Handgun Hunting Support

[SignGuy]

personaly i feel that use of a handgun is absolutly no differnt then a bow.
you have relativly the same range, stopping power and accuracy. in fact i would feel more confident hunting with a handgun then a bow. and yes i have tried both fireing a bow and a handgun. as for being swept wit ha handgun. i have been swet many times while in the bush by guys in trees with both rifles and bows. in fact during deer season year before last some older gentleman in a treestand 20' up swept me with a bow and accidently released from about 45 yrds, hit the tree about 6" away from me. he spent a good 10 minutes appoligizing and checking if i was alright, after a polite but stern "you should probly be a little more attentive when swinging that puppy around" i was on my way. the slightest breeze or twitch could have put that arrow someplace rather unpleasent and my son would be without a father.you dont see me pushing to ban bows or bowhunting do you no i push the commen rules of SAFTEY. in reality the possibility of being scoped or swept while in the bush especialy on public lands is always there especialy with some of the "old boys" who use the scope or sights to ID a movment in the bush with either rifles,bows or handguns so your fears are unfounded.

 

[savagefan]

There is of course no logical reason to disallow hunting with a handgun of sufficient power. It is prohibited only to qualify the old argument that "Handguns have no legitimate purpose and should be banned." If the latte slurpers get their way and see a ban on handguns, who's guns are next? Even the muzzle-loader crowd should get behind handgun hunting as it puts a bigger block between the planet saving, teeth gnashing hippies and your own great hobby. And think of your children living in a world where only bad guys have guns, for shame.

 

[SIGP2101]

There is of course no logical reason to disallow hunting with a handgun of sufficient power. It is prohibited only to qualify the old argument that "Handguns have no legitimate purpose and should be banned." If the latte slurpers get their way and see a ban on handguns, who's guns are next? Even the muzzle-loader crowd should get behind handgun hunting as it puts a bigger block between the planet saving, teeth gnashing hippies and your own great hobby. And think of your children living in a world where only bad guys have guns, for shame.

Reason why I would support HGH any time is that it would give us another legal excuse to own handgun. Imagine handgun ban talks then. Something like that would give us more leverage in general fight we doing every day. Hunting is secondary goal here; preservation of the rights (privileges) is primary.

 

[Foxer]

Why do we have to appeal to anyone else (long gun hunters) other than those who want to hunt with handguns?

Because without support the laws won't change.

Other minorities (for a lack of a better word)get their way by demanding that they be heard, demanding that they be given certain rights and demanding that they not be dismissed!

Like who?

This requires change at both the federal AND provincial levels in most cases, and definately the fed level at least in all cases.

The feds will have to be convinced there is serious interest in this on a scale sufficient to justify any 'outrage'. THEN most of us will have to do the same with our provinces.

This is an order of magnitude harder than getting a new bow season passed for example. That doesn't mean it can't be done at all - but it does mean we'll need support (or at least acceptance) from a sizable number of hunters. If not ALL hunters, then a good whack of 'em.

So why do we have to cower in the corner, buying time and begging for support? Why aren't we demanding that we be allowed to hunt with handguns?

Because that'd be useless.

Go big or go home. That's what we face. If we get even a moderate amount of support, there's a fighting chance. If most gun owners are still leery of it, and many outright hostile, then it dies. Plain and simple.

It's like 'demanding' a gun dealer sell you a pistol below price. Why would he? What's in it for him? The gov't will ask the same question, and they won't risk angering people just to make what appears to be a small number of people happy.

That's reality. If you want to stand on the street corner and 'demand' your rights - knock yourself out. But if you want to get something done - get a groundswell of support for it and use that to pressure the gov't. That's how the game works.

 

[Calum]

Also IMHO accuracy is not an issue...
http://www.reloadingroom.com/page47.html

 

[Dave L.]

