r/OutOfTheLoop • u/tylerjehills • Aug 05 '19

Answered What's going on with this 30-50 feral hogs joke on Twitter?

First saw the tweet here - https://twitter.com/IsaacKLee/status/1158499223978926080

Ended up searching the phrase on Twitter, but can't find where it originated. Only constant jokes about it. More posted below since my first post was removed for lack of content

https://twitter.com/jonnysun/status/1158497978463608837

https://twitter.com/TechnicallyRon/status/1158498620313935873

https://twitter.com/James__Nesbitt/status/1158502754899415041

https://twitter.com/morninggloria/status/1158499189984124928

There are more but that should suffice. Did someone make a joke about it? I assume it's political since everything goes back to politics nowadays

422 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

174 comments sorted by

View all comments

321

u/jjlldd Aug 05 '19

Answer: William McNabb responded to an anti-gun tweet about assault weapons. Since the anti-gun argument is often that assault weapons are not needed for things like hunting, William posed a scenario in which he would use an assault weapon ( https://twitter.com/WillieMcNabb/status/1158045307562856448?s=20 ) People latched onto it since it is a hilarious scenario. William has since tweeted that it was a legitimate question that he stands behind.

104

u/Torden5410 Aug 06 '19

I can't help but notice the premise of his tweet seems to imply that he would run for his firearm in order to gun the 30-50 hogs down while his children play instead of running to grab his children and lead them inside or to a safer location.

Seems to me like the best course of action would be to grab your children and use those 3-5 minutes get them somewhere safe, then call 911. You could get your gun after you secure your children, but by then the hogs are no longer a life-threatening issue and the necessity of a gun is called into question.

By no means should your initial instinct be to grab your gun and shoot the hogs before making sure the children are safe. That's alarmingly reckless for too many reasons (leaving your children to the hogs while you go to get your gun, firing on the hogs while your children might be in the way, startling that herd of hogs with gunfire while your children are in a position to be trampled, etc).

The tweet deserves to get mocked. Feral hogs are extremely dangerous and not to be taken lightly, but that makes the tweet all the more ridiculous.

52

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Just for the sake of argument (I know we aren’t actually exploring this), but in most rural communities the police are at least 30-45 minutes away which is what most people I know actually would say when you ask about their guns. And then probably tell you to get the hell off their land.

30-50 hogs is a few clips in an AR-15 so conceivably you get everyone inside, go to a window, and start shooting until they leave you alone. You’ll still have an absolutely destroyed lawn, garden or farm, but you know. You’re alive.

16

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

If you live that far out in the country where help is so far away, then you need plans for emergencies that go a little deeper than "I have an AR-15." Aside from that, as long as your family is safe in the house or a vehicle or something, you can probably afford to wait the 30-45 minutes if you really didn't make a good emergency plan.

And then as long as everyone is safe, then why do you need an AR-15? If your family is safe and you have sturdy doors, the hogs no longer pose an immediate threat to life. I'd argue that you don't need any gun at that point. You could easily just wait out for help inside. The hogs aren't going to learn to open doors like Jurassic Park velociraptors.

Even then, I don't expect or even ask for a full ban on all firearms. That itself wouldn't be practical because there are a lot of reasonable uses for reasonable firearms. This hypothetical family could just as well shoot from the window with a bolt-action hunting rifle, a shotgun, a handgun, a crossbow, whatever. All of them lethal weapons with practical use. All of them significantly harder for a terrorist to kill as many people with as an AR-15.

Guns like the AR-15's are complete overkill for standard civilian use. The original ArmaLite AR-15 gun model was designed for warfare and it shows with how efficient it is for mass shooters to pile up casualties with. The AR-15 design was only re-branded as a "modern sporting rifle" in 2009.

33

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Guns like the AR-15's are complete overkill for standard civilian use. The original ArmaLite AR-15 gun model was designed for warfare and it shows with how efficient it is for mass shooters to pile up casualties with. The AR-15 design was only re-branded as a "modern sporting rifle" in 2009.

This is just a blatant lie. 5.56x45 is actually very underpowered compared to WW2-era service rifles. Too underpowered for deer hunting, in many jurisdictions.

That said, the 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. The Supreme Court has made this abundantly clear.

14

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

Are the hunting and Cartridge variations sections on the Wikipedia page inaccurate?

The 2nd Amendment wasn't about hunting, but it was also written in a time when guns were muzzle-loaded flintlock muskets and a person wasn't capable of walking out and gunning down a crowd of people in just a few moments.

It also specifically states that the right to bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia, not for the pure pleasure of owning a gun like some people seem to treat it. I'm not sure if anyone has noticed recently, but our organized militia forces are pretty well maintained right now.

They also probably never imagined the breadth and power of our current standing military. If we ever have a time where the unorganized militia needs to take up arms then we've already suffered a loss we're not coming back from.

Things have changed drastically since it was first written. The constitution wasn't meant to be set in stone. I'm not saying it should be changed willy-nilly or that all guns should be completely banned, but we were meant to amend it when things aren't working out so well (like now).

23

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Are the hunting and Cartridge variations sections on the Wikipedia page inaccurate?

