Child hunting

It's fake anyway imo.

Do a search on google and lots of people say the same. Just looks like a pretty bad photoshop. Contrast is wrong, the quality and colouring of the pig are different to the surroundings as are the people in certain shots. The pig is also a different size in the digger shot.
 
I will reply later in detail after I am done with work, but as far as killing in the US is concerned it has more to do with the social conditions than the fact that there are guns.

For the folks who like reading, are willing to keep an open mind and a desire to learn, I would highly recommend reading the following books:

On Killing - Dave Grossman
On Combat - Dave Grossman and Loren Christensen

Dave Grossman is a former Army Ranger, and currently an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at West Point, and his book is a must read for people in LE or the Armed Forces. His work on the act of killing and its consequences in society and war is groundbreaking.
 
LagunaBeachCA said:
I will reply later in detail after I am done with work, but as far as killing in the US is concerned it has more to do with the social conditions than the fact that there are guns.

.
Click to expand...

as I noted above, the fact that social conditions are part of the problem is accepted.

still the guns that do it.

other countries have as many guns, but not massacres. reason, not as many social problems i guess.

still the guns that do it.
 
Solution - ban the guns.

Other countries evidently have the temperament & social cohesion to allow them to safely hold arms.

The US evidently does not. Its really really simple.
 
did the title of this thread not remiind anyone else of this guy?

childcatcher.jpg
 
I have been around guns and own guns. I beg to differ on the ban gun issue, if you ban guns only the crooks would have them. I do not see anything wrong with hunting for food. If you eat meat someone killed it and wraped it up for the market. Anyone that has ever seen a slaughter house would know it is not anymore humane than a hunter shooting food to eat. America does have more gun crime than some other places. If you look at it objectively you would see it's not a simple answer like ban guns, fix poverty, educate the poor, or mass social reform. You would have to have a large blanket to toss over a county with a generalisms about it, I would not take an incident about any country and paint everyone or the whole country with that brush.
 
Grego:

I understand and appreciate your passion on the subject of firearms, but do not make any mistake about me being blase' about firearms safety. On the contrary, I am dead serious about firearms safety, but there is a big difference between being serious while being calm and getting all stressed and running away from them.

All:

On The Subject of Firearms Being At The Root of All Violence


As I mentioned, if y'all like reading and want to understand the global phenomena of why people would go about killing (and hurting) I highly recommend and I hope that y'all read Dave Grossman's book On Killing. I mean really read and not just fly by the pages. I highly recommend to anyone on this board who wants to understand about the actual act of killing; what it takes for a human to kill another human, what it takes for one human to commit violence on another human. There are many books about the relationship part, but hardly anyone that discusses the actual act.

Y'all have to understand that in the animal world (man is an animal after all) it is very rare for two animals of the same species to actually kill each other. For example, a lion might die due to wounds inflicted in battle with another lion, but how many cases are there of a lion actually killing another lion in front of it? Probably none.

Violence in every society is an increasing phenomena, and banning guns will not do anything. Since most of the folks on this board are from UK, I suggest visiting www.crimestatistics.org.uk to see how crime has increased in England and Wales. The point I am trying to make is that in a utopia if all guns were removed from society, people will still commit violence against others, and unless social issues are addressed violence will continue to increase.

There have been more gun laws passed in the US since the 80's than in the almost 200 years before that. However, there have been more cases of violence (and mass killings) since then. Hunting in the US was far more common in our first 200 years of independence than it is now. How come we did not have as many rampages then as we have now?

BigTezza:

The two times that I have hunted, I did end up consuming my kills. Hunting for trophies is not my thing. As Morbyd mentioned, America's "ugly obsession" with killing animals is no more than anywhere else in the world.

Sandi:

The linkage of hunting to mass killings is absurd.
 
"The two times that I have hunted, I did end up consuming my kills. Hunting for trophies is not my thing. As Morbyd mentioned, America's "ugly obsession" with killing animals is no more than anywhere else in the world." -

LagunaBeach



So if you don't hunt - why do you need guns?

The only reason to have recreational guns is to hunt. I hunt occasionally - a friend of mine keeps pests off farmer's crops and i go along with a shotgun and help him out. Just functional Shooting to serve a purpose.

Do you just sit around polishing them? Sounds to me like you're just in love with guns. That's the part of the american obsession with arms which is worrying. The fanatical love of guns.

But I suppose you'll say you need them all for self defence. Aye, from other gun owners.
 
LB,

you recommend (if i have an interest and an open mind) a book called "On Killing" or "On combat"..............i'm sorry but i am very open minded but why the fcuk would i want to know anything about how to kill people, or why i would want to kill people, or other people would want to kill or why would i want to know anything about combat.

before any enemy troops were ever likely to get near me, the yanks would have nuclearified their asses into particles and probably taken me with it.

it all sounds like the type of bollox the neo-cons/vets advocate for the propaganda of being able to go to war to get rich. in america, whether you like it or not, the cost of life is cheap. this is testified by your steriod country bumkin texans who believes what they are doing in Eye-raq is justified and that the Eye-raqis should somehow be thankful to them.

give me one benefit I would obtain by reading a book about the act of killing or being in combat?????
 
