Are you cool with rural folks' hunting guns?

[Robb]

There's a bit of an NRA meme going 'round that somehow we who believe in meaningful gun control want to take away grandpa's duck gun, so to speak.

Personally, I think hunting guns in the country are so far down the list as to not even register a blip on the "part of the problem" scale. And I'm in favor of about every gun control measure you can dream up.

Anyone else?

22 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Grandpa's duck gun (et al) is part of the problem, and must go
	1 (5%)
	Grandpa's duck gun is not part of the problem.
	21 (95%)
	Other (obligatory dingbat option)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[liberal N proud]

1. If you need more than 2 shots to shoot a duck, you are not hunting.

You are just killing!

[safeinOhio]

2. Current federal limit of 3

Is fine with me.

[liberal N proud]

5. I was recalling double barrel shot guns.

If its three shots or two, if you need any more than that it is a slaughter and not a sport.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. For the most part? Hunting weapons aren't part of the problem, no.

Although it depends on how you define "hunting weapon", I suppose. I'd say, for waterfowl, anything from a double-barrelled (side by side or over and under) 12- or 16- gauge, to pump action or semi-auto. For deer, and, in parts of the country, elk, moose, and bear? bolt action or semi-auto in calibres from .243 up to .338 Magnum (and for some game conceivably larger). Most purpose-designed hunting rifles don't load more than five rounds in a magazine, and in a lot of states it's not legal to have more than that loaded anyway.

[Crepuscular]

4. ?

Your statement presumes that there is some kind of tangible difference between "hunting guns" and some other types of firearms, presumably ones that you would like to ban. It's a distinction that is essentially meaningless, except from a cosmetic standpoint. Grandpa's duck hunting gun is most likely to be a Remington 870 pump shotgun, one of the most common "hunting" guns used in this country. Such a weapon is just as deadly, if not more so in some situations, than the dreaded "assault weapons" that seem to create so much fear in the minds of many. There is a reason that during WW1 the Germans protested the use of trench guns (shotguns) by allied forces, as being inhumane, it's because they proved to be an extremely effective means of killing large numbers of people in close quarters.

[Coyotl]

6. Rural folks? You have to be kidding, right?

If you go to a hunting town, you will quickly notice that the hunters are almost all rich, right-wing men spending their enormous Bush tax cuts on $3,000 shotguns, $50,000 pickups, $3,000 dogs, $5,000 kennels, $2,000 hunting outfits, $40,000 fifth-wheel campers or $300,000 motorhomes, and lots of ammo. They pay $1,000 a day for hunts,and someone else dresses their game for them.

The reason "rural folks" have guns is to shoot skunks and other vermin. Most hunters come from the city and invade the countryside, wrecking havoc for a few weeks of the year.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Sounds like you don't live out in the country

Subsistence hunting is still going on and there has been an increase in some areas due to the economy

[Coyotl]

15. I'm 30 miles from the store, in the middle of the National Forest, with bear, elk, salmon

and a hunter invasion every Fall. Plus, my rural hometown, a pheasant hunting capital, is overrun by hunter tourists every year. Bush-tax-cut wealth has driven the price of farmland beyond the reach of farming for profit as rich hunters buy up land for their once-a-year hunting pleasure.

Every ubber-rich tax-cut-Republican should have 160 acres of private pheasant hunting, right?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. I am about the same. No subsistence hunters left in most of CA due to bad laws

Many left elsewhere

[slackmaster]

19. Subsistence hunting was VERY common in California during the Great Depression

My stepfather and all of his brothers relied on it for many years.

[Xithras]

32. What bad laws?

I ask as a California gun owner who hunted for many years. The only "bad law" I know of that interferes with hunting in this state is the ban on lead shot (which, while annoying, is overblown by many hunters...I've downed plenty of duck with steel shot).

The real problem with hunting in California is the sprawl of the population itself. Most of the areas I hunted, as recently as 20 years ago, are covered by tract homes or "ranchettes" nowadays. Since you can't hunt within 150 yards of a house, vast chunks of former hunting lands are now unhuntable. When I was a kid, you could hop in a car and be out hunting within 30 minutes. Nowadays, for all but the most rural Californians, a hunting trip usually means several hours on the road to get to huntable areas.

The spread of people, not laws, has killed hunting in California.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. come down to south Alabama, Mississippi or Arkansas

and see how you feel about that very isolated statement...

incredibly ignorant thing to say.

sP

[cynatnite]

28. Where in the hell do you live at to have such a WRONG idea about "rural folks"?

I just don't know where to start.

My Dad, a diehard Dem, was a rural type. He did duck hunting and deer on occasion. He preferred duck because it tasted good and there was always plenty of game.

