32 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Southeast Colorado
Joined: 01/07/2007
Posts: 93
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

Naw, Maynard, he's talking AT me. I stand by what I said. I'm not going to change his mind and he certainly won't change mine.

Andy, I'm sorry you and your friends are afraid to venture about during rifle season but your anger and aprehension is misplaced. Maybe you'll be safer in the city---now that Kansans have regained the right to carry concealed weapons. Pretty hard to hide a rifle. The only firearm that has ever injured me was a shotgun pointed at me by a pheasant hunter.

By the way, I never have considered killing anything a "sport". Your comment about a "damn deer" says quite a bit about your own personal ethics. I never shoot at anything that is further away than what I feel is a competent distance. I zero my rifle 3" high at 100 yards. Under most conditons this allows accuracy out to 400 yards. I gauge the distance with either a milldot scope or a laser rangefinder.

If you are fortunate enough to be able to walk from your home to your hunting grounds than good for you. Most of us use a vehicle to get from point "A" to point "B". Unlike some of the "hunters" that you are in fear of, I do not shoot from a vehicle.

Actually, I wonder if anyone has statistics on nationwide HUNTING firearm related injuries and deaths comparing shotguns/rifles/muzzleloaders...? I'll bet a buffalo chip that shotguns lead the pack.

redrider's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: NE Kansas
Joined: 03/20/2006
Posts: 2603
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.
aneria wrote:
First of all guys, read my post. I never said banning rifle hunting would have prevented this death. Your inferring that on your own.

By posting your comments under this post, isn't it implied that you are relating your point of view with the subject that was started? If not you should start a new post.

redrider's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: NE Kansas
Joined: 03/20/2006
Posts: 2603
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

KANSAS HUNTING ACCIDENTS IN 2006 DIP TO NEAR-RECORD LOW

Seventeen accidents in 2006, down from 20 in 2005; none fatal

The number of reported hunting accidents in Kansas dropped to 17 in 2006, down from 20 reported in 2005, according to a Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) Hunter Education Program report. None of the accidents were fatal.

"Swinging on game" and its subset, "victim moving into line of fire," accounted for 11 incidents. Upland bird hunting was involved in 12 of the incidents; doves, one; waterfowl, one; and turkey, two. The other accident involved poor gun handling before the party went afield.

There were two incidents of failure to properly identify a target (mistaken for game), and four cases of careless gun handling. Sixteen shotguns and one rifle were involved in the incidents, and no bow incidents were reported.

"While any accidents are unfortunate, having only 17 during the entire hunting season is a great record," said Wayne Doyle, statewide hunter education coordinator for KDWP. "We are especially grateful that there were no fatalities."

Even though the number of incidents was not the lowest Kansas has experienced -- 13 accidents were reported in 2003 -- the 2006 figure is still very small considering the numbers of hunters and the time they spent afield. The latest statistics, compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the year 2001, revealed that 291,000 hunters spent 3.7 million hours afield in Kansas.

Just a little info taken from the KDWP site. Notice the highlighted area Think

Offline
Location: sw missouri
Joined: 07/07/2006
Posts: 196
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

No comment on this one. I'll just sit back and eat my popcorn and agree with Red.

Offline
Location: Lenexa, Kansas
Joined: 01/02/2007
Posts: 145
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.
aneria wrote:
First of all guys, read my post. I never said banning rifle hunting would have prevented this death. Your inferring that on your own. Secondly, I stand 100% behind a ban on rifle hunting in Kansas. Rifle hunting is dangerous and I challenge anyone here to show me the sport in killing a damn deer from 390 yards away. There is no sport in that. That's almost as bad as high fence deer. Third, I lived in Dodge City for 4 years so I know first hand what the cover is like. I know a few folks who BOW hunt out west successfully. You can spot and stalk deer without the use of a vehicle. Its just how lazy do you want to be. Lastly, I have a circle of birdhunting friends up here who WILL NOT birdhunt during rifle season because they know that some of the biggest idiots in Kansas drive around in trucks holding rifles. There are responsible rifle hunters but a gun that is capable of killing an animal from 400 yards (over 1200 ft and almost 1/5 of a mile) is not safe. I stand behind that 100%.

