Alice herself was stealing the sugar cubes?

uncanny valley - in short, not quite real gets a worse response than being obviously fake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

I'd absolutely support modifying the food stamp system to cover them.
Also, 'poaching' implies illegal hunting which often doesn't mean gun control violations - is that what you meant?

I am well awar eof the theory, but have yet to hear an explanation of how it would work in practice - regular firearms versus military-grade hardware? come on now.

agreed, and I said something similar about comparing gun control to drug control

my post referred to treating different types of firearms differently, but yes, one could also directly treat the different activities differently.

The few times I've done target shooting, it's been with range-owned guns, but I suppose shooter-owned guns could also be secured at the range.

I'd also like a clear amendment to the 2nd amendment, but I figure the gun nuts would be just as unreasonable about that.

"Ryan Lanza". Heard on TV news that perpetrator is/was Adam Lanza, and that the police are questioning his brother. Maybe this is the brother.

Guns for self-defense can make sense, but that seems balanced out by its own set of problems, and not solely mass shootings. If a physically smaller person is armed, they could defend themselves against someone bigger - or attack someone bigger. A dangerous big guy would be even more dangerous when armed. If they're both armed, I don't see how that's any better than neither of them being armed.

I am fully aware of that. It seems like a moot point because what could average people with average firearms do against modern military-grade training and hardware? The difference wasn't so great in the late 1700's, so it made sense then. At best, opposing gun control on those grounds is fueled by paranoia and takes the law too literally, to the detriment of common sense.

I admit I used simple phrasing that lacked that nuance.

I do believe in ending the drug war, on marijuana at least. However, drug abuse harms mainly the user themselves, and gun abuse harms mainly other people.

I have heard of such donation programs. I figured the value of the meat (whether eaten, sold or donated) was significant, but I wasn't sure whether one came out ahead compared to the cost of the equipment.
I wondered if some people had delusions of grandeur about of their need to hunt. I'm not surprised that it's realistic in some cases.
I have nothing against people who enjoy it whether or not they need to do it, but it's not a personal hobby of mine, and supporting my interests doesn't seem to have such a risk of collateral damage.

for the benefit of other readers: Poe's Law is an internet adage saying it's hard to distinguish parody of extremism from actual extremism..
You seem to be saying it's a parody. However, I have heard the AC's argument form serious pro-gun folks. (Is that a sign of how actually extreme the US gun lobby is?)

target shooting? hunting? both seem like amusements that maybe we could afford to lose in the name of safety. (How many people really need to hunt for their food in this day and age?) Also, they might not have to go - the restrictions could be on firearms ill-suited to those activities, not to mention forms of those activities without firearms.

If it's something else you'd miss, sorry, but those are my best guesses.