Post by: upatree on February 13, 2008, 11:10:00 AM
I can not believe the paper printed this!
Post by: Goose on February 13, 2008, 11:20:00 AM
Goose
Post by: TimZeigler on February 13, 2008, 11:30:00 AM
!["[dntthnk]"]("graemlins/dntthnk.gif" "\"\"")
Post by: Brian Krebs on February 13, 2008, 12:26:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on February 13, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
Playing on emotions and words there.
Post by: Tom Leemans on February 13, 2008, 01:06:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on February 13, 2008, 01:27:00 PM
Post by: Hunter John on February 13, 2008, 01:41:00 PM
Post by: Hunter John on February 13, 2008, 01:47:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on February 13, 2008, 02:33:00 PM
Post by: twotimer on February 13, 2008, 02:59:00 PM
Post by: GRAYBEARD on February 13, 2008, 03:46:00 PM
Post by: elkbow on February 14, 2008, 09:10:00 AM
Post by: Angus on February 14, 2008, 04:19:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on February 14, 2008, 05:33:00 PM
Post by: Scott J. Williams on February 14, 2008, 07:58:00 PM
**************************************************************************************************
Reprint from the post at the above link
I am no longer surprised by the statements people make in public anymore. It is difficult, but possible to discuss things that have an emotional componet, as long as we use logic, and facts.
It was an unfortunate act, however I am moved to ask when someone commits an act with a "motor vehicle" where was the outrage, or the call to action to require "psychological evaluations" for all people operating a motor vehicle?
Let's not stop there, if that is reasonable to make hunters take the test, let's have anyone eating a meal, take a test because people get killed with a knives, yes even butter knives.
I feel qualified to make such statements, after all I am a Cop, 26 years in the Houston Police Department, working in an Investigative Unit.
I have seen people bludgeoned to death, with baseball bats, let's make everyone who plays baseball have to take a test.
You can argue, and have a good arguement, that anyone who would take the life of another is "Nuts". You can find all kinds of excuses to blame everyone but the person who commits the crime. That seems to be a classic course of thought for "Liberals".
Where do we stop sir, do we make everyone who is capable of fathering a child or having a baby take a Psych test because we have parents killing, starving, or raising their kids to become problems for society? Welcome to "Big Brother!
It would seem, correct me if I am wrong, that you have a problem with people who hunt. It also seems likely that you have very little understanding of hunters, and that there is a difference between taking game, and taking a life. Just for the record, it might be a good idea in the future that you do some home work.
It is alright for you to write what you feel, but to have it based on no facts at all, how can you call yourself a journalist? Oh, that's right, you are above it all, and smarter than the masses. Good reading should be facts, let us make up our own minds. If you want to make your case, you should have facts. However it is clear that you could not put facts in your article because they would not support your allegation.
Let us not forget personal responsibility, account ability. Let me give you a quick example, just because a child is sexually abuse does not mean he or she will abuse. It does happen, that's unfortunate, but it is not a given.
I learned that from two people who I know are fine people. In their words, "a person will do what they want to do". I guess it is about choice, sort of like your choice to write that trash. I served in the United States Airforce to protect you right to speak, say, or write what you want. I am proud of that, but that will not excuse you of your responsibility to be responsible. In that, you have failed sir. Shame on you!
Post by: brettlandon on February 14, 2008, 08:59:00 PM
-Brett
P.S. California Chef stabs intruder to death with of all things, a chef's knife. Just another example of how cooking brings out the worst in people. :biglaugh:
Post by: upatree on February 14, 2008, 09:00:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by upatree:MORE INFORMATION FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS TO CALL THE PAPERS EDITOR.
http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20080212/OPINION03/802120318/1031
I can not believe the paper printed this!
The managing editor number is 985 850 1149 her name is Dee Dee.
Let her have it for printing trash like this.
Post by: vermonster13 on February 14, 2008, 09:47:00 PM
Post by: elkbow on February 15, 2008, 08:50:00 AM
Post by: McDave on February 15, 2008, 02:37:00 PM
And if you do decide to react to what they're saying, like a rebuttal letter to the editor, you have to be careful how you phrase it. Of course, being in California, we get lots of anti-gun press from time to time, and then there's the usual flood of reaction from the pro-gun side. Some of the letters they publish from the pro-gun side probably hurts the pro-gun side more than it helps them. I sort of cringe when I read some of them, and think that some anti-gunner is going to cut it out and use it as an argument as to why more gun control is needed.
So you sort of have to keep your intended audience in mind. You don't need to preach to the choir on the hunting side, and it doesn't do any good to preach to the choir on the anti-hunting side. It's a lot like presidential politics; it's that big group in the middle that really doesn't give a darn about hunting or not that's going to win it or lose it for us.
I'm sure that was the case some years ago when they outlawed mountain lion hunting in California. There never would have been enough votes from the anti-hunting crowd to pass that thing. I think the message never really got to the middle, that mountain lion hunting was going to continue whether sport-hunting was outlawed or not; that it was just a question of whether the state made money by charging people for sport hunting or had to pay professional hunters to cull out mountain lions. Instead the message was how unfair it was to run down the mountain lions with dogs, how nobody hunted them for food, how noble they looked, and where was the sport in that?
So what would be an effective message to those who don't hunt, and never plan to hunt, if you want to preserve hunting? Well, there are several things I can think of:
The group you're aiming at doesn't really think hunting is awful, they just don't want to do it, and they don't want to get shot by accident if they take a walk in the woods. A lot of people in that group may do other things that are under attack, like motorcycling or even smoking. I think a case can be made for preserving the rights of others in the hope that they will return the favor when it comes to your rights.
