A big stick with a nail in the end?

That's alright if they're baby ones on an ice shelf where you can sneak up behind them but not so easy when they are 20 yards behind your boat with the large salmon you caught in their mouths mocking you with their sinister grins.

That's not a sinister grin. They're grateful for your catch. A Seal of approval as it were.

Fine, you can make light of it all you like, hardy har har, but those naffing seals are not paying for the petrol, maintenance, fishing equipment and moorage. Its just not on.

So we should kill seals because they may steal a few fish from a fisherman? As I see it, the ocean is the seals natural habitat, and if they can snag some fish from the invader, I have no issue, and really its a cost of doing business if your a fisherman, another predator may take some of it away, no different then when say a lion steals a meal from a cheetah.

You say that, but I bet if the lion had a gun he'd pop that cheetah's ass.

Lion wouldn't need a gun, it can just use its brute force, larger size, and higher stamina to take out the cheetah.

Eat the seals - Pamela Anderson isn't the boss of me, what goes around comes around.

You don't mind them being fed, what gets me is how fat they are and they're still greedy for more. It's like being in the Guildford Town Centre on a Saturday afternoon.

It doesnt make the ten oclock news but i am pretty sure drunk drivers have killed police before. They have certainly died due to passive smoking. Thats kind of the point I'm making. Irresponsible users of booze and tobacco cause more deaths proportionally, despite all the laws about drinking and driving and passive smoking than irreponsible users of guns and there is no knee jerk call to ban them because that might actually affect maybe 75% of the population rather than "only" 25%.
Bare in mind 25% is still more than the percentage of liberal voters last time out

Don't ban guns,many people have fun with them, and they don't even give you cancer or liver damage.

Cars, booze, tobacco yet again. WTF?

And it's bear in mind you illiterate. Bare in mind could be applied, I suppose, to gun advocates.

Commenting on the spelling is internet code for "I don't have anything intelligent to say about your actual argument"
There are already laws and restrictions about firearms, and they work just as effectively,if not more so than the laws that protect us about the irresponsible use of other popular but pointless pleasurable activities.
It's a knee jerk reaction that penalizes the legal responsible users. Smoking and alcohol are merely to bring this into context for those that don't shoot
How would you like it if restrictions were introduced to prevent you drinking because a tiny minority continue to cause death and destruction by drink driving? The percentage is the same,worse actually.

Yes, but drinking is good for you.

For alcholol, we need to have restrictions such as the state controlling the supply and distribution. Of course for guns, that's unnecessary. It makes perfect sense and is totally logically consistent.