Doc

If deer can run into cars (and we know that they do), why is it surprising that deer can run into a motorcycle. I know a guy that stopped riding his bike at night because of the number of times he hit or nearly hit deer.

Well, if I were an anti-gunner, I would spin these numbers as meaning that the thousands of gun laws are finally having an effect on crime. And with just a few thousand more, they can make even more inroads into reducing crime stats. Be careful what buttons you push.

Did you bury an electric line from the box in the house out to the shop? I didn't see any overhead wires running in.

How come nobody has come up with a powder or something that could be broadcast across a lawn that would repel ticks? That seems like a product the market just needs.

I too have long ago sworn off the TV hunting shows and videos featuring the latest hunter-heroes and their home-grown "trophy deer". They simply are like watching incessant summer re-runs. Nothing ever changes. There is one exception to that which is that goofy show on The History Channel (Chasing Tail). That is just so stupid that it is funny. Also, there is no egos on parade, or people trying to fool us into thinking they are the most effective hunters to ever walk the planet. It's just good ol' fashion humor of hunters making fun of hunters.

What a wonderful system of government that can withstand so much incompetence for so long and still exist as basically the most free country in the world. It is almost human-proof.

We seem to see a lot of threads that take these hunter-heroes to task for the phoney hunting, and the staged scenes, and the unrealistic hunting arrangements. Here is what is needed.... Some outfit should be offering to air private hunting footage gathered from "everyday" amateur hunters across the country. With so many hunters videoing their hunts these days, I'll bet there are a lot of good hunts that would be fun to watch. Also, these guys that are self-proclaimed "experts" at deer hunting should be putting on more shows that focus on scouting, stand placement, blood trailing, and other aspects of hunting. Sure, we all consider ourselves somewhat well versed in that stuff, but who couldn't use a few different viewpoints on things that we take for granted. I personally would like to see an in-depth detailed discussion of thermals and features that impact the direction and intensity of wind. There are a lot of aspects that would make good programming about deer scenting ability and how scent is dispersed in different kinds of terrain, and how long scent maintains it's presence and over what distances. The point is, there are a lot of hunting subjects that are never talked about, and instead of trying to impress people and feed their own egos with bogus hunts, I think if these guys are half the experts that they have convinced themselves that they are, they should be sharing some of their knowledge and making some shows that are worth watching.

Probably new Owners. I can't remember the old man's name, but he is probably dead now anyway. And his kid's would have been the next in line and his name was Brandon and his wife I think was Cindy. But that was a lot of years ago .... lol. It was a great place with a bar/restaurant and some pretty basic cabins (that we only used for one night).

Come-on guys. Now you are beginning to sound a bit paranoid. So what if they do know you own a gun? There's already a dozen different ways to get at that info. Hell, when they get this ammo background check up and running, they'll not only know you own a gun, but they will know what caliber it is and how often you use it ..... lol. And, it's still useless information. If there was really something to worry over regarding this gun-safe proposal, the NRA would not be supporting it. They aren't exactly an organization that favors invasive information sharing....lol. As far as the deduction, I'll take it if offered, but it is not the kind of money that would convince me to buy a safe if I didn't already plan on buying one. It may wind up being not all that effective, but at least its a whole lot better line of thinking than the usual "let's ban guns" kind of thinking.

Yeah, when you get all done, it may not be worth the effort of keeping track of the paper-work. It certainly wouldn't convince me to buy a safe if I wasn't already convinced to get one.

Actually, the info would be of no use to anybody. Buying a safe means nothing.

The one big difference is that for the first time, I just might wind up on the receiving end of one of these freebies. Lord knows I've paid for enough of them for others all these years....lol.

Finally, a gun law that I can enthusiastically support.

Just to play devil's advocate a bit, I have to say that rifles will not make reckless hunters into safe hunters. I strongly suspect that those that engage in spray and pray techniques with shotguns, probably will shoot their rifles in the same way. Those that do not properly ID their targets with their shotguns probably won't begin doing so just because they are carrying a rifle. And those that take low percentage shots probably will continue to do so with rifles. What may happen that is positive, is that instead of being beat to death with every trigger squeeze, rifles may encourage hunters to practice with their weapons so that they are more likely to actually hit what they are aiming at. Perhaps a few flinches might be avoided too .... lol. There may also be other potential safety benefits with using rifles, but here's not a lot of them that are coming to mind at the moment. But I don't yet see a whole lot of guaranteed safety problems that are likely when picking up a rifle instead of a shotgun.

How can they leave a law on the books that forces requirements that cannot be done because of lack of program funding? Isn't that defacto banning of ammo?

Too much effort required. It's a lot easier to focus on the emotional issues and wage a war on an inanimate object, and look like a hero. That's good for votes and conceals ineptitude on the more vital issues.

Somehow, I really don't think that it took Mike his whole lifetime to accumulate these sources, but anyway, it looks like you have a pile of reading to do now.

That's a great idea for all back-ground checks including gun purchases. Why not tie the driver license system to the back-ground checking systems and cut out all the time wasting paperwork?

I think you are absolutely right. There's been some form of human interference here, and the deer was kept too long. Now what do you do?

There is a certain level of logic in what you are saying, and I have said the same things in the past. But, I have scoured all kinds of sources trying to find any numerical proof that rifle use causes more hunting mishaps, and I really haven't found a whole lot that indicates that a rifle was the sole reason for the accident and that they wouldn't have happened had a shotgun been used. When I couple that with the study that was performed that claimed that shotguns were more dangerous than rifles because the projectiles hold up intact for more distance in a ricochet situation, my attitude against rifles has softened considerably. I also have to factor in the increased accuracy with rifles such that hunters have a better chance of actually hitting what they are aiming at, and I am starting to actually get quite enthusiastic about allowing rifles in deer season. It's all guess work, and we need a bit of history before a good conclusion can be made. There is no clear-cut decision, and time will tell if rifles are right for these kinds of areas.

I've got the gun all sighted in and ready for action. I took the gamble early on because a pretty good source claimed it was in the bag. But, I'll bet they still have enough time to screw it up again ...... lol.

I have several cans of explosive materials in my shop. Having the ability to create the cannister, arming mechanism, and detonation parts, that may or may not be detectable, is not a thought that would make my airplane ride any more comfortable ..... lol. I worry more about someone using the technology for that kind of purpose than being used for guns.

They've already figured it out. Gun control is a diversionary tactic to make voters think they are doing something useful, and is intended to keep voters minds off of the significant issues that they are doing nothing about.

Tuckersdaddy- Ha-ha-ha .... Well there is a list of resources that will keep you busy for a while. And congratulations on manipulating someone to do your research for you.

I believe that the law banning barbed broadheads is primarily designed for non-lethal hits. Nobody wants a deer wandering around with a festering wound caused by an arrow that has no way of coming out. I think I can see the value in not allowing that kind of equipment. Could an arrow that is barbed eventually work it's way out? .... I don't know. I'm sure that someone, somewhere could come up with some weird example of that happening. But let's face it, it is not as likely to back out of the wound.