Guns don't kill people. pdf's do!
Reg: get a hold of yourselves. There's probably a pdphobia 12-step program available.
The US gun industry has chosen the week of America's massive Thanksgiving holiday to unveil its foray into Web 2.0. The National Shooting and Sports Federation (NSSF) has announced its brand-spanking new blog, Aiming for Accuracy, to further its claim hunting is a safe sport. Aiming for Accuracy is "aimed at hunting down and …
What, doesn't everyone know enough to spit out the metal? For goodness sake people, pick the shot out as you could break your teeth. I can see eating the crunchy bits of shellfish, being loaded with calcium and minerals and all, as it would be good for healthy bones and such but you wouldn't leave the hook in the salmon now would you.
Not the reg, the hunter's propaganda thing.. The CDC report shows lead levels .4 micrograms higher than the average populace for those eating wild game. Its only those that eat wild game, but hadn't done so for at least a month, that lead levels dropped. The study didn't ask participants if lead was used or something else to kill the animals.
The lead levels in all study participants were not dangerous, and were significant in only 1% of cases.
On second thought, it is bad form on the Reg for not reading the CDC report.
...and everyone else.
This is just the NRA under a new shell.
If you have honesty, a brain and some curiosity you will read the relevant amendments in their entire text.
If you lack one of the above you will be satisfied with:
"the right to bear arms" but it's not a one off.
el Reg: it would have cost about 10 lines to quote the entire relevant paragraphs from the US constitutional and relevant amendment.
Whither the editor?
There are a few arguements for the naked phrase, I suspect readers will recognise that neither one is the one typically invoked. Since I am a mere foreigner I will depend on the (ahem) patriots to iron out my mistakes: Blacks have the right to bear arms in defense of their country - they became citizens at a certain point in time and later it was recognized at least formally (ahem) that they had the rights and *powers* of citizens - there is a USA constitutional amendment to this effect: blacks have the right to oppose a tyrannical government on their own soil: for whites it was written into the original doc.
Every argument I've ever heard from the gun lobby in my neighbour to the south quotes "the right to bear arms" but neglects to include the two obvious following clauses "in defense of the realm" or " because blacks have as much right to defend the realm as whites".
This Reg article, by ignoring these basic questions of how quotation is perverted - surely an issue close to a journalists' heart? - debases itself.
Hunters will more frequently live out in the country-side and will therefore be exposed to a lot less lead-based air pollution. So it is quite possible that they absorb less lead from their meat compared to the city dwellers who absorb it through their lungs.
Of course - this doesn't mean that the city dwellers who ingest additional lead won't become rabid raving lunatics: marrying their horses, allowing their empires to be invaded by Mongolian hordes etc.
"..The NSSF wants readers to bring media inaccuracies to its attention,.."
Here's some, from The Daily Item (link provided in main story).
"..and almost 214,000 antlerless deer harvested. .."
"..does venison harvested with lead ammunition pose .."
"..and those who consume game- harvested meat ..."
Deer/game is not 'harvested' - it is hunted, culled, killed, trapped and occasionally farmed (and maybe some other techniques I don't know about).
Will the NSSF be asking The Daily Item to issue a correction for this article? I doubt it.
You see, 'harvested', it's such a caring and sharing word, awwwwww. Let's use it instead of 'killed' or 'hunted' so that people will have a better impression of us.
I am NOT a vegetarian and I do NOT have a problem with people enjoying licensed recreational hunting. What I do have a problem with is the use of incorrect and misleading words for emotional and political purposes. As soon as I notice that technique being pulled on me, I know that I'm being targeted by slimeball three card tricksters. (The PETA people people pulled similar tricks in that video which was linked in a Reg article about a week ago, [I can't be bothered going back to find it and link]. As soon as they did that I totally discounted the remainder of the video).
Ok, my cynical, grumpy and pedantic rant is over - I'll go and find something else to irritate me.
