Hunting Rifle Question. - Page 16 - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
 113Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #151 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 12:16 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
whil e kioti's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pa. Lackawanna Scranton
Posts: 4,156
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1stlight View Post
I havenít followed this thread from the start but can anyone shed some light on the SA ban in PA? What are the reasons we ban them from the woods in the first place? Have the reasons gone away? PA is a much more populated state today then years ago? Answers?
I don't know why...but it was a State law that baned them for hunting...not a game law...the State law was rescinded..now it's up to the PGC to make the call.

Only fools fight in a burning house...Day of the dove
whil e kioti is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 12:40 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
whil e kioti's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pa. Lackawanna Scranton
Posts: 4,156
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
thats data not fact. It is only factin the states the data was recorded in. Data is only applicable if the variables are close. So tell me which state with similar hunter density to pa,had a several decade long ban on semi auto rifles for deer hunting, during which the popularity and availability of sa rifles skyrocketed and then allowed them for deer hunting?

Another point I mentioned earlier is that if nothing gets hit then no stats are recorded. Are bullets flying at you but missing not dangerous?
Facts are facts whether you understand them or not.

If it's a fact that there is no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents in States that allow them for big game...then that fact can be applied to the States that don't allow them with more than reasonable confidence that there will be no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents...it cannot be explained any clearer than that.

Only fools fight in a burning house...Day of the dove
whil e kioti is offline  
post #153 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 01:07 PM
Regular Member
 
Cscott1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Butler
Posts: 2,092
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by whil e kioti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
thats data not fact. It is only factin the states the data was recorded in. Data is only applicable if the variables are close. So tell me which state with similar hunter density to pa,had a several decade long ban on semi auto rifles for deer hunting, during which the popularity and availability of sa rifles skyrocketed and then allowed them for deer hunting?

Another point I mentioned earlier is that if nothing gets hit then no stats are recorded. Are bullets flying at you but missing not dangerous?
Facts are facts whether you understand them or not.

If it's a fact that there is no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents in States that allow them for big game...then that fact can be applied to the States that don't allow them with more than reasonable confidence that there will be no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents...it cannot be explained any clearer than that.
actually that is oversimplification. There are many variables state to state, even species to species. I listed a simple set of variables that would need to be met for data to be applicable to make a decision in pa. There is no data that meets that, not even close. I didn’t even come close to listing all variable that should be considered.

Your opinion is that they pose no greater risk. Fine. Mine is that they will allow the reckless to become more dangerous. Neither of us has FACT to prove our opinion of how this will play out in Pa.
Cscott1 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #154 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 01:23 PM
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Pa. Lehigh
Posts: 2,420
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by whil e kioti View Post
Facts are facts whether you understand them or not.

If it's a fact that there is no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents in States that allow them for big game...then that fact can be applied to the States that don't allow them with more than reasonable confidence that there will be no greater risk of hunter related shooting accidents...it cannot be explained any clearer than that.
Only on the WWW can you find someone who will tell you that data collected from 50 states, over multiple decades, and hundreds of millions of hunters is not factual!

Good luck, Tony
whil e kioti likes this.
Tony300wby is offline  
post #155 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 01:39 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
whil e kioti's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pa. Lackawanna Scranton
Posts: 4,156
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
actually that is oversimplification. There are many variables state to state, even species to species. I listed a simple set of variables that would need to be met for data to be applicable to make a decision in pa. There is no data that meets that, not even close. I didnít even come close to listing all variable that should be considered.

Your opinion is that they pose no greater risk. Fine. Mine is that they will allow the reckless to become more dangerous. Neither of us has FACT to prove our opinion of how this will play out in Pa.
It is a logical conclusion. based on fact.


Your opinion is based on speculation...the "variables" you use differ from area to area within the States...but all States have these variables to a degree...therefore the logical conclusion that there will be no difference stands.

Only fools fight in a burning house...Day of the dove
whil e kioti is offline  
post #156 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 02:06 PM
Regular Member
 
Cscott1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Butler
Posts: 2,092
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by whil e kioti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
actually that is oversimplification. There are many variables state to state, even species to species. I listed a simple set of variables that would need to be met for data to be applicable to make a decision in pa. There is no data that meets that, not even close. I didn’t even come close to listing all variable that should be considered.

Your opinion is that they pose no greater risk. Fine. Mine is that they will allow the reckless to become more dangerous. Neither of us has FACT to prove our opinion of how this will play out in Pa.
It is a logical conclusion. based on fact. [IMG class=inlineimg]https://www.huntingpa.com/forums/images/smilies/brickwall.gif[/IMG]


Your opinion is based on speculation...the "variables" you use differ from area to area within the States...but all States have these variables to a degree...therefore the logical conclusion that there will be no difference stands.
I never suggested your conclusion was illogical. Is is based on the data points you choose to look at. I don’t agree that those data points are 100% applicable here. Yes of corse there are variables everywhere. If you are looking at state data,that will include all the variables for the state. Just for fun what states data would you be using?

