(04-21-2021 04:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

I live in an unincorporated area with lot sizes of 1-10 acres. No crops and maybe a few horses on the 5+ acre lots. Feral hogs don’t care. They will decimate yards and landscaping, which we are required to have per the deed restrictions, in one night if they choose to target your property. I have neighbors that have been out of pocket 1000s of dollars after such a visit, some on multiple occassions. Many of them now have these evil “military style” weapons to protect their investment. More power to them. Before I left Harris County, I had friends in the Katy area have their yards ripped to shreds. So, yes, feral hogs are bad news, they make rabbits look like celibates when it comes to procreating, and it takes power to bring them down. And the young ones are tasty.

Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

(04-21-2021 04:38 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do a better job with suicides by changing HIPAA laws? You guys suggest that if we take away certain types of guns the criminals will find other guns/weapons to use. Do you not think that suicidal people will not find other methods? Also... the percentage of suicides that would have been prevented if HIPAA laws did not prevent notification to some type of gun registry is surely incredibly small.

The empirical evidence is that people bent on suicide will find other methods. Gun suicides are something like 60% of our total gun deaths (doing that from memory, but I think that's the correct proportion), and way higher than almost any other country in the world. It's truly an astonishing number. But our TOTAL suicide rates are not nearly that far out of line, and in fact our TOTAL suicide rate is lower than a number of countries that have very strict gun laws and virtually no gun suicides. But if we prevented 100 out of 30,000 (or 18,000 to be picky), that would be doing as much good as an "assault weapons ban."

And I'm not talking about notification to a gun registry. I'm talking about notification to perhaps some of those social workers we are going to hire to replace policemen, so they can do interventions before the fact. We really need to bring back the insane asylums.

(04-21-2021 04:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:08 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Three of you guys brought up damage to livestock/crops.

Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

I live in an unincorporated area with lot sizes of 1-10 acres. No crops and maybe a few horses on the 5+ acre lots. Feral hogs don’t care. They will decimate yards and landscaping, which we are required to have per the deed restrictions, in one night if they choose to target your property. I have neighbors that have been out of pocket 1000s of dollars after such a visit, some on multiple occassions. Many of them now have these evil “military style” weapons to protect their investment. More power to them. Before I left Harris County, I had friends in the Katy area have their yards ripped to shreds. So, yes, feral hogs are bad news, they make rabbits look like celibates when it comes to procreating, and it takes power to bring them down. And the young ones are tasty.

Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

If you are responsible yes. There is no solution to the feral hog problem. You can only hope to slow them down. And the picture you describe is typical of someone who knows nothing about the issue, but thinks all gun owners are a bunch of hyped up bubbas. I don’t own such a weapon, but my neighbor does, and I wouldn’t hesitate to call him if I needed such help.

(04-21-2021 05:49 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Actually, YOU brought up feral hogs. Post #24. In post #26, I remarked that I had not heard that people needed protection from feral hogs. I guess that's where we all took off after the straw man.

Correct... I brought up the fact that some of you had previously mentioned feral hogs as a reason to own these weapons and then you guys commented on the issue with damage to crops/livestock.

I live in an unincorporated area with lot sizes of 1-10 acres. No crops and maybe a few horses on the 5+ acre lots. Feral hogs don’t care. They will decimate yards and landscaping, which we are required to have per the deed restrictions, in one night if they choose to target your property. I have neighbors that have been out of pocket 1000s of dollars after such a visit, some on multiple occassions. Many of them now have these evil “military style” weapons to protect their investment. More power to them. Before I left Harris County, I had friends in the Katy area have their yards ripped to shreds. So, yes, feral hogs are bad news, they make rabbits look like celibates when it comes to procreating, and it takes power to bring them down. And the young ones are tasty.

Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

If you are responsible yes. There is no solution to the feral hog problem. You can only hope to slow them down. And the picture you describe is typical of someone who knows nothing about the issue, but thinks all gun owners are a bunch of hyped up bubbas. I don’t own such a weapon, but my neighbor does, and I wouldn’t hesitate to call him if I needed such help.

