a safe 2019

[Robhuntandfish]

https://cnycentral.com/news/local/new-york-has-record-low-number-of-hunting-accidents-in-2019

[Deleted Account]

This is fantastic news. However, it would be great to see those numbers at 0. Still, a great reflection of the consciousness and commitment to safety of NY sportsmen and sportswomen.

[Rattler]

Since when is wearing orange or pink part of the rules of hunter safety?  Doesn't that put the burden of getting shot on the victim?  Isn't that in contrast to item # 3?  It's something we need to do because we excuse the idiots who fail to identify their targets and what's beyond them, and never consider whether there's a proper backstop to end the bullet's flight.

I'm all for lower accident rates, but the victim is never responsible for being shot.

 

the primary rules of hunter safety:

• Treat every firearm as if it were loaded;
• Control the muzzle, keep it pointed in a safe direction;
• Identify your target and what lies beyond;
• Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire;
• Wear hunter orange or pink.

[moog5050]

12 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Since when is wearing orange or pink part of the rules of hunter safety?  Doesn't that put the burden of getting shot on the victim?  Isn't that in contrast to item # 3?  It's something we need to do because we excuse the idiots who fail to identify their targets and what's beyond them, and never consider whether there's a proper backstop to end the bullet's flight.

I'm all for lower accident rates, but the victim is never responsible for being shot.

 

the primary rules of hunter safety:

• Treat every firearm as if it were loaded;
• Control the muzzle, keep it pointed in a safe direction;
• Identify your target and what lies beyond;
• Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire;
• Wear hunter orange or pink.

Rattler - you sure in an argumentative mood lately.  lol  The first 4 address firearm safety.  The last is still part of overall hunter safety.  No it should not be needed, but still a good idea in firearms season IMO. 

[Rattler]

The first four are the shooters responsibility.  Does the shooter wearing orange prevent the shooter from shooting someone?

Seems to me it gives an idiot an excuse if he shoots someone who wasn't wearing orange and I disagree with that.

Just doesn't make sense.  Not saying hunter's should not wear it, but that wasn't there when I took my hunter safety class.  It was recommended as a measure I should take because there were idiots out there.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Rattler

[Rattler]

PS.  I'm feeling argumentative lately because I'm feeling overwhelmed by the death of common sense.  Too much analyzation of society when hunting yotes in the dark I guess. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Rattler

[Nomad]

Seven tree stand accidents state wide lol. My daughter saw four just on her shift at one hospital , in a typical year I’ll hear of a couple guys that I know just from work or around where I hunt .

[moog5050]

4 minutes ago, Rattler said:

The first four are the shooters responsibility.  Does the shooter wearing orange prevent the shooter from shooting someone?

 

Hmm - I don't think wearing orange prevents a shooter from shooting someone other than perhaps the target giving wide berth when they see a shooter in orange but I doubt that is the point.  That said, I still don't see why it should not be included in the category of "hunter safety" as its described.  But I will not argue with you.  Enough of that going on. 

[Deleted Account]

8 minutes ago, Rattler said:

The first four are the shooters responsibility.  Does the shooter wearing orange prevent the shooter from shooting someone?

Seems to me it gives an idiot an excuse if he shoots someone who wasn't wearing orange and I disagree with that.

Just doesn't make sense.  Not saying hunter's should not wear it, but that wasn't there when I took my hunter safety class.  It was recommended as a measure I should take because there were idiots out there.

Hey, I'm a good driver, but I still wear my seat belt in case a driver playing with their cellphone crosses the center line and hits me head on. Sure, it wouldn't be my fault, but maybe my state mandated precautionary actions would keep me alive.

If research shows that wearing orange or pink cuts down on shooting incidents and makes hunting a safer sport, then I'm so for it. Of course I am a radical leftist who is in full support of the nanny-state  (Sorry Rattler, I can't help myself.)

[Nomad]

If the four rules are followed all negligent shootings would end  period , and since almost half of hunting negligent shootings are self inflicted  , it’s pretty clear more then one are broken at a time .

Since most hunters imho couldn’t recite the four rules , much less follow them I wear orange .

[Rattler]

3 minutes ago, Nomad said:

If the four rules are followed all negligent shootings would end  period , and since almost half of hunting negligent shootings are self inflicted  , it’s pretty clear more then one are broken at a time .

Since most hunters imho couldn’t recite the four rules , much less follow them I wear orange .

