I hate guns. They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people. That is their sole purpose. To kill
I hate guns. They are engineered from the ground up to take lives of other people. That is their sole purpose. To kill
I hate people who treat them like some toys and fantasize about them. That makes me think they are in some sort of death cult. That they found socially acceptable way to love violence.
I would still get one for safety but it is a tool made for specifically one thing. To pierce the skin and rip through the inner organs of a person.
They can serve a good purpose but they are fundamentally grim tools of pain and suffering. They shouldn’t be celebrated and glorified in their own right, that is sick. They can be used to preserve something precious but at a price to pay.
You're viewing a single thread.
This seems like a very urban viewpoint. There are still places in the world and in the US in particular where a firearm is tool for safety that has nothing to do with other humans.
Not to mention hunting is a thing.
Bows and crossbows exist.
But are comparatively wildly inefficient and cause more pain before the death of the animal.
Not disagreeing with that, but the topic at hand were alternatives to hunting with guns. I think bolt action rifles should be the only allowable gun for hunting.
Yer not gonna get a tasty bird with a bolt-action rifle or a bow!
You've obviously never had a grouse, or are just a bad shot. lol
I hit my bag limit with a 22lr all the time.
Okay but I’m talking about sky birds.
Metal sky birds?! Use a SAM
Just out of curiosity, would you please point out your approximate location on this map of invasive feral swine distribution:
My thumb isn't big enough to point it all out.
I will do the people reading along the favor of not posting images from an article titled "Penetrating Anorectal Injury Caused by a Wild Boar Attack: A Case Report".
Suffice it to say, hunters in the marked areas have a distinct need for semi automatic rifles.
Semi automatic? Not good enough to aim and hit cleanly with one shot?
Hogs aren't deer. You don't hunt invasive hogs one at a time. They are too destructive, too dangerous, and too prolific for that. They aren't game animals; they are varmint.
There is no closed season, and no bag limit. When you see them, you shoot every one of them you can, as quickly as you can, before they can scatter.
Or are they not man enough to hunt old school with a pike and 44?
I'm not. Are you?
That seems like a very I have nothing to fear from other people viewpoint. Lots of places in urban areas where a firearm is a tool for safety that has everything to do with other humans.
No, it's just that rural people expect their opinions to count more, as though their lifestyles are more authentic or honorable.
And where exactly is it that a firearm is necessary to protect from wildlife? Kodiak Island?
As far as the safety argument goes, let's examine Police. The number one cause of "in the line of duty" fatalities is auto accidents, the second is heart disease, with COVID jockeying for position. If guns were a prophylactic, you'd expect them to shoot cheeseburgers and their cruisers. But as Richard Pryor observed: "Cops don't kill cars..."
A firearm is necessary literally anywhere that has predators, unless you want to have all your livestock killed.
Also necessary if a tweaker decides on a midnight visit, as the police are half an hour or more away.
Counterpoint: cities shouldn't exist
There should be a commission that caps the local human population at sustainable levels
Cities are a way better way of sustainably housing our population than suburban or rural sprawl. We get to be a lot more space efficient by living in multistory housing, having public transportation, etc.
There is some truth to that idea, but not nearly as much as you think. You need about a square mile of cultivated cropland for every 180 people, whether your population is spread out in small towns or concentrated in large cities.
There is no reason to cram humanity into the tightest package possible. We are using a square mile of cropland for every 180 people; it makes more sense to spread out, allowing us to get out of each other's way.
Congestion kills efficiency gains.
Counterpoint: we don't need to be that space efficient, and are better off in smaller communities
With the amount of people existing, yes we do. Otherwise there will be no nature left.
Cropland is not nature. For every 180 people in your city, add a square mile of cropland to its area before trying to determine the spatial efficiency of that city.
Huh...? Is this an actual thing you actually believe in?
The commission bit was a joke but yes I'm not fond of cities
On a global scale, population density is about 180 people per square mile of agricultural land.
Cities don't change that: you need a swuare mile of cultivated land for every 180 people to sustain those urban populations.
We need more, smaller, more dispersed cities. Not these urban hellscapes.