Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (2+ / 3-)

    So this guy hasn't fired 154 rounds in his 40 adult years?  Four rounds a year was too much for him?  This is the sort of guy I wouldn't trust to anywhere near gun and certainly wouldn't trust to keep a gun secure.  He's a casual gun owner of the worst type; the kind that probably forgets he even owns any.  

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:54:25 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Try reading it again before mouthing off. (4+ / 0-)

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:06:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  something doesn't add up. Pheasant hunting takes (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick Costighan, Shamash
      Hidden by:
      Boreal Ecologist

      some practice with a shotgun, and it's an irresponsible deer or elk hunter who has fired less than 154 shots.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:14:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Predictable Response (10+ / 0-)

      Surprised this one hasn't appeared yet:

      "This guy obviously isn't a real hunter or sport shooter, I have 1,000's of rounds of ammo at the ready".

      You're just not a credible hunter unless when you and your buddies go hunting it sounds like a big battle between the Hatfields and the McCoys, with hundreds of rounds fired.

      "Odd" that when I come across one of the hunting shows on TV, the featured hunter is very quiet, and typically drops the deer or elk with one shot.

      If you need 10-20 shots to get your intended prey, I can only conclude you're not a very good shot... and you need more time at the target range.

      "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

      by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:36:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He is obviously referring to 154 rounds in 5 (0+ / 0-)

        minutes. Sheesh!

        Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

        by ratcityreprobate on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:41:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Superpole, dinotrac

          Read it.  He says "In my lifetime, I have not fired more than 154 rounds."

          When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

          by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:43:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK. Maybe he meant outside of target practice. (3+ / 0-)

            If you're a naturally good shot and a naturally very mindful gun user, you don't need tons of practice to shoot well and know where to point the weapon and how not to shoot yourself or someone else.

            Maybe he's stretching it.

            You're doing a good job of distracting from the point he's making, which resonates around the country among many gun owners.

            Newtown was a horror, an outrage, that was facilitated, perpetrated by the makers of high capacity magazines and assault weapons who hijacked the NRA (they dominate the board)  and who have a stranglehold on our political process.

            Now there are numerous efforts on several fronts to distract and delay and distort the effort towards common sense.
            One is to persecute the "mentally ill" as scapegoats for this collective insanity.
            This really sucks. It's truly tragic.

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

              Or more likely he's full of crap, shoveling a line that would only be bought be people with little to no experience with firearms.  What's disturbing is that he's tacitly advocating inexperience.  Praying for superhuman kinesthesia is not sound policy, and I'm surprised to see so many people who (I assume) would support stronger training requirements for lawful gun owners insist that expending a mere four rounds a year is anything but keeping irresponsibly out of practice.  

              Manufacturers of detachable magazines and black guns had nothing to do with 12/14.  It is a line pushed either out of ignorance of vindictiveness.  And I do not delay or distract.  A lot of work needs to be done to keep any weapon out of the hands of dangerous people.  It's frustrating to see so much time and effort wasted on ridiculous proposals when there is real work to be done.

              When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

              by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:43:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why weren't gun advocates doing this "real work" (0+ / 0-)

                before there was a steady stream of massacres and the nation finally woke up to the tragedy?

                The answer is that it is a last minute attempt to divert attention from the real problem.

                It looks like the NRA's old formula of delaying and buying off Congress is going to succeed, though, so no real need.

                You can't make this stuff up.

                by David54 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:21:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                  Short answer, we were.  