Precisely.  I'm saying safety rules apply to the shooter.  The orange recommendation is there because not all shooters follow the safety rules.  If all shooters strictly followed rule #3, the orange rule would become unnecessary.

All I'm saying is, adding it to the safety rules places the blame on the victim not wearing orange instead of the shooter not following rule #3.  Keep in mind there are many non-hunters in the woods too and they wear orange because they percieve all hunters as idiots.  Adding it to the safety rules supports that perception.

[steve863]

31 minutes ago, Rattler said:

PS.  I'm feeling argumentative lately because I'm feeling overwhelmed by the death of common sense.  Too much analyzation of society when hunting yotes in the dark I guess. 

 

Well, I would think that those like you who have such little faith in humanity would take that little extra measure of precaution to protect yourself from them.  I too, don't have much faith in others so wearing some orange is a no brainer for me.  I could still get shot, but maybe for some blockhead my wearing orange might prevent him from pulling the trigger.

 

 

[Rattler]

28 minutes ago, Splitear_Leland said:

Hey, I'm a good driver, but I still wear my seat belt in case a driver playing with their cellphone crosses the center line and hits me head on. Sure, it wouldn't be my fault, but maybe my state mandated precautionary actions would keep me alive.

If research shows that wearing orange or pink cuts down on shooting incidents and makes hunting a safer sport, then I'm so for it. Of course I am a radical leftist who is in full support of the nanny-state  (Sorry Rattler, I can't help myself.)

You also wear a seatbelt to prevent injury from an accident that is your fault, just like wearing a treestand harness prevents you from hurting yourself.  Orange is not going to prevent a hunter from hurting himself.

[Rattler]

Just now, steve863 said:

Well, I would think that those like you who have such little faith in humanity would take that little extra measure of precaution to protect yourself from them.  I too, don't have much faith in others so wearing some orange is a no brainer for me.  I could still get shot, but maybe for some blockhead my wearing orange might prevent him from pulling the trigger.

Oh I wear it alright, but hate it and the fact idiots force me to.  But common sense should put the burden on the shooter, not the victim.  I'm pretty sure I've read cases where idiot shooters tried to excuse their failure to follow rule #3 on the victim not wearing orange.  That just tightens my jaw.  Have we created an excuse for idiots with the orange recommendation?

[moog5050]

9 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Precisely.  I'm saying safety rules apply to the shooter.  The orange recommendation is there because not all shooters follow the safety rules.  If all shooters strictly followed rule #3, the orange rule would become unnecessary.

All I'm saying is, adding it to the safety rules places the blame on the victim not wearing orange instead of the shooter not following rule #3.  Keep in mind there are many non-hunters in the woods too and they wear orange because they percieve all hunters as idiots.  Adding it to the safety rules supports that perception.

Are you serious?  OK - I will argue.  I don't care who is at fault.  My daughter will be taught to wear orange in gun season because its a worthwhile step to take for HER safety.  I am not looking to lay blame when an accident occurs.  If there is something I can do to help avoid it,. I will.  In fact, I would blame myself if an accident occurred because I told her not to wear orange to prove a point.  That's just plain silly IMO.  Rant over. 

And if you don't think that teaching hunters to wear orange in gun season is not already part of the safety course, you would be wrong.

Edited February 5, 2020 by moog5050

[Deleted Account]

1 minute ago, Rattler said:

You also wear a seatbelt to prevent injury from an accident that is your fault, just like wearing a treestand harness prevents you from hurting yourself.  Orange is not going to prevent a hunter from hurting himself.

I think we are arguing different things here. I see what you're saying in that it puts the onus on the "shootee" vs putting the responsibility on the "shooter". In that, you are totally correct, and yes, I agree that if all hunters were to obey the the rules of firearm safety, then there would be no need for anyone to wear orange. However, and I kind of think that you are in agreement, since we know that not every shooter does follow those rules, it is worth it for a potential "shootee" to take precautions, mandated or not. 

[Deleted Account]

2 minutes ago, moog5050 said:

Are you serious?  OK - I will argue.  I don't care who is at fault.  My daughter will be taught to wear orange in gun season because its a worthwhile step to take for HER safety.  I am not looking to lay blame when an accident occurs.  If there is something I can do to help avoid it,. I will.  In fact, I would blame myself if an accident occurred because I told her not to wear orange to prove a point.  That's just plain silly IMO.  Rant over. 

And if you don't think that teaching hunters to wear orange in gun season is not already part of the safety course, you would be wrong.

Well put.

[Rattler]

Heard a joke about orange once.