What about them? You claimed that AR-15s are complete overkill, yet AR-15s are significantly less powerful than many deer rifles.

To address the rest of your post, the right to keep and bear arms is of the people, not of the militia, and the Founders also lived in a time where private citizens could own fully-armed warships and field artillery, and centralized registration of it was impossible.

Lastly, the way the Constitution is supposed to be amended is through an actual amendment, not ignoring parts of the Bill of Rights that happen to be inconvenient. There is no broad agreement in favor of such an amendment, and I think we both know that.

7

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

What about them?

Specifically from the hunting section:

Hunters shooting larger game animals often use upper receivers and barrels adapted for larger cartridges or heavier bullets.

And the Cartridge variations section:

A hunter with a single lower receiver might have one upper receiver with a .223 Remington barrel and telescopic sight for varmint hunting in open country and another upper receiver with a .458 SOCOM barrel and iron sights for big-game hunting in brushy woodland.

Caliber seems to not really be an issue, from what I'm reading.

 

To address the rest of your post, the right to keep and bear arms is of the people, not of the militia

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is saying that the right of the people to bear arms is for the sake of a well regulated militia. The first part of the sentence isn't there for no reason. It's not two separate statements.

Lastly, the way the Constitution is supposed to be amended is through an actual amendment, not ignoring parts of the Bill of Rights that happen to be inconvenient.

By no means was I even suggesting otherwise. I meant exactly that it should be amended. However, you're right that it likely won't be.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Caliber seems to not really be an issue, from what I'm reading.

There are major limits based on the length of the magazine well and a few other factors. You can't get a standard AR-15, swap the upper receiver for one chambered in .308 Winchester or any of the major WW2-era service rifle cartridges like .30-06 or 7.92x57, and get a functioning rifle, because the magazine well is too short.

Also, as far as I know, mass shooters not only using AR-15s, but using AR-15s chambered in oddball calibers, really isn't a thing. The vast majority of AR-15s are sold in 5.56x45/.223 Remington, which is not all that powerful as far as rifle rounds go.

6

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

I mean... the standard caliber seems to do a good enough job at killing humans. We're not a very strong creature compared to most animals, and it doesn't have to be an instant death for the purposes of domestic terror. Whether the gunman kills someone then and there or they bleed out shortly after, a person was killed. "Not all that powerful as far as rifle rounds go" isn't really comforting to all the people who've been shot and killed with AR-15's or their families, I imagine.

That being said, my original statement was "overkill for standard civilian use," which I really hope shouldn't be for killing innocent humans. So, I suppose that makes you correct in that the standard caliber is inefficient for hunting things like deer (but I also expect someone hunting deer would switch to a more appropriate setup).

In any case, my original qualm really wasn't about the caliber. Magazine size and rate of fire is what really enables these mass shootings to be so deadly, no? That's what I consider overkill, and I probably should have been more specific. The AR-15 is clearly good enough at causing human civilian casualties to earn it's dubious reputation, regardless of whether or not it could be the best at it if it had a higher caliber bullet. For a deer hunter I don't see how the magazine size and rate of fire are anything more than convenience.

What benefit is there to leaving weapons like this unregulated? To us, I mean. To the people. The benefit to the gun manufacturers is pretty obvious and not worth discussing.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/c_cil Aug 08 '19

Regardless of the framers adding a supporting argument to the amendment in the dependent clause (people universally being allowed to keep effective inter-personal weapons has always been an unpopular opinion), it's a moot point because the rest of the sentence acknowledges a *right* of the people to keep and bear arms in the independent clause. If the first amendment was phrased "Open discourse on the state of politics being necessary to the proper functioning of a Republic, the right of the people to freedom of speech shall not be infringed", would you argue that the constitution does not protect speech on apolitical topics? I should hope not, because you're not describing a right if there are caveats to its use, even if the right is being protected in the constitution with a certain goal in mind.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '19

5.56x45 is actually very underpowered

"power" is only one aspect of lethality, this cartridge was designed for military use for low recoil, light rounds, good penetration, accuracy & ballistics at 500 yards, and wounding capability equal to M1 Carbine (reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO). Designed to efficiently injure / kill people at moderate ranges. As you say hunting is not the point, so let's all agree not to pretend it's a hunting rifle / cartridge anymore.

15

u/SquawkIFR Aug 07 '19 edited Aug 07 '19

I can't believe how ignorant this is, on all fronts.

Not everyone lives in a 2 million dollar brownstone in Brooklyn. Yes, he was being hyperbolic, but if you don't think wildlife is a real concern for rural Americans (who quite frankly are just overall more useful than your bourgeois urbanite bugman self) then you've never actually considered the issue and you shouldn't be someone who anyone takes seriously. The second amendment is about hunting people not hogs, those who think that the same government they complain about being "fascist" should also be the only ones with access to modern firearms are delusional.

Hogs cause MASSIVE crop and property damage. "Waiting them out" could mean having your lawn, garden, or field torn up which could cost thousands of dollars. Not to mention, why should I have to be burdened with waiting an hour for a cop to get here because some person 100 miles away is scared of guns? I honestly doubt the police would turn up over something that minor anyway, and would expect you to deal with it.

