Are toy guns really that bad? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Are toy guns really that bad?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wesley Chapel NC
    Posts
    270

    The point

    OregonVet, the whole point is they took a HUNTING game and made it PC by changing to a camera and adding PHOTO to the title. Purely a political move, and hilarious because it is so obvious.

    If you don't like hunting... fine don't hunt. That is a real shame because Oregon has some good hunting. I personally enjoy hunting and my kids are chomping at the bit to go with Dad. We hunt. We eat anything we kill, and my kids get some "organic, free-range, low carbon footprint" lean meat.

    I have never met a hunter that tried to force someone to hunt, but I can't say the same about non-hunters trying to stop hunting.

    As to Photo gear my wife is a homemaker, but is a self taught photographer and has about $3k in cameras/lenses.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Jes View Post
    OregonVet, the whole point is they took a HUNTING game and made it PC by changing to a camera and adding PHOTO to the title. Purely a political move, and hilarious because it is so obvious.

    If you don't like hunting... fine don't hunt. That is a real shame because Oregon has some good hunting. I personally enjoy hunting and my kids are chomping at the bit to go with Dad. We hunt. We eat anything we kill, and my kids get some "organic, free-range, low carbon footprint" lean meat.

    I have never met a hunter that tried to force someone to hunt, but I can't say the same about non-hunters trying to stop hunting.

    As to Photo gear my wife is a homemaker, but is a self taught photographer and has about $3k in cameras/lenses.
    Really? You can show me a photo of that same game only with a gun and not a camera? I would be interested in seeing that.

    Who has tried to stop you from hunting? Someone you know? A neighbor of yours or other family member? No one ever tried or told me to quit hunting.

    It is GOOD to eat what you kill, but I never enjoyed the taste, so when I got a little older I started buying beef at the store. I think it is great that people can hunt to put meat on the table, more power to those that do.

    But I think you are reaching pretty far when you say "a game like that can ONLY be with a gun". LOL

    But, each to their own opinion, 1A gives us that! For a while longer, we all hope... which I am sure BHO doesn't like.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Oregon Vet View Post
    I shoot with a camera now, that makes me PC now huh? THAT is hilarious!! LOL ROFLMAO.

    It costs lots more to "hunt" with a camera than with a "gun", and I don't think it has anything to do with being "PC".
    Most places require you to get a hunting license and tags to hunt, which could cost $100s' of dollars. Not to mention that hunting with a guide service and/or on private land will cost you as well. I've never heard of having to get a license to take photographs in national parks, forests, etc. I don't understand why you say it would cost more to "hunt" with a camera than with a "gun".


    I'm PC because I don't run around killing things?
    ..., not even pop cans... ammo, THANKS to what's his name, is just so dang EXPENSIVE any more.
    I taught a hunter safety class for several years. What we teach students is that hunters do not "kill" anything, but rather "harvest" game. Farmers don't go out and "kill" shrimp that go to market, they "harvest". In SD with a firearm, we don't "kill", we "stop the threat". As for you being or not being PC because you don't hunt, I say it wouldn't matter either way. Last time I checked that this is still America, and as long as we aren't prohibited by law for whatever reason (like criminal convictions, etc.), we're still free to choose weather we hunt or not.


    Oh, wait... they would only take the guns away from the law abiding citizens. Criminals would still have theirs. I guess we all have to become criminals.
    The sad part is that we could stop this from happening. It will take cooperation of all who wish to keep our 2A rights, and we must all be willing to put in the effort to stop this. There's no reason why the government should be taking away our 2A rights.


    I think probably none of us shoot as much as we would like to... RIGHT???
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I feel that I get enough range time. I'd shoot a lot more if I could, but I feel that my current monthly training routine is adequate.

    All of you reload to save $$$, right?
    I don't reload to save money. All of my reloads are my rifle rounds that are loaded for specific purposes. Each rifle has a list of special cartridges that would have a certain type of powder which is designed for a number of factors that would include type of game, distance being shot, type weather, etc.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Oregon Vet View Post
    I shoot with a camera now, that makes me PC now huh? THAT is hilarious!! LOL ROFLMAO.

    It costs lots more to "hunt" with a camera than with a "gun", and I don't think it has anything to do with being "PC".
    I'm an amateur photographer and I don't hunt either. What makes it "PC" is that they took a game that is CLEARLY a hunting game and made it a camera game (How many cameras have a reticle that looks like a scope? How many animals have you made keel over with your camera?)

    IMO, this is like taking the game "Doom" and making it a "take pictures of scary monsters" game.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    33
    You know, it's real funny to those of us from several generations ago. I clearly have fond memories of being outside and playing soldier or cops & robbers with my friends, brandishing toy guns. I don't remember any of us having issues with the law or violence years later. None of got into fights all the time as children as best as I can remember. Yes, I'm a shooter and own several guns, aside from being a dealer now, but I don't consider myself a violent person by any stretch of the imagination. My three twenty-something sons all own guns and are pretty good shooters, but they are very non violent, especially my youngest who has the largest arsenal of all of us.

    One big difference between then and now is that we played outside. I believe that this might be one of the big problems with the recent and current generations, not whether or not they play with guns. Too much time to be programmed by computer.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by WJN Firearms View Post
    You know, it's real funny to those of us from several generations ago. I clearly have fond memories of being outside and playing soldier or cops & robbers with my friends, brandishing toy guns. I don't remember any of us having issues with the law or violence years later. None of got into fights all the time as children as best as I can remember. Yes, I'm a shooter and own several guns, aside from being a dealer now, but I don't consider myself a violent person by any stretch of the imagination. My three twenty-something sons all own guns and are pretty good shooters, but they are very non violent, especially my youngest who has the largest arsenal of all of us.

    One big difference between then and now is that we played outside. I believe that this might be one of the big problems with the recent and current generations, not whether or not they play with guns. Too much time to be programmed by computer.
    Good Post, I have to agree, WE Played Outside... All Year..
    We all had our "Lone Ranger" Double Holster Sets... and speaking of that I have this added to my when I get richlist...
    The Lone Ranger Holster and Gun Belt: CircleKB: Western Cowboy Holsters and Old West Mercantile
    Semper Fi

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock Fan View Post
    ...I don't understand why you say it would cost more to "hunt" with a camera than with a "gun".
    For some reason, the photo in the OP says SAFARI photo shoot, with photos of lots of animals native to Africa on the game. Am I wrong? I get e-mail from a guy who does African safari photo shoots. Usually 12-14 people in the group, usually costing $12,500 to $15,000 PER PERSON for a 9 day shoot.

    And a typical gun shoot for 9 days where you get to kill 7-8 animals so you can hang their heads on your wall runs $5,500 to $8,000 PER PERSON.

    In both cases, you have to furnish your own visa's, passports and transportation to the leaving point in Africa. Plane tickets and all the other paperwork to just get there would probably run $5,000 to $7,000 per person, depending on where you were flying from to get to Africa, etc.

    So, going to Africa to kill things for two people would run at the high end $15,000 per person times two would be $30,000 for the trip.

    A photo safari would run $22,000 times two or $44,000 for the trip.

    But that is for a safari in Africa, like the photo shows in the original post.

    Not too many of the animals shown in the original post are outside of zoos here in the US, correct?

    I sure can't afford either one, killing or photos. Maybe in my next life I will be making enough money to be able to afford safari hunts, either way, but NOT in this life. I am just too poor.

    I taught a hunter safety class for several years. What we teach students is that hunters do not "kill" anything, but rather "harvest" game. Farmers don't go out and "kill" shrimp that go to market, they "harvest". In SD with a firearm, we don't "kill", we "stop the threat". As for you being or not being PC because you don't hunt, I say it wouldn't matter either way. Last time I checked that this is still America, and as long as we aren't prohibited by law for whatever reason (like criminal convictions, etc.), we're still free to choose weather(sic) we hunt or not.
    When I was born over 60 years ago it was "kill", whether to kill the steer, cut and wrap him and haul him to the local "lockers" where we had a bin with a padlock on it and that was where lots of the local people rented a locker (bin) to hold their frozen food. We still had one in 1966 even though Mom & Dad had purchased a chest type freezer at Western Auto in 1957, which is still keeping food cold 53 years later. I think they quit renting a bin while I was off enjoying the Vietnam war, or kill the coyote who was trying to get into the chicken coop, or killing them when "their" time to die came around. Always kill. More than once we had to kill a deer to have meat for the table while I was growing up. Just reading you saying "harvest" is the FIRST time in my life I have heard "harvest" used that way.

    Next week my youngest boy will be 39 and I have never heard either of them use the word "harvest" either. Maybe we live too far out of town to know the PC way of killing animals?

