NFR 5 Deer Hunters Shot

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by coonrad, Nov 21, 2004.

  1. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    I'm glad you brought that up! Because when the U.S. was compared to Canada, adjusting the U.S. population by ethnic makeup, the murder rates were virtually the same.
     
  2. cuponoodle breakfast

    cuponoodle breakfast Bigfoot is blurry

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    582
    Location:
    western WA
    Banning them will not make them magically disappear. It's already illegal for many people to posses any type of firearm and they still have 'em. Killing other people is already illegal, regardless of how.
     
  3. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    A long time ago I went to this building. In this building there was a lot of other kids. They called this place school. In this "school" they taught us different things like letters and numbers.

    I found out there that the number 5 is more 1.

    So in my adjusted comparison of 100,000 people in the US with an average of 5.69 murders is more than 1.73 per 100,000 people in Canada.

    How can you say that the murder rates are the same? Its three times more here in the US. And what is this "adjusting by ethnic makeup"? What, do spanish, african american count less as a human being? Are some races more violent than others?

    Troutfanatic
     
  4. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    Wow. Disappointed that you would say this Bob. I have been impressed with your stand on doing the right thing and offering an educated opinion in a lot of your own posts.

    Maybe it is hopless. But how do you know until somebody tries?

    There is some estimates that there is less than 200 returning wild steelhead in the Sky. I guess we should give up on that too.

    I mean is that a fair comparison?

    Not attacking you BOB, Troutfanatic


    I am done. Those that choose to believe whatever they want to believe is fine. Back to the lighter and better side of life. Learning and livin fly fishin. :)
     
  5. BOBLAWLESS

    BOBLAWLESS New Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Port Ludlow, WA, USA.
    Troutfanatic: no feeling of attack, just that you do not agree. That's fine. But the Sky ananolgy is not quite fair. 200 fish might be nurtured back to a respectable number. It could happen and I would never give up on them even if there were only two left.

    But these guns are everywhere in this society. I own four, just myself. The guy down the street owns three rifles, two shotguns and 27 old Colt revolvers all in working condition. So he has 32 weapons. My four and his thirty-two and Bob Trigg's none equals 36 guns divided by three and you get twelve each. I don't know what the national average is but I bet it is more than one gun per person.

    Bob might give his no gun up but I will hide mine and my neighbor will surrender them only after he has fired every single one of them at whoever would take them away(his words).

    Some problems have virtually no solution. And this may be one of them.
    We lost an election because we (the Dems.) keep hanging on to this troublesome issue. Guys that we should have had in our pocket (the unemployed and the guys with shit for jobs) will cross over and vote Republican just becasue they are afraid the Democrats will get their guns.

    We need to rethink this. It is worth giving away the environment? The economy? The right to choose? Decent schools? The war? etc. etc.? All because we keep barking down a road that leads to nowhere except maybe to our own demise?

    Sorry to disappoint you, my friend. I also support the death penalty which is not very liberal either. But oh well, I call 'em like I see 'em. :ray1:

    Bob, the Slightly agitated by the snide little innuendo you get around here sometimes. :mad:
     
  6. Cactus

    Cactus Dana Miller

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2002
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA, USA.
    Latino, Asians and blacks count the same to me. Don't know about to you though! But, that doesn't make all social trends the same amongst the various ethnic groups.

    But since you learned SO much about numbers in that "place called school", you may want to look at the murder rate by ethnic breakdown.

    Unfortunately, they must not have taught grammer in that "place called school"! :p

    A long time ago I went to a building filled with men and women. It was called a college. They taught us to research and question things like numbers and letters. So, as politically incorrect as it may be nowdays to say so, research shows that the murder rates in the African American community are tragically much higher than in the Asian American and European American communities. The reasons for this are many, I'm sure. Such as lower income, past inequities, etc.

    That is what I mean by "adjusting by ethnic makeup". Given that Canada has a much lower black population than the U.S., when taking into consideration the murder rates in the Asian and white communities of the two nations, and by adjusting our black population to one similar to Canada's (per capita), they are virtually the same.

    But then, maybe that "place called school" didn't teach you to dig beneath just the surface! That's to bad, because you can't come up with a solution to a problem if you are afraid to admit what it really is. Blaming an inanimate object just won't do the trick.
     
  7. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    And I agree with you. To me, I have a problem with how willing we are as a society to commit violence.

    I am just disappointed with the fact that so many people are willing to give up on some important issues such as violence in our culture.

    Is the Sky a fair comparison? Yes and no. Yes because many sportfisherman and women say that they have a right to keep any fish they catch, whether hatchery or wild.

    No, because it is a limited promblem due to one area with far less of a logistic and enforcement policy.

    Bob, to me, the kind of thinking that is involved with all these issues such as education, the enviroment, right to choose, and the war involve all the same kind of needed ethics and rationality.

    My original discussion was about how readily the hunter chose violence over a stupid thing such as a tree stand. The same thing happens with wild steelhead and how even though there is so little left people still want to kill them. With education we readily accept poor standards, crowded schools, and too little one on one time with the expectations that things should get better.

    I too believe in the death penalty. I am not a liberal or a conservative (but am a Democrat for the most part). Both sides are too limiting in their approach and ability to solve promblems effectively.

    Bob, I did not mean to make a snide remark. What I meant to illustrate is that many of us give up on problems that others would not, whether it is wild native fish or violence in our society.

    Troutfanatic
     
  8. troutfanatic

    troutfanatic A day not spent wasted is.....wasted.

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Monroe WA
    Never said guns are the problem. People who do not know how to handle guns appropriately are the problem. I thought that until we can handle them, we shouldn't have them.

    5 to one is still larger no matter who dies and where they die.
     
  9. cuponoodle breakfast

    cuponoodle breakfast Bigfoot is blurry

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    582
    Location:
    western WA
    Police shootings = when cops shoot a dirtbag who is acting in a way that justifies it.

    Handguns are the most efficient tool for self defense.
     
  10. Griswald

    Griswald a.k.a. Griswald

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Wa.
    First off let me say I own 4 shotguns and one rifle. I got my first shotgun when I was 11 years old. I have been an avid and life long bird hunter. Guns are a part of my life, and will be a part of my two son's upbringing and their life.

    That said, and as a former student of Constitutional history, I have the following that I would like to add to this argument:

    The second amendment states:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    (I borrowed this from the FINDLAW.com website), but I believe the text to be an accurate expansion and description of the second amendment.

    "In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to stateor private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force."

    What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, are 3 issues: Individual vs. States vs. Federal rights.

    I am of the opinion that when our great document known as the U.S. Constitution was drafted, there was certainly concern about allowing citizens to own firearms and weapons, but that concern was balanced by a greater concern for maintaining militia's for the security of the state. (Our young government could not afford at the time to maintain a large, trained, and well equipped military force.)
    That said I believe the following: I believe that the right to bear arms was incidental to the fact that our founding fathers wished to create a secure, soverign nation, and to protect our domestic interests from foriegn invasions, and internal insurrections...

    It is my interpetation of the second amendment that we get the right to bear arms as a bonus. I am thankful that we are able to do so. I am thankful that I may still own shotguns and rifles for my enjoyment.
    I believe that generally speaking ALL weapons in this country should be highly regulated and that all gun owners should be required to register each and every weapon they own, and that they should also be required to have gun licenses for each weapon. Finally they should be required to complete a fairly rigorous educational program before gun ownership is allowed. For all you paranoid types who say oh, well then the gov't will know who has the guns and who to go after, or that it will curtail our ability to overthrow our gov't if it is ever necessary---I say bullocks. If Uncle Sam wanted to impose martial law tomorrow, it would be done, and there is nothing you or I could do about it no matter how well armed we are. End of story.


    I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons. Call me a bleeding liberal, but in my opinion, I believe that they serve no purpose, save for killing people. It is what they are designed to do. I believe they are NOT the root cause of the issues we face today---the people who use them are---or are not, but simply put, many people can not handle the responsibilities that go along with owning that type of gun.

    Can anyone tell me why we must have a driver's license and why we must take a driving test, but why we don't have to do this for gun ownership?

    I believe that owning a gun, or driving a car is a priveledge and not a right. In order to enjoy these priviledges we need to play by the rules. Most do, but unfortuneatly some don't. And the law should eliminate the priviledge for those who don't or won't.

    Of course I welcome your comments.
    Griswald :ray1:
     
  11. Nooksack Mac

    Nooksack Mac Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,292
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    Bellingham, WA, USA.
    Griswald:

    You raise some interesting issues. Unfortunately, you quickly make a mess of most of them, relying on some assumptions common among authoritarian/liberals. But I'm not attacking you personally. Ad hominum arguments are so easy to slip into, and so pointless.

    You say that private ownership of arms is no defence against a repressive government, because the govt. need only declare martial law, and that would be the end of effective resistance. For an easy refutation of that notion, see Iraq today. Or remember the USSR about 15 years ago. One of the strongest, most repressive regimes in human history tried the "tanks in the streets" approach, and failed. How do you think it would work here, in a nation of more than 100 million gun owners (and using National Guard units headed by young Billy Bob, who was de







    livering your newspaper a few years before)?

    You used a cliche: "The only thing handguns are good for is to kill people." To which the answer is: DUH! This requires clarity of thought and control of emotion, but sometimes killing somebody is the very best thing that could happen. (Ask a cop how he feels about cleaning up the aftermath of a violent confrontation, where it's the homeowner/pedestrian/female/senior citizen/car owner who is shaken and perhaps injured, but alive, and the would-be home invader/mugger/rapist/disgruntled ex-spouse who's inside the chalk outline.)

