VT Shootings, Gun Control !

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
A perimeter is ALWAYS the first thing done in situations like this, even in Canada.[/quote]

Dawson College. Montreal, a few months ago. Look it up. The police wasted no time going inside when they were informed that an armed individual had entered the school.

They caught up with him and shot him. Victim count was a lot lower than other school shootings.

Those things go down in minutes; not hours or days. There’s no time to wait for the perimeter to be in place. Set one up, by all means, but get to the shooter ASAP. You can send people inside while others set up the perimeter right?

If that’s not possible, then you’ve answered the question of “is it wise to leave the house unarmed and can we count on the police for security?”

42

[quote]JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?

Hey, beowolf.

I disagree with that assertion. Here is an extremely thoughtful and relevant discussion about the slippery slope in England. This discusses in detail the history of loss of the right to bear arms in England. If you can’t stomach the meat of the discussion, please scan down to the conclusions.

I would hope the right would agree with me here. I’d rather have a bit too much gun control then the obvious lack we have now.

The Good Guys agree to a point.

How about a licensing system that requires a test? Maybe just a written one about gun safety, like a crappier version of the test you take to get a boating license ect…

Again, a positive step and example.

I trust government about as far as I can throw the White House.

Why did you just include the White House?

You can’t seriously trust the democrats in Congress?

I think it’s fair to say that you are a bit more enlightened than bradley.

But still, gun control, to me, is a too much is better than too little situation. Too much, and rights are infringed upon a bit, very bad. Too little, and shit like this happens. Still, i’d much rather see the happy medium, the golden mean.

Again, if we had faith that unscrupulous politicians wouldn’t screw this up, I think you’d find many more allies.

JeffR

[/quote]

First of all, I said White House b/c it’s the first thing that comes into my head when I think “Government”. I don’t trust Hillary and the Dems any more. There are a select few whom I trust to do certain things. But none who I agree would do well in all areas.

What are your thoughts on what I said above? Is it better to risk falling down the slipper slope with some control, or better to have the obvious lack we have now?

The killers mindset wasn’t preventable. His violent actions weren’t preventable. But his acquisition of a gun WAS preventable, and should have been prevented.

You say I’d find more allies if you think the poli’s wouldn’t screw shit up. Well, I think they’d screw it up to. I think they’re screwing up now by having to little. And I’d rather they screw up by having a bit to much.

This country has too many conservatives for the 2nd amendment to fall the way of the dinosaurs. Too many people really like guns for gun banning to ever be acceptable, I believe.

So would you rather they screw up with too little, or would you rather they screw up with too much? Or is having too little justified by the dangers of having too much leading to the extreme?

43

[quote]worzel wrote:
The arguments a lot of you propose for the right to bear arms are very compelling and extremely well written but in no way does it persuade me in the slightest that the ability to buy a gun to ‘protect’ oneself makes for a safer environment to live in.

Where I come from we have our fair share of lunatics that are quite willing to stab the shit out of you for just looking at them crooked but I guarantee to you that if these stupid fucks were allowed to buy guns this place would be an absolute disaster. It doesn’t even bear thinking about.

It scares me to think that you guys believe this right to bear arms shit will ever solve anything especially the fact that it pertains to a time when your country was involved in a struggle to rid yourselves of the English way back in 1770’s.
Back when people hunted for food and the threat of mortal danger was always at the forefront of people’s minds.

Times have changed and although danger is still apparent it’s a far cry from those bygone days when George Washington was strutting his stuff and when the frontier still existed. Human beings are thick fucks’ we love the opportunity to hate and removing the ability to kill one another by simply pulling a trigger is a very very good idea.
[/quote]

Why do Europeans think they need to provide input on American issues? We don’t give a shit about Irish politics or laws.

Here’s an example you might understand (and keep in mind I lived in England for 3 years). If private gun ownership is illegal in the UK, how in the world does the IRA get guns? It SHOULD be impossible, right? But they do.

