Handgun Hunting Support
- Thread starter SIGP2101
- Start date
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
Nothing in our local provincial hunting regs to outlaw it, just an ATT issue.
in my opinion it would make backpack hunting/camping alot better just having a holstered gun instead of a full sized rifle.it would make the hunt harder so far as range goes.it would add to the reward of taking a trophy.it would also show anti gunners that hand guns are not only used in gang shoot outs.around here there are alot of anti handgun pro hunter types.it would make them see that hand guns do have a use in the hunting world too.it would most likly be with you in camp if you needed it for bear protection in a case were you normaly wouldn't carry a rifle.it might open the doors for more people to become intrested in hunting.it would also help kill the stupid image antis have given handguns.I voted yes btw.
IMPALA
IMPALA
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
It would be nice to see hunting with a handgun treated the same as hunting with any other firearm.
i would like to just because i could.....
what i would really like is to be able to pack a .22 for use on grouse. others might prefer to use handguns on big game but i would stick with my rifle. it would just be nice to have the option.
what i would really like is to be able to pack a .22 for use on grouse. others might prefer to use handguns on big game but i would stick with my rifle. it would just be nice to have the option.
- Location
- AB foothills
gitrdun said:
How come?
I am opposed to hand gun hunting because I think the woods allready have too many idiots without adding pistoleros to the mix. Besides I can only imagine the ethical range, ethical calibre and what would you do if you got scoped arguments
Covey Ridge said:I am opposed to hand gun hunting because I think the woods allready have too many idiots without adding pistoleros to the mix. Besides I can only imagine the ethical range, ethical calibre and what would you do if you got scoped arguments
Well handguns are as effective as BOWS
You will always get idiots and there is no difference between an idiot with a rifle/shotgun or an idiot with a hand gun. Except the idiot with a rifle can shoot you from a GREATER distance.
Covey Ridge said:
The problem wiht this argument is that you are blaming the tool for the actions of people.
A handgun is a tool for hunting, just liek a rifle, a bow, a shotgun or a muzzleloader. Hunters can (and do) misuse all of these tools, but that is not the fault of the tool, it is the fault of the person.
In fact, handguns woudl probably drw the more ethical hunters, simply because it is more challenging, and would appeal to those that aren't just out there to "kill something."
and what would you do if you got scoped arguments
This comment is just stupid. You are implying that a hunter, disgruntled with the acitons of another hunter, will be transformed into a homocidal maniac because of the presence of a handgun.
Covey Ridge said:I am opposed to hand gun hunting because I think the woods allready have too many idiots without adding pistoleros to the mix. Besides I can only imagine the ethical range, ethical calibre and what would you do if you got scoped arguments
gitrdun said:
Way to stick together and support other firearms interests.
I think there are some genuine and legitimate issues against handgun hunting in the minds of many hunters. And when i say legitimate, i do not mean 'correct' or 'accurate', but that the concerns are based on something real.
One such thing is the natural dis-inclination towards using 'marginal' tools. Most hunters feel that we owe the animal as clean a kill as we can reasonably deliver. If you make hunting 'more challenging' by increasing the chances of a bad hit - you appear to be violating that principle.
Bowhunting (which was also held in distain by many for years) is a little different - it's an entirely different way of hunting and they only way to experience it is with a bow. But if you just want the 'challenge' of shooting an animal closer than normal - hold your fire till you GET closer then shoot them with a 'real' gun. (this is me explaining the argument btw - not necessarily my opinion).
Now - i can understand those arguments. And they DO hold some water. But i think if people knew more about hunting handguns they'd probably understand that those fears are already addressed.
I also think that 'handgun hunting' brings visions of people 'quick drawing' on a deer and the bullet could go anywhere.
Education is the key here i think. I was against the idea myself, till i started reading a bit about it. I think that there should be required minimums (hunting deer with 9mm's is obviously a mistake) but that if done properly, you wouldn't notice any difference between handgun hunters and rifle hunters as far as 'results' and ethics goes. I'm told it's not significantly harder to get in the 'kill zone' with a proper handgun at 100 yards free hand than it is to get into it at 300 with a rifle - and how many guys do that?
Personally, i'd likley only be interested in grouse with a 22, or possibly small game like yotes and such. (mainly when i'm out hunting something else.) I'd also like to have one along for bear protection, so having the excuse that i'm 'hunting crows' with my 44 mag works for me during the summer
I think it's definitely worth looking at - the question probably shouldn't be 'should we do it' but rather 'how should we do it'. In other words - what parameters would be best to ensure people aren't being stupid but ARE able to use handguns.
Even if they 'first' brought it out for small game only, that'd be a big step. I don't think most hunters would have a problem with being able to fetch a grouse with a pistol while they were hunting deer. Once that mental 'barrier' is broken - it's easier to have a real discussion about the issue and get people onside about using handguns for bigger game.
One such thing is the natural dis-inclination towards using 'marginal' tools. Most hunters feel that we owe the animal as clean a kill as we can reasonably deliver. If you make hunting 'more challenging' by increasing the chances of a bad hit - you appear to be violating that principle.
Bowhunting (which was also held in distain by many for years) is a little different - it's an entirely different way of hunting and they only way to experience it is with a bow. But if you just want the 'challenge' of shooting an animal closer than normal - hold your fire till you GET closer then shoot them with a 'real' gun. (this is me explaining the argument btw - not necessarily my opinion).
Now - i can understand those arguments. And they DO hold some water. But i think if people knew more about hunting handguns they'd probably understand that those fears are already addressed.
I also think that 'handgun hunting' brings visions of people 'quick drawing' on a deer and the bullet could go anywhere.
Education is the key here i think. I was against the idea myself, till i started reading a bit about it. I think that there should be required minimums (hunting deer with 9mm's is obviously a mistake) but that if done properly, you wouldn't notice any difference between handgun hunters and rifle hunters as far as 'results' and ethics goes. I'm told it's not significantly harder to get in the 'kill zone' with a proper handgun at 100 yards free hand than it is to get into it at 300 with a rifle - and how many guys do that?
Personally, i'd likley only be interested in grouse with a 22, or possibly small game like yotes and such. (mainly when i'm out hunting something else.) I'd also like to have one along for bear protection, so having the excuse that i'm 'hunting crows' with my 44 mag works for me during the summer
I think it's definitely worth looking at - the question probably shouldn't be 'should we do it' but rather 'how should we do it'. In other words - what parameters would be best to ensure people aren't being stupid but ARE able to use handguns.
Even if they 'first' brought it out for small game only, that'd be a big step. I don't think most hunters would have a problem with being able to fetch a grouse with a pistol while they were hunting deer. Once that mental 'barrier' is broken - it's easier to have a real discussion about the issue and get people onside about using handguns for bigger game.
Foxer
You forgot that people with lagitimate issues also think that using semi autos for hunting is not neccessary.
After all you only need one shot.
The attitude of some on here leave a big gap for the antis to come in and divide and conqure.
Any hunting method should be condoned as long the final objective is reached, dispatching game with as little suffering as possible.
Hell if someone wants to hang of a branch with a knife between his teeth and jump on a deers back, I'm all for it, as long as the animal is dispatched quickly!!!
You forgot that people with lagitimate issues also think that using semi autos for hunting is not neccessary.
After all you only need one shot.
The attitude of some on here leave a big gap for the antis to come in and divide and conqure.
Any hunting method should be condoned as long the final objective is reached, dispatching game with as little suffering as possible.
Hell if someone wants to hang of a branch with a knife between his teeth and jump on a deers back, I'm all for it, as long as the animal is dispatched quickly!!!