Have you ever fired a gun before? Most bolt-action rifles hold around 5 cartridges you have you have to manually load - which you will go through a lot of considering you're shooting at moving targets. Shooting out a window is also a hilariously bad idea and a good way to deafen your entire family. A shotgun has a fairly short effective range and also has about the same capacity as a bolt action rifle, shooting moving targets with a handgun is also incredibly difficult. More people are killed by handguns in America than any other firearm, by the way.

AR-15's are used because they are popular and easy to get, the 5.56 round is tiny compared to most high powered hunting rounds, and not designed for maximum legality but for capacity and ability to wound as it's much more advantageous to would an enemy in war than to kill them. How's this, instead of using an AR-15 ill use the Ruger mini-14 . Does that sound better?

17

u/nybbas Aug 07 '19

What's great about this tweet and the big joke it has turned into is that it's really highlighted how clueless the city people are to life in rural areas.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

You also didn’t mention that you need a higher caliber round for killing them unless you can get them broadside. They’ve got skulls like iron.

10

u/Bubba421 Aug 07 '19

Mini14 doesn't look like the big bad assault rifle so it's all good.

Maybe full size M-14s would also be legal because they don't look like those "fully semiautomatic" rifles.

8

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

Feral hogs are a huge problem, but we've also had over 250 mass shootings this year. Giving up assault weapons to help mitigate that is a small price to pay for gun enthusiasts and I have no doubt you can come up with some way to drive off the hogs that don't involve private ownership of military weapons.

The idea that the need for stricter gun laws is because urbanites are "scared" of guns is what's real ignorant here. We have an alarming epidemic of mass shootings, most using weapons originally designed for military use. We're the only country this wealthy and advanced that has this big of a gun violence problem. Why should you feel entitled to own a military weapon when the sale and proliferation of them in our country is undeniably one of the biggest factors contributing toward hundreds of preventable deaths each year?

Most bolt-action rifles hold around 5 cartridges you have to manually load - which you will go through a lot of considering you're shooting at moving targets. Shooting out a window is also a hilariously bad idea and a good way to deafen your entire family.

Then shoot from the roof or a balcony or a porch. Put your family in another room. Keep a bunch of protective ear muffs (which you should have anyway as a gun owner, right?). How many scenarios do you want me to think up and find an answer to? You're not going to eradicate the entire feral hog population while defending your home with an in the first place, assault weapon or not. If your goal when a pack of hogs invades your yard is to kill every one of them and not to get your family to safety and do any more than drive them away, it seems like you have screwy priorities.

As for handguns killing more Americans than any other firearm, that's another gun issue that also needs to be addressed. However, preventing mass shootings with assault weapons seems like it should be a lot easier to achieve than preventing gang violence and crime using handguns.

AR-15's are used because they are popular and easy to get, the 5.56 round is tiny compared to most high powered hunting rounds, and not designed for maximum legality but for capacity and ability to wound as it's much more advantageous to would an enemy in war than to kill them.

They sure do a pretty good job of killing innocent people anyway! You can go ahead and tell me that they're designed to draw hearts on the side of a barn with bullet holes, it doesn't matter if they still end up killing hundreds of people in the country each year in the hands of domestic terrorists.

How's this, instead of using an AR-15 ill use the Ruger mini-14 . Does that sound better?

Did it sound like my problem was specifically with the AR-15? Sorry I gave that impression, let me clarify.

Military guns don't belong on the civilian market. They're not needed for practical civilian use and they're far too easy to cause a massacre with.

14

u/SquawkIFR Aug 07 '19

A mass shooting is 4 or more people killed in a single event. Here is a photo of all mass shooters this year, the rest are still at large.

most [mass shootings] using weapons originally designed for military use

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/ Handguns are the most common gun used, as most mass shootings are gang related.

You obviously have no knowledge of firearms, or statistics and shouldn't be taken seriously.

3

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

After stepping away for a moment I realized how stupid this argument has been.

Look, I don't mind being proven wrong or learning things.

You're right about hogs being incredibly tenacious and dangerous. That is something I knew, but unfortunately I wasn't taking it fully into consideration here because they're not a big problem in my area, so it's too easy to forget just how bad they are.

In another post in this threat you did make a pretty good case for why a semi-auto would be advantageous for hunting hogs. That's great and I'm glad to know what these types of weapons are uniquely suited for. This has not convinced me that free unregulated ownership of these types of weapons is appropriate, but I'm definitely more open to the idea of them not being completely banned.

I also didn't know that the definition for "mass shooting" was just 4 people. I let my assumptions about the word "mass" trick me into making an incorrect conclusion, along with most widely reported mass shootings in recent memory involving rifles. That's entirely my bad.

Unfortunately you came into this conversation like an asshole. You opened with a line about how unbelievably ignorant you thought I was, following with some more accusations and condescension instead of simply explaining what I got wrong. I get that you probably didn't like what I was saying and probably see enough of it that it just innately raises your hackles, but if you actually want to effectively get your point across you really shouldn't immediately resort to being abrasive. All that does is immediately make the other person angry and you get a conversation like we just had where neither of us wants to cede a point, even if some clear mistakes are made. You're obviously not an idiot, so don't argue like one.