I’m sure you have laws I don’t agree with and will never understand…and I don’t care, either. I politely ask you to mind your business.

Here’s another good reason to keep and bear arms…America has never been invaded and never will be. Not only do we have a massive military, but we also have millions and millions of private citizens armed to the teeth ready to defend our boarders. No nation could ever hope to invade. Europe has been the cause of more death and destruction in the last few hundred years than in all of human history.

Perhaps that’s because of it’s a completely defenseless citizenry who are completely at the whim of whatever European nation is the most powerful at that time. Give every Frenchman a gun in the 1930’s and maybe Hitler doesn’t have such an easy time.

44

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?

Hey, beowolf.

I disagree with that assertion. Here is an extremely thoughtful and relevant discussion about the slippery slope in England. This discusses in detail the history of loss of the right to bear arms in England. If you can’t stomach the meat of the discussion, please scan down to the conclusions.

I would hope the right would agree with me here. I’d rather have a bit too much gun control then the obvious lack we have now.

The Good Guys agree to a point.

How about a licensing system that requires a test? Maybe just a written one about gun safety, like a crappier version of the test you take to get a boating license ect…

Again, a positive step and example.

I trust government about as far as I can throw the White House.

Why did you just include the White House?

You can’t seriously trust the democrats in Congress?

I think it’s fair to say that you are a bit more enlightened than bradley.

But still, gun control, to me, is a too much is better than too little situation. Too much, and rights are infringed upon a bit, very bad. Too little, and shit like this happens. Still, i’d much rather see the happy medium, the golden mean.

Again, if we had faith that unscrupulous politicians wouldn’t screw this up, I think you’d find many more allies.

JeffR

First of all, I said White House b/c it’s the first thing that comes into my head when I think “Government”. I don’t trust Hillary and the Dems any more. There are a select few whom I trust to do certain things. But none who I agree would do well in all areas.

What are your thoughts on what I said above? Is it better to risk falling down the slipper slope with some control, or better to have the obvious lack we have now?

The killers mindset wasn’t preventable. His violent actions weren’t preventable. But his acquisition of a gun WAS preventable, and should have been prevented.

You say I’d find more allies if you think the poli’s wouldn’t screw shit up. Well, I think they’d screw it up to. I think they’re screwing up now by having to little. And I’d rather they screw up by having a bit to much.

This country has too many conservatives for the 2nd amendment to fall the way of the dinosaurs. Too many people really like guns for gun banning to ever be acceptable, I believe.

So would you rather they screw up with too little, or would you rather they screw up with too much? Or is having too little justified by the dangers of having too much leading to the extreme?[/quote]

I’d prefer to avoid a knee-jerk reaction and blame an inanimate object. Why couldn’t he get a gun from teh same guy who sells crack? Guns aren’t going away, no matter what law you enact. What’s next? Some guy shoots up a school with a compound bow, so naturally you outlaw bow and arrows. The next guy does it with throwing knives…yep, ban them also. How about an axe? Yep, get rid of those.

Stop the knee-jerking. A man killed those people, the gun didn’t do it.

45

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You’ll just have to trust that I know about these things.[/quote]

Lovely. On the internet, everyone is an expert at everything.

Ok, I missed it. Haven’t been scouring the sources to get every last detail. I got most of my info from TV and radio (during the daily commute) and I haven’t heard anything about the SWAT going in.

What is this? Are we on a date or something? A compliment buys you zilch.

I see your current administration has trained you well. Hear something you like, true or not, and you react with dumb agreement and unwavering support.

Back it up.

When? After the guy was already dead? When shots where first heard?

Details, man. It doesn’t change my point if they got it after he had already shot himself. Being late is just as bad as not being there at all.

Great. So you’re telling me that “Official Reports” don’t necessarily give the facts?

What is it with people and telling the truth these days? It used to be that Banana Republics where known to be run by crooks and liars from top to bottom. Seems to be becoming more and more the case in “modern” countries too.

