Or weld the shoulder stock in the extended position. Then, viola!, no longer an assault weapon.

...if you want to be serious about this, propose banning semi-automatic long guns. Don't try to pussyfoot around with arbitrary and useless lists of cosmetic or ergonomic features.

The semiautomatic feed from a magazine is what allows for the rapid fire/capacity/and ease of reload. Frankly I see no sportsman reason for having these features (how many prairie dogs can you shoot before they go back into their holes). I guess if you wanted to take on a bear with a .223 - otherwise it has two purposes - armed combat or slaughter of multiple people. Am I missing something?

It exists.

Taking on a bear with a .223 is a good way to really piss off the bear.

Should have put out an alert. What sportsman needs a semiautomatic .223 with a 30 round magazine? I agree with making the bear very angry and not being effective.

Nutria. Coyote's. Not much bigger than that, though, as hunting regulations limit the number of rounds in the gun, and the type of large game you can take with something as small as a .223.

The rest would be competitive or self-defense. Or just plain old plinking to have fun. Competitively, the AR-15, which is not the only, but the most common .223, is the single most popular center file rifle in the country. A 30 round mag is considered, by most owners, to be 'standard'.

It might not sound 'reasonable' to some people who don't shoot, but there's nothing shocking or unusual about that mag size.

If I might offer a non-lethal, or less lethal analogy. (Certainly high performance cars can and do kill drivers, passengers, and totally innocent bystanders) Consider the Ford Mustang. The car is far more powerful than anyone needs to get to and from work, or whatever. Shockingly overpowered, and it can be misused to a very lethal degree.

Consider the backlash if the government tried to RPM limit them to being incapable of going over 60mph. That might be a very prudent thing from a public safety perspective. Owners, and prospective owners are... not going to like it. EVEN THOUGH you could totally sell it as being certain to save some lives.

a lot of you seem hung up on this. They are in fact, assault weapons. designed for use by soldiers like me in assaulting military objectives.

While a good assault weapon has many features that make it useful for this compared to "your daddy's shotgun" or your deer rifle, the semi auto ability combined with a high capacity magazine is the core of what makes it useful. It is still US doctrine that we have more bullets loaded into magazines than the russians or chinese, and that we also carry more magazines.

Look at WWII there were myriad of weapons issued to our troops. M1 garand. Semi auto with a moderate capacity clip, good range. Tommy gun. Automatic pistol round, shitty range. That goofy small 30 caliber automatic. BAR, 30-06 automatic with a 20 round clip. all of them are at least automatic. All of them require only pulling the trigger as opposed to lever action or bolt actions. In the 60s we moved to a smaller caliber, less recoil to improve accuracy but higher magazine capacity, and an auto option for when you need lead downrange...primarily for suppressive fire.

Now I can go to the store and buy a .223 caliber semi auto weapon _without_ a pistol grip or bayonet lug, and it is, frankly, still as lethal in my hands as my issue M4.

we need to focus on the semi auto and round capacity. If it is semi auto, there should'nt be more than 4 rounds (including one in the chamber). bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are red herrings.

And isnt is illegal to hunt big game with a 223 caliber in most states anyway?

You obviously have a good notion of what an assault rifle is. However, "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are two different things. The name "assault weapon" was purposely chosen to confuse people into thinking about assault rifles when they hear the misleading term.

> bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks are red herrings.

Unfortunately, these items are at the core of the common definition of "assault weapon", as featured in the federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB). The usual definition of "assault weapon" has nothing to do with the abilities of the rifle, only the cosmetic features.

> Now I can go to the store and buy a .223 caliber semi auto weapon _without_ a pistol
> grip or bayonet lug, and it is, frankly, still as lethal in my hands as my issue M4.

Good to see that you have a good understanding of the current problem with the AWB in all its forms.

> And isnt is illegal to hunt big game with a 223 caliber in most states anyway?

Most states allow it for the smaller game, like coyotes. A few allow it for the (smaller) white tail deer.

and a pump-action. Bolt actions are the slowest, but they still aren't all that slow.