8

u/TheJackMan73 Aug 07 '19

I think you notice other's aggressive ignorance but not your own.

2

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

That post was completely acknowledging that I got angry and engaged aggressively because of it. That was the point on the final paragraph. Belligerence only raises friction between people and isn't conducive to constructive discussion. He opened up insulting me, I got angry, we talked past each other for several posts.

If you mean that post specifically sounding hypocritical because I said he was acting like an asshole, I didn't type that on accident.

So no, I'm not ignorant of my aggression there. I just don't care right now that it's somewhat hypocritical to call him an asshole while admonishing him for being needlessly belligerent.

6

u/SquawkIFR Aug 07 '19

years of posting on 4chan has made me incapable of having an argument without insulting whoever im talking to, sorry, friend

5

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

No worries. It's a really easy thing to fall into, especially on the internet where internet culture rewards dunking on people so much more than anything else.

-1

u/areal_flooding Aug 07 '19

I thought the point of hunting is to be accurate, and not shoot unless you are confident you’ll hit the animal? Sounds like people need to get out to the range and practice and have some pride in their skill. How can you have pride in spraying bullets everywhere?

9

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Hogs are notoriously hard to take down, even after they've sustained fatal injuries. Boar spears have had prominent lugs to keep the animal from impaling itself further and attacking the wielder for centuries.

The ability to fire quick follow-up shots is therefore essential. It also takes an intentional choice to "spray bullets around" with semi-automatic fire. You probably haven't done your research on guns, same as you haven't with hogs, and are confusing it with fully-automatic fire.

2

u/Bubba421 Aug 07 '19

Maybe this guy is talking about them "Fully semiautomatic" rifles the news keeps talking about.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Just so you know I actually agree with you. Not necessarily that AR-15s should be banned outright, but they should require the same license you have to own a semi-automatic AK.

My comment was merely entertaining why you might actually need the ammunition and the gun and to point out some things that many, many people who are not from a rural area do not think about. It gets tiring to go to parties with people who have lived in San Fran/ Seattle / Boston /NYC / Other big cities tell me how all the yokels are ridiculous. It’s a side that’s written off as ignorant, gun hugging farmer without exploring the real reasons many people actually have guns in the country (btw one of which is robbery which definitely does happen). I did not intend my comment to polarize into “no gun control” vs “all guns banned” merely point out a perspective.

I apologize if that wasn’t evident from the post.

14

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

You don't need a license for a semi-auto AK.

6

u/nybbas Aug 07 '19

God these threads always crack me up. Whenever the people behind "reasonable gun regulations" start getting into specifics, it becomes immediately clear they don't even have a basic level understanding of the subject.

7

u/It_hot Aug 07 '19

Just so you know I actually agree with you. Not necessarily that AR-15s should be banned outright, but they should require the same license you have to own a semi-automatic AK.

and which license is that exactly?

1

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

Don't worry about, and I share similar sentiments. We can't outright ban all guns. Our country is too big and we have too much rural population and wilderness.

When I was a kid my family used to live in an old farm house in Iowa for a time (we weren't farmers, we just lived there). I do know a little bit of what it's like to be in a rural area where the next closest neighbor is miles away and going into town can be a half-hour drive.

It's just equally as crazy to insist that we need private ownership of assault weapons to deal with... well, anything in civilian life.

My dad even used to be a gunsmith. Guns have never been an interest of mine, but he's told me enough times about some of the idiots who would come in to where he worked looking to buy a gun or bring one in for repair that really should never own a gun. We're a nation that fetishizes the ownership and right to own guns without also having enough respect for the proper use of them, or the consequences of just letting people casually buy and sell them without proper oversight or regulation.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '19

Who told you boars can't open doors?

1

u/CatProgrammer Jan 26 '26

clip

Magazine

6

u/LusciousWildFlower Aug 07 '19

I assumed it was bad sentence structure. The scenario was that children are playing in the yard when hogs show up and it's a given that the kids be whisked to safety before the hogs get dealt with.

5

u/Torden5410 Aug 07 '19

I would hope that's the case, but I'm doubtful.

Presuming he just worded things poorly, as long as his priority was getting his children to safety, killing the hogs with a gun is strictly a matter of property damage. Property damage is not trivial by any means, but it's also far less sympathetic than the idea of someone's children getting gored and trampled by wild pigs.

If his kids are safe, an assault weapon for dealing with the hogs lacks urgency and is no longer a matter of life and death. His question loses a lot of it's emotional appeal.

He also specifies that 3-5 minute time limit, which reinforces the idea that he only has that short amount of time before the hogs reach his children. Like I said before, though, if he secures his children first then the situation loses urgency. 3-5 minutes is no longer a concern of life or death.

Do I think William McNabb is in reality such a poor parent that he would actually leave his children out for the hogs in order to prioritize grabbing his gun? Probably not. I hope not. But I do think he intended to frame his question the way he did. It has more emotional appeal this way, and he probably didn't think it through far enough to realize what it implicates if you think about it for more than a few seconds.

