Jim Carry, Owns American Gun Nuts.

[White Tiger88]

Well title speaks for its self but man the ending had my killing my self laughing.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey

[templarboy]

Well title speaks for its self but man the ending had my killing my self laughing.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carreyI think Mr. Carrey could have been a bit nicer to the people in my country who have provided him with a very good living for basically being a clown. I find this video to be both inaccurate and mean spirited. Between this and his anti-vaccine stance, I think I have seen my last Jim Carrey movie.

[scadugenga]

Okay, first off--it's comedy. Chill. While I don't think that it's necessarily all that "in good taste" to mock a dead man for his statements...Heston was a public figure and the same thing happens to other public figures all over. (Gee Dubya, and Tom Cruise come to easy mind.)

And second...he's what, a has-been for the last half-decade or so. Anyone to get a little attention would be my guest. And he's another pseudo-new agey type. (His belief in the law of attraction --a la The Secret.)

[White Tiger88]

Anything making fun of Gun Nuts & Charleston Heston is win.

[scadugenga]

Why, exactly, is that?

[eldargal]

It's not bad, not as brilliant as some are hyping it as. I'm told Heston was the one who turned the NRA from a group of responsible gun owners into a lobby of nutters so if so he deserves everything he gets.

[White Tiger88]

It's not bad, not as brilliant as some are hyping it as. I'm told Heston was the one who turned the NRA from a group of responsible gun owners into a lobby of nutters so if so he deserves everything he gets.

He was with his famous "You will have to take this gun form my cold dead hands"

[Magpie]

He was with his famous "You will have to take this gun form my cold dead hands"

I was always so very disappointed that Charlton Heston, with all is celebrity, chose to take the fruit loop path when he could have done a huge service to all Americans with a more considered path.

[templarboy]

Okay, first off--it's comedy. Chill. While I don't think that it's necessarily all that "in good taste" to mock a dead man for his statements...Heston was a public figure and the same thing happens to other public figures all over. (Gee Dubya, and Tom Cruise come to easy mind.)

And second...he's what, a has-been for the last half-decade or so. Anyone to get a little attention would be my guest. And he's another pseudo-new agey type. (His belief in the law of attraction --a la The Secret.)If it was actually funny, I would agree that as comedy I could give it a pass. To the rest of ya'll, while I may not agree with the NRA all the time, I am what you would call a "gun nut". It comes from being raised in the western US and actually using guns to protect and feed myself. I have found that some urbanites and non-US types folks have no idea what that is like. That's fine and you are entitled to your opinion. Mr. Heston was a mouth piece and the public face of the NRA. Not much else. I stand by my statement about Mr. Carrey.

[eldargal]

Guns are an important (and often vital) part of country life, it doesn't change the fact that Heston turned a responsible gun-owners association into a rabid lobby group whose intransigence is ultimately self-harming. I'm not overly fond of Carrey either (I think I've seen two of his films in the past ten years, A Series of Unfortunate Events and A Christmas Carol).

[Magpie]

Guns are an important (and often vital) part of country life,

Why ?

[eldargal]

Vermin. Rabbits, foxes etc. need to be killed to stop them killing livestock or destroying crops. Often you also need to be able to quickly put down an injured animal so it doesn't suffer. Shooting can also be an important source of food for rural families.

[Deadlift]

Vermin. Rabbits, foxes etc. need to be killed to stop them killing livestock or destroying crops. Often you also need to be able to quickly put down an injured animal so it doesn't suffer. Shooting can also be an important source of food for rural families.

**** me, Rabbits are killing cows and sheep now ? Monty pythons The holy grail was right. :p

[eldargal]

:p Rabbits destroy crops, foxes kill livestock.

[Magpie]

Vermin. Rabbits, foxes etc. need to be killed to stop them killing livestock or destroying crops. Often you also need to be able to quickly put down an injured animal so it doesn't suffer. Shooting can also be an important source of food for rural families.

Vermin on an agricultural scale needs to be dealt with by something other than people with guns.
I can't imagine what "livestock" can be eaten by a fox, certainly not sheep, cows or goats maybe a chicken but industrial size chicken sheds are fox proof?

There are other, more humane, cheaper and more efficient ways to put down livestock.

Pretty sure all farmers go to the shop for food, every one I know does.

[eldargal]

Foxes kill chickens and young animals. We've lost sheep to them. Rabbits can be trapped and rabbit proof fences erected but often you still need to shoot them. It's not just foxes, feral dogs are a problem too.