There are people out there that hunt dangerous game, and like to have quick follow-up shots handy. Wild pigs are pretty dangerous, and like to live in dense undergrowth that keeps shooting ranges short and intimate. And of course, when you're not only the hunter but also the hunted, you don't want the adrenaline surge and the frantic activity to inhibit your ability to reload and fire again.


Lots of people like semi-autos. They recoil softer, the detachable magazine makes them a cinch to unload before getting into a vehicle or climbing a tree stand, and they are much easier to shoot from awkward positions like prone or squatting. Particularly follow-up shots on fleeing game animals which may be wounded. And things like the pistol grip that upsets Senator Feinstein so much are actually more ergonomic and thus better for the shooter's hand and wrist than the traditional straight stock.

Lots of people like bolt-actions, too. They're cheaper, they can handle much more powerful cartridges, they tend to be more accurate, they are very reliable, and they work very well with hand-loaded ammunition.


But that's for sporting use. For self-defense (armed combat, if you will) the semi-auto is preferred for simplicity of operation.

The eternal problem is that a weapon that works well for self-defense also works well for offense.

Also note that every "traditional" style hunting rifle is a direct decendant of a former military-issue rifle.

They seem to travel in packs and in areas such as Texas they try to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible due to the overpopulation and damage that they cause.

upthread.

The last AWB failed because of stupid pols not understanding the real issues. Until we see what is proposed, it would be reasonable to see more of the same.

A better standard bearer should be chosen

or ignorant of its basis.

he and you said he was not ignorant of her history.

therefore, you and he agree that the other poster was lying about her position.

have it your way.

that will not detract from the discussion. I you want to make it harder to pass, have it your way.

Then the Repugs undid it after he left. I don't know remember how strong or weak it was, but he apparently did have an AWB law.

And as for Finestine (my senator), I have had many doubts about her in the past--starting with when she supported the Bush Crime Family. She lost points with me a long time ago. I see her as too reactionary than preventative in her approach to fixing problems and offers no leadership as Bernie Sanders or the Senator from Ohio would.

It was marginally effective at best.

It's the rapid reloading / firing capacities.

Banning those would also mean banning pistols that fire regular pistol ammunition.



There is no shortage of "regular" handgun cartridges equal to or more powerful than a 5.56 fired from a handgun. There are "regular" handgun cartridges that are more powerful than a 5.56 fired from a rifle, too.

Banning semi-auto 16" AR-15s is basically a feel-good, do-nothing measure when someone can get the same gun as a "pistol" with a shorter barrel, thus making it easier to conceal. Banning semi-auto pistols isn't going to be easy, either, I don't imagine. I'm pretty sure that guns are here to stay, and I'm glad that they are. They allow the weak to have a fighting chance when the strong try to oppress them.

Your house, my house, all houses?

It's a shame the last time they were banned it was temporary. That made no sense. Now there are even more in teh country.

...and doubtless many on DU would lap it up as progress.

Many more will want it to pass just so they can have a "victory" over the NRA boogieman and the red states and "gun cultists" or whatever the term de jour is.



If Feinstein had the courage of her convictions, she would push for a ban of all semi-auto long guns.

But she doesn't. She's like those people that want to outlaw abortion, except in the case of rape and incest. No moral standing or consistency, but damn, it gets good PR.

should be outlawed.

The legal term is "machine gun".

The number of privately-owned "machine guns" in the US is now fixed. The Treasury Department's registry of "machine guns" was closed in 1986 via an act of Congress, so the number in the country has been fixed for nearly 30 years, and prices are in the 5-figure range to own a "real" AK-47 or M-16 or M-60 or Uzi.

The gun used in Newtown fired one shot per trigger pull. It was a semi-automatic rifle. Each times you pulled the trigger, it would fire, eject, and load itself and wait for the trigger to be released and re-pulled.

Except to go on killing sprees? They should be banned.

you need to find out what the laws currently are, because such a restriction already exists (essentially) at both the Federal and State level.

a semi-automatic gun. So I think they should be banned also. I think changing the constitution is a hard gig to take on and people should be allowed to hunt for meat to eat. I think it is a humane way of killing for food if you are a meat eater. But like I said I don't know much about guns and I just learned how easy it is to rapid fire with a semi-automatic gun. There are probably a lot of other guns I don't know about that are really bad that I am not mentioning. I know we need to do something to get all these damn guns off the streets!

