steve863

Sure looks like this dude is inflicting some traumatic brain injuries on himself firing away like that with that shotgun! LOL Firing an AR or semi-auto pistol won't produce nearly as much recoil and he can reload in an instant. Arguments about this kind of stuff will never end here when today you are comparing a shotgun to an AR and tomorrow I will be told that cars, hammers, pressure cookers can kill as many people too. The FACTS are that firearms of ALL fashions are used in the majority of murders in this country and there is NO denying that.

I agree with you that these other interests are very important if not as important as the revenue coming to the state from deer license sales. This only adds to deer hunting being untouchable for a good long time.

No, I am not saying that all new hunters should only deer hunt. I am saying that most new hunters DO get into hunting because they want to hunt DEER first and foremost. You can do the math yourself. No way that waterfowl, pheasant or dove hunters add up to as many as deer hunters. And YES, not having private land to hunt has a detrimental effect on a deer hunter. I've seen plenty of people give up hunting because they couldn't find other private land to hunt. Especially as they've aged and don't have the time to spend looking for new spots. I don't see any of these people hunting waterfowl, pheasants or doves as a substitute either.

I definitely don't agree that a pump or semi shotgun with buckshot would be as effective. You can fire off way more with an AR or semi-auto pistol and be able to carry and reload a whole lot more ammo also. You guys keep pounding on the point that first it would be AR's, next would be the Rem 7400, but I have always said that without some sort of compromise they WILL take everything away from us. Without compromise their is nothing in a friendship, marriage, you name it. Some of you think we've compromised too much already, but that's because many of you can't accept ANY gun control whatsoever. At least some uniformity in the freaking gun laws that we have in this country would be a start. What freaking good is NY's SAFE act when someone can easily purchase anything they want down south? Makes NO sense at all.

You guys are a freaking riot. So teachers should be armed? Our schools will look like something out of the Nazi era, where you had armed SS officers indoctrinating the young, As far as illegal weapons, I have yet to hear that guns were sold to bad guys directly from the backdoors of the Smith&Wesson, Colt, Ruger, etc. manufacturing plants. As far as I know most ALL weapons enter the market LEGALLY. What happens after they reach a legal owner?? Your guess is as good as mine, since in many states you can even sell pistols privately without any sort of background check. Whether you want to accept it or not, guns end up falling into criminal hands from original LEGAL purchasers. With the mish-mash of laws that don't require private sales to go thru background checks, this can most certainly be expected.

You see that's the point. I can understand what Doc was saying in his post questioning why kids go into schools to shoot them up these days, while they didn't years ago. I surely don't have a good answer for this, and probably no one has any definitive answers. We all have theories, but I don't think anyone can prove any as fact. I do know however, that if a kid did go into a school back in the 50's with his single shot squirrel gun, he most certainly would not have mowed down 20 kids with it in a few short minutes. That's the difference here that many gun owners just can't seem to admit to. If you can't see how an AR rifle or semi-auto pistol could cause more damage than a double barreled shotgun or revolver, then you guys will NEVER get it. I am not calling for the ban of these weapons, but the complexion of the game has changed in the efficiency of firepower available today compared to what people owned a few decades ago. I bet for many sick minded individuals it's become sort of something to look forward to when they would one day post their picture on TV and newspapers that they've murdered a bunch of people with some sort of modern quick firing/loading weapon. Did we gun enthusiasts help create such a culture by wanting to own all this para-military type weaponry and make them the "cool" weapon to own?? You guys can tell me. I surely have my own theories about it all.

Come on guys, guns are the weapons of choice in murders in this country and we ALL know it. They are efficient killers and easily obtainable in this country, thus our murder rate is what it is compared to countries where they are not as easy to get. These comparisons to pressure cookers and cars is quite silly. Sure, my pillow can kill someone too, so why don't more people use that?

Yeah, and those who have no desire to be controlled should probably blast off and go live on the moon, because you WON'T find a place on this globe where you won't have to abide to someone else's rules. That's my "Insight" for you. Someone who tells it like it is; steve863 (1963-Hell awaits me somewhere down the road!)

I honestly don't care what others may think, but I for one am happy that schools are NO guns zones. Yeah, unfortunately there have been these incidents where innocent kids and teachers get murdered and unfortunately it happens too often, but I sure as hell don't want my kid being taught by teachers with guns strapped to their hips either. That right there is NOT the alternative for me. Having an armed guard in a school I have NO trouble with, but that is as far as I want guns in school to go. Many of you here are gun nuts who can't see passed a gun barrel, but I can. This world and this country shouldn't be about who has the quicker draw. You guys think that the guns are not the problem, but obviously guns are being used to cause many of these problems and it sure makes things easier to create mayhem WITH a gun than without one. The only solution you guys can come up with is to put MORE guns into the hands of people to combat this problem. What real hope is there left for this society? Not much in my honest opinion.

No, I was not saying that. But I have heard with my own ears some attitudes that rural people have. Not saying they all have these attitudes or that these attitudes are all necessarily wrong, but from my personal experience rural people are considerably less likely to be accepting of people that may look or act different than what they are used to seeing in their own home towns. I'm sure there are people in big cities that have such attitudes also, but in general in a big city you are elbow to elbow with ALL sorts of people. White, black, foreign born, gay, you name it. You better be able to live around and accept these people for what they are or you will live a depressing and miserable life. People in the rural areas don't need to accept such things since they don't see these type of people on an every day basis, thus they are generally less likely to.

I don't know. I have a hard time believing you guys that live in the rural areas that you wouldn't give a middle eastern looking guy a second look if he had a gun visible on him or his vehicle. Especially near a school or other place with a good number of people around. Hell, I've seen some people in rural areas ready to call the Feds if they saw one of them pumping gas at a gas station, let alone in possession of a firearm! Come to think of it they'd probably call the police if they saw that AYE-RAB Obama carrying an ice cream cone, so I don't think the middle eastern guy with a deep accent would be given a free pass either. LOL

Sure, there are groups who want to ban ALL hunting, and some are trying to do it one piece at a time as you suggest. But, why haven't these groups tried to put up referendums or whatever to stop deer hunting in general as of yet? Why? Because they damned well know that they wouldn't have a chance in the world to get it banned. Like I said before NO way are states going to roll over and let a big revenue stream like they get thru deer hunting be taken away by some animal-rights fanatics. Nope, not going to happen anytime soon. I am not saying that attempts at banning other forms of hunting may not be successful, but deer hunting for a good many years at least is pretty safe in my opinion. You keep bringing up dove hunting and the mute swan issue as examples of what could happen, and I commend you for your efforts with these, but they honestly are NO comparison in the impact that an attempted ban on deer hunting would have. They are worlds apart. Many states, even NY make efforts to recruit new hunters, most of these new hunters coming in as deer hunters, so why would all this effort be put into something that they might turn around and ban in the not too distant future? Deer hunting is here to stay in my opinion. If anythings will bring it down it will be that it might become a big money game, where only the rich will be able to afford private hunting land and everyone else will just give it up, but that will be our own self-destruction, and not thru the efforts of the animal-rights crowd.

I don't think the deer hunting issue is in the same boat as the gun issue. Hunters ARE in the minority compared to non-hunters, but we are a minority that produces a good amount of revenue for the state. Do the anti-hunting groups give the state as much? No way. With guns neither side had the upper hand in producing revenue directly for the state as deer hunting does. Maybe the anti-gun side did a better job in padding the politicians pockets, but that's about it.

Of the big 3 companies that make ammo (Federal, Remington, Winchester), over the years I have found that Winchester is the worst by far. As far as I know they still make it here in the good ole USA, so just because it's made here doesn't mean that you are getting a quality product. They can make products just as crappy here as they could in China and elswhere. And what makes it worse is that you will pay considerably MORE for the crap made here.

In my opinion states would do their damndest to get a referendum to ban deer hunting defeated. It's not the same issue as hunting bear over bait or dove hunting. The monetary significance of having bear hunted over bait or dove hunting is chump change to a state in the scheme of things. Deer hunting on the other hand brings in a good amount of revenue. I don't think there is a state out there that would want to lose it just because some animal rights fanatics are making a stink. If it were so easy to get laws overturned and changed with referendums then why doesn't someone put one up to lower or eliminate state taxes? The states would NEVER allow a referendum like that to see the light of day in the ballot box no matter what people think or want, that's for damned sure. I think the same would be true for a deer hunting referendum. If a referendum would kill a good revenue stream for the state, then you will never see it in the ballot boxes.

Hillarious how you guys try to justify things. What about all the other gun supporting country or rock musicians out there? Have they all been sober and drug free? Ted Nugent anyone?? Maybe their brains got fried in the opposite direction from Willie's??

