Handgun Hunting Support

[gitrdun]

Why?

Well Joe, I guess just because of the same reason that "rifle" hunting accidents do happen to begin with. A very unfortunate fact of life, but real nevertheless. Look, if you own a handgun...you do know that they do come up a lot quicker don't you? A rash uncalculated misfortune leads to disaster much quicker. Now, I realize that none of this applies to those of you out there who are handgun experts, I've been to the pistol range and seen the care which with the experts handle the weapons. It's all the unknowns and bozos that we should be worried about.

 

[asphalt599]

I'm not so much for handgun hunting but I would like to be able to cary one while in the woods.

 

[Chopperhead]

HELL YES!!

Handgun hunting is something ive always wanted too do.

I figure I'll probably have to go to the states to do it though as i highly doubt it'll ever be aloud here again.

Why?..... cause I provides people with another Legitimate reason to have a handgun and also provides people with a legitamte reason to carry one other then for work. and "they" would never alow that, as Handguns have no useful purpuse remeber and if a "useful" purpuse were to arise such as hunting for example then it would screw over the entire system of dealing with handguns as well as prove to people that they are a bunch of liars and a Handgun is just as much a useful tool as a hunting rifle or Bow is. and they have to keep people scared to get what they want. thats how they keep teir power, out of fear.

 

[Salty]

And another thing---> If this thread gets much closer to a third of the size of the almighty 270 vs 30-06 thread I might not come to work tomorrow!

 

[Gatehouse]

Gatehouse: I did try to briefly make my point. The added bureaucracy, the added negative exposure that will be brought forth into our ranks is just not worth it in MY opinion. Believe it that some will jump on something like this to further fuel their desire to completely ban hunting of all types

.

There is no real added bureacracy. all hunting regulations apply. A minor inconveinence would be to establish power levels/permissible cartridges, just iek is already done.

Negative exposure? Like what? You think peopel will be more offended by using handguns, which give the animals a far greater chance than a "high powered rifle wiht a telescopic scope?"

In fact, most people that don't knwo much about hunitng often believe that bowhunting is somehow more ethical since it gives the animals a greater chance of survival. Thee is a good chance that handgun hunting would be seen in the same light.

The fact is, the anti hunters will still be against hunting ,a nd the general popuation will go "ho-hum"

Why not take care of and work on preserving something that we all enjoy just the way it is without bringing further negative attention to our cause. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm sure that anyone with a single grain of common sense will know that hunting accidents will surely go on the rise if handguns are allowed

.

Not only do you not have a crystal ball, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your claim. In the states that allow handgun hunting, there is no evidence that suggests handgun hunters are less safe. In fact, there is a good case to be made that it is SAFER, since you need to be closer to your target, making identification more precise.

Also, it is far more likely that a inexperienced hunter (or even a once a year/shoot anything that moves) hunter is going to choose the weapon that gives him the best chance of sucess, which is a rifle.

 

[joe-nwt]

Well Joe, I guess just because of the same reason that "rifle" hunting accidents do happen to begin with. A very unfortunate fact of life, but real nevertheless. Look, if you own a handgun...you do know that they do come up a lot quicker don't you? A rash uncalculated misfortune leads to disaster much quicker. Now, I realize that none of this applies to those of you out there who are handgun experts, I've been to the pistol range and seen the care which with the experts handle the weapons. It's all the unknowns and bozos that we should be worried about.

So once again we should all be penalized because of what a few might do?

 

[Gatehouse]

Well Joe, I guess just because of the same reason that "rifle" hunting accidents do happen to begin with. A very unfortunate fact of life, but real nevertheless

Sure accidents happen. You have yet to provide any evidence that handgun hunters are more likely to have accidents.

.

Look, if you own a handgun...you do know that they do come up a lot quicker don't you? A rash uncalculated misfortune leads to disaster much quicker

.

A handgun "comes up quicker?"

Your argument appears to be that a hunter will will do a "quick draw" and start blazing away. If this is your argument it is laughable.

handgun hunting is done exactly the same as rifle hunting- except always at very close range. Since your aim is so critical (liek using a bow) you need t take your time, place your shot perfectly.