Except for in the movies and in the imaginations of some people, they already are.

How many crimes have been committed in the last 50 years with legally owned fully automatic NFA weapons?

(I'll give you a hint: less than 10)

had an automatic weapon. Like I said I know nothing about guns. To me if you can shoot rapidly than there is no reason to have that gun. If you are going hunting you take a shot and aim good. I did not know how fast a semi-automatic gun could load and shoot. Now that I know I think they should be banned also.

I don't see any reason why a person would want that type of firearm. What do they think they are going to use it for? People do not hunt with those things right?

Just as you said above, "you take a shot and aim good." Although really it's the other way around, aim, then shoot.

All the below items are legitimate hunting rifles. If you don't think one is, tell me which one and ask questions.

1. http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-700.aspx

2. http://www.remington.com/en/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/pump-action-model-7600.aspx

3. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

4. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

5. http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-15.aspx

I didn't realize that you can get a pump-action rifle in calibers bigger than .22 .

the bolt action model 700 is a good 1000 yard gun for target shooting.

enough to use now?

Ducks? Deer? Squirrel? Coyote? Bear? All of these can require a different caliber weapon, depending on the circumstances. Ducks can only be shot in flight, which requires a shotgun firing birdshot. At close range, you can hunt deer with shotgun slugs as well, but in some states, you need to be able to hit a deer 100-200 yd away across a corn field. A shotgun generally can't reach that far accurately; slugs are less accurate and have a lower velocity. A coyote can hold up at 200-300 yards in the middle of a snowy field. Squirrels are often hunted with .22-cal rifles since you don't want to tear up the meat too badly. Bear are usually hunted with rifles since they're larger and tougher than deer.

Americans could use a bow and arrow and my grandfather's could hit dear and moose with their shotguns than why can't you? You must not have that great aim then to have to rely on some slick gun to do it for you.

And if you can't get a good shot from 100-200 yards away then you move up closer.

Black bears are a common species in the Eastern US that is widely hunted for it's meat. You might not like that fact, but they are legal to hunt in dozens of states, with their numbers actually increasing due to habitat management due to hunter-sponsored support.

And like I said, not all environments support "getting closer". Ever try to sneak across a newly cut cornfield towards a group of deer? You might as well be stalking them across a football field, absolutely no cover. Since your grandfather used a shotgun, and you stated he hunted moose, it sounds like he hunted in a heavily wooded area of New England very much unlike the mixture of woodlots and open field common throughout most of the country. And no "slick gun" out there shoots for you; it's HARDER to shoot at long range than at close range no matter what gun you're using. If my aim sucked, I'd be forced to get closer, not buy a new gun.

shot gun, farther than that I use a rifle on Deer. If I'm in an area where the shot could be longer than 200 yards I use a bolt action rifle.

You aim and fire just like a bolt action rifle if a deer is running you can get another shot with an auto.

She has a lock in CA for the foreseeable future, and she's probably retiring after one more term, if that.

Politicians are, by necessity, media personalities and, if not egomaniacs, not very far from that status.

She's been invested politically and emotionally on this issue for a couple of decades now. I would think she sees herself as a hapless underdog, working to make America safer despite the self-centered-ness and ignorance of gun owners.

She's a smart person. She knows what she's selling is feel-good placebo stuff, but I would guess she thinks that, as the underdog beset on all sides by powerful interest groups and cultish gun owners, it's the best she can do, and maybe it will lead to a cultural change, or at least open the door for more laws later on.


And now, the Senate, which through inaction is making the lives of all 310 million of us measurably worse every single year, is now going to be tied up on this feel-good knee-jerk "never again" stuff instead.

We're 80% below the do-nothing Congress of 1947 (or thereabouts) in terms of legislative productivity. the country is sinking into an economic morass of corporatism and greed and dysfunction. And now the post-9/11 "never again" frantic mindset is going to distract time and resources away from THEIR failures as elected lawmakers to pass some pompous, useless, piece of crap.


We're going to spend the same amount of political capital as we did to get the ACA through, take the same legislative losses in 2014, all to ban... what? Bayonet mounts?

you posted a gun advocate meme to apply to a politician who became mayor via assassination via immediate succession to office.

and then said she was just "pandering".

the week of the Jonestown massacres and assassinations by gun of Leo Ryan, and shooting of current congressperson Jackie Speier.

you had a nice little narrative which ignorance of the facts allowed you to believe and post

and the thing is it's all BULLSHIT.

and has supported vigorous gun control ever since.

Krispos doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.

Just completely ignorant of the topic he just decided to bloviate on.

Pelosi is really the wrong stalwart for this one as others here have pointed out

eom

what's the matter with you? if you don't know what you're talking about just BE QUIET.

this incident is how Feinstein become mayor of San Francisco in 1978. by succession upon the assassination of Mayor Moscone.

she was the one who announced that they were assassinated.


this was the same week that my congressman, Leo Ryan was assassinated in Guyana and current congressperson, Jackie Speier was shot in the same incident.

but you are SO IGNORANT of this history that you've allowed yourself to make a stupid statement about Feinstein on this topic, NOT knowing a thing about why she has come to the positions she has --Jackie Speier is also vigorously anti-gun.

Here is the question, though. I'm assuming that she is a smart, intelligent person. She had to know her proposal is all about cosmetic features that does not affect the operation of the gun in the slightest.

Then why is this being proposed as a solution?

what Feinstein's proposal is. There was an assault weapons ban done previously that people didn't like because it was hard to determine what is or isn't an assault weapon, especially if one were to personally modify the weapon (removing or replacing stock, removing bayonet mount, etc).

What do you think would happen if Feinstein drafted legislation that would really mean something? Maybe a maximum number of bullets in a magazine. Maybe all future guns must have biometric sensors. Maybe all bullets must have ID numbers stamped on them. I don't know. Do you?

...she re-introduces what is the basically the same thing every session; the previous AWB, only with no sunset clause.

And I believe that included in the AWB proposal is a magazine-capacity limit of 10 rounds.

We could try that again, but I doubt it will do anything except irritate people. Remember, there are probably over a billion "pre-ban" magazines in the country for the various guns that use them, and properly maintained they will last for decades or centuries.

And many states still have a magazine-capacity limit. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc.

And while we're focusing on the slaughter in Newtown, we're forgetting that 44 people a day are murdered in America, about 30 or so of them with guns. And most of those killed with guns were were handguns, with only a handful of shots fired, and by somebody they are familiar with.

The problem with biometric guns is that they are unproven, and will of course add considerably to the cost of a gun. I don't see the police rushing to embrace the technology, for example, and they carry guns every day. I say, let the fuzz be the testbed for such technologies. If it works, it will trickle down into civilian firearm sales. At that point, maybe we can consider making it law, when it's proven, common, and cheap.

I'm not against it, but it has not been developed and I would not trust it if my life depended on it.


As to bullet serial numbers, that's got a host of problems. One is the sheer logistics of keeping track of bullets with numbers stamped on them. Remember, every bullet in a box of ammo has to have the same number, and it has to match the printed number on the box. Bullets are mass-produced; it would like trying to put a serial number on every chicken nugget McDonald's sells.

Because the bullet is crimped in the brass case, the buyer can't verify that number on the box is what's really on the bullet. AND, finally, it would require ammunition registration... which would not help much with stolen guns and stolen ammunition.



What we're really looking at is people frantically looking for some way to prevent the un-preventable, in this case a low-probability but high-impact mass murder.

People are saying "take away all guns!", which of course will not work.

"Take away assault weapons", which simply means people will buy "almost-assault weapons", or "sporting weapons", and those will instead be used.

"Ban high-capacity magazines", which doesn't affect used magazines, and even with limited-capacity magazines great slaughter can be committed in a short time due to reloading.



