Well sure, but what about the whole ‘fan-wank’ aspect?? 
-XT
This is very, very sadly a good generalization of hunters I’ve known in my life. Some of them don’t even know that much about guns in the first place! I’ve seen duck hunters bullshit each other over the ideal shot load and custom powders for Species X which they want to kill, and at the same time they’ll say “I’m glad they passed the assault weapons ban! People were taking grenade launchers and mortars into our fucking schools!”
I’ll never forget when I took my blued Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with wood stock to an outdoor range with some hunters, and they never batted an eye - thought the gun was a little “wussy” being only .223, but whatever, I was a small person and “couldn’t take” the recoil of their big guns. :rolleyes: Then about a month later I took my other Mini-14 - the stainless Ranch Rifle with factory folding stock - and they freaked out so much they didn’t want to let me on the range. I’ll spare the details, but the sole difference between the two weapons was:
- The second one was stainless steel. (oooooh scary - stainless steel!)
- It had a folding stock - which was not folded.
They shot the same round, used the same magazines, had the same action, yet one was an “OK” gun, the other was a “militia gun.” Yes they were really that ignorant. (They actually started making jokes about “ruh roh, we got a militia member here! Seen any black helicopters?” and shit like that which made the atmosphere decidedly hostile, and I never went there again).
A while back there was a firestorm about that very phenomenon when a guy by the name of Jim Zumbo, a famous gun writer, wrote this. I still find it hard to believe that he wrote that article.
As a result, the hunters that throw everybody else under the bus have a new nickname, “Zumbos”, to go with the older “Fudds”.
Zumbo sounds like either a cranky old tool, or else a Grandpa Simpson.
I could apply that name to the hunter I knew who thought all handguns should be banned - even to the point where he agreed he would support house-to-house sweeps by National Guard troops to gather them up (he said as much) - so long as he could keep his collection of about a dozen assorted shotguns and rifles. I fucked around with him one day and told him there should be a ban on “sniper rifles” too, and you should have seen the steam come off of him.
He however saw no conflict with his handgun ban and the fact that his dad had several Thompson Contenders. :rolleyes:
That’s unfair. And retarded. Even if someone is so extreme that they’d like a hugely restrictive process for gun ownership, with security checks tighter than for an applicant at the NSA that’s still not the same thing as wanting to ban all private gun ownership, period. And I doubt such a significant portion of people who are functionally “pro-gun control” are even that far out there.
I think you’re both either full of shit, or the hunters with whom your fraternize bear no resemblance to the ones I know.
No, these people are pretty common. In fact, they have their own organization, the American Hunters and Shooters Association. Their platform largely amounts to the protecting of hunting weapons with “common-sense” regulations of the rest. They endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 and have the backing of the Brady Campaign.
The organization is largely viewed by gun-rights advocates as an astroturfing group. Their founder, Ray Schoenke, is a millionaire donor to the Brady Campaign who sees the goals of the AHSA to be “complimentary” to their own.
These people certainly exist.
So I’m either a liar, or something else? That’s the spirit!
A question from the back.
Did the ban on “assault rifles” mandate any maximum size for the magazine? If so, isn’t that a good thing (I mean if you’re forced to reload while taking out people at the mall, it gives the good guys a better chance to take you down, no?)
Yes, it did.
With regard to your second question, if you will grant me 6 minutes of your time, here’s a video which demonstrates why that doesn’t matter, along with other objections to the AWB.
Hey! That was 6’ 15" :mad:
But, I got the quiz right!
Okay, point(s) taken.
Unreal. What a maroon.
I don’t doubt they exist. I doubt that they comprise anything like a majority of hunters, or are at all representative of the average hunter.
I think you’re engaging in a metric shit ton of confirmation bias. I don’t know a single hunter who even comes close to holding the views you described in your post. I’m sure they exist, but not in enough numbers to justify the dumb-as-fuck statement “hunters are dicks”.
Dick Cheney is a hunter, albeit not a great shot. He’s a Dick, AND a dick. What do you have to say about that, Mr Smarty Pants?
Dicks are hunters!
Which would have been important if this had been in GQ/GD, or if I had said something other than:
Right from the start I qualified it as being the hunters I’ve known. You implied I was lying about my personal experience.
If I had said “most hunters are like this” or “all hunters are like this” or even “all the hunters around here are like that”, you would have had a spot-on point which I could not help but support. Unfortunately, I didn’t say any of those things, so the charitable assumption is that you made a mistake.
We then come to the next item:
Ironically, although that statement (“hunters are dicks”) was a generality which could have been (in error) applied to all hunters, you did not engage that poster on what they said, and decided to imply I was a liar.
Do you see where we are not having a meeting of the minds here?
Edited: added “in error”
If you really want to get pedantic about this, we can. One can be full of shit without lying. They can make sweeping generalizations about a group of people without knowing dick about that group of people, for instance. Or, as I said, you may not be full of shit, and you may just know a whole bunch of hunters who just happen to be a really, really bad representative of the whole.
Either way, that’s a lot different than calling you a liar.
That’s your response, really?
How unfortunate. Bored now.
Oh, the irony.