Coyotes...

[Justin A.]

I've watched a lot of cop movies and once met the guy who plays Andy Sipowitz on NYPD: Blue. That makes me marginally less qualified to intervene in a hostage taking incident as serving in the armed forces and having been a bouncer. Thank you very much but I'll take the wet-behind-the-years rookie cop over the grey-over-the-temples chiropractor. ;)

BTW, I'm not coming to SES or ECES unless someone promises me there'll be a metal detector at the door.

There's no need to start launching personal attacks. Are you saying that just because there is a good chance that someone at the SES or the ECES will be armed means you won't go? Having a metal detector would inconvienice alot of people just because you have a gun phobia. If you don't like the idea of the guy next to you on the ____ (bus, bar, chairlift....) being armed, then I sugguest that you stay out of the USA, because you might not always end up next to an unarmed person.

Watching TV= Military training? huh? Are you now also dishonoring those who serve to preserve your right to say that?

Stick to the topic at hand, which was how the hell I get rid of my coyote problem, which has already been answered by the Llamas and predator urine. Keep the gun control and moral issues therof in the thread named "Silly Laws and Regulations", where a discussion has been ongoing parallel to this one.

Admin please close this thread.

[skategoat]

Hey THere is no need to get nasty

I am 34 years old and have, for the record, only 3-4 gray hairs.

If you can't be civil don't play:eplus2:

As previously stated its a personal choice! After spending 4 years in south carolina and viewing first hand the quality of the average law enforcement officer in spartanburg county, I quiver at the thought of giving them the responsibility of anything more than finding there way home at nite. God forbid they have to pull their weapons. I will stick to the demons I know rather than trusting the ones I don't know thank you

Hey D, not sure if you're joking or not but I sure was. I'm old enough to be...your older brother.

[skategoat]

There's no need to start launching personal attacks. Are you saying that just because there is a good chance that someone at the SES or the ECES will be armed means you won't go? Having a metal detector would inconvienice alot of people just because you have a gun phobia. If you don't like the idea of the guy next to you on the ____ (bus, bar, chairlift....) being armed, then I sugguest that you stay out of the USA, because you might not always end up next to an unarmed person.

Watching TV= Military training? huh? Are you now also dishonoring those who serve to preserve your right to say that?

Stick to the topic at hand, which was how the hell I get rid of my coyote problem, which has already been answered by the Llamas and predator urine. Keep the gun control and moral issues therof in the thread named "Silly Laws and Regulations", where a discussion has been ongoing parallel to this one.

Admin please close this thread.

That fact that you took my metal detector comment as serious has left me speechless. I give.

[Justin A.]

That fact that you took my metal detector comment as serious has left me speechless. I give.

The internet is funny like that, you can't add emotion to posts. I figured that it couldn't possibly be serious, but I just wanted to make sure, kinda like when your "check oil" light comes on in your car after you just put new oil in. My apoligies for spouting at your sarcasm.

________

Subaru Ea Engine History

[skategoat]

No biggie Justin. Sometimes I get a little too smartass with my comments. I forget that you can't see the grin on my face over the Internet. Now enough of this off-topic stuff, let's focus on snow!

[Kirk]

BTW, I'm not coming to SES or ECES unless someone promises me there'll be a metal detector at the door.

SES 2007 - Picturing a metal detector at every entry point going into the resort. Metal detectors alarming out of control...all the TD users getting patted down, bags searched ...local "resort cop" saying (imagine THICK Irish accent) "Well now...and what do we have here? Bomber, eh? And what were ya plannin' ta do with these?! A'right, all of ya line up! We're taken ya in fer questionin'"

BTW, Skategoat, I picked up on the humor ;)

[BobD]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that in a perfect world guns would not end up in the wrong hands (and all those laws on the books would be enforced or rescinded). However it's not a perfect world, so a good way to stop irresponsible selling of guns and straw purchases, would be to make buyers/owners accountable for where thier guns ended up. If there is a cost to society for a license system, then like everything else, the users should pay.

