Skip to main content

No, I am not in favor of removing firearms from the hands of legitimate citizens, Just some reasonable restrictions on what gets on the streets.
Cal .50 sniper rifle used in a crime. Now the last time I brought this up, I was informed that this kind of thing never happened.

A week or so ago I read a story about a cow sized feral pig killed in Georgia by a Boy with a .50 cal pistol. That may not be a crime, but I personally hunt cow sized Elk and Bear and smaller pigs with a .308 savage rifle. I have been known to accompany hunters armed with .40 Cal rifles using low velocity high grain ammunition for hunting Javalina in dense brush, but I personally don't hunt Javalina. I do take pictures of hunters for their scrapbooks. I have a favorite picture, the hunter did not want. He was saluting the only successful hunter in the party, with a single raised finger.
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
If you ban/control the .50 caliber, then is the .458 Winchester magnum, next? And, surely, you wouldn't mind banning those great old double barrelled rifles such as the .500 Nitro Express? Give the gun bigots an inch, and they'll have you by the throat.


Just to satisfy my curosity, do you draw a line on weapons anywhere? Sherman tanks, stinger missils, atom bombs? Where do you think the line should be( or do you think there should be one?)
EdEKit,

I just happened to notice that it seems that in every one of the listed "crimes" on this website, in which a .50 was used, it was either by persons who appear to fit the legal definition of being mentally insane, or a person or persons who were already prohibited from owning as much as a single cartridge, little on a .50. Drug dealers, convicted felons, persons in possession of stolen firearms, mentally ill, drunks. So their possession of the guns was a crime in itself. It was inmaterial whether it was a .22 derringer , or a .50 sniper rifle.

The .50 caliber handgun that killed the feral (now claimed as a pet) hog has less muzzle energy than your .308, with a lot bigger bullet. It's essentially just a souped up, overgrown .44 magnum.

BTW, if you are not aware of it, the .308 (7.62mm NATO) is quite capable of killing out to over a thousand yards, and it's ballistic big brother, the .300 Winchester Magnum is capable of the same accuracy out to over a mile.

Excelman, I draw the line with the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. For future reference:

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'm just glad to know the little boy's gun wasn't really any worse than a .44. That really takes a load off my mind.

One question, if the eleven year old had accidentally killed someone during the staged hunt, would his father have been held responsible or would the law have taken after the "game preserve's" owner?

One comment, I can hardly wait to see where the father takes the boy when he decides in a year or two that his son is ready to "become a man." Shall we all sing a verse of Jerry Jeff Walker's southern anthem?
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I'm just glad to know the little boy's gun wasn't really any worse than a .44. That really takes a load off my mind.

One question, if the eleven year old had accidentally killed someone during the staged hunt, would his father have been held responsible or would the law have taken after the "game preserve's" owner?

One comment, I can hardly wait to see where the father takes the boy when he decides in a year or two that his son is ready to "become a man." Shall we all sing a verse of Jerry Jeff Walker's southern anthem?


Why do you have a problem with a supervised, experienced youth being involved in a legal sport? He was hunting with his father and not one, but two professional guides. The boy has been hunting for six years, so he's hardly a novice.

As to your facetious question...if it was an accidental shooting, as you worded it, there would be no intent. Intent is a intergral part of most assault cases. I can see no difference if the shooter was 11 or 110 in that case. As far as civil liability, lawyers usually go after the money, so unless the father was independantly wealthy, I would suspect the game preserve owners would be who was sued.

I personally know several youth shooters that I trust more with a gun than I trust some of the adults around the Shoals Area with a car.
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Ah, but you see, it's only truly a sport when the animals have guns and can shoot back. Poor Fred did nothing to deserve his horrible fate. The problem I have is with the father who would teach his son that it's all right to kill for fun. Killing is necessary at times, but never for fun!


OK, the next time I go hunting, I'll lay a rifle (already loaded) on the deer trail. That'll make it even.

Animals already have their own advantages and armorment in the hunting game. They're protected by laws and have their naturally acquired skills that enable them to survive in the wild. That hog had stealth, knowledge of the area, tusks and sharp hooves that could have ripped a hunter to shreds, and his enormous size which had sustained him for many years.

So no hunter should have "fun" during a hunt? Hmmmm, that's a new concept. Spend thousands of dollars for equipment and travel, just to not have "fun". Sorry, humans naturally are hunters and omnivores. Some can repress their desire to hunt, but it's not natural to do so. And enjoyment of a sucessful hunt has been a part of hunting for as long as humans have hunted...it's ingrained into our psyche.

So you have a problem with "fathers" who teach their children that it's all right to hunt? Your problem flys in the face of the fact that children who spend time (like hunting and fishing) with their parents are more likely to be well adjusted adults when they grow up.
Hey, it's just my opinion on the sport thing. After all, Woody Allen said swimming isn't a sport--it's something you do to keep from drowning. But, the omnivore thing? Sure, I eat meat--I don't want to, but I was too weak-willed to hack it as a vegetarian; however (a big however), the Book of Genesis says God created all animals to be herbiverous. Sure, they're not now, not after the fall, but God intended for them to be.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Sure, I eat meat--I don't want to, but I was too weak-willed to hack it as a vegetarian;


Then that makes you a complete and utter hypocrite, doesn't it?


No more than it makes the obese person who can't seem to lose weight because of intermittant binges. I believe it was Peggy Hill who said, "I only do it in reality. I absolutely never do it in theory."
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
I'm going with evolution. The humanoid upright frame developed early. The larger brain only evolved when they started eating meat by scavenging and hunting. Vegetarians -- please keep up your diet without Vitamin B supplements during pregnancy and your descendants will have lower IQs -- significantly lower.


Vegetarian: noun; origin- Native American-- definition: Bad Hunter. Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Actually, in cherokee, vegetarian translates as "bad shot."

As to evolution of brain;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_ev...d_for_thought1.shtml

Like I said. Please note, if gorillas eat meat like humans they die at 20, instead of 50. We process fats and protein much better than out homanid relatives. Modern medicine increases our lifespan.

gorillas died at 50 on vegetarian diets. Humans die at 80 on mixed diets. Gorillas die at 20 on all meat diets. Humans die at 40 on all meat diets. Different Species, same ratio.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by interventor:
Actually, in cherokee, vegetarian translates as "bad shot."

As to evolution of brain;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_ev...d_for_thought1.shtml

Like I said. Please note, if gorillas eat meat like humans they die at 20, instead of 50. We process fats and protein much better than out homanid relatives. Modern medicine increases our lifespan.

gorillas died at 50 on vegetarian diets. Humans die at 80 on mixed diets. Gorillas die at 20 on all meat diets. Humans die at 40 on all meat diets. Different Species, same ratio.
I came in here to retract my arguement. In 1570 an .80 calibre rifle was being manufactured. It can be found by perusing this site. http://www.jmdavis.state.ok.us/
There are three or four things vital to human life, Fats, Sugars, Salt, and meat protein.

THE BRAIN IS NOT THE RESULT OF EATING MEAT. The need for meat is a result of having the brain.

The vital nutrients all taste good and are all hard to get in a natural setting. That is without commercial farming and meat production, Salt production and sugar refining. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE AN OBESITY PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

Again, the need for meat is a result of having a brain that requires a lot of protein to function and develop fully. And the few proteins, called amino acids, that are essential, and not produced by the body, are found only in animal protein. APES AND OTHER TROGLODYTES get enough from eating insects and very small quantities of other animal protein. So do Chinese. Modern humans eat more meat, salt sugar and fat than they need because we evolved needing them and having a hard time getting them.
Like I said:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet

By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.
Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.
Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1). "

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×