already established law (that people have to wear a seat belt) and the liberty lovers have given up on this issue.



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

FreeTalkLive on 20 January 2011
WereKitten said:
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:

@FreeTalkLive:

And neither should owning a gun be a right. As I said, it's unnecessary in today's society.

...

Furthermore.  Not wearing a seatbelt doesn't make driving a car anymore dangerous for anyone but you.

Still, not wearing a seatbelt you're statistically much more prone to serious injuries even in minor car accidents. In a country where healthcare is heavily socialized that means much higher financial costs for everybody, but even in the US it still means needlessly hogging time and personnel resources, e.g in an ER during the triage and first assistance phases, possibly causing damage or inconvenience to other harmed people.

No need to point out that it's a slippery slope ("then why shouldn't the government force you to eat better and live a more healthy lifestyle"), but the specific case sounds a little enough violation of personal freedom to me -what's the problem? wrinkled shirts?- that such a law enforcement makes sense if you don't live alone on an island.

As for the guns, are you really saying that the right to bear arms makes sense so that there can be a legal revolution? :)

As for the seat belt issue, here is my response, http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3874487

About guns.  The reasons to have a gun in the US include sport shooting, fun shooting, target practice, hunting, defending yourself, defending your property (including pets), defending your family, defending your friends, defending others.  This defense is of wild animals, crazed animals, foreign invaders, criminals, government workers in a revolution and so on.  Actually, there was a revolution in the US so...



 

Tired of big government?
Want liberty in your lifetime?
Join us @
http://www.freestateproject.org

badgenome on 20 January 2011
mhsillen said:

I fell into a deep dark barrel and found this at the very bottom:

http://www.page2live.com/2011/01/18/palm-beach-folks-of-giffords-doc-supported-tea-partier-christine-odonnell/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss 

What the fuck.

It's hard to believe a major paper would run some B-grade Daily Kos shit, even in their online edition... or so I would say in a world in which the New York Times didn't exist.



mhsillen on 20 January 2011
badgenome said:
mhsillen said:

I fell into a deep dark barrel and found this at the very bottom:

http://www.page2live.com/2011/01/18/palm-beach-folks-of-giffords-doc-supported-tea-partier-christine-odonnell/?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss 

What the fuck.

It's hard to believe a major paper would run some B-grade Daily Kos shit, even in their online edition... or so I would say in a world in which the New York Times didn't exist.

All the years I have followed the news I have never witnessed such utter disregard for the profession. 

it gives me a bit of sadness when hard news boils down to personal ideological  preference instead of facts. And such a level of hatred.  So many examples that I'm becoming obsessed the utter avalanche of bullshit.

Maybe this story should get more play, this is just as horrible

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2011/01/19/philly-doctor-facing-8-counts-of-murder/



badgenome on 20 January 2011
mhsillen said:

All the years I have followed the news I have never witnessed such utter disregard for the profession. 

it gives me a bit of sadness when hard news boils down to personal ideological  preference instead of facts. And such a level of hatred.  So many examples that I'm becoming obsessed the utter avalanche of bullshit

In his defense (sort of), I guess he's kind of a bullshit celebrity reporter for the paper. Still, the "AHHHH! TEA PARTY MEMBERS WALK AMONG US!" tone of the story is just intensely weird. Like it's a scandal on the level of Mel Gibson's dad being a Holocaust denier or something. Whatever one might think of the tea party, at least the Lemoles gave us a great doctor; all Jose Lambiet has given us is this steaming pile of excrement.