Handgun Hunting Support

[dangertree]

The last time I shot a bow I was about 12, and I sucked. I am at best incompetent with bows, and have no idea how accurately I can hit with one at any distance, nor do I know anything about what type of arrow or bow to use. I am not comfortable with the idea of me going bow hunting, I am more likely to injure the animal than I would be with a rifle, because I am imcompetent and uneducated about them.

If I did go out with a bow hunting, all observing would quickly see my incompetence, and all hunters will look bad by extension. So therefore I don't think bow hunting is ethical, nor safe, and it should be prohibited/banned for the greater good.

(The first paragraph I was serious).

 

[Salty]

You right, we do not need 7 1/2" barrel as an allowed minimum. Theoretically is doable to use shorter barrel and hit and kill over 100m, but to a very small number of skilled people. .

Well SIG as stated earlier I do not agree with this, actually the logic escapes me. I can't shoot any better with a 7 1/2" bbl than I can with a 5 1/2". And again I think it is for the law makers to decide this if we ever get to that point. As lobbyists I think that we just need to show that is safe, done so safely in a lot of other places and that's about it.

But if for some reason the barrel length comes in to play its certainly not a show stopper for me and I wouldn't be overly pissed off if we had to agree to a minimum bbl length that is much longer than what is currently in the regulations. I'd just chalk it up to another silly government regulation for the sake of regulation

 

[gunz4grlz]

And while a self proclaimed 'know it all's' like Foxer may be aware of his limitations he shouldn't use his shortcomings as a basis to judge or belittle the skills, abilities and experiences of experts of the past.

WWHHAATT?!?!. Foxer is no way a ‘know it all’. HE IS PRO HAND GUN HUNTING. He is simply engaging those who also support the issue to answer the questions and concerns of those who are not. And he does this so that people such as himself, and others lobbying for the cause, understand the opposing side. After all, it’s not just those who don’t agree with the use of hand guns for hunting purposes (a lot of which already hunt), that you will have to convince, it’s all people opposed to firearms period. That’s a pretty large, and fervent crowd to appease.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

WWHHAATT?!?!. Foxer is no way a ‘know it all’. HE IS PRO HAND GUN HUNTING. He is simply engaging those who also support the issue to answer the questions and concerns of those who are not. And he does this so that people such as himself, and others lobbying for the cause, understand the opposing side. After all, it’s not just those who don’t agree with the use of hand guns for hunting purposes (a lot of which already hunt), that you will have to convince, it’s all people opposed to firearms period. That’s a pretty large, and fervent crowd to appease.

Read all his comments again. He may be pro handgun hunting, but in a very limited, opinionated sence of the term. His 'attitude' doesn't depict an understanding of the other side. A view of acceptance, but very narrow and restrictive.

 

[SIGP2101]

But if for some reason the barrel length comes in to play its certainly not a show stopper for me and I wouldn't be overly pissed off if we had to agree to a minimum bbl length that is much longer than what is currently in the regulations. I'd just chalk it up to another silly government regulation for the sake of regulation

AMEN to it!

 

[Foxer]

Read all his comments again. He may be pro handgun hunting, but in a very limited, opinionated sence of the term. His 'attitude' doesn't depict an understanding of the other side. A view of acceptance, but very narrow and restrictive.

I may not know handguns as well as you - but i know politics better than most. And i talk to a LOT of hunters.

If there's a 'know it all' here, it's you and the others who believe that there is no value to even considering or TRYING to understand a position that is different from your own.

And if you don't think i'm right - well you just go ahead and treat other hunters the way you did this discussion. We'll see how well that goes for you.

As to my 'limited' view - i laid out what would be necessary to sell the concept to others. That's got nothing to do with 'limited' anything - that's just a solid understanding of humans and gov't.

But that's too much for you to comprehend. You can't acutally force yourself to THINK about what i said. Either it's over your head, or you're not willing to think rationally about it.

There are a LOT of hunters who are against handguns, not just handgun hunting. There are a lot more who don't think handgun hunting is a good idea.

