Phade

I'd say that is an ad hominem, or personal attack.

ad hominem:

A fallacy that attacks the person rather than dealing with the real issue in dispute.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/007256296x/student_view0/glossary.html

when people can't find fault with an argument, they sometimes attack the arguer, substituting irrelevant assertions about that person's character for an analysis of the argument itself.
home.olemiss.edu/~gbrown/reserve/fallacies_and_causes.htm

That's not practicing what you preach.

That also told me everything about you I need to know.

I understand that you see others doing it to you in some sort of fashion with the anti or liberal comment. However, it also tells me you are quick to abandon your standards, and lower yourself.

Your arguements state you stick to your beliefs, which is not evident by your actions (see above quote).

Add that in with the loss of a friend in a situation you lacked a holistic approach (because you were his friend) to,that caused you anguish... so much so I feel you may base your ideals on that. The change in beliefs (regarding age and weapon use)was probably a quick one, and one that came overnight when the accident occured. (Which is an assumption on my part, and would like to hear your response on it. My assumption although, seems based in logic per your words.)

Your belief systemappears to be built more on emotion than the tangible facts you've claimed (I would honestly like to review them, it is an important issue, I agree), but have failed to show.

I hasten to think what you would do if a loved one was clubbed to death with a ball bat...get rid of baseball as a sport?

I'm not attacking you, merely making assertions that seem to be relevant and backed up by your own word's in the arguement. I'm interested in finding out where you are coming from, honestly.

Now with that, I'd say the "muckrake" comment is an offense (personal attack) that constitutes a warning from the admin, or apology from you. If you are who you say you are, you'll offer up an apology (to the person you called a muckrake), and dispell my whole set of assertions by doing so.

IRONHORSEBH

Wow,pretty sad state of affairs hunters are in right now.
Idealogic thinking backed by emotions is never the correct answer to anything.No weapon of any caliber or craftis any more dangerous then the other.I for over 30 years have hunted traditional bow<longbow>as well as blackpowder and compound bows,I see so much infighting in regards to this topic.Hunting legally is hunting legally.Thats the point.Any object including a marshmellow,is no more dangerous then the individual holding it.Semi autos are no more dangerous then single shot or bolt action clip type.Bow are no more dangerous then a sharp stick.In our quest to secure our hunting heritage,we have formed battle lines.Sad.One dont like compounds,one dont like crossbows,one dont like semis,one is afraid of larger calibers.WHY?If history is correct,and Im sure it is,sharp sticks were the original hunt utility.What would you say to hunting with a spear?And why.Its part of the history of our glorious heritage.We seem to have forgotten the reason we hunt,we have forggotten the feeling,the majesty,the sheer awe of nature itself,and replaced it with divisional idealistic thinking based on on our groups thinking.Hunting is hunting,a clean kill is a clean kill,skill is essential.To much time waisted feeding the enemy with our devisiveness,and not enough pronouncing our proud heritage.Hsus and peta and other orgs of disparing thought have sat back and fed on our own self obsorbtion.Do not deny you think one way is better then another in your heart,but have the focus and truth to stand up for anothers right to his idea within the law.Cannibals and useful idiots are just that today.If we spend our time deciding who hunts the correct way,with the correct inplement,we are eating our own heritage to its final skeletal remains.I have no more problem sharing my archery season with a crossbow hunter,then I have using my muzzleloader or bow during someones regular season.It is my choice,respect me for it.I will respect you just the same.A house devided folks will surely fall.Knowledge is the key to wisdom.And in hunting and the great outdoors,knowledge is safty.Now statistically,swimming is far more dangerous.Thats a fact.
Bless the wilderness

IRONHORSE

djgj200

I suggest that anyone that believes in "bow-only" go take their thoughts and beliefs over to the archery forums. I can see that those ideals are not welcome in aregional/general hunting forumthat incorporates any means of taking an animal.

I don't like people that try to infringe my 2nd Amendment rights. Geez, I am surprised no liberal has brought up the UN ban on guns that the NRA believes the US might sign. I would love to know how the NRAthinks the US can sign that ban when we have the 2nd Amendment. For all you liberals that believe they can do it because the right belongs to the state's militia. NEWS FLASH: There are no more state regulated militias (that theory is unconstitutional) and the right is included in the bill of rights, my rights as an individual.

There has been talk of banning semi-auto weapons anyway, so QS you just might get your wish. Only you can prevent this from happening, but judging by what has been said in this thread, I have doubts about our country and gun ownership.

Just something to keep in mind, I am judging QS that you are a pretty strong (I didn't say fit) but at least a strong guy if your hunting with a bow. Not everyone is strong enough to pull back the minimum draw weight allowed, either because they are too old or too young. Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about others that have interest in thesport, their point of view on the situation. Firearms are only way they can take an animal, and just because they aren't strong enough to pull back a bow doesn't mean they are any less safe. It sounds to me like you want the woods to yourself.

