BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


My introduction :)

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
09:52 / 15.03.07
As an aside, let me add that don't actually own any guns. I do have a meat cleaver I stole from a chinese-themed restaurant that used to employ me that I keep between the mattress and boxspring of my bed. I find it a comforting presence. It is, in all honesty, a pretty intimidating thing, made no less so by the fact that it has tasted human flesh (mine and my former roomates. We would get drunk and toss it to each other).

The monsters under my bed are scared shitless of it, I swear.
 
 
Lama glama
09:55 / 15.03.07
I don't have much to contribute in the way of gun-discussion, other than to say that I'm staunchly opposed to the things. Where I live, Limerick, there are frequent stories of gang shootings, and occasionally drive by shootings. The most recent of which injured a four year old child. These local experiences have definitely coloured my opinion on gun use and I'll die quite happily having never touched one.

Regarding control of feral organisms in Australia: according to one of my recent zoology lectures the proliferation of invasive plant-life, weeds and other non-animals damages the natural Australian ecosystem much more harshly than the animals do. It's estimated that 4 billion dollars are spent yearly removing weeds and other non-indigenous flora.

Of course, going out and plucking some weeds probably isn't as exciting for you, Sole Eater, as being at one with mother nature by popping a cap in her.
 
 
Lama glama
09:59 / 15.03.07
Or as useful as you seem to think being a warrior is. My wonderfully concealed point was that you going out plucking weeds is about as useful as you killing the occasional rabbit or donkey.

It makes little or no mark on the growth of the ferals, so is hardly justification for your hunting excursions. Of course, like Alex's Grandma, I'm no vegetarian, so who am I to judge?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:05 / 15.03.07
Looking again on the bright side, eliminating non-native flora would probably require...

A flamethrower.

How much fun would that be?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
10:11 / 15.03.07
It makes little or no mark on the growth of the ferals, so is hardly justification for your hunting excursions.

Well no, one gun-weilding man probably won't make much of an impact on overbreeding alone, unless he's packing an RPG or something. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that taking out the occasional disease bearing, essential crop devouring animal helps a little bit.

And yes, weeding would probably make the same impact, but then who is going to shoot the bulls in the face? Eh? You? I bet you won't, you big softie.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
10:36 / 15.03.07
I dunno. The animals are marked for death, yes? They will do real, lasting damage if left unchecked, yes?

I don't know when this became a given for those donkeys and buffalo. They could, we learn, be blasted by a "helo". They could spread disease, though I don't know how much of a threat this is. How every type of animal in Sole Eater's target zone became death-marked and doomed to die, and so a legitimate target for a coup de gras I'm not sure.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:46 / 15.03.07
For that matter, ethically, are humans any more deserving of life than our dumb cousins? Is it our own personal fear of death which makes the thought of killing another sapient so abhorrent? I really do think so. After all, we are just highly evolved animals.

So (theoretically of course) you'd have no issue with killing another human from long-range just so you can feel all powerful and such-like?

Ooh yeah. Really comfortable about you being armed.

I find it strange that people are so willing to scoff at something they have never tried.

I've never illegally invaded and occupied a country. Does this mean I should have no opinion on the occupation of Iraq?
 
 
jentacular dreams
10:48 / 15.03.07
Gah!

Cruel? Ask the native species which have been pushed out of their niche by the ferals. Ask the indigenous folk whose traditional lifestyle has been destroyed by the hordes of disease-ridden interlopers.

We are talking about australia yeah? A country who's megafauna was all but wiped out by man (long before gunpowder)? The large feral animals of today - camels, buffalo, deer, donkeys and horses - what exactly are they competing against? The only large grazing animals I know of in oz are the roos - hardly endangered.

Wikipedia - not always the most reliable source I'll grant, says that the camels have an estimated population of up to 700,000 in 2005, expected to double in eight years, jeopardising cattle pastures. And we all know how good cattle ranches are for the envirnoment. The same is true of the feral donkey. Perhaps good for the economy would be abetter mantra?

Interestingly, two species of the feral deer (both hog deer) in australia are endangered in their native habitats.

And the brumby horse is capable of being tamed and is thought to have cultural signficance.

People have this strange idea that the environment is (or should be) a static, peaceful thing. It's not. Successful species spread. Fragile ones do not. 'Feral' animals tend to be so because [a] they can survive alongside man and [b] there are environmental niches available (or occupied by organisms less-suited to the current situation - which I would suggest probably links back to [a]).

