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

[Walleye Hunter]

I fish with dynamite and I want to hunt with this.

[akley88]

I fish with dynamite and I want to hunt with this.

can i hunt with you?

[Walleye Hunter]

can i hunt with you?

The more, the merrier.

[borekfk]

I fish with dynamite and I want to hunt with this.

Do you think the depleted uranium shells will add or detract from the taste of the meat? lol

[Walleye Hunter]

Do you think the depleted uranium shells will add or detract from the taste of the meat? lol

Yes.

[DMG]

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/

You should have quit after the first sentence.

[RockIsland]

[Cville]

Extreme fuddism

That was my first thought

[esh21167]

That's more like pest extermination.

[DMG]

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?

It may be time to change your username to something more fitting.