I don't see it unreasonable that my insurance company charges me more for life insurance because I have smoked. I even see it reasonable to reduce insurance payouts for not wearing a seat belt. I would like to see insurance companies reduce medical insurance payouts for head injuries when motorcycling w/o a helmet.

I don't see why everyone else should pay for people who do not take reasonable precautions to protect themselves and others. At the same time, I also believe we should be allow to take risk, so long as we don't burden society by not taking reasonable precautions.

In the case of guns, I think gun owners have abdicated thier responsibility (we want our guns, but the consequencies are your problem).

It's the real world and guns are freely available(that's what we have now in reality), because gun owners have fought controls. As for those "laws on the books", there are thousands of laws that don't work and are therefor unenforced. People who trade lots of guns are no different from people who trade lots of cars, there's paperwork involved.

Crime is inevitable outside utopia, and we will never have perfect law enforcement, so we need a way to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands. It might not prevent a crime at first, but at least we would be able to hold someone acountable for that gun. In the long run, this would have an effect.

I would much prefer to be mugged a knifeman than a gunman.

BobD

[kipstar]

Um...yes to carrying a loaded weapon (yes its a handgun) for personal defense, and no to shooting to break my wrist... What's so unbelievable about this?

I guess different countries have different mind sets. I honestly didn't know you could do that in USA, but reading the rest of the thread, seems like we have different laws in the world and different views on things.

In New Zealand, you would just whack someone with your fist or whatever, and fights are common. Had a few, and knowing how to do muay Thai is enough to look after myself. I would be pretty torn if I actually permanently injured someone even if they are a crim; even more so if they were dead.

In Thailand, I have yet to be involved in a fight or see one as they are less common, but the ones in the news where someone draws a weapon always end up with someone in the room getting shot and usually dying. And in most cases the perpetrators walk off scott free, as witnesses 'didn't see what happened' in a lot of cases. If it gets to a fight, then someone is going to pay, and get seriously hurt. There are no one on one type scenarios, if it is going to get to a fight, then the other person WILL get seriously hurt; gang up on them, use a gun etc all is fine.

The idea of wandering around the States and actually having to worry about my smart ass comments because someone might actually hit me is one thing. I can sort out a black eye or busted tooth or lost wallet. But someone carrying a concealed weapon and pulling it out? I remember this happening in Mammoth and it was so far from the life I can relate I was just thinking wTF, because in my life have never heard of anything like this.

Sorry; the idea of needing to carry a concealed weapon around just isn't part of the mindset of NZers (and that is probably because it is also illegal there). Different countries, different cultures; reading the rest of the thread, it seems like for a lot of Americans it isn't a biggie. So... now I guess I understand a bit more about how Americans think :=-)

Now back here in Thailand, there is pretty much no registration and many people carry handguns in cars, but not on their person and mostly only mafia types and police are using them. But this is a developing country, guess I like to think that as a country gets richer, there are fewer problems; I guess that isn't exactly correct! :-)

[Justin A.]

Somebody who is legaly carrying a concealed weapon in the US isn't going to pull it on you for a smartass comment. If you whip out a knife and say "gimme your wallet", then there is a good chance of that same person drawing on you. Like you said, different cultures, different norms, different ideas.

________

Ford c4 transmission

[ecnalubma]

"Crime is inevitable outside utopia, and we will never have perfect law enforcement, so we need a way to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands. It might not prevent a crime at first, but at least we would be able to hold someone acountable for that gun. In the long run, this would have an effect.

I would much prefer to be mugged a knifeman than a gunman"

I'm all for licensure, but by this logic if I sell my car and someone uses it in a crime I could be held responsible?

And for the record I'd much prefer to be mugged by a wiffle-ball-bat man than either of those.

[D-Sub]

if no one had guns, no one would need them :)

[gdboytyler]

. Do you really think you can all the sudden change into this crack shot with nerves of steel and accurately aim at the head of an intruder who is standing next to your family? Law enforcement types are professionally trained, continually in those situations, emotionally trained and by the way emotionally detached from your family members, and these guys do mistakes.