To suggest that a handgun hunter is more likely than a rifle hunter to "come up quicker" and snap a shot off at an unidentified target is ridiculous.

Now, I realize that none of this applies to those of you out there who are handgun experts, I've been to the pistol range and seen the care which with the experts handle the weapons. It's all the unknowns and bozos that we should be worried about.

And I've been to the range and seen bozos wiht rifles, sighting in just before hunting season, off a cardboard box...

it's the person, not the weapon that is irresponsible....

You are suggesting that everoyne else should be penalized for a small minority..which is sorta how the gun registry came along...

 

[tootall]

YES, I strongly support it. 135 90.60%
I do not know what to think. 5 3.36%
NO, I would newer support it. 9 6.04%

A solid YES for me

 

[John Y Cannuck]

I think we need a regulation prohibiting 10% (so far) of hunters from using handguns. The rest of us will go for it.

 

[cdngunner]

, the little insignificant trolls come out of the wood work with their "hypocrit" statements, or even worse...."yeah....what he says". Some of the wingnuts can't even go through the process of a civil debate, and you want to hunt with handguns???? gimme a f**king break.

Hmmmmmmmm Lets recap

this was said. No personall flame, just an opinion

Way to stick together and support other firearms interests.

You came back with

Don't throw that bulls**t argument about "sticking together" at me OK. Maybe you need a hug because I don't share your opinion, ... too bad. If you are so offended by my democratic choice, then have a moderator remove options 2 and 3, and you can be happy all over again.

Saying that you want your "freedom" to choose/say what you want. Yet bashing NWT for his opinion.
And now your bashing me, and others for using

my democratic choice

to voice our opinion.

Well if that is not hypocritical, I dont know what is.

Your the one who is getting his feathers ruffled and lashing out at people. Most everyone else here is having a civil

democratic choice

discussion. With most people actually explaining their choice. Covey Ridge managed it.

Narrow minded people like you give the rest of us a bad name!

Again my opinion! And to quote someone

Maybe you need a hug because I don't share your opinion, ... too bad.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Hmmmmmmmm Lets recap

this was said. No personall flame, just an opinion



You came back with



Saying that you want your "freedom" to choose/say what you want. Yet bashing NWT for his opinion.
And now your bashing me, and others for using to voice our opinion.

Well if that is not hypocritical, I dont know what is.

Your the one who is getting his feathers ruffled and lashing out at people. Most everyone else here is having a civil discussion. With most people actually explaining their choice. Covey Ridge managed it.

Narrow minded people like you give the rest of us a bad name!

Again my opinion! And to quote someone

Sometimes our greatest adversary's originate from within the group.

 

[Foxer]

Guys, lets focus more on discussing the issues, rather than each other.

 

[TPK]

OK, let's see if we can nail down a couple of things here ...

1) Do handguns have the ballistics required to hunt?

YES, of course they do. If the answer was "no", then the issue of hand gun hunting would dead.

2) Are hand guns inherently more dangerous than rifles, shot guns, or bows?

NO, as most people realize, it's the individual not the weapon that is dangerous.

3) How is "trusting" someone to hunt ethically and safely with a high power rifle, a shot gun, or a bow suddenly a whole different issue when it comes to a hand gun?

Do not all of the concerns raised with hand gun hunting already exist and apply equally to rifle, shot gun, and bow hunting?

We seem to be going in circles here where people can agree that hand guns are capable of taking game but people can't be trusted to use them ... yet they are trusted with high power rifles, shot guns and bows. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to single out hand guns as bad for hunting. All legal concerns, ATT's etc. are just that, and they can be dealt with but if we can't agree and push for hand gun hunting the legal issues are moot as we'll never reach that point.

So, let's write some letters of support for hand gun hunting and push forward. Those against hand gun hunting are welcome to their views but unless you have something other than your emotions and fears to argue against it, why push them? Logic and science are not on your side, and if you remove emotion from the equation you really aren't left with anything to argue.

 

[Teapot]

Opposing Handgun hunting because you fear how people you don't know will behave applies to everything in life including rifle hunting.

Opposing handgun hunting because of what MIGHT happen is not a valid argument and is akin to putting people in gaol because the ploice BELIEVE they might offend some time in the future.