There are not other, more humane and more efficient ways to put down livestock, actually. A bullet through the heart or head is faster than poison or cutting their throat and the cost of a bullet is negligible.

Everyone I know shoots.:p

[Magpie]

Foxes kill chickens and young animals. We've lost sheep to them. Rabbits can be trapped and rabbit proof fences erected but often you still need to shoot them. It's not just foxes, feral dogs are a problem too.

There are far more efficient methods of feral animal controls than guns. National Parks use trapping and baiting to far greater effect.


There are not other, more humane and more efficient ways to put down livestock, actually. A bullet through the heart or head is faster than poison or cutting their throat and the cost of a bullet is negligible.

So why aren't guns used by Vets ?


Everyone I know shoots.:p

Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it is necessary.

[White Tiger88]

Guns are fine but when each person has 5 or 6......for no damn reason then you have to worry or they think there goverment needs over throwing so they follow a crazy bible flick star....

[eldargal]

There are far more efficient methods of feral animal controls than guns. National Parks use trapping and baiting to far greater effect.
National Parks aren't farms.


So why aren't guns used by Vets ?
Because they are in a completely different circumstance? Also remember that concept we mentione earlier 'cheaper'? Last time we had to have a horse put down it cost over one hundred pounds. We did that because it was a valued member of the household. Farmers aren't going to do that every time they need to have a cow put down.


Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it is necessary.
Right, why sustainably collect meat from the natural environment when you can buy it from extremely intensive and unhealthy industrial agriculture.:rolleyes:

[imperialpower]

If I didn't use my guns for pest control and to put a bit of food on the table what would be the alternative? Poisen or traps both of which do not target a specific problem animal and can kill none pest species, I would also be intrested to know how without guns you would control the deer population in this country since they have no natural predators and if left without culling would desimate the country side. Some of the posts here really highlight the fact that some people have no idea.

[Magpie]

Some of the posts here really highlight the fact that some people have no idea.

You sure got that right.

[imperialpower]

You sure got that right.

Glad you agree.

[Wildeybeast]

I would also be intrested to know how without guns you would control the deer population in this country since they have no natural predators and if left without culling would desimate the country side.

Wolves. Sea Eagles. We used to have plenty of those for controlling the herbivore species and they did a bang up job. Don't see many of them around these days, can't for the life of me imagine why.

[eldargal]

There are actually plans to reintroduce wolves into Britain. Unfortunately they kill livestock too, not just pests.

[Houghten]

Ooh, yes, brilliant idea. Let's reintroduce lions and bears too. The country was a much safer place with them around.

[imperialpower]

Wolves. Sea Eagles. We used to have plenty of those for controlling the herbivore species and they did a bang up job. Don't see many of them around these days, can't for the life of me imagine why.

Yes we did and most of predatory species were gone before the gun was even around and yes they were killed to protect the food Humans need which was very short sighted and wrong but that wasn't my point, my point was that guns are a usefulland tool and are needed in our current enviroment but I suppose since I am a gun owner every day I just walk out of the house and blast everything that moves just like a sterotype gun knut.

[Wildeybeast]

Sigh. My point was people killed off the predators to protect livestock and now there are no natural controls on 'pests' so now we are 'culling' them to protect livestock. I'm just wondering at what stage people are going to realise that decimating the ecosystem has serious consequences for the environment and that perhaps there are better ways of doing it. I couldn't give a toss if you shoot, poison, starve or strangle the native fauna with your bare hands, my issue is with the idea that 'protection of livestock' gives humanity the right to go around obliterating entire species at will. Oh and imperial power, wolves weren't wiped out until the mid 17th century, there were plenty of guns around by then.

[eldargal]

It's very easy to look back and say we shouldn't have exterminated the wolves but that was pre-industrial farming, wolves killing off your cattle could literally be the death of you and your family.

Wolves spread back accross Europe during and after WWII because of the vast amount of fences destroyed and probably the fact people were otherwise occupied and it did a lot of good for the ecosystem. I think re-introducing them here would be a good idea. Some people want to re-introduce bears as well. Wolves were very rare here as early as the 16th century, we did have firearms then but they weren't exactly precise.

[Magpie]

Seems like if we think about it for a minute or two we actaully can find alternatives to guns, maybe they're not that vital after all

[White Tiger88]

Hmmm i love the fact i somehow got all the Brits arguing now o.O

[eldargal]

Seems like if we think about it for a minute or two we actaully can find alternatives to guns, maybe they're not that vital after all
Re-introducing wolves isn't an alternative, the impact on farmers has been negligible. The benefits have been to national parks primarily. Funnily enough guns are important to our national parks too, several generate considerable (low tens of millions of pounds) extra revenue from sports shooting.