I'm in support of handgun hunting because I believe it's a lot safer than rifle hunting as well. If I missed with a rifle, there's no telling how far the bullet could end up going. If I missed with a handgun, well, it's gonna go far, but not nearly as far as a .270 Winchester Short Magnum...

- Dave.

 

[joe-nwt]

Because without support the laws won't change.
Like who?

I'm hesitant to name any minority group because there are people just waiting to jump all over a person and brand them as bigots or racist.

But if you need an example lets use one that involves a weapon, the Sikhs and the Kirpan. I know this is not exactly the same situation. But a small, vocal group got law changed. These guys are not licenced to carry this dagger, they do not have to take a course, they don't even have to prove they are Sikhs. Sure, they can't carry it to every corner of the country, neither do hunters want to take their handguns everywhere. They didn't get approval from any other religion or group, they lobbied on their beliefs.

So how were they able to do this? I think we should examine this because they didn't need support from anyone else. They didn't have to lobby other religions. They didn't sit around arguing about what length of dagger would be acceptable. They didn't worry about what others might think.

Like I said, I know it's not exactly the same, so let's not dwell on the differences. Instead, let's discuss the similarities between what they did and what we are trying to do.

 

[Camp Cook]

The Sikhs did it by using the clout of their religious freedoms to win the case...

Guys I couldn't read all of the close minded uneducated drivel that some of the forum members here have been spewing in this thread.

To those of you that are against handgun hunting your close minded fear mongering minds totally disgust me...

I legally carry handguns for defense of my life and the life of others...

I am probably one of the most law abiding safety conscious people you will ever meet. I spend hours training to be proficient in the safe/accurate use of handguns.

With my Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 Casull with a 2X-6X scope I can accurately group under 3" @ 100 yards from a rest every time. This gun/cartridge combo has more killing power out to 150 yards than a 30/30 rifle.

I am so disgusted right now that I am going to stop writing in this thread before I start mouthing off in ways that will get me banned from this site...

 

[savagefan]

Camp Cook is right!

 

[Foxer]

Also IMHO accuracy is not an issue...

It is unlikely to be an issue in reality. In perception, it's an issue. One that we'll need to address.

 

[Foxer]

But if you need an example lets use one that involves a weapon, the Sikhs and the Kirpan. I know this is not exactly the same situation. But a small, vocal group got law changed.

Well the thing is, it's such a RADICALLY different thing that it holds limited value to us as a lesson. They were able to argue that it was part of their religious culture. They didn't "Get" the law changed, they successfully argued the law violated their rights.

Now - that does apply to SOME of our gun fights, but not this particular one. We're going to have a tough time arguing it's our right to hunt with a handgun.

Like I said, I know it's not exactly the same, so let's not dwell on the differences. Instead, let's discuss the similarities between what they did and what we are trying to do.

Well - to point out the similarities, consider this: sikhs got the right to wear turbans in the rcmp because they claimed it was 'religously' siginficant. When that happened, the Scottish demanded they should be allowed to wear kilts then as well. They were denied.

In our case, we MIGHT be able to argue we have a right to hunt - but it would be very difficult to demonstrate the RIGHT to hunt with handguns. In short - we have no grounds to force change on the gov't. We need the gov't to change willingly. And that will require support.

If you can think of a legal argument that would demonstrate our right to hunt with handguns, then It'll be worth looking at.

 

[Foxer]

To those of you that are against handgun hunting your close minded fear mongering minds totally disgust me...

If you want the right to hunt with handguns - you cannot afford to have that attitude. Plain and simple.

People have concerns. And we all know some of the concerns have some legitimacy - no matter what YOU can do with a handgun, the fact is that anything you can do with a handgun you can do better with a rifle. (if you had one handy).

That leads people to believe that those who use handguns are trying to make things 'more challenging' by 'increasing their chances of missing'.

That may not be true. It may not be accurate at all. And it may be entirely possible to demonstrate that not only is it false, but handguns actually represent a BETTER choice in some circumstances.

