Fellas, the "public acceptance" argument, which is also flawed, doesn't answer the question I posed. I was wondering if there is a plausible argument that allowing the use of a rifle, and not an 8 ga, really had something to do with "fair chase" when hunting a turkey or any other big game. I wanted to know what I was overlooking. I could think of a plausible reason not to allow a rifle as they are more dangerous because of the range. Hunters can get killed by a stray bullet a lot faster then stray shot. I think the rule is irrational until somebody can explain the error of my thoughts.
Now, the new "public acceptance" question. Do you really think the anti-hunters really care what weapon is used to take a turkey? They don't want us hunting at all. Period!!!!!!
I don't think they could even explain the difference between a rifle and an 8 ga. We are not "acceptable" to them because we use a 12 ga. They think we're terrible just for hunting.
"Acceptance" depends on where you live. I'm down south. Hunters are generally accepted here. In fact, I don't know of a true anti-hunter around here. Some choose not to hunt but they're not against it. Heck, around here you don't even need a hunting license to hunt hogs (except on public land). Thus, I think hunting is not "unaccepted" by the public or there would be a rule requiring a license. Certainly the legislature would like to require a license so it could raise more money but the "public" won't allow it!
Each state should do what it thinks best. The rule isn't valid just because it's 92 years old! In my view, there is no valid reason to disallow use of an 8 ga in light the of the other regulations in place. I'm openminded so I hope someone can give me some rational basis for the rule-even if I think my argument is better. I think if we really thought about what real purpose the rule serves now we'd find that it serves no purpose. Just throwing around phases like "fair chase" and "public acceptance" without really explaining how it is "fair" or "acceptable" doesn't get to the crux of the matter. How would it really set us back 50 years? Anti-hunters still won't like us. Hunters in general would probably be supportive with proper regulation. The rest of the world (the majority) probably wouldn't even care or understand.
Please believe me that I respect everyone's views. It's a interesting subject. I must have too much time on my hands by worrying about it.
I do agree with Bruce. It's not likely this rule can be changed if for no other reason that the gun owning, freedom loving members of this forum can't even agree on the subject.
I realize that folks in New England, for example, my not be as accepting. In the real world I don't think the average person really cares if we hunt or not. They have more important things to worry about. The problem is that the extremists on both sides of the issue get all the press leading everyone to believe there is great disagreement on the subject.
King, I don't think bigger is better. I just think it would be fun to hunt a turkey with a 8 ga and no one can give me a sound reason why it shouln't be allowed. Again, think of the reason they were outlawed in the first place, ie to stop market hunters from killing everything in sight. Is that true today? Of course not. Other regulations that came in effect later takes care of that problem, ie bag limits. If the reason the rule was enacted is no longer a factor, why have the rule? Why should I be punished for the sins of my great-grandfather?
|