Andy

That is one ignorant post. So you think walking in a line of 4-5 people wielding shotguns and swining on birds that fly every which direction is safer than deer rifle hunting? There is plenty of sport in shooting a deer at 390 yards. I shouldn't have to go into specifics, as it is pretty obvious that long range shooting takes skill and patience, but you should know that as a hunter.

Lets go ahead and ban rifles, as they are at fault for what they do. It is their fault for being able to shoot at 2000+fps and hit a target at 500 yards. While we are at it, we oughta go ahead and ban those pit bulls. They are scary dogs to look at, and they are to blame for their actions. The owner of the gun or pit bull has nothing to do with it.

/sarcasm off

Offline
Location: Paso Robles
Joined: 10/01/2007
Posts: 44
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

Closed minded uneducated post andy. Its a shame you are grouped with us which im usally glad to be a part of. Banning rifles is like banning guns so criminals cant get them. Criminals dont buy guns legally of course cause they cant lawfully do it. Watch out if they say its just a ban on rifles thats just the first step.
Im not a fan of hunting out of a treestand over food plots. Wearing 600 dollars of scent free camoflauge clothing. Totting a brand new 800dollar bow and 60$ broad heads. This is not my cup of tea why cause i cant afford that, but i wouldent say ban food plots or bows. My old hand me down 03-A3 puts meat on the table to feed my family. Now look at why most people hunt. To kill animals? For fun? For the sport? To shoot? Im a meat hunter. What are you? You take my rifle from me what am i suppose to do? Wait until some sport hunter donates his deer to the food bank so he can go shoot some more?

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.
redrider wrote:
aneria wrote:
First of all guys, read my post. I never said banning rifle hunting would have prevented this death. Your inferring that on your own.

By posting your comments under this post, isn't it implied that you are relating your point of view with the subject that was started? If not you should start a new post.

Red is right - you tied the death of this young man to banning rifle hunting so while you may not have intended to infer that banning rifle hunting would have prevented his death, that is indeed how it came across.

Your comments are very similar to those who are anti-gun or anti-hunting. Let's ban rifles, you can still use shotguns and muzzleloaders. Then when rifles are banned they move onto banning shotguns and muzzleloaders.

Jim Zumbo made a similar comment and he didn't fare very well until Ted Nugent rescued him.

Offline
Location: Hail from Dodge City
Joined: 11/05/2007
Posts: 34
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

An arrest has been made--

http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=7519101&nav=menu486_2

CVC
CVC's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Kansas
Joined: 03/04/2006
Posts: 3586
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

This is such a sad story.

I am glad they arrested the man, but no matter what they do to him won't change the fact that a young man is dead.

Offline
Location: NE Kansas
Joined: 11/14/2007
Posts: 16
Hunting Accident = Not How I would Classify It.

I'm glad they made an arrest on this. Man I'm taking a beating here. I knew the rifle hunters would crawl out of the woodwork. Someone gave a statistic about accidents with rifles versus shotguns. That stat makes sense beings that you can hunt in Kansas with a rifle for about 14 days and you can hunt in Kansas with a shotgun for about 7 months. The probability of a shotgun related accident is roughly 10 times greater. Use common sense guys. I'm not anti hunting or anti guns. I believe that rifle hunting is dangerous and I still would like to see hi powered rifle hunting banned in Kansas. I'm not the only one. They are already talking about it fellas. Someone else mentioned being peppered by a shotgun. I agree that is a major problem when hunting in a group. The main difference is that you can survive being peppered by a shotgun at 60 yards. You will not survive being shot by a rifle at 60 yards. No one here has convinced me of the sport of killing a deer at 390 yards. Also someone mentioned the cost of bowhunting. It is expensive but if you pay 800 for a bow and 600 hundred for clothes then you're just an idiot. I am convinced that there are ethical hunters on this board that hunt with rifles. All I'm saying is that it is dangerous and that your time with your 390 yards shots is limited.

Andy

Related Forum Threads You Might Like