Handgun Hunting Support

[Gatehouse]

It was Excellent! You've learned the basic skill of mimicry we expect out of the average primate. With careful training, we might even get you to master basic tasks.

Your comments pretty much proves my point:

I think that Foxer has a very high opinion of himself, refuses to acknowledge that he is ever wrong despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, likes to talk down to anyone that disagrees with him, believes he is the last word on the intraweb concerning politics and unfortunately is more interested in making sure that CGN'ers subscribe to *his* point of view than he is in actually finding solutions

Yes, but i actually laid out what evidence we'd need. However, lets move on..

This also proves my point:

Yup, just you...You are the only one that could possibly have had any ideas of merit.

You don't actually have much of a plan, and don't really care much. Well that's fine - not everyone is going to.

Incorrect.

Well we know that isn't true is it. I laid out the problems, and i also laid out solutions to each problem and what has to be done. But that didn't conform to your imagined idea of 'no rules' handgun hunting. So.. you certanly did talk down about it. And where you didn't talk down, you just pretended the real problems don't exist, but tried to pass yourself off as someone who was knowledgeable.

Incorrect. I never suggested a "no rules" handgun hunting agenda, in fact, I strongly suggested we look at states that allow handguns, and follow thier lead. I also took the time to look up sevral states regulations and post them here.

However, since you have laid out the problems, solutiopns and what has to be done- I challenge you. Spearhead it. Do it- You seem to have all the answers, so do it. I promise that I will support your efforts to legalize handgun hunting, and I will work hard to make sure you get the support you need, to the best of my abilities.

But you - who don't really care, haven't really done much research into what's involved right now in bc, and haven't got a history of working with the political parties knows best, right?

Incorrect. I have looked into it and I have worked wiht political parties. Just because I felt no need to brag about my work wiht political parties on CGN, does not mean that I have never done anything ...

Y'know - if you really don't have a plan, and you really don't intend to be part of the fight in a meaningful way, then realistically all you're doing by pissing on others because you don't like the idea of ANY rules or regulations is guaranteeing it will never happen

Incorrect

. Sure - you think the extra 100 fps (or 60 as was mentioned in the article posted by someone else) won't make a difference, but you don't care about the perception it'll have.

Well- It won't. Anyone that is opposed to handgun hunting won't be swayed by 100fps.

Your ridiculous idea of holding onto a 7.5 " barrel restriction had no merit, and you appear to still be bitter than everyone disagreed wiht you.

Sure - you'll suggest there's widespread support because of a vote without knowing if the hunting community actually supports it, and suggest a course of action that will require at LEAST tens of thousands of dollars in donations, but you don't really support it strongly yourself.

Incorrect. I do support it, and woudl support others that wanted to take it on, just as I said. I simply said I was not the one to spearhead the movement. Once again, you twist those words, Foxer.

As to that last bit - i edited it out. You've been here long enough to know better than to make suggestions of or support illegal activities on this site. Really - that's over the line. Especially in light of the fact we've just had the 'grizzlie' thing go on. This is GT's site, and regardless of our argument you aught to show a little more respect than that.

Very sorry, I changed the post to make it more clear.


Unfortunatley..I've allowed myself to be dragged back into this pointless debate on who can piss harder, faster, stronger...

So I will just keep on topic now, rather than sped more pointless time jousting with lil Foxer..

It's about debate about handgun hunting...

 

[Foxer]

Your comments pretty much proves my point

No, it mocks your point - but that concept may be a little above you just yet. We'll work on that later

Yes, but i actually laid out what evidence we'd need. However, lets move on..


This also proves my point:

Yup, just you...You are the only one that could possibly have had any ideas of merit.

No, it simply states that i actually provided real information about the subject. It doesn't allude to the 'plan' at all. In fact, the very fact I would elaborate on something YOU suggested earlier would indeed show i gave CREEDENCE to your 'plan' - such as it was.

That's elementary logic. But again - we'll leave that for a bit.

Incorrect

Why, because you say so? Are you also stamping your feet and jumping up and down? That's the kind of thing i usually see out of people offering that argument

It is correct in fact.

Well- It won't. Anyone that is opposed to handgun hunting won't be swayed by 100fps

Well, it will. They're swayed by the fact that every effort is being made to ensure only 'hunting handguns' - guns specifically designed to do the job - are used. The fact is most won't think about how much more or less killing power or accuracy it gives someone.

And yes- i've run that by people. it makes a difference.

It's not the ONLY way - but it's a good way. Better than requiring something like additional training in some ways. Although one might argue the reverse of that.

Incorrect. I do support it, and woudl support others that wanted to take it on, just as I said. I simply said I was not the one to spearhead the movement. Once again, you twist those words, Foxer.

Ahhh - who's twisting words here. I said you don't REALLY support it strongly. You yourself said you might 'write a few letters' and such. Being 'pro' handgun hunting isn't supporting it. Obviously the effort you're willing to put in is not huge.

So if all you're really willing to do is say 'rah team' and maybe write a few letters, you're not really going to be doing much of the 'heavy lifting' to make things actually happen. Yet - that is what's needed. People will have to dig deep into their pockets and put up money, or time, or both. A lot of people.

Very sorry, I changed the post to make it more clear.

Oh i think it was plenty clear before. It's just not illegal now. Which i appreciate. GT's on a bit of a warpath at the moment.

 

[Gatehouse]

Because they do it in the States: Ok, cool...so move there.

Why not just take thier sensible model and use it here, too?

Because you could pop a bird while on your way to elk, moose or deer territory: If you must eat chicken, then stop in at KFC. Big game are surely gonna stick around after you fire your cap gun.

I suppose you hunt inthe suburbs? Because there is no KFC anywhere I hunt. Besides, there are many, many opportunities to pop a chicken or 2 on the way to or form big game hunting. I have popped WAY too many chickens and then killed big game afterwards to take your argument serioulsy.

Because it's more convenient and easier to pack a handgun: Maybe you need to pick a sport that doesn't require so much physical effort.

Some ofus live 100 paces away from the woods, and maybe there are times when one wants to go for aquick hike and stuff a handgun in our holster, raather than a rifle., in case we "stumble" onto something. Or a coyote in the winter when out checking our livestock. Or mayeb some have disabilities that preclude the use of both arms...The list can go on and on...

I can be just as effective with a 5" barrel gun and open sights. Elmer Fudd, Keith whatever... is (was) a pompous braggard fart that never documented how many animals he wounded. Ever heard of literary license?

Anyone that practices a bit can kill a deer at 50 yards wiht a 5" barrel open sighted handgun of appropriate power. Too bad you are sucha poor shot that you lack the skills, maybe practice a bit?

It would be handy to have a handgun while riding a horse: I've hunted on horses for 30 years or better. Handiest thing I ever had was horse savy and a multi-tool ... cowboy!!!

A handgun *is* handy on a horse, although I generally prefer a rifle.

Because it would be good defence when bow hunting: Well, if you're gonna bow hunt, then bow hunt. I can just see the bulls**t here. Ooooh, can't make that shot with my bow....bang, there. Done, now I'll just tag it with my archery tag.

We already have laws that deal wiht shooting animals wiht guns while in archery seasons- It's very easy to differentiate btween the 2 types of wounds, and unscrupulous hunters are busted every year with gun kiled archery animals...

Carrying a firearm for self defense int he bush for predators shoudl be somethign that should be left up to the individual. There are a number of wild places in BC that you woudl be foolish to go without a firearm.

 

[Gatehouse]

So Foxer, you got all the answers...Are you planing on spearheading the handgun hunting movement?

Once again, i pledge my support.

When will you launch the campaign?

 

[Foxer]

So Foxer, you got all the answers...Are you planing on spearheading the handgun hunting movement?

Once again, i pledge my support.

When will you launch the campaign?

I had actually prepared a fair bit of information and written to a couple of those mps in charge back east. I was waiting for an issue to be sorted out as to where such an effort may be organized online, here or at another site. I helped build the other site specifically to address handgun issues such as ccw and the like for someone else, and included a handgun hunting section which i intended to use to begin to organize support, but i thought it would be better here, and GT after some time of being reluctant was willing to consider it. I was waiting to see how that turned out.

I'm not really terribly motivated at the moment tho. We'll see. I think maybe i'd best wait a week or so before i think about it any more.

 

[wade]

i am for it, sure would end trying to chase of a couger with a stick when out for a walk with the kids,

 

[wade]

i am for it, sure would end trying to chase off a couger with a stick when out for a walk with the kids,

 

[joe-nwt]

Well, as far as I know, they're not just MY long guns Joe, they are yours and that of many others as well.
You also give me too much credit. It's isn't me that doesn't allow it, I just don't support it and believe that making a stink about it, will only do just that....make a stink.

Correct. And I personnaly see no difference in my guns that warrant all the special rules based on a few inches of barrel length.

Or looks. I have no interest in black guns or shotguns for that matter. But I'll be damned if those that do will not have my support to use these firearms where ever they can legally. But I suppose you don't have a problem with the fact some guns have been deemed restricted or prohibited based on looks. Because YOU wouldn't carry one hunting. Do you really see these guns as some significant buffer between present firearms ownership and your precious huntimg rifle?

 

[Foxer]

Correct. And I personnaly see no difference in my guns that warrant all the special rules based on a few inches of barrel length.

I think that's a little unfair - the difference between a rifle and a pistol isn't the 'few inches of barrel' - it's the stock.

A rifle IS a much much more stable platform to shoot with. I don't think you can dispute that with the same amount of training a person will almost always be able to shoot more accurately and to a greater range with a rifle than with a pistol.

Do you really see these guns as some significant buffer between present firearms ownership and your precious huntimg rifle?

I think that there is a general concern that if we allow handguns into the woods, and there are MORE incidents of accident or wounded animals, that it will reflect badly on hunting and firearms in general. That can lead to reduced hunting opportunity and support, or stronger 'anti-gun' sentiment in the public, or both. I'm fairly confident that's true, IF there were a large increase in accidents and wounding - the more pertinent question might be 'would there be'.

 

[joe-nwt]

I think that's a little unfair - the difference between a rifle and a pistol isn't the 'few inches of barrel' - it's the stock.

3 or 4 inches of barrel is what prevents me fom taking a single shot handgun into the woods.

A rifle IS a much much more stable platform to shoot with. I don't think you can dispute that with the same amount of training a person will almost always be able to shoot more accurately and to a greater range with a rifle than with a pistol.

Perhaps, but not neccessarily within ethical ranges for the appropriate firearm. 50 yrds with a handgun is not always harder to achieve than 150yrds with a rifle. And yes there may be some who will try longer distances with a handgun, just as there are those who cannot accurately judge longer distances with a rifle.

I think that there is a general concern that if we allow handguns into the woods, and there are MORE incidents of accident or wounded animals, that it will reflect badly on hunting and firearms in general.

There might be. No disputing that. However where HGH is presently allowed, there seems to be little evidence to support that there will be more accidents or wounded animals. If we want to dwell on the worst case scenario (read not ingnore) then we are just biding our time until the next whacko creates that scenario.

IF there were a large increase in accidents and wounding - the more pertinent question might be 'would there be'.

Well then, let's move on then and discuss this instead of entertaining a continuation of the pissing matches.

I'll start.

For discussion purposes, when there is no apparent problems elsewhere where HGH is allowed, why would we entertain the thought that there would be a problem in Canada? What kind of information could be brought forward by those opposed to support this? I would like to think that for the most part, Canadians are at least equal to or better than others, responsibility-wise, than people in other places with less restrictive handgun laws. What do you think?

 

[TPK]

I think that I have and have been accused of not giving valid arguments to that end. Without reviewing all the posts, here are some of the reasons that were submitted as to why it should be allowed. Forgive me if I've missed some:

[/QUOTE]Because they do it in the States: Ok, cool...so move there.[/QUOTE]

No because we had it here before and it was taken away for no good reasons. The US doesn't enter the equation with regards to our want but they can likely provide us with the stats and info from States where it is allowed that MAY support our fight. Don't know, I haven't talked to anyone down there as of yet.

[/QUOTE]Because you could pop a bird while on your way to elk, moose or deer territory: If you must eat chicken, then stop in at KFC. Big game are surely gonna stick around after you fire your cap gun.[/QUOTE]

I carry a shot gun as well as a rifle on my quad (yes quad) while I'm out hunting for big game. I am NOT saying I soley hunt off my quad, I use it to get around to where I want to hunt and if I see grouse in my travels, I get off the quad and harvest them. If I decide to "pop" a grouse and scare off any large game that may be around, I'm aware of that and it's my call. Having a HG would allow me more of an opportunity as I could have it with me along with my rifle rather than as it now where I leave the shotgun on the quad while I'm out trecking for deer (or moose). Many times I have given up on the area I'm in and am on my way back to my quad when I see grouse and all I have with me at that point is my rifle.

[/QUOTE]Because it's more convenient and easier to pack a handgun: Maybe you need to pick a sport that doesn't require so much physical effort.[/QUOTE]

So ... everyone should carry the heaviest rifle they can buy rather than a "lighter" version of that caliber because it's good excercise and that's what hunting is all about ??? Obviously HG's are lighter than rifles (in most cases) what's your point here, that weight and convienance should never be a consideration?

[/QUOTE]I can be just as effective with a 5" barrel gun and open sights. Elmer Fudd, Keith whatever... is (was) a pompous braggard fart that never documented how many animals he wounded. Ever heard of literary license?[/QUOTE]

Yes indeed "I can be just as effective with a 5" barrel gun and open sights" as with my scoped rifle, and in fact more effective under the right circumstances. You feel that hunters don't have the brains to determine when it's appropriate to use one vs the other, I say we do. We are making judgment calls the whole time we're inthe bush and we're coming out alive, I fail to see how that will change just because there is now a hand gun in the picture.

[/QUOTE]It would be handy to have a handgun while riding a horse: I've hunted on horses for 30 years or better. Handiest thing I ever had was horse savy and a multi-tool ... cowboy!!![/QUOTE]

It sure would. If you are packing a guide gun or what ever in a scaboard what is the difference if you have a holstered HG on your hip? At least if spooked by a bear or the like (as pointed out some many many pages back) and you are dumped on your arse you will still be armed and able to defend yourself when your horse and rifle are long gone down the trail.

[/QUOTE]Because it would be good defence when bow hunting: Well, if you're gonna bow hunt, then bow hunt. I can just see the bulls**t here. Ooooh, can't make that shot with my bow....bang, there. Done, now I'll just tag it with my archery tag.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, you seem to think that there is a problem with that. Do bow hunters never have someone with a backup rifle or one of their own when out hunting, doesn't seem like a stretch of the imagination to see it would be a good idea and so what is the problem with that backup being a hand gun instead of a rifle? So there ya go ... some more of my views on the "pro" side.

 

[savagefan]

Hunting with a hand gun could be a lot of fun. Is it still okay to have fun in a nanny state or should we stay home and wring our hands worrying about who gets hurt next. The majority of hunting accidents both fatal and non fatal don't involve guns, it's people falling out of their tree stands. Should we ban those as well?

 

[joe-nwt]

No because we had it here before and it was taken away for no good reasons. The US doesn't enter the equation with regards to our want but they can likely provide us with the stats and info from States where it is allowed that MAY support our fight. Don't know, I haven't talked to anyone down there as of yet.

Very good point to extend my comments. WERE there problems with regards to accidents and wounded animals in the past WHEN HGH WAS ALLOWED IN CANADA?

Could past performance in CANADA be a basis to our defense of the concerns of those who oppose HGH? Anyone have any data?

 

[Foxer]

3 or 4 inches of barrel is what prevents me fom taking a single shot handgun into the woods.