But - you need to make those arguments. If all you say to someone is "i'm disgusted", they will tend to say "ok, f-you. I won't support it.".

How do we get the public on our side with guns in general? We show them TRUE stats to fight the antis - we take them shooting - we EXPLAIN to them what we're doing and why, and why it's important. We relate to them.

In short - we teach.

Same applies here. Your attitude is no more useful than a math teacher walking into a class and saying "anyone who doesn't love quadratic equasions disgusts me - get out!" That's not the way to teach.

I understand why you feel that way - now put it aside and start asking why people believe the way they do (and REALLY TRY to understand the answers from their point of view) - and then show them the truth in a way that addresses that.

Otherwise - really, how does it help?

 

[Dave L.]

Accuracy not being an issue? Well, a Desert Eagle can shoot under 2 MOA, or so I've heard.

Well - to point out the similarities, consider this: sikhs got the right to wear turbans in the rcmp because they claimed it was 'religously' siginficant. When that happened, the Scottish demanded they should be allowed to wear kilts then as well. They were denied.

That's absolutely despicable. Yet another example of this sickening affirmative action...

- Dave.

 

[joe-nwt]

Well, I had no intention of trying to find a similarity as far as rights go. I was more interested in how a small group was able to accomplish their goal.

How do we get the public on our side with guns in general? We show them TRUE stats to fight the antis - we take them shooting - we EXPLAIN to them what we're doing and why, and why it's important. We relate to them.

The Sikhs did not need the public to side with them. Do we? Why not put the onus on others to show "TRUE stats" that hunting with a handgun would be a problem?

Also, I doubt the topic of whether hanguns are accurate enough, powerful enough or ethical would even come up in discussion with the non-hunting general public. They know nothing except that handguns can kill. So for them, the choice of tool for hunting based on capabilities is a moot point. Only hunters with little of no handgun experience would comment from these angles.

The general public should only be educated to the fact that handgun hunting is carried out successfully elsewhere. IMHO

Accuracy, power and ethics are something we have to deal with within our own ranks. And this is the reason for camp cooks comments I would imagine.

 

[Foxer]

Accuracy not being an issue? Well, a Desert Eagle can shoot under 2 MOA, or so I've heard.

The issue is not 'can a handgun shoot well', but rather 'can the average person shoot the handgun well'.

There's a difference.

That's absolutely despicable. Yet another example of this sickening affirmative action...

It's not despicable. Its the application of our rights such as they are to a given circumstance.

Now - you may not like our rights, such as they are. Maybe you feel they should be changed. You might well be right about that.

But until they are - the only thing that would be despicable would be to allow the gov't to take the rights of people away just because they don't agree with what the people are doing.

I think the whole turban thing is frankly ridiculous and should not be allowed. But - there's a lot of people who think owning guns is ridiculous and should not be allowed.

Ya gotta respect the rights of others as they are spelled out today if you're going to demand others respect YOUR rights.

 

[Foxer]

Well, I had no intention of trying to find a similarity as far as rights go. I was more interested in how a small group was able to accomplish their goal.

Sure. I got that. I was just pointing out that the very nature of their fight was different than ours. We don't have a similar 'path' as they did.

The Sikhs did not need the public to side with them. Do we? Why not put the onus on others to show "TRUE stats" that hunting with a handgun would be a problem?

They were in a position to FORCE the gov't to do what they wanted, due to a charter issue.

we are not. If we were, we would need no support at all.

That's the difference. We cannot pressure the gov't with the law, as they did. We must pressure the gov't another way. The only way we have is to show that 'the public supports this'.

Also, I doubt the topic of whether hanguns are accurate enough, powerful enough or ethical would even come up in discussion with the non-hunting general public. They know nothing except that handguns can kill. So for them, the choice of tool for hunting based on capabilities is a moot point. Only hunters with little of no handgun experience would comment from these angles.