BTBowhunter

I dont think Quicksilvers views would be any more popular in a bow forum.
Fact is that most bowhunters also hunt with firearms too. I'd bet very few bowhunters would support such a selfish, exclusionary position.

johnl

wow this post has really gotten the attention of at lot of us i originally posted that I was against semi automactic rifles for hunting I didn't realize that there was a limit as to how many bullets you can load ,5 is more than resonable and yes I'm pretty sure my pump can be damn near as fast if not as fast as a semi auto. there has been some very negative posts and after reading all of them we need to agree to each his own .if you don't want people hunting on your land withrifles post your land . if you don't own land deal with it or find some land thatis posted that way

Sylvan

And I suggest that they take their thoughts and beliefs out of all hunting forumns. I for one will no longer respond to or comment on quicksilver's posts.

quiksilver

Well, well, this has turned into quite a party eh?

So, you asked me to support my position, and now I will do so. I'm not going to cite a bunch of statistics, because I minored in the same, and I'm very aware of the way numbers can be manipulated. If you look at a pro-gun site, their numbers will be a stark contrast to an anti-hunting site. Secondly, I'd be forced to peruse the anti-sites, and I'd rather not.

In order to drive home my point about the need for change among hunters, gun laws, and gun ownership, I will post a newspaper article daily, which describes a hunting related death or injury that could have been avoided fairly easily.

I want you guys to read these, think about them, and think about what we, as hunters, could do to avoid future scenarios that are similar. There are anti-hunting websites full of links to these stories, and that's what the other side is using to deprive us of our rights. We can either be sensible, and seek our own solutions, or we can do nothing, and let them decide what happens. You guys obviously prefer the latter. I prefer the former. That's the difference between me and you.

If it makes you guys sleep any better, I'm sorry for calling djgj a "muckrake," but it remains my position that "muckrake" is not an offensive term, and was used accurately and in the appropriate context.If he took it to be a personal slight, I truly apologize.

So here goes - Story #1. (by the way, I'll stop posting these anytime, just say the word.)

This article appeared in the Marietta Times, and was authored by Brad Bauer

A weekend hunting accident involving a 7-year-old is raising questions about how old a child should be before carrying a firearm into the field.
In Ohio, there is no age limit on when a child can begin to hunt with a firearm. However, the state does require all first-time hunting license buyers to present documentation showing they have successfully completed a hunter education course.
Regulations do, however, require youth hunters to be accompanied by an adult when in the field.
"After seeing the results of this past weekend, I don't believe a 7-year-old should have had control of a gun," said Brian Wilson, 44, of Lowell. "My son didn't carry his first loaded weapon for a few more years."
Washington County Sheriff's Detective Jeff Seevers said charges are pending from the Saturday morning shooting in Palmer Township. He said the 7-year-old's father, who was present at the time of the accident, will likely be charged because his son was unlicensed and had not completed a hunting education course.
Seevers said the 7-year-old was attempting to make his firearm "safe" after his 15-year-old hunting companion had shot a turkey. As the older boy ran out to inspect his kill, the boy dropped the lever on his .410 gauge shotgun with too much force, causing it to fire into the back of the 15-year-old's right leg.
Seevers said the 15-year-old was hunting legally.
The names of the individuals involved in the shooting are being withheld as charges are pending.
While some people would never allow their children to carry a firearm, Hunter Education Coordinator Matt Ortman, of the Division of Wildlife, said despite a large number of children and adults hunting, the sport results in very few accidents.
"Hunting is a safe sport," Ortman said. "We don't have many incidents."
During all of 2003, there were 32 hunting accidents in Ohio; none were caused by children. Of the 32 accidents, two resulted in deaths.
According to recent studies by the National Safety Council, hunting is one of the safest outdoors activities, resulting in fewer injuries per 100,000 participants - fewer than fishing and even bowling.
According to the report, hunting results in an average of about seven injuries per 100,000.
Wilson, an NRA-certified rifle instructor, agreed hunting can be a safe sport. He has taken his son along hunting since he was 5, but never allowed him to carry a firearm until he was almost 10.
"You can't expect to take a 5-year-old into the woods and spend a lot of time there or have good results," Wilson said. "But each time I took him out he was able to spend a little more time, and he learned a little more what this was all about and what was going on."
Wilson said last year his son completed a hunter education course and was allowed to carry a firearm for the first time into the field.
"He had demonstrated to me that he was ready," Wilson said. "But I still keep an eye on him."
Ortman said the average age student in a hunter education course is between 11 and 12 years old.
"According to our regulations, there is no minimum age to purchase a hunting license or take a hunting course," Ortman said. "If you pass the course, you are eligible to purchase a license."
Ortman said children as young as 6 have successfully passed the course; however, he said the course is set up on a fifth-grade level.
"It depends on a lot of things," Ortman said of when a child might be ready to hunt. "You have to look at maturity levels for kids, and some are more mature than others."
Linda Stewart, 55, of Marietta, said her husband frequently takes their 9-year-old grandson hunting.
"He doesn't carry a gun. He is still just tagging along, but he still enjoys it," Stewart said. "It probably won't be too long before he is ready ... but I know it is good for them to get out and share those experiences together."

