This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

Ultimate Deer Hunting Gun Revealed has been added as a related post - related requested by ChaosEngine on that post.

Had a similar situation with a brown bear here in the south, was deer hunting with my dad, we tried to leave it alone but it wanted to get too close... long story short, we didn't bag a deer that day, but we brought home a bear and had a bbq for the family.

Can't wait to go deer hunting with it. Of course, I'll wind up picking my deer up with a sponge, but hey....

I think MaxWilder's close, but there's more to it. Check out this graph of American's perceptions of wealth inequality verses reality, and their ideal situation: http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/the-distribution-of-wealth-perception-vs-reality/

People don't appreciate how much it has skewed. They don't really understand what has happened, and I think the real problem is that the working class which is growing (rather than the middle class) has been sold that it's in their best interests to lose their rights and be denied free health care etc - that the economy will fall over if they do.

There's a great book called 'Deer Hunting with Jesus' - http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Joe+Bageant&sts=t&x=0&y=0

which goes right into the causes of how the Republicans sold the working poor a pup. Worth a look.

Here's another awful comparison for you dft.

If I had a choice between starving and eating a human baby, I'd starve.
If I had a choice between starving and eating a cat, I'd live.

The instinctual feelings you talk about exist almost exclusively between humans and other humans. We are built to protect young, our young. Most don't care about other animals. Most eat other animals. Just because it is a cat and many have them as pets doesn't make it any more wrong than if it was a squirrel or a rabbit.

As for the killing innocent creatures comment, show me a creature that isn't innocent. When I go deer hunting, it isn't because the deer came to my house and robbed me and stole my Nike's.

There's a pretty good book about how the Republican movement courted the working class in America - it's called 'Deer Hunting with Jesus', I think. Worth a look.

Two problems with that morality:

1. Ritual is relevant.

If you kill only one animal, why does it matter if the lethal wound is from an arrow or a bullet? Does your argument stand if the weapons are a 17th century musket versus a compound bow? How about a knife coated with fast-acting neurotoxin? Blow darts? Hand to hand, but you are wearing a high-tech exoskeleton?

2. Omniscient is required.

Imagine it is instead a hermit who purchases guns and poaches the lion, one who has never seen the "endangered species" list. How are they to know the population of lions, or the population of lions worldwide, unless they have omniscience?

Or, if you leave on Friday for a week-long deer hunting trip, and after you leave every deer worldwide falls ill from a worldwide-virus except the ones in your geographical location. That species is now endangered yet you would have to be omniscient to realize what you were doing was now morally wrong.

Yes, killing lions may be, or should be, socially wrong; but you aren't talking about socially wrong you are talking about morally wrong because you said "they deserve to die" not "they deserve to be socially ostracized."

>> ^Farhad2000:
Look if you go hunting a over populated species with a bow knife and a bow and arrow I get it. I might not agree with it but I get it.
But when you are 'hunting' with a rifle, a species that is protected, for some kind of stupid kick then you totally deserve to be mauled by the animal.

Deer hunting? That tag makes no sense. Automatic weapons are designed to hunt people.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'my cousin vinny, Marissa Tomei, oscar, deer hunting' to 'my cousin vinny, Marissa Tomei, oscar, deer hunting, deeah' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'my cousin vinny Marissa Tomei oscar deer hunting' to 'my cousin vinny, Marissa Tomei, oscar, deer hunting' - edited by Zeph

It's funny, and I'm somewhat squeamish about hunting, but I think he might be barking up the wrong tree.

Quail hunting is actually one of the more lively and challenging types of hunting (if done reasonably). You're walking a lot, trying to lead and control dogs, trying to find the covey's, and regardless of what Lewis Black thinks it takes pretty good reflexes and aim to shoot wild birds as they scatter. If they're pen-raised or have their wings clipped then yes it's much less sporting.

Deer hunting I would say is less sporting, because you're typically sitting in a stand or a blind for hours just waiting for a deer to wander past. You can take your time, line up a good shot, and blam.

Also most properties will have fencing. That doesn't make it any less sporting with regard to deer or quail because they can both easily go over or through those fences. And the ranch that Cheney was hunting on is insanely huge so a fence around the perimeter could still be miles away.

Well I guess deer hunting is going to be a bit easier for me next year. Kill gut butcher kthxbai?

JAPR, the .270 is just a .30-'06 cartridge necked down from .30 inches diameter to .27 (actually .277, I think) with the bullet shedding about 1/3 of its weight (so it shoots flatter). As such, it actually kicks a fair bit less than a .30-'06, which is a long-time standard and one of the most popular calibers ever. Unlike the original poster, I would not call this a "very big gun." It's standard fare for deer hunting.

I might not have said anything, but the whole point of the original post and video was to dispel myths. No need to create new ones.

MarineGunrock, I remember hearing about the "tumbling bullet" wound from a 5.56mm but have read numerous articles since then refuting that logic. It's apparently an "urban" legend that refuses to die.

As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.

Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.

History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.

Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.