6 ms·

also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to hav

by make3 8y ago

also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns

magduf 8y ago
I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).
15155 8y ago
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
  - 15155 8y ago
    At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?
      - 15155 8y ago
        > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
        mikepurvis 8y ago
        Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.
mikepurvis 8y ago
Me too, but I have relatives who grew up in families where hunting was a thing and they just don't see it this way at all— to them, a hunting rifle is exactly as dangerous as a kitchen knife or circular saw. Basically, a tool that has a time and place and needs to be treated with respect. Which is not unreasonable, but more importantly, someone with this context sees comments about taking away hunting guns as ignorant urban superiority, scapegoating, and cultural disregard.
mozumder 8y ago
Hunting helps sustain the environment, so it does have its useful purpose, and guns become a tool for that purpose.
- eric_h 8y ago
  Hunting helps fix a problem that, one could argue, was caused by hunting in the first place (the hunting of predators - wolves, mountain lions, etc.)

by make3 8y ago

also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns

magduf 8y ago

I agree, however, hunting is important for keeping wild animal populations (mostly deer) in check, since humans have eliminated most of their natural predators like mountain lions. Therefore, it would need to be replaced with something else, such as state-operated culling (basically hunting, but done by professionals, and preferably in a way so that older/sick animals are killed rather than ones in their prime).

15155 8y ago

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.

mikepurvis 8y ago
I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops. The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
- 15155 8y ago
  At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars. None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances. The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?
    - 15155 8y ago
      > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.
      - mikepurvis 8y ago
        Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.

mikepurvis 8y ago

Me too, but I have relatives who grew up in families where hunting was a thing and they just don't see it this way at all— to them, a hunting rifle is exactly as dangerous as a kitchen knife or circular saw. Basically, a tool that has a time and place and needs to be treated with respect. Which is not unreasonable, but more importantly, someone with this context sees comments about taking away hunting guns as ignorant urban superiority, scapegoating, and cultural disregard.

mozumder 8y ago

Hunting helps sustain the environment, so it does have its useful purpose, and guns become a tool for that purpose.

eric_h 8y ago
Hunting helps fix a problem that, one could argue, was caused by hunting in the first place (the hunting of predators - wolves, mountain lions, etc.)