RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad

RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Humor and Games

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (12/28/2010 6:53:33 PM)
FR Many gun owners don't actually shoot, some hold perps at bay and call the law. Don't count on it here. Know why ? I know people who can move so fast that I would not pull a gun on them. If you are here uninvited, the barrell of a gun will be the last thing you ever see. There is no remorse involved in self defense. I don't care what they say in other countries, it is different here. Even the Swiss are succumbing to the anti gun hysteria. In this country, Castle Law will take care of that for the most part. Even in Switzerland though, a permit is needed for open and concealed carry, as well as for certain foreign nationals. Castle law in the US lets people have guns in their homes at least, but some argue that the wording includes your car for example, as well as businesses. I'm still waiting for the legal challenges to come along and clear this up. Nonetheless, if you are a little old Lady with a gun and you pull it on an intruder, you had better shoot as quickly as possible. Even though I am not what I once was I can probably still disarm some people at close range, and colloquoially shove it down their throat (make them eat it). If you are a gun owner, that means that you must not act carelessly, like shooting in the dark, unless you live alone. As to the question about gun deaths. There are very few sources from which to get the facts. Included in the statistics are deaths caused by criminals against criminals. I really don't care about that as long as they shoot straight and don't hurt innocent bystanders. And contrary to popular belief, drug dealers and such do not want to kill bystanders. If they kill a fellow criminal, they are alot les likely to get caught and usually can claim self defense. Also added into those figures are "legal" shooting by LEOs, suicides and killings in acts of bona fide self defense. It's not that any of those categories of killings' number exceeds the number of innocents killed by criminals, but added together it does slew the figures a bit. Just how much is hard to estimate. Looking at NRA information might give a clue, but it would be foolish to think that they are not biased. However I would estimate that they are not more biased than the gun control nuts. The difficulty in finding statistics from the government alludes to that quite strongly. In all, we are a country of misfits in what considers themselves "the civilised world". Maybe I am as well, but I am not alone. There are sociopaths, psychopaths and simply criminals out there who use that killing tool for nefarious purposes. What's more, the second amendment, like guns laws are not written for criminals. The assumption is made that the law will be followed. The only people who will follow the law are very unlikely to commit mayhem with their killing tool. The second amendment was not even written to enable people to defend themselves from would be criminals, it was written to enable the Citizens to repel an opressive government. That is why it is important to maintain near universal gun rights ? Because if not, the would be opressors control just who can have them. Who do you think they'll choose ? In fact when they outlaw guns, they actually choose criminals to have guns. This enables a type of OSHA safety regulation for criminals and supports certain causes. The cause of more government control over normal Citizens, the need for greater beaurocracy and invasion of privacy, the need to be able to thwart any and all of our rights at will. (and get away wih it I might add) Of course the government has alot more firepower than the Citizens now, that is a fact. However, if they can't walk down the streets without being picked off from a window, any window, it hampers their agenda. That is an agenda, not the second amendment. It is and has been the agenda of those in power for time immortal. Crave power, crave absolute, unshakable power. Saddam passed out guns when it became clear the US was to invade. Who did he pass them out to. Certainly not the Kurds. Get the point ? T

tiggerspoohbear -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (12/29/2010 9:39:23 AM)
My Lawdy Lawd, I didn't mean to create such a debate. I said it was a "supposed craigslist ad" in the title, I should have done so in the body of the OP. I apologize if I insulted anyone, that surely wasn't my intention. I just thought it was funny and that's why it's in the humour section. Yes, I have a twisted sense of humour, I'll be the first to admit it. Happy New Year to all and to all a good day. (iss not night yet). [;)]

Steponme73 -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (12/30/2010 1:51:30 PM)
LMAO!!!

