Why do you think PA resists allowing semi auto rifles for deer hunting?

[akley88]

For 2019 there were 26 HRSIs. 4 were fatal but 3 of those were self inflected. 0 were shot for game

[Bang]

Serious attempt at posting facts....crickets.

[Yoder]

I'm not really well-versed in this issue, and I have not read the 68 posts already here. But I know that
(a) we do have too many really dangerous hunters out there who shoot at "something brown" (it's never "something brown season"), and
(b) it's unlikely that you need a hunting semi-auto if your first shot hits your intended target, and
(c) most hunting takes place without any backstop, where the beaten zone is often trees or shrubs or people's houses or where people are hiking or driving or walking their dogs, and
(d) it's not worth one life to enable bad hunters to send more shots into occluded areas faster.

More rounds into homes or more dead people on the ground translate into a greater chance that hunting will be totally banned in larger and larger areas. Because for most, it's a hobby, and hobbies are worth zero innocent lives.

This argument does NOT transfer easily against self-defense weaponry. Semi-auto handguns and rifles and shotguns meet a need to defend against predators who are shooting back, who work pretty hard to surprise you, who often strike at night when they're hard to see, and they often attack in groups of 2 or more. The risks of semi-auto self-defense guns are balanced against the victim lives saved because the victim had the power to project a lot of rounds against people who are actively hiding while shooting at the victim. I'm not aware of any game animals who are shooting back.

Remember this moron hunter, last year and near me? What do you think THAT does for popular support for hunting within state parks?
https://www.buckscountycouriertimes....er/7829197002/

Most hunters are not dangerous at all. There is a stereotype that all hunters are drunken idiots the shoot stuff out of their trucks. In 2019 there were a total of 26 hunting related shooting incidents with four deaths. There are over 800k licensed hunters in the state. .003% of hunters are "dangerous".

I want to use a semi auto because they are just fucking cool. I don't need one to kill something. In fact I usually kill my deer with a bow. You give the same argument as Democrats saying what do you need a weapon of war for? I can't even believe you used "if it saves just one life", that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I think the biggest reasons for semi auto's not being allowed, old guys are douche bags that hate change and Democrats do not want to legitimize semi auto's for anything other than murdering people.

[widgetman101]

PA is a decent state gun wise but they seem to have some dumb laws on the books. Semi auto hunting is legal in 48 states right now but we can't use them? Seems dumb, about as dumb as the knife laws.

[GunLawyer001]

Most hunters are not dangerous at all. There is a stereotype that all hunters are drunken idiots the shoot stuff out of their trucks. In 2019 there were a total of 26 hunting related shooting incidents with four deaths. There are over 800k licensed hunters in the state. .003% of hunters are "dangerous".

I want to use a semi auto because they are just fucking cool. I don't need one to kill something. In fact I usually kill my deer with a bow. You give the same argument as Democrats saying what do you need a weapon of war for? I can't even believe you used "if it saves just one life", that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I think the biggest reasons for semi auto's not being allowed, old guys are douche bags that hate change and Democrats do not want to legitimize semi auto's for anything other than murdering people.

I decline to accept your Overton Window limiting arguments to what you find acceptable, thanks. Frivolous uses that result in actual deaths need to be justified by SOMETHING other than "fuck you LIBERTY!!!", which reminds me of the pro-abortion crowd. Handguns are used for most gun murders, but they're also used for most self-defense incidents, and their POSSESSION is Constitutionally protected. Those are good arguments against the gun-ban thugs who want to ban possession everywhere. But you want to defend a specific application during specific times of regulated activity; your argument is like demanding that football players be allowed to carry handguns during games, or that baseball players be allowed to retain their bats for use against basemen. Maybe you want your right to draw extra cards while playing poker, because you could probably put together a better hand with 10 or 15 cards.

There is no Constitutional right to use semi-auto weapons for hunting. I think you have a right to own them, I think you have the right to MG's, too. And SBR's, and silencers, and Kevlar vests with hard plates, none of which are essential to hunting, but are exactly the types of things contemplated by the Framers. I think we all have the right to armor-piercing rounds just like the govt uses. You have the right to keep them, you have the right to bear them, within limits; not "reasonable restrictions" which swallow the right, but you can't have guns while in prison or while having a CAT scan done, for example. And for damn sure you have the right to protect yourself with the weapons of your choice, even though current laws infringe that.

But hunting is a game, and if your sole argument for changing the rules is "it would be fucking cool", then you lose. And the 2nd Amendment is fine with that limited context of imposing rules on hunters while hunting.

You should respect property rights as to where you take guns, and you have the burden of justifying what you do against the cost of what you do. The state gives hunters a lot of rights to use other people's property, and hunters seem to have no problem with THOSE rules which inconvenience non-participants.