Here’s a few things to think about first..
-Hunter density needs to be close. Since basically all states west of the Mississippi are half that of pa id say all that data is out.
-were sa rifles ever banned there. If not then you have no pre ban data to look for an increase
-caliber limitations. Any state that uses “pistol” rounds only should be out since the ballistics are entirely different and bullets just aren’t traveling as far or fast.

That’s just a few

What you call speculation is observation combined with a couple facts that don’t vary. I’ve witnessed, first hand the lead clingers in action. Those folks will be dangerous regardless of type of action. Sa rifles offer the average shooter the ability to get off a follow up round faster and with less effort than manual actions( I believe that is listed as a pro by the supporters). Those two things add up to the logical conclusion that a sa rifle in the hands of the already reckless will be worse.

Last edited by Cscott1; 09-01-2018 at 02:15 PM.
Cscott1 is online now  
post #157 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 02:28 PM
Frequent Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester County PA
Posts: 590
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
thats data not fact.

That is hilarious!
From the dictionary...


data
noun
Data is defined as facts or figures, or information that's stored in or used by a computer.
bohunr and Tony300wby like this.
JoeG52 is offline  
post #158 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 02:46 PM
Regular Member
 
Cscott1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Butler
Posts: 2,092
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeG52 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
thats data not fact.

That is hilarious!
From the dictionary...


data
noun
Data is defined as facts or figures, or information that's stored in or used by a computer.
that is hilarious that people can’t understand that fact from one situation in not fact in another unless EVERY variable is identical. Facts gathered somewhere else can be used as data points in another situation
Cscott1 is online now  
post #159 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 04:05 PM
Diehard Outdoorsman
 
whil e kioti's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Pa. Lackawanna Scranton
Posts: 4,156
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
I never suggested your conclusion was illogical. Is is based on the data points you choose to look at. I don’t agree that those data points are 100% applicable here. Yes of corse there are variables everywhere. If you are looking at state data,that will include all the variables for the state. Just for fun what states data would you be using?
Again facts are facts...opinions are opinions...and double talk is rubbish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
Here’s a few things to think about first..
-Hunter density needs to be close. Since basically all states west of the Mississippi are half that of pa id say all that data is out.
Hunter density near large cities will always be high...or do you believe there are no big cities "west of the Mississippi"??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
-were sa rifles ever banned there. If not then you have no pre ban data to look for an increase
-caliber limitations. Any state that uses “pistol” rounds only should be out since the ballistics are entirely different and bullets just aren’t traveling as far or fast.
These assumptions are only relevant to you.

That’s just a few
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
What you call speculation is observation combined with a couple facts that don’t vary. I’ve witnessed, first hand the lead clingers in action. Those folks will be dangerous regardless of type of action. Sa rifles offer the average shooter the ability to get off a follow up round faster and with less effort than manual actions( I believe that is listed as a pro by the supporters). Those two things add up to the logical conclusion that a sa rifle in the hands of the already reckless will be worse.
You have no facts...you assume that...once a dangerous hunter always a dangerous hunter...sad.


Because it gives the hunter more time to concentrate on a more accurate second shot IF necessary, because there is no wasted time or effort to reload...it's a shame how some hunters can't see that, and only see what they choose to see because it fits their thinking.

Only fools fight in a burning house...Day of the dove

Last edited by whil e kioti; 09-01-2018 at 04:20 PM.
whil e kioti is offline  
post #160 of 197 (permalink) Old 09-01-2018, 04:57 PM
Hooked on HuntingPa
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 464
Back To Top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeG52 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cscott1 View Post
thats data not fact.

That is hilarious!
From the dictionary...


data
noun
Data is defined as facts or figures, or information that's stored in or used by a computer.
that is hilarious that people can’t understand that fact from one situation in not fact in another unless EVERY variable is identical. Facts gathered somewhere else can be used as data points in another situation
The fact is that the more qualifiers you add to a situation the more specific you can make it until the statement is no longer a fact.

For example it is a fact that the 30-06 round will kill a deer.
It is a fact that a 30-06 will kill a deer at 400 yards.
It is a fact that a 30-06 will kill a deer at 400 yards with a chest shot.
It is not a fact that a 30-06 will kill a deer at at 400 yards with a front with a chest shot firing a 110gr FMJ at subsonic velocity.

Same with hunting,

It is a fact that other states that allow semi autos do not have an increase in hunting accidents.
It is a fact that other states that allowed semi autos after they were banned for a period of time did not have an increase in hunting accidents after they were legalized.
It is a fact that other states that allowed the AR-15 with 30 round magazines after they were banned for a period of time did not have an increase in hunting accidents after they were legalized.
It is not a fact that other states with similar hunter densities to pa that allowed AR-15 with 30 round magazines after a total 100+ year ban did not have an increase in hunting accidents after they were legalized.

As the above shows the more qualifiers you use then the more likely the statement is to not meet the criteria of a fact. The hunter density alone is a disqualifier as no other state has one as high as PA. However if that was the sole qualifier then PAs accident rate should be 2 to 10 times as high as those states just on hunter density alone, after all you can’t accidentally shoot another hunter if there aren’t any around. But that just isn’t the case.

Also pistol calibers are far more likely to ricochet due to their lower velocity and sturdier construction.
CMP70306 is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome