What's your take on this?

vicpinto said:
http://media.putfile.com/july07bunnyblast

Personally I don't care about the rabbits but damn, talk about irresponsible - running around at night with loaded rifles, no "downrange" direction, guys running in front of other guys. Talk about an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
I agree it is an accident waiting to happen. There's no way those guys could be sure of their target and what's beyond it. I'll add that I did not watch the entire video. When I saw that the rabbits weren't being hunted for food or fur, I decided to stop watching. I believe and support ethical hunting. Those "men boys" may well end up shooting each other. Maybe the rabbits will run away with a lucky human's foot! [thinking]
Best Regards.
 
I enjoy hunting. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy hunting for sport as a form of pest and population control. However, in a few of those images there seemed to be an enjoyment of the "kill" rather than the sport with one of the guys.

Great video. Great shooting. Looked like fun. However, I walked away feeling a little disturbed.
 
A Buncha Schmucks !

These guys are beneath even the worst "Slob Hunters". [frown]

No regard for safety and a crude display of wanton waste. [angry]

Didn't need to watch the whole thing. Punks. [sad2]
 
Riverside said:
the rabbits weren't being hunted for food or fur
Click to expand...

I think Native Americans had it right. If you are going to take the life of any living creature, you should do it out of need and use every last bit of it.

Those A$$h0les are just shooting because it's fun. [angry][angry]
 
Snapshot said:
I think Native Americans had it right. If you are going to take the life of any living creature, you should do it out of need and use every last bit of it.

Those A$$h0les are just shooting because it's fun. [angry][angry]
Click to expand...

Those just aren't the times we live in anymore. It's necessary to kill for pest and population control. In some areas, rabbits, prairie dogs, coyotes, etc are real problems and need to be thinned. It's not only better for us, but better for the rest of the population.

I don't have a problem with them killing the rabbits, it's just the one guy who seems to enjoy the killing part more than the sport part. That and the fact that he's running around like a moron firing from the hip and hitting nothing.
 
Martlett has a good point. But its the way they are doing it and the poor shooting and unnecessary suffering. Ive shot my share of woodchucks and crows for fun but these guys are not hunting they are just shooting and using living creatures for targets with no regard for the animal.

When I was a kid we used to shoot rats at the dump. And you know what, I'd enjoy doing that today if I could. But now, more often than not, If I cant skin it, cook it and eat it - Im not going to kill it. And if it is a varmit - its a clean, safe, humane shoot and kill....
 
ccm75

You said what I was trying to say. It's not what they were doing that bothered me, it's that they were doing it with no regard for the animal.
 
I thought some parts were clearly repulsive... like is there any need
to make the (nearly dead) rabbit eat the muzzle and then pull the
trigger? That just smacks of torturing an animal for the
sake of one's juvenile amusement. At least a clean, quick kill
is a lot more humane. I don't think it would be nearly as repulsive
if these guys were putting them down quickly, instead
of basically "screwing around" with the animals and spraying
bullets all over. The message they were sending reeks of "yes,
we enjoy being reckless with guns and spraying bullets at rabbits"
as opposed to "2 guys go rabbit hunting". It looked a lot more
like "screwing around with guns and live animals" as opposed to
hunting. It's bad enough that they did it- it's worse that
they taped it and stuck it up in public... I'm not one who is
overly concerned about "image" but this video certainly isn't
doing most gun owners any favors.

Look at a lot of prairie dog hunts, for instance... most of those
guys take up a position with scoped rifles in various calibers
and at least get mostly clean kills out of it- even if some people
do it for the hell of it, at least theres a bit of skill involved. There
are often a lot of grateful farmers, as well. Prairie dogs carry
disease and dig holes which cause cattle to die, etc. So killing
them, in effect, may well prevent another animal from suffering a
long, painful death. Not to mention it's probably also a lot
more humane to just shoot the p-dogs than it is to poison/gas them, etc.


