Tanngrisnir3 wrote:And potentially those below them.

Is that a physics pun?

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant". Is there a high probability (i.e. significant) that a hunter will endanger you? No. Is the potential consequence of a irresponsible hunter high (or significant)? Yes.

Note that climbers can endanger that SAR workers when they are called upon.

I climb and I hunt. I try my very best to cautious in both activities. I never put my finger on the trigger until my intended target has been properly identified. Similarly, I when I climb I always double check my harness and knots etc.

Fury wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant". Is there a high probability (i.e. significant) that a hunter will endanger you? No. Is the potential consequence of a irresponsible hunter high (or significant)? Yes.

I was talking about severity, not frequency. Get your ankle broken, big deal. Get executed, bigger deal.

Fury wrote:Note that climbers can endanger that SAR workers when they are called upon.

REALLY!!! I did not know that!

But is isn't the same. SAR workers are chosing to put themselves in that situation- they are not forced into dangerous conditions. They are well aware of the immediate risk and if it is beyond an acceptable level they will not attempt the rescue. A woman hanging clothes in her own yard should not be expected to anticipate a hunter hiding the the bushes might decide to take a shot at her.

mrchad9 wrote:I was talking about severity, not frequency. Get your ankle broken, big deal. Get executed, bigger deal.

I agree. But the chances are low. For what it's worth, I believe that anyone handling a firearm should be held accountable for their actions.

Fury wrote:For what it's worth, I believe that anyone handling a firearm should be held accountable for their actions.

There's something wrong in a community that might believe otherwise.

Ditto for people handling lots of other things - - motor vehicles, kitchen knives, internet discussion boards . . . .

This is a very meaty thread; lots of good points all around. But before I make a decision, I want to hear Darija's opinion.

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.

Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.

Where the hell are them friggin' deer ???

lcarreau wrote:

Dude is seriously undergunned for deer. Aside from the weak sauce 5.56mm caliber, he needs a cup-holder and a bayonet.

MoapaPk wrote:This is a very meaty thread; lots of good points all around. But before I make a decision, I want to hear Darija's opinion.

Well, you got some pictures from Larry. I hope that helps.

Cascade Scrambler wrote:There's an enormous difference between being lumped in with someone who got lost or injured, and being lumped in with a group of people where one or two idiots has shot someone. Call me wreckless if you must, but because I don't carry in the mountains, I'm in no danger of shooting someone.

Sometimes climbers get there partners killed. I hear about a lot more tragic climbing accidents than I do hunting accidents.

simonov wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.

Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.

No no no, there's only one type of hunter and they shoot hapless kids in trailer parks. Didn't you read the three or four article posted here? Its a fact.

Now then, I just got a new bottle jack and there's some trundling to be done.

Nitrox wrote:

simonov wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.

Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.

No no no, there's only one type of hunter and they shoot hapless kids in trailer parks. Didn't you read the three or four article posted here? Its a fact.

Now then, I just got a new bottle jack and there's some trundling to be done.

Nope- Not one person said that. I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.

And I'm not talking about hunters killing those they hunt with (so the climbers killers partners is not analogous). I'm talking about hunters killing someone else doing a different activity.

If you or anyone else here is a careful hunter, then why should you have an issue with harsher penalties for those that shoot a person?

Nope- Not one person said that. I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.

And I'm not talking about hunters killing those they hunt with (so the climbers killers partners is not analogous). I'm talking about hunters killing someone else doing a different activity.

If you or anyone else here is a careful hunter, then why should you have an issue with harsher penalties for those that shoot a person?

Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.

mrchad9 wrote:I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.

You said, "The issue is hunters endanger others." A gross simplification, and absolutely incorrect to boot.

When you choose to couch your arguments in sweeping generalizations like this, it tends to diminish the impact of your thesis, however much merit it might actually have.