My simplistic view on the subject is thus:

Of course there are many social problems in the UK just as anywhere in the world. Some of these problems manifest themselves in the form of violent and sometimes fatal attacks on innocent people with knives (or similar). Fortunately in the UK, it is not possible for a person with mental health issues & police files to walk into a shop and buy a gun & ammunition. If it were, I'm sure we would witness more incidents of the magnitude of those experienced in the US.

As for the pleasure of shooting warthogs to prove ones manhood, keep it. My young lad will hopefully find others ways to prove he is the real mccoy!
 
WeLuvIbiza said:
My simplistic view on the subject is thus:

Of course there are many social problems in the UK just as anywhere in the world. Some of these problems manifest themselves in the form of violent and sometimes fatal attacks on innocent people with knives (or similar). Fortunately in the UK, it is not possible for a person with mental health issues & police files to walk into a shop and buy a gun & ammunition. If it were, I'm sure we would witness more incidents of the magnitude of those experienced in the US.

As for the pleasure of shooting warthogs to prove ones manhood, keep it. My young lad will hopefully find others ways to prove he is the real mccoy!
Click to expand...

agreed
 
People will always commit acts of violence but a gun is more lethal than most other weapons you might use and creates separation between the perpetrator and the victim, lowering the emotional barrier. I am not against shooting for food or (if there is a genuine need) pest control, but who has access to firearms and the sort that are available must be strictly controlled. There is no need for anyone to be able to walk into a shot and walk straight out again with a gun, for guns to be used as promotional tools as shown in Bowling for Columbine or for anyone to be entitled to possess an automatic weapon or (unless they are a high profile figure at risk of assassination) a handgun. The argument about widespread gun ownership preventing crime is a nonsense, it only means criminals will ensure they are tooled up and turns every robbery into a potential bloodbath, every perceived act of aggression a potential pre-emptive shooting. Only police and soldiers should routinely carry guns (with heavy restrictions on when they can use them) and the police must vet every other prospective gun owner.
 
There was a story in today's Moscow Times about a 70-something year old businessman whose home was invaded by three men. They managed to shoot his bodyguard in both knees, then went upstairs and started strangling the businessman insisting that he give them money. The bodyguard somehow crawled up the stairs and capped 2 of the guys (the third ran away).

I'm not a supporter of guns, but one does wonder what would have happened to that poor old man had his bodyguard not been armed...
 
Grego:

Relax.

Grossman's book is about the psychological issues about associated with the act of killing. It is not about learning to kill. The benefit to you is to help you understand that the negative brainwashing from the media (US or European) about the supposedly close relationship between firearms and negative violence (violence as a crime) is simply not true. Both books illustrate the psychological reasoning behind the tools used by the Armed Forces to get soldiers over the hump to kill their fellow species. But the most important point to me as a citizen in his books is that how we (US more than European, but both societies still) as a society are conditioning an entire generation to be able to kill our fellow species, and then we are taking the safety catch off. This is like having a gun with a round in the chamber, and then taking the safety off. However, this last point is something that the media does not want to openly engage in as it attacks the liberals.

MarkB:

You guessed right, to me firearms are a self-defense tool. However, just like any tool the skill required to use it under a stressfull situation is useless if one does practice on a very regular basis. As my best friend (who moved over here from Germany in his late 20s) said that the main question to ask is that if someone believes they should be able to use any force available to them to defend themselves in the event that their life or their loved ones' lives is in danger? If the answer is yes, then firearms is just another self-defense tool in the force continuum.

The so called obsession with firearms is not the thing that is scary; it is the conditioning with no safety catch that is scary.

Mark S:

You make a good point when you say that the firearm creates emotional distancing. Grossman discusses this very issue how killing one's fellow specie gets harder as the distance closes. Killing with a handgun is 3rd in line behind close quarters battle with bare hands followed by CQB with a tool like a knife. That is where the conditioning kicks in.

I also agree with the point that private party transfers need to go through a dealer that would do a background check. But as you saw in Bowling For Columbine, the bank owner said that you can get a firearm for opening an account ONLY IF you pass the criminal background check. The ONLY IF part needs to be taken into consideration as the bank is complying with the laws.

I do not agree with the part that only high profile people should be able to own firearms for self defense. Do you really think that your life is less valuable than a high profile person? This is a serious question, and you need to think about this.

As far as only police and armed forces (and not law abiding citizens) should be able to own firearms is concerned, understand that the police is under no obligation to protect the citizens. You cannot sue the PD for not being there when you were getting robbed, mugged, raped or killed.

As mentioned earlier, I do not see any problem with people carrying concealed firearms for protection, and I would not ask them to justify why they need to carry a firearm. However, we need to ensure that these people have to have a certain amount of training prior to applying and then every year after that. For example, apart from the background check, I would have the concealed weapons carrier have 50 hours of training (10 being on legal issues) prior to even applying for a permit, and then after getting the permit, I would ask for 16 hours of formal training every year followed by proof of at least one monthly receipt to the range. Most cops do not go through that much training, but then armed citizens are held to a higher standard than LE.

Morbyd:

Thanks for the post. Now that is an example of how firearms are used for protection. Where were the cops? Are they not supposed to protect the 70 year old man?

The bodyguard is someone who very likely trained (and trains regularly) and conditioned himself to be a sheepdog and not a sheep. There is a very famous Japanese saying, Satsujunken, Katsujinken, which means that the Life Taking Sword is the Life Giving Sword. This is such an example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top