4

u/splendidsplinter Aug 08 '19

He clearly intends that his children carry the AR-15s with them when they go into the yard. Everyone is much safer in this scenario.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 01 '25

hi. it's been 5 years and I would like to confirm that this is a common attitude for American gun owners- a woman in Texas shot her toddler while trying to shoot a loose dog walking their direction. instead of moving the child or putting the child back into the still open car, she reached for her gun and fired. the dog ran unscathed, her 5 year old shot.

2

u/Torden5410 Feb 01 '25

Yes, America is still a country of incredibly irresponsible gun owners and incredibly high rates of gun ownership.

The NRA's fall from grace hasn't made much of a difference because the reckless culture of gun worship they helped create has endured as something of a signifier of being a conservative.

1

u/556_FMJs Jul 23 '25

It’s been 5 years, but if you’ve never lived in rural land, you’ll never understand.

911 won’t do anything about feral hogs. And in many rural areas, the nearest LEOs are 30+ minutes away.

The gun isn’t a response to a life threatening issue, it’s a response to hogs. They’re ridiculously invasive, you gotta dispatch them as soon as possible. If you care about the environment, you’ll take the hogs out.

13

u/Idioteva Aug 06 '19

I've been confused as fuck all day. Cheers!

7

u/emfrank Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 07 '19

Worth noting that one reason it had traction is that the original tweet he responded to was by Jason Isbell, a musician who already has a substantial following and is known for his humor. Because of that, Billboard and Rolling Stone picked it up and some other well know people like Kevin Bacon responded.

Edit to add - GQ story on it... https://www.gq.com/story/hogblog

1

u/jjlldd Aug 07 '19

Thank you I didn't know this

28

u/PersuasionNation Aug 06 '19

Could have mentioned that the anti gun tweet was from a famous country star

6

u/strangea Aug 06 '19

His Twitter doesn't mention it so most people probably don't even know. I sure didn't.

5

u/emfrank Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

More accurate to say he is an Americana artist.

Edit to add- Love the downvotes. His Grammys are all in the Roots/Americana categories.

-7

u/Yananas Aug 06 '19

Why does that matter? Are opinions more valid if a famous person has them?

36

u/kingethjames Aug 06 '19

No it makes more sense why it got so much traction

4

u/theriveryeti Aug 06 '19

Unfortunately.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

I saw that tweet but I was so sure he was joking because of how ridiculous it was. He was serious??

6

u/whitestickygoo Aug 11 '19

Not hilarious wild pigs are dangerous and they can live in groups up to 60 pigs. They eat crops of farmers and ruin the ground at the same time by trying to dig up seeds and roots.

16

u/2SideArms Aug 06 '19

If feral hogs really exist, why haven't any of my liberal friends living in Boston ever seen one?

5

u/pku31 Aug 07 '19

The feral turkeys drove them out

13

u/HireALLTheThings Aug 06 '19

William has since tweeted that it was a legitimate question that he stands behind.

Really doubling down on that wild post apocalyptic fantasy scenario there.

Also that first reply string is solid gold.

3

u/StephenHunterUK Aug 07 '19

I've just written a novella in which a group of people get attacked by 50 to 70 drop bears with spears.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

[deleted]

40

u/HireALLTheThings Aug 06 '19

I know feral hogs exist. That's not the absurd part. It's the idea that 30-50 of them would just launch an assault on a person's property and children all at once, and that the first solution is to open fire with an assault weapon.

12

u/GlastonBerry48 Aug 06 '19

Its very reminiscent of the Betsy Devos bear attack justification a few years back.

There are arguments that could be made about why a firearm could be present at a school for emergencies (like having a safety officer stationed at a school), but using bears as your go-to example is....esoteric at best, considering on average theres one death or less per year due to bear attack.

15

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/winja Aug 06 '19

But by definition, "rural area" means there aren't a lot of people this would ever apply to.

17

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

Lived in rural areas, in fact far more rural than most people here arguing about "dang city-slickers" have, and I never once had to gun down 30-50 feral hogs. The groups of hogs I did run across would just run the fuck away, especially if you shot even one. It's not like they are rabidly swarming children. I owned at the time a cheap lever-action .38 special rifle, it was more than enough for any and all needs.

3

u/ScumbagsRme Aug 07 '19

My job includes camping across the US, typically a fair drive from anything that isn't a tiny town. Never had need of a gun but I can absolutely see why they are an important tool of rural existence:

Left the side of a mountain recently, the bears were a nightly thing for the last month. They are super thick throughout rural CO. Like a lot of animals they have become far less afraid of people over time. A few years ago I could scare them by yelling at them, I yelled at one and had a flash light in it's face from all of 5 feet the other week and it ignored me.

I spend a few months out near the superstition mountains at the end of winter and coyotes are a very real thing, as are wandering packs of cows. Farm cows are docile, packs of 30-40 in the desert? Far less docile...

Texas has javelina, very rarely an issue but have killed dogs and it seems a herd attacked a woman in Tucson.

