Hieronymous Alloy posted:

A deer might have three hundred or so dollars' worth of meat on it, all told. Kill three or four deer you might have a year's supply of organic, grass-fed, etc. meat.

Then, If you live in the middle of nowheresville and you've been going hunting for thirty years you already have all the infrastructure and training in place, so the additional costs are minimal, but the store is a gas station an hour's drive away that mostly just sells pre-processed prepackaged gunk.

captainblastum posted:

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but those don't really seem to address the point that I was trying to make: that I don't believe the claims that people must hunt to survive anywhere in America. There are other, more cost effective choices for getting food.

BrandorKP posted:

And again many states give the poor extra tags for exactly the above. It's a cheap effective subsidy

Office Pig posted:

https://twitter.com/Independent/status/915245545572233224

Rent-A-Cop posted:

No I don't think you understand. Poor people need to move to where I live and only eat rice because ~*fartz*~

quote:

The US is one of just 13 countries to have voted against a United Nations resolution condemning the death penalty for having gay sex.

Although the vote passed, America joined countries such as China, Iraq and Saudi Arabia in opposing the move.

The Human Rights Council resolution condemned the “imposition of the death penalty as a sanction for specific forms of conduct, such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations”.

It attacked the use of execution against persons with “mental or intellectual disabilities, persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, and pregnant women”.

It also expressed “serious concern that the application of the death penalty for adultery is disproportionately imposed on women”.

The US supported two failed amendments put forward by Russia, which stated the death penalty was not necessarily “a human rights violation” and that it is not a form of torture, but can lead to it “in some cases”.

And it abstained on a “sovereignty amendment” put forward by Saudi Arabia, that stated “the right of all countries to develop their own laws and penalties”.

Voyager I posted:

The conundrum: Donald Trump deserves to die immediately, but also to suffer as much as possible. I don't know what kind of disease to wish for.

captainblastum posted:

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but those don't really seem to address the point that I was trying to make: that I don't believe the claims that people must hunt to survive anywhere in America. There are other, more cost effective choices for getting food.

captainblastum posted:

Yes, this is precisely my argument and not an idiotic strawman.

captainblastum posted:

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but those don't really seem to address the point that I was trying to make: that I don't believe the claims that people must hunt to survive anywhere in America. There are other, more cost effective choices for getting food.

evilweasel posted:

Suicide is, generally speaking, not a reasoned decision but an impulse. There are certainly people who have made a conscious, reasoned decision to end their life, and you're probably not going to stop those people. But that's not most suicides. Most suicides are, basically, a desperate response to terrible pain (emotional, mostly). Those people don't really want to die, they want the pain to go away. They have to work themselves up to it. If they use a reversible method, or one that doesn't kill right away, frequently they change their mind. So that's basically the key: with guns, once you pull the trigger it's all over (unless you somehow miss anything vital, which does happen). No chance to reconsider, and one second of impulse is all it takes to complete the act. Some percentage, if all they had was a knife or pills, would reconsider halfway through and bind their wounds/vomit/call 911, and so you'd have a lower rate of completed suicides.

It would not end suicide as a phenomenon but it would reduce it. Yes, some people will manage to kill themselves when all they have is a bucket of water. Most won't.

Darko posted:

The amount of finality and ease that handguns give suicide is ridiculous. It's definitely a factor in any gun control debate.

Liquid Communism posted:

The US' suicide rate is on par with the rest of the English speaking first world, most of which has much tighter gun controls.

US: 13.2 / 100k in 2015
UK: 10.9 /100k in 2015
Aus: 12.6 / 100k in 2015
CAN: 11.5 / 100k in 2015

There's no American exceptionalism at work here. The better predictor is economic uncertainty and austerity.

twodot posted:

Why would you think maintaining a piece of land, raising/feeding/whatevering cows would be cheaper than going outside finding a deer that literally no human has put any effort into and shooting it? At the very least you need to account for the profit motive of the rancher. The rancher is going to benefit from economies of scale, but the hunter is going to benefit from requiring literally zero infrastructure and having marginal costs of a couple bullets.

evilweasel posted:

the states where someone might hunt for food are also the states that laugh at the idea of providing food for the poor

Inescapable Duck posted:

Heaven help people live in places other than those you approve them living in.

