Bought my first Gun

[Witis]

I actually agree with you on that. Determine the goal, choose the optimal means of achieving that goal, then execute the plan. The same argument could be made when it comes to fly fishing...sort of.

Not really, in my view there is a big difference between fishing and deer hunting!

One difference with fly fishermen is that lots of them tie their own flies. If you do that, then you are really engaged in an artistic endeavor where the fish are just the judges of your efforts.

Ah the taste of fresh fish, absolutely divine!

The same might be true for bow hunters who make their own equipment,

I don't agree that such a comparison can be made except in the most savage of contexts.

though the deer aren't judges of the realism so much as evidence of the effectiveness.

Did you enjoy writing that phrase???

There are few bow hunters that make their own bows, though, whereas there are lots of fly fishermen that make their own flies.

Would you make your own bow if you had the skills?

Aside from that, fly fishermen are still pretty similar to bow hunters.

I wouldn't call such a comparison pretty, pretty ugly would be more apt.

It's the same activity as the general fishermen or hunters, it's just a bit specialized.

Are u sure abt that?

There's nothing unusual about that, though. For pretty nearly any activity that can be mastered, there are a few people who impose some kind of restriction on it to increase the challenge.

Killing deer was never going to be much of a challenge.

[dclamp]

I actually agree with you on that.

Good

Determine the goal,

What goal?

choose the optimal means of achieving that goal,

WHAT GOAL?

then execute the plan.

Can we review the plan?

The same argument could be made when it comes to fly fishing...sort of.

You seem unsure. Please explain in full detail to which your experiences in fly fishing have related to dclamp buying his first gun.

One difference with fly fishermen is that lots of them tie their own flies.

Flies as in the ones that love trash and poo?

If you do that, then you are really engaged in an artistic endeavor where the fish are just the judges of your efforts. The same might be true for bow hunters who make their own equipment, though the deer aren't judges of the realism so much as evidence of the effectiveness. There are few bow hunters that make their own bows, though, whereas there are lots of fly fishermen that make their own flies.

Aside from that, fly fishermen are still pretty similar to bow hunters. It's the same activity as the general fishermen or hunters, it's just a bit specialized. There's nothing unusual about that, though. For pretty nearly any activity that can be mastered, there are a few people who impose some kind of restriction on it to increase the challenge. A couple examples would be people who do crossword puzzles in pen, and people who play FPS computer games using a self-imposed Dead-is-Dead rule.

I didnt want to go through every other sentence. Too annoying.

[Witis]

Incidentally it is possible to shoot fish which is an enjoyable and delicious alternative to going to the firing range!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Would you make your own bow if you had the skills?

No. I have enough hobbies. However, making a bow is easy. Making one that works well is considerably harder, and making one that works well and looks good takes quite a bit of skill. I think I could do it, but not without investing lots of time, which I won't do.

Killing deer was never going to be much of a challenge.

Really? I thought you had never hunted? That seems like a pretty improbable statement. In my experience, just finding a deer can be kind of tough (except for the ones that live in the city, which you can't hunt anyways). Finding a deer that is close enough and standing still enough to shoot is also somewhat challenging. Finding one that is close enough to shoot with an arrow is considerably more challenging. In all the years I I've been hiking, the number of times I've been that close to a deer that was barely moving has been only a handful, and that was out of season when they aren't as skittish. I've never tried hunting deer, but I've always felt that it wouldn't be all that easy, especially since you generally have to know the gender before you shoot.

As for shooting fish, it is generally only legal for certain species. In Idaho, the only fish you can legally hunt with a bow are carp and suckers, neither of which is generally considered a delicacy (though carp are certainly consumed in some areas, and can be prepared pretty well).

@dclamp: Awesome. Good use of subtlty.

[Witis]

No. I have enough hobbies. However, making a bow is easy. Making one that works well is considerably harder, and making one that works well and looks good takes quite a bit of skill. I think I could do it, but not without investing lots of time, which I won't do.

It sounds like you'd have a go if you had enough spare time to fit in another hobby.

Really?

Yep, about the only thing easier to hunt would be vegetation.

As for shooting fish, it is generally only legal for certain species.

Heh, just use the barrels to shoot the fish! You don't even need to hit the fish just get the shot close enough to create a shock wave to stun or kill it!

[dclamp]

Heh, just use the barrels to shoot the fish! You don't even need to hit the fish just get the shot close enough to create a shock wave to stun or kill it!

Wasnt that busted on MythBusters

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Not really, in my view there is a big difference between fishing and deer hunting!

Well if they are being hunted for food then i don't see any difference they are both animals that are being killed for human consumption and i will happily eat both.

If they are being hunted for fun/sport then a fisherman will tend to throw there catch back alive in many cases were as you cant exactly do that with a dear that you have shot :0)

[FunkyDexter]

However, making a bow is easy.

Yeah, you just put the left string over the right string and pass it underneath. Make your bunny ears and cross them over. Then you SHOOT THE BUNNY IN THE HEAD WITH A TWELVE GAUGE!