Many rural families rely on hunting for food. Years ago, while living in Montana, we relied on deer to feed us through the winter months. We were both going to college and raising children. Money was very hard to come by in those days.

In the rural areas I have lived in we rarely had a problem with people from cities "invading" the countryside. Perhaps wherever you live you might have that issue.

Hunting is a way of life for a lot of families and your view of it is very far off the mark.

[Coyotl]

35. I hunt and fish for subsistence, garden and farmed too, forage, foray, etc. in rural USA, elsewhere

but the idea that hunting guns equate to "rural folks" is a false lumping of what hunting guns are today.

Not to mention, "rural folks" is about as out-dated as cars and a dairy cow in your city backyard.

[cynatnite]

36. Your words...not mine. n/t

[Daemonaquila]

40. WTF are you talking about?

I live in a rural Texas town where everyone hunts. NOBODY is rich, NOBODY is running around with $50k pickups or $300k motorhomes, etc. People here shoot DINNER, mainly axis and some white-tailed deer, practically out their back doors. We also eat the local turkeys and some other wild game, and sometimes do shoot other animals such as a raccoon that has invaded the pigeon loft.

You obviously don't get it. If you've ever lived in a rural area, it's been a resort town - which doesn't count. We have a few scattered ranches that do cater to rich city folk, but those are stocked with mostly exotics so they operate year round. Nobody wreaks havoc around here during hunting seasons.

[Coyotl]

43. I'm talking about hunters being more than just "rural folks"

in case that isn't obvious by now

This is not a question of "rural folks" who hunt for food and "other folks" who don't. That is a gross simplification of who is or in not a hunter, not to mention of why animals are shot by humans.

[jmg257]

7. I'd be cool with them. So - how do you fairly distinguish

between the 'hunting' gun bought in 1 area for one purpose vs another 1 bought for another reason in another area?

[dembotoz]

8. as long as they hunt critter and not people

[Recursion]

9. Misleadingly facile. There's no division of rifles and shotguns into "hunting" and "non-hunting"

It's a meaningless distinction.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. I don't hunt, but I'm okay with it. HOWEVER the thing about hunting....

....it's a sport. Meaning there should be winners and losers.

And if you can't hit a duck or deer with two or three shots out of a bolt action shotgun, you lost and the duck or deer or whatever won.

No need for high capacity semi automatic rifles in hunting at all, regardless of what they look like.

[guardian]

24. Not if you are hunting for subsistence

Then it is not a sport. You want to kill quickly with a little effort as possible and get back to your other tasks. If you are hunting to put up meat to live on for next 6 months you really aren't interested in the challenge of getting 50 years closer, or of not having a quick follow up shot so you can track a wounded animal for six hours, or of waiting for that perfect shot.

It's like subsistence fishing. Screw fly fishing when you are hungry. You toss a 1/4 stick of dynamite in the water. Whatever floats to the top is dinner. Then it is back to the field to bring in the crop so you can make the mortgage payment this month.

[slackmaster]

12. Vastly more relevant than Grandpa's duck gun, Grandpa is not part of the problem

Regardless of what kind of weapons he owns. And if the problem is ducks, then Grandpa's duck gun is actually a positive thing.

[wercal]

13. Its a curious question

I did a quick Google search....

According to the FBI, in 2010, there were 373 murders with shotguns (Grandpa's Duck gun).

There were 358 murders with rifles of all types (including AR-15)

(Now handguns killed 6,009 people...but for some reason we aren't talking about that.)

[Recursion]

14. Funny, isn't it?

We keep focusing on the types of weapons that kill the fewest number of people.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. We ARE actually talking about that.

Things like background checks, mental health checks, closing gun show loopholes, etc. will apply to handguns and rifles alike.

[wercal]

25. Let me expound

A few weeks ago, legislation was introduced, as 'assault weapon' legislation.

In addition to mental health checks and gun show loopholes, it listed specific firearms than it proposed to ban, as well as characteristics of firearms that would be banned.

Yogi Berra comes to mind.

I'm going to make an assumption (and please correct me if I'm wrong)....you used the term 'bolt action shotgun' in this thread.....so I am going to assume you are not a gun enthusiast, and don't know alot of the intricate details of each model.

I really don't either. But, I do know this: A semi-automatic pistol has the same killing capability in an indoor massacre situation as an assault weapon. Therefore, the fixation on collapsible stocks and pistol grips, etc. in the proposed legislation (which is specifically tailored towards assault weapons and not pistols) is really fixating on a distinction without a difference.