    The sad part is that we could stop this from happening. It will take cooperation of all who wish to keep our 2A rights, and we must all be willing to put in the effort to stop this. There's no reason why the government should be taking away our 2A rights.
    I think it is going to take a big stick along side the head to be able to get a lot of people on the same page about that. I just wish it had been written different. Something like:

    ALL citizens of the US of A who are not convicts have the right to own and keep arms/weapons/guns for their and their families protection against any enemies, foreign OR domestic, up to AND including the government of the our country (hopefully it will always be called the US of A, but who knows what the idiots in charge will try to sneak through/change. Change; what a dirty word) if it should come to that.

    The way it is worded now, all too many people argue over what the wording DOES say. It is very clear to a lot of us it means individual ownership but it would have been nicer if it had been written more clearly.

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say that I feel that I get enough range time. I'd shoot a lot more if I could, but I feel that my current monthly training routine is adequate.
    That's great! I'll bet you enjoy that. One of life's pleasures; "harvest" those targets! LOL

    I don't reload to save money. All of my reloads are my rifle rounds that are loaded for specific purposes. Each rifle has a list of special cartridges that would have a certain type of powder which is designed for a number of factors that would include type of game, distance being shot, type weather, etc. gf
    From reading gun magazines, there are a lot of people who do that along with you. Nothing wrong with doing that.

    All of my replies are just the way I "see" the world. Everyone "sees" it different. Nothing to get excited about.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by smcnally View Post
    I'm an amateur photographer and I don't hunt either. What makes it "PC" is that they took a game that is CLEARLY a hunting game and made it a camera game (How many cameras have a reticle that looks like a scope? How many animals have you made keel over with your camera?)

    IMO, this is like taking the game "Doom" and making it a "take pictures of scary monsters" game.
    I've been to the "program page" and don't seem to see what you see in the photo. Would you pull it into your edit program and circle and put arrows to what you see? I hate it when I can't see what others "see". I don't see any animals that fall over, it appears they are on a track and pulled along with a string and each time the light hits it, you gain points.

    Would you please post a marked up photo showing what you see? Thanks!

    I too am just an amateur photographer and have only invested about $25,000 in photo gear over the years. I have cheap equipment these days and a body, a lens, tripod, remote release etc only cost about $4,000 or so. Even my little P&S camera only cost $250. Geez, the Arca-Swiss ball head for the tripod cost $400.00 and the cheap tripod was only a couple hundred dollars. A person can do okay with a few L lenses and a decent body to stick them on. Should be able to take a nice selection of shots with a few lenses. The 16-35L for landscape for $1,600.00 and a 70-200L 2.8 IS for about that price too is a nice lens. Used at 70-110mm it makes a nice portrait lens. The $5,000-$12,000 lenses are way out of my price range, that is for sure! B&H had a 1,200mm L lens a while back that was for sale for $120,000.00. Twice what I paid for my house! LOL

    I have thousands of $$ worth of film camera gear, will someone give me a few hundred for it? LOL It is at a "friends" house. He thought he might want it, for what, I don't know. Yep, we live and learn.

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    St. Louis/Missouri
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Oregon Vet View Post
    I've been to the "program page" and don't seem to see what you see in the photo. Would you pull it into your edit program and circle and put arrows to what you see? I hate it when I can't see what others "see". I don't see any animals that fall over, it appears they are on a track and pulled along with a string and each time the light hits it, you gain points.

    Would you please post a marked up photo showing what you see? Thanks!

    I too am just an amateur photographer and have only invested about $25,000 in photo gear over the years. I have cheap equipment these days and a body, a lens, tripod, remote release etc only cost about $4,000 or so. Even my little P&S camera only cost $250. Geez, the Arca-Swiss ball head for the tripod cost $400.00 and the cheap tripod was only a couple hundred dollars. A person can do okay with a few L lenses and a decent body to stick them on. Should be able to take a nice selection of shots with a few lenses. The 16-35L for landscape for $1,600.00 and a 70-200L 2.8 IS for about that price too is a nice lens. Used at 70-110mm it makes a nice portrait lens. The $5,000-$12,000 lenses are way out of my price range, that is for sure! B&H had a 1,200mm L lens a while back that was for sale for $120,000.00. Twice what I paid for my house! LOL

    I have thousands of $$ worth of film camera gear, will someone give me a few hundred for it? LOL It is at a "friends" house. He thought he might want it, for what, I don't know. Yep, we live and learn.
    AMEN. I have a Minolta film camera and some very expensive lenses. But as we all know Minolta was bought by Konika and neither makes cameras anymore. Does anyone know of a digital SLR camera that can use my lenses?
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. - Ronald Reagan

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Oregon Vet View Post
    Really? You can show me a photo of that same game only with a gun and not a camera? I would be interested in seeing that.
    Here ya go! Same game, same manufacturer...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast