Night Strike wrote:So are any of these new laws needed because of things actually happening or just to write new laws for the sake of writing them?
Each of those refers to one or more specific incidents. I picked ones on the national news and that were discussed here in the forums even (though a few months ago), because (as always) I don't want to give out "identifying information".
Night Strike wrote:Hunters already do these things.
Sometimes, but lately the NRA is in the forefront of saying any legislation any limits are just bad, on principle.. no matter what.
Look at your first knee-jerk response to what I said. And, I want to be clear about something else. These are things I am saying to hunters, to sportsfolk... either myself or through a network of wives. (in this case, that is not a generality. We are all wives). I am not out parading on the downtown streets of the veggie-ville section of SF.. or even Pittsburgh. I have spoken privately to some legislators, with very specific details and information.
But, here is my greatest concern. Although I live in a hunting area now, I actually did not grow up with hunting, per se. My father is European and just did not hunt. (its for wealthy people there). However, neighbors did. The neighbors, along with my parents made sure I knew that real guns and bows and arrows were all dangerous, not toys. "Avoid them until you get older" was the absolute lesson. At the same time, I was brought up to understand that hunting, like farming, was part of "where we got our food". We ate venison, wild pig, etc. (Growing up on a farm, I certainly had no qualms about eating meat!). Sure, it was as much about sport. Later, my father made sure I knew how to shoot, to be safe around a gun in action (finances had more to do with my dropping it once past the basics than anything else).
I always associated the NRA with that ethic... hunting, and shooting for sports. It was a positive message. Not something for everyone, but positive. In many locals, mostly rural areas that still holds. Now, though, on the national level, it seems it has become more about everybody has to have a gun to defend their house... and "gun" can include a machine gun or semi-automatic if that is what folks want. By mixing all those issues, they lose a lot of the credibility they once had with non-shooters, non-hunters. AND, are alienating a great deal of people, even those in the hunting community.
Yes, the negativity is much more found in the women. However, I am not talking about prissy city girls. (The "prisses" here may have their nails done, but chances are they also know one end of a gun from the other
). I am talking about women with father and brothers who hunted, who married hunters and then saw one too many incidents that make them question whether they really want their sons
involved. Sometimes, if the husband is not really much into it anyway, they are part of hunting dying off in that family. Sometimes, they quietly "simmer" or say just a little... but believe me, there is an absolute change.
Of course, you have some "push back", but ironically, some of that actually makes it worse. Because, as I said, these are not women who just grew up hating guns and were "taught" that hunting is "bad", etc. So, when the first reaction is like you gave me... well, most won't bother to take the time to say "Hey.. NO! You have it wrong".
Like just about anything, when people stop listening, stop communcating, then the battle is already lost. In this case, hunters and shooting sports aficianados are far, far outnumbered by those who have barely seen a gun, except on TV and to whom a gun means gangs/soldiers or violent crimes. So, if hunters and sportsfolk want to keep having what they have, keep having their say, they need to actually take the time to LISTEN to the non-hunters and concerned alike.