Well not in this province it doesn't - you cannot use ANY gun that is designed to be easily fired with one hand.

If your barrel was so long that it has become a pistol gripped rifle (ie, you can't hold it up like a pistol) then you can hunt with it - but it's not a pistol anymore.

Lets face it - you could go hunting tomorrow with a pistol gripped shotgun. Would that be 'handgun hunting' to you?

Perhaps, but not neccessarily within ethical ranges for the appropriate firearm. 50 yrds with a handgun is not always harder to achieve than 150yrds with a rifle. And yes there may be some who will try longer distances with a handgun, just as there are those who cannot accurately judge longer distances with a rifle.

Fair enough - but apples to apples, handguns are less accurate (and by that i mean less able to be shot accurately.) At 50 yards, a guy with a rifle should be able to keep all shots in one inch freehand with even a little practice. 2 inches at the outside. As gatehouse demonstrated, he had challenges keeping the shots within 7.5 inches.

And that's the issue - i do not dispute that handguns can be shot with sufficient accuracy, but am just pointing out that people know that it's much much harder to do. And that leads to the concern that it will be much more likely that someone will go out in the feild without having QUITE enough practice and blow shots, wounding game. Or that the deer they thought was at 50 yards was actually standing at 80 yards (which would have resulted in at least 2 wounding shots with gatehouse's pattern). It's very easy to mistake range.

Now - i'm not saying that's a justified concern or it isn't a justified concern. I'm just saying that it's a concern people have. Which is why it's not just a 'couple of inches of barrel' that's the problem.

I doubt very much that anyone would have any problem with you taking your contender out in the field to hunt if you put a stock on it.

 

[Foxer]

Hunting with a hand gun could be a lot of fun. Is it still okay to have fun in a nanny state or should we stay home and wring our hands worrying about who gets hurt next.

That is a complete red herring argument. Driving really fast on the city streets is also a lot of fun. So - are we being a 'nanny state' by saying that there should be speed limits and no street racing?

The difference between 'falling out of a tree' and shooting a gun is that, barring falling ON someone, if you fall out of a tree it's you who will pay the price for your stupidity. With a gun, someone a mile away might have to live (or not live) with what you did.

In short - you wanna kill yourself, go ahead. But you do have to be RESPONSIBLE when you might put others at risk.

And i do find it concerning that some folks have tended to mistake responsibility with 'nanny' so often of late. (not just you savage, that wasn't meant as a cheap shot) .

"Nanny state" is when the state tells you what's best for you.

"responsible law" is when the state addresses how something you do affects others.

Falling out of a tree affects you. Shooting a gun by mistake puts others at risk. The 'nanny state' argument doesn't fly.

 

[Foxer]

WERE there problems with regards to accidents and wounded animals in the past WHEN HGH WAS ALLOWED IN CANADA?

As near as i can tell from asking around - handgun hunting was never 'popular' in canada at all, even when legal. A handful of people did it here and there, but the vast, vast majority chose a rifle.

I doubt there'd be any kind of usable data. At best we might come up with a few anecdotal stories, which are of no value. If you say '50 percent of handgun owners had accidents", but there were only two guys you talked to, that's not really indicative of the overall safety of handguns

I WAS able to find a large number of people who carried handguns in the woods for protection (but didn't use them to hunt). Unfortunately, while that might help in a wilderness carry argument, that does us no good whatsoever for handgun hunting. Those people very rarely drew or used their firearms.

 

[joe-nwt]

As near as i can tell from asking around - handgun hunting was never 'popular' in canada at all, even when legal. A handful of people did it here and there, but the vast, vast majority chose a rifle.

I doubt there'd be any kind of usable data. At best we might come up with a few anecdotal stories, which are of no value. If you say '50 percent of handgun owners had accidents", but there were only two guys you talked to, that's not really indicative of the overall safety of handguns

I WAS able to find a large number of people who carried handguns in the woods for protection (but didn't use them to hunt). Unfortunately, while that might help in a wilderness carry argument, that does us no good whatsoever for handgun hunting. Those people very rarely drew or used their firearms.