HuntinGUS

Hey quicksilver...thanks for the article. Can you provide the link next time?

I still do not understand your point? Do you think that you are telling any of us something that we do not already know? People die in hunting accidents.......... I know that and I have known that for years. People die from lots of things don't they? Car accidents have to rank up there as one of the biggest, but we do not recommend thattravel by car should be eliminated do we?

I understand your concern, but I question your approach. I am sure you have heard the saying "Guns don't kill People........People kill people" I can take a semi-auto into the woods or into my kitchen for that matter, load it and cock thehammer andplace it on the table. Unless someone picks it up ans squeezes the trigger................it will not kill anyone!!! The key is to educate not take away.

As for you personally, if you feel unsafe in the woods during gun season, just don't go. Again there are plenty of places for you to go that are archery/black-powder only.

Are you so pompass that the entire hunting community has tochange to accommodate you and your fears??

quiksilver

Now you're getting to the heart of my argument. Automobiles are heavily regulated, subject to thousands of laws and regulations. They are forced to carry insurance policies in the event of misuse or mishap. Drivers are restricted to 16+. In a recent Supreme Court case, involving punitive damages, the PA SC called the motor vehicle one of "the most deadly weapons" in the Commonwealth.In that case, they tightened the screws on drunk drivers who injure innocent persons by subjecting them to "punitive damages," which are damages not limited to economic loss, medical expenses or pain & suffering. They have no ceiling, and have been awarded in the MILLIONS.

As hunters, much the same, we're using"deadly weapons," and, in my travels, I've seen enough to know that the "screws need tightened." There are some real derelicts running around the deerwoods. If you don't believe me, make a fieldtrip to Pennsylvania on November 28, 2005.

I'd start with revoking the hunting privileges of convicted felons and violent criminals. If that didn't work, I'd ramp up penalty for hunting code violations, particularly, crimes of recklessness. Next,the hunters' safety test bumped upto a 8-10th grade level, instead of a 5th. (the drivers' safety test is roughly on a 8-10th grade level).

Basically, hunters numbers are dwindling, so if we don't start to move on things on our own terms, we'll get legislation rammed down our throats by non-hunters, which sucks.Examples could include insurance policies on our guns, punitive damages for misconduct, all-out bans, etc.

You guyscan shoot the messenger all you like.

F.Y.I. GUS - Igoogled some search terms, and found the above-referenced article on an anti-hunting website called the "Hunting Accident Report Center" ontheCommitte To Abolish Sport Hunting's website.Iwill research each article before postingto verify its authenticity. Most of my articles will come from that site, so I don't have to botherlooking for another one each day - they're all neatly listed and linked accordingly.

IMO, it does more harm thangood whenan anti- or any voter, for that matter, hears about a 7 year-old kid shooting his friend's leg off while hunting. It also does us no good when guys are using semi- or fully-automatic weapons and have a "mishap." The public is hypersensitive to kids and hunters. They already have a negative predisposition of hunting and those who do it. We're just not doing ourselves any favors by turning 7 year-olds loose with semi-auto's. We live in the court of Public Opinion, and right now, we're not doing well.

BTBowhunter

Translation: You dont have statstical eveidence that would stand up to scrutiny.

Translation: You cant supprot your postion with facts so you will abuse the media's ability to get the word out when something bad happens to make that isolated incident look like the rule rather than the exception. You intend to ignore the fact that every activity know to man will have abberations and you will use the tactics of the anti's by citing examples that, while statistically insignificant, are extremely effective emotionally.


I bet you have no proof of that statement. I highly doubt that it's truebut I guess if enoughuninformed people buy into your gobbledegook it could become true.

Ours is a very safe sport! Safer than bowling. Safer than driving or riding in a car. Safer than Soccer, baseball, football, tennis etc etc etc. SafeEVEN with kids involved. Safe EVEN with those evil semi-autos involved.

Again, if you dont feel safe when you go hunting, DONT GO but stop trying to tear down something you claim to love.

I really believe a troll has taken Quicksilvers identity. This cant be the same person wh's been here for over a thousand posts.