Target rich environment

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
OK, the horse still has a pulse because there's obviously something I need to clarify, or perhaps re-emphasize. My post #3 was not a response to your post #2 - notice you were not quoted in it. It was a reply to the thread in an effort to better state the point in the OP that I assumed the turd journalist was trying to make: gun-free zones don't accomplish their intended purpose. I supported that assertion with the article about the gun-toting psychiatrist and later followed that up with another post and article from USA Today written by a PhD from UT which linked to a study on the same subject done by two other PhDs. I thought the "gun-free zones" topic was worth discussing; turd journalism - not so much.

If your assumption is wrong, and the point Target and other businesses are trying to make with their 'gun free zones' is that they don't want to have their business disrupted by groups of people intent on making their own [idealogical] point, then I'd say the gun free zones work. The blatant disregard of a polite request would backfire even worse than the past attempts have.
As a deterrent to crime, of course the criminals will ignore the rules, but it's my opinion that a whole lot of 2nd Amendment supporters would, too. We've seen how they freak right the heLL out over the slightest attempts to even discuss gun safety laws.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The gun safety laws are already written.

Treat all guns as if they are loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you aren't willing to destroy.
Never touch the trigger until you have identified your target and are prepared to fire.
Always be aware of what is behind your target.

So, there's not really any need for any discussion of "gun safety laws".
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use"

Rule 3 is not at odds. IF I have a loaded firearm (I can't call them guns or I will be required to do something silly) I intend to use it. USE does not mean FIRE. It would be just foolish to carry an unloaded firearm for protection. So when I carry it is loaded. IF I have a firearm out at home for protection, it is loaded. Again, it is only a club, and not even a good club, if not loaded.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
They may not be in a statutes book but they are law to responsible gun owners. The passive aggressive comment that Second Amendment supporters freak out at the slightest mention of gun safety laws is ridiculous. Gun safety? Code for rules and laws that infringe on and inconvenience the responsible, honest gun owners while having zero effect on anyone else. It's the "gun safety" crowd that freaks out and goes ape bonkers when they don't get to force their wishes on everyone else.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There are few good, useful, gun safety groups out there. The "Eddie Eagle" program is one. The 4H has a very active shooting sports program and then the is the DCM and it's affiliated clubs. Just to name a few.

None of those are "anti-gun" in anyway and have provided much training in both safety and proficiency with firearms. All are positive in their message and all are good at what they do. ONLY the DCM has any public funding.

The ANTI's do little, or nothing, to promote safety. Safety is contrary to their goal of banning firearms. The more accidents that take place, the better to further their goal. Public safety, and lives, are of no concern to them.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Very true but Eddie Eagle and the other legitimate groups are not talking about or pushing for "gun safety laws". They're just about gun safety.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Very true but Eddie Eagle and the other legitimate groups are not talking about or pushing for "gun safety laws". They're just about gun safety.

That is correct, they do, they don't just talk. They are not opposed to "honest" gun safety laws, if there is ever one put forward. You will find that things like "hunter safety" courses were put forward and pushed by ALL involved with firearms and hunting. Most of what we see put forward today is meant for restricting law abiding citizens rights, and nothing more.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Like I said, don't confuse gun safety laws and gun infringement laws. Gun safety laws are things like trigger locks and gun safes. Gun infringement laws are things like background checks, magazine capacity, regulation of gun ownership transfers, and gun bans. Many infringement laws are called safety laws, but only by those who think the only safe gun is the one that doesn't exist.

In any case, I do love a good irony, and here we have two beauties...

"...freaks out and goes ape bonkers when they don't get to force their wishes on everyone else."

That one's just too rich for words.

And, we have Eddie Eagle, who was hunted to near extinction by irresponsible gun owners, teaching gun safety to gun owners.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
"And, we have Eddie Eagle, who was hunted to near extinction by irresponsible gun owners, teaching gun safety to gun owners."

No, eagles were primarily endangered by DDT. They rebounded quickly when it's use was banned. Same can be said for many other birds, such as comorants.

There was a period, in the United States, when states, incorrectly, tried to "control" or "eliminate" many other "natural predators", such as eagles, owls, wolfs, etc, but those programs were ended several decades ago. During that period some states even paid "bounties" for predators. Wanton killed of wildlife, for no reason, is rare and has no connection with law abiding citizens.