You will NEVER get it in without support. And you will never get support unless you convince people their concerns have been addressed. And you will never do that if all you do is insult them, offer no other evidence than 400 yard elk shots, and insist that the sun rises in the west because you say it does and the rest of humanity should bow down to your brilliance and accept it.

I am an expert on politics. I know most of the players, and have spoken to them, including people in the BCWF hierarchy that don't support handgun hunting and listened to why. I told you what needed to be answered. I offered some possible answers. You choose to disregard it and call me a 'know it all' without even considering it. So. There you go. Good luck with that.

 

[Foxer]

But if for some reason the barrel length comes in to play its certainly not a show stopper for me and I wouldn't be overly pissed off if we had to agree to a minimum bbl length that is much longer than what is currently in the regulations. I'd just chalk it up to another silly government regulation for the sake of regulation

There may be other answers. The question, not the answer, is what's important. You'll have to address the questions one way or another. Barrel length is just one way that would work. And yes - it's all about silly gov't regulations to give the IMPRESSION that the gov't has considered the 'issues' and put 'safeguards' in place.

 

[SIGP2101]

Well SIG as stated earlier I do not agree with this, actually the logic escapes me. I can't shoot any better with a 7 1/2" bbl than I can with a 5 1/2".

Here is your logic.
You would certainly agree to the fact that you would shoot much better from 16, 18, 22, 24 inches bbl than from 5 1/2 inches bbl. Logical conclusion is that you would shoot slightly better from 7 ½” bbl than 5 ½. Your grouping would be better given the same distance. And there is no arguing about that.
I can still accept the fact that in your case this is not the case but that would make you an exception.

 

[BCWILL]

You can’t just say that people like Foxer (and all those who actually know the limitations of themselves and their firearm) can use a hand gun to hunt. If you make it legal for one, you must make it legal for all. Am I the only one who actually sees the problem with this??

This same Mentality applies to Rifle Hunters too !
Plenty of Folks are active "Hunters" right now that shouldn't be allowed to carry a BB gun, nevermind a Centrefire Rifle

You can't Punish Everyone because a few may be "below the standard" or even abuse the privelages.

Look at the drivers on the roads for example....Most are "good" and well... others are not so good ! We can't not let the Majority of Folks not drive becasue of the Few that shouldn't be now can we

 

[Johnn Peterson]

This same Mentality applies to Rifle Hunters too !
Plenty of Folks are active "Hunters" right now that shouldn't be allowed to carry a BB gun, nevermind a Centrefire Rifle

You can't Punish Everyone because a few may be "below the standard" or even abuse the privelages.

Look at the drivers on the roads for example....Most are "good" and well... others are not so good ! We can't not let the Majority of Folks not drive becasue of the Few that shouldn't be now can we

Point well taken.

 

[Foxer]

Look at the drivers on the roads for example....Most are "good" and well... others are not so good ! We can't not let the Majority of Folks not drive becasue of the Few that shouldn't be now can we

No, but we may not let them drive race cars at the indy

And you strenghten the argument rather than weaken it ... if there are people have a difficult time being proficient and safe with rifles, which are easier to shoot accurately, then realistically there will be an even higher percent of people who cannot use handguns effectively to hunt.

Handguns require a higher level of skill than rifles to use effectively to hunt. So if we're already experiencing problems (as you suggest) then why would we want to increase the odds of problems.

Another example using your 'car' analogy would be the fact that we allow people to drive cars on the road (even tho a few of them have 'ahem' questionable skills) but we don't allow people to drive microbikes or mini bikes on the road. The reason - due to their nature, they create too many problems for people to safely use them for their intended task.

Your argument doesn't lend itself to saying we should allow handguns, it lends itself to saying we should test rifle hunters better. Most people believe it's harder to use a handgun to hunt, and therefore the chances of there being problems will go UP.

(which is what i was addressing by looking at parameters which would give the appearance of having dealt with those issues.)

