[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
No, I absolutely can’t look beyond a loaded term like “gun fetishist.” You really think that’s just a superficial label that should just be overlooked? It’s a blatantly derogatory term and I asked a simple question, which is why the OP chose to use it when it has no relevance to the issue at all.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, that’s you. The discussion is about the criminal carelessness of the grandfather and others like him. Do you have anything to contribute on that score?
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Ok, that’s you. The discussion is about the criminal carelessness of the grandfather and others like him.
[/QUOTE]
I would assume that by using the term “gun fetishists” to describe a guy he knows nothing about other than that he went on one hunt, he’s attempting to, in some way, smear gun enthusiasts and activists.
“The discussion” was headed off with a fucking unnecessary and retarded term and I’m going to take the OP to task for it, regardless of eleanorigby’s apparent efforts to undermine me.
If this were about a car accident, would you say “car fetishist?” If it were about a drowning accident while sailing, would you say “sailing fetishist?” No, you wouldn’t. But anti-gun people use the term “gun fetishist” to smear gun owners, portraying their interest in guns as somehow unnatural or unhealthy or over-the-top, by using the word “fetish.”
A fetish means you’re sexually turned on by something. Unless you have proof that the grandfather and his grandson spent their spare time whacking off while fondling their guns, the use of the word “fetish” is nothing more than rhetorical anti-gun nonsense.
I have to deal with anti-gun people and their retarded arguments all the time, and I’m sick of it.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
I have to deal with anti-gun people and their retarded arguments all the time, and I’m sick of it.
[/QUOTE]
So? You got a gun. Deal with them.
The only way to deal with them is to poke holes through their arguments, which is usually very easy because their arguments are always very weak and rely on emotion and cheap tactics instead of facts.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I think you’re missing the point which is not gun fetishists vs anti-gun people, but that gross negligence and stupidity on the part of Grandpa there killed a 14 year old boy. Or can’t you look beyond the labels to the issue at hand?
[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the sort of point of view I’d expect from a suspected child molester. But I’m not here to debate labels with you – can we PLEASE stick to the topic at hand?
[QUOTE=flurb]
This is exactly the sort of point of view I’d expect from a suspected child molester. But I’m not here to debate labels with you – can we PLEASE stick to the topic at hand?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you know who else didn’t debate labels? Hitler.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Whether or not the AK-47 qualifies as a “true assault rifle,” the 7.62x39 cartridge is less powerful than the average traditional hunting cartridge.
[/QUOTE]
My hunter husband says he thought this cartridge is built for “distance and penetration” and is honestly wondering what one would hunt with that, assuming his recollection is correct.
(He also thinks that if you have to rely on that kind of gun to put out a lot of shots fast to kill your target, you aren’t that good of a hunter.)
[QUOTE=Ferret Herder]
My hunter husband says he thought this cartridge is built for “distance and penetration” and is honestly wondering what one would hunt with that, assuming his recollection is correct.
[/quote]
That sounds sort of meaningless. What cartridges aren’t built for “distance and penetration” to some extent?
7.62x39 is an intermediate round. Assault rifles were designed to fill a role that was a hybrid of short ranged pistol caliber ammunition and long ranged powerful rifle ammunition.
The 7.62x39 won’t travel as far as a .308 (common hunting rifle round) and won’t penetrate as much. You can hunt small to medium game with it.
What about it implies that you “have to rely” on such? There’s no reason you can’t use an AK type rifle to fire a single shot as you would with any other hunting rifle. Maybe the guy appreciates the ruggedness, aesthetics, function, affordability, etc. of that type of rifle.
I’m not interested in the political side of this debate, I’m just here to - well, kind of - defend the “AK 47” as being a Big Bad in the story.
Here’s a Youtube video that illustrates the relative power of an AK 47 as compared to regular hunting weapons. I’d rather be shot with an AK 47 than any hunting rifle I’ve ever fired or seen fired.
The lack of safety precautions in the case we’re discussing is, of course, inexcusable.
Now, a personal anecdote. I was nearly shot in that manner, myself, by my uncle. We were hunting large fowl around the lake Femunden, in Norway, an autumn four or five years ago. We were cresting a ridge and we hadn’t seen any fowl for hours, mostly due to us rather preferring the walk to the hunt and chatting loudly. But as we crested a ridge of the mountain, my uncle suddenly heard wings flap just in front of him. I was straight behind him, around two or three metres, and my father was around five metres to my side.
My uncle had his shotgun - a beautiful Mossberg 12-gauge pump-action that I later inherited - on his shoulder, by the strap, muzzle pointing up into the air and safety on. He reached with his right arm under his shoulder, grabbed it by the shoulder-pad, swung it up and under so he’d get the pad to his shoulder and left hand under the barrel, right up to aim. It’s a pretty beautiful manoeuvre, as it saves a lot of time, but my uncle had accidentally thumbed the safety and the gun discharged around half a foot in front of my feet.
Now, remember, that gun was, for half a scary-ass second, swinging directly my way; from head to toes. If the gun had gone off half a second earlier, I’d be lucky if I could be bragging about my scarred upper body.
The dirt splattered my feet and I walked straight up to him and smacked him over the head, twice. Motherfucker, but that was close.