 

[Boomer]

I support the idea of handgun hunting, as I support any activity, which increases the interest in, and the growth of private firearms ownership in Canada. The more people who support our activities, the stronger our voice will be the next some nitwit politician decides that gun bans are a cash cow at election time. The arguments against handgun hunting are weak, and illogical. An individual who acts in an unsafe manner with a pistol will not suddenly be safe with a rifle. Firearm safety is a state of mind, not a state of barrel length.

I would hasten to add, if an individual is going act in an unsafe manner with a firearm, or if an individual is going to commit a criminal act with a firearm, I would much rather see that individual armed with a pistol than with a rifle or shotgun.

 

[Foxer]

OK, let's see if we can nail down a couple of things here ...

Now - as you read this reply, remember i'm in favour of handgun hunting. But it's important to understand the concerns of those who aren't, so i'm going to offer some clarification and outline some of the issues a bit better so that we can prepare for those who feel this way when we talk to them.

1) Do handguns have the ballistics required to hunt?

I don't think that's the biggest issue. SOME handguns do, and obviously any legislation can limit it to those handguns only. I don't think anyone would argue that a 30-30 round coming out of a 15 inch barrel on a contender would be much less fatal than one coming out of a 16 inch winchester trapper.

However - the feeling is that it's MUCH harder to hit with a handgun. That' it's much easier to blow the shot. And the only reason you're doing it is to be a 'cowboy' and therefore you're risking wounded animals just so you can 'feel cool'. That isn't in keeping with common hunting ethics.

2) Are hand guns inherently more dangerous than rifles, shot guns, or bows?

Some feel that they're more easily lost/stolen etc, and others feel that it's 'easier' to accidentally sweep someone with a handgun.

3) How is "trusting" someone to hunt ethically and safely with a high power rifle, a shot gun, or a bow suddenly a whole different issue when it comes to a hand gun?

Well this is the big one - the belief is that it's HARDER to BE ethical with a handgun, so to speak. You need to be a very accurate judge of distance. It's much harder to hit with a handgun than with a rifle. etc etc. So - even if a person is TRYING to be ethical the chances are much better they will screw it up and wound the animal by accident or incompetence without meaning to. If a guy thinks a deer is at 75 yards with a rifle, but it's actually at 150, no big deal. The animal's still going down. But with a pistol... could be a wounded animal.

Now - most of that stuff also applied to bow hunting at one time or another. For a long time bowhunting was looked upon with some distaste in the hunting community, and has only gained 'acceptance' grudgingly in recent years. But again - bow hunting is kind of 'excused' because it's an entirely different form of hunting, it's safer near populated areas because arrows just don't go that far and it's harder to have a 'misfire' with a longbow, and some people can't own firearms so this lets them still get out to hunt. But none of that really applies to handguns.

Which brings us around to a general question people are going to ask - "Why?". Why do you want to hunt with a tool that's inferior to the tools already available to you?


All of those questions can be answered - but that's what you have to face. Asking yourself 'easy' questions and answering them won't cut it - we have to deal with the 'hard' questions and convince people to look at it in a new and honest light, rather than emotionally.

 

[cdngunner]

Well here is an argument for.

I have always heard people complain that hunting with a "hi-powered" rifle is not sporting because you can be half a mile away and just pull the trigger. (of course we know there is more involved then that)

Handgun hunting would be more "ethical" just for the fact that you have to be more on a level with the game your hunting. The game in fact has more of a "sporting chance" because you have to work your way in very close.

To be a successfull hand-gun hunter, you will have to be willing to put in more time, effort, and grueling work.

 

[Gatehouse]

Okay Foxer, i will play...

I don't think that's the biggest issue. SOME handguns do, and obviously any legislation can limit it to those handguns only.

Actually- ALL handguns have the power to kill effectivley- It's just how they are applied. A .22LR is a great grouse pistol, and a 9MM would do fine on close range coyotes etc...

We just have to set minimum acceptable power levels for larger game, which is not hard ot do.

However - the feeling is that it's MUCH harder to hit with a handgun. That' it's much easier to blow the shot. And the only reason you're doing it is to be a 'cowboy' and therefore you're risking wounded animals just so you can 'feel cool'. That isn't in keeping with common hunting ethics.