 

[BIGREDD]

Here are some interesting stats... scroll down to page five where it talks about types of firearms used and the accidents with each type... apparently handguns are very safe when used for hunting...

http://www.ihea.com/documents/ihea1998.pdf

 

[lone ranger]

yes to hand gun hunting

How many of you would like to have it back?

I usally dont post anything in these forums,but today I feel like telling you a story of long ago.When my dad came back from ww2, he brought a 22 hand gun with him,most did.He worked in the northern part of B.C in the late 40"s and the workers there had to contend with all sorts of wild life,such as timber wolf ,cyote,bear,and whatever roamed the forest looking for its next meal.Many of the bush workers came home alive because they had a hand gun.After a few years my dad moved to White Fox SASK. Alot of heavy bush covered the land at that time,and lots of bear and timber wolf. While clearing bush,his handy 22 came in very handy again.He soon bought an old single shot Cooey witch fed the whole family by putting prarie chicken,rabbit,and DEAR on the table.My father had little money and relyed soley on his 22 cooey. On one hunting ocassion I seen him drop a dear at 100yards.These old timers realy knew their stuff. He was a true hunter.Didnt have a fancy scope,no GPS,no big boar gun,no range finder,just pure skill.My hats off to all you old timers.

 

[Foxer]

Here are some interesting stats... scroll down to page five where it talks about types of firearms used and the accidents with each type... apparently handguns are very safe when used for hunting..

Apperently not.

Those statistics don't say how many hunters there where who used rifles, and how many there were that used handguns. But i note in 97 for example that 47 people shot themselves with handguns, vs 119 with a rifle. That means that just about 1/3 of all injuries were handgun. BUT - do you think that one third of all hunters use handguns? I doubt it was anywhere near that in 1997.

It would seem to suggest that there was a much higher percentage of handgun accidents PER CAPITA of the user groups with handguns.

Food for thought isn't it. I'll read further an see if there's any indication how many handgun hunters vs rifle hunters there were. But i doubt it's even 1 in 10.

 

[BCWILL]

And you strenghten the argument rather than weaken it ... if there are people have a difficult time being proficient and safe with rifles, which are easier to shoot accurately, then realistically there will be an even higher percent of people who cannot use handguns effectively to hunt.

That's what I'm getting at...

BTW: we've had 2 Fatalities locally in the last 5 years or so...Hunters that shot themselves with thier own Rifles, it happens so Yes believe it or not there are in fact a few folks that are not 100% safe with long guns. To expect that we will have zero incidents with Handguns isn't realistic either.

What I'm getting at again is this..........
Dig deep enough trying to Solve ALL the Saftey concerns and you will open up Far more then intended

Almost everything that has been Suggested here about the "Dangers" of Handgun hunting can be applied to Rifles and or every other form of Hunting that is now currently acceptable so WHY apply all these socalled Concerns Only to Handguns ???

Foxer,
Just MO but I think you've LOST sight of your own Goals here and are beginning to nitpic all your Supporters on this issue

 

[Foxer]

Hmm - no mention of what the split is, but i did notice this:

report is based on information received from 48 states and 5 Canadian provinces.

So - seeing as there IS no handgun hunting in canada and our hunters (from 5 provinces) were in the numbers as well, i guess it's probably pretty likely that a very small percent of the hunters were using handguns.

Yet - they accounted for 1/3 of all injuries.

That pretty much proves that handguns are more dangerous for injuries than rifles. Or were, anyway, back in those days.

(what really gets me is that 3 archers managed to shoot themselves. That's gotta be pretty embarrassing. )

 

[BIGREDD]

All Casualties (deaths) 278 rifle... 47 handgun. And most of the handgun deaths were self inflicted... that suggests to me that you are far more likely to be killed accidentally by someone else using a rifle.
You can manipulate or speculate on the stats all you want.... those are the latest numbers.

 

[TPK]

Wow, this has really turned into quite the debate. I've tried to keep up on all the replies here but I must admit, I reached a point where it started to turn into bla bla bla as the same points seemed to be rehashed in different scenarios and using different verbage ... can we get a sort of "here we are" for this thread? Let's see if I can start ...