In fact, if you examine the characteristics that would be banned, they are characteristics that make an AR-15 more like....well...a pistol (i.e. the probibitiion against a pistol grip).

So, if you are at all interested in closing gun show loopholes, and requiring mental health checks, please know that the 'political theater' aspects of the legislation are easy fodder to be picked at; and, likely little progress will be made in any aspect of gun control....and this will be precisely because of the tunnel vision on assault weapons.

[NickB79]

37. I know this is nit-picking, but.....

There actually are bolt-action shotguns out there: http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/220F

Otherwise, nice, informative post!

[Erose999]

42. Let me introduce you to my friend, the goose gun:

bolt action, 12ga, 3 shot magazine. Made for hunting birds, obviously.

[MoonRiver]

16. I despise guns and hunting, but this is not the real problem.

As has been said ad infinitum, nobody needs an assault weapon to kill Bambi.

[Recursion]

22. Most assault weapons are not powerful enough to hunt deer

You're right, but not for the reason you think you are.

[Chathamization]

17. "rural folks' hunting guns"

The only time I've been threatened by a gun in the US was by rural folks in the countryside. And I live in a city known for its gun violence.

Keep in mind that the "gun control is for inner city bad guys not rural good folks" line is a racist dog whistle (one that too many Democrats use). It seems be based on the assumption that rural white gun lovers can be won over to gun control if there's an implication that they'll be restricting black people's access to guns. But don't be fooled; there's plenty of gun misuse in rural areas as well.

[Recursion]

23. Way, way, way too many

"Hunting" is my least favorite dog-whistle: exurban whites can have guns, it's those "other people" who shouldn't.

there's plenty of gun misuse in rural areas as well.

Yep. And a shit ton of gun violence in rural states, per capita.

[leveymg]

26. If you shoot it, you gotta eat it (unless it's made of clay).

I would ban "exotic sport shooting" such as lion hunts on private "reserves" in Texas.

Deer, duck, rabbits - bag your limit, but you've gotta carry it out with you or get a $10,000 plus fine and have your pieces confiscated.

[guardian]

29. Would that include

the rabid skunk or dog you just shot?

[leveymg]

34. A little hot sauce and a matching wine does wonders, even for the gamiest meat.

Don't waste good protein!

[Tikki]

27. I sure hope grandpa would be eating roast duck after killing the ducks...

Burns me when hunters kill an animal (any animal) and just leave it along the
side of the road or throw in the garbage.

But if grandpa likes to hunt for dinner....fine by me.


Tikki

[NickB79]

38. If it's a game animal, that's illegal in every state

You can't hunt a deer just for the head, or a bear just for the fur. You MUST bring the animal in and either pay for the processing and donate the meat, or process it yourself in your garage. Leaving a carcass in the woods is grounds for a revocation of your hunting privileges for several years, and possibly fines and gun confiscation as well.

There are exceptions for species commonly hunted that are not edible, though, such as skunks, fox, coyote, crow, etc. I'm cool with that: I've had to dispatch many ground squirrels in my garden and skunks under my chicken coop that I wouldn't care to eat but needed to be shot nonetheless.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. We need to move away from the NRA second amendment neighborhood nuclear superiority

which is really just constitutional protections for gun makers. There is no perfectly safe position, but we can cut gun violence and let Grandpa keep his bird shot.

[riqster]

31. Speaking as a rural folk,

I am OK with my gun.

[mike_c]

33. only if they are regulated the way Japan regulates hunter's firearms....

I'm fine with both recreational and subsistence hunting, but I still think the firearms should be very strictly licensed and regulated.

[longship]

39. I live amidst the national forest.

Few roads here are paved due to the fact that the Manistee National Forest carves out a lot of ways to get from here to there. I live in one of those cul de sacs. The forest is one mile south and one mile east, so those roads go nowhere. To the west and north, both hit hard going fairly quickly if you keep on.

There are many working farmers here who have hunted for generations. There are plenty of deer here, too many actually. I have killed several -- no, I don't hunt; I drive. And deer are really, really stupid about automobiles. Everybody who lives here has hit or, much more likely, been hit by a deer while driving. They run right into you.

But the hunters here are not stupid, or cruel. They don't use so-called assault weapons to hunt. I hear gunshots regularly here. It doesn't worry me, even out of season, because I know that somebody is shooting dinner. And the report is always a hunting rifle, not one of lower caliber.

Regardless, I suspect that many more deer die on the roads here than rifle bullets or arrows. They just don't have any sense about automobiles.

[a la izquierda]

41. My dad hunted.

I live in a rural area, and people hunt (we hear them). While I find hunting distasteful, it is a fact of life and not up to me to regulate.