Question for hunters

[Alaska Darin]

If you are going to ask me how much I know on the subject and I man up and tell you, even though I know you'll just ridicule the answer, then you man up and tell me. If you're going to ask a question like that then you need to supply your information. I believe the reason you won't write anything is because it will make my statement about an assault weapon being something a hunter really doesn't need very valid. Just clip and paste if you have to. I already supplied you with the link you'll need.

THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AK47 & A SEMIAUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE CHAMBERED FOR WINCHESTER .308. It's already been stated in this thread BY ME. Both are rifles. Both have the ability to fire one round per trigger squeeze. Both are magazine fed. Both fire the same size bullet (though one packs significantly less "oomph" - and it wouldn't be the one you'd "think").

 

Your "belief" is based on your ignorance and typical mass media stupidity, which is made funnier by the fact that you stand behind it like a badge of honor - all the while refusing to do 10 seconds of research because it'll likely blow your entire belief system out of the water.

 

The biggest reason not to take an AK47 hunting is because it's notoriously inaccurate at distances beyond about 150 meters. The fervor that you and the rest of the uniformed base your opinion on is solely the way the damn gun looks. "Assault weapons" may be the only thing in U.S. history that were ever banned based on safety features. Very smart.

[Fan in San Diego]

Just about anything. Deer, moose, caribou, turkey etc. I'm not a "flush something out" hunter. I'm a "go in the woods and do your homework, pick the spot the animals travel" hunter. Once I get to my spot, I chamber my round and wait for my moment.

 

I could do that as well, find a game trail and stake it out. But I prefer to walk around and enjoy the woods and scenery.

[Alaska Darin]

I could do that as well, find a game trail and stake it out. But I prefer to walk around and enjoy the woods and scenery.

Given that most good hunting places in Alaska are about 30 miles from a road, if you ever plan on hunting here you better set aside a good bit of time.

 

I've never hunted that way. My father used to - until a guy missed his head by a couple of feet doing the same thing. Of course, the other guy was hunting posted land. Dumbasses.

[Marv's Neighbor]

Could be hunting for Free Gas!

[stevestojan]

Wegmans sells steak.

 

Apparently there are people who will kill and clean my food for me. And they do it for a living. If you feel like wasting an entire day waiting for an animal that may or may not show up, go for it. I'd rather spend my day on other things and then hit the store for 10 minutes to "hunt" my dinner.

 

Hunting won't be a sport until they give the animals guns to shoot back. In most "sports", both teams know they're playing.

 

But again, shoot away. Your right, your time being wasted.

[Steely Dan]

THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AK47 & A SEMIAUTOMATIC HUNTING RIFLE CHAMBERED FOR WINCHESTER .308. It's already been stated in this thread BY ME. Both are rifles. Both have the ability to fire one round per trigger squeeze. Both are magazine fed. Both fire the same size bullet (though one packs significantly less "oomph" - and it wouldn't be the one you'd "think").

 

Your "belief" is based on your ignorance and typical mass media stupidity, which is made funnier by the fact that you stand behind it like a badge of honor - all the while refusing to do 10 seconds of research because it'll likely blow your entire belief system out of the water.

 

The biggest reason not to take an AK47 hunting is because it's notoriously inaccurate at distances beyond about 150 meters. The fervor that you and the rest of the uniformed base your opinion on is solely the way the damn gun looks. "Assault weapons" may be the only thing in U.S. history that were ever banned based on safety features. Very smart.

 

I asked you for a tutorial. I figure that's ten seconds or more of research if I read it, which I will. Most of the sites you can go to are biased one way or another and facts are skewed. Even though we've had problems I still think you're facts are usually spot on. It's the opinions drawn from those facts that we usually differ on.

 

I'm glad you lump me in with every other anti-gun person. I've said before that I have no problem with people owning handguns. I just don't see why semi-automatic or assault weapons are necessary for society at large.

 

The ban on assault weapons was backed by just about every police force? Why do you think that is? Probably because when they come up against bad guys with those weapons they are outgunned until a swat team or more can arrive. Some law enforcement officers refer to them as "Cop Killer Guns".

 

I think you'd probably agree with this article. It's one side of the debate and makes some very good points.

 

Here's the extreme rights position.

 

In 1994, the enemies of liberty stole a huge chunk from the few gun rights liberty-minded Americans were still able to exercise. Ummmm, ok.