Here we are, a group of gun owners trying to decide if Canada (or at least some of it's Prvinces or Territories) should REINSTATE hand gun hunting.

So far we have heard from many different people and sources that YES indeed hand guns have the potential to be used as an effective tool for hunting BUT depending on the caliber, choice of ammunition, barrel length, intended game, and hunter proficiency with the hand gun they choose to bring with them, it may not be "ethical" to use it on their intended game, either at all, or past a certain yardage. This is the ethical side of the debate that seems to be the biggest contention point.

So let's step back just a little, and once more, from the start ...
Can we agree, leaving hunter ethics, ballistics of specific calibers, distance of shot, etc, aside, that YES, hand guns have the potential to be used as an effective tool for hunting?

If yes, THEN let's address these other points (or issues if you prefer). If the answer is NO, then let's address that first because that's the starting point of this whole thing isn't it? Anything after "NO" is a moot point. Yes it's hard to seperate the points because most want to say YES, IF, and that's good, it's better than "No, because"... IMO.

OK, now can someone else please sum up where we are at in this thread now?

 

[Foxer]

so Yes believe it or not there are in fact a few folks that are not 100% safe with long guns.

Oh i seriously doubt ANYONE is 100 percent safe with rifles. Sooner or later, you'll make a mistake that you really shouldn't do. 99.9 percent of the time, that does not result in an incident or injury. But we all have done SOMETHING - swept someone with a gun, forgot to unload when we went over an obstacle, SOMETHING we shouldn't have.

To expect that we will have zero incidents with Handguns isn't realistic either

.

Obviously.

Dig deep enough trying to Solve ALL the Saftey concerns and you will open up Far more then intended

Well sure. The goal is not to make it 100 percent safe. That's a given. Nothing is. The goal is to reduce the risk to an 'acceptable' level.

Lets say that people are safe with rifles 90 percent of the time. That results in lets say 100 incidents a year of injury per 100,000 users. (i'm completely making this up). We've done all we reasonably can, and we decide that's an acceptable ratio. Sure we'd like to do better. But its pretty good.

Now - lets say handgun hunters experience 300 incidents per 100,000 users.

Well - that's an issue. We have to look if that's acceptable. If those people were using rifles instead, would those incidents have occured? Some probably, but history with other rifle users shows the rate of accident is lower. So.. do we really want to allow handgun use? (this is the hypothetical question).

It's not a question of 'are rifles safe completely'. Actually until bigredd posted those stats, saftey wasn't really part of this discussion, it was more to do with wounded animals (although the same sort of model applies - it's not that hunters WON"T wound animals with rifles, it's that they might wound MORE with handguns that some people fear.)

So the question remains - is it possible to hunt with a handgun as safely and as effectively as with a rifle? We don't want to see more wounded animals and we don't want more people hurt than necessary.

I believe it is. But i also believe that takes a serious dedication from would-be handgun hunters to look at all the factors and address them. Unfortunately, it would seem they're more interested in dismissing them and insulting those who point them out.

In bc for example, we have a large immigrant population. People who did not grow up with a culture of hunting or guns, or worse grew up in a culture where guns were NOT used safely. So - do we want to let people who are already unfamiliar with hunting to begin with, and who are already juggling a huge number of factors that they're just learning in their heads, dealing with the ADDED challenges of handguns for hunting?

That is the kind of question hunters will be asking.

 

[BCWILL]

...saftey wasn't really part of this discussion, it was more to do with wounded animals

Safety should be and IS the ONLY reason Handguns are not allowed to be used in the Field by the "General population" and should be the 1st and foremost thing proven or disproven in this debate.......not whether or not the Average Joe can kill a Moose with a Revolver

(although the same sort of model applies - it's not that hunters WON"T wound animals with rifles, it's that they might wound MORE with handguns that some people fear.)

How the Hell did Archery ever become an Accepted form of Hunting then if ONLY the Most Effective means of Killing animals are going to be allowed ?

With that I leave this debate the the Self Proclaimed Political Experts