bityme -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/2/2011 10:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu Also, a University of Utah site says: quote: A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.... In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004) So it sounds like not a whole lot of those responsible non-criminal citizens shoot someone in self-defense, but a good number of them shoot themselves or accidently shoot somebody. Not sure if that helps. "In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004)" So let's ban guns in the home. This makes as much sense as banning ladders in the home because, statistically, they increase the risk of death or injury in the home from falling. I'll bet our tax dollars paid for the Dahlberg, et. al. study also [sm=Groaner.gif]

morgancuy -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 5:49:16 AM)
quote: So let's ban guns in the home. This makes as much sense as banning ladders in the home because, statistically, they increase the risk of death or injury in the home from falling. Ladders serve a purpose other than just making people fall. In the words of Lynyrd Skynyrd, "Hand guns are made for killing. They ain't no good for nothin' else . . . You might even shoot yourself." Unless you can think of another purpose they have.[&:]

omkfY -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 5:53:04 AM)
killing rattlesnakes

badboymichael -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 1:16:45 PM)
Ok, if killing snakes doesn't count as killing, then killing snakes is a use guns have in addition to kiliing. Also killing birds, wolves, bears, deer . . . ("Duck season!" "Rabbit season!") Ask Dick Cheney about killing a bird. The only thing I've used one to kill is a deer. Of course, it was a riffle, not a handgun, and it would be more accurate to say, "the only thing I've used one to try to kill." I missed. Since this is supposed to be humor: Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. Gun control means hitting your target.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 1:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY killing rattlesnakes Removing top level predators from the food chain has ugly consequences and really no good effects. I hope you enjoy hantavirus. The argument that "well it might hurt my pet or child" holds true for any feature of the outdoors, including ponds they can drown in and cliffs they can fall off of. Supervise your children and keep a clean, clear yard, and you are very unlikely to have a problem. Vandalizing the environment or aggressively destroying keystone animals in your local ecosystem is neither effective for your safety nor a good idea in the long run.

omkfY -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 2:28:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: badboymichael Ok, if killing snakes doesn't count as killing, then killing snakes is a use guns have in addition to kiliing. Also killing birds, wolves, bears, deer . . . The question was with the clear preface that the handguns were purchased for defense and strongly suggested that the only legitimate purpose for such a device was the killing of a human (I might add ironically phrased as if a ladder somehow had a wide range of typical uses). I pointed out that handguns purchased for criminal defense are great protection against deadly wildlife in the back-country. If I wanted to be snarky, I would have said that handguns purchased for defense are pretty good at maiming too... And handguns don't have to be purchased for defense -- many people are entertained by target practice & competitions, some are just collectors, others are hunters. Overall I find the assumption that you, thousands of miles away and with vastly different life experiences, think you know what is best for me here quite repulsive. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY killing rattlesnakes Removing top level predators from the food chain has ugly consequences and really no good effects. Did you assume I meant hunting? I didn't -- I meant removing a life-threatening/maiming danger when 12+ hours away from medical attention. But hey, if you want to leave a Black widow, brown recluse, bark scorpion in your child's nursery so they can keep in insect population at bay...

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 3:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY Did you assume I meant hunting? I didn't -- I meant removing a life-threatening/maiming danger when 12+ hours away from medical attention. But hey, if you want to leave a Black widow, brown recluse, bark scorpion in your child's nursery so they can keep in insect population at bay... Bah, humbug. If you can see it to aim a gun at it, that snake is not a danger. They are not aggressive animals, though some species can be defensive if you approach too closely. You have no business approaching a wild animal that closely on purpose, and if you refrain from sticking your unclothed hand or foot into places you can't see, your chances of a genuinely accidental bite approach zero. Take a hard look at the US statistics on snakebite sometime and you'll see what I mean. The vast majority of bites are classed as illegitimate, which is doctor-speak for "You shouldn't ought to have done what you did with a wild animal." Eg, the human was the aggressor and put their hands on the snake on purpose. Don't do that and you won't get bitten. In your neck of the woods it's all C. oreganus. Those little guys are amazingly calm and docile. I don't think I ever met one that minded being handled, let alone acted in any really aggressive way towards a person. Even a person who was picking them up with a snake hook, which I was frequently doing. Even at the height of the warm season, they were awfully peaceful creatures, less high strung than the local king and gopher snakes and easier to pose for photos. If you fuck up while handling them the consequences can be ugly, but if you walk away and leave them alone, it's a non issue. Check the medical stats on spider envenomation as well. While it's possible to have a close enough encounter to be envenomated, it's a rare occurrence and requires some fairly specific circumstances. Also, there is no Loxosceles population in California. A very healthy Latrodectus population, but envenomations are incredibly rare. These actual animals are significantly less fearsome than uneducated people seem to believe, and leaving them alone is statistically a lot less risky than making a habit of aggressively attacking them.