Another angle is gun ownership in general. While most of the gun owners in California don't hunt, I can guarantee you that they feel very strongly about their right to own guns for self-protection, and despite a few enclaves on the coast, still are very much in the majority in California. If any move to oppose a ban on hunting is linked with the right to bear arms, you will get a lot more support than if you limited your appeal to hunters. And I doubt that you will find many people who are rabidly anti-hunting among those who want to own firearms for self-protection.
As far as bow hunting in particular is concerned, I have to relate a humorous story. For years, people in Marin county, just north of San Francisco, have had a deer problem. There are far too many people around there to have a rifle season. I have visited people in Marin county who are the typical vegetarian hot-tubbing liberals you might imagine, who have begged me to bring my bow and shoot some of the deer that were eating their precious shrubery. I have declined, because I don't want to end up in jail, but I have been tempted. One of my friends, some years ago, was head of California Fish and Game, and got tired of the complaints from Marin county people of the deer problems up there. He proposed a bow season for Marin county. His proposal was raked over the coals, of course, and I think they decided to offer the deer free condoms instead, but he thought a deer season in Marin county would have been a good idea, and so do I.
Post by: Alex.B on February 15, 2008, 08:25:00 PM
Post by: carparcher on February 16, 2008, 09:41:00 AM
Post by: Al Dente on February 16, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
Post by: Brian Krebs on February 16, 2008, 04:29:00 PM
There were 17,034 murders in the United States last year.
Not all murders were committed with guns:
Murder Victims
by Weapon, 2002-2006
Weapons 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,965 14,990
Total firearms: 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,177
Handguns 7,294 7,745 7,286 7,565 7,795
Rifles 488 392 403 445 436
Shotguns 486 454 507 522 481
Other guns 75 76 117 138 107
Firearms, type not stated 1,185 992 1,072 1,488 1,358
Knives or cutting instruments 1,776 1,828 1,866 1,920 1,822
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) 681 650 667 608 607
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 1 954 962 943 905 833
Poison 23 9 13 9 11
Explosives 11 4 1 2 1
Fire 103 170 118 125 115
Narcotics 48 44 80 46 42
Drowning 20 17 16 20 12
Strangulation 145 184 156 118 135
Asphyxiation 100 131 109 96 107
Other weapons or weapons not stated 874 807 856 958 1,128
a.. 1 Pushed is included in personal weapons.
Most people forget that murder was around for thousands of years before guns. Guns did not make murder.
I have not seen any data on how many people that murder are active hunters. I doubt there is any correlation at all. Virtually all the people I saw as a 'cop' that committed murder were not hunters. Hardly more than an observation; but if there was a connection; I am pretty sure it would have been pointed out a LONG time ago...
Post by: rtherber on February 16, 2008, 06:20:00 PM
Post by: vermonster13 on February 16, 2008, 09:03:00 PM
Post by: Brian Krebs on February 17, 2008, 12:10:00 AM
If that is indeed true; then the FBI's crime stats should logically mention the use of bows in crimes. It doesn't.
So; even if the articles premise is true; it does not apparently apply to bowhunters.
Post by: vermonster13 on February 17, 2008, 12:30:00 AM
Let me say it clearer. I just don't want the thread to get out of hand with posts of politicians, celebrities and such with guns. Keep it on the topic of the article and how hunters are portrayed. The writer of the article seems to think all hunters should be tested not just gun. If I thought that, this thread would have to be pulled.
Post by: HNTN4ELK on February 17, 2008, 09:26:00 PM
Gary
Post by: Leon.R on February 21, 2008, 04:40:00 AM
There is not that much hunting going on here so why do we get so many murders from shootings to stabings here?
Most of these areas are urban or citys that basically means no hunting and no exposure to hunting thus no connection...
One problem you have, and that has been stated before here is that anyone with an opinion can in the modern press have that printed with no connection to facts, the internet is the same - a soap box and all can say what they want.
Not trying to be difficult but I can go on these forums and give advice on building extremely powerfull bows even though I know very little, its up to the readers to decide wether i know what i am talking about, on this forum i would probably be told off but guys here know more than me...in the papers the people who dont know are the ones that take it for the truth...
Ahh.... yous get my point...
Post by: GrnMtnTradNut on February 23, 2008, 09:48:00 AM
Post by: DaleinOhio on February 27, 2008, 09:42:00 PM
For those of you out there who doubt that the anti-hunters are a threat to hunting, take note of this. This person sent his opinion to a newspaper well over a thousand miles away...and THEY PUBLISHED IT. If they get one person who is on the fence about guns and hunting to side with them, then they have won and they know it. The anti's are not rational and they will use whatever forms of misinformation they can to attempt to refute the scientific evidence that supports hunting.
Nothing about this is journalism, or literature...it's propaganda and it's a shame that this news outlet chose to pass on such drivel.
Post by: rbbhunt on February 29, 2008, 01:15:00 PM
Post by: metalhead on March 01, 2008, 11:47:00 PM
Post by: laddy on March 02, 2008, 03:28:00 AM
Metal guy has a point. Mind altering prescription drugs, did you all know that they were putting thimerosal in the inoculations in babies that are required by law? In case you don't know, that's mercury. Some body wants to dumb down society, there is no reason for it to be there, it can and has according to those who are pressing for law suits on the matter, believe it cause autism and behavioral problems. The weapon was a tool used by a disturbed mind, and there is more than likely a reason that is never explained in articles like this one.
Post by: vermonster13 on March 02, 2008, 07:58:00 AM