It will be used as a tool by those who oppose hunting and guns.

Trust me - there will be no end of 'they're going to wound animals for fun' comments from the usual suspects, and some of that will stick.

The 'general public' will need to be told the 'why' of it tho. Why use a handgun? Why not use a rifle?

Remember - the public is a little scared of handguns these days. They don't like ANYTHING that sees more handguns out there.

The general public should only be educated to the fact that handgun hunting is carried out successfully elsewhere.

What, you mean like the states? Expect that to be as 'convincing' as showing that most states allow CCW. That doesn't exactly win people over up here. It may be PART of our argument - but 'the states does it, we can too' is not exactly selling in canada at the moment.

Accuracy, power and ethics are something we have to deal with within our own ranks.

Certainly, that's where we'll have to focus those discussions. However - we do have a problem there too. A lot of hunters will need some serious convincing.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

The Sikhs did it by using the clout of their religious freedoms to win the case...

Guys I couldn't read all of the close minded uneducated drivel that some of the forum members here have been spewing in this thread.

To those of you that are against handgun hunting your close minded fear mongering minds totally disgust me...

I legally carry handguns for defense of my life and the life of others...

I am probably one of the most law abiding safety conscious people you will ever meet. I spend hours training to be proficient in the safe/accurate use of handguns.

With my Ruger Super Redhawk in 454 Casull with a 2X-6X scope I can accurately group under 3" @ 100 yards from a rest every time. This gun/cartridge combo has more killing power out to 150 yards than a 30/30 rifle.

I am so disgusted right now that I am going to stop writing in this thread before I start mouthing off in ways that will get me banned from this site...

I take my hat off to you CC and don't let the comments of some get to you. I don't spend the amount of range time as you, wish I did. I'm retired so no real excuse not to, but I do get out on a fairly regular basis.
That's some great accuracy you're getting with your .454 Casull and again, I'm envious but can't come close to matching it. Using my .500 S&W, with open sights, I might be able to get the same group, but at 50 yds, not 100 and only on a fairly regular basis, not everytime.
I agree, and as with your .454 Casull, my gun/cartridge combo also has more killing power out to 150 yds + than a .30-30 rifle. No arguement there. The bottem line for me in taking or not taking the shot is in knowing what I can or cannot do and under what circumstances. A matter of ethics, reguardless of whether I'm using a bow, shotgun, handgun or rifle.
The only way to know ones abilities and to improve upon those limitations is with a degree of practice similar to yours.

 

[Gatehouse]

Also, I doubt the topic of whether hanguns are accurate enough, powerful enough or ethical would even come up in discussion with the non-hunting general public. They know nothing except that handguns can kill. So for them, the choice of tool for hunting based on capabilities is a moot point. Only hunters with little of no handgun experience would comment from these angles.

I wouldn't be surprised if the general public believes that handguns are MORE powerful/deadly than rifles, actulaly. I've seen it time and time again, when I show or tell or show photos of my guns- It's always the handguns that are "WOW...I bet this thing is POWERFUL!!!"

Hollywood has trained them, i guess

The general public should only be educated to the fact that handgun hunting is carried out successfully elsewhere. IMHO

Handgun hunting is allowed in the USA, parts of South America, parts of Europe, Asia and Africa. Lots of places to draw evidence from, but the USA proabbly is the easiest.

 

[savagefan]

The idea that the general public view handguns as less accurate and therefore likely to result in more wounded game doesn't wash. Those that fear handguns get their opinions from movies and sound very surprised when you tell them that rifles generally pack more punch and are more accurate. Remember they've seen Dirty Harry et al blasting punks through brick walls with a single slug from a 44 mag. How about all those westerns and Sam Peckinpah gore-fests? Leave the performance arguments out of it for now. The main point to get across is that public safety won't be compromised and that handgun hunters are good people.

 

[savagefan]

Crap, Gatehouse ya beat me to it. So here's a X2!