I've read that the average police shooting occurs within 21 ft (7 yards) and the police have a hit rate of 20%. That means 4 of 5 shots by a police officer will be a miss. Sorry, but I don't have any references available.

Oh, and police and military are taught to shoot center mass (the chest). Head shots are difficult.

So, I would rather depend on myself, instead of waiting for the police. Except for SWAT, I don't think police officers have to practice very often with their service weapon.

[Dr D]

I've read that the average police shooting occurs within 21 ft (7 yards) and the police have a hit rate of 20%. That means 4 of 5 shots by a police officer will be a miss. Sorry, but I don't have any references available.

Oh, and police and military are taught to shoot center mass (the chest). Head shots are difficult.

So, I would rather depend on myself, instead of waiting for the police. Except for SWAT, I don't think police officers have to practice very often with their service weapon.

Amen I can put a full clip into a nine inch circle at that range, point shooting.

I will trust me any day. point shooting is reactive shooting without taking time to use the sights. point and shoot. It takes practice. aimed slow fire you can tighten that up considerably. I was taught to train as you fight and considering that in a reactive stressful situation you will most likely be on auto pilot I consider training until its automatic and reactive to be a must. That doesn't mean you react to any little thing that happens. it means that when you decide to use deadly force your stress levels will be off the charts and you need something that is regular and well trained to fall back on. Personally I think that the once a year training the military gets is inadequate and police depts are not much better. War statistics show something like 2-3% of rounds fired actually hitting the target. scary:eek: Any way my two cents

[Dr D]

Hey D, not sure if you're joking or not but I sure was. I'm old enough to be...your older brother.

I try to use the emoticon thingies as best I can. I suspect some folks jump in to the middle of a thread and don't bother to read the whole thing. I don't get mad generally speaking so yes I was attempting a little sarcastic levity. This is a topic that tends to polarize people into taking themselves to seriously.

[jnshapiro]

Wow. Talk about thread drift!

It sure has been interesting reading. I certainly agree that if you are going to carry, then you need to practice. You also need to be very familiar with the laws regarding the use of the firearm in your state. As well as laws regarding where and how to carry.

I would suggest that after you select and buy your firearm, spend a lot of time practicing. I would also encourage you to do some competitive shooting. If nothing else, you'll learn to shoot when you need to, not just when you want to. It's a good skill to have.

I shoot Cowboy Action, USPSA, and Steel Challenge. I'm reasonably proficient and trust my training.

Anyway, shooting is a lot of fun and can certainly be a safe family activity. My kids have been to the range with me for various matches and we practice safe handling at home.

Good luck with the coyote's. I hope you find a solution that makes you comfortable and keeps you and yours safe.

That said, I can't wait for the snow!

[Dr D]

I guess the point I was trying to make was that in a perfect world guns would not end up in the wrong hands (and all those laws on the books would be enforced or rescinded). However it's not a perfect world, so a good way to stop irresponsible selling of guns and straw purchases, would be to make buyers/owners accountable for where thier guns ended up. If there is a cost to society for a license system, then like everything else, the users should pay.

I don't see it unreasonable that my insurance company charges me more for life insurance because I have smoked. I even see it reasonable to reduce insurance payouts for not wearing a seat belt. I would like to see insurance companies reduce medical insurance payouts for head injuries when motorcycling w/o a helmet.

I don't see why everyone else should pay for people who do not take reasonable precautions to protect themselves and others. At the same time, I also believe we should be allow to take risk, so long as we don't burden society by not taking reasonable precautions.

In the case of guns, I think gun owners have abdicated thier responsibility (we want our guns, but the consequencies are your problem).

It's the real world and guns are freely available(that's what we have now in reality), because gun owners have fought controls. As for those "laws on the books", there are thousands of laws that don't work and are therefor unenforced. People who trade lots of guns are no different from people who trade lots of cars, there's paperwork involved.