[Magpie]

Ah making money out of killing, now there's a good reason.

[eldargal]

Yes.

It provides sustainable meat and lots of money for the park to use in conserving other species and habitats.

[Dave Mcturk]

maybe heston was scared of the apes ?

[Dave Mcturk]

for when the zombies come ? old vinyl really doesnt cut it !

[Dave Mcturk]

most brits dont realise we were only 'disarmed' by cromwell after the 'british civil war'... it took another 100 years to disarm scotland... and for some strange reason has never been managed in ireland...

[White Tiger88]

maybe heston was scared of the apes ?

......I wish someone would edit that video to have an ape kill him at the end......

[SotonShades]

So why aren't guns used by Vets ?

Don't farm vets use a steel bolt fired with an electric charge? Essentially an electromagnetic gun that is considered more humane only because it doesn't make a loud bang that startles the other animals?

No farmer wants to put down any of their stock, so a Vet will be called more often than not to heal the animal in question, but when the outcome is obvious (and it often is to more experienced farmers) it is much more efficient to the running of the farm to quickly kill off the animal than wait for the vet to get there, spend some time with them while they inspect the animal, then discuss the procedure, do it and charge a significant (though fully justified) fee.

As for the National parks thing, I'm not sure how different it is in the States, but at a local national park here in Leicester, the rangers regularly have to put down members of the deer herds with stalking. The other aspect is dogs out with their owners who chase the deer. For the safety of the dog and members of the public, not to mention the health of the deer, the dog must be quickly brought under control. If the owner isn't able to, they have to shoot it. There would be no safe way to administer a sedative by estimating the animal's weight, aside from the fact that the sedatives have a short shelf life, must be kept cold and are significantly more expensive.

I do understand the American belief in a right to bear arms, particularly those living in the country where there are wild wolves, mountain lions or coyotes. Personally I wouldn't, but there are a lot of people who take it to an extreme, with high capacity magazines and automatic assault rifles. That is where the problem lies.

[Magpie]

As you say Soton there are other things that you can use to put down animals that aren't guns.

But I fail to see why deer can't be trapped rather than hunted, trapping is a lot more efficient and allows the animals to be harvested for venison.
Using meat that has come from an animal that has been shot is quite risky due to the contamination that can result from a gunshot wound.

You need a gun to control your dogs? seriously? training a dog is all you need to do.

[Mr Mystery]

Probably because trapping is cruel, and may catch other wildlife?

If I fire a rifle at a Deer, it's either the Deer or Hillside about to get shot. And don't underestimate the humanity of Deer hunters. If they want a trophy, it's a heart shot or no shot. If not fussed, head or heart. Can't hit those? They don't take the shot. Of course, aiming and hitting not necessarily the same thing, but rifle hunting is by no means cruel. Have you seen the mess it makes of the innards?

And hey, if you eat meat, an animal has to die. I have no moral qualms about that, as long as it hasn't been factory farmed. Puts the food bill up, but I see no reason to support unnecessary cruelty.

[eldargal]

Trapping is actually less efficient, more time consuming, expensive and can cause significant distress to the animal. Not to mention collateral damage on non pest species that get caught in traps.

Game meat contamination is minor and is really only a problem with the very young, pregnant women and those with impaired immune systems. It's a far smaller problem than salmonella and contamination in industrial food.

The Department Agriculture and Rural Development has a decent pdf (http://www.dardni.gov.uk/ruralni/pests_series_cmb.pdf) on the subject with the pros and cons of traps and shooting and so on for various pests.

[Magpie]

The Department Agriculture and Rural Development has a decent pdf (http://www.dardni.gov.uk/ruralni/pests_series_cmb.pdf) on the subject with the pros and cons of traps and shooting and so on for various pests.

Every single one of those recommendations suggest something other than shooting, including trapping and in many cases say that shooting is not the most efficient method of control.

By the way I'd also just like everyone to take particular note of : "It must be stressed, however, that current research shows that the increased numbers of Magpies are not responsible for the loss or decline in songbird populations"

[eldargal]

I'm not sure if you are a troll or simple. It gives a variety of recommendations INCLUDING shooting because a variety of methods is more effective than just one. In some cases shooting is not the most effective method, certainly not for smaller birds. But for others it is either solely or used in conjunction with other methods.

[Magpie]

I'm not sure if you are a troll or simple.

Excuse me? I might be simple but I am at least able to read.