American friends tell me this is just a pre-emptive and defensive volley from the gun lobby due to Obummer selecting a number of rabidly anti-gun cabinet members. One of them tried to redefine the 2nd Amendment even after legal advice had told him he couldn't, so expect some interesting "scientific articles" aka propaganda from both sides as this heats up.
In your food. The hunting classes and a great many country folk in the UK have for years eaten pheasants, deer and other soft fluffy things full of lead shot and it hasn't done them any harm. I have had many a peasant, sorry , pheasant with lead in it and I'm OK.... Jiggins! could you move me away from the fire? I'm burning....and get me another boy! This one's broken.
I'm sorry, but nobody is ever going convince me that hunting is somehow a "sport". Give the animals opposable thumbs, give them guns, and train them as the hunters have been trained, and then maybe I'll consider it. Attempting to sneak up near a defenseless animal and shoot it is not "sport". It's even more egregious when the hunters DON'T eat what they kill, when they kill simply for the sake of killing. And while I have nothing against shooting inanimate targets, marksmanship contents, etc., I don't view them as "sport", either. Content yes, sport no.
As for re: Warning: pdf -- I suggest YOU get a hold of yourself. Did you think that maybe, just maybe, The Reg warns people that it's a PDF file because exploits in PDF readers now mean that PDF files can be a source of infection? And since many virus scanners, especially older ones, will not scan PDF files, I'd say giving a warning about a link to a PDF file is most definitely NOT a bad idea.
Really don't laugh. Spurious health issues are how the controllers take away your rights these days. At first, it will be OK for adults to eat the pheasant they shoot themselves, but game will be banned from the butcher shops to stop it finding its way down the gullet of vulnerable children. Then there will be some dubious research about "second hand lead" that will be accepted without examination because the message fits the agenda, and the government will see their opportunity to introduce swingeing new taxes on the latest social pariah, the irresponsible wild game eater. The process is already under way with meat eaters in general, as well as the overweight and aficionados of fast food outlets. Don't worry, if none of this describes you, you they will get around to your habits and hobbies shortly.
Another line from El Reg hacks decrying the dangers of Web 2.0 to go along with their continuous nagging about Wikipedia (an system, which despite it's faults, has hugely added to everyday life). It's about time they stopped worshipping at the feet of Andrew Keen and his dreadful book.
Anyway, the ridiculous thing about this is that it has nothing to do with Web 2.0. It's just another bit of propoganda from a well-funded interest group. So they selectively report? Well so does pretty well every other interest and pressure group and political party you can name. If it wasn't on the web, it would be in ads, or meetings. The difference is now that there are channels for less well funded people to answer the points.
The protection against misinformation and selective use of statistics is a well educated and rational populace who listen to cases with a sceptical outlook. This particular issue is a propaganda war between two sides, and has nothing to do with Web2.0 and was going on long before the Internet became part of people's lives.
If anybody wants to see what life would be like when only "proper" journalists could report and comment on scientific studies, then take a look at Ben Goldacre's Bad Science site (and other, related, sceptics in the blogosphere). Journalists are no arbiters of truth with some precious insight into the state of the world. Some are good, some are bad, sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.
In this case, read up about it - the true followers don't change their minds anyway. If you are in the happy (well, I assume its a happy position) of not having to defend an instinctive belief, then it can be quite rewarding.
"to further its claim hunting is a safe sport"
- hunting isnt even a sport. its where big men with guns kill little defenceless animals. it obviously makes them feel big to make up for their tiny cocks. i dont mind hunting for food but the US passtime of just killing things for fun is sick imho.
it would only be a sport if they were hunting armed bears and tigers. how can a man with a big rifle shooting an unarmed deer be a sport????
whether Americans want to shoot defenseless animals to prove they're a man but the most likely reason hunters have less lead in them is they invariably live in the countryside and don't breathe in petrol fumes on the daily commute to and from work that town folk are subject to.
The fact that they eat what they kill means they must be very good shots 'cos they are all big fat bar-stewards !!!!!
Some of us know guns are dangerous. We were taught by people who knew that.
But we're not terrified to the point of apparent lunacy. And I fear we're going to see some of that in this comment thread.
There's often little difference between the tactics of those who oppose gun possession and those who oppose access to porn. Small pressure groups make huge amounts of noise, and overwhelm our political masters.
I can understand the assertion that the lead wouldn't affect you much, after all I'd imagine you'd be aiming for the head and wouldn't eat that bit... but reduce it? That's much more likely to be something like the average hunter lives in a more rural environment so isn't exposed to the same levels of pollution.
If it's that much of a problem I'm sure some enterprising soul can invent the edible bullet.
and less likely to be laden with food poisoning related bacteria like listeria (maple leaf meats in canada being an example of how to kill people via baloney (the meat) )
Then again no one hunts here because of "THINKS OF DA BABEZZZ" muppets and that the rulers of this country made sure their buddies were well looked after (land allocations, fencing in of prime lands and resources etc)
Great Britain, more like "wimp britain - mummy mummy a bad man looked at man, call the perv finder general"
It is probably that hunters are more likely to live out in the wilds and have a low environmental lead exposure. Non hunters are more likely to be urban and have been exposed to lead pollution.
The icon is to remind you all you will need your guns to fend off the black helicopters
:) I find this kind of thing amusing. Our friends in the gun industry seem to think that using the same selective reporting techniques that they decry is OK since they are just trying to protect their point of view.
The reality is not so polarized and frankly only an issue because we make it that way.
As for the comment that hunting is not a sport and is too easy, you have not hunted then. I am a hunter and yes I do use a bolt action rifle. It is not so simple as some would make it out to be. You cannot simply drive out to a place, open the door, shoot in a random direction and throw the animal in the back and head home. The simple fact is, the real hunt is all the bits before you get to think about shooting. When hunting you are a two legged, noisy, smelly animal stumbling around unfamiliar terrain whilst constrained to obey many rules of law. You are not the expert here. Your potential prey is in its element, on familiar terrain, and usually in better shape. It will have (in the case of Deer) better hearing and a better sense of smell than you. It will have also lived in that environment successfully avoiding better predators then you for some time now (all of its life in reality) and the fact that it is still alive means that it is pretty good at it. Most of the skilled hunters I know do not come home with their tag filled every single year. The sport aspect is the physical effort combined with the mental aspects that go into tracking, orienteering, and all of the hiking involved. You have to find them, determine where they are going, where they will be in a given time, get ahead of them (without being noticed), and find an area that they will go through (you hope) and plan a safe shot that is legal while trying to find a Deer that is healthy and is eligible for hunting in the group. Then everything has to work just right. If not, you don't get a Deer.
That said, I use lead free ammunition (readily available in common ammunition types) just due to the lead poisoning concerns. I do hope that they are going to be less prone to manipulation of the story and start confronting myths, misconceptions and flat out errors that get printed, aired and passed on etc... I hate it when people get their facts mixed up.
Go to an abattoir and have a look around, hunting is probably less stressful and painful for the animals than being herded into an abtatoir and waiting to have a large bolt fired through your brain.
I am willing to bet most of you commenting against hunting eat meat but only if it has been killed a long way away from you and has been butchered and cleaned for you.
If you had to fend for yourselves you would all be eating grass and dying.
Hunting is a part of man's heritage and the skills should be kept alive.
You see, 'harvested', it's such a caring and sharing word, awwwwww. Let's use it instead of 'killed' or 'hunted' so that people will have a better impression of us.
Yes, you're right. That's why when they murder maize, wheat, and other grains they use the word "harvest".... Yes, we harvest all kinds of things to eat...plant and animal. get over it.
Not biased any, are you?
PDF warning....much appreciated if you have slow network connection and PDF will tie you in knots for some time.
@Rob - Thanks, but you're wasting your time on the "gun haters" and the "hunting haters"...they MIGHT eat meat, but never by their own hand and most likely never handled a firearm unless they were in the service and I suspect many in this forum are not even allowed to own firearms as the nanny-state is out to protect everyone against itself. It will be interesting to see if Obama and the Democrats try to tighten up the gun laws and / or make gun ownership more difficult for the normal law-abiding citizen in the US. Some folks seem to think that citizens NEED the Bill-of Rights to protect their rights...this is simply NOT true. The BOR simply details some of the rights that the founding fathers of the US thought were important enough to detail. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO ALL CITIZENS REGARDLESS. Remember, the government is there to serve US, not for US to serve IT!
**snip**Thanks, but you're wasting your time on the "gun haters" and the "hunting haters".**snip**
I think that showing the flag for those of us here in the US who own guns and are not walking talking stereo types is never a waste of time. I hope that in time that I can show myself to be a reasonable individual with both good and bad points. I do not hope for the changing of others, but for them to see me as not the "enemy".
It has become all to easy and socially acceptable to take very extreme political points of view and then rail against "them" (being whoever you don't agree totally with). In this process we can actively avoid thought and even short circuit attempts for meaningful discourse. There are many issues that have people in a fit that are only problems because we make them into an issue and fight over it. Gun ownership and Hunting number among these issues.
I will say one nasty thing though. I look upon some interesting omissions in these activities with more than a little amusement. I get hounded for my love of many outdoor pursuits including hunting, while a blind eye is turned to the amount of animals that have to be killed in agriculture (Sadly even Vegans have blood on their hands this way). All because defending my activities is not politically or socially acceptable. Similarly anti fur/leather activists are very aggressive to old ladies in mink and totally absent at Hell's Angels rallies. Kick'em while they are down eh?
@the sport question: If it is possible, try to learn a bit more about hunting before you make absurd statements about it. It is painfully obvious that you know very little about it when you make comments about nailing a Deer at "over a quarter of a mile through a telescopic sight..." That translates to approximately 440 yards. In my hunting I very rarely have a view that far and its not a safe shot in most instances. Most of my Deer have been taken (yes, I mean killed) at less then 100 yards. There are many reasons for this but it boils down to skill, terrain, and common sense. Skill: if you are a true hunter in the Rocky Mountains one does not "need" to take huge shots. Where the Deer are, you are - that simple. Terrain rolling hills, ravines and small valleys make up a large chunk of Deer country, not a lot of expansive vistas there. Common sense: as prey one of the ways to avoid getting killed is to not be seen. Most Herbivores utilize this to some extent - as seen in the coloration on the Deer - not easy to spot at a significant distance.
Try this: find out when hunting season is. Get educated as to the local hunting laws, areas and techniques. Then get all the safety gear (Blaze orange vests are just a start guys), camping gear and other necessities. Grab a camera and treat it as your gun. Go out during the local hunting season and "hunt" with your "gun" in full compliance to all the rules and regulations that hunters are bound by. Find your prey and get an accurate photo at close range (like I do,100 yards or less) with the exact center of the photograph directly over the vital area that the hunter would have to shoot. Then pack a large sack with the same average weight of the animal in question and drag it out (safety first).
I think that you will find that its no simple trick. Now add in a curve ball for next year - In my area the hunting tags are awarded via lottery, and are associated with a specific region. You can state a preference for up to 5 areas. The problem is, so can everyone else. Odds are, you won't get an area you wanted at all and the pickings are usually poor in the area you will get the first time or so out. So next time you go on a "hunt" have someone randomly assign you a location that is difficult and is not familiar to you at all. Then take your camera and gear and "hunt". See how easy that is and then I will be very interested to hear what you have to say.
You are 100% correct.
But the idiots who are anti-gun and anti-hunting will never take you up on your challenge. They think that meat comes from Tesco or Safeway, and don't want to hear different.
The online vegetarians and vegans are just deluding themselves. Very few of them know what kind of energy it takes to grow rice and beans. (Kindly note the "online" there before commenting. Thanks in advance.)
I think Frank Zappa's song "Plastic People" is apropos.
I, personally, only hunt with a camera at the moment. It's a choice I've made. But given the current economy, if I have to feed my Wife and dogs, I'll happily take game again. The difference between me and the anti-gun/anti-hunting idiots is that I know how ... I can feed us, if needs be. They can't. Something to think about ...
Side note ... My velcro-Whippet almost got a wild turkey three days ago ... the bird was in our backyard. If he had managed to wound or kill it, I would have had no problem cooking it and eating it today. I cooked us hasenpfeffer two weeks ago after he bounced a bunny ... We weren't hunting on purpose, but sometimes happenstance is a good thing :-)
Those overgrown rats get to hunt us on the highways all year long, we only get a few days to seek revenge. Sure, they lose a few when they're stupid enough to jump in front of large trucks. But their clever fur-colored armor allows them to bounce off most passenger cars and run back into the woods, while causing thousands of dollars worth of damage.
You may not believe that it is an evil, deliberate intelligence that makes them lurk in the bushes next to deserted country roads that they suddenly need to bound across right in front of your car, but I have seen the laughter in their eyes.
Recent investigations by Independent Media™ shows that if you hit game with copper-coated shot, it will pierce body almost through and then lead instantly dissolves in blood (see "Alien" movie for details). While guns still crawl from their boxes at night to shoot l33tle kids. International Conspiracy of Gun Manufacturers (guns give more superprofit than oil, just because they're guns) and NRA™ want to cover this up. Only X-Ray tazers can save the planet.
I mean, go on... don't restrain yourself. There's not enough pyracetam for entire humanity anyway, so why bother at all ?..
P.S.: even leaving tons of old tetraethyl lead alone, do anyone remember - how much lead was found in water due to lost fishing-tackles and suchlike ? And that was measured in Britain, IIRC ?..
Quite a lengthy one this, but it raises some important points (sort of):
Before I get started I don't have a problem with hunting for the pot - everyone has to eat - and regardless of what many have told me I still think most animals are mighty tasty...Especially some of the cute ones, like lambs and rabbits and ducks.
What's more if the animal comes wrapped in cheese and a sesame seed bun, or better yet, breadcrumbs - brilliant.
The closest I've ever come to hunting is fishing, and although I've never caught a fish in my life, I did use a priest (a kosh basically) on a trout that had been caught, and the results were delicious.
I also think that trekking through beautiful countryside, and tracking these animals sounds like lots of fun.
Yet, I couldn't help but chuckle at some of Rob's, or should I say Predator's, comments about the mighty deer: who is faster, smarter, more handsome, articulate, whose diary is full of influential and wealthy connections, not to mention the phone numbers of catwalk models.
All that stands between the deer and world domination is a species that evolved opposable thumbs, and invented so much crap that it only has to deal with the challenge of actually hunting something for funzies.
If, Predator, you had said: "All this outdoor pursuing stuff is great fun and makes my willy move in my pants a bit," it would have added far more weight to your point.
The only challenge involved with hunting is the one you create for yourself by choosing to go hunting in the first place. Like any sport really, and just as prone to gratuitous levels of hyperbole.
Some people could probably detail the skillset required to successfully put a ship in a bottle, for instance.
When it comes to killing animals, don't be so quick to talk down to people with interests that don't centre on blood sports, because that's all hunting is: a hobby, not survival, not some elemental struggle between man and beast, because man has already won that one.
Just say you enjoy it - you're entitled to your opinion.
Now to undo it all with a little personal message from yours truly to those that hunt but don't take any meat: The size of the head on your wall above your mantlepiece doesn't correspond to the size of the head on the end of your penis: You were born at the top of the food chain, and you're very clever.