commenter-thread

Preventive laws will eventually be seen as big an error as labor theory of value. It will have harmed as many innocent people in the process.

These are as terrible ideas, as they where 60 years ago.

The not-friendly-to-guns crowd has shown complete ignorance repeatedly in legislation. Not only that, it's not that they are 'not friendly to guns' to the point that the state is disarmed, its just people they disargee with that have to be disarmed.

The fact that they hire other people to point guns at people is a pretty hard indicator that they shouldn't be trusted at all.

When pressed they always say how such and such social construct will take away your property(which you actually said up above in the vein of fish and wildlife), they NEVER say that they will come. Which means this is just a faction hiding behind hired guns. Its just one dishonest power play wrapped up in a specific flavor of social objectivity.

Huh, I thought Swalwell and the nuclear thing was Chips preference.

That had a lot of potential as there are few, faster ways of killing 'really smart' socialists than letting them tinker with radiation.

This is why I chuckle when leftward folks project that the rightward are nihilists. Usually the first thing the left go for is a nihilistic collapse of the principles of property.

And it's like where bad ideas go to get worse, and the mantra is pretty predictable, and has been weighed over and over in the market place of ideas and history. Found wanting, as damn near every idea that comes out of the church of needs has been found wanting.

You guys would be just as afraid of the jaw bone of an ass if that was the preferred means of your opponent to limit your political power.

Fear is the real religious zealotry in the room.

I'm sure the artillery folks can figure out how to redistribute all those bricks yall dirty capitalists have been hording in those population centers.

And why is it such a woo woo thing to march liberals out to the country side, i mean that main streamer centrist Pol Pot might of been onto something.

Maybe yall ought to figure out how to house those folks on skid row before you waste more time and energy attempting to disarm a nation.

"not enough recruitment of new hunters"
yep

Somewhat the hazard in perpetual regulations, is that eventually guns could be printed to mimic normal looking objects like cell phones, books, or plastic cups.(with integral silencers)

I think they can print conductive ribbons right into the component, If they can thin those down in a primer area and when energized reach auto-ignition temperatures, they in theory could just print the circuit and primer right into the gun/ammo. That method still requires a battery though.

[Plastic primers have the advantage of no metal at all.]

The weirdness starts when we start printing the ammo in the gun.

Oh I understand it's not all about the entry costs, but entry cost is part of it. I would speculate the biggest decline is due to video games or social media.

Media/social media is pretty tough competition then you add costs on top of that, I don't think hunting has much of a future IMO.

The part of America that isn't at ease with guns will likely not be at ease as long as guns are in america, then it will be knives next.

Note that this is occurring in a slice of time that the same busy body faction doesn't much mind some foreigners with no driving credentials driving 5000 pound vehicles at 70 miles per hour on public roads, and will likely face no repercussions in doing so.

This is the time we are living in.

What are the numbers for deaths due to hunting related stuff? I think I found a source of maybe around a 1000. Most of those were related to trip and falls or some other people being people accidents.

I propose cutting back regs/costs and see what it takes to get it to 2000.

If it gets 10 million couch potatoes out in the wild then so be it.

I probably don't have to harp on unintended consequences, but I will mention them in this first sentence. As what barriers are intended to be or not to be, the future will show how this unfolds.

Land owners who hunt their own land probably don't much care what regs are passed.

The future of hunters is probably in the exterior of suburbs. This is a issue as regs from the inner city start contacting the newer hunting base.

It took hunters a while to learn what safety looks like. It was passed on and became more within individual constructs. Now we get pretty upset about getting flagged, or trigger control, or near misses.

We learned it through decades of real experience with real people. I think we can make the information available, but if hunting is going to become a suburbs issue, there should be nothing in their way to the same experiences that will eventually lead to the building the same individual constructs.

Yes they would benefit from learning from the mistakes of others, but this is hoping for a people we may or may not have.

Freedom got us to where we are now, if we start changing that, we may end up somewhere completely different.

I actually do have a problem with hunters paying for all that stuff, because I want more hunters in the future with fewer barriers to entry. Of all the gun owners, we need more of this particular type.

If something is not a necessity, I see permits, licensing, fees, etc. as limiting something that is not wanted. IMO hunting should be a completely free action, and probably a tax right off.

Not only that, I want the NFA repealed, as it does stuff like categorize silencers as a fire arm plus other idiocy.

I want constitutional carry, not as a access granted/priviledged/provided by a government body, but to recognize the BOR in its framework is a stark warning of government/legislation to self regulate against infringe on peoples freedom to bear arms.

You know this stuff, you know the idiocy and contridictions of banning short barreled shotguns because they were never a 'militia' weapon, and then under the same umbrella banning automatic rifles because they ARE military weapons.

Hell, you now the drop in a bucket mass shootings are compared to street killings.

It reminds me of that quote:
"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

At some point we are going to have to get some thick skin or be forever tormented by busybodies attempting to craft a world without discomfort.

"Hunters already pay more for their gun-related activities than any other group."

Yes, I know, maybe let's make all this stuff more reasonable than less so.

Which regs do you think need to be proliferated that aren't already part of ordinary gun ownership?

You and I both know what the costs of making a turnkey production line and heat treating for this kind of stuff.

The key parameter David TC is using as a deterrent is the ability to track via federal controlled serial numbers on new guns. The quickest, least investment, least risk way of defeating that is 3D printing.

How many printed/80% lowers do you think are out there already?

This tack is getting easier, not harder.

