People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year

I am getting nasty because you are repeating faulty myths and miss-information known to have been created and spread by the anti-gun and anti-hunting special interest groups. If you own guns or hunt, you need to wake up and learn the truth, not dodge questions with blue herring topics, which is another anti-gun tactic you are using.

A gun is not necessary to harvest an animal, nor was it ever necessary to survive in the past, hunters know that. Different people enjoy different levels of challenge. Even though I do not hunt with a gun, I support others that choose to hunt with a gun.

To you hunting means shooting and killing an animal.

To me hunting means much more.

Hunting to me is immersing myself into nature for as long as possible. I prefer to enjoy the soothing sound of a gurgling creek instead of listening to the screech of police sirens. Listening to bird calls, not my neighbors loud music.

Then to be accepted by nature with a woodpecker landing on my chest, a squirrel crawl up my pant leg and an owl land on my shoulder (yes all three have happened to me).

The actual harvesting of an animal is a sad ending to good times and the hunt. It marks the beginning of a lot of hard work necessary to responsibly take care of the meat to return it home in the best condition possible.

The reward of hunting is meat that is far healthier and tastier to eat than what you can buy at the grocery store, or order from a drive up window at a fast food restaurant.


So yes, your lack of understanding guns and hunting topics scare me.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree bucko. I have no idea where you're getting this from. I didn't say anything anti-hunting. Your knee-jerk reaction is childish and it shows a lack of reading comprehension. There has been a steep decline in the number of hunters over the years. That's a fact. The ODFW is raking in far less money to support our natural habitat.

http://www.bendbulletin.com/localst...151/oregon-stats-show-hunting-fishing-decline

http://democratherald.com/news/opin...cle_628d055c-d0a3-11e3-aa5c-001a4bcf887a.html

I just find your assertion that the primary form of hunting in American history is anything other than a rifle to be false and silly. Show me something that says otherwise if you disagree.

Yes, I think some gun owners are irresponsible, as shown by the story posted above. Did I say that all gun owners are irresponsible? No. What exactly is this blue herring topic that you're referring to? You yourself said that people are spending less time in the woods. They're spending less time learning about guns and putting them to use in practical ways. So what does that mean? Gun purchasing is up. Not down. So that means more people are buying, but less people are educated on firearm safety and what it's like to take a life.

I have hunted. I have shot deer. I am an NRA firearms instructor, and I find your claims to be ridiculous and silly.

 

?????​

 

I think the point the old fisherman's point is, we don't need guns for hunting any longer. I can recall day when I did, it was the way I put meat on the table, that and a fishing pole.
I no longer hunt for food, so I don't need the gun for that purpose, but I sure as hell do not want to relinquish my right to have a gun or guns that I feel we need for security.
The security issue is larger these day than it was 60 years ago, but the need for hunting is much less.

PS. I never left a gun for a toddler to find. You learned to never be careless with a gun.
I don't think people learn this these days where they do not live with them in use daily.
When it is just a sporting item (a toy) it doesn't sink in.

 

Wait... that was MY point.... we don't need guns for every day survival any longer, so now guns are perceived by many people as a hobby, sport, toy, etc.

He was saying that we never needed guns for hunting, which I found ridiculous. How many bows and arrows did the Lewis and Clark expedition carry on them?

 

Well they damn near starved to death in the Bitterroot, but the Shoshones feed them using the Bow and Arrow.

 

Well those cheeky Indians and their archaic weapons!

 

One of the main points the anti-gun/hunter groups is using to gain public support to take away our guns is saying the need to own guns is much less than in the past. They claim that in the past people needed guns to survive, which they did not, or none of us would be here today. That is my beef with NB3, he sounds just like an anti-gun activist and using their exact message. They are trying to re-write history.

The reason this point is important to the anti-gun activists is if they can convince enough people that the need for guns to survive no long exists, the need to own guns no longer exists.

Many people already put their blind trust into believing that law enforcement agencies will provide the necessary protection that they believe makes owning guns for home protection unnecessary.

It is a two front assault by the anti-gun activists trying to convince people that guns are no longer necessary.