Without a doubt it's much harder to hit wiht a handgun, and I'd suggest that the peopel who are only into it for the "cool" factor are not going to do well, and will probably abandon the handgns and return to a rifle becuase of lack of sucess. Thankfully, the "cool" guys will be at a minimum, since most hunters are in it to put soem meat in the freezer, as efficiently as possible. So they choose a rifle...

Some feel that they're more easily lost/stolen etc, and others feel that it's 'easier' to accidentally sweep someone with a handgun.

I am sure it *is* easier to *sweep* someone wiht a handgun - In a close range situation, where there are a number of peopel around. When hunting wiht a handgun, most of the time it sits in the holster. Also, there are few peopel around, so when you do draw it, it's not like you are waving it around and there are people everywhre. it's you and your buddy.

You will no more "sweep" someone at longer ranges wiht a handgn thean you woudl a rifle.

Well this is the big one - the belief is that it's HARDER to BE ethical with a handgun, so to speak. You need to be a very accurate judge of distance. It's much harder to hit with a handgun than with a rifle. etc etc. So - even if a person is TRYING to be ethical the chances are much better they will screw it up and wound the animal by accident or incompetence without meaning to. If a guy thinks a deer is at 75 yards with a rifle, but it's actually at 150, no big deal. The animal's still going down. But with a pistol... could be a wounded animal.

Now - most of that stuff also applied to bow hunting at one time or another. For a long time bowhunting was looked upon with some distaste in the hunting community, and has only gained 'acceptance' grudgingly in recent years. But again - bow hunting is kind of 'excused' because it's an entirely different form of hunting, it's safer near populated areas because arrows just don't go that far and it's harder to have a 'misfire' with a longbow, and some people can't own firearms so this lets them still get out to hunt. But none of that really applies to handguns.

No need to reply- You answered it already. Handgun huntig and bow hunting are very similar. Your range is slightly extended by a scoped revolver, and it is extended more wiht a bolt action or a TC Encore, but all of that ehtical wounding discussion was made long ago wiht bow hunters. If they can do it ethically, so cana guy wiht a .44 Magnum.

Which brings us around to a general question people are going to ask - "Why?". Why do you want to hunt with a tool that's inferior to the tools already available to you?

Same reason anyone wants to hunt with anything, really. It interests me, It challenges me.

We dont' ask this question of people that use:

Lever guns wiht open sights

Single shot rifles

Muzzle loaders

Archery Gear

etc..

Why do we not ask these people that question? We already know why they choose this gear, instead of a scoped bolt aciton. The challenege, it interests them, they like it.

Same as handguns.

 

[SIGP2101]

Reasons why I am in support for handgun hunting rights to be reinstated are multiple. Not just a simple hunting ability of an individual.

First - if we ever manage to make such push and get it back for hunters it will give all handgun owners another valid reason to own handgun. Will reinforce our right to own it regardless of our individual desires/fears to hunt or not with it. Firearm community will benefit from it in general, and it will be a major blow/set back for antis.
Second - another 100% valid reason for ATT, having prove that you are hunter. Much easier to get it.
Third - people who do not like hunting with HG but would like to carry one for security reasons will not have trouble having one since they already have hunting license.
Fourth - since it will be applicable for small game as well as big game, fishermen would be able to carry it in areas where they do not feel safe and don’t want to carry non restricted.
Fifth - ‘only approved ranges’ will become invalid statement.
Sixth - and probably most valid reason why should we fight for it is that it will reinforce our firearms right for generations to come. It will also ajar door for ATC for self-defense. But that is another topic for another time.

Any other benefit that you can think of?

 

[TPK]

Good points Foxer. In my simplistic way, my post was to address the three main issues as I see them.

1) Hand guns have the power and accuracy to be used for hunting.
2) Hand guns are no more dangerous than rifles, shot guns, or bows when handled properly.
3) Peoples ethics and attitudes don't change depending on the firearm they are holding.

In my opinion, if we can get people to concede these points, further arguments against won't hold much water and we can move forward and work on the details and finer points.