And my uncle is a police man, a hunter of nearly forty years and spent five years in the army. He was the one who first brought me to a firing range and he literally beat gun safety into my head. Every time I fucked up, he cuffed me over the ear or the back of the head.
So, I guess what my point is; familiarity does breed contempt. And the bone tiredness associated with hunting trips also breed carelessness.
[QUOTE=silenus]
The question that must be answered is “Are 14 year olds in season?”
[/QUOTE]
Nope, the sign clearly says wabbit season.
-Daffy
[QUOTE=Gukumatz ]
I’m not interested in the political side of this debate, I’m just here to - well, kind of - defend the “AK 47” as being a Big Bad in the story.
Here’s a Youtube video that illustrates the relative power of an AK 47 as compared to regular hunting weapons. I’d rather be shot with an AK 47 than any hunting rifle I’ve ever fired or seen fired.
[/QUOTE]
It’s amusing that the media and gun control advocates tend to say AK type rifles are both so hugely powerful that they’ll vaporize a bull at 500 yards OMG!!! and yet low powered enough to rapidly fire without a problem. Apparently they’re so scary because they violate the laws of physics.
[QUOTE= SenorBeef]
Apparently they’re so scary because they violate the laws of physics.
[/QUOTE]
When 1920’s-style “Death Rays” are outlawed, only outlaws will have 1920’s-style “Death Rays.”
“Gun fetishist” was a stupid choice of words. It actually applies to some people, but that would be a separate thread, and it’s irrelevant to the point of the OP. (So he really shouldn’t have undermined his own point by using the term.)
Likewise, the specific type of rifle is irrelevant. A Kalashnikov seems an odd choice to me, but it could have been any rifle.
The actual point of the OP is a good one: that, stipulating there’s a legal right for most citizens to own a gun, they should be held to a standard of accountability that punishes willfully unsafe practices. I can be stopped, ticketed and fined (possibly even arrested; I think we had a thread about that once) for driving a little faster than the speed limit; there should be some legal accountability for doing something as blatantly unsafe as tromping through the woods behind somebody with your rifle loaded, a round in the chamber, safety off, and the line of fire intersecting a person.
Of course, in the case highlighted in the OP, the grandfather must be suffering more than I can imagine; I don’t know if I could live with having done that.
Actually, I am a gun fetishist. I cream my shorts just thinking about having an AK-47. Nothing beats some nice open iron sights, a well-worn stock ending in a soft butt plate, the way the magazine slides effortlessly in and out, in and out, in and … excuse me. What was I saying again? Oh, yeah I like guns.
[QUOTE=Madd Maxx]
Actually, I am a gun fetishist. I cream my shorts just thinking about having an AK-47. Nothing beats some nice open iron sights, a well-worn stock ending in a soft butt plate, the way the magazine slides effortlessly in and out, in and out, in and … excuse me. What was I saying again? Oh, yeah I like guns.
[/QUOTE]
fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I generally agree with Sailboat here. Except that AKs are decent rifles. And, as I recently learned, there is no model name difference between the military and civilian versions. It’s reasonable to go hunting with a semiautomatic single shot AK.
[/quote]
A semi-automatic single-shot AK rifle would hold only one round and therefore not be an especially practical hunting rifle as it would be clumsy and awkward to reload. You’d be better off with a Harrington & Richardson break-action single-shot .223 if you wanted to hunt small or medium animals with a single-shot rifle.
A firearm cannot be both semi-automatic and single-shot at the same time; a single-shot firearm only holds one cartridge and must be manually reloaded between shots, whilst a semi-automatic or self-loading firearm will chamber, fire, and eject a single cartridge fed from a magazine or belt each time the trigger is pulled.
A firearm that only holds one shot but automatically ejects the fired cartridge without further action from the shooter would be a single-shot self-ejecting (or automatic-ejecting) firearm.
No arguments here.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
…Anyway, this sort of thing is blown out of proportion. There are, IIRC, around 80-90 million guns in 40-50 million households in the US. Accidents in which someone gets shot are relatively rare. But the media loves reporting these sorts of things, so you hear about them and it forms the perception that they’re more common than they are. If the media started reporting every kid drowning in his pool (something much more common), people would start clamoring for pool laws.
[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree. According to the CDC, in 2005, 789 people were unintentionally killed. Thats 2 a DAY! Nonfatal injuries for 2005 was 15,388. that’s 42 people a day.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
A fetish means you’re sexually turned on by something. Unless you have proof that the grandfather and his grandson spent their spare time whacking off while fondling their guns, the use of the word “fetish” is nothing more than rhetorical anti-gun nonsense.
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. A fetish can be entirely non-sexual, meaning “any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.” From here.
So in this context, it could mean merely someone who is unquestioningly devoted to guns, which I presume one would have to be go hunting with an assault rifle.
The OP makes excellent points about the parallel with car safety and general good sense, which I entirely agree with. Anyone caught driving in an unsafe manner gets a penalty, why should other equally stupid unsafe acts not be the same?
I keep a .357 magnum revolver for personal protection. I never realized I had a gun fetish. I also believe in a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Yep, I’m pro abortion. :rolleyes: