Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 6 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Don’t pass any silly firearms laws
Published Tuesday, November 10, 2009
To the Editor:
It is important for members of the Suffolk City Council to know that they cannot enact a law that will make citizens safer from hazards relating to firearms discharge. Only the good judgment of the shooter can accomplish this.
The current law that requires a hunter shooting a rifle at whitetail deer or bear to be in a stand 15 feet above the ground. A hunter with a shotgun can stand on the ground (regarding the rifle, this applies east of the Dismal Swamp line; in the rest of Suffolk, the hunter can only use a shotgun). Hunters can only discharge a firearm 100 yards from the nearest structure.
Whitetail deer are a serious nuisance throughout Suffolk; they eat gardens and flowers around homes and eat farm products in the fields; throughout the US they are responsible for the death of about 200 people each year, mostly as a result of automobile accidents, many more than are killed in hunting accidents.
Some people erect fences around their gardens. Government provides some compensation to farmers for crop damage. I have neighbors who would gladly allow me to hunt deer sitting in a lawn chair behind their homes if not for the current ordinance. This would be perfectly safe, because three sides of the neighbors’ homes are surrounded by woods 400 to 500 yards deep. I could safely hunt there with either a shotgun or a rifle, based on my good judgment.
If I moved a hundred yards out into a field away from the exposed front of my neighbors’ homes, it would not be safe to shoot even a shotgun toward the houses. I would be legally hunting but only my good judgment keeps me from unsafe activities such as shooting at a deer between me and the homes. I could safely shoot in other directions without there being a chance of doing harm, but, again, this is solely based on my judgment.
Some people forget that many Virginians carry concealed handguns powerful enough to hunt deer and bear. Research by Dr. Gary Kleck, Professor of Criminology at Florida State University (Targeting Guns, Aldine Transaction, New Brunswick and London, 1997) determines that accidents involving firearms are rare, contrary to information commonly published in the media.
But FBI statistics show that on average every three days of a year a private citizen justifiably kills two felons, while police kill about one a day. Even in Suffolk, law-abiding citizens can fire handguns, rifles and shotguns standing on the ground nearly anywhere (even in closely compact housing developments the contractors love so much). It is only the good judgment of the shooter that makes this as safe as it is.
The bottom line is that no law will make hunting any safer in Suffolk. Only the good judgment of the shooter will do that, regardless of whether he is using a rifle, handgun or shotgun or whether he is standing on the ground or up in a tree.
City Council should try not to pass a law that makes us and our city look silly. We live in a rural community, not New York City.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by CharlieBrown (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Its about time the City got on the ball. This change was initiated and eventually passed by council some time ago. Council has since done nothing in anticipation of the "OK" from the state. The losers are the hunters....they must wait another year for effective change in the local ordinances.
The existing ordinances prohibiting firearm discharges within 100 yards of a roadway, dwelling, outbuildings or of a secondary road nor across property line without permission should suffice very well. The existing height requirements ( 15ft elevation) for rifle hunting on the east side of the old dismal swamp line should also suffice for the western part of the city. The requirements have apparently worked well for the east side ( and other parts of the state that have adopted similiar rules).
Lets not drag this out through another missed season.
Posted by Atiatoo (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's too bad that those who are to blame for deer overpopulations don't take the responsibility. State wildlife agencies purposely manage deer for MSY, then cry "too many deer" and then a call to "the good hunters to the rescue". Game is managed for hunters recreation - crop damages, DVAs Lyme disease are mere collateral damage!
To compare death numbers by automobiles is a very lame excuse - percentage-wise, that number is a tiny fraction of injuries and deaths by hunters to themselves, each other, and to others.
How many cars and drivers are there? How many deaths?
How many hunters are there? How many deaths?
Hunting in residential neighborhoods or on land abutting residences is crazy and irresponsible!
I signed up for Google alerts on hunting accidents - they arrive several times a day!
Hunting is not as safe as hunters would like you to believe!
Posted by NP (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you really want to make it more safe, get rid of the dogs. Hunting deer with dogs is for people who are to lazy to really hunt. No dogs equals less people hunting equals less people in the woods means more safety and less chance for accidents. It would also elimate the majority of the law breakers that hunt from the road, shoot from the road and give the rest of us that really hunt a bad name. How many of these dog hunters actually understand their prey? The yearly, monthly, weekly and daily patterns of deer, an individual deers tendancies and habits. They don't hunt they chase, not sport or skill involved. Just put the dogs out and stand around, block traffic on side roads and end up shooting at each other or from a truck while it is moving.
Posted by CharlieBrown (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First, the pending change in ordinance does not relate at all to hunting with dogs ( thankfully all those whose input in this matter that will be taken seriously already know the difference).....the only reason we are talking about this issue is because there are to be new guidelines for using rifles for hunting in the western part of the city.
Secondly, I dont think this issue is the result of any inordinate amount of hunting accident reports. Hunting activities in Suffolk are safe compared to any part of the state...but hunting is about the use of firearms so there will never be zero accidents. Gladly, a hunters safety course is required for all new hunters.
There is a big misconception that hunters are an ignorant bunch. Those of us that are uninformed do not realized the economic impact hunters have in this country.
Hunters buy licenses and pay other state / federal fees that provide the great majority of funding for conservation efforts and other wildlife land management practices.
Finally, it makes sense to allow rifles in the western 2/3 of the city. The western part of the city is the most rural. Interestingly enough, most of the area within Suffolk where rifles are allowed for hunting at the moment ( east of swamp line) is mostly Great Dismal Swamp. Guess what?, rifles are not allowed for hunting inside its boundaries...so rifle usage is very limited to tracts of land that border the swamp.
I support expanding the area rifles can be used for hunting and think it is an overdue correction to the old confusing rules.
Posted by OD (anonymous) on November 13, 2009 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Should there not be some clarification as to hunting deaths as to one hunter being shot by another hunter and between those where one say falls out of a stand and his gun discharges and kills him. How about the hunter who is crossing over thru a fence and his gun dishcharges and stikes him? What if hunters on a duck hunt, heading out to their blind,the boat turns over in rough waters? Driving around with a loaded weapon isnt smart either. Hunting is a long standing tradition that is done with family and friends. It is a way of life that is passed from one generation to the next. That is why any time a hunting accident happens it hits a community hard.
The first impact is from the accident itself. The second comes from the critics, who question the sport - and often the right of individuals to use guns or other weapons.
Granted hunting has risks involved.It's about safety.Personal safety, being responsibe and accountable for ones actions. This same arguement could be used about jet sking. I would say that there are more deaths and property damage associated with jet sking than hunting. Yes that's a stretch but its a popular sport that is considered to be an indivuial sport as like hunting is. Its not about regulations, its about safety.
Posted by Guy (anonymous) on November 13, 2009 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I grew up in Suffolk and live in the rural southern part of the city, so I have no issues with hunting in general. I don't hunt anymore myself because of the so called "hunters" running dogs with their pickup trucks. I call them herders; not hunters, but I digress.
Anyway, the population in virtually all parts of the city has increased exponentially. Land that was once farmland is now homes in many areas. City council needs to adopt common sense firearms regulations. One of them should be to disallow hunting with rifles --period. There are no safe areas in the city that allow the discharge of a firearm that will propel a round over a mile. No matter which way a rifle is aimed, a home or roadway is likely within range the background.
A shotgun is a perfectly reasonable firearm to kill a deer, provided that the "hunter" actually manages to exit his pickup truck and finds the motivation to walk more than a few feet from the road. Perhaps going into the woods for a change would provide a better shot?
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)