It was a mild joke... please take no offense. I'm just wondering how the logistics work with protecting one's landscaping when it would seem unreasonable to be at-the-ready 24/7.

*edit* Hyped Up Bubbas would be a quality band name!

Motion sensors, a suppressor, flash guard, and NV sights will wreak havoc on a pack of swine.

And hollow points. Always use hollow points.

(04-21-2021 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And nope, I didn't bring up hog clearing as a major reason. Sorry.

Got it. Must have been somebody else. I didn't make that up as hog clearing would have NEVER occurred to me independently when it came to a discussion of gun control.

I don't see how it could be a topic for anybody, but apparently you heard three people bring it up.

Around here, guns are needed for small varmint control mostly, although one neighbor did shoot a hog and a couple of others have reported puma sightings. I hear coyotes at night. Main things I worry about are rattlers and people.

After I mentioned hog clearing recently you said:

Quote:but I do know that many ranchers and farmers suffer financial damages from predation of both livestock and crops by the feral hogs.

#'s said:

Quote:It's not that ranchers want to defend themselves. It's that wild boars do potential harm to livestock and are generally pests on several levels.

I thought there were three but only two... Ham commented on the hog thing afterwards.

The original discussion of hog clearing goes way back. I am not going to search for it but I remember it being brought up.

Key word: AFTER.

I don't know when and where or with whom you had that discussion, but it wasn't here with me, and we all know I would have had something to say. You brought up feral hogs. Period. I will bring up another form of wildlife: Red herring.

I guess nobody will ever answer my question, so I will just give my own answer.

Nothing that is proposed can be shown to reduce mass shootings, by so much as one victim. The shooters have nearly all obtained their guns legally, passing background checks and waiting periods.

The question was asked why gun owners and right wingers dig in their heels over additional gun restrictions. it is because the left never has a defined target, only more of this or less of that, so that each additional law becomes just another milepost on the road to ...??? I have to say "???" because even the left doesn't know where it is going, or when to stop, but by golly, it is urgent that they proceed to getting there. This is true on taxes, the environment, guns, and just about every issue the left deems important. For fifteen years, I have asked what are their goals, and I have never gotten a straight answer. The slippery slope is the leftist's main road.

Well, there, I have answered one leftist's question. It would be nice to get an answer to my questions.

Now, a semi-serious, semi-facetious proposal. Since this discussion recently turned on farmers and ranchers protecting their crops and livestock, maybe we could just make guns illegal inside the city limits of any city over 25,000. This would of course completely eliminate the gun violence in Chicago and Los Angeles, not to mention Detroit, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Cincinatti, while maintaining the rights of Americans to own guns, simply by moving to the country. Neat, and simple. The death rates would plummet in the big cities, right? Right to zero. And of course, the big cities are where the vast majority of gun deaths occur. And of course, the cops in those cities would no longer need guns themselves, so that cuts down on police murders. Soon only rural cops will be murdering people, at least with guns.

An elegant solution, if I must say so myself.

(04-21-2021 04:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

an AR-15 can be and usually is a small calibre weapon... like a 22 LR... a varmint gun. That is vastly more useful and safe on a small tract than a 30.06 or 7mm mag hunting rifle. A 7mm Mag shoots 1000 yards easily. A 22 LR is accurate to about 150 yards. This isn't just about accuracy, but about distance and velocity. You get accidentally hit with a 22 at 300 yards and it may not penetrate your skin much at all... at 300 yards, a 7mm Mag easily makes a hole. The 'action' of the 2 rifles isn't dramatically different if the 7mm is semi-auto... a 22LR with a bump stock is SAFER than the 7mm because of the kick, and because it more easily stays on the target. You'd have to be about 25 yards from a hog to kill them with a shotgun... and even closer with a handgun... and they move quickly out of your aim at that range... and you're at serious risk, especially if you just 'injure' them. Beyond 25 yards, you're only going to piss them off and likely have them come for you. Yes, I'm serious. At 50-100 yards and a 22LR AR-15 with a bump stock, you can put them down safely. At 150 yards and a 7mm Mag, you'd better not miss in a neighborhood.... cause it can go through walls easily.

This is why people who don't 'gun' can't speak to this. I'm far from an expert in these things, but I completely understand the issues (just not the specifics). I'm not knocking your position 93... I'm just saying there is so much you 'think' about guns, especially 'assault style' weapons that is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

A 22LR AR-15 is ABSOLUTELY appropriate for fox, hog etc on smaller tracts. A 450 bushmaster AR is not. But a 22LR is useless on a large tract with bear... while a bushmaster makes more sense. Unfortunately, lots of people who may move from one type to another only want/can afford one gun.... so a guy who lives on 2 acres but camps on 200 might have a 270 or something... which is arguably 'too much' for 2 acres, and arguably 'not enough' for 200.

But I'm pretty sure that the number of people accidentally shot by a home owner on ANY acreage with a registered weapon who shoots at a hog and misses is close to zero.... not zero, but very very small... so why is this even part of the conversation?

The issue ISN'T THE WEAPON or some sense of 'what the community' thinks someone else, who isn't them and they can't possibly imagine what their life is like... needs. It's the USER. It's like 99.9% of people use propane tanks and pressure cookers and fertilizer appropriately... so are we banning them because of the 0.1% of times people don't? The incidence of alcohol related deaths is probably closer to 10%... so if we want to stop unnecessary deaths, why aren't we looking there? There are almost NO 'gang related' drunk driving deaths.

Because people aren't afraid of propane tanks and alcohol... and they ARE afraid of guns (or can be convinced to fear them).

(04-22-2021 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

an AR-15 can be and usually is a small calibre weapon... like a 22 LR... a varmint gun. That is vastly more useful and safe on a small tract than a 30.06 or 7mm mag hunting rifle. A 7mm Mag shoots 1000 yards easily. A 22 LR is accurate to about 150 yards. This isn't just about accuracy, but about distance and velocity. You get accidentally hit with a 22 at 300 yards and it may not penetrate your skin much at all... at 300 yards, a 7mm Mag easily makes a hole. The 'action' of the 2 rifles isn't dramatically different if the 7mm is semi-auto... a 22LR with a bump stock is SAFER than the 7mm because of the kick, and because it more easily stays on the target. You'd have to be about 25 yards from a hog to kill them with a shotgun... and even closer with a handgun... and they move quickly out of your aim at that range... and you're at serious risk, especially if you just 'injure' them. Beyond 25 yards, you're only going to piss them off and likely have them come for you. Yes, I'm serious. At 50-100 yards and a 22LR AR-15 with a bump stock, you can put them down safely. At 150 yards and a 7mm Mag, you'd better not miss in a neighborhood.... cause it can go through walls easily.

This is why people who don't 'gun' can't speak to this. I'm far from an expert in these things, but I completely understand the issues (just not the specifics). I'm not knocking your position 93... I'm just saying there is so much you 'think' about guns, especially 'assault style' weapons that is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

I thought I made it clear that I didn't have understanding of the use of these weapons in neighborhoods and so I was asking for information.

I asked the question "Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre?" to TomballOwl because he clearly had some insight into this.

For the same reason I asked you, "I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles."

I don't think that I know much about the nuts and bolts of guns.

(04-22-2021 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess nobody will ever answer my question, so I will just give my own answer.

Actually, I answered your question to the best of my ability.

(04-22-2021 11:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 04:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Can you safely use these "military style" weapons on lots as small as 1 acre? I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want my neighbor who was in that close proximity using them.