omkfY -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 3:26:04 PM)
I suspect we would actually agree on most subjects; I have only felt the need to kill a rattlesnake once in the hundreds of times I've come across them and that instance could have been avoided if a spooked horse was not thrown into the equation. It probably just stuck with me since it is the only time I can recall shooting an animal outside of hunting or euthanasia. Still, the wilderness is wild and I have to roll my eyes when urbanites try to explain how there is no good use for a handgun these days. These conversations invariably lead no where, so I'll end now with my standard 'throw hands up in the air and leave' exasperated thought: seat belts are worthless (provided everything goes according to plan)

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 3:55:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY I suspect we would actually agree on most subjects; I have only felt the need to kill a rattlesnake once in the hundreds of times I've come across them and that instance could have been avoided if a spooked horse was not thrown into the equation. It probably just stuck with me since it is the only time I can recall shooting an animal outside of hunting or euthanasia. A gunshot was a good thing for a spooked horse? If you felt that the horse was in imminent danger of being bitten because it was approaching or attacking the snake and you were unable to control it, shooting the snake would be more likely to increase the danger of a bad bite than to decrease it, unless your firepower was such that you could be certain to destroy the animal's head in a really thorough manner. Anything less than that and you increase the chances of a bad bite. An injured snake will unload a much higher percentage of its venom reserve than a merely frightened one, which will deliver a "dry" defensive bite about two-thirds of the time. Due to their unique metabolic capacity, mortal wounds including decapitation don't actually kill them or stop their defensive reflexes for quite some time. A good many of the absolute worst crotalid bites on medical record are from decapitated snakes. So in this scenario it's a shotgun at close range that you would need to have a positive effect here, not a handgun. And you need to be absolutely sure of head destruction, not just severe damage. If there is anything left, it can and will "fire". Given that knowledge, are you still sure in retrospect that it was the best decision? You can very quickly gain physical control of a rattlesnake and move it wherever you want it using a stick or a branch. If the animal is uninjured it is unlikely to substantially object. You can not stop a rattlesnake from being fully capable of envenomation with one bullet, not unless that bullet is capable of totally obliterating the head. If the scenario is just a scared horse, I can't see firing a gun as being something likely to calm it down. quote: Still, the wilderness is wild and I have to roll my eyes when urbanites try to explain how there is no good use for a handgun these days. These conversations invariably lead no where, so I'll end now with my standard 'throw hands up in the air and leave' exasperated thought: seat belts are worthless (provided everything goes according to plan) I have never felt fear in the wilderness. I know its denizens well enough to feel confident in my ability to handle them fairly easily, at least in the areas I frequent. It's the urban jungle and two-legged predators that are the real danger. IMO, that's the best use of a handgun.

badboymichael -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 5:31:50 PM)
What I find repulsive is your assumption that I am somehow trying to tell you how to live. If I were trying to tell you how to live, I would tell you to do what I have done: Take classes in gun use and safety, and hide a small gun where I can quickly get at it when I'm in my bed, but an intruder (if he were to know where it was) wouldn't be able to get near it without waking me up. It's my fault, really. I mistakenly thought this was a humor forum. I gave the obvious, humorous answer to the erroneous statement that killing a snake is not killing. Then I went on to vamp with more loosely-related humor. Yes, this is a strange place to do that sort of thing. You don't need to lighten up or quit making Evil Knievel leaps about other people's world views based on a couple of jokes. I am glad that someone with your particular disposition is carrying around a gun. If you get pulled over for speeding, you should say: Well, when I reached down to pick up my bag of crack, my gun fell off my lap and got lodged between the brake pedal and the gas pedal, forcing me to speed out of control. quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY quote: ORIGINAL: badboymichael Ok, if killing snakes doesn't count as killing, then killing snakes is a use guns have in addition to kiliing. Also killing birds, wolves, bears, deer . . . The question was with the clear preface that the handguns were purchased for defense and strongly suggested that the only legitimate purpose for such a device was the killing of a human (I might add ironically phrased as if a ladder somehow had a wide range of typical uses). I pointed out that handguns purchased for criminal defense are great protection against deadly wildlife in the back-country. If I wanted to be snarky, I would have said that handguns purchased for defense are pretty good at maiming too... And handguns don't have to be purchased for defense -- many people are entertained by target practice & competitions, some are just collectors, others are hunters. Overall I find the assumption that you, thousands of miles away and with vastly different life experiences, think you know what is best for me here quite repulsive. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY killing rattlesnakes Removing top level predators from the food chain has ugly consequences and really no good effects. Did you assume I meant hunting? I didn't -- I meant removing a life-threatening/maiming danger when 12+ hours away from medical attention. But hey, if you want to leave a Black widow, brown recluse, bark scorpion in your child's nursery so they can keep in insect population at bay...