The principal method of controlling rabbits is by gassing the burrows

Shooting is the most selective and also a very effective method of fox
control. It must be carried out by skilled, authorised persons at all
times

The most effective method of controlling mink is trapping.

The best method of controlling rats is baiting

Baiting is the most effective method for controlling mice populations.

A farmer can shoot any dog which is worrying

Grey crows, magpies and jackdaws can be controlled by cage trapping,
shooting or nest destruction. Best results are obtained by a combination of
all three.

Feral pigeons can be controlled by shooting using a .22 air rifle.
Shooting woodpigeons tends to be less effective.

Starlings should be excluded from livestock housing. Shooting
alone is of little use against great numbers of starlings and bangers also
often fail.


So of the 9 controls mentioned only 1 puts shooting forward as the most effective and in that case a suggestion is made that it needs to be done by professional shooters, 1 is an allowance to shoot dogs but make no comment on whether that is the best solution and of the other times shooting is mentioned it is in the context of "can" be useful but other more effective methods are listed.

[scadugenga]

Excuse me? I might be simple but I am at least able to read.

The principal method of controlling rabbits is by gassing the burrows

Shooting is the most selective and also a very effective method of fox
control. It must be carried out by skilled, authorised persons at all
times

The most effective method of controlling mink is trapping.

The best method of controlling rats is baiting

Baiting is the most effective method for controlling mice populations.

A farmer can shoot any dog which is worrying

Grey crows, magpies and jackdaws can be controlled by cage trapping,
shooting or nest destruction. Best results are obtained by a combination of
all three.

Feral pigeons can be controlled by shooting using a .22 air rifle.
Shooting woodpigeons tends to be less effective.

Starlings should be excluded from livestock housing. Shooting
alone is of little use against great numbers of starlings and bangers also
often fail.


So of the 9 controls mentioned only 1 puts shooting forward as the most effective and in that case a suggestion is made that it needs to be done by professional shooters, 1 is an allowance to shoot dogs but make no comment on whether that is the best solution and of the other times shooting is mentioned it is in the context of "can" be useful but other more effective methods are listed.

Your willful ignorance makes this thread painful to read. Wild dogs are excessively dangerous. That's why farmers can shoot them. Tell you what...go hunt a bear without a gun. Let us know how that works for you. Or, more aptly let us know what paper to monitor for your posthumous Darwin Award.

[Deadlift]

Let's be polite(ish) guys, BOLS has a rep for being a bit cooler than the other forums. We don't want 2 threads locked in 2 days really do we :)

[eldargal]

The principle means of controlling rabbit is by gassing the burrows when the option is available and feasible. Can't do it here, too much coverage for holes and badgers around.

Farmers are considered skilled, authorised people.

Yes you don't shoot mink or other small vermin.

Again you seem to be assuming that because for some animals and in some situations shooting isn't the mot effective that somehow it has no use at all. It's just plain silly. A gun is not the be all and end all of pest control, but it is an important part of it.

[Wildeybeast]

It's very easy to look back and say we shouldn't have exterminated the wolves but that was pre-industrial farming, wolves killing off your cattle could literally be the death of you and your family.

Wolves spread back accross Europe during and after WWII because of the vast amount of fences destroyed and probably the fact people were otherwise occupied and it did a lot of good for the ecosystem. I think re-introducing them here would be a good idea. Some people want to re-introduce bears as well. Wolves were very rare here as early as the 16th century, we did have firearms then but they weren't exactly precise.

I wasn't suggesting we reintroduce wolves as a method of population control and it would be impractical and dangerous to do so on a large scale. The attempts so far have been within entirely fenced areas so they can't get out into the countryside at large. My point was we have a habit of wiping out species in the name of 'protecting livestock' and it just creates more problems (like an increase in 'pest species). Sea Eagles (specifically white-tailed ones) weren't wiped out until the early 20th century, under the laughable notion that they posed a significant threat to sheep. Even now they have been successfully reintroduced there are still morons going around killing them. Next on the extinction list of 'threats to livestock' are badgers because it's cheaper the vaccination. At what point are people going to realise that wiping out species for financial reasons just creates more problems in the long run?

I actually agree that using guns for 'population control' is one of the more effective and humane methods, my point is that we need a radical revaluation of what 'population control' is and why we are doing it.

[imperialpower]

Sigh. My point was people killed off the predators to protect livestock and now there are no natural controls on 'pests' so now we are 'culling' them to protect livestock. I'm just wondering at what stage people are going to realise that decimating the ecosystem has serious consequences for the environment and that perhaps there are better ways of doing it. I couldn't give a toss if you shoot, poison, starve or strangle the native fauna with your bare hands, my issue is with the idea that 'protection of livestock' gives humanity the right to go around obliterating entire species at will. Oh and imperial power, wolves weren't wiped out until the mid 17th century, there were plenty of guns around by then.