                  Long answer.  There's been a steady stream of massacres for thirty years now, averaging twenty a year.  As horrifying as they are, they are a drop of water in the ocean compared to flood of gun violence that claims less victims per incident.  Thankfully, that toll has diminished considerably since the 1990s.  In that vein, the focus has been on prevention and law enforcement response.  Project Exile garnered cross-spectrum support from the Brady Campaign and the NRA.  Gun rights activists naturally focus on the community aspect of community policing, particularly where it concerns self-defense.  In the 1990s, the NRA implemented the seminar series "Refuse to Be A Victim" and made it available to law enforcement community policing initiataives across the country.  These efforts haven't been without missteps.  The NRA and Brady are both complicit in the "war on crime" that focused on a broad brush, heavy handed, incarceration-centric approach to dealing with even technical infractions.  And neither campaign has spoken on the issues regarding, say, stop and frisk in New York as opposed to more effective measures such as focused deterrence.  Part of this can be forgiven noting that neither organization is principally concerned with crime control and both are only peripherally connected with law enforcement.

                  When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                  by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:51:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  He is responding to the 154 rounds in 5 minutes (0+ / 0-)

            in the Sandy Hook massacre.  Sheesh.  You gun folks are dense.

            Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

            by ratcityreprobate on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:11:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        You're not a credible "lifelong" hunter if you haven't fired more than 154 rounds in 40 years.  Hell, you're barely a credible first year hunter.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:42:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Most serious hunters i know would probably (5+ / 0-)

          disagree with you.  I have taken 160 class deer, Elk, Bear and various varmints.  And except for when I was learning to shoot (because I didn't grow up doing it and learned as an adult) I know I haven't shot that many rounds.  The point of hunting, even trophy hunting, is not to simply slaughter the animal.  One well placed shot is considered good hunting.  Since responsible hunters also follow game laws you are not going to be hunting 40 animals a year since there are limits.  So I have to completely disagree with you.  If you are a hunter and shoot 154 rounds in a year you are just a terrible shot.  And you probably should take up another hobby.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:05:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            I question whether they are serious hunters, then.  It's four rounds a year, not 154.  Dewitt claimed he'd never shot more than 154 rounds in his entire life.

            BTW, if you aren't shooting more than 150 rounds in a year, I suggest you get down to the range or find another hobby.  Overly casual gun ownership is a threat both to public safety and to the right to keep and bear arms.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:07:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Wonder Then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miggles
              Overly casual gun ownership is a threat both to public safety and to the right to keep and bear arms.
              Agreed. Further, I believe gun owners who leave their loaded handguns lying around the house where their kids can get them and either shoot a family member or neighbor kid dead (happens dozens of times per year) are casual/irresponsible gun owners.

              They are obviously a threat to public safety; the criminal/civil penalties for these sort of absurd deaths should be much heavier than they are now. However, thanks to the NRA, there's barely (if ANY) penalty.

              "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

              by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:19:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                Can you explain how--thanks to the NRA--there's barely any penalty?  Specifically, what laws did the NRA lobby against?  In fact, what laws were proposed in the first place?

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:23:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gimme a Break Please (6+ / 0-)

                  You're sounding more and more like an uninformed gun owner.

                  Years ago when I lived in Indianapolis and paid a lot of attention to state politics, many in the state legislature there got fed up with the numerous cases of six year old Billy getting ahold of his dad's loaded handgun (casually left lying around the house) and shooting five year old neighbor Tommy dead.

                  Indiana legislators started the process to pass legislation which would stiffen the criminal penalty for these absurd, irresponsible gun owners.

                  The NRA got wind of this effort, came in and spread some bribes, errr I mean "campaign contributions" around the legislature-- and that was the END of that legislative effort. I think it's a safe bet this same pathetic scenario has been repeated in several states.

                  I hope you're not implying the NRA doesn't constantly work to stop this and other legislative efforts-- that would be about as bogus as it gets

                  http://www.buffalonews.com/...

                  http://www.meetthenra.org/...

                  "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

                  by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:40:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    Well, let's just say that I am an "uninformed gun owner."  Educate me.  I honestly have no idea what bills and debates you're talking about.  I never lived in Indiana, so I'd be very interested in some verifiable details about the legislation you referenced.

                    By the way, I oppose the NY SAFE Act as well.  

