|
Post by swilk on Dec 16, 2014 20:55:19 GMT -5
What happens to that thought process if the worst happens the first year new rifles are legal?
Some would certainly jump up and scream "I told you so".
Would they be right? Does it matter in the court of public opinion?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 16, 2014 20:55:58 GMT -5
Well, I can say unequivocally that the DNR stated right in the preface to the HPR proposal that they believe them to be safe, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that it is in print for all to see. I was told five years ago that the DNR was testing the waters with the PCR's, and would then allow even more calibers later, and within five years' time would propose .243 or larger for deer. Looks like they are right on schedule for that 5-year prediction to me. So it really wasn't the public's Idea then....The DNR is just "piggy backing" the public...Hmmm...interesting!!
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 20:59:39 GMT -5
Well, I can say unequivocally that the DNR stated right in the preface to the HPR proposal that they believe them to be safe, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that it is in print for all to see. I was told five years ago that the DNR was testing the waters with the PCR's, and would then allow even more calibers later, and within five years' time would propose .243 or larger for deer. Looks like they are right on schedule for that 5-year prediction to me. So it really wasn't the public's Idea then....The DNR is just "piggy backing" the public...Hmmm...interesting!! Seriously, does it matter who was the first to actually have the idea about using them for deer? Our DNr has enough turnover that I doubt anyone who was there when it first came up is still there.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 21:00:37 GMT -5
What happens to that thought process if the worst happens the first year new rifles are legal? Some would certainly jump up and scream "I told you so". Would they be right? Does it matter in the court of public opinion? Facts and truth have absolutely no bearing on public opinion. Just look at the recent and ongoing protests.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 16, 2014 21:05:59 GMT -5
Well, I can say unequivocally that the DNR stated right in the preface to the HPR proposal that they believe them to be safe, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that it is in print for all to see. I was told five years ago that the DNR was testing the waters with the PCR's, and would then allow even more calibers later, and within five years' time would propose .243 or larger for deer. Looks like they are right on schedule for that 5-year prediction to me. So it really wasn't the public's Idea then....The DNR is just "piggy backing" the public...Hmmm...interesting!! Hey, I was just relaying what was told to me five years ago. It's awfully funny that it is coming to pass exactly as predicted. My guess is that someone in the DNR wanted to hunt with a PCR and got the ball rolling in the first place by using public input as the "fire starter". Then it blazed into what we have today, with those within the DNR who are interested in the same thing reaping the benefits. I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't believe we'd be looking at HPR's right now if everyone in the DNR was opposed to them.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 16, 2014 21:06:50 GMT -5
What happens to that thought process if the worst happens the first year new rifles are legal? Some would certainly jump up and scream "I told you so". Would they be right? Does it matter in the court of public opinion? Facts and truth has absolutely no bearing on public opinion. Just look at the recent and ongoing protests. If the worst happened it would most certainly be a fact that it did. Would that fact sway the truth of the safety aspect? What if the unthinkable happened twice? Would that fact change things or would policy makers accept that accidents happen? I'd say the majority of hunters use elevated stands and accidents happen each year. But tree stands aren't new so the mindset is different.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 16, 2014 21:11:49 GMT -5
Would that fact change things or would policy makers accept that accidents happen? My guess is that they'd just say that it was bound to happen with a firearm sooner or later anyway and not lay the blame on the HPR itself. It'll be a neverending battle. Even if HPR's aren't legalized, if someone gets shot with a PCR twenty years from now, someone will say "I told you 27 years ago that would happen when I opposed legalizing PCR's."