*edit* Is this really a solution to the feral hog problem? I assume these hogs do damage at night as well? I'm picturing your neighbors sitting on their porches in the middle of the night manically chugging Monster Energy drinks with their AKs on their laps.

an AR-15 can be and usually is a small calibre weapon... like a 22 LR... a varmint gun. That is vastly more useful and safe on a small tract than a 30.06 or 7mm mag hunting rifle. A 7mm Mag shoots 1000 yards easily. A 22 LR is accurate to about 150 yards. This isn't just about accuracy, but about distance and velocity. You get accidentally hit with a 22 at 300 yards and it may not penetrate your skin much at all... at 300 yards, a 7mm Mag easily makes a hole. The 'action' of the 2 rifles isn't dramatically different if the 7mm is semi-auto... a 22LR with a bump stock is SAFER than the 7mm because of the kick, and because it more easily stays on the target. You'd have to be about 25 yards from a hog to kill them with a shotgun... and even closer with a handgun... and they move quickly out of your aim at that range... and you're at serious risk, especially if you just 'injure' them. Beyond 25 yards, you're only going to piss them off and likely have them come for you. Yes, I'm serious. At 50-100 yards and a 22LR AR-15 with a bump stock, you can put them down safely. At 150 yards and a 7mm Mag, you'd better not miss in a neighborhood.... cause it can go through walls easily.

This is why people who don't 'gun' can't speak to this. I'm far from an expert in these things, but I completely understand the issues (just not the specifics). I'm not knocking your position 93... I'm just saying there is so much you 'think' about guns, especially 'assault style' weapons that is EXACTLY the opposite of reality.

A 22LR AR-15 is ABSOLUTELY appropriate for fox, hog etc on smaller tracts. A 450 bushmaster AR is not. But a 22LR is useless on a large tract with bear... while a bushmaster makes more sense. Unfortunately, lots of people who may move from one type to another only want/can afford one gun.... so a guy who lives on 2 acres but camps on 200 might have a 270 or something... which is arguably 'too much' for 2 acres, and arguably 'not enough' for 200.

But I'm pretty sure that the number of people accidentally shot by a home owner on ANY acreage with a registered weapon who shoots at a hog and misses is close to zero.... not zero, but very very small... so why is this even part of the conversation?

The issue ISN'T THE WEAPON or some sense of 'what the community' thinks someone else, who isn't them and they can't possibly imagine what their life is like... needs. It's the USER. It's like 99.9% of people use propane tanks and pressure cookers and fertilizer appropriately... so are we banning them because of the 0.1% of times people don't? The incidence of alcohol related deaths is probably closer to 10%... so if we want to stop unnecessary deaths, why aren't we looking there? There are almost NO 'gang related' drunk driving deaths.

Because people aren't afraid of propane tanks and alcohol... and they ARE afraid of guns (or can be convinced to fear them).

If we’re talking about a rifle used for hunting feral hogs, we’re in no way talking about an AR that is equivalent to a 22LR.

No one takes a 22 hog hunting. Those are meant for small animals (say armadillos). Unless there’s been a drastic change in 22s since I was regularly using them as a child and teen...

Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.

Quote:

Quote:I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

Quote:But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

(04-22-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we’re talking about a rifle used for hunting feral hogs, we’re in no way talking about an AR that is equivalent to a 22LR.

No one takes a 22 hog hunting. Those are meant for small animals (say armadillos). Unless there’s been a drastic change in 22s since I was regularly using them as a child and teen...

As usual Lad, you come in and make a pedantic correction.
a) I'm not talking about going hog hunting. That is an offensive action I'm talking about 'predator protection'... a defensive act.
b) The point is about small caliber 'assault style' weapons vs large caliber 'hunting' weapons. A 22 LR is also appropriate for a fox... That said.... the FIRST response on a google search https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a117...ts,The%20. Taking down animals and varmints — squirrels, ground hogs, prairie dogs, foxes, deer and even wild hogs — at short to medium ranges (20-50 meters) is doable with a . 22. A well-placed shot to the head or neck will almost always ensure a kill, as long as you don't attempt a longer-range shot. which ios almost EXACTLY what I said without researching anything....
and
c) I know people who own AR-15's in 22LR cal.... and I know why they own them. I know a few in california where they are illegal... and I know why they own them. They specifically own the lower calibre weapon in an 'AR style' because it is easier to control/less chance of unintended injury... and the 'AR' nature ensures that if they need 2 shots, they will be accurate. Your questions actually DEMONSTRATE why I said 22... and you demonstrate that you have a flawed concept of such things. A 270 would be more effective... a 7mm mag even more so... but such things ignore the proximity issues being discussed.