 

I like the part about illegalizing assault weapons is the first step toward eliminating all guns. I guess illegalizing child porn is the first step in eliminating all free speech!

 

Did the Assault Weapons Ban work?

 

Here's the National Review Online's opinion.

 

Intentionally misrepresenting assault weapons as machine guns is nothing new for the gun-control lobby. But if the public mood about the issue is any indication, the lie is exposed. Congressional leaders held fast to the end, citing their constituents' desires in letting the law die its programmed death.

 

The experiment failed. The myth of the deadly assault weapon can now be laid to rest, a victim of its own falsity.

 

 

Here's the Brady sites opinion:

 

Q: Does the ban reduce the use of assault weapons in crime?

 

A: Yes. As more and more assault weapons are confiscated from crime scenes, fewer and fewer criminals and juveniles will have access to these deadly killing machines. And, in fact, there is evidence that the ban has worked.

 

Gun traces are one of the best measures of gun usage in crime. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons in the 1993-95 period declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.[8]

 

This same study also reported that the number of assault weapons traced in St. Louis and Boston declined 29% and 24% respectively, as a share of all guns recovered in crime, during late 1995 and into 1996.

 

In addition, a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) found that, in Maryland, whose ban on assault pistols took effect in June 1994, the number of assault pistols recovered by Baltimore police in the first six months of 1995 fell by 45 percent from the first six months of 1994.[9]

 

 

Here's more from the Brady site:

 

The Problem

 

Semiautomatic assault weapons are not machine guns of the sort used by Al Capone. The sale or transfer of fully automatic machine guns, which automatically feed ammunition into the chamber so that one depression of the trigger automatically sprays multiple bullets as long as the trigger is pulled, were restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (see The Six Federal Gun Laws). These fully automatic machine guns are still available, but acquiring them requires the payment of a significant tax, a thorough FBI background check, and the approval of local law enforcement officials. Moreover, as replacement parts for these truly military guns become harder to find, the price of these weapons has steadily increased while their availability have declined.

 

Semiautomatic assault weapons are only slightly less deadly than machine guns. Pulling the trigger on these guns fires a single bullet, but also automatically loads the next bullet into the chamber, so that the user can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds by repeatedly pulling the trigger. The best-known semi-automatic weapons, including the Israeli UZI, the Chinese-made SKS rifle and the Soviet AK-47 were all developed for military use, and are ill-suited for hunting.

 

So I don't think I was that far off when I said:

 

Educate me AD. Tell me what you know. I believe they can only be shot by pulling the trigger for every bullet. They can fire off rounds a lot faster than any other legal gun. Tell me the rest you wise man and then tell me why they are necessary in hunting.

 

Since machine guns are still legal, but very difficult to legally obtain, I was wrong on the they can fire off rounds a lot faster than any other legal gun but I was right about pulling the trigger for every bullet. Now I see why you didn't want to get into this too deeply.

[Lori]

Let's see: a cut-and-paste from the Brady site, versus a guy who, you know, actually OWNS the gun in question.

 

Okay, I'm out of this thread before I lose any more brain cells.

[Steely Dan]

Let's see: a cut-and-paste from the Brady site, versus a guy who, you know, actually OWNS the gun in question.

 

Okay, I'm out of this thread before I lose any more brain cells.

 

I asked him for his opinion. He refused to give it. He told me to research it. I did. I put the conservative side and the liberal side on it. I don't understand the problem.

[Steely Dan]

Here's a passage from the National Review article:

 

ABC News did it again last week in a World News Tonight advocacy-news piece by Bill Redeker on the expiration of the ban. The segment quoted Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton, who warned "we'll probably have more of these weapons in the United States than there are in Iraq in the hands of insurgents." Not true. Iraqi insurgents shoot fully automatic military rifles — the real thing. American target shooters and collectors whose guns were banned by the 1994 law only want to shoot their semiautomatic rifles, one bullet with each trigger pull.

 

That backs up the Brady sites analysis of the type of weapon banned.

 

Once again what's the problem?

[Booster4324]

I asked him for his opinion. He refused to give it. He told me to research it. I did. I put the conservative side and the liberal side on it. I don't understand the problem.

 

Because you are wrong brother. The differences are solely cosmetic. Now you can argue whether the "assault" rifle inspires violence or not by its mere appearance I suppose.

 

Oh and AD, you were patient at one point?

