On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:48:30 -0500, "David G. Nagel"
Too large a population going into a reduced winter food supply means
the entire herd is malnourished and more susceptible to disease,
starvation, predation, etc. greatly increasing winter kill. Smaller
population means more sustenance and better survivability for each
individual animal. Small initial population can very easily mean a
larger number of survivors than a large initial population.
Perhaps overly simplified, but still something that seems difficult to
accept for those overly influenced by emotional reaction to the beauty
of the animal. I almost said "Bambi Lovers", which, while true, smacks
of being an unintended put down.
An armed society is a polite society.
Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein
A fact that seems to elude even dept fish/game twits. Florida had a SEVERE
case of deer over population, they starving by the truck-load, but don't let
them damn savage hunters in. Similar scenarios in other states are all too
Virginia isn't like that--I think the current bag limit, all season,
in my county is 7, which is among the highest in the state. But we
have intense deer population problems that cause deer/car collisions
more often than most people would like. I tapped two in 8 years, with
one running into me, and the other trying to jump over the frigging
hood. I was doing 7mph with the first, and about 10 with the second.
Both caused $2,000 damage.
When I was a kid, and the neighborhood was much more rural, I never saw
a deer, dead or alive. Today, despite hunting, there are deer
everywhere, herds of them even. Most of them are killed by $30,000
cars rather than $100 guns.:-) Less than 10 years ago I used to bitch
about the 30 mph speed limit on Fox Chapel Road, and about everyone
averaged the correct speed, closer to 50mph, hoping the tax collector
didn't nab them. Now, it really isn't safe to go over 30mph because of
the deer running in front of you. We are polluted with deer. I still
don't hunt because I get no joy out of killing, but I'm glad a few
people are left that have not been femanized with this line of crap...
Problem is I don't cook much either... don't hunt, don't cook, damned
Using FREE News Server: http://Motzarella.org
The purpose of law enforcement is many-fold:
* To investigate crimes and apprehend the criminal.
* To deter rascally behavior.
One purpose of law enforcement is NOT to protect the individual or public.
They have no duty to do so.
Actually the reverse is true. The masses are seeing the silliness of
"On guns, Gallup has been testing opinion for many years on one extreme
proposal that is the goal, usually unstated, of many gun-control advocates:
banning the possession of handguns. Support was 60 percent in 1960 and 49
percent in 1965. It was as high as 43 percent in the early 1990s, before the
Clinton Congress passed the so-called assault weapons ban. In March 2007, it
had fallen to 29 percent -- a minority, almost a fringe position."
In forty years, support for the notion that handguns should be banned has
fallen by half and is now about even with the percentage of the American
public that favors a monarchy.
In 1987, Florida enacted a "shall issue" concealed handgun permit law.
"Shall issue" means that if an individual meets the statutory requirement
(stand up, hear thunder, see lightning), the responsible authority MUST
issue the license - no discretion is permitted. Since then, 38 additional
states have enacted "shall issue" regulations. Nine other states have some
sort of discretionary-issue system. Only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin)
and the District of Columbia prohibit concealed carry under all conditions.
In every state where concealed handgun legislation has become effective, the
trend is toward loosening of the strictures. For example, Tennessee's
original law prohibited concealed handgun permit holders from entering an
establishment where alcohol was served. Just this past week, the Tennessee
legislature effectively repealed that restriction. There has been no case
where gun legislation has been tightened with regard to handguns since 1987.
The original Texas law in this regard prohibited concealed carry in
churches. That restriction was repealed four years ago. Now a person with a
valid license may carry his weapon in a religious establishment. Lest you
think churches are no place for guns, I refer you to the shoot-out at New
Life Church in Colorado Springs. There a female member of the congregation -
with a concealed handgun license - blew away a maniac before he could get
past the front door and endanger the 7,000 people in attendance.
But you are correct on the "fear mongering" bit. In my view, the debate on
guns comes down to two simple positions:
* People who are afraid of criminals, and
* People who are afraid of guns.
The purpose of law enforcement is to protect society. That does not
necessarily mean protecting *you* personally. If they happen to be in the
right place, at the right time, then protecting you personally is a plus.
However, in protecting society, that generally means investigating the
crime scene, taking evidence, and attempting to find the perp before they
commit another crime. If insufficient evidence can be found, then they
wait until another crime is committed by the perp and repeat.
*You* on the other hand are where you are all the time. Do you know the
response time for the police to arrive where you live? How much time is
that for someone to do something? People should take some responsibility
for their own defense. That may or may not mean having a firearm. It may
mean having mace, pepper spray, a rapid response alarm system, etc.
Really, latest polls tend to show otherwise.
As posted previously, people do defend themselves and have prevented
heinous crimes from taking place:
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Generally, a lower level of violent crime, I think, though we do have
a sufficiency of gun murders.
Just as things get really to the point of lowering the boom on gun
owners, someone ends up blowing away a miscreant--about three weeks
ago, a guy shot and killed a violent drunk who was invading his home.
A few years ago, a woman used a shotgun to remove a guy who kicked
down her door in an effort to get to her. He was blown right back
As population increases, violent crime will, too.
"Charlie Self" wrote:
==============================As population increases, violent crime will, too.
Just to put things in perspective, when I came to SoCal in 1990, the
state population was about 30 million.
Today it is past 38 million and still climbing with about half the
state population in SoCal, or 19 million.
19 million exceeds the population of probably all but about 5-6 of the
other states in the USA.
A lot of the land in SoCal is uninhabited, so the rest has a rather
high population density.
High population density and the influx of drug gangs from Mexico make
things a little dicey sometimes, especially in the inner city areas.
Take your choice, either dessert, mountain terrain or both.
San Bernardino County is larger than the state of Connecticut but
contains large chunks of both the San Bernardino National forest as
the Mojave dessert.
As a result, there are probably close to as many rattlesnakes as there
are people in San Bernardino County.
In addition, Riverside and Imperial counties both have large dessert
area within their boundaries.
If you have seen any of the coverage of the wild fires burning in
Santa Barbara County the last few days, you get a feel for some of the
mountainous terrain around SoCal.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.