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 21:14:07 GMT -5
Facts and truth has absolutely no bearing on public opinion. Just look at the recent and ongoing protests. If the worst happened it would most certainly be a fact that it did. Would that fact sway the truth of the safety aspect? What if the unthinkable happened twice? Would that fact change things or would policy makers accept that accidents happen? I'd say the majority of hunters use elevated stands and accidents happen each year. But tree stands aren't new so the mindset is different. IIRC we got the hunter orange on ground blind rule because the unthinkable did happen. It was in Michigan. The problem I had with all of it was the story about the hunter getting shot in a blind was actually goose hunting and the shooter was a road shooter trying to kill a goose(decoy) in the field. You are correct, if it happens we will all be told how wrong it was to allow them in the deer woods. Just like we are told every day that guns shouldn't be allowed to be sold because kids will get shot in a school.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 16, 2014 21:18:18 GMT -5
People may or may not be dangerous regardless of the tool they use.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 16, 2014 21:36:41 GMT -5
O....It gonna happen!!! may not be personal injury but there will be personal property with DAMAGE.....
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 16, 2014 21:45:10 GMT -5
Well, I can say unequivocally that the DNR stated right in the preface to the HPR proposal that they believe them to be safe, and I'm sure everyone here would agree that it is in print for all to see. I was told five years ago that the DNR was testing the waters with the PCR's, and would then allow even more calibers later, and within five years' time would propose .243 or larger for deer. Looks like they are right on schedule for that 5-year prediction to me. So it really wasn't the public's Idea then....The DNR is just "piggy backing" the public...Hmmm...interesting!! It ONLY takes one suggestion form John Q Public to "get the ball rolling"..
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 16, 2014 21:47:27 GMT -5
If the worst happened it would most certainly be a fact that it did. Would that fact sway the truth of the safety aspect? What if the unthinkable happened twice? Would that fact change things or would policy makers accept that accidents happen? I'd say the majority of hunters use elevated stands and accidents happen each year. But tree stands aren't new so the mindset is different. IIRC we got the hunter orange on ground blind rule because the unthinkable did happen. It was in Michigan. The problem I had with all of it was the story about the hunter getting shot in a blind was actually goose hunting and the shooter was a road shooter trying to kill a goose(decoy) in the field. You are correct, if it happens we will all be told how wrong it was to allow them in the deer woods. Just like we are told every day that guns shouldn't be allowed to be sold because kids will get shot in a school. I think you are talking about two separate instances. The one in Michigan was two deer hunters. The goose poaching/killing was in Kansas... www.fieldandstream.com/pages/update-kansas-man-charged-teen-goose-hunter%E2%80%99s-death . I think there was one in Canada too.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 22:09:59 GMT -5
IIRC we got the hunter orange on ground blind rule because the unthinkable did happen. It was in Michigan. The problem I had with all of it was the story about the hunter getting shot in a blind was actually goose hunting and the shooter was a road shooter trying to kill a goose(decoy) in the field. You are correct, if it happens we will all be told how wrong it was to allow them in the deer woods. Just like we are told every day that guns shouldn't be allowed to be sold because kids will get shot in a school. I think you are talking about two separate instances. The one in Michigan was two deer hunters. The goose poaching/killing was in Kansas... www.fieldandstream.com/pages/update-kansas-man-charged-teen-goose-hunter%E2%80%99s-death . I think there was one in Canada too. The mind is the first to go, I guess........
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 16, 2014 22:13:02 GMT -5
O....It gonna happen!!! may not be personal injury but there will be personal property with DAMAGE..... There are buildings getting shot now. Does that mean we should all use rocks?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 16, 2014 22:25:26 GMT -5
No that means we need to increase the range of Tool where using now!!!!
SMH....
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 17, 2014 6:44:38 GMT -5
So Sunday take-home alcohol sales shouldn't be allowed because some idiots drink and drive?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 17, 2014 7:17:32 GMT -5
It's all about the "I" want mine........
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 17, 2014 9:13:39 GMT -5
Much Ado About Nothing.......
.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 17, 2014 9:15:28 GMT -5
The mind is the first to go, I guess........ Actually the mind is the second thing to go. I forgot what is the first.. .
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 17, 2014 9:48:01 GMT -5
The mind is the first to go, I guess........ Actually the mind is the second thing to go. I forgot what is the first.. . I didn't.
|
|