Crime is inevitable outside utopia, and we will never have perfect law enforcement, so we need a way to reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands. It might not prevent a crime at first, but at least we would be able to hold someone acountable for that gun. In the long run, this would have an effect.

I would much prefer to be mugged a knifeman than a gunman.

BobD

You don't get it BOb if they don't have guns they will use something else to commit the same crime. Pick a country thats tried banning it doesn't work.. Turns out the only people who obey the law are law abiding people... I know it sounds implausable:freak3: but the guy who broke the gun laws 27 of them in the case of columbine, just isn't going to be detered by the fact that we've suddenly outlawed them all together. more laws won't help. gun owners are very sensitive to the consequences of illegal use. In fact they spend more time lobbying for better enforcement than the anti gunners do. they just don't want blamed and punished for the acts of a relatively minority criminal element.

I highly suggest that everyone on both sides of the argument read

More Guns Less Crime sorry I forget the author it is full of all the statistics from every angle and the obvious outcome is the title. covers many countries and states new laws old laws government ststistics etc. very interesting stuff.

those of you who can't wrap your mind around ever wanting to have the right have never had a chance to even think about it seriously it was not an option for you. you were taught that the only purpose of a gun was to kill a person.

I was taught differently. I carry a handgun most often in the high country because I live where animals eat you. Grizzly bears aren't all that much more responsive to pepper spray than the average meth user and they kill and badly injure people more often than criminals do in my state. ITs a tool and nothing more.

on a seperate note japan chose not to invade mainland america because of one factor. They new that the average american had more than one gun in the house and new how to use it. Switzerland made it through two world wars as a neutral because even though it was small and relatively weak, it had every adult male trained and armed. they don't just have handguns in switzerland they have any and all weapons used by a modern militia as the law intended. WE aren't one of the last truly free countries in the world by mistake we fought for it and we protect it. That is slipping and the future is a big question mark. Another HITLER can't happen without total gun control. For my children I will stand up for that right until I die. I will teach them the same. Only sheep fear the wolf

[Dr D]

The idea of wandering around the States and actually having to worry about my smart ass comments because someone might actually hit me is one thing. I can sort out a black eye or busted tooth or lost wallet. But someone carrying a concealed weapon and pulling it out? -)

There isn't one "Licensed carrier" that would do that. Why risk the right to carry over an emotional event. read some of the above posts it doesn't happen. statistically they are seldom ever drawn and then only a small percentage find it necessary to actually fire.

for those of you pontificating about licensing, concealed carry is a licensed deal in all states accept for one.. the live free or die state gives the right to concealed carry to all but convicted felons. most states require rigorous training and background checks and some require a letter of recommendation from the local sheriff.

[LeeW]

Speaking of gun and competition, does anybody practice or even participate in the cross country contest with rifle shoot at so-and-so intervals ?

EDIT: Biathlon's what Im thinking.

[Justin A.]

There isn't one "Licensed carrier" that would do that. Why risk the right to carry over an emotional event. read some of the above posts it doesn't happen. statistically they are seldom ever drawn and then only a small percentage find it necessary to actually fire.

for those of you pontificating about licensing, concealed carry is a licensed deal in all states accept for one.. the live free or die state gives the right to concealed carry to all but convicted felons. most states require rigorous training and background checks and some require a letter of recommendation from the local sheriff.

All I have to say is

Go New Hampshire!

________

Digital scales

[jnshapiro]

Oh, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" is John Lott. He started out as an anti, trying to prove the exact opposite of what he ended up showing. After doing the research, he changed his opinion as that's what the data showed.

Many have tried to disprove his findings and to date no one has been successful.

It's an good read for anyone that's interested in the facts of the debate.

[BobD]

know it sounds implausable but the guy who broke the gun laws 27 of them in the case of columbine, just isn't going to be detered by the fact that we've suddenly outlawed them all together. more laws won't help. gun owners are very sensitive to the consequences of illegal use. In fact they spend more time lobbying for better enforcement than the anti gunners do. they just don't want blamed and punished for the acts of a relatively minority criminal element.