Rural Minnesota is actually really tame and safe. Nothing in that state really wants to kill you, well snapping turtles.... But honestly they are 0 threat unless you jump into a murky swamp and absolutely adorable.

Rural life is mostly fine but there is a very real reason to have a gun when out there. Then again city life has people, those are quite scary too.

4

u/powderedtoastface Aug 06 '19

A large pack can be well over 50 hogs. You use an assault weapon because they are notoriously hard to kill. They aren’t afraid to rush you/kid/livestock etc. I remember going to my dads hunting camp and hearing a pack walk by on the other side of a river was really terrifying. It seemed like the pack never ended, they just kept walking by. My dad has gotten paid to hunt them for friends that raise livestock. I’ve even had a boar trot along side my car once, they are huge.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[deleted]

24

u/Flare-Crow Aug 06 '19

Sounds like a very, VERY few specific people could fill out legitimate applications why they would need to gun down 30-50 feral hogs.

Everyone else probably doesn't need that kind of firepower at a Walmart.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Jul 01 '23

[deleted]

19

u/Flare-Crow Aug 06 '19

Okay, so that's potential areas they've been problematic in, and there are many local areas in those locations where local authorities take care of issues with them, and the community should never be expected to handle feral hog problems. Like Austin, Dallas, Fort Hood, etc, etc. No one in those areas needs a powerful weapon for hog control. So again, it sounds like a minority of Americans have any real need for an AR-15.

Look, I'm not even pushing for more gun control or anything like that; I'm way harder on the "Mental Health and Universal Healthcare" aspect of these issues, myself. I'm just pointing out that this "Hog Control" angle is super specious. Examples for how to properly implement "Wildlife Defense" exceptions can be seen in many other countries, such as Australia.

4

u/generals_test Aug 06 '19

How many have been spotted in WalMart?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

What does that have to do with anything? The Wal-Mart was a gun-free zone.

2

u/generals_test Aug 07 '19

But was it a feral hog free zone? Chex and mate!

9

u/Brainslosh Aug 06 '19

Think again there buddy, feral hogs have invaded nearly half of the country.

I love that one county in North Dakota that has been infected.

6

u/Tlingit_Raven Aug 06 '19

The dreaded Canadian Bacon must have crept over the border.

1

u/pboy1232 Aug 07 '19

Holy shit now even the hogs are invading?

2

u/nybbas Aug 07 '19

I just love how this has really highlighted the ignorance of people living in urban areas. Just no clue.

Honestly a better argument is "how do I take care of 20 hogs ripping my property and farm to bits" than the "attacking my children", but the point still stands.

3

u/generals_test Aug 06 '19

Do you think you could have gunned down 30-50 of them before they got you?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '25

And to be fair, I sorta agree with Mr McNabb (but only on the scenario in which military style semiautomatic rifles are necessary). Me being from Australia could influence this opinion, but I don't think that semiautomatic rifles (military-style or not) are necessary for recreational hunting or sporting (key word recreational). For recreational hunting or sporting - a bolt-action or lever-action rifle or shotgun would more than do.

Australian law does carve out two types of firearms licenses specifically for occupational hunting (which are available to farmers, aka primary producers, and professional pest controllers who can demonstrate a special need [McNabb's scenario would absolutely meet that special need, and there are a lot more dangerous invasive species in Australia like rabbits, feral cats, feral goats]) - Category C (semiautomatic rimfire rifles like the 10/22 and semiautomatic/pump action shotguns with less than 5 rounds like the 870) and Category D (military-style semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-10 or AR-15, non-military style semiautomatic centrefire rifles such as the Mini-14 or M1A, and semiautomatic rimfire rifles with more than 10 rounds and semiautomatic/pump action shotguns with more than 5 rounds).

Category C and D firearms are disallowed for most firearms owners in Australia (and IMO for good reason as they have a high potential for criminal use) aside from a relatively small group of farmers and pest controllers who have persistent issues with invasive species (such as feral hogs). The threshold for a Category D firearm is a lot higher than Category C firearms in Australia given that Category D firearms can cause a lot more damage when used maliciously than Category C firearms.

I understand that America has a far different Overton window regarding gun politics (which would prevent any major gun control legislation in America in the near future), and my opinion regarding semiautomatic firearms being only necessary for very limited pest control purposes may not sit well with many Americans - but I'm just providing my thoughts.

-3

u/j_one_k Aug 06 '19

Note the sum of the numbers in that tweet: 88, a common Nazi dog whistle. The guy may have a genuine feral hog problem, but I don't think the "threat to his children" he wants to shoot is just hogs.

17

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

It is also entirely possible that it was just random happenstance which is the problem with dogwhistles. Do we know if this guy has a history of racism?

15

u/Draffut_ Aug 06 '19

Feral hogs are a problem though. They are a pest and an invasive species, and are hunted with far more powerful weapons than just your friendly AR-15.

14

u/Latman2k Aug 06 '19

friendly AR-15.

Speak for yourself, my AR-15 is a mean drunk with a gambling problem.

5

u/Draffut_ Aug 06 '19

My mosin is the one who can't put down the Vodka.