Yea I got your point and even said in my post that it was a short sighted view to kill off species to protect Human livestock and I also said that MOST predatory species were whiped out before the gun arrived so your point about wolves was random, so really I agreed with your point that as a species we have no right to pick and choose what animals should live or die. I also said that in our current enviroment (given that there are no major predatory species left) that guns are a useful tool and are needed to cull animals such as deer so from reading your posts it would seem we share a similiar opinion so sigh to you too.:p

[Nabterayl]

If I can express a bit of American incredulity, has this thread really devolved into debating whether it's good policy for farmers to have guns for the purpose of shooting wild animals?

Is that actually up for debate in the British public consciousness?

[Deadlift]

If I can express a bit of American incredulity, has this thread really devolved into debating whether it's good policy for farmers to have guns for the purpose of shooting wild animals?

Is that actually up for debate in the British public consciousness?

No not really.
To be honest mate, as a proper country boy (Devon),unlike most of these townies lol, I know a fair few farmers and they all have shot guns both for fox control, pidgeons and rabbiting. Can they use alternatives ? Maybe but I think they enjoy the sport of the hunt too. And why not its their land.

[Nabterayl]

Can they use alternatives ? Maybe but I think they enjoy the sport of the hunt too. And why not its their land.
I guess that's my attitude, too. I figure a landowner should be able to keep their property vermin free however they choose, so long as their chosen method isn't a danger to the public. If a farmer decides it's best to shoot a particular animal, "I could have done that more efficiently by some other means" doesn't seem like a valid objection.

[eldargal]

If I can express a bit of American incredulity, has this thread really devolved into debating whether it's good policy for farmers to have guns for the purpose of shooting wild animals?

Is that actually up for debate in the British public consciousness?
Not at all, no. Until Magpie I've never encountered anyone who thought farmers didn't have a valid reason to own and use firearms.

[Mr Mystery]

No not really.
To be honest mate, as a proper country boy (Devon),unlike most of these townies lol, I know a fair few farmers and they all have shot guns both for fox control, pidgeons and rabbiting. Can they use alternatives ? Maybe but I think they enjoy the sport of the hunt too. And why not its their land.

Only method I object to is Fox Hunting with hounds and horses, now sensibly outlawed. Not exactly efficient. Especially when the hunts were caught trapping foxes in one country, and releasing them in another for the hunt. Not exactly population control.

[eldargal]

Outlawed, yes, but no one pays any attention.:p The Hunts still happen it's just a complete accident when a fox gets caught... It was stupid that some would capture the foxes and release them again elsewhere.

[Mr Mystery]

Just another reason for the growing dissatisfaction in the UK. Adds to the perception that 'Toffs' can do what they bloody well want, when they bloody well want....

Doesn't help the legislation was mangled in terms of wording...but seriously....

[Deadlift]

Only method I object to is Fox Hunting with hounds and horses, now sensibly outlawed. Not exactly efficient. Especially when the hunts were caught trapping foxes in one country, and releasing them in another for the hunt. Not exactly population control.

Totally agree with you.

[eldargal]

Just another reason for the growing dissatisfaction in the UK. Adds to the perception that 'Toffs' can do what they bloody well want, when they bloody well want....

Doesn't help the legislation was mangled in terms of wording...but seriously....
Funnily enough since the ban the Hunt has become much more popular with all classes, a lot of people saw it as a Labour assault on Englishness rather than something that was warranted by animal welfare. We get a lot of people from all sorts of different backgrounds coming to the Hunts around here.

[Mr Mystery]

Not doubt clutching their copy of the Daily Mail, and living in paranoia of immigrants :p

[eldargal]

Not really.:p Most of the ones I spoke to were lefties who thought the whole thing was a colossal waste of time when there were many more important things hte guvmint should be focusing on and wanted to thumb their noses at Labour by keeping the tradition alive. In my experience most Daily Mail readers are anti-toff, lazy bigots who would never actually do something to support the things they claim they support.

[pgmason]

It comes from being raised in the western US and actually using guns to protect and feed myself.

Okay, feed yourself I get - you hunt, and that's fair enough, but protect yourself? From what?

[scadugenga]

Okay, feed yourself I get - you hunt, and that's fair enough, but protect yourself? From what?

The statistics : http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp