Handgun Hunting Support

[Foxer]

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

Bull####.

Animal conservation is at the core of our hunting culture. You don't go around wounding animals.

If you think handgun hunting would be 'acceptable' if it left more wounded animals in the field, you are not only sadly mistaken but you really need to think about your priorities as a hunter.

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 ?

We went over that a few pages back. go take a look.

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

Maybe take the time to go read over the part of your core book that talked about trying NOT to wound animals again

 

[TPK]

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.

OK, I see this as a YES, HG's can be used for hunting BUT scenario, and I must admit it does bring up some of the major points the "Anti's will". So let's see if we can address the concerns ..

So .... how do we get HG hunters to "prove" they are capable of using their HG to hunt effectively and proficiently?

 

[joe-nwt]

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).

I'm not sure we should be touching this with a 10" barrel. You realize this statement could be applied to handguns at a shooting range.

As a defense to this statement: I say we point out that to own a handgun you must belong to a shooting club (for arguements sake, no tangents here please ). Is not Canadian's shooting record at ranges excellent? That should be our defense as far as safety goes. Perhaps, and I'm only suggesting this for discussion, don't jump all over me, the issuance of a handgun hunting licence should be tied to belonging to a shooting range. Perhaps the potential handgun hunter would be more inclined to practice and learn safe shooting skills if he had to belong to a club.

Is this way out in left field?

Let's leave the bowhunters out of this question, please. They can practice virtually anywhere.

 

[savagefan]

I read in the press about a week ago that hunter numbers in BC are about half of what they were in the 80's. Maybe allowing handgun hunting could bring the numbers and revenue up. There's an approach.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

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.

Yes Foxer, it will take serious dedication, and while not in the lime light, some behind the scene efforts are being put in. But before you chastise others for dismissing factors and insulting those that point them out, take a look in the mirror. It seems that you've been as guilty as any, so if you're going to throw rocks, don't do it in a glass house.

 

[TPK]

Is not Canadian's shooting record at ranges excellent? That should be our defense as far as safety goes.

Left field, Hell no, a home run in fact, a great point if you ask me. This is the sort of thing we need to bring to light to argue our point. Foxer and others have warned us what the most likely questions from antis will be, so lets focus on answering those with points like this one.

Are HG's safe in the bush? Well if you look at stats where HG hunting is allowed ... yes, they don't support a high number of HG incidents. If you look at the shooting ranges and clubs accross Canada where HG's are regularly shot, there are no high numbers of incidents either at the range or transporting to and from. These sorts of discussions can dispell fears and concerns (valid or not, real or not) without being confrontational.

 

[BCWILL]

Bulls**t.

Animal conservation is at the core of our hunting culture. You don't go around wounding animals.

If you think handgun hunting would be 'acceptable' if it left more wounded animals in the field, you are not only sadly mistaken but you really need to think about your priorities as a hunter.



We went over that a few pages back. go take a look.



Maybe take the time to go read over the part of your core book that talked about trying NOT to wound animals again

Well I give you credit........
You are the King of Twisting $hit around no doubt about that.

Thanks for Questioning my Ethics

 

[Foxer]

Is not Canadian's shooting record at ranges excellent? That should be our defense as far as safety goes.

Our record with rifles at ranges is excellent too - but we still have accidents in the field. One is a highly controlled environment, the other isn't.

I read in the press about a week ago that hunter numbers in BC are about half of what they were in the 80's. Maybe allowing handgun hunting could bring the numbers and revenue up. There's an approach.

If people are proving reluctant to going thru the more simple steps to hunt with a rifle - it is highly unlikely they will be willing to go thru the EXTRA steps of owning a restricted firearm. I doubt it'll get our numbers much higher. More likely it would help keep a few people interested who otherwise might have decided to stop hunting for a while, but even then i doubt it'll help our numbers in a meaningful fashion.

 

[Foxer]

Well I give you credit........
You are the King of Twisting $hit around no doubt about that.

Thanks for Questioning my Ethics

Dude - you posted that wounding animals should not be a consideration. How is me saying it is, and you should think about that twisting around what you said?

Sorry you don't like the answer. Next time don't post that we shouldn't be worrying about the animals.

 

[Foxer]

Well if you look at stats where HG hunting is allowed ... yes, they don't support a high number of HG incidents.

That is in direct conflict with the numbers BR just posted. So where are you getting your info from? If you make that statement, you'll have to be able to back it up.

 

[Gatehouse]

Gatehouse says he did it out to 400 yards. And 'hundreds' of times. Go back and read it yourself. I'm not exaggerating at all - that's what was said. In more than one post.


.

Ah..No...

I said that Elmer Keith used handguns to kill animals at distances OUT TO 400 yards, hundreds of times. That is 0-400 yards....These included coyotes and deer. Not sure if there was any elk at that range, but I doubt it. Elmer coudl hunt, too.

And- the only reason I used it as an example was to demonstrate that your belief that shorter barrels than what you were told- 7.5" were indeed as effective as the 7.5.

All my psts on the topic were regarding 2" of barrel length, and everyone else coudl see that but you.....

For some reason, everyone else -except you- seemed to understand the point I was making, but you were stuck on the fact that "some ####### had done it once doesn't prove it is an effective weapon"

 

[joe-nwt]

Our record with rifles at ranges is excellent too - but we still have accidents in the field. One is a highly controlled environment, the other isn't.