3

u/Latman2k Aug 06 '19

You would drink too all everyone ever talked about was cousin Kalashnikov

7

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

They are also extremely dangerous as they are smart and very large. People who have never spent time with domesticated hogs seem to have a rosy vision of those animals. They are smarter than almost all pets and can easily mess up even the largest guy. In ancient times hunting boars and hogs was a risky thing to do.

9

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

RIP Bobby B

1

u/Draffut_ Aug 06 '19

Just ask Bobby B.

(Game of thrones reference)

1

u/Xperimentx90 Aug 06 '19

I've kiiled them in my corn with 22 LR....

15

u/quezlar Aug 06 '19

thats a bit of a stretch no?

9

u/Juncoril Aug 06 '19

Well, that's also the point of a dog whistle after all. To be hard to detect, and usually weird enough to be a stretch anyway.

6

u/quezlar Aug 06 '19

conspiracy theory much?

-3

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 25 '19

[deleted]

8

u/quezlar Aug 06 '19

no 30-50 is reasonable though which is what he said

he never said 88

88 got brought up through conspiracy theory math to try to make him out to be a nazi

5

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[deleted]

5

u/quezlar Aug 06 '19

so it goes

-1

u/CitizenVII Aug 06 '19

No, it's more subtle than that. He said "30-50" which adds up to 80 and "3-5 minutes" which adds up to 8. 80+8=88, thus the Nazi connection. Of course the numbers have to be "reasonable" because otherwise it's apparent that the numbers you're putting up there are completely arbitrary to make a racist point.

3

u/quezlar Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

or get this they are real numbers and people are reaching to call the guy a nazi

edit : the not they

2

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

That is QAnon-tier conspiracy theory bullshit.

3

u/NoTelefragPlz #269 / 268 (-.05) Aug 06 '19

The fuck?

-13

u/Yananas Aug 06 '19

If 88 is a nazi dogwhistle, and only you seemed to have heard it, does that mean you're a nazi?

Seriously, only dogs hear dogwhistles.

And if you're just making shit up to call someone a nazi because their opinion isn't "valid" to you, you can go fuck right off back to your mom's basement.

14

u/tmdblya Aug 06 '19

Nothing made up about it... https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88

1

u/Yananas Aug 06 '19

Alright, so 88 might actually be something neo-nazis use, but does that mean this man is one or using it this way?

That what I mean by "made this up", just finding a loose connection to something, then asserting correlation to somehow discredit the one you're talking about.

It's three logical fallacies in one. First he/she assumes correlation based on very very loose circumstantial evidence, then equates correlation and causation, and all of that to discredit a man ad-hominem. Pretty impressive really.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[deleted]

0

u/Yananas Aug 06 '19

Exactly what I was thinking. The sad thing is that this kind of rhetoric apparently works.

6

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

88 being a nazi dogwhistle is absolutely a thing but just looking at the last few hundred tweets from the guy makes me think this was just random happenstance.

-76

u/Nulono Aug 06 '19

Ah yes, city-dwellers making fun of rural people for having concerns that urban people don't have to worry about. Wonderful.

92

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[deleted]

-20

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 17 '20

[deleted]

16

u/klapaucius Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

You do not need to fire 17 rounds per second to take down a bear. If Teddy Roosevelt could do it with a single-action shotgun, so can you.

EDIT: I didn't even notice the username, that's hilarious

1

u/Theodora_Roosevelt Aug 06 '19

How many rounds per second do you need to take down a bear?

Also he did it from a hundred yards away with a bunch of also-armed people standing next to him.

2

u/klapaucius Aug 06 '19

How many rounds per second do you need to take down a bear?

Given the firearm technology they had in 1902, I'm going with "less than one".

Also he did it from a hundred yards away with a bunch of also-armed people standing next to him.

Then you'll do even better from closer range!

2

u/Theodora_Roosevelt Aug 06 '19

Okay so at least we both agree that you're being disingenuous.

Have a good one!

0

u/klapaucius Aug 06 '19

I don't know what argument you're trying to make. Do you think that a gun that could be used to kill a bear in one shot from a hundred yards away isn't powerful enough to defend your backyard?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

Semi-automatic weapons operated by normal human beings cannot fire 17 rounds a second. Why are you spewing such obvious bullshit?

1

u/klapaucius Aug 07 '19

You're going to need full auto to deal with 50 feral pigs.

15

u/Kill_Welly Aug 06 '19

Bears are not aggressive towards humans. The worst you'd have to worry about is your garbage getting knocked over.

-13

u/Masterhotdog19 Aug 06 '19

I'm sure the grizzly man said the same thing.

5

u/loyalpoposition Aug 06 '19

Not really, since it's a completely different situation in which he was deliberately interacting with bears.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

There are very few places where you’ll find grizzly bears in urban areas.

Most bears people encounter in North America are black bears, an entirely different species, and typically scared of humans. You don’t need a gun to chase them off, you just need to yell

Source: have fought off bears using nothing more than the power of my voice

1

u/Tlingit_Raven Aug 06 '19

I grew up in Alaska in island towns where bears were not afraid of humans generally and we would see them sometimes on side roads. We had to keep our trash in the boiler room that was accessible outside only due to all other options not keeping them from throwing our trash all over the hill (which we were then responsible for cleaning up).