Well, if the official report is not to be trusted, how do you know you’re not simply getting disinformation like the rest of us? Maybe your “secret source” is telling you exactly what you want to hear too.

46

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Why couldn’t he get a gun from teh same guy who sells crack? [/quote]

I’d normally not budge in on such topic. You have a sovereign country, and what you do inside it is nobody’s business but yours, right? But I detected a flaw in your argument. Allow me to elaborate:

Why not make crack legal? After all, such action will make sure the crack supplies are held to a certain standard and the state will actually get some tax money from it (as opposed to lose billions in a futile fight against drugs). Keep in mind that any argument you raise against that can be used against the gun issue.

47

[quote]beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
beowolf wrote:

You do know the “slippery slope” is considered a fallacious argument in debate, right?

Hey, beowolf.

I disagree with that assertion. Here is an extremely thoughtful and relevant discussion about the slippery slope in England. This discusses in detail the history of loss of the right to bear arms in England. If you can’t stomach the meat of the discussion, please scan down to the conclusions.

I would hope the right would agree with me here. I’d rather have a bit too much gun control then the obvious lack we have now.

The Good Guys agree to a point.

How about a licensing system that requires a test? Maybe just a written one about gun safety, like a crappier version of the test you take to get a boating license ect…

Again, a positive step and example.

I trust government about as far as I can throw the White House.

Why did you just include the White House?

You can’t seriously trust the democrats in Congress?

I think it’s fair to say that you are a bit more enlightened than bradley.

But still, gun control, to me, is a too much is better than too little situation. Too much, and rights are infringed upon a bit, very bad. Too little, and shit like this happens. Still, i’d much rather see the happy medium, the golden mean.

Again, if we had faith that unscrupulous politicians wouldn’t screw this up, I think you’d find many more allies.

JeffR

First of all, I said White House b/c it’s the first thing that comes into my head when I think “Government”. I don’t trust Hillary and the Dems any more. There are a select few whom I trust to do certain things. But none who I agree would do well in all areas.

What are your thoughts on what I said above? Is it better to risk falling down the slipper slope with some control, or better to have the obvious lack we have now?

The killers mindset wasn’t preventable. His violent actions weren’t preventable. But his acquisition of a gun WAS preventable, and should have been prevented.

You say I’d find more allies if you think the poli’s wouldn’t screw shit up. Well, I think they’d screw it up to. I think they’re screwing up now by having to little. And I’d rather they screw up by having a bit to much.

This country has too many conservatives for the 2nd amendment to fall the way of the dinosaurs. Too many people really like guns for gun banning to ever be acceptable, I believe.

So would you rather they screw up with too little, or would you rather they screw up with too much? Or is having too little justified by the dangers of having too much leading to the extreme?[/quote]

beowolf,

I hear what you are saying. There are some of us who think it would be a worse screw up if the politicians decided to have a go at this.

We really do think that trying to ban X amount of weapons, would only punish the law abiding.

Again, I can identify and can to some extent agree with you.

It’s funny, it almost sounds like a Federalist verus Anti-Federalist set of arguments. Who do you trust? The people or the politicians?

I don’t know how you stop every lone nut. However, I have some ideas.

First, DON’T SHOW THE SCUMBALL’S VIDEO/PICTURES. Copy-cat murders happen all the time.

Second, I can go along with a gun safety class. If for no other reason than to educate people.

Third, if you have a felony, you need to have x number of years of non-crime prior to getting a gun.

Those are some of my ideas of the top of my idea.

JeffR

48

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
You’ll just have to trust that I know about these things.

Lovely. On the internet, everyone is an expert at everything.

Please tender your apology. Oh, you can find it reported in multiple other sources.

Ok, I missed it. Haven’t been scouring the sources to get every last detail. I got most of my info from TV and radio (during the daily commute) and I haven’t heard anything about the SWAT going in.

Well, I guess this is what I get for giving you a compliment. It won’t happen again.

What is this? Are we on a date or something? A compliment buys you zilch.

I see your current administration has trained you well. Hear something you like, true or not, and you react with dumb agreement and unwavering support.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Plain and simple.

Back it up.

They were there and they did get into the building.

When? After the guy was already dead? When shots where first heard?

Details, man. It doesn’t change my point if they got it after he had already shot himself. Being late is just as bad as not being there at all.

Again, the official report is the subject took his own life. This may very well be what happened.

Great. So you’re telling me that “Official Reports” don’t necessarily give the facts?

What is it with people and telling the truth these days? It used to be that Banana Republics where known to be run by crooks and liars from top to bottom. Seems to be becoming more and more the case in “modern” countries too.

However, I caution you, it isn’t always the case.

Well, if the official report is not to be trusted, how do you know you’re not simply getting disinformation like the rest of us? Maybe your “secret source” is telling you exactly what you want to hear too.

[/quote]

Hey, pookie,

Thanks for admitting your error (partially).

Second, if you don’t believe I know something about Special Weapons and Tactics, that’s fine.

However, I might add that some of your assertions clearly indicate that you do not.

Third, 20/20 is always crystal clear.

Sure is sickening to see guys like pookie arm-chair a situation that he doesn’t understand.

Unless you’ve been there, you might want to tone down your criticism.

JeffR

49

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
…Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.

Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

Thought I’d throw a little fuel on the fire.

50

June 8, 2001 - Mamoru Takuma forced his way into Ikeda Elementary School in Osaka, Japan, stabbed to death eight students and injured 13 others. Takuma, who had a long history of mental illness, pleaded guilty to the crimes.

Makes Harris and Klebold look like amateurs. Funny how Japan’s police state didn’t stop something like this.

June 20, 2003 - Wei Wei, Yang Ning and Wang Liang strangled Shinjiro Matsumoto with a necktie, drowned his wife in a bathtub, smothered their 11-year-old son Kai with a pillow and strangled their daughter, Hina, 8.

So, ban neckties, bathtubs, and pillows? I mean seriously, most of the hicks that own neckties don’t use them in a responsible manner anyway, they don’t make anyone any safer, and I’m pretty sure Japan’s Constitution doesn’t provide a right to bear a cravat.

Don’t even get me started on bathtubs…

51

Using a tragedy to score political points on gun control is pathetic. It would be great if there was more focus on the real factor behind what leads people to go on a rampage and then commit suicide.

People accept discussion about heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas diseases but “brain disease” in the form of mental illness seems to be taboo. Maybe people are afraid of losing the notion of free will and don’t want to even consider the possibility that the mind is solely the product of the brain.

On a side note…why do so many Americans on this board get their panties in a bunch when a European comments on American issues? Then the same American immediately follows up with a condescending lecture on European history.

In general I’m opposed to mental cages so I find insight from outside observers to be refreshing.

52

[quote]lucasa wrote:

So, ban neckties, bathtubs, and pillows? I mean seriously, most of the hicks that own neckties don’t use them in a responsible manner anyway, they don’t make anyone any safer, and I’m pretty sure Japan’s Constitution doesn’t provide a right to bear a cravat.

Don’t even get me started on bathtubs…[/quote]

I support the right to bear arms so I’d like to see gun advocates drop this line of argument. I think it weakens your position.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill people. Plain and simple it is a weapon designed to kill. Not every gun owner owns guns for the purpose of killing people but the gun itself is designed for a specific use.

People are killed everyday with “non-weapon” items but the fact remains that neckties, bathtubs, and pillows aren’t designed to do what guns do.

53

Problem, reaction, solution.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Thanks for admitting your error (partially).[/quote]

Don’t forget to update your little scoresheet.

[quote]Second, if you don’t believe I know something about Special Weapons and Tactics, that’s fine.

However, I might add that some of your assertions clearly indicate that you do not.[/quote]

Never claimed I did.