I'm not saying that feral animals should be allowed to take over (tsk, immigrants eh). But if the native megafauna of australia were still around, this problem might not exist (nature abhors a vacuum after all). If we wish to control the feral populations then that will be a never-ending task. Not only that, but with increasing environmental pressure from humankind and our effects, this becomes a conservation battle that will be lost slowly, species by species. Deliberate species introduction has a pretty shoddy history, but maybe rebuilding an ecosystem is idea that shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. Large predators usually have fairly easily controlled populations. Perhaps a few lion prides would work better?
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
10:55 / 15.03.07
ohmigod guys LIONS WITH RPGs AND FLAMETHROWERS

It's the future of enviromentalism. Fuck yeah.
 
 
Seth
12:08 / 15.03.07
firing a big automatic weapon does indeed have a frightening rush when the sudden sense of deadly power first hits you, but it was nothing compared to the rappelling. Leaping off the side of a building can provide a pretty big rush too

Ever thought of combining the two?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:13 / 15.03.07
Like the end of Dynasty series one?
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:22 / 15.03.07
Ever thought of combining the two?

"I'm never going in a tall building again!"
 
 
Quantum
12:49 / 15.03.07
As a staunch tofu-loving vegetarian, I was more than a little surprised to realise Sole Eater is right. If my loved ones were in a room with a scary man with a gun, I *would* want a sniper (warrior) to shoot him because my tofu-loving ways would be insufficiently deadly to defend my loved ones.

I am, thertefore, off to buy a gun, and as a committed environmentalist a flamethrower too. And a lion. And an RPG for the helos. And a Sheffield Wednesday shirt. Those terrorist donkeys had better fear my fat blow now.
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:55 / 15.03.07
I might just hire Wario, champion of the mushroom kingdom. Guns are as nothing compared to his capitalist might!
 
 
Quantum
13:21 / 15.03.07
Why oh why can't I change my screen name yet?! How did psychic Flyboy get his gunplay name in before any of this came up?! It's eerie.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:29 / 15.03.07
My dad used to have a flamethrower for use around the garden. Boy, that thing was fun. Using it to kill animals would almost certainly have been horrendous.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:01 / 15.03.07
How every type of animal in Sole Eater's target zone became death-marked and doomed to die, and so a legitimate target for a coup de gras I'm not sure.

I think it was probably around the time he started phoning his ex-wife up and asking her in explicit detail whether her new boyfriend was as good as him in bed*, that the urge to feel strong, in control, LIKE A GOD, first led him to embark on his ecological quest.

*NB: sometimes I make things up for rhetorical effect, but not this time - see the Cheating thread.
 
 
Olulabelle
14:06 / 15.03.07
I think that conversation should stay over there in the relevant thread.
 
 
Kirin? Who the heck?
16:19 / 15.03.07
'It is, in all honesty, a pretty intimidating thing, made no less so by the fact that it has tasted human flesh (mine and my former roomates. We would get drunk and toss it to each other). [Emphasis added]'

Are these two things connected, perchance?
 
 
grant
17:10 / 15.03.07
Just saying....

Well, actually, I don't know what I'm saying with that one.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
17:14 / 15.03.07
You're saying I should have another sammidge. It is OBVIOUS.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
17:42 / 15.03.07
Tuna Ghost: Dude, using a knife, particularly a giant-fuckoff Cleaver against another human being, even one about to kill you, is going to psychologically scar you infinitely more than a gun would.
Getting down to grisly details: if somebody's in your house then they're likely to be close enough for even somebody who isn't a TRUE WARRIOR to hit an assailant to kill them more or less instantly. Guns, particularly those with hollow-point bullets mentioned upthread, do truly horrible things to people, but providing your shot lands in the chest or head they do them quickly. Cleavers, not so much. It will take many, many slices of your mighty blade to kill somebody quickly, a single wound to the throat or head won't do it. You'll have to do it close enough to your attacker to feel their last breath on you, get their blood all over you- all those vivid descriptions of death in bad noir novels will be your reality until the post-traumatic stress abides, which will be a long, long time.
Now, you're probably saying: 'But Phex, you handsome devil, I would use the knife to scare people off, and the occasional game of catch- I would never kill somebody'. Well, if somebody does break into your place and if they're fucked up enough psychologically or chemically to call your bluff then it comes down to you or them. You'll pick 'you' I imagine, unless they're going to discover the cure for cancer or something (remember to check beforehand), then you're in a position where you'll probably have to kill someone.
Basically, I strongly suggest you get that knife out from under your bed and put it in your kitchen where it belongs. Buy a baseball bat- if you hit somebody around the head they should be rendered unconscious as opposed to dead and there's very little- to put it bluntly- splatter involved. If you're in a particularly bad neighborhood and in a country where it's legal you could even consider getting a gun, which has several practical and psychological advantages over a cleaver.
 
 
spectre
18:20 / 15.03.07
for reals on the knife ineffectiveness as a home-defense weapon. My roommate in college kept a carving knife in his room (you know the kind I mean: long and thin, sharp but flexible) in case of break-ins, his logic being that he could stab someone with it in the most efficient way possible, better than he could slash them or chop them with a cleaver (he was a fencer).

Long, sad, story short, there was a break-in at the neighbor's place, the neighbor came at the guy with a chef's knife, got knocked the fuck out, and then murdered with his own knife.

Needless to say, my roomie got rid of the knife, and bought a succession of increasingly intimidating club-type weapons (baseball bat, sledgehammer, then aluminum baseball bat with some lead melted down inside the tip).

Moral of the story: ...well, I guess there isn't much of a moral. Being attacked is terrible, and...uhm...blunt weapons make you feel better? I got nothing.

And forgive the admittedly callous nature of this story. This is when I lived in Baltimore.
 
 
Mon Oncle Ignatius
18:22 / 15.03.07
But it is big and it is cleaver.
 
 
Tsuga
00:17 / 16.03.07
People have this strange idea that the environment is (or should be) a static, peaceful thing. It's not. Successful species spread. Fragile ones do not. 'Feral' animals tend to be so because [a] they can survive alongside man and [b] there are environmental niches available (or occupied by organisms less-suited to the current situation - which I would suggest probably links back to [a]).
If, by less-suited, you mean evolved over millennia into the ecosystem they exist in, rather than having no natural control within that system, then you're correct. But I don't think you meant that. I don't know if existing alongside humans should really be the criteria for a species viability, but most humans do want to look at it that way. I mean, we are number one.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:43 / 16.03.07
Oh, I'm not making a value judgement and dearly wish it weren't the case, but I think ability to survive in a human dominated environment it's becoming more and more a major factor for selection.

having no natural control within that system
All (or at least the majority) of fauna and flora exert some control over their environment (plants bind soil together, some animals build burrows or nests, many insects, especially ants, do loads to alter their environment)*.

Sadly our control over the environment tends to trump other species, and often without us even intending to. Which is surely how we've made a mess of things.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:44 / 16.03.07
*Sorry there was a footnote that i decided not to post.
 
 
Tsuga
10:08 / 16.03.07
our control over the environment tends to trump other species, and often without us even intending to. Which is surely how we've made a mess of things.
Absolutely.
When I was speaking of "natural control" I meant co-evolving checks and balances on any species' population, which gets thrown off by introduction of new species with no controls. I will start a thread on this in the lab soon, I guess.
 
 
Janean Patience
10:48 / 16.03.07
Stoat: My dad used to have a flamethrower for use around the garden.

Uh? I mean, that's not standard gardening equipment is it? What else did he have, a pruning shotgun?
 
 
Triplets
10:49 / 16.03.07
Flymo-chuks.
 
 
Seth
10:56 / 16.03.07
A scythe! Yes!
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:19 / 16.03.07
Stoat: My dad used to have a flamethrower for use around the garden.

Uh? I mean, that's not standard gardening equipment is it? What else did he have, a pruning shotgun?


Stoat does your Dad raise prize-winning triffids by any chance?
 
 
Janean Patience
11:26 / 16.03.07
"Son, you can never be too well-armed in the garden. One time a rose pricked me on the thumb. It drew blood. I had to take the motherfucker out with a pair of Mac-10s."
 
 
Quantum
12:24 / 16.03.07
It's a manly version of the leafblower.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:56 / 16.03.07
No, he used it for pampas grass and stuff. It was WICKED. I begged my mum to let me inherit it, but it got given away.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
  
Add Your Reply