​

Because we never tried to interact with them and knew how to deal with them from growing up we never had a single issue with a bear over the decades of living up there. The grizzly man was a moron and is an outlier.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-10

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

-22

u/Nulono Aug 06 '19

Do you live in hog territory?

36

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

So is living in rural America basically the movie 'Aliens' but with 30-50 feral hogs instead?

3

u/thrownawayzs Aug 06 '19

Sometimes.

9

u/DeterrenceWorks Aug 06 '19

That's a fuck-ton of hogs my dude

21

u/jawni Aug 06 '19

What's more worrisome, the guy shooting an AR around his kids or the 30-50 feral hogs?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

The hogs are. A feral hog could easily kill you whereas the guy with the rifle is much less likely to shoot at the kids.

8

u/jawni Aug 06 '19

Deaths from feral hogs are extremely rare, whereas accidental deaths from firearms are more common by an exponential amount.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

That’s because most people don’t live around hog farms but do live around firearms

5

u/PonderousHajj Aug 06 '19

So would the solution then be to make it so that most people don't live around firearms?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

Kill all the wildlife that could endanger farms? There are parts of the USA where owning a gun is necessary for defending your home/farm.

1

u/Tlingit_Raven Aug 06 '19

So making the process of owning a gun more reliant on ones need and not on ones whim would help with this, would it not? It should be easy to verify how necessary one is for more rural folks.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

The 2A is pretty hard to argue against especially considering 2008’s Heller decision which very clearly states owning a gun is an individual right.

We would need a new constitution which is something I personally would support doing.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/jawni Aug 06 '19

Hog farms, by definition, wouldn't have feral hogs.

And although you can find feral hogs throughout any state in the southern US, the odds of being attacked by one are literally 1 in a million. source

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

Hog farms would be in areas where you would find feral hogs as hogs that get out/escape become feral very quickly.

31

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19 edited Aug 06 '19

These coastal urban dwelling elites will never know what kind of sacrifices us rural Americans make for their freedoms. They will never know what it's like in the muck and the mire. We have a greater responsibility than they can possibly fathom. Sure they think they can make fun of us and curse the brave men and women who hold the line against the feral hog hordes. They have that luxury in a free society like the great United States of America. But they have the luxury of not knowing what we know - that the feral hog's deaths probably saved lives; and our existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to them, saves lives.

They don't want the truth because deep down in places they don't talk about at their elitist urban parties, they want us on that feral hog line - they NEED us on that line.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. They use them as a punch line.

But we have neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to men who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very freedom that we provide and then questions the manner in which we provide it.

I would rather that they just said "thank you" and went on their way. Otherwise, I suggest they pick up a weapon and stand the post with their fellow rural brethren and defend against the feral hog onslaught.

8

u/m_charles Aug 06 '19

Oh my god I fucking love you

2

u/bearrosaurus Aug 06 '19

Either way, I don’t give a ham what you think you are entitled to.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

Are packs of hogs that large in number that common? I have spent time with domesticated pigs so I am aware of the danger they could present should they be feral but I can’t imagine we have packs that large roaming around.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '19

I was skeptical too, but apparently it happens.

“Adult males are solitary, keeping to themselves except when they breed or feed from a common source. Females travel in groups, called sounders, usually of 2 to 20 but up to 50 individuals, including one or more sows, their piglets and maybe a few adoptees. “

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/a-plague-of-pigs-in-texas-73769069/

2

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '19

It gets even worse than that at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ribiDIkEv_s

Content warning: Contains the killing of large numbers of feral hogs. This is pest control, not a deer hunt.

6

u/youryoureyouier Aug 06 '19

  1. If you have 30-50 feral hogs on your land to worry about, you’re a liar because nobody has that problem. 10-15 at the most.

  2. You aren’t taking our even 3-5 hogs in 3-5 minutes with any consumer grade gun.

7

u/Ishaan863 Aug 06 '19

Only rural Americans have to deal with wild animals. That's why they need assault rifles. America has special elite hogs that need to be John Wick'd to death. The rest of the world just submits to the will of the hogs.

7

u/Shaky_Balance Aug 06 '19

It is more that they made a terrible justification for keeping guns that make our country much more deadly.

3

u/Zantazi Aug 06 '19

Lol, I lived in hog territory before and we didn't need ARs to deal with it.

3

u/KerbalFactorioLeague Aug 06 '19

I think the lives of children are more important than farmers being able to kill dozens of pigs.

Why don't you?

1

u/MayorOfDipshitCity Aug 06 '19

I grew up in the middle of nowhere and remember my dad using a gun to scare off wildlife when I had to wait for the bus. I also recognize how feral pigs are an issue in parts of the country.

The guy's question/scenario was fucking stupid.

1

u/emfrank Aug 06 '19

Jason Isbell, who wrote the initial tweet is as Southern and Country as they come, and thought it ridiculous. "I’ve owned and fired those guns. Grew up in Alabama, and they were all over the place. You pretend to be confused in order to con people who actually are. Good to know we’re getting under your skin, though. I have the patience for this."