You know what might help? If people who know about such things were a bit more forthcoming with the information, instead of arrogantly looking down their nose at the civilians they’re supposed to serve.

You know, the ones fielding the bullets while the cops are discussing their cunning plans around the perimeter.

Granted. But I’m aware of two local shootings, one at Polytechnique in 1989 and one at Dawson College in 2006.

In the first instance, police didn’t go in and it ended up with 14 victims.

At Dawson, the police went in right away and shot the gunman before he could complete whatever it was he was trying. 1 victim.

Now, you that knows about such things, why the 2 different reactions? I pretty much understand the different results. Going in pronto, for some odd reason, seems to throw a wrench in the nutcase’s plans.

More arrogance? How surprising. Again, why don’t you enlighten us instead? Haven’t enough of those shootings occurred yet for the police to develop adequate tactics to deal with them? Other than “let’s establish a perimeter?”

If I’m so far off track, it must be because I’m missing something somewhere? What is it?

Right. And you’ve been everywhere and done everything. You’re a secret-service agent/covert guerilla operative/CIA mole and DEA spy all rolled up into one, right?

If you’ve got nothing better than arrogance wrapped up in bullshit to offer, don’t bother.

55

[quote]vroom wrote:
fastwrx05 wrote:
Just wait and see the new laws set in place because of a crazed Idiot! The antigun politians will use this for there sick antigun/anti second amendment agenda.

I think you give away your ability to talk reasonably when you throw out the term ‘sick’ to describe those against guns.

They may be somewhat deluded in their hope that the world will just play nice if all the big bad weapons were taken away, but that makes them something much different than sick.

Guns are the great equalizer. They allow the scrawniest coward to project as much power as the strongest tough guy. However, we have no easy way of knowing just who will or won’t abuse this power.

I’d be for measures that help reduce accidental discharges, such as children shooting themselves with a parents weapon by accident, and I’d be for measures that targeted criminals or put criminals at a disadvantage with respect to law abiding citizens.

Laws that penalize the law abiding, or make the law abiding unable to stand up the lawless, are bad laws. Hopefully this situation does not lead to bad laws being passed due to the emotion that has been unleashed.[/quote]

Damn Vroom you are preaching to the choir

56

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Problem, reaction, solution.[/quote]

That’s precisly what I was thinking!

57

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Thanks for admitting your error (partially).

Don’t forget to update your little scoresheet.

Second, if you don’t believe I know something about Special Weapons and Tactics, that’s fine.

However, I might add that some of your assertions clearly indicate that you do not.

Never claimed I did.

You know what might help? If people who know about such things were a bit more forthcoming with the information, instead of arrogantly looking down their nose at the civilians they’re supposed to serve.

You know, the ones fielding the bullets while the cops are discussing their cunning plans around the perimeter.

Third, 20/20 is always crystal clear.

Granted. But I’m aware of two local shootings, one at Polytechnique in 1989 and one at Dawson College in 2006.

In the first instance, police didn’t go in and it ended up with 14 victims.

At Dawson, the police went in right away and shot the gunman before he could complete whatever it was he was trying. 1 victim.

Now, you that knows about such things, why the 2 different reactions? I pretty much understand the different results. Going in pronto, for some odd reason, seems to throw a wrench in the nutcase’s plans.

Sure is sickening to see guys like pookie arm-chair a situation that he doesn’t understand.

More arrogance? How surprising. Again, why don’t you enlighten us instead? Haven’t enough of those shootings occurred yet for the police to develop adequate tactics to deal with them? Other than “let’s establish a perimeter?”

If I’m so far off track, it must be because I’m missing something somewhere? What is it?

Unless you’ve been there, you might want to tone down your criticism.

Right. And you’ve been everywhere and done everything. You’re a secret-service agent/covert guerilla operative/CIA mole and DEA spy all rolled up into one, right?