-Mike
 
Reading this makes be glad I'm on dial-up. No temptation to click the link and be repulsed by what sounds like low rent human behavior.....Though I don't hunt anymore, I support it and in my day took more than my share of groundhogs. Had a farmer back in Ohio who broke his back after his tractor literally tipped over because of an out of control groundhog population - hit tractor fell through a tunnel complex. His wife had a few of us come out and take all the groundhogs we could get. It was amazing. Over 40-acres, I could not believe how many there were. We set up fields of fire, were sure of our backstop and had the advantage of a low ridge which we could use for cover and to shoot down at the groundhogs. Over 2 days we killed 30+ - amazing. It was quite fun as well. I had my HK93A2 dialed in.... [wink]

This sounds like simply killing for killing sake....
 
MrTwigg said:
These guys are beneath even the worst "Slob Hunters". [frown]

No regard for safety and a crude display of wanton waste. [angry]

Didn't need to watch the whole thing. Punks. [sad2]
Click to expand...

agreed, blasting away wildly at an animal is just wrong imho. There were a couple rabbits that took 10 rounds to go down because asshat was either missing and/or wounding it.
 
I only watched a little, didn't have to watch the rest. It's people like that who help give gun owners a bad reputation. I'm not anti hunting in the least but killing anything for the fun of it is wrong and disturbing. And what was with that opening? what do they think they look impressive or something, think they are a bunch of bad asses? I think they are in need of some therapy. People who are on the fence about 2A issues see something like this and assume we are all like that.

And how did these losers learn how to shoot, you got a rabbit 20 feet or so in front of you standing still and you can't hit the damn thing. It's pathetic..
 
MassMark said:
...Had a farmer back in Ohio who broke his back after his tractor literally tipped over because of an out of control groundhog population - hit tractor fell through a tunnel complex. His wife had a few of us come out and take all the groundhogs we could get. ....
Click to expand...

Wow !

I know groundhogs can cause a lot of damage and I've seen what happens to horses and cattle when they step into holes. [sad2]

But I never knew they could undermine the ground that badly though. [thinking]
 
I could only watch a bit of it. Guys like this do not help our cause.

I have hunted deer and will again in the future. I will eat the venison when I do (finally) get a deer.

I have reduced the local population of rodents around my house so I understand and accept that it is sometimes necessary to reduce pests. And I understand that in parts of the west they are overpopulated with rabbits.

Back when we let our cats out, they did a far more effective job controlling rodents around the house, but coyotes, dogs, raccoons, and cars make that a bad idea. We're close enough to the road and neighbors houses that an air rifle or CB caps may be frowned upon by neighbors and gendarmes. The only effective solution that I've come up with is "have a heart" traps, then submerge the whole trap in a garbage can full of water. Frankly, though I really dislike doing it. I would prefer a technique that would end the critter's life more quickly.

As for these yahoos, no they were not safe at all. Nor were they particularly skilled. They would have been far more efficient (and provided a quicker kill to the rabbits) by using a shotgun.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
The only effective solution that I've come up with is "have a heart" traps, then submerge the whole trap in a garbage can full of water. Frankly, though I really dislike doing it. I would prefer a technique that would end the critter's life more quickly.
Click to expand...

I'd opt for the air gun. I live in the 'burbs, and that's what I use. According to the MSPCA, if you're caught drowning tree rats, you will be prosecuted.
 
M1911 said:
We're close enough to the road and neighbors houses that an air rifle or CB caps may be frowned upon neighbors and gendarmes.
Click to expand...
Consider using an air gun that has an appropriate built-in "lead dust collector"*. Several companies make them and they are extremely quiet.

*Screw-on collectors can also be used on some air guns, but many argue their legality and AFAIK the BATF has refused to rule on such air gun collectors one way or the other.
 
M1911 said:
The thing is, I'm within 150' of a road and 500' of neighbors. That would be a violation of hunting laws.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lawyer will jump in to correct me but:

I believe those aren't "hunting laws", but firearm laws. Additionally, I don't believe air guns fall under firearm laws. Pertaining to air guns, it says you can't fire them across a right of way. That's all I've seen.
 
I've seen press reports of people charged with violating that even though they weren't hunting. In addition, there is always the chief's trump card of finding someone "unsuitable" to have an LTC due to perceived misbehavior.

Doing a search of the MGLs, I found this:

Chapter 269: Section 12E. Discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling or other building in use; exceptions

Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight.
Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything to do with hunting, so it would seem that using a .22lr and CB caps would be in violation. The next question would be whether an air rifle is considered a "rifle" for the purposes of this section.

Drowning the rodents can't be perceived as endangering the neighbors, while an air rifle could be perceived that way (even though the geometry of my yard is such that it wouldn't endanger anyone -- there is a hill out back between us and our neighbors behind us).
 
Last edited:
This is what I was referring to:

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGSIN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE

TAMPERING WITH IDENTIFYING NUMBERS OF CERTAIN FIREARMS

Chapter 269: Section 12B. Air rifles; possession by minors; shooting

Section 12B. No minor under the age of eighteen shall have an air rifle or so-called BB gun in his possession while in any place to which the public has a right of access unless he is accompanied by an adult or unless he is the holder of a sporting or hunting license and has on his person a permit from the chief of police of the town in which he resides granting him the right of such possession. No person shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or so-called BB gun into, from or across any street, alley, public way or railroad or railway right of way, and no minor under the age of eighteen shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or BB gun unless he is accompanied by an adult or is the holder of a sporting or hunting license. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall be confiscated. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall, by the written authority of the court, be forwarded to the colonel of the state police, who may dispose of said article in the same manner as prescribed in section ten.
Click to expand...
 
kevin9 said:
The answer is no as the MGL you quoted gave the reference for the definition (C140, S121).
Click to expand...

But only in the context of the word firearm:

Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun
Click to expand...

The way I read that is that the "as defined in" refers to the word firearm. In Ch 140 S121, the word firearm is defined to be effectively a handgun. It doesn't define rifle or shotgun. I'd guess that an air rifle would not be considered a rifle nevertheless. But in this crazy state...
 
Look further down in C140 S121 for the definitions of rifle and shotgun.

It is reasonable to conclude that air rifles and BB guns are not firearms given that they are referred to separately from firearms, guns, rifles and shotguns thought the MGLs, and that they have their own laws that don't always match up to the firearms laws.
 
kevin9 said:
Look further down in C140 S121 for the definitions of rifle and shotgun.

It is reasonable to conclude that air rifles and BB guns are not firearms given that they are referred to separately from firearms, guns, rifles and shotguns thought the MGLs, and that they have their own laws that don't always match up to the firearms laws.
Click to expand...

Kevin:

Sorry that I wasn't clear in previous post. I'm well aware that C140 S121 defines rifle and shotgun. My point was that the language of c269 s12e clearly specifies that the word firearm is used as defined in C140 S121. But is not clear in C269 S12e that the words rifle and shotgun are used as defined in C140 S121. Because of the construction of the sentence, it appears that it could mean: "firearm (firearm as defined in C140 S121), rifle and shotgun."

Now do you see my point?

Since it clearly references C140 S121 for firearm, and C140 is littered with "firearm, rifle, and shotgun," it is logical that to believe that C269 S12e is using it the same way. But the language is not clear to me to be absolutely sure.
 

Similar threads

Question on this firearm?
Replies
13
Views
467
dcmdon
dcmdon
An interesting take on guns from the other side.
Replies
17
Views
646
MAGA99
MAGA99
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
619
Broc
Broc
Demented Biden Threatens Gun Owners at Anti-2A Event: ‘They Need F-16s to Take on Government’ - Same Day Hunter Biden Convicted - Proves Need for AR's
Replies
26
Views
748
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Ok, which NES-er did this?
Replies
16
Views
573
straightshooterjake
S
Back
Top Bottom