There must be forty or fifty million teenagers in this country, A million of them might be depressed, a hundred thousand of them might have serious phsycological problems and many are insane (not crminal). Easy access to guns will mean that school shootings are enevitable. We cannot eradicate mental disorders (or teenagers), so preventing guns from getting into thier hands is the only answer.

What irks me about the typical NRA rhetoric that is repeated by rote every time someone is critical of the current gun laws is that "it is everyone elses fault".

It's the criminals, it's the parents, it's the kids today. Well that is obvious, but this is the real world, and those problems are a fact of life. The US has more people locked up in prisons than any other western country, so how would enforcing more laws help. We don't have explosives easily available because we know someone would use them to kill people even if that might be illegal.

Now Switzerland is an interesting case. A country more different from the USA would be hard to find. A very small affluent society with little disparity. It does have the highest suicide rate in europe and a series of gun incidents are changing attitudes there. The point is though, That the USA can never be Switzerland because this is the real world.

I do believe you should be able to carry that handgun in the high country, I don't believe you should be able to sell it to just anyone, or keep it under the matress. Gun control does not mean a total ban on guns.

You don't get it BOb if they don't have guns they will use something else to commit the same crime

.

I do get it, and that's why I said I would sooner be mugged by a knifeman than a gunman. I think the difference is, that I can see the real world around me and people who are blinded by thier love of guns and idealistic views do not.

BobD

[BobD]

Man Storms Amish School, Kills 3, Self

You don't get it BOb if they don't have guns they will use something else to commit the same crime

If he only had a knife, those kids would probably be alive.

When you go to the range with your family, You do it for fun. Not out of some feeling of responsibility to protect society. People using the constitution to protect thier fun and thier precious collections just cost those kids thier lives.

Welcome to the real world

BobD

[bobdea]

with more guns per capita than the US, some don't have as many shootings per capita

in most cases people who stick you up don't intend to shoot you, they just want to take your money or scare the **** out of you, I am not sure pulling out a peice would help in those situations

I'm not too worried about what happens either way, I have bigger worries for the US but I do see gun control the same way as I see most of the patriot act

A good way for the government to take away rights, power and protection from innocent people

in theory this is what could happen in MA, a law enforcement organization could use patriot act provisions to do warrantless survailence on you then since in this states your right to own a gun is basically at the discretion of the cheif of police in your town they could come up with something on you, even if you're just a political enemy and thats it.

thats how it starts and gun control is part of the situation, I wonder what our version of the Reichstag fire is gonna be?

we're moving towards fascism in this country plain and simple

[gdboytyler]

Man Storms Amish School, Kills 3, Self

If he only had a knife, those kids would probably be alive.

...

Welcome to the real world

BobD

If the maniac had a knife, he still could have killed one or more of the students.

If the teacher had a gun, the tragedy coud have been avoided.

If the male students would have fought back, the tragedy could have been avoided. In 1998, in Oregon, 5 students subdued a school shooter.

There are in the neighborhood of 70 million guns in civilian hands in the US. In the real world, those guns aren't going to disappear.

Prohibition isn't going to work.

I think that if a teacher wants to go to school armed, he should have the legal right to do so.

Once a couple of school shooters get killed by their would be victims, the number of school shootings will go down dramatically.

[BobD]

If the teacher had a gun, the tragedy coud have been avoided.

So now everyone has to walk around with a gun.

If the male students would have fought back, the tragedy could have been avoided. In 1998, in Oregon, 5 students subdued a school shooter.

If he had only a knife, someone may have. Most people won't tackle a gunman.

Once a couple of school shooters get killed by their would be victims, the number of school shootings will go down dramatically

.

This guy was nuts, as are most of these people. If you would hang, draw and quarter shool shooters it wouldn't make any difference.

More guns will not mean less dead. Eventually after enough of these shootings things will change. A lot of kids are going to die first.

BobD