I'm huntin' wabbit.

Witis, you have something to say, and no one is going to say it for you.

Witis is the only person I've ever come across who could argue with someone about the fact that they don't want to argue with him. In many ways it's actually quite impressive.

[homer13j]

I prefer to do my fishing with dynamite. Quick and effective. Unfortunately the State of Ohio seems to have a problem with this.

[Shaggy Hiker]

DuPont lures.

There are records of some fish research being conducted by laying out det cord in a river and setting it off. I would guess that's it's more effective than electrofishing, but considerably more lethal.

[Witis]

Wasnt that busted on MythBusters

From experience, at first I thought the fish was shot but on closer inspection I realised there was no bullet wound, so it must have died due to the pressure wave from shooting close to it. So you can definitely use a gun to shoot fish in the wild! By extension you might be able to kill a barrel/vase full of fish with a single shot if you create a large enough pressure wave!

[Witis]

Well if they are being hunted for food then i don't see any difference they are both animals that are being killed for human consumption and i will happily eat both.

What no difference? You need to look closer!

If they are being hunted for fun/sport then a fisherman will tend to throw there catch back alive in many cases were as you cant exactly do that with a dear that you have shot :0)

So you would shoot and eat the deer and throw back the fish???

[Witis]

Also there are no restrictions, you can even shoot pelagic fish!

[Shaggy Hiker]

No restrictions on what? Shooting fish is generally illegal in lots of states.

[Witis]

Shooting fish is generally illegal in lots of states.

Surely not, it's too much fun! =D

[Witis]

No restrictions on what?

No restrictions in terms of what varieties of fish you can shoot, for example, if you happen to have a Great White infestation:


Then glock fishing is the answer! 8D
./\ /\
=^.^= ┳━ - - - -
.''" "''


Bullseye! =D

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What no difference? You need to look closer!

no ethical difference in eating one over the other!!!

So you would shoot and eat the deer and throw back the fish???

Wow, How did you interpolate that from my posts? there is something fishy with your responses Witis, some might even say you sound deerlerious!!!

Shooting fish is generally illegal in lots of states.

Surely not, it's too much fun

although it sounds like you are an expert Fish killer maybe you could give me some tips?

[Shaggy Hiker]

No restrictions in terms of what varieties of fish you can shoot, for example, if you happen to have a Great White infestation:

There are restrictions in this state. You can only bow fish for carp and suckers, and hunting fish with a gun isn't legal in any way. Killing sharks is a bad idea anyways.

[Witis]

Wow,

Thank you. (^.^)

How did you interpolate that from my posts?

I didn't interpolate, I quoted you directly! :Þ

there is something fishy with your responses Witis,

No wai, there is nothing fishy in my response whatsoever, although I have to admit there is the smell of dead sharks in the air! :delectable:

some might even say you sound deerlerious!!!

Just because I refuse to kill/eat deer does not make me deerlerious, and your response actually implies that you think that doing so is an ethically supportable position, in which case you should read, or reread, posts #218 and #224. (._.)

although it sounds like you are an expert Fish killer maybe you could give me some tips?

That's easy all you have to do is remember to aim and then squeeze the trigger, oh and remember to make sure the safety is off! X-)

[Witis]

Killing sharks is a bad idea anyways.

Don't agree at all, glock fishing for the win! 8D

[Shaggy Hiker]

Just because I refuse to kill/eat deer does not make me deerlerious, and your response actually implies that you think that doing so is an ethically supportable position, in which case you should read, or reread, posts #218 and #224. (._.)

What two posts did you mean to suggest? The two that you list are almost totally random. You've hinted at ethics repeatedly, but not in 218, which is about The Deer Hunter, which had little to do with hunting deer, and some flippant comment about Deer Avenger. Those can't be the ones you meant.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Don't agree at all, glock fishing for the win! 8D

I gathered that you didn't agree. I don't know why, and I find that I'm not really curious. I think we ought to just leave it at a disagreement.

[Witis]

What two posts did you mean to suggest? The two that you list are almost totally random.

Totally random, yes, they were the posts I was referring to. =^.^=

You've hinted at ethics repeatedly, but not in 218, which is about The Deer Hunter, which had little to do with hunting deer,

If you read that sentence again, you will see that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. :-P

and some flippant comment about Deer Avenger. Those can't be the ones you meant.

Deer Avenger, yes, exactly. =)

Don't agree at all, glock fishing for the win! 8D

I gathered that you didn't agree. I don't know why, and I find that I'm not really curious. I think we ought to just leave it at a disagreement.

An absolute and total disagreement it is then!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, I ran together a description of the two posts, which made a muddle of the sentence.

So, that really was what you meant? I think you ought to go back and re-read post #67, just for reference.

[Witis]

So, that really was what you meant? I think you ought to go back and re-read post #67, just for reference.

I actually liked that post, in fact the first couple of pages are a good read, including Post #40.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was picking a number at random, as you appeared to be doing. I then went back and saw what it was. I did like that clip.