[Steely Dan]

Because you are wrong brother. The differences are solely cosmetic. Now you can argue whether the "assault" rifle inspires violence or not by its mere appearance I suppose.

 

Oh and AD, you were patient at one point?

 

And all of that is in the links I provided. Did you bother to look at them?

[Alaska Darin]

I asked you for a tutorial. I figure that's ten seconds or more of research if I read it, which I will. Most of the sites you can go to are biased one way or another and facts are skewed. Even though we've had problems I still think you're facts are usually spot on. It's the opinions drawn from those facts that we usually differ on.

 

I'm glad you lump me in with every other anti-gun person. I've said before that I have no problem with people owning handguns. I just don't see why semi-automatic or assault weapons are necessary for society at large.

I "lump you in" with other anti-gun people because your opinions are based on ignorance. Banning ANY COMMODITY means there will be a black market, criminals will have them, and the cost of other similiar commodities will go through the roof for law abiding citizens.

 

"Assault weapons" are involved for less than 2% of all gun crime. Handgun crime percentages are significantly higher.

 

Canada banned handguns. Handguns are involved in over 60% of gun crimes there. Welcome to trends

 

The ban on assault weapons was backed by just about every police force? Why do you think that is? Probably because when they come up against bad guys with those weapons they are outgunned until a swat team or more can arrive. Some law enforcement officers refer to them as "Cop Killer Guns".

Yeah, let's try and remember the last time a legal assault weapon was used in a crime against police. Got an example? I'm pretty sure any gun I own would be a "cop killer gun", since guns don't discern who they fire at, only the people using them.

I think you'd probably agree with this article. It's one side of the debate and makes some very good points.

 

Here's the extreme rights position.

 

In 1994, the enemies of liberty stole a huge chunk from the few gun rights liberty-minded Americans were still able to exercise. Ummmm, ok.

 

I like the part about illegalizing assault weapons is the first step toward eliminating all guns. I guess illegalizing child porn is the first step in eliminating all free speech!

That's because you don't know the history of gun laws in this country and they do. It's "Death By 1000 Cuts".

 

BTW, from 1997-2006 521 police officers were killed by firearms (LEOKA). 73% of the firearms used were handguns. 20% were rifles. There was no further breakdown but you get the point. Even if every single "rifle" police murder was attributed to "assault weapons" (unlikely), they'd still be less than a third of handgun killings.

Did the Assault Weapons Ban work?

 

Here's the National Review Online's opinion.

 

Intentionally misrepresenting assault weapons as machine guns is nothing new for the gun-control lobby. But if the public mood about the issue is any indication, the lie is exposed. Congressional leaders held fast to the end, citing their constituents' desires in letting the law die its programmed death.

 

The experiment failed. The myth of the deadly assault weapon can now be laid to rest, a victim of its own falsity.

 

 

Here's the Brady sites opinion:

 

Q: Does the ban reduce the use of assault weapons in crime?

 

A: Yes. As more and more assault weapons are confiscated from crime scenes, fewer and fewer criminals and juveniles will have access to these deadly killing machines. And, in fact, there is evidence that the ban has worked.

 

Gun traces are one of the best measures of gun usage in crime. In 1999, the National Institute of Justice reported that trace requests for assault weapons in the 1993-95 period declined 20% in the first calendar year after the ban took effect, dropping from 4,077 in 1994 to 3,268 in 1995. Over the same time period, gun murders declined only 10% and trace requests for all types of guns declined 11 percent, clearly showing a greater decrease in the number of assault weapons traced in crime.[8]

 

This same study also reported that the number of assault weapons traced in St. Louis and Boston declined 29% and 24% respectively, as a share of all guns recovered in crime, during late 1995 and into 1996.

 

In addition, a study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence) found that, in Maryland, whose ban on assault pistols took effect in June 1994, the number of assault pistols recovered by Baltimore police in the first six months of 1995 fell by 45 percent from the first six months of 1994.[9]

 

 

Here's more from the Brady site:

 

The Problem

 

Semiautomatic assault weapons are not machine guns of the sort used by Al Capone. The sale or transfer of fully automatic machine guns, which automatically feed ammunition into the chamber so that one depression of the trigger automatically sprays multiple bullets as long as the trigger is pulled, were restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (see The Six Federal Gun Laws). These fully automatic machine guns are still available, but acquiring them requires the payment of a significant tax, a thorough FBI background check, and the approval of local law enforcement officials. Moreover, as replacement parts for these truly military guns become harder to find, the price of these weapons has steadily increased while their availability have declined.