If you’ve got nothing better than arrogance wrapped up in bullshit to offer, don’t bother.
[/quote]

pookie,

I appreciate that you seem to have toned down (a bit) your attitude.

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to research some of your hot-blooded commentary PRIOR to posting it.

I cannot force you to be a bit more reflective. However, I can gently ): point out your errors.

With regard to SWAT, I want you to think through the concept that every situation requires different approaches.

You can’t use linear assault tactics or close quarter battle in every circumstance.

That is asking for hostages to die.

I heard, “Servare Vitas” somewhere. That’s what those brave men/women were trying to do.

You might want to give them the benefit of the doubt next time.

They’ll be there when you need them.

JeffR

58

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I would appreciate it if you would take the time to research some of your hot-blooded commentary PRIOR to posting it.[/quote]

And take all the fun out of it?

So you claim. If anyone else made claims and told you to “trust that they know those things” you’d ask them for references and evidence for the whole thread. Why are you exempt?

What if there was a computer related question on some thread (trust me, I know these things) and instead of answering best I could, I said “LUsers (note the clever pun) should stay away from the keyboard. Get a pad, a pencil and a abacus, and you’re all set. I wish all vidiots would refrain from arm-chairing computer science when they know nothing about it.”

How would that sound? That’s exactly what you’re doing here.

So it is your contention that the reaction of the police during the VT incident was optimal?

There is no place for improvement? No better tactics could be devised?

Better to wait until there aren’t any hostages left. The shooter is bound to run out of bullets, people or stamina sooner or later, right?

From outside?

I know, I know. The chains. Damn those unbreakable chains and those titanium vault doors they use for schools. If only those doors could’ve been busted open by ramming a car in them.

[quote]You might want to give them the benefit of the doubt next time.

They’ll be there when you need them.[/quote]

I’ll make sure to give them the finger through the window as I practice stopping high velocity bullets with my skull cavity.

Maybe they can get a taxidermist to make a nice donut holder from my stiff finger-giving hand.

59

[quote]lucasa wrote:
June 8, 2001 - Mamoru Takuma forced his way into Ikeda Elementary School in Osaka, Japan, stabbed to death eight students and injured 13 others. Takuma, who had a long history of mental illness, pleaded guilty to the crimes.

Makes Harris and Klebold look like amateurs. Funny how Japan’s police state didn’t stop something like this.

June 20, 2003 - Wei Wei, Yang Ning and Wang Liang strangled Shinjiro Matsumoto with a necktie, drowned his wife in a bathtub, smothered their 11-year-old son Kai with a pillow and strangled their daughter, Hina, 8.

So, ban neckties, bathtubs, and pillows? I mean seriously, most of the hicks that own neckties don’t use them in a responsible manner anyway, they don’t make anyone any safer, and I’m pretty sure Japan’s Constitution doesn’t provide a right to bear a cravat.

Don’t even get me started on bathtubs…[/quote]

Beautiful. This is getting weird. We are actually starting to agree.

60

[quote]Michael570 wrote:
lucasa wrote:

So, ban neckties, bathtubs, and pillows? I mean seriously, most of the hicks that own neckties don’t use them in a responsible manner anyway, they don’t make anyone any safer, and I’m pretty sure Japan’s Constitution doesn’t provide a right to bear a cravat.

Don’t even get me started on bathtubs…

I support the right to bear arms so I’d like to see gun advocates drop this line of argument. I think it weakens your position.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill people. Plain and simple it is a weapon designed to kill. Not every gun owner owns guns for the purpose of killing people but the gun itself is designed for a specific use.

People are killed everyday with “non-weapon” items but the fact remains that neckties, bathtubs, and pillows aren’t designed to do what guns do. [/quote]

Absolutely, positively wrong! Guns are used for sport and hunting as well. Marksmenship is a major sport. Some people hunt for food. The bow and arrow has the EXACT same purposes as the gun. Should they be banned as well? What about the axe and knife?