I've got solutions to lower the overall crime rate. I don't have any solutions to lone-wolf, unplanned mass shootings.

we control all three branches of government. We've got two down (President and Supreme Court nominees) and one to go. We must take back the House of Representatives in 2014. It's been made clear this is a matter of life and death. It couldn't be more clear.

...and while were at it, get rid of gun shows.

You want to buy a firearm, you do it the same as every other law abiding citizen at a federally licensed dealer, not a fairground livestock shed in west Texas.

Or at least as relates to buying and selling guns.


Gun shows attract federally-licensed dealers from all over the region to buy and sell guns. And because they're FFLs, they do the entire background check, waiting period, whatever state and federal law requires.

A gun show in and of itself is a sick idea of 'entertainment'

Sorry.

This will somehow save more live and make the country a better place to live than, say, universal single-payer health insurance or legalizing pot?

maybe by now you'll actually realize where that politician's gun policies came from.

and then you'll probably try to convince us that you knew all that anyway.

you may be crafting a response that salvages your reputation.

if you had spent the time learning history instead of just gun history...

you might have know it, or at least, not having known it, realized that your broad brush statement of a gun control proponent doesn't apply to every politician.

...she has to know that her AWB proposal is mostly cosmetic. It's window dressing. It's trying to ban weapons that operate in a certain way BUT have too many cosmetic features on them that look military.

The only thing in the proposal that might, MIGHT, in the future sometime, make a difference is the ban on 11+ magazines.

So why did she propose it? Either she knows it's fluff, but it will satisfy the public's demand for action, or she wants to do more but knows it won't pass Congress.


She became the mayor after the two people above her in the line of succession were assassinated by a man with a handgun. She's been a leading proponent of gun control for quite a while now. People are looking to her and a few other politicians for leadership on this issue, and she brings up the same thing as was done 18 years ago.

She's got the spotlight on her.


Remember, it wasn't very long ago that people on DU were hoping she would get primaried and replaced with a progressive, because they were very tired of her being a 3rd Way-type on things like national security, warrantless wiretapping, and a whole litany of other things.

and that war must be won to remove the culture of killing and death.

Germany and Japan (hate to Godwin this thread) had a fairly militaristic bent for most of their histories. After WWII, both have culturally defanged themselves, with some resistance (not much, of course, given that their most militaristic people were killed in war or executed or jailed after the war). They both now have a very pacifistic culture and attitude. The same can happen here in the US, but for some reason, there's a group of people who think "shoot first and ask questions later" is the right mindset.

Well, there's no such thing as a "right mindset". It all depends on the context and situation. But given that the situation we have here is generally peaceful, getting people to be more peaceful as their new cultural identity would be a nice thing to have.

The last generation has seen the rates drop by nearly half, to rates not seen since the late 1960's.

That is Your Argument?

I actually support making private transactions go through a background check. The issue is that there is no "loophole", but the talking-point is hammered like a blacksmith forging a horseshoe, and it dodges the real issue.

I'll bite. Which is?

There are various ways to do this. The simplest is to make private transactions go through an FFL.

Another way to do a background check when you get a government-issued ID, and mark the ID as "okay to buy a gun", or "unable to buy a gun". Then the seller can just check the buyer's ID.

first suggestion is better than second in my opinion.

and the ATF could make a special FFL for people that want to act as a transfer agent, but not as a gun seller. I can see a number of people specializing in that category who want to make some extra money.



Ultimately, though, this has to be mandated on a state level. It's my understanding that the feds can't govern in-state private transfers.

And of course, the state has to keep its goddamn database up to date!!!

Sounds like that's would be a challenge.

Very frustrating.

It was a 10 year ban, and expired on its own in 2004.

Fuck Bush!!!

FWIW, but a renewal never made it out of committee in either the House or the Senate.

Proponents of a renewal had 10 years to make a case for it, and they came up empty-handed. No evidence that the law improved public safety one iota.

the Congress let it expire, bush said that if it made it to his desk, he would sign it.

You can't blame everything on that asshole, no matter how convenient it would be.

so he can say anything politically expedient. This way, he can say he's for "gun control" and know that he'll still placate his base because they know he's working with congress to never let that bill see the light of day.

They made it a 10 year ban rather than permanent.

Congress seems to have come to its senses and realized it was a stupid law, though they didn't come up with a better one to replace it.

And it remains so.

It tries to draw an imaginary line between sporting and unacceptable semi-automatic firearms. The defining characteristics are cosmetic items, not functional ones.


I can have a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, as long as it only has ONE item from the following list:



Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Rifle-grenade launcher


If I only have one or none of the features, it's not an assault weapon.



Take your AK-47, grind off the bayonet lug or weld the folding stock in place, and *boom*, it's a sporting long arm.

There were a couple of (IIRC) Republican members of the House who would not have voted for it without the sunset clause.

IOW without that compromise it never would have been passed in the first place. That's how close the vote was.

Not to mention, both Connecticut and New Jersey also ban purchasing "assault weapons" using the same definition of "assault weapon." Yup, sounds like a real effective law.

no, a shooter in Connecticut did that.

perhaps this could have been avoided.

The gun culture will be its own undoing.

The perpetrator of this act is dead and has no volition. Any action afterward is on the hands of those that take it.

Actions are ultimately the responsibility of those that choose to take them. You cannot blame anyone but the shooter for this. You cannot blame the shooter for the actions that came after his death.

who frequent the gudgeon, you are now on ignore.

And I won't part without this little tidbit...

Newton gunman blasted his way in, says Connecticut Gov. Malloy
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/16/newton-gunman-blasted-his-way-in-says-connecticut-gov-malloy/

The gunman in the Connecticut school massacre that left 20 small children dead blasted his way through a locked glass door, climbed through and proceeded with his killing spree, the state governor said on Sunday.

----------------

if there was no gun, there would have been no blasting through the locked glass door.

The ones already registered should be turned in

Laws need to be tough.

A large majority of ordinary firearms (meaning non-NFA) aren't.

Not required by law where I live.

Point-man or nothing....

We need to go the way of Australia and Germany!

If you havent read it yet, read the excellent Mothers Jones story on mass shootings. In the last 30 years ONE gun owner stopped possible more murders. The other two gun owners that tried to intervene, one was killed and the other severely wounded and barely slowed the murderers down.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Mass Shootings Stopped
Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Golden Food Market Shooting 2009 (Edit - New Link. Old one didn't work)
http://blasphemes.blogspot.com/2009/07/golden-food-market-shootout-update.html

New Life Church Shooting 2007
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1638879

Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html

Trolley Square Mall
4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

LAC stops bar shooting in Plymouth, PA
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-shooter-wasn-t-provoked-1.1371854

FYI

Talk about trying to give Republicans more seats. I am about as progressive as you can get except for the gun issue what really gets me is every time the left talks about guns they always say we are not trying to take your right to hunt away that's not the issue. The issue is about being able to protect yourself and your home.

than buying a hunting rifle. The "Left" of which I am proud to be a member of recognize that the USA has had more mass gun slayings than any country (except perhaps Yemen) in the last ten years. How many guns do you really need to hunt down a fleeing deer? and by the way--Welcome to DU.

Why does a ban on guns hinder your "right" to hunt? Speaking of which, why is hunting a right? We have advanced enough as a society where we no longer need to hunt in order to survive. Mother Nature managed to control wildlife populations for millions of years without relying on humans for assistance. I don't see why we need to continue to interfere.

It doesn't appear in neat plastic packages by magic. Hunting is actually being closer to the process, rather than divorcing oneself from it.


And humans have always evolved more efficient tools for every purpose. Hunting is no different. But with that efficiency comes a need for good management practices, especially since we've nearly eradicated most predator species and continued to expand our own habitat. Hunting is not, and never should be, the primary control method, but it currently plays an important part of the process.

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Humans have greatly altered the predator/prey balance by almost eleminating the major predators. That causes prey poplation to grow unchecked until they consume their food supply and have a massive, sudden, die-off. Human hunting stabilizes the prey population.

We should stop interfering in the predator\prey populations worldwide and let nature run its course, even if it means sudden die offs from overpopulation. That's a small price to pay to prevent another massacre like the one on Friday.