A blind woman gets an eye transplant and can see for the first time in her life.  Her friends take her out to celebrate and as they approach a bar in town they see two drunk guys in orange hats and vests stumble into the street.  She asks why are they wearing that orange stuff?  They tell her, "It's so they can be seen better".  To which she replies, "That's good.  All drunks should be easy to spot."

[Rattler]

Mind you, I am not opposed to orange.  I hate it, but am not opposed to it.  I'm opposed to putting it in the safety rules of SAFE GUN HANDLING.  It belongs in the area of SELF PRESERVATION.  The rules of safe gun handling also apply to the range.  Don't see many on the range wearing orange.  

Of course it's a safety issue, but it's to protect you from someone who's not safe.  There is no excuse for an accidental shooting, none!  But I feel some have been at least partially excused because the poor old guy walking his dog wasn't wearing orange.  If I ever hear anyone tell me the shooting wasn't their fault because the person they shot wasn't wearing orange, they will be in danger of getting shot right there.  God help me control myself.

[steve863]

9 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Heard a joke about orange once.

A blind woman gets an eye transplant and can see for the first time in her life.  Her friends take her out to celebrate and as they approach a bar in town they see two drunk guys in orange hats and vests stumble into the street.  She asks why are they wearing that orange stuff?  They tell her, "It's so they can be seen better".  To which she replies, "That's good.  All drunks should be easy to spot."

 

Maybe you can get Trump to walk thru the woods with you?  Enough Orange there to protect you, yet you wouldn't have to wear it yourself.   

 

[moog5050]

2 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Mind you, I am not opposed to orange.  I hate it, but am not opposed to it.  I'm opposed to putting it in the safety rules of SAFE GUN HANDLING.  It belongs in the area of SELF PRESERVATION.  The rules of safe gun handling also apply to the range.  Don't see many on the range wearing orange.  

Of course it's a safety issue, but it's to protect you from someone who's not safe.  There is no excuse for an accidental shooting, none!  But I feel some have been at least partially excused because the poor old guy walking his dog wasn't wearing orange.  If I ever hear anyone tell me the shooting wasn't their fault because the person they shot wasn't wearing orange, they will be in danger of getting shot right there.  God help me control myself.

Article says:  "the primary rules of hunter safety:"  Not "safe gun handling" as I explained in my first post.  I am sure there are a few other hunter safety rules that could also be included that do not relate to firearms safety. 

[Rattler]

3 minutes ago, steve863 said:

Maybe you can get Trump to walk thru the woods with you?  Enough Orange there to protect you, yet you wouldn't have to wear it yourself.   

It would be a honor to hunt with the man.

[Nomad]

The shooting / gun community has largely abandoned the term  “ accidental “ discharge  or shooting as not following basic,  long understood rules is negligent , one of the four culpable mental states .

I wear orange in gun season , and Turkey season, I also carry a tourniquet and combat gauze , been muzzle swept to many times ,watched guys use scopes as binos and on and on .

Im off to the gym ,weighted vest day  , carry on .

[Rattler]

3 minutes ago, moog5050 said:

Article says:  "the primary rules of hunter safety:"  Not "safe gun handling" as I explained in my first post.  I am sure there are a few other hunter safety rules that could also be included that do not relate to firearms safety. 

You're right it does.  I missed that.  That's new to me too.  In my day it was firearm safety.  I guess they anticipated my point of view when they added the orange line to the rules.  Sly little devils.

But it still puts the burden of not getting shot partially, or maybe totally, on you.

[Robhuntandfish]

2 hours ago, Rattler said:

You also wear a seatbelt to prevent injury from an accident that is your fault, just like wearing a treestand harness prevents you from hurting yourself.  Orange is not going to prevent a hunter from hurting himself.

a seatbelt is also to prevent you from hurting yourself.  They are for the 1% like most laws and regs are. People make mistakes all the time intentional or not.  If the worse i have to do is wear an orange hat to protect myself - no brainer and no inconvenience.  And it also makes me feel better even when i know i will not shoot without knowing my target if my buddy got out late to hunt and lined up behind a 10pt and we didnt know each other were out there. And the less people killed or shot for any reason while hunting makes us hunters NOT look like idiots.  

but lets face not all people that hunt are good folks.  Trespassers and poachers and people who just let if fly and someone is walking their dog on their own land shouldnt be looked at as being at fault cause they didnt wear orange.    

Edited February 5, 2020 by Robhuntandfish