Comments on: Californian Sanity http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/ World Organi[sz]ation Of Broken Dreams Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:35:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Alex Mace http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/comment-page-1/#comment-3381 Alex Mace Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:13:22 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=339#comment-3381 Guns don't protect the weak from the strong. How do you protect everyone else from people who don't know when it's a good idea to use a gun. If no one had guns, why would you need one? Guns don’t protect the weak from the strong. How do you protect everyone else from people who don’t know when it’s a good idea to use a gun. If no one had guns, why would you need one?

]]> By: anonymous http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/comment-page-1/#comment-3163 anonymous Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:52:46 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=339#comment-3163 how about self-defense? how about that guns enable the weak to protect themaelves from the strong? how about that I have guns and I'm never going to give them up no matter what laws you pass? Have a nice day. how about self-defense? how about that guns enable the weak to protect themaelves from the strong? how about that I have guns and I’m never going to give them up no matter what laws you pass? Have a nice day.

]]> By: Alex Mace http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/comment-page-1/#comment-3058 Alex Mace Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:22:44 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=339#comment-3058 Indeedy. The only reason to have a gun is to use it. There are no valid reasons for using one. End of story. Indeedy. The only reason to have a gun is to use it. There are no valid reasons for using one. End of story.

]]> By: Si (a different one) http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/comment-page-1/#comment-3045 Si (a different one) Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:06:45 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=339#comment-3045 So on the one hand you're not unhappy about 'some' people carrying guns, and all that suggests, but at the same time you think national law should protect foxes. I can think of a reason why foxes might be hunted. However I can think of no sane reason why carrying a gun should be a right. So on the one hand you’re not unhappy about ’some’ people carrying guns, and all that suggests, but at the same time you think national law should protect foxes.

I can think of a reason why foxes might be hunted. However I can think of no sane reason why carrying a gun should be a right.

]]> By: jcm http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/2005/11/05/californian-sanity/comment-page-1/#comment-2997 jcm Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:52:22 +0000 http://www.jonmasters.org/blog/?p=339#comment-2997 I guess my view is seemingly at odds here because the foxes apparently don't have the higher level reasoning to understand that what they are doing is "wrong". It's always a case of each person's own moral view - but mine is very much that hunting animals for fun is barbaric. Humanely indiscriminately erradicating large numbers of wild animals is some how acceptable because we've agreed (someone's view) that there's a problem and the solution in that case is to remove them quickly and painlessly without a needless hunt. So, I'm all for reducing the fox population if necessary (and it might well be as a result of the ban). Unfortunately, hunting isn't dying out quite as quickly as it could. By pushing a ban sooner, they're using legislation to help explain to people that animal cruelty is wrong. I would have prefered non-legislative means to address the problem (agressive taxation would have done the trick) but if we have to have yet more laws, then this one at least tries to do the right thing for all concerned. Those who want to hunt have always been free to chase after many alternatives - nobody's saying hunting itself is a bad thing or that it is wrong, but hunting foxes for the sake of it is (in my own opinion). I also believe this is a defining difference between the UK and certain other countries in that we decide to take some action. Jon. I guess my view is seemingly at odds here because the foxes apparently don’t have the higher level reasoning to understand that what they are doing is “wrong”. It’s always a case of each person’s own moral view – but mine is very much that hunting animals for fun is barbaric. Humanely indiscriminately erradicating large numbers of wild animals is some how acceptable because we’ve agreed (someone’s view) that there’s a problem and the solution in that case is to remove them quickly and painlessly without a needless hunt. So, I’m all for reducing the fox population if necessary (and it might well be as a result of the ban).

Unfortunately, hunting isn’t dying out quite as quickly as it could. By pushing a ban sooner, they’re using legislation to help explain to people that animal cruelty is wrong. I would have prefered non-legislative means to address the problem (agressive taxation would have done the trick) but if we have to have yet more laws, then this one at least tries to do the right thing for all concerned. Those who want to hunt have always been free to chase after many alternatives – nobody’s saying hunting itself is a bad thing or that it is wrong, but hunting foxes for the sake of it is (in my own opinion). I also believe this is a defining difference between the UK and certain other countries in that we decide to take some action.

Jon.

]]>