Friday, November 4, 2011



  1. Great example of what happens to people who can't defend themselves. Thanks!

  2. Hunting is only fair when the quarry can fight back.

  3. Too bad you don't want human game to have the tools to fight back. And that isn't fair or sportsman-like.

  4. Actually Anonymous, as usual, you deliberately and intentionally misstate our position.

    We don't want anyone to BE a hunter of humans, and we don't want to see firefights between people break out either.

    Get a clue, buy a vowel, learn to reason.

  5. Nothing like ignorant anonymous bullshit.

    No, I would allow humans the tools to hunt.

    I have made loads of comments about using a boar spear to hunt boar. Additionally, I hunt squirrels with laci the canine.

    Hunting is much more exciting when one directly engages their quarry, rather than cowers at a distance with a gun.

    If the human wants a firearm for hunting, they can licence and register that firearm. No problem whatsoever with that.

    Otherwise, there are many other methods for hunting if the human has the intelligence to use them.

    But, our anonymous friend lacks that intelligence to be capable of hunting without a gun.

  6. Our anonymous commenter is a cripple without his gun.

  7. Anonymous was making the point that when someone is unarmed, that person will live through a fight only by being lucky. I'd much prefer to have the rifle of my choice, if I have to go up against the armies of the Planet of the Apes.

  8. Is the reason that you would want a gun because you aren't intelligent enough to defeat them using your skills, Greg?

    As I said, you are a cripple without a gun.

  9. Laci the Dog,

    This particular argument is about as productive as whether Star Wars or Star Trek is better, but it's fun. In the scenario presented in that picture, the apes have rifles. The humans have loincloths. That's a disparity of power.

    In terms of biology, humans are relative cripples. We don't have strong jaws or sharp claws. We aren't as fast or as large as many other species. We learned to use tools to accomplish our goals.

    Perhaps you can suggest how I would defeat an armed band without having weapons of my own?

  10. Inferior minds, not inferior weapons, lead to defeat.

    Ask the british who took on the zulu.

    Now, obviously, those who possess the biggest, baddest weapons can win any single battle, but the the Japanese, the French and the U.S. all, eventually, left Vietnam. Nobody, including Alexander was able to defeat the tribes of Afghanistan and hold the territory without inordinate commitment.

    The battles of the U.S. Revolution were won as often with undergunned and undertrained (militarily) men who were superbly led as better armed troops with cowardly or insipid leaders. The same was true in the War of Southern Treachery--on all sides.

  11. Ask the british who took on the zulu.

    Yup, those pesky Zulu still giving the crown trouble huh....

    Heard that in the news.... last week....

  12. No one seemed to get my point.

    Hunting is sick. Imagine the opposite picture in which three Teddy Roosevelt types were proudly standing over a bunch of dead gorillas. That's sick.

    I can see a gun in the home for protection before I can see shooting animals for fun.