badboymichael -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 5:40:44 PM)
quote: I have never felt fear in the wilderness. I know its denizens well enough to feel confident in my ability to handle them fairly easily, at least in the areas I frequent. It's the urban jungle and two-legged predators that are the real danger. IMO, that's the best use of a handgun. Thank you! I didn't want to have to be the one to say it! How many gun control advocates does it take to screw in a light bulb? None - Let the police do it, private citizens can't be trusted with light bulbs! [image]local://upfiles/1117894/A0BA929CEBD546E0BAFBFEDA5AC2E992.gif[/image]

omkfY -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 5:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY I suspect we would actually agree on most subjects; I have only felt the need to kill a rattlesnake once in the hundreds of times I've come across them and that instance could have been avoided if a spooked horse was not thrown into the equation. It probably just stuck with me since it is the only time I can recall shooting an animal outside of hunting or euthanasia. A gunshot was a good thing for a spooked horse? I considered it far superior to the death and unceremonious disposal of a well trained friend along a remote stretch of Pacific Crest Trail. quote: If you felt that the horse was in imminent danger of being bitten because it was approaching or attacking the snake and you were unable to control it, shooting the snake would be more likely to increase the danger of a bad bite than to decrease it, unless your firepower was such that you could be certain to destroy the animal's head in a really thorough manner. Anything less than that and you increase the chances of a bad bite. An injured snake will unload a much higher percentage of its venom reserve than a merely frightened one, which will deliver a "dry" defensive bite about two-thirds of the time. Due to their unique metabolic capacity, mortal wounds including decapitation don't actually kill them or stop their defensive reflexes for quite some time. A good many of the absolute worst crotalid bites on medical record are from decapitated snakes. So in this scenario it's a shotgun at close range that you would need to have a positive effect here, not a handgun. And you need to be absolutely sure of head destruction, not just severe damage. If there is anything left, it can and will "fire". Given that knowledge, are you still sure in retrospect that it was the best decision? You can very quickly gain physical control of a rattlesnake and move it wherever you want it using a stick or a branch. If the animal is uninjured it is unlikely to substantially object. You can not stop a rattlesnake from being fully capable of envenomation with one bullet, not unless that bullet is capable of totally obliterating the head. If the scenario is just a scared horse, I can't see firing a gun as being something likely to calm it down. The horse was tied to a makeshift hitching post and, while grazing, uncovered the snake. A case can certainly be made that after a long day's ride I should have more thoroughly scouted the hitching area, but I didn't (you can bet your well-toned tuchus I do now). It happened. At that point I'll gladly trade the small chance of postmortem venomization through hoof and shoe with the moderate risk of a bit to the chest, nose, or leg. We do agree that a shotgun is the preferred firearm for this type of situation. Thankfully the ignorant lawmakers in Sacramento, ingrained with the belief that a civilization's greatness can be measured by its effect on the skyline, had not yet forbidden the purchase of mail order ammunition and my .45 was loaded with snake shot from Cabelas. quote: quote: Still, the wilderness is wild and I have to roll my eyes when urbanites try to explain how there is no good use for a handgun these days. These conversations invariably lead no where, so I'll end now with my standard 'throw hands up in the air and leave' exasperated thought: seat belts are worthless (provided everything goes according to plan) I have never felt fear in the wilderness. I know its denizens well enough to feel confident in my ability to handle them fairly easily, at least in the areas I frequent. It's the urban jungle and two-legged predators that are the real danger. IMO, that's the best use of a handgun. I too am more comfortable in nature than cities, but I'm not so strong as to hold my fear completely at bay when noticing a mountain lion stalking at dusk...