When justifying hobbies that can kill people, the burden is on you to prove the cost/benefit analysis. Nobody said "all hunters are bad", or even "most hunters are bad", so proof that most hunters are not negligent assholes is not sufficient. Most fatherless black males will never kill anyone, but we could reduce homicides by focusing on preventing so many fatherless black boys, who make up a disproportionate part of all murderers. There's no societal benefit to single women with no skills getting knocked up and living off others, so we should try to prevent that.

And "they're fucking cool" is not enough to justify using semi-autos during hunting season on other people's property, or state-owned multi0-use property. Unlike self-defense, the deer or bears or squirrels aren't shooting back, so the ONLY reason for needing follow-up shots is that you suck as a hunter and are a bad shot. That first round didn't go where you wanted it too, and that's your fault. So you want to spray THREE poorly-aimed rounds into the foliage? Tough. Each round will continue for a mile or more, unless it hits something, like a tree or rock or person or car or dog or, eventually, the ground; so if you don't know what that "something" is, maybe you shouldn't take that shot. Or 3 of them, rapidly.

Everyone with rural property has stories about trash hunters trespassing on their posted land and careless rounds impacting houses and cars and trees and whatever. What prevents more deaths isn't the care of that terrible 1% of hunters, it's that people just happen to be a small percentage of the beaten zone for those negligent rounds that missed "something brown" that the trash hunter thought he saw.

You want an AR-15 in your house? I'll back you 100%. You want one slung over your shoulder at MusikFest? Meh. You want to park your car and walk 200 yards between houses or into a state park/marina/jogging bath/bike path site, and then start blasting the shrubbery with multiple semi-auto rounds because you can't get your ass to the range often enough to be any good with your rifle? Nope. As a sane man, I have limits on what I'll support from the self-selected members of the "gun community"; I oppose you setting up a gun range on your 1/8th acre backyard, I oppose cars with Browning MG's in pintles at the sun roof, I oppose shooting guns in the air to celebrate the month before July 4th and New Year's Eve.

Tell me why you have the "right" to hunt with a semi-auto, but not with an M134 minigun and a backpack with 6,000 rounds. I'll wait.

We can support gun rights without a mindless knee-jerk support for EVERYTHING that a person who owns a gun wants to do with it. I assume (optimistically) that you oppose murders committed with guns?

[Bang]

Fudd.

[Hokkmike]

Thanks all, for your informative and interesting replies. Good reading mostly.

[Mr_Gixxer]

Lol, not all semi autos are prohibited. What's the argument against them again?

[widgetman101]

But hunting is a game, and if your sole argument for changing the rules is "it would be fucking cool", then you lose. And the 2nd Amendment is fine with that limited context of imposing rules on hunters while hunting.

And "they're fucking cool" is not enough to justify using semi-autos during hunting season on other people's property, or state-owned multi0-use property. Unlike self-defense, the deer or bears or squirrels aren't shooting back, so the ONLY reason for needing follow-up shots is that you suck as a hunter and are a bad shot. That first round didn't go where you wanted it too, and that's your fault. So you want to spray THREE poorly-aimed rounds into the foliage? Tough. Each round will continue for a mile or more, unless it hits something, like a tree or rock or person or car or dog or, eventually, the ground; so if you don't know what that "something" is, maybe you shouldn't take that shot. Or 3 of them, rapidly.

Tell me why you have the "right" to hunt with a semi-auto, but not with an M134 minigun and a backpack with 6,000 rounds. I'll wait.

Why does it matter what the reason is? That's as bad as needing a reason to get approved for a LTCF.

Shooting is shooting, have you never been in the woods and heard bang... bang... bang... bang in rapid succession? I've heard that sound all to many times in the years I've went hunting and that's from people using a pump or lever action. Do you honestly think that a semi auto would result in that much more faster shooting?

Chances are if you hear bang bang bang bang they missed their first shot and the deer took of running so they're taking a wack at it on the run. I don't really endorse that if it's a big ass buck taking a chance at a Kobe is something a lot of hunters will do.

Shooting deer isn't like shooting targets. When I started at 12 I could hit 3" groups at 100 yards with a basic bolt action and crap scope. The first time I got my sights on a buck in the woods the adrenaline rushed in and I was shaking with excitement. I did miss my first shot but got lucky because the buck was just dumb and stood there and got it on a follow up shot.

As for a reason if we need one how about the fact that my general hunting rifle is a basic 30-30 bolt action with a general scope. It shoots just fine and gets the job done but I'd much rather take my Scar 20S running a Vortex Gen II 3-18x. I guarantee I'm way more accurate with it than the 30-30.

I'm betting most people here have semi auto's with far superior optics compared to their general hunting rifles. They're also going to have substantially less recoil than a wooden stock gun. As of right now you can legally hunt Coyote in PA with an AR but not deer? How does that make any sense at all?

[Bang]

No one would ever spray and pray at a coyote. That's an absolute.