I go to the range quite often and no-one else is there. How highly controlled is that?

Well I don't think anyone is claiming there will be no accidents. There may be. Heck, there are vehicle accidents also. When supposedly everyone knows how to drive resposibly. But I don't think we should be guilty before proven otherwise.

Ever slip/trip and fall? But you know how to walk....

If people are proving reluctant to going thru the more simple steps to hunt with a rifle - it is highly unlikely they will be willing to go thru the EXTRA steps of owning a restricted firearm.

Precisely. This is why we shouldn't see a big shoot-fest going on should we succede in getting the law changed. Potential handgun hunters have already gone through those extra steps to own handguns. They should be well aware of the seriousness of handgunning. Are we to dwell on a potential bad apple or two?

 

[BCWILL]

Dude - you posted that wounding animals should not be a consideration. How is me saying it is, and you should think about that twisting around what you said?

Sorry you don't like the answer. Next time don't post that we shouldn't be worrying about the animals.

Actually NOWHERE did I specifically say that wounding animals should NOT be a consideration...you just Twisted what I said to get your own meaning of it.....to suggest that is what I meant is not only insulting to myself but to you as well.

What I was getting at was it seems redundant to argue about the effectiveness of Handguns as Hunting tools etc. when there are FAR bigger issues to deal with regarding Handguns and the Lawful carry of them By Canadian Residents for the purpose of hunting or whatever ?

That's what I was getting at and my Numerous replies to this thread have pointed out if you bothered "reading" them.

I guess you are too busy Insulting everyone to really "Hear" what they are saying ?

 

[TPK]

That is in direct conflict with the numbers BR just posted. So where are you getting your info from? If you make that statement, you'll have to be able to back it up.

I am simply pointing out how an arument for HG hunting can be made without being confrontational .... I have no stats , I was showing an example .. how ever I have to wonder if there are stats that indicate HG hunting is a major problem compared to rifle, shot gun or bow hunting where HG hunting is allowed, that those stats aren't thrown back at us anytime we ask about HG hunting here in Canada. You indicated BR posted some ... I'll browse back and have a look. As mentioned earlier, I'm fogging over in a haze trying to get through these posts and am simply trying push on with how to get movement forward on the issue.

 

[Levi Garrett]

I did like Chuck Hawks pages on different ammo, guns etc , but after reading this I will look at his articles closer now.

In some respects handgun hunting is similar to bow hunting. Both are fairly short range weapons that demand superior hunting and marksmanship skills for consistent success. The hunter must be able to stalk within close range of the intended trophy. This is a very sporting proposition, one it would do many rifle shooters well to emulate. A handgun, however, is more accurate than a bow. And a bullet from a powerful handgun is more humane than an arrow, as it kills very quickly with a well-placed bullet. In that sense it is like a rifle. To me, handgun hunting is hunting at its finest.

Dark text is BS big time, I have put arrows through deer that just flinched, looked around till they fell over dead

 

[joe-nwt]

I am simply pointing out how an arument for HG hunting can be made without being confrontational .... I have no stats , I was showing an example .. how ever I have to wonder if there are stats that indicate HG hunting is a major problem compared to rifle, shot gun or bow hunting where HG hunting is allowed, that those stats aren't thrown back at us anytime we ask about HG hunting here in Canada. You indicated BR posted some ... I'll browse back and have a look. As mentioned earlier, I'm fogging over in a haze trying to get through these posts and am simply trying push on with how to get movement forward on the issue.

On on a limb, I would suggest if there were some huge problem with accidents in areas where hundgun hunting was allowed then they would just stop allowing it?

Now to the bickerers, can each of you guys just post a "yes, dear" for the others and let us move on?

 

[Salty]

I had high hopes for this thread. But its completely left facts and experience behind for some, and turned in to arguement around speculation. If that fails, to quote snipits from others, spin them, and trying to heat the debate up in to an arguement about nothing.

This thread has done more harm to potential hand gun hunting than anything else as far as the last 20 or so pages go, because of stuborness and ego.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Now to the bickerers, can each of you guys just post a "yes, dear" for the others and let us move on?[/QUOTE]

Sure, I'll give it a whirl and try and keep the end objective as the focal point, "yes dear"

 

[savagefan]

If people are proving reluctant to going thru the more simple steps to hunt with a rifle - it is highly unlikely they will be willing to go thru the EXTRA steps of owning a restricted firearm. I doubt it'll get our numbers much higher. More likely it would help keep a few people interested who otherwise might have decided to stop hunting for a while, but even then i doubt it'll help our numbers in a meaningful fashion.

I meant that it could make it an easier sell to the governments and public and really the whole red tape thing has to ease up if people are to return to the sport. Worth a "shot" anyway.

 

[Foxer]

I go to the range quite often and no-one else is there. How highly controlled is that?

Are you kidding? nice bench, clear lanes of fire, the whole facility is designed for saftey and making sure the bullets don't go anywhere bad, all the range rules and such... entirely different than hunting in the woods. It's a VERY highly controlled environment compared to hunting.

Are we to dwell on a potential bad apple or two?

I dunno - i didn't bring it up.

but the information provided by bigredd suggests there MAY be a problem with saftey. I don't think it would be hard to figure out a way to deal with that.