 

Semiautomatic assault weapons are only slightly less deadly than machine guns. Pulling the trigger on these guns fires a single bullet, but also automatically loads the next bullet into the chamber, so that the user can fire up to 30 bullets in five seconds by repeatedly pulling the trigger. The best-known semi-automatic weapons, including the Israeli UZI, the Chinese-made SKS rifle and the Soviet AK-47 were all developed for military use, and are ill-suited for hunting.

 

So I don't think I was that far off when I said:

 

Since machine guns are still legal, but very difficult to legally obtain, I was wrong on the they can fire off rounds a lot faster than any other legal gun but I was right about pulling the trigger for every bullet. Now I see why you didn't want to get into this too deeply.

You'll forgive me for laughing at you for using Brady as a measure of your opinion. They have as much credibility on guns as Charles Manson does on how to treat people. I love how they pick and choose very specific statistics for their arguments. Guess why they do that? It's similiar "lahjik" that has government officials up in arms over GTA because kids playing video games are certainly more likely to kill cops.

 

All of that is nothing more than scare tactics. Remember the last time anyone fired off 30 rounds in five seconds? Think that wouldn't have been on the news? Just try squeezing your finger as fast as you can for 5 seconds. Yep, that's a big problem here in society. It's even more laughable when you realize there are at least 20 million "assault weapons" already in homes around the country. Yeah, they're a huge issue. People are running around all willy-nilly firing their "assault weapons" into crowds.

 

And who said the average person buys them to hunt with? Why is that even on the table? The right to "Keep and Bear Arms" is not at all about hunting. It's about protecting yourself and the country. Guess what kind of weapons would be best suited for that purpose? Oooooooh.

 

All the first "ban" did was triple the price. It certainly didn't hurt their sales. Manufacturers simply changed they way they looked slightly and charged more money for them. It also put them in the news, which was the best free advertising in the world. Guess what the weapon of choice was in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

[Alaska Darin]

Oh and AD, you were patient at one point?

I didn't say I was patient. I said I was more patient.

[Nanker]

Black powder is where it's at. I'm not much of a hunter anymore, but I've always wanted to try that. Might be worth picking one up just for the range.

 

In regards to the AK-47, isn't it a 7.62 or some such? If I remember right, that round is on par or slightly "weaker" than the accepted .30-06 or 300 Win. Mag. cartridges that a lot of deer hunters use. Lots of 'assault rifles' were largely designed with a bit of a smaller round in order to reduce recoil (and controllability) when playing in full-auto or burst.

 

I'm all for keeping guns out of of the hands of the mentally retarded, but AD's right with respect to the assault weapons thing. Especially that ban that recently expired. It really only succeeded in banning guns that look scary.

 

Most muzzleloaders are .50 caliber. They're a blast.

[DaGimp]

Spoken like someone who has never hunted. How much sport is there in having someone else kill your food for you?

Wrong-I've also worked in the industry.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Wrong-I've also worked in the industry.

 

 

What exactly did you do in "the industry" to make you feel that hunting with a modern compound bow is easy?

[SD Jarhead]

What exactly did you do in "the industry" to make you feel that hunting with a modern compound bow is easy?

 

He worked in the shoe department at Dick's...

[WVUFootball29]

Can anyone tell me which one of these rifles is safer?

 

http://www.thegunsource.com/store/item/655...Semi-autom.aspx

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK_47 (semi-automatic version of course)

 

Just want to know which one is least likely to kill a human. Dan any suggestions?

[Gary M]

Wegmans sells steak.

 

Apparently there are people who will kill and clean my food for me. And they do it for a living. If you feel like wasting an entire day waiting for an animal that may or may not show up, go for it. I'd rather spend my day on other things and then hit the store for 10 minutes to "hunt" my dinner.

 

Hunting won't be a sport until they give the animals guns to shoot back. In most "sports", both teams know they're playing.

 

But again, shoot away. Your right, your time being wasted.

 

Sitting in a treestand waiting for your prey might just be the closest think there is to Heaven on earth, at least it is for me.

 

I have come home empty handed and still had the best day afield because I saw something that amazed me while I waited, things that you would never see at Wegmans.

 

Killing isn't the only reason I go out, but eating something I harvested has a special appeal to me.

[SD Jarhead]

Gary- Couldn't have said it better myself...