If the barrier to defeating is equal or less costly than a production model gun, then the deterrent likely has a low probability of being effectual.

Don't assume metal primers.

The breech and barrel problem are likely overcome with a lowish pressure powder, which would create less distortion.

At this point, it's probably safe to assume an entire gun can be printed, even multiple shot life on barrels.

This looks odd because the end parameters of only rich/legal people owning guns will somehow stop ex wife shootings or shooting up schools?

It could very well be effective in thresholds but I don't think it will have the desired 'slowing things down' for the desire/measure of slowing things down is for bad things not to happen.

Also it is a hell of a ask for people who don't meet the requirements of 'rich enough' or 'legal enough'.

Hunters will eventually be priced out of the wildlife market. If 10 million people have to continually pay higher prices for the activity of hunting, they will likely have less prosperous economic incentives to keep it up or pass it along to the next generation. Soon that pool will be less than a million.

The quantity of hunters is a drop in the bucket, and if you want to make a ruckus that they self regulate to a extreme, be my guest. I don't see how it makes any difference of the self inflicted harm it is doing.

We are actually living in a pretty peaceful slice of human existence, and instead of rewarding the fruits of peace we seem to be determined to spin the knobs.

I want to be specific so we are not talking past each other here.

If someones intent is to poach regardless of the licenses, best practices, regulations, enforcement, then those things just become a threshold for non-poachers.

This doesn't even make it to a Catch 22, as in your first sentence 'personal responsibility' is a trait of people who aren't the problem.

In addition you are building social constructs that have chance processes that skew in a particular way.

--" I’m just really tired of the hunting community regulating the heck out of ourselves while rec shooters, collectors and preppers have almost nothing to contend with."

What are you talking about in this sentence?

Hmmm the previous topic was on crime and gun deaths,(I may be making a assumption on the premise of human deaths in the US and maybe Australia)

I am willing to look at a different context, but first if we are going elsewhere I must say in the new context that I know of some poaching and hunter's education programs but within a specific parameter of geography.

What's on your mind?

The stamps and additional requirement thresholds will have little to do with gun deaths per year(per criminal action), and creating more thresholds will likely increase gun deaths per year as smuggling and cartel/gang profits will grow.

We don't even know if we are in a sweet spot for the fewest deaths. I would propose going the other way and eliminating all restrictions and see if the deaths decrease as criminal profit decreases.

There has to be something that justifies the rage being directed externally, unless it just creates a abstract external action, but mass shootings don't appear abstract. They tend to have a built up justification.

Monte Cassino is probably an exception and not the rule. I would say a lot of German defenses were more of the exception than the rule.

Yeah, God often fights for the side with the best artillery.

Chip is a little comical on the white thing, it's as if there is this long history of whites multiplying from about a population 2000 to however many we have now, and Chip is one of the few who gets up and says, "you white guys are just afraid of becoming outnumbered and underclass!!!", "Fear!! Fear!!!".

And of course the reason for this is to make them flawed in a way that it's ok for his political faction to punch them.

Drugs, the book Rage, plus endless Hollywood movies/shows pivoting on world destruction, with actual politicians saying the world is on its way to ending in X amount of years because of reason Y.

Layer that on top of the prison-ish hellholes public schools have become, its a wonder the nation isn't burnt to the ground every week.

The justifications are within individual constructs. There is nothing you CAN do.

You will never be able to peak into the minds of the population and pick out the dozen or so people that are perceiving suffering or injustice, and building justification to kill.

To assume that a peaceful society is built upon social constructs is a complete fallacy. It's when all those individual kill justifications add up to zero that society has a good day. And let me say, we haven't killed a million people today, so we are doing pretty damn good.

Is that uncomfortable to people who want to be able to control what happens everyday? Yes it is.

Do they get to make everyones life hell in attempting to get that number to zero? No they don't.

If they attempt to impose their will on everyone to attempt to get that number to zero, will that number go way up? Yes it will.

I made no reference to rules.

Us is anyone that doesn't fit under your umbella of social objectivity in the framework of consensus you commented above.(eta, whiich exists by your own admission of there not being a consensus)

Nice try let me restate this:

now take that approach and go sell it to the people who gun down people in the street/mall/restaurant, and leave the rest of us alone.

Any way you slice it, it's grim being hungry in a control freak socialist conflict.

I'm sure the best way to make most people respect law is to make them outlaws. That's some damn fine leftwards logic right there.

Good, now take that approach and go sell it to the people who gun down people in the street/mall/restaurant, and leave the rest of us alone.

If you really want to see the demarcations of cultural ambush killings, do it with a badge and uniform on...

There probably was a time when Chip wasn't 'woke' enough to parse that and expect it to hold any greater meaning.

What are you, racist or something?

There is a difference between the old honor culture in that there was awareness of uncertainty who would survive a duel.

Killing on a insult without prior awareness is ambush killing and is therefore not the same. I think one would have to pry the lid off of why ambush killing is becoming a acceptable means to an end, in the absence of honor.

I see your second paragraph as spot on, although I would add something about the seeking of power via political priviledge.

Maybe we should start asking questions about what is making culture less tolerant?

Why would you care about consensus, are you a social supremacist?

Ya ever notice what happens when lawfare no longer maintains subjective value in rule of law?

That's why I asked if it is a good idea, not what it is.

You suck at this reciprocity stuff, it's been twice already.

Do you remember what I would refer to after that?

Is imposing political will on people a good idea?

I ask that, because it sounds a lot like what is being discussed/desired.