PyrotheClown -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 7:33:29 PM)
sniffleI used to have a pet baby side winder when i was young any who, never heard of some one using a gun to kill a snake(might damage the house or something else)most normal people just use a shovel...and if you're smart enough to know that, then you know you can remove or move a snake anywhere with a reasonably long stick or a broom.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 8:16:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: omkfY At that point I'll gladly trade the small chance of postmortem venomization through hoof and shoe with the moderate risk of a bit to the chest, nose, or leg. It doesn't quite work that way however. If your weapon was not capable of instantly obliterating the entire head of the animal, the risk of a fully envenomating strike is increased, not decreased, by a bullet. Swiftly moving the snake with a branch without injuring it represents a much lower risk. quote: We do agree that a shotgun is the preferred firearm for this type of situation. Thankfully the ignorant lawmakers in Sacramento, ingrained with the belief that a civilization's greatness can be measured by its effect on the skyline, had not yet forbidden the purchase of mail order ammunition and my .45 was loaded with snake shot from Cabelas. Unless said "snake shot" is capable of totally obliterating the venom apparatus with a single impact, it's just as worthless as "snake repellant" and will produce the results I've described of a mortally wounded animal that has a 100% chance of fully unloading its venom reserves if it does successfully strike in self-defense. quote: I too am more comfortable in nature than cities, but I'm not so strong as to hold my fear completely at bay when noticing a mountain lion stalking at dusk... The risk is certainly not nonexistent of being attacked by a wild carnivore, but there are behavioral measures you can take that are pretty successful at discouraging them from considering you a viable target as long as they are not desperate, injured, defensive or starving. It's smart to keep an eye on your surroundings and be aware of the terrain; it is possible to accidentally corner and/or startle an animal, and that's not a good thing. I'd still be a lot more worried for my safety in a city.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 8:32:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown sniffleI used to have a pet baby side winder when i was young Me too. They can be tough maintainers; most are lizard eaters by preference and can be difficult to wean over to pinkies. Also, ridiculous internal parasite loads on the wild caught ones, due to the dietary vectors. Deftness with an assist feeding syringe and a stock of Panacur and Flagyl tends to be really helpful if you want to work with these guys. Cerastes vipera are a lot easier to maintain and arguably even cuter than Crotalus cerastes. Though it can be a pretty close call between them as they're dead look-alikes from different continents. Parallel evolution is a nifty thing. quote: any who, never heard of some one using a gun to kill a snake(might damage the house or something else)most normal people just use a shovel...and if you're smart enough to know that, then you know you can remove or move a snake anywhere with a reasonably long stick or a broom. Doesn't take smarts, just the ability to pick up any long object and use it as a tool. Word of warning, rattlesnakes are fragile and incredibly easy to injure. They lack the supporting musculature of constrictors. I do not recommend using a shovel unless you have no lighter tool handy. If you do hurt them, they will defend themselves and fight hard for their lives. If you use only soft things to move them (eg, "sweeping" them or gently pushing them into a pushed-over trash can with the soft end of a broom), they tend to go quietly without much fuss. The idea of having to use a gun on a rattlesnake is unbelievably silly to me. They are so little and weak and easy to physically control and move around. Even if you don't have professional tools at hand, any stick works fine. It's true that if you screw up the consequences are ugly, but it's so easy to stay at a safe distance and manipulate the animal any way you want. I have no idea why they scare people so much. People are a LOT scarier, harder to physically control or walk away from if you think they present a danger, and bullets put them down a lot more reliably.

PyrotheClown -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 8:37:28 PM)
the shovel was for the SOB that kill snakes, most of the time they just cut the head off....then you hear the "hey mah, it's head is still alive"

LadyNTrainer -> RE: Supposed Craigslist Ad (1/3/2011 8:47:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown the shovel was for the SOB that kill snakes, most of the time they just cut the head off....then you hear the "hey mah, it's head is still alive" I think we're definitely on the same page here. Unlike mammals, snakes can continue to function in extreme hypoxia and acidosis. They are as well innervated and as fully sensate as any mammal, possessing the same number of nerve endings in their tissues on average. They take a hideously long time to die even when mortally wounded, and they continue to feel. I have no problems with hunting or killing animals, when you're taking a sustainable harvest and doing it reasonably humanely, but torturing animals to death is not something I can support. Short of instant brain destruction or surgical anesthesia, there is not a really good way to kill a reptile without torturing it. When I do have to put one down, I prefer to use an isoflurane drop box or intracardiac propofol or both followed by pithing (complete brain destruction) at a surgical plane of anesthesia. If I was caught out in the field without my tools and needed to do a humane euth, I'd try for brain destruction. Not decapitation.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875