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:43:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "Sorry" the Onus of Proof is Actually on You (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Buckeye54, ChurchofBruce

                      Given the known statistics regarding the number of children killed each year via irresponsible gun ownership, I need you to provide the proof the gun owners involved are getting serious prison time for their crimes.

                      and by serious prison time, I mean ten years, not one week in the county jail.

                      Good luck with that one.

                      "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

                      by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:06:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Only people who worship guns for the sake of (5+ / 0-)

              having them would say shooting less than 150 rounds a year equates overly casual gun ownership.  If you can shoot at 300 yards and hit what you are shooting at in one shot why do you need to shoot 150 rounds.  People who hunt don't have arsenals that they need to keep up to date.  Sure if you have a problem getting a gun sighted in you might need to shoot more.  But the act of going to the range and shooting so you can just enjoy the act of shooting doesn't make you safe with guns.  Knowing gun safety, respecting the weapon and following rules makes you safe with guns.  I have plenty of experience with very experienced hunters.  Excellent shots.  Ones who have been on military teams.  Men and women who have grown up with weapons and teach weapon safety to others.  And it is simply wrong to say that you have to shoot your guns a lot to be safe with them.  You can make the point that you might need your guns for when the government comes to take you away.  Or maybe you need them for the hordes you expect to invade your home.  Or maybe you just like to shoot a lot.  But you do not have to shoot a lot to hunt and you do not have to shoot a lot to be safe.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:45:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I simply don't believe you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Patrick Costighan

                about the 160 class deer and bear and what not.

                No one shoots to 300 yards without regular practice. People who attempt to shoot game at 300 yards either practice a lot or miss or wound something and are considered slob hunters.

                How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:16:28 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well since this is the internet you aren't (0+ / 0-)

                  required to believe me.  (A 160 class deer vs. spike a  is much more related to the areas that you hunt than it is to skill)  You and your friends may have to practice a lot at 300 yards but I haven't missed yet.  Nor taken more than one shot.  All of this glorification of guns makes it sound like it's something special.  With a proper scope it isn't hard to hit game at 300 yards.  Most of the hunters I know can do it.  The ones who can't haven't spent any time at all working on it.  And usually haven't even made sure their rifle is properly sighted in.  It certainly doesn't take 30 rounds, or 50 or 154.  And it certainly doesn't take days and days at the range.  Obviously you have to learn to shoot and that takes some time.  The best shot I know can pick his rifle up after months of non-use and literally shoot a bird out of the sky.  And he's 80 years old.  His son is a better shot.  They love guns and love to hunt.  But they scoff at people who think they "need" to be able to shoot off 150+ rounds in minutes.  When it comes to home protection they know their shotguns work just as well, if not better than military style guns. They don't think you shouldn't be able to have those guns.  They just think it's silly.

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:04:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And two out of the three bears I have shot have (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PsychoSavannah

                  been with a muzzle loader.

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:05:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Gee, (5+ / 0-)

          My Dad hunted every year, brought home plenty of game and I never knew him to practice.  We shot a bit at cans while learning but I am certain my brother who hunts all the time he can, doesn't practice either.  Dad was trained in the Army but bro wasn't.  Go ahead and call them idiots!

          Everyone! Arms akimbo!

          by tobendaro on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:06:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A "credible" hunter is one who bags (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          YucatanMan, Eric Nelson

          what s/he shoots at.  We have a freezer full of venison and duck on the table last Sunday.  9/10 of the box of ammo is back on the shelf too.

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:11:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  actually it does take a fair amount of practice (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shamash, Patrick Costighan

        to become proficient enough to shoot pheasant while flying or an elk or deer in a vital area unsupported from 50 yards let alone some of the distances we commonly see in the state that guy said he hunted in.

        So ya, the guy is either misquoted or more likely just talking.

        What's wrong with pointing out a basic falsehood?