[Witis]

I was picking a number at random, as you appeared to be doing. I then went back and saw what it was. I did like that clip.

Ah no, the randomness I was referring to was the content. :Þ

[Witis]

I think I forgot to mention the Vienna conventions which include:

"The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is a treaty concerning the international law on treaties between states" and has been ratified by 113 states as of January 2013. "The Convention codifies several bedrocks of contemporary international law. It defines a treaty as 'an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law,' as well as affirming that 'every state possesses the capacity to conclude treaties.' Most nations, whether they are party to it or not, recognize it as the preeminent 'Treaty of Treaties'; it is widely recognized as the authoritative guide vis-à-vis the formation and effects of treaties."

"The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations (VCLTIO) is an extension of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which deals with treaties between States. It was developed by the International Law Commission and opened for signature on March 21, 1986."

"The Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage is a 1963 treaty that governs issues of liability in cases of nuclear accident. It was concluded at Vienna on 21 May 1963 and entered into force on 12 November 1977. The convention has been amended by a 1997 protocol. The depository is the International Atomic Energy Agency. As of May 2013, the convention has been ratified by 39 states."

"The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is a treaty that is a uniform international sales law. As of 6 March 2013, it had been ratified by 79 countries that account for a significant proportion of world trade, making it one of the most successful international uniform laws." "The CISG was developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and was signed in Vienna in 1980."

"The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer is a Multilateral Environmental Agreement. It was agreed upon at the Vienna Conference of 1985 and entered into force in 1988. In terms of universality, it is one of the most successful treaties of all time, having been ratified by 196 states."

"The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 is one of three major drug control treaties currently in force."
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention

[Shaggy Hiker]

You left out the Vienna Convention on Sausages, which reads: The contents will never be discussed in any precise terms.

[Witis]

You left out the Vienna Convention on Sausages

which focuses on Harley Hog, Monty Python, and Wacko Mako fillings. \(^.^)/

[FunkyDexter]

I think I forgot to mention the Vienna conventions

Now, I know Witis can be a bit random at the best of times, but am I the only one who can't see any relevance of vienese conventions to this thread. I mean, there's usually at least one throw away comment that someone's made to prompt his usual flood of links to wikipedia. This time... welll... nope, I've got no idea at all where this came from.

[TysonLPrice]

Now, I know Witis can be a bit random at the best of times, but am I the only one who can't see any relevance of vienese conventions to this thread. I mean, there's usually at least one throw away comment that someone's made to prompt his usual flood of links to wikipedia. This time... welll... nope, I've got no idea at all where this came from.

I couldn't at all but I'm only half following at this point. I liked the sausage comment though

[honeybee]

What a coincidence! Had the chance to watch Bowling For Columbine by Michael Moore last evening. I must say the guy has a way of putting things in perspective.

People with guns kill people. Oh yeah! Then the remedy is eliminate people with guns.

[TysonLPrice]

What a coincidence! Had the chance to watch Bowling For Columbine by Michael Moore last evening. I must say the guy has a way of putting things in perspective.

People with guns kill people. Oh yeah! Then the remedy is eliminate people with guns.

Yeah...his prospective! Give me a camera and allow me to show only my side. And I agree that if a person commits a crime with a gun than eliminate that person from having a gun.

[FunkyDexter]

While I tend to agree with Michael Moore's politics I really don't like his books and films much. They're just so one sided and unrepresentative that they actually detract from the point. I've heard the argument that he's trying to counter the equally biased portrayals of the right wing elements of the American Media (CNN etc) but that's a pretty weak justification if you ask me.

[honeybee]

Well, you could actually only eliminate guns from the equation, but then there would be no point to fight on, would there?

[Shaggy Hiker]

You could eliminate the people, but that would make the equation hard to solve.

[kivisoft@]

Son! your not a homocidal maniac are you? because otherwise your neighbors are in big trouble!!

[dclamp]

I wouldnt kill my neighbors. Thats too obvious. I would kill people who have no connection to me whatsoever.

[Witis]

Now, I know Witis can be a bit random at the best of times, but am I the only one who can't see any relevance of vienese conventions to this thread. I mean, there's usually at least one throw away comment that someone's made to prompt his usual flood of links to wikipedia. This time... welll... nope, I've got no idea at all where this came from.

Also don't forget that currently Vienna is often viewed as the 'world's fourth "U.N city", after New York, Geneva, and The Hague' as it houses many U.N organisations including:
● The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe "the world's largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization. Its mandate includes issues such as arms control and the promotion of human rights, freedom of the press and fair elections. It has 550 headquarters staff and about 2300 field staff";
● The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights;
● The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees;
● The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs;
● The United Nations Industrial Development Organization;
● The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law;
● The Investigations Division of the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services;
● The International Money Laundering Information Network;
● The International Narcotics Control Board which is an "implementation of the United Nations drug conventions"; and
● The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...fice_at_Vienna