Active shooter Maryland

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

Dogs could be roaming hundreds and thousands of acres at night killing sheep. When the ISPCA come out the next day, Rover is sitting in front of the fire being a good dog. Sorry to say but the only answer is a high velocity lead injection.

No, it's not the only answer. We've established that already. There are a ton of answers......the gun is just the laziest.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And even if the dog is licenced and chipped, there's no guarantee that you'll get compo.

Yes there is. Shorting of the dog belonging to a traveler( and thats a whole other issue entirely) wtf is the owner going to do? Go on the lam? Over a dead lamb? Besides, does your theoretical farmer who is being savaged by roving packs of hell hounds not have livestock insurance? Come on man. Who is the naive one here?

o1s1n

'need' and 'want' are subjective terms. If you really wanted to, you could pair absolutely everything back to a 'want' that isn't water, food and shelter.

A firearm is a requirement of many farmers. It just is. Whether you think it is a 'need' or a 'want' is completely subjective to you. Many of them see it as a need and the state agrees, therefore they have a license.

As a side point, I'd suggest you look into the figures of licensed firearms that are used in crimes in Ireland.

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

No, it's not the only answer. We've established that already. There are a ton of answers......the gun is just the laziest.

1. Look at the following scenario.

You are a sheep farmer. You hear noises in the middle of the night and go investigate. You see 10 dogs killing your sheep. What do you do if you have no gun?

2. Look at the following scenario.

You are a sheep farmer. You hear noises in the middle of the night and go investigate. You see 10 dogs killing your sheep. You have a rifle with you. What do you do?


Which of those two scenarios has a better outcome for your sheep?

Yes there is. Shorting of the dog belonging to a traveler( and thats a whole other issue entirely) wtf is the owner going to do? Go on the lam? Over a dead lamb? Besides, does your theoretical farmer who is being savaged by roving packs of hell hounds not have livestock insurance? Come on man. Who is the naive one here?

You are being naïve. Seriously.

I'm not different to most people around here. I've always had dogs and to be perfectly honest, I've only recently got my two dogs chipped and licenced. I surely had 20 dogs in the past that had no licence or chip. When I was paying the dog licence this year, the girl in the post office laughed and said I'm about the 12th person she's seen licencing a dog this year. That's in a town of 2000 people and covering a large rural area. An area where there's a lot more than 12 dogs.

Foxes take lambs for food. A fox will only take one lamb. A pack of dogs can kill 20 or 30 sheep or more in a night for fun. So it's not just a dead lamb when dogs attack. And regarding your mentioning of insurance, keep making claims and see what happens your insurance premium.

And aside from the money aspect, are you just to allow dogs to rip sheep apart and do nothing about it apart from claiming off your insurance?

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

1. Look at the following scenario.

You are a sheep farmer. You hear noises in the middle of the night and go investigate. You see 10 dogs killing your sheep. What do you do

Are they 10 zombie dogs?

I only ask because it's only slightly less believable than your scenario.

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

Are they 10 zombie dogs?

I only ask because it's only slightly less believable than your scenario.

Not for the faint hearted.

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/sheep/warning-graphic-images-of-sheep-killed-in-dog-attack-36495436.html

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

Are they 10 zombie dogs?

I only ask because it's only slightly less believable than your scenario.

Think very hard about looking at these. They are very graphic and you won't feel good after looking at them.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/graphic-content-sheep-maimed-in-horrific-dog-attack/

So not zombie dogs, just ordinary dogs.

Billy86

Kirby wrote: »

No, it's not the only answer. We've established that already. There are a ton of answers......the gun is just the laziest.

As much as I am against the US's fetish with guns, some farmers (and people in rural areas) do need them. A dog will stop a fox, but a dog will not run off a wolf, bear, or some of the other highly dangerous animals you find it there.

Of course, the stupid stuff they want to carry around isn't needed for that, just something that will create a loud bang, and will do damage to the animal if it doesn't heed that warning.

wexie

Kirby wrote: »

Yes there is. Shorting of the dog belonging to a traveler( and thats a whole other issue entirely) wtf is the owner going to do? Go on the lam? Over a dead lamb?

Answer me this if you're so sure you're right (you're not by the way)

1) how would you get to read the chip (if there is one) to find the owner?
have you ever tried catching a dog that doesn't want to be caught?
2) How would a farmer find the owner if the dog isn't chipped?
3) How would the farmer find the owner if the dog is chipped but the chip isn't registered or the details are incorrect?

If you'd like me to I'll go ask over in farming and forestry to see are there any sheep farmers that would like to tell you about their experiences and the cold hard reality of trying to get compensation for dog attacks?

Because you are so so wrong

Akrasia

Kirby wrote: »

I appreciate the sentiment of the overall post but the bolded part is dead wrong.

A hammer is a tool. So is a screwdriver. A car is a tool. You can kill somebody with all of them but that is not their purpose.

A gun is not a tool. It's a weapon of war. It's designed to do one thing and thats to kill. That is its intended and only function.

Guns like the AR15 are weapons of war, but guns owned by farmers to shoot marauding dogs aren't, and police forces need guns for public protection in certain circumstances.

People who say all guns should be banned aren't helping anyone. What america needs is a system of licensing, registration and severe curtailment of the types of guns, ammo and modifications that the public can possess. Guns are currently seen as status symbols, as toys and as political identifiers and unless that changes, the problem will continue to get worse.

People say guns are needed to protect against a corrupt government, but the kinds of people who collect guns are just as likely to form vigilante death squads targeting immigrants and minorities as they are to stand up against a fascist takeover.

Akrasia

ELM327 wrote: »

A point missed by the lefties on this thread.

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'

The constitution not only doesn't prohibit gun regulations, it seems to mandate it. The US doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it needs a sensible supreme court judgement, but then, Trumps supreme court nominations will make that a pipe dream for the foreseeable future

Akrasia

BattleCorp wrote: »

How is a sports start made?

An ordinary person tries target shooting, discovers they like it and have a talent for it and practice for a lifetime.

Without ordinary people shooting, we'd have no sports stars.

So you'd need to allow ordinary people guns for target shooting.

If the price we pay for an Olympic target shooting team is dozens of innocent people murdered each year, surely that's worth it... Does anyone even watch Olympic shooting. Its fair boring.

Akrasia

Kirby wrote: »

See below.






Yes, it matters. Privately owned dogs have owners who will be responsible for damage done. They will also be chipped. Letting them roam free is illegal so that won't last long. Either way, the farmer is compensated for any damage done.

As for wild dogs, thats incredibly uncommon these days. Call it in and they'll be rounded up.

Anyway, how the hell are these dogs getting in to do this damage in the first place? Are the animals not fenced in?

Have you ever been to a farm?

Dogs can easily get through a farm gate and many walls and hedges. Farms are trying to keep livestock in, not wildlife out. If hedges, stone walls etc were replaced by dog proof fences it would destroy biodiversity in our countryside

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you ever been to a farm?

Dogs can easily get through a farm gate and many walls and hedges. Farms are trying to keep livestock in, not wildlife out. If hedges, stone walls etc were replaced by dog proof fences it would destroy biodiversity in our countryside

Anyway, the shotguns or .22 rifles that farmers use for defending livestock are not the weapons of choice for criminals and mass shooters. No farmer needs an AR15 or handgun for farm protection

Billy86

Akrasia wrote: »

Anyway, the shotguns or .22 rifles that farmers use for defending livestock are not the weapons of choice for criminals and mass shooters. No farmer needs an AR15 or handgun for farm protection

That's the main issue - the be honest I feel outright banning all firearms is as bad an idea as what they currently have in place, because yes there are many people who need it. Not just farmers, but people living in rural areas in general. If you've got bears, coyotes, rattlesnakes, wolves and whatnot snooping around your home at night and even during the day, all it takes is one of them to get hungry and see you as food and you're dead.

These people without any even remote question need firearms... but as you said shotguns and rifles are enough for it. I actually would have nothing against handguns either for them either, as if you're spending the day working outdoors as is very common in those areas you don't want to be carrying a large gun around all day (and can't decide to just saunter 100 metres to get it from where you left it if a dangerous animal appears from behind a bush 30 metres from where you are).

What is not needed even for those people however, are enough guns to equip a small army or the likes of AR15s, or the way they are currently able to be distributed via loopholes at gun shows and the likes. The lack of mental health assistance for so many Americans does also play a very large role and needs to be looked at, but even then a spree killer can do a lot more damage with a gun than he could with a knife. And another one is that the NRA needs to be disbanded as they are by definition a terrorist organisation at this stage, and gun owners quietly sitting by and tolerating that is doing themselves no good in the mind of those more in the middle of the argument (the NRA only has a few million members, 3-5mn if I recall, but from the silence of non-member gun owners against their dangerous rhetoric, you'd swear they were at 50-70mn+).

wexie

Billy86 wrote: »

What is not needed even for those people however, are enough guns to equip a small army or the likes of AR15s, or the way they are currently able to be distributed via loopholes at gun shows and the likes.