Nevvy Z posted:

America is the highest there though.

There could be a lot of other factors accounting for this discrepency, where the chart of successfullness of suicide methods is pretty simple to understand. And this is only one of many good reasons to get rid of guns.

VitalSigns posted:

I used to think this. I grew up in a Republican family and even after I realized conservatism is a bullshit intellectually bankrupt ideology that doesn't work, but for complex and difficult reasons that are easily papered over by simplistic common-sense-sounding salesmanship and folksy aw shucks "people like us" propaganda, I still thought Republican voters were basically good and decent people who just had some different opinions and some mistaken ideas and on many subjects were just confused by relentless corporate propaganda.

But then the Republican party dropped every pretense of empathy and became openly delightfully deliriously monstrous and all those people didn't just stick with it but even more exuberantly celebrated Republicanism for finally embracing their true values, and I realized that no nearly every Republican voter is just driven by spite and fear and unwavering hatred. I didn't figure out that conservatism was a lie because of some special genius on my part, it's not because I was smarter than 47% of America or anything, the theory or workability was never of any interest to them, conservatism promised to make other people's families suffer and that's all they care about and that's why they're Republican.

Voyager I posted:

captainblastum posted:

Hunting isn't free. You're just ignoring all of the costs.


I don't disagree but that doesn't make hunting cheaper than buying food.

To be clear, I'm not in any way saying that people shouldn't be able to hunt, but "I want to do this" and "I must do this or I will starve to death" are very different things. "People need to hunt to live" is not a truthful reason to oppose gun control.

captainblastum posted:

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but those don't really seem to address the point that I was trying to make: that I don't believe the claims that people must hunt to survive anywhere in America. There are other, more cost effective choices for getting food.

Mustached Demon posted:

Deer are a plague like locust. The only difference between the two: deer taste good.

Trabisnikof posted:

You just haven't tried a good locust recipe.

C2C - 2.0 posted:

Dude.

Most state residential hunting/fishing licenses are rather cheap, especially weighted against the amount of food you can harvest. Taking guns out of the equation, fishing is another avenue. The cost of entry is low. Plenty of people have hand-me-down rifles/shotguns/rods & reels.

Also, you seem to be extraordinarily mistaken about food costs AND the expense of getting to that food. Some years back, I lived in a small town in Louisiana that had a single independent grocer whose prices were astronomical. I mean to the point where nothing was worth purchasing unless it was in their bi-weekly circular and even then, only sometimes. The only other choice was an hour commute to get to a Walmart then an hour commute back.

On the other hand, I was 10 minutes from publicly available hunting fishing, for which it cost me less than $100 annually for big game, small game, & year-round fishing

captainblastum posted:

That's a great story, I guess? Pretend I told 2, but with the opposite conclusion.

captainblastum posted:

Hunting isn't free. You're just ignoring all of the costs.


I don't disagree but that doesn't make hunting cheaper than buying food.

To be clear, I'm not in any way saying that people shouldn't be able to hunt, but "I want to do this" and "I must do this or I will starve to death" are very different things. "People need to hunt to live" is not a truthful reason to oppose gun control.

evilweasel posted:

hunting is quite a cheap source of meat if your time is low-value or free and you ignore the costs by not paying them (like licence fees). i mean, i've never gone hunting and never will, i don't have a dog in this fight. i absolutely consider it a crime that our society has such a poor safety net that's a reasonable approach for poor families, one that should be remedied by fixing it rather than by relying on hunting. i just am sympathetic to the idea you fix the safety net first. also most gun control that allows any private ownership would permit it, a bolt-action long rifle where you really only need one or two.

Calibanibal posted:

Just leave the deer alone g*ddamn. Just out in the woods eating sticks and salt or w/e. Leave em be

duz posted:

Look at this person that doesn't live & drive in deer country. Annoying fuckers, kill them all.

duz posted:

Look at this person that doesn't live & drive in deer country. Annoying fuckers, kill them all.

Calibanibal posted:

Just leave the deer alone g*ddamn. Just out in the woods eating sticks and salt or w/e. Leave em be

captainblastum posted:

Hunting isn't free. You're just ignoring all of the costs.