|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:32:25 GMT -5
Shot guns with slugs or shot guns period?? Most small game hunting is done with shotguns..... Just saying! The data doesn't differentiate between slugs and shot, just as it does not break down rifles by caliber. Greg, what Alex is trying to say is that even though rifles are increasingly being used, accidents are decreasing. He's not saying that rifles are the CAUSE of the decrease. He knows that's what I've been saying lol
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 2, 2016 20:34:53 GMT -5
Shot guns with slugs or shot guns period?? Most small game hunting is done with shotguns..... Just saying! The data doesn't differentiate between slugs and shot, just as it does not break down rifles by caliber. Greg, what Alex is trying to say is that even though rifles are increasingly being used, accidents are decreasing. He's not saying that rifles are the CAUSE of the decrease. I get that..... But there no need to muddy the water with that info.... IMO It's pointless info and data....
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 20:38:42 GMT -5
The data doesn't differentiate between slugs and shot, just as it does not break down rifles by caliber. Greg, what Alex is trying to say is that even though rifles are increasingly being used, accidents are decreasing. He's not saying that rifles are the CAUSE of the decrease. I get that..... But there no need to muddy the water with that info.... IMO It's pointless info and data.... He's just trying to show that rifles do NOT increase accidental shootings.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:39:07 GMT -5
The data doesn't differentiate between slugs and shot, just as it does not break down rifles by caliber. Greg, what Alex is trying to say is that even though rifles are increasingly being used, accidents are decreasing. He's not saying that rifles are the CAUSE of the decrease. I get that..... But there no need to muddy the water with that info.... IMO It's pointless info and data.... What data do you want to see? If you want to see a direct correlation between increased rifle use and safety incidents, guess what? That data doesn't exist because there is no correlation.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 2, 2016 20:43:13 GMT -5
No .... Just post up the HPR data..... The subject of the thread!!!!
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:48:15 GMT -5
No .... Just post up the HPR data..... The subject of the thread!!!! Ok, here's some "HPR" data...
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 2, 2016 20:51:24 GMT -5
Lol.... Thanks for making my point!
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:54:12 GMT -5
Lol.... Thanks for making my point! Lol ok, you never had a point.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 2, 2016 20:56:02 GMT -5
Not that you wanted to see.....
Post some more useless data ......
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 20:57:37 GMT -5
www.ihea.com/news-and-events/news/incident-reportsI did find some interesting data while perusing the above statistics. In 2007, Iowa (which is a shotgun-only state for deer) had FIVE accidental shootings in ONE WEEK by deer hunters with slug guns! Thankfully, the victims were not fatally injured.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 2, 2016 20:59:45 GMT -5
Not that you wanted to see..... Post some more useless data ...... Turning a blind eye to logic and science is the only point you've proven to everyone on here.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 2, 2016 21:00:09 GMT -5
www.ihea.com/news-and-events/news/incident-reportsI did find some interesting data while perusing the above statistics. In 2007, Iowa (which is a shotgun-only state for deer) had FIVE accidental shootings in ONE WEEK by deer hunters with slug guns! Thankfully, the victims were not fatally injured. Bet they where driving deer...happens all the time with short gun seasons states
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 2, 2016 21:03:01 GMT -5
Ohio had 13 slug gun accidents in one week the same year! It appears that Indiana is pretty safety conscious.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 3, 2016 3:03:31 GMT -5
Correct.. But sometimes perception can become reality in some people's minds. No amount of facts can change their made up minds.. That... And sometimes some one has to DIE before anyone will believe there is a safety problem ...... Tombstone science!! I bet if someone would check the records, my gut feeling is that there are more people killed and injured from tree stand falls than from firearms. If that is the case, then why isn't there a big push to make them illegal to use?
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 3, 2016 3:12:19 GMT -5
You mean where Jack interjected the term "high power rifles" when the bill has no mention of the term "high power". I have never seen a formal definition of what designates a rifle from a "high power" rifle. So I am guessing you didn't read the bill that explains .... O.K. Here is the direct wording of the bill. Nowhere does it say "HPR". "Hunting and property management. Requires the director of the department of natural resources to establish by rule a deer hunting season in which certain rifles may be used on state owned hunting areas in the southern half of Indiana." For the life of me, I cannot find a definition stating the difference between "High Power Rifle" and "Low Power Rifle". Unless the regulation is "X" caliber at "X" foot pounds of energy at "X" distance from the muzzle, I think all the arguing over semantics is silly.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 3, 2016 3:22:25 GMT -5
If the .458 Socom data that arlowe13 posted is "HPR" data, what would a .40 caliber, 195g bullet moving at 2850 fps by igniting 70.0g of H-4831 be considered?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 3, 2016 6:11:37 GMT -5
So I am guessing you didn't read the bill that explains .... O.K. Here is the direct wording of the bill. Nowhere does it say "HPR". "Hunting and property management. Requires the director of the department of natural resources to establish by rule a deer hunting season in which certain rifles may be used on state owned hunting areas in the southern half of Indiana." For the life of me, I cannot find a definition stating the difference between "High Power Rifle" and "Low Power Rifle". Unless the regulation is "X" caliber at "X" foot pounds of energy at "X" distance from the muzzle, I think all the arguing over semantics is silly. I know the DNR told Woody that this bill would not change anything with currently legal rifles, but the bill language does not specify that. It only States rifles of .243 caliber and up with no ammunition restrictions beyond the exclusion of full metal jacket bullets. With the right legal challenge, this bill could outlaw every current rifle on private land and the northern half of the state.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 6:36:37 GMT -5
As long as there is no language in this bill that repeals the PCR statute, we're okay. The law states that you can use PCR's anywhere, and that law stands until repealed and stricken from the Indiana Code.
I understand that the bill makes it sound different, since PCR's are essentially larger than .243", but you still have a law on the books that has not been repealed that covers it. Heck, I'll be the guinea pig and hunt with a PCR if this bill should happen to pass unchanged.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 3, 2016 6:40:08 GMT -5
As long as there is no language in this bill that repeals the PCR statute, we're okay. The law states that you can use PCR's anywhere, and that law stands until repealed and stricken from the Indiana Code. I understand that the bill makes it sound different, since PCR's are essentially larger than .243", but you still have a law on the books that has not been repealed that covers it. Heck, I'll be the guinea pig and hunt with a PCR if this bill should happen to pass unchanged. Is there an I.C. code on PCR's or just a DNR regulation? I haven't searched the I.C. codes to find out.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 3, 2016 6:43:57 GMT -5
I think the DNR regulations are codified.
|
|