Or armor piercing ammunition :

http://www.firequest.com/ARM-100.html

100 rounds for 100 bucks

Incendiary ammunition :

http://www.firequest.com/NL910.html

or armor piercing AND incendiary .50 cal ammo....

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/776489534

what possible legitimate use could any civilian ever have for something like this?

What does one hunt with a 50 cal rifle and armor piercing incendiary ammo?

Conservatory

Nobody sane enough would ever try invade the USA. This is why guns are important there.

Even if they took control they would face gorilla warfare on a scale nobody has ever seen where the local mob has as much firepower as some of the best equip armies in the world.

The king of England won’t be trying to push America around anytime soon.

Billy86

And to littler surprise, he was a white ISIS alt-right lunatic.

https://www.salon.com/2018/06/30/exclusive-accused-annapolis-shooter-had-deep-dark-links-to-the-alt-right/

The suspect, Jarrod Ramos, had contacted Hutson in March 2015, taunting him about his role in alerting law enforcement and thwarting a potential mass killer who threatened schoolchildren and Jews in far-away Montana.

...

Hutson has written about [city councilman, Michael] Peroutka, as have I. Peroutka had major funding ties to former Alabama judge and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore, as well to the League of the South, whose leader, Michael Hill, had written approvingly about plans to form paramilitary groups to fight a militarized “fourth generation” culture war, one of whose targets would be the media.

“To oversimplify, the primary targets will not be enemy soldiers;” Hill wrote, “instead, they will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run.”

Ramos first contacted Hutson through Twitter, the latter recalls, after "the Capital Gazette published a piece about how I had alerted the FBI about mass shooting threat suspect David Lenio,” Hutson said.

After Hutson tweeted about the story, Ramos tweeted a couple of disturbing responses, first asking “Were any school children intimidated?” then claiming that Lenio “had won”

...

In the court documents Ramos referred to himself as an agent of the Inquisition, and a crusader who cannot be killed. The Inquisition was a holy inquiry, where church authority superseded that of the civil authority. A crusader is the hand of God, waging a holy war, in the same way that the Charlie Hebdo massacres were. [In the documents] Ramos appeals to "higher authority," and he capitalizes "Higher Authority." This is similar to the way that the violent wing of the anti-abortion movement has appealed to "Higher Law," which they capitalize, to justify homicide against providers of safe, legal abortion, as well as judges and political figures who support the right.

Clarkson sees this tying back to Peroutka’s old allies at the League of the South. “Ramos came to see himself as some kind of vigilante for righteousness, casting himself for example as a 'crusader' and gunning down innocent people in a newsroom," Clarkson said, which "is not unlike the militaristic, millennial vision of Michael Hill, president of the League of the South.” Clarkson said. “Last year [Hill] rallied what he calls the Southern Defense Force, which he envisions as not just a modern Confederate army but the ‘Army of the True Living God.’ This is the group that played a prominent role in the Unite the Right march on Charlottesville.”

A "very fine person", indeed.

20Cent

Also how come the "pariots" second amendment brigade simultaneously worship the military while thinking they will turn on them for a dictator?

Nekarsulm

Kirby wrote: »

It came to me on the previous page. Did you miss it? If you are using fake guns in the olympics.....you practice with fake guns outside the olympics. No need for a real one. No problem there. Next.




Animals dying in pain can be euthanized with Stun Bolt. Its just as effective and what they use to humanely kill cattle. Works with anything else in pain. No gun needed there. Next.

Vermin? Unless you are farming near the savannah in Africa, your vermin can be dealt with by fences, good livestock management and humane traps to deal with and relocate problem animals. No gun needed there. Next.

.

I'm a sheep farmer, and I have to say you are so misinformed about farming, and a farmers use for a firearm, it's comical.
No fence will stop a fox, no fence will stop mink, and no fence will stop magpie and grey crows landing beside a ewe giving birth and pluck the eyes out of the half born lamb.
But somehow you , with "good livestock managment" could .
Traps cannot be used because the first thing to stick it's head or leg into it will be a lamb, believe me if there's a way to inventively commit suicide they will find it.
Relocate vermin?
To my neighbours farm?
To some town centre?
Lunacy of the highest order.

Fox control is ideally carried out with a rifle, ideally a centrefire. And a lot of practice at targets to ensure clean kills.
You do know that a captive bolt IS a gun?
And requires ammunition to work?
And must be licenced ?

Humane traps are highly effective for corvids, but then you wring their necks.
"Catch and release " is for hobby fishermen.

As you say yourself, "next".