Doc

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.

If you spent all morning searching the internet for credible evidence of fracking spills and accidents and contamination and have been unsuccessful in finding any, I really don't know what to tell you. But in one hour I have found more info on actual news reports of unintentional dumping and slopping around of toxic fracking fuels than anyone could possibly read. So, if we don't allow fracking, we have two choices left: go broke or be put back in the stone age ..... lol. Boy, that's got me trembling in my shoes .... lol. Environment be damned, bring on the toxins. I don't want to be sent back to the stone age. Look, I am not a scientist in the field of energy. I am not likely to invent the next free source of unlimited energy. Not my area of expertise and probably not yours either. Also, unlike you apparently, I don't have a crystal ball that will predict the energy needs and sources of the future. But I can say one thing with certainty. There are limits as to my gullibility and panic and desparation to do anything at any cost, consequences be damned. I also have a pretty good idea as to how critical it is to have an abundance of pure un-polluted water. I don't need to be a scientist to figure that out. I think it is a good idea to make energy companies (or any company for that matter) jump through hoops when it comes to plans to inject toxins and carcinogens into the ground. I'm all for those that are holding their feet to the fire to ensure that we are not signing up for some environmentally hazardous scheme. Somebody is making them prove their case? ..... Well good for them! It's about time that we had some actual citizen concern rather than just being bribed with money and jobs to charge ahead with the blinders on. That old saying, "trust me" doen't work so well anymore. What the hell took us so long to finally learn that lesson.

This technology is not new. When I was in engineering we were building prototype parts from CAD files at least a dozen years ago. They were perfect replications. This is the first time that I have seen anyone building a gun using this process, but it certainly is not surprising. By the way, I saw another U-tube video where the guy was using the same technology to build a plastic hand-grenade. Imagine the usefulness of that to a terrorist.

I don't really see this as being helpful to pro-gun causes. I think there may be an attitude back-lash from the general public. I'm not against public demonstrations, but willful violation of laws is kind of in a different category than legal protests. Anytime you pit yourself against the men in blue, you run the risk of alienating law abiding citizens.

Well, sometimes I have to wonder whether it really is an accidental situation. If I was the cops, I would be looking real close at this one. There may be more behind the story than it appears.

If our Ontario County rifle law goes through, I'll gladly retire that 12 guage shoulder mangler and enjoy the precision of my .270 ..... even for the up close and personal shots. My .270 is not something that I am afraid of spending hours with target practicing and getting very confident in using. And it can even be a lot of fun rather than being beaten to death by recoil. Also, it's kind of nice to be deciding which hair you want to shoot the deer in....lol. Rifles are not just for long shots. They add a lot of confidence to close shots as well. Just the added familiarity that you can get from the extended practice sessions makes things a whole lot more confident.

It used to be that you had to hire the services of an outfitter (not a guide) in order for a non-resident to hunt moose in Ontario. I assume it probably is that way now. Part of the deal was that he supplied whatever tags you need. Our guy had plenty of them, so it wasn't an issue.