I didn't think being stoned was a good enough excuse when it comes to being anti-gun? Hell, some have accused Obama of using cocaine and Clinton of smoking weed, yet you guys don't cut them any slack?? And then the same people try to convince me how great a person Ted Nugent is since he always speaks for the gun cause. Like he hasn't had a few brain cells fried by drugs along the way? LOL

Since it appears that country music fans will not stop until they lynch Tim McGraw over this issue, I wonder why they haven't strung Willie Nelson up over his comments on guns? Maybe because he's 80 years old and are willing to cut him some slack?? I think Willie has always been a liberal minded guy. Hell, even VJP of all people was feeling bummed out when rumors of Willie's death were spreading around a week or so ago! Did he have Willie pictured all wrong?? Maybe he'll change his mind after seeing this video. LOL http://huntingny.com/forums/topic/27329-rip-willie-nelson/?hl=%2Bwillie+%2Bnelson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6IyqfM85U

Glad that they like Buckwheat. I wonder if they like Alfalfa and Spanky??

$2K for 40 acres?? Goodness!! I know those obsessed with antlers would gladly cough it up, but in my opinion there is NO 40 acre lease anywhere worth that much for hunting. That's where the problem lies for many hunters, myself included who are basically meat hunters or weekend warriors. You just won't be able to find a private spot anywhere for a reasonable amount of money when you have guys paying $2K for 40 lousy acres. You know that every landowner in the area where that guy is getting the $2K will try to get close to that much if their land is worth it or not (and probably NOT in most cases), and then things will never go back. Meat hunter or not some of us just don't like hunting public land since we have hunted private land most of our lives, and of course then we will be told by some to buy our own land if we want to continue to hunt, which is BS, because like I said before I'd rather go on outfitted hunts then, if I will pay tens of thousands for my own land plus taxes each year after that just to hunt on. It will cost me less in the long run, and I prefer not to have the hassle of owning land for the sole purpose to hunt on a few weekends every year. I tell you the future of hunting is NOT looking good in my opinion, no matter how good the deer populations or trophy potential might be out there. It will get so expensive that for the majority of hunters it just won't be worth it. Yeah, you might have some coughing up tens of thousands, but without the common man making up the majority of hunters, hunting will be doomed.

That's a really tough question, I wish I had a good answer for you. I think the problem is that in most cases a group of hunters will lease land, so the price they are willing to be pay surely might be too high for someone like you who may be going at it alone to compete with. I've heard of places where like 6 hunters leased 50 acres of land which is crazy dangerous in my opinion, but that's what is happening these days. They can cough up a lot more as a group, then someone like you or I would want to all by ourselves. I surely wouldn't want to go in on a lease like that, though! With smaller and smaller parcels of land being owned these days, it's not easy to find something that someone is willing to lease for a reasonable rate. Some of these landowners think their land is a hunting goldmine (which is BS in most cases), and want to make a big profit off leases. If I am going to pay them $3000 for a lease, I think I'd rather go on an outfitted hunt somewhere where I will be given room and board and fed and probably have a better chance for a successful hunt. Good luck with your search. I wish I had better answers for you. Finding private land is NOT easy.

I think you have your answer right there. I don't think winning smiles, blueberry pies, venison or farm help get people very far anymore.

I guess if these type of break ins happen often out there, then they should consider more elaborate systems. I would think if you own a weekend house on the east end of LI, you could surely afford it. I doubt anyone will want to party in my house while I am upstairs snoring! LOL

LOL, I saw that too!! I bet a lot of guys wish their wives were only a mirage!! Born, what would you say about that?? LOL

I don't see the point in installing anything too elaborate for home security, other than sturdy locks on the doors and locking windows and maybe a safe for guns, cash and jewelry. What else is so valuable that you guys keep in your homes? Most burglars look for cash and maybe jewelry, but if you don't keep it around or keep it well locked up, what else will they take? It's unlikely they will pull down your big screen TV off your wall and walk away with it. You think they'll be interested in your washer and dryer? If guns are in a safe or locked away somewhere else, it is highly unlikely they will get to them either. In my mind it will probably cost more to install elaborate systems and then pay monthly fees than anything a crook would run off with. My view is that anything can be replaced other than lives of loved ones which security systems probably would not help with anyway. If someone was intent on coming in to kill, I don't think those alarms going off would stop them from doing it.