But this whole statement you just made goes against the idea that there would be mayhem in the woods should HGH be allowed, does it not?

 

[John Y Cannuck]

It's true, handguns were not very popular in the bush, but then, the ones generally available, the 38 special for example, were not exactly hunting material.
And as Joe says, it does speak volumes about the mayhem in the bush theory.

 

[savagefan]

That is a complete red herring argument. Driving really fast on the city streets is also a lot of fun. So - are we being a 'nanny state' by saying that there should be speed limits and no street racing?

The difference between 'falling out of a tree' and shooting a gun is that, barring falling ON someone, if you fall out of a tree it's you who will pay the price for your stupidity. With a gun, someone a mile away might have to live (or not live) with what you did.

In short - you wanna kill yourself, go ahead. But you do have to be RESPONSIBLE when you might put others at risk.

And i do find it concerning that some folks have tended to mistake responsibility with 'nanny' so often of late. (not just you savage, that wasn't meant as a cheap shot) .

"Nanny state" is when the state tells you what's best for you.

"responsible law" is when the state addresses how something you do affects others.

Falling out of a tree affects you. Shooting a gun by mistake puts others at risk. The 'nanny state' argument doesn't fly.

A stray bullet from a full bore rifle is going to be lethal over a much greater distance than one from a handgun. You don't have to break any laws to have fun in a car, cars can for example be raced at a track if that is your bent. We don't allow any kind of hunting in city parks but it's okay in designated areas. I cannot see where hunting with a handgun would be irresponsible. It is at present illegal but with the right training and background checks why not? Hell Sharon Gregson is taking on a much bigger challenge, the right to carry a handgun to protect herself from people. I wish her well, because she can really get the ball rolling if she gets her way.

 

[Foxer]

But this whole statement you just made goes against the idea that there would be mayhem in the woods should HGH be allowed, does it not?

No. By that logic it's even stronger evidence that there's no reason to address the issue, because historically no one wants to do it. The fact is what we're talking about here is something different - actually doing it and changing the laws to allow that. We can hardly argue that there won't be problems because no one will bother with it

Our own history just doesn't contain enough useful tools. Even in the states handgun hunting was not very popular and was an oddity until fairly recently from what i've been able to read. Serious hunters always used a rifle. Now the sport is gaining more popularity.

The most obvious way to overcome fears here is to set parameters that have the appearance of controlling or eliminating the most obvious likely causes of problems, and use what information we can gain from places where it's allowed (as well as any mathematical data or empirical testing we can come up with) to demonstrate that within those parameters handguns are as deadly and as safe as rifles.

That - combined with a strong argument of 'need' (ie: there are times when handguns are a better choice, animal protection, etc) that enhances hunting in the provinces (and maybe a little section on the extra money it could bring in from guides) would be the most effective approach i can see.

In the argument to the feds - i would include the idea that "it's a provincial decision, and it's up to each province to decide what is best for them. The federal gov't should not be dictating hunting regulations because it's outside of the jurisdiction of the federal gov't." This ties in with the Conservative mentality of staying out of the business of the provinces. That gives the feds an 'out' if questioned: "what people use to hunt and where they can hunt is dictated entirely by the provinces. If you have questions about what is allowed or should be allowed - address your provincial govt. We do not interfere in the choices of the provinces where they have duristiction.".


There is an 800 lb elephant in the room so to speak we haven't addressed. Natives.

It goes without saying that should handguns be allowed for regular hunting, natives will likely claim that they should be allowed to use them as they use rifles. That means they will want to have them without license in some cases, without registry, and be able to use them at night, etc etc etc. Obviously... it goes without saying this will be some concern to some law enforcement agencies. Remeber - while it is often claimed that the marc lepine shootings lead to our current gun control, it has often been claimed by those in the loop at the time that concerns about natives arming themselves and 'stockpiles of weapons' after oka (which occured in 1990 - just before the laws were introduced initially) were at least as relevent.