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:47:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        Four rounds.  A year.  Apparently this guy doesn't need to sight-in or get any practice at all.  Or maybe he's the type to break out the rifle and fire a few of rounds aimlessly in the woods once or twice a year.  I suppose that could be called hunting.

        And why are you defending such casual inexperience with firearms from a so-called gun owner?

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:50:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Not Defending Anything (5+ / 0-)

          I'm merely pointing out the bogus/hysterical sort of responses I see to hunters who don't believe/behave exactly as the RKBA crowd.

          Apparently it's just not OK for a hunter to be careful/prudent with his shooting-- he should recklessly blast away-- sort of like the great hunter Cheney who shot his hunting buddy in the face... and of course it was his buddy's fault.

          "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

          by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:07:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe he doesn't hunt every year. Maybe he (9+ / 0-)

          doesn't have an arsenal that he needs to keep sighted in.  You are showing your preference for the gun collecting, range shooting, playing with guns type of ownership.  I know plenty of hunters who probably don't shoot more than a dozen rounds a year.  If that.  Some of those friends are outfitters and guides.  Real hunters, who have spent their whole life hunting.  Because it is the sport of hunting they enjoy.  Not the gun having.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:08:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Name one publicly acknowledge "lifelong" hunter that shoots no "more than a dozen rounds a year."  I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this.  I've largely let pass a bunch of comments and diaries in which the description of hunting is so alien that it can only be explained as a mishmash of common stereotypes and aphorisms.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:13:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

            By the way, I'm not a lifelong hunter.  Neither was my father.  Or my grandparents, for all I know.  Been hunting for all of six years now.  But it seems that everyone on DK and their pet duck who makes the extreme ammunition thrift argument for sportsmanship either grew up hunting or was raised by someone who fed the family with game from right outside.  But this is the first time people have argued that 4 rounds a year (or a dozen rounds a year) is adequate and normal.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:19:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Don't you think he was exaggerating to make the (3+ / 0-)

              point.  Most likely he means real shots.  Shots aimed at game.  And is comparing it to the number of shots Lanza took when actually aiming at something.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:48:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                I'm pretty sure he was exaggerating.  Just not sure which direction the truth lies.  It is possible that he's counting only shots for specific game; I've racked up several times as many in six years, but then again I also hunt varmint.

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:00:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've hunted about the same period... (8+ / 0-)

                  and I'd hazard that I've gone through a good deal less. Maybe 100 shots -- off the range.  I've certainly tested the patterns on an old adjustable choke 12 gauge inherited from a cousin.  I've plinked a lot of targets getting practice with a .22.  I've earned my marksmanship badge knocking down targets with a Remington .22. I've missed an awful lot of skeet.

                  I don't think the larger caliber handguns or rifles at my house have been fired in twenty years. In fact, I'm sure of it.

                  I've fired my grandfather's Marlin 1898 at game exactly twenty times. And I've hit game, exactly twenty times. Which is why I'll probably keep the old girl up on the wall from now on. You hate to ruin record like that.

                  When I was a kid, squirrel, rabbit, and quail made up a fair portion of what was on my plate, but that hasn't been true for probably thirty years. As for big game, I've shot exactly one (1) deer.  That was when I was 14 (I think).  A rifled slug out of that same old Marlin.  I've not had an inclination to do so again.

                  These days, a hunt is really more of an excuse to stroll around with a shotgun couched under my arm, enjoying an reason to get my boots muddy. If someone has a dog along, all the better. 9 times out of 10, I probably don't shoot at anything. I cheer for other folks' shots and trot out stories of the time I got a double at quail, or recall laying back in a wood to shoot squirrels on a frosty morning. Or waded nee deep snow following beagles trying to roust a few rabbits out of thickets. Last year I didn't shoot a thing, not even a piece of paper.

                  And I still call myself a hunter.

                  If the fellow in question had never fired more than 150 shots off the range, I'd believe that easily enough. And I'd believed he enjoyed himself and got as much out of his time hunting as folks who've fired twenty times as often.

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    In which case, I wouldn't call him a "lifelong" hunter except in the narrow sense that he has occasionally hunted over the last forty years.

                    So the question is does he mean off the range or not?

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                    Some more details, from a twitter exchange with a rude critic of his:

                    He may be misspeaking, but that reads a lot like an "admission" that he's fired only 154 shots in his life, on or off the range.

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:15:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not sure why this is so important to you. (3+ / 0-)

                      But the more you talk the less you seem to know about hunting.  Many people don't hunt every year.  And it sounds like you think hunters can hunt every day of the year.  In fact, in many areas hunting season is limited to just a few weeks in the entire year.  One bout of the flu or bad cold, one important life event, one busy work schedule has knocked many hunters out of hunting for a year.  Again, I think you have some idealized vision of hunting.  Maybe that's why you want verification from a "real life" TV hunter or something.

                      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                      by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:18:04 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Right.. Missed in the Discussion (6+ / 0-)

            I've a good friend.. he and his wife are both duck hunters.

            They are long time members of Ducks Unlimited-- a wetlands conservation group. They get it.

            There's a lot to be said for simply being out in nature, going for a walk, getting some exercise and fresh air. I think many hunters get this, which is why a natural benefit/by product of hunting is environmentalism.

            http://www.ducks.org/

            "The 1% don't want SOLUTIONS; they've worked very hard the last four decades to get conditions the way they are now".

            by Superpole on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:59:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My dad was a life time (3+ / 0-)

              member of Ducks unlimited, and a duck hunter. He took my brother with him when he was growing up, and when my brother eulogized him he talked about how Dad sounded like a poet describing the joy he took from being out there at dawn, in the quiet of nature, breathing in the air around him. Bringing down a duck wasn't the half of it for him.

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Certainly shooting the gun isn't the thrill of it. (4+ / 0-)

                I'm not understanding why someone finds it hard to believe that hunters don't want to shoot a lot when hunting.  And I don't understand why this poster finds it so incredible that a hunter would say so.  I guess he thinks deer meat swiss cheesed and liberally sprinkled with lead tastes good.  It really makes you wonder how much of a hunter he is since most hunters I know are the proudest of taking fewest shots.  

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:24:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  One shot to the poor squirrel's head (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  StellaRay, stellaluna, Avila

                  this morning from a bb gun took care of the "varmint".  Always does.  methinks ol' Pat up there is a spectacularly bad shot.

                  And my husband loves to say:  shooting at paper targets is pretty stupid.  Anything you need to shoot is almost always moving :-)

                  David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                  by PsychoSavannah on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:40:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah, I think he's one of those guys who like to (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Avila, PsychoSavannah

                    drag hunters into their gun fantasy world because at least hunting is a recognized use for guns.  While people differ on whether or not it is a legitimate pastime it is at least a use of guns that people accept as OK--if they think hunting is OK.  The problem for guys that love guns but who don't have any legitimate use for them except their nebulous need "when the shit hits the fan"  is they want to super-impose their gun fetish on hunters.  So you get this kind of absolute insistence that hunters must really need all that ammunition and that many guns and that much target practice.  And if you trace this thread all of the way back to the original post that they objected to -- high capacity magazines.  But they don't.  Because "gun having" is not what hunters are all about.

                    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                    by stellaluna on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:56:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I have a couple of friends who hunt birds (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Avila

                Upland and wetland fowl. For them, it's more about a day outside tromping around with the dogs than getting a shot off, though they usually bring in something and either eat it or freeze and refreeze it over and over, using it to train dogs. Their freezer is full of dead birds. I've eaten duck, goose, and pheasant that they've brought down. They also bred and trained my retrievers.

                I don't hunt. I can't hit a skeet pigeon to save my life and I'm not about to aim at a live bird until I can take down the clay ones well. I do have a handgun for protection here at home. It has never been shot except at a range, and then only at square, diamond, oval, or round targets, never anything else. Shots I've made for practice at a range: plenty, because I expect tight groupings from myself. Shots I've fired with a borrowed shotgun at the skeet range: less than a hundred, and I can't hit worth a damn. If I want to go bird hunting with my friends, or run a dog in a UKC hunt test, I need to do a lot better than that; my dog will get penalized in the hunt test if I can't shoot well. Shots I have fired off a range: exactly none.

                I will admit I'd like to get a good quality shotgun, and I'd like to learn to shoot well with it. Then my dream of running my dog(s) in both field and show can be real. Until then, I'll shoot at things like clay pigeons and paper targets shaped like blocks, things that can't be hurt if I miss.

                My desire is to never, ever have to shoot a human being, but as I have already in my life been raped and beaten in my home by a guy who left, then tried to break back in and kill me (and stalked me daily for the seven months leading up to the hearing), feeling like I need a way to protect myself in my home isn't the result of a paranoid fantasy but a lived reality.

                Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

                Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

                by Kitsap River on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:51:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Users Patrick Costighan and ban nock: (8+ / 0-)

        The current edition of the kestrel9000-led tag-team of RKBA trolls who run from thread to thread hijacking any discussion that they find unacceptably anti-gunbugging.

        Can it possibly be that nobody else has noticed this? Why does the community tolerate this subversion? They have their RKBA sandbox, and I am well to content to stay out of it....would that they would show the same restraint.

        Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

        by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:37:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think you should do the math. (0+ / 0-)

        Junior high is about 13-15 years old, so this guy would have been hunting for more than 40 years.  Maybe 45.

        Let's take the low -range --

        154/40 = 3.9 rounds per year.

        Three or Four shots a year.

        Presumably he would have taken some safety traing (I hope), done some target practice, and actually taken a few shots at things here and there.  If he were really out in Texas and Colorado shooting at things like rabbits and pheasants, I can guarantee he missed now and them.

        I suspect that the guy really is a hunter,  but hasn't actually done the math to realize how the rounds add up over a lifetime.

        As to 154 shots in 5 minutes, I'm curious about where that came from. Not the shots, but the timing.  The reports are of the nature "less than 5 minutes, investigators believe", so the real timing is up in the air.

        That's a shot every other second, which is a whole bunch of shooting in a short time.  Not quite amazing -- you can even fire an old fashioned police revolver much more quickly than that.  It's the reloading that will get you.  He had 30 round magazines, and that means just 4-5 reloads (depending on how full the magazines were)

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:46:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am done with your RKBA freakshow (7+ / 0-)

      I am sick of your continual trolling and dissimulation to enforce orthodoxy around your sick fetish. It is too bad that his rate of fire is not manly enough for you. But you will be glad of some magazine limits, as I will only be able hide rate you on site until either I am Banneker or you go away.

      You have been trying to plat the role of the kinder more reasonable gunbuggers, in comparison to kestrel9000 and his good buddies, but you're blowing it.

      Scripture says "resist not evil", but evil unresisted will prevail.

      by Boreal Ecologist on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:24:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nice derailment attempt. Way to pounce on a (9+ / 0-)

      minor turn of phrase rather than contribute to the discussion of gun safety and more importantly why hunting is not a justification for the need of assault weapons.

    •  You're obviously a poor shot ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil, PsychoSavannah, YucatanMan

      4 deer a year is way above the bag limit in my parts. All it takes is one bullet properly placed to bring down a buck. Anything more and you're obviously showing yourself to be a noob  ...

      You seem to be a piss poor shot by my standards - not clear why you're mouthing off.

    •  And YOU are the sort of guy I wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

      trust anywhere near a gun. Actually, I wouldn't trust you anywhere near another human being, under any circumstances.

      To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

      by UntimelyRippd on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:00:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site