|
Post by sakorifle on Sept 28, 2014 7:21:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Sept 28, 2014 7:58:05 GMT -5
Billy, there's people that don't think. I've seen where people put a target on a paper box and shoot at it, without having a backstop for the bullet.
I've got a client who has a backstop on his shooting range that is about 30' tall and about 60' wide. 90% of the time he shoots at steel targets. A while ago he didn't take the steel targets down to the end of the range where the backstop is, he set them up near the shooting line. His boy was shooting with him, and not all the bullets hit the target. Just last week I showed him where there were marks on the trees at the edge of the range where bullets had entered but not exited.
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Sept 29, 2014 5:35:41 GMT -5
Place that I used to hog hunt at has a lot of hills/hollows along the back side of the property. One of the first times I was there I was scouting out the property when the there seemed to be some fairly loud shots from not too far away....when I left that day I was driving the back roads around the property and realized that one perimeter property owners had set up a target on the EDGE of the ravine behind his house!!! When I drove by they were still out there shooting with a array of guns (shot guns, pistols, rifles) and using the beer cans they were emptying as targets Checked my map and sure enough they were shooting right over one of the hollows that I had been checking out!!!! STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!! Needless to say I never went back to that part of the property again!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Boilermaker on Sept 29, 2014 8:18:15 GMT -5
I guess common sense is still not so common.
I had a friend tell me just the other day of a story similar to this. A guy he works with got a call from his mother to come and help fix a broken window in the storm door at her house. She said it had just "exploded" without any explanation. Upon closer examination, her son discovered a hole in the wall behind it. After the sheriff deputies investigated they found a guy over a half mile away who was shooting his AR-15 in the direction of that neighborhood. He never thought twice of what was on the other side of his target. Turns out he works for an insurance company in Indianapolis and was more than happy to cover any costs for replacing the glass.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 29, 2014 9:00:30 GMT -5
EXACTLY why I think keeping the current restrictions on HP cartridges for deer hunting is a better idea than removing them.
I'm all in favor of freedom of choice and everyone carrying whatever they want for personal protection.
However, at some point the addition of more long-range cartridge choices to be used by a far greater number of hunters than currently use them legally for varmints, brings us to an increase, probably a large increase, in the number of numbskulls who will be sighting in, practicing, and hunting with weaponry of twice or more range than is currently in use for legal deer hunting.
I don't pretend to be a weatherman, but when there are dark cloudbanks in the west and the leaves are turning upside sown on the trees, I stay home if possible.
And when we already have the problems described, and the number of long-range weapons is dramatically increased, I predict the onset of some unpleasant lead showers.
I think the results of allowing the HP stuff will likely end up REDUCING hunter opportunities by closing more properties and areas as they bring more populations of people into range.
It's not a matter of theoretical opposition to choice or freedom, just a matter of the practical restrictions to retain for our populated little state, keeping human nature and the likelihood of a number of irresponsible people being among those enjoying the new choices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 9:19:12 GMT -5
EXACTLY why I think keeping the current restrictions on HP cartridges for deer hunting is a better idea than removing them. I'm all in favor of freedom of choice and everyone carrying whatever they want for personal protection. However, at some point the addition of more long-range cartridge choices to be used by a far greater number of hunters than currently use them legally for varmints, brings us to an increase, probably a large increase, in the number of numbskulls who will be sighting in, practicing, and hunting with weaponry of twice or more range than is currently in use for legal deer hunting. I don't pretend to be a weatherman, but when there are dark cloudbanks in the west and the leaves are turning upside sown on the trees, I stay home if possible. And when we already have the problems described, and the number of long-range weapons is dramatically increased, I predict the onset of some unpleasant lead showers. I think the results of allowing the HP stuff will likely end up REDUCING hunter opportunities by closing more properties and areas as they bring more populations of people into range. It's not a matter of theoretical opposition to choice or freedom, just a matter of the practical restrictions to retain for our populated little state, keeping human nature and the likelihood of a number of irresponsible people being among those enjoying the new choices. Holy cow! One wonders how anyone survives the hunting seasons in places like Kentucky, Tennessee, or Georgia...all of which have far more hunters and all of which have allowed HPRs for many years. Tennessee and Georgia have very similar population densities to Indiana too.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Sept 29, 2014 9:42:18 GMT -5
Might have something to do with the population density of the relatively flat rural areas. I doubt that much hunting or target shooting on informal practice setups occurs in Louisville or Nashville or Atlanta. And there are more hills with fewer unintended targets in each of those states, along with a hunting population that is already accustomed to the range of their HP cartridges.
Again, I'm not saying that the idea of HP cartridges is inherently WRONG, even here.
I think you'd agree that it might not be a good idea in Marion county.
So somewhere we probably agree that it isn't the smartest choice.
I'm just saying there WILL probably be some very nasty occurrences that will take place, and they WILL be heavily aired by the media, and the resulting public opinion could well result in considerable land closure of areas where we can now hunt. It may be an IMPRACTICAL idea for hunters, even though it is theoretically a gain for a few who may actually find a place to USE that freedom of choice.
If a hundred guys take their deer at long range safely, and a thousand guys lose their favorite hunting property due to the nearest town or school now being within the range of their weaponry, or to the landowner becoming nervous about his liability insurance, have we gained something as hunters?
Unintended consequences are an important consideration, and they only show up AFTER the mistake is made and the costs are discovered. Usually it's smarter to avoid them if possible.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Sept 29, 2014 9:45:52 GMT -5
It will basically not change the number of incidents; there will not be a great change in safety. The PA study has debunked this as has been pointed out repeatedly. The sky will fall card is the same kind of reasoning the antigun crowd tries to play and it never turns out to be the case whenever some new carry law is passed or some such thing; it will be no different in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2014 9:49:08 GMT -5
It's already illegal to deer hunt with firearms of any kind in most of Marion County, I believe. I'm sure that won't change.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Sept 29, 2014 10:39:15 GMT -5
Might have something to do with the population density of the relatively flat rural areas. I doubt that much hunting or target shooting on informal practice setups occurs in Louisville or Nashville or Atlanta. And there are more hills with fewer unintended targets in each of those states, along with a hunting population that is already accustomed to the range of their HP cartridges. Again, I'm not saying that the idea of HP cartridges is inherently WRONG, even here. I think you'd agree that it might not be a good idea in Marion county. So somewhere we probably agree that it isn't the smartest choice. I'm just saying there WILL probably be some very nasty occurrences that will take place, and they WILL be heavily aired by the media, and the resulting public opinion could well result in considerable land closure of areas where we can now hunt. It may be an IMPRACTICAL idea for hunters, even though it is theoretically a gain for a few who may actually find a place to USE that freedom of choice. If a hundred guys take their deer at long range safely, and a thousand guys lose their favorite hunting property due to the nearest town or school now being within the range of their weaponry, or to the landowner becoming nervous about his liability insurance, have we gained something as hunters? Unintended consequences are an important consideration, and they only show up AFTER the mistake is made and the costs are discovered. Usually it's smarter to avoid them if possible. Look at the agricultural areas of Wisconsin (which is flat like Indiana). It used to be slug gun only, but that has changed a few years ago to allow all .22 cal and larger CF rifles. With 600,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin, now able to use dangerous (my wording) CF rifles all over the state you'd think there would be more reports of unintended consequences. There hasn't been. I think that alone speaks volumes on how perceived dangers are different than what actually happens in the real world. It's impossible to legislate stupid out of people. I'm sure there are instances where arrows have been stuck in the side of houses, so should all weapons be curtailed? It all boils down to the operator, no matter if it's a slingshot, bb gun, shotgun, slug gun, muzzleloader, pistol or rifle.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Sept 29, 2014 11:06:13 GMT -5
Greetings All I can say is anything like this is extremely rare over here even around our cities. Next two cases I am going to tell you about is sad but true. A very good friend of mine blew his jaw off and died while out foxing at night. Why. He broke the rule, never climb a gate or a fence while loaded. A man killed his son while out foxing at night after his son said he was going back to the car. Why, he broke rule, never shoot at eyes unless you identify your target. The man who put a shot into that house broke rule Never shoot without a backstop. My friend lost his life, the man who killed his son will never forgive himself, and the man that shot the house should be severely punished. Everything is dangerous if safety rules are ignored, even climbing onto little platforms to shoot deer. Rifles with frangible ammo has got to be as safe or safer than an ounce of lead bouncing out of control after its hit hard ground.they are rarely allowed over here. Regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Sept 29, 2014 11:28:23 GMT -5
In high density population areas, it would make no difference whether slug guns or rifles are used. If it unsafe for one, it is unsafe for the other.
|
|