Doc

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.

You seem to see this discussion as some kind of contest. I really don't care if you become convinced of one side of the issue or not. All I ask is that you do your own research on the subject in an honest and unbiased fashion. The conclusions you arrive at are your own, and only you know if you arrived at them in that honest and unbiased fashion. I am doing the same thing but with one particular bias. That bias is that if for some reason I am wrong, I want to be sure that I err on the side of environmental safety. I do not want it said that I or my generation once again threw environmental safety issues of future generations into the dumper for the sake of our own selfish financial expediency.

For crying out loud man.... do your own research. This stuff is not hard to find for someone that is truly interested in doing so. It's nice to ask everybody else to do your homework for you, but not always so easy to find someone gullible enough to actually do it for you.

Probably they are concerned about another animal smelling the decomposing carcass and digging it up. You would think the bleach would discourage that from happening, but it probably is just a secondary preventative measure.

Like I said, it has been about a dozen years since I had any involvement with this technology, but there probably are still some practicalities that limit the size and material of the parts. Also, it used to be that the process was just limited to plastics. Whether they may have expanded this to powdered metal or some other kind of material I don't know. But producing a high-powered pistol or rifle that can hold up against the pressures might be a challenge. Rimfire .22 is one thing, higher calibers may be something else. Also, trying to build and assemble something like a fully automatic true assault weapon may be a challenge that only a few would be capable of undertaking. Also, there is a huge amount of expertise required to create a file that comes up with the proper clearances and fits required in an effective firearm. Yes they did create a functioning basic zip-gun really does not require any super technology and never has. So while this technology does amaze and impress, I doubt that there will be a whole new generation of illegal arms producers being created by it. Like I said in my previous reply, the one potential that I find most scary is the ability to produce a plastic hand grenade (or other plastic explosives designs. That is absolutely something that terrorists might find useful aboard airplanes. Is airport security able to detect plastics yet?

STATUS: S3929 NOZZOLIO Same as A 5574 Kolb Environmental Conservation Law TITLE....Authorizes hunting in the county of Ontario until October 1, 2015 02/27/13 REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 03/12/131ST REPORT CAL.184 03/13/13 2ND REPORT CAL. 03/14/13 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 04/23/13 PASSED SENATE 04/23/13 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY 04/24/13 referred to environmental conservation

Now don't be confusing me. I have been back and forth on both sides of this issue and have finally come to the conclusion that rifles are ok. And I can still go back and forth on the debate. But I can supply no proof that one is anymore dangerous than the other. I will say that rifles tend to allow people to comfortably practice with their weapon more than they do with shotguns, and perhaps that will improve their ability to hit what they are shooting at. But the bottom line is that it still comes down to safety practices of the shooter and neither weapon will compensate for that. There are arguments that shotgun slugs will hold up longer and farther than rifle bullets in the forested areas of the northeast and are therefore more lethal in ricochet situations. That's the closest I have seen on any kind of scientific study trying to compare the two. And even with that study leaves a few questions about its validity. So with all this confusion on the issue, it seems logical to give it a fair test and see what happens. So far in other similar counties the experiment has been underway with no reports of increased hazard. let's see how it all plays out. Besides, I am ready to use my rifle and retire my shotgun. My shoulder has taken enough abuse over the years.....lol.