    The right to life is the most fundamental of rights, without which all other rights are meaningless. Handguns aren't the best tool for premeditated agression (think: if you were actively hunting an enemy, wouldn't you choose more firepower than that?) but they are portable, and like portable pensions and medical coverage, are a good thing.

    Police are reactive; they're not bodyguards. As with most other aspects of human life, we're responsible for our own personal safety. It's not enough to be safe in one's own home, and legally vulnerable to "What's in your wallet/bra/gullet?" when out in public. Gun ownership and possession is very much about the personal, about what's most important to you. (Driving, on the other hand, beyond your driveway, is civic in nature, done on public streets and roads. And by the way, there's no active lobby to deny other citizens the right to drive.)

    Certainly, gun ownership and use requires an acceptance of stringent responsibility. And yes, many of our citizens aren't capable of that. I don't think it's possible to limit gun ownership to the level-headed and self-controlled. But careless use of firearms, although it can produce tragedies, isn't a major risk. Accidental shooting rates were never high, and have declined in recent decades. Obviously, the real risk is from those among us who use guns with malice aforethought. And here's something that can be done about that: Possession of firearms by convicted felons is forbidden, for the most part. But it's never enforced, as a practical matter, until after the next crime, when the harm is done. Why not subject all discharged felons to lifetime "audits?" Every police or sherrif's dept. should have a few officers who inspect the homes, bodies and cars of ex-cons at any time, without notice. That should reduce the possession of guns among our criminal class, with a corresponding reduction in homicide rates.
     
  12. Nailknot

    Nailknot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,910
    Likes Received:
    13
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Nice examination of the 2nd's intent, Griswald. The thoughtful post is appreciated. Nooksack- I'm not sure where you're coming from with the Red Dawn analogy (and is driving a constitutionally protected right, or where did that analogy come from? and I'm assuming you don't support the war in Iraq, given the armed people's militia there?) Anyway, I don't believe we're anywhere near heavy gun control, and never had been. Another right paranoia issue. Question: given a strict interpretation of the 2nd, shouldn't any individual be permitted to own any arms? i.e. m1 abrams tank, or land mines, or even nukes?
     
  13. cuponoodle breakfast

    cuponoodle breakfast Bigfoot is blurry

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    582
    Location:
    western WA
    "I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons."

    Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. I've been in several online discussions about this issue and in every one of them, the anti-gun people show just how much they know about guns and gun laws.
    To drive a car on public roads, you need a driver's license. To carry a handgun in public, you need a concealed pistol license.
    Those who have a documented history of being irresponsible (felons, domestic abusers, the mentally unstable) are already prohibited from owning firearms. Enforcement of current laws would do more for society than writing new laws that would get the same half-hearted enforcement.
     
  14. Griswald

    Griswald a.k.a. Griswald

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Wa.
    Cuponoodle, my rebuttal will be swift and effective:

    "I believe that handguns should be illegal, and so should automatic weapons."

    Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. (I already knew that and assumed our audience did too Thank you for pointing out the obvious.)

    I've been in several online discussions about this issue and in every one of them, the anti-gun people show just how much they know about guns and gun laws. (I am not anti-gun, I have been a multiple gun owner for over 25 years.)
    To drive a car on public roads, you need a driver's license. To carry a handgun in public, you need a concealed pistol license. (Again thank you for stating the obvious to our audience)
    Those who have a documented history of being irresponsible (felons, domestic abusers, the mentally unstable) are already prohibited from owning firearms. Enforcement of current laws would do more for society than writing new laws that would get the same half-hearted enforcement.

    (Why wait for someone to prove they are an irresponsible gun owner...why not tighten things up on the front end, surely those with nothing to hide will be fine with this---I am.)

    And anyone who would like to have a debate regarding my "knowledge of fire arm types, their development and implementation in both military and civilian applications, weapons history,ballistic statistics, uses and interesting stories, I would welcome any and all to speak freely- I warmly embrace your attempt to "expose" me as a anti gun guy who knows not what I speak of. :)
    Griswald
     
  15. Bob Triggs

    Bob Triggs Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    4,805
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Location:
    Olympic Peninsula
    Home Page:
    Not to be argumentative, but many fully automatic firearms, and some other "dangerous and destructive devices" can be legally owned in many states, under differing state's qualifications, and with a "class III federal stamp" permit, which is issued by the ATF,(Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.), after a solid background check. And of course a hefty fee,(tax), is paid for it.

    It is still illegal for people to misuse these firearms. And in the cases where automatic firearms are used in crimes, many of these firearms are posessed illegally; without a permit or stolen etc.

    Once apon a time my dad had a beautiful, mint condition, Browning Water Cooled .30 cal. machine gun, mounted on a tripod, in his living room. The aircooled wwII aviation version took up too much room in his bedroom.

    Most automatic firearms collectors are using them for investments. They may have a few to shoot for fun,( a damned expensive hobby at $2-$5 a burst!), but most of them are too valuable as investments to be carried afield or fired.