Right now the greatest threat to eagles, and other birds, are wind generators and other so called "green" or "renewable" energy programs.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
DDT played a factor and a large one, but eagles were primarily endangered by loss of habitat and from fishermen who saw them as a threat.
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
According to a program that aired a week or two ago on PBS or one of the similar cable channels the biggest threat to eagles was their shells becoming too thin and fragile due to DDT. They are now making a comeback in Texas as well. It was about that. I don't remember specifics on the program to identify specifically which one but I do remember their claim.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
DDT would have wiped them out, no question. But the problem was discovered and recognized before it had a chance to kill them in large numbers. A couple more years though and it would have become a significant problem. Given a little more time and it would have, but it hadn't yet approached the numbers killed by fishermen. Fishermen killed 100,000 eagles in Oregon in one year alone.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
DDT wasn't the culprit.
It was mostly Illegal shooting,lack of suitable habitat, and other 'factors'.
From article:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.

A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.

In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,” according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.”

The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the U.S. between 1961-1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.

One of the most notorious DDT “factoids” is that it thinned bird egg shells. But a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn’t associated with egg shell thinning.

In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment – and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild.

So what causes thin bird egg shells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil; lead; mercury; stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; restraint and nutrient deficiencies.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/07/06/bald-eagle-ddt-myth-still-flying-high/
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
They may not be in a statutes book but they are law to responsible gun owners. The passive aggressive comment that Second Amendment supporters freak out at the slightest mention of gun safety laws is ridiculous. Gun safety? Code for rules and laws that infringe on and inconvenience the responsible, honest gun owners while having zero effect on anyone else. It's the "gun safety" crowd that freaks out and goes ape bonkers when they don't get to force their wishes on everyone else.

"Passive aggressive"? Not even close: there is nothing passive about that statement, because I don't play coy, I say what I mean.
You would have to live in a cave to be unaware of the 'Chicken Little' syndrome on display whenever any effort is made to address the issue of "gun safety". The distinction you [generic] make between safety & infringement is one that others don't. It's all about keeping guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them, but the 2nd Amendment crowd freaks out, insisting that their right to bear arms is under siege. It does no good at all to refuse to acknowledge that some people should not be permitted to own weapons, much less pretend it means no one should.
The arrogant condescension towards those who support the right to bear arms, but don't have the level of detailed knowledge that the dedicated enthusiasts [aka gun nuts] have is counterproductive. There are a lot of people who support the 2nd Amendment, without actually owning a weapon. Why should they be expected to know the "laws" to which you refer?
If I thought the government was truly going to confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens, I'd get one, just to make them try to pry my fingers from it.
[I really need to work on the 'passive' part, lol.] :D
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There are more than enough laws to keep guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn't have them in the far far more than enough (over 25,000) gun laws already on the books. That's the problem and that's why people get perturbed when "gun safety laws" are brought up. It isn't about gun safety at all. It's only about restrictions and infringement.

If it were about safety that side of the aisle would be talking about the laws already in force. The laws that take no debate. The laws that don't take months or years to implement. The laws that are perfectly good and are in place ready to go immediately.

Why do you suppose that never happens? Why is it we need more laws? Could it be because the liars calling for them are only out to restrict and infringe any way they can? Could it be that all it takes is a brain and common sense to clearly see that and not have to question why people are upset by it?

Now if you (as in anyone) have a brief, concise response answering the questions and pointing to a valid concern not already addressed it would be interesting to hear but it isn't very likely there's anything left unaddressed in the myriad of gun laws.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Fishermen killed 100,000 eagles in Oregon in one year alone.

Source for the info please???

US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Is there a link on their website offering more details - such as which year this killoff took place? To reach these numbers, Oregon fishermen would have had to kill 274 eagles every day of the year!
This sounds like el toro poo-poo to me.

The closest kill numbers I can find for this kind of deadly campaign against bald eagles are from the bounty program that existed in Alaska from 1917 to 1953. That means 120,195 eagles were confirmed killed over a period of 36 years, motivated by a monetary incentive.

http://raptors.hancockwildlife.org/BEIA/PAGES/Section-30.pdf
 
Top