BTW. The rare times in the past there were an actual need for a gun to survive was the very few times people explored new territories to their own culture, and only during the exploring part of their lives. I will agree the number of calories required to feed the Lewis & Clark expedition was enormous. A lot of their food did come from Indians through trading. However, using guns to harvest meat at long ranges did make their expedition cover more ground quicker. The game animals at that time were not afraid of people at long ranges, until they learned what a gun can do. Even many of the early mountain trappers lived with local tribes and attended rendezvous for food support. Not many people, if any, have survived for a long period by living off of only a gun.

 

Wow, I went back and reread the entire thread and I certainly would NOT call Nate a gun control activist. I don't see where he has advocated for gun control at all. He appears to be making a strong case for gun safety education and better gun owner responsibility as far as the weapons they own goes. Man, some gun owners see bogeymen behind every tree when they feel their right to unfettered and wide open gun ownership is threatened, and even when it isn't. Rationality goes right out the window.....not trying to take sides here, but this thread went off the tracks early on the first page...

 

You are correct, I do see bogeymen many place others do not. But for a very good reason.

I spent over two decades fighting a war against the anti-people. I attended many hearings and gave testimony. Most of all, I watched the anti-people. I learned how they think, the tricks they use to deceive people, and how they keep feeding people miss-information until enough honest people start repeating it. How they change the subject with blue herring topics when cornered to give supporting evidence to their faulty claims. Worst of all, how some of them pretend to be something they are not to deceive people into believing them. I learned to identify the warning signs of a potential threat.

Example. About 5-6 years ago, a person who was an active member of the Oregon Fishing Guide Association kept giving public testimony in support of forever closing very large areas of the ocean to fishing. Since he was known as a small time river guide, and not having the proper equipment or knowledge to fish the ocean, and his view was opposite of the vast majority of fishermen and guides, something smelled fishy.

Thanks to the government regulations that require all non-profits to publicly report all employees receiving a salary over $50,000, we found him. He was a full time employee of a large fund that supports anti-fishing agendas and groups. His real job was to close fishing, using the part time fishing guide work as a cover to make him appear to be a legitimate sportsman at hearings.

So when someone that claims to be with a fishing or hunting related group, but starts feeding out the same miss-information the anti sport groups are using, I pay attention, and try to figure out who they really are.

The anti people have infiltrated every fishing, hunting, and gun organization. Many anti’s now work for the state and federal agencies that regulate fishing, hunting and gun issues. Wake up and get active in the fight if you want to keep your hunting, fishing and gun privileges and rights.

 

Except you completely misunderstand the point of having the 2nd amendment. It isn't about hunting. It's about protecting this country from a tyrannical government. That's the primary reason for keeping the public armed. That reason has not changed. It still remains the same as it did when they wrote the Bill of Rights in 1789, and I firmly believe in that right.

With that said, my point was the the main reason why a lot of people own guns has nothing to do with hunting, or even protecting themselves from the government. They buy guns because they think they're cool, or maybe they think they need protection from other people. I can't pretend to know the reason why every single person buys a gun. My concern is that more and more people are purchasing firearms with no training, no respect for the tool, and no concept of what it's like to end a life. Whether that life is a person or an animal, like a deer. They don't appreciate what it's like to use a gun on something other than paper, and now we see more and more stories of people not respecting the firepower of a gun, and what can happen when it falls into the hands of a child. THAT was my point. There's a lot of gun owners who treat it like a toy, and I feel like this is a relatively new problem.

 

We are there now, standard practice and it is surprising to find so many have taken the message as their own. The surprising thing is, that most of them took out a student loan to get the message.

 

Your generation told my generation that we couldn't get a good job without a college education.

Unfortunately we believed you.

 

#babieskillpeople

 

They should use this at freedom to choose rallies.

 

Yep! And I admit, I went along with the shame for awhile. But then most of us had no clue the sort of crap you all would be taught. What an eye opener!
To have your kid come home and try to teach us the message!!! Holy hell, I paid for this???

 

Let me get this straight. You eschewed formal education because you felt you didn't need it. You could teach yourself through books. By doing this you purposely bypassed the social portion of the process. And then you turn around and sell kids (maybe your own?) on the idea they need the formal education that you know nothing about and have made no effort to educate....ironic word....yourself on? And then you express surprise and disappointment at the results? Is that about right.....?