If you're telling me that you support laws that allow people to have a 22 cal AR-15 IF they have a problem with Armadillos, a 270 cal AR-15 if they have a problem with Hogs... and a 450 Bushmaster AR if they have a problem with bears, THEN your response would add to the conversation. I'm about 99% confident that isn't the case... because if you were okay with a 270 AR-15 for someone with a hog problem, you'd almost ALWAYS be okay with them having a smaller cal for the same purpose instead.... in which case your point would STILL be moot. Or are you saying that people should be able to buy a dozen different guns if they have problems with a variety of 'varmints' from hawks and rodents to bears and mountain lions? Since that would be prohibitively expensive, how is that not simply the equivalent of a 'poll tax'. You don't like voter ID if it isn't free. Are you suggesting we give away guns, so long as you demonstrate a specific need for each weapon? I'm guessing not.

Otherwise it just seems like someone looking for a reason to argue... and coming up with ones that only deflect from constructive conversation.

And you wonder why we don't get along??

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Solutions? I haven't given any solutions. Is it not clear that I'm trying to educate myself as to the reasons people use semi-automatic rifles for animal control?

(04-22-2021 11:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='17393821' dateline='1619102855']
I guess nobody will ever answer my question, so I will just give my own answer.

Actually, I answered your question to the best of my ability.
[/quote

Guess I missed it. Post #?]

(04-22-2021 01:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 11:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='17393821' dateline='1619102855']
I guess nobody will ever answer my question, so I will just give my own answer.

Actually, I answered your question to the best of my ability.
[/quote

Guess I missed it. Post #?]

55

(04-22-2021 12:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Is it not clear that I'm trying to educate myself as to the reasons people use semi-automatic rifles for animal control?

Tanq and Ham have presented a lot of facts - so are you still not educated?

I have learned some stuff, that I will probably never need personally. But one thing I already know - if I have a problem with any sort of predatory animal, calling the "authorities" is a mighty poor way to go.

I think the reasons people use guns to handle these problems instead of knives or clubs should be evident.

As to the reason(s) they use this gun instead of that gun, I defer to Ham and Tanq. They seem more knowledgeable on this than most Democratic lawmakers.

(04-22-2021 01:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Is it not clear that I'm trying to educate myself as to the reasons people use semi-automatic rifles for animal control?

Tanq and Ham have presented a lot of facts - so are you still not educated?

I'm working on it. Ham posted this stuff within the past 24 hours. Maybe cut me some slack.

Quote:I have learned some stuff, that I will probably never need personally. But one thing I already know - if I have a problem with any sort of predatory animal, calling the "authorities" is a mighty poor way to go.

I think the reasons people use guns to handle these problems instead of knives or clubs should be evident.

Yeah... pretty obvious. I was trying to figure out if one can use these specific weapons in closer quarters rather than on an expansive ranch if that wasn't clear.

Quote:As to the reason(s) they use this gun instead of that gun, I defer to Ham and Tanq. They seem more knowledgeable on this than most Democratic lawmakers.

Probably more than some noted gun advocates as well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHgm0htDzU8

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.

Quote:

Quote:I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

Quote:But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So no, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

(04-22-2021 12:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Solutions? I haven't given any solutions. Is it not clear that I'm trying to educate myself as to the reasons people use semi-automatic rifles for animal control?

For the purposes of animal control, a semi-auto is somewhat of a necessity. Fast reload and fast sights on next target are why.

Bolt actions are useless in hog hunting because the cycle time on the bolt is massively longer, *and* the efffort to cycle the bolt adds movement to the gun and barrel, which then requires much longer target re-acquisition time.

Hogs run in "rashers" (my word) of anywhere between 12 - 50. Using a bolt action, you *might* get two. Using a semi, you are going to get shots on 5 or more.

Semi is advantageous for deer hunting in the sense that when you are out, in some situations you are going to find yourself amongst a group of animals that you dont want to be around. Hogs, coyotes, wolves for example. Again, if you find yourself in that situation, a semi is a much better tool to holding than a bolt action.