Jun
25
Proposed hunting restrictions?
Filed Under Turkey Hunting
I don’t hunt game, but I am a plinking addict, and I pay a little attention to gun laws. After reading two tragic stories this weekend, I rethought my stance on gun ownership, and started thinking a little outside the box.
The news…
Father mistakes son for turkey: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=43899cat=14
Father kills son while hunting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24485286/
I started thinking about ways to stop these kinds of horrible accidents from occurring, and I started thinking about the pros/cons of gun restrictions. Here’s what I thought of… what if we restricted gun usage based on I.Q.? People would still be allowed personal firearms to protect their homes, but only those meeting or exceeding I.Q. standards could carry guns outside of their homes to hunt with. This could also extend to other things that can impair judgment, such as prior drug use or history of alcoholism. Also, what do you think the minimum I.Q. should be (I’m thinking 100).
jsied96 – There is no reason to start ad hominem attacks, I was merely thinking out loud and looking for feedback. If people think it’s a good idea it may be worth writing to Congress about. If not… well… no harm, no foul.
WS – True, the tests vary quite a bit, but maybe a hybrid standardized test could be created to cover basic mental capacity as well as firearm knowledge. Thank you for answering intelligently.
Side note: I suggested an I.Q. of 100 as that is the base average. However smart of stupid humanity becomes over the years, the average is always reset to an arbitrary 100 to keep the scores relevant.
Maggie – A very good point. Might be a good topic for a question in the Parenting section.
Tim B – My point is that the 4 basics aren’t enough. They are great guidelines, but anyone can pass basic safety classes and then go crazy in the woods. I guess what I’m trying to say is that classes are temporary… stupid is forever.
Chad – Great answer, and an even better quote.
Digger – I think mental disorders will a trump an I.Q. of any size… maybe something else to test for… maybe not. Good post.
Larry – That’s seems a little too paranoid for me. I think our current president is proof enough that this country is not as left as you think.
Frosty – I will admit that the thought did cross my mind that many of these things are not accidents at all… but children… that’s just too horrible to imagine. I hope to God they were accidents and not premeditated crimes.
I’m logging off for the day. You’ve all had good responses so far, and I appreciate your input. I’ll give my thoughts/replies to any new posts in the morning.
Comments
16 Responses to “Proposed hunting restrictions?”
Leave a Reply
I donno about forcing everyone who wants a gun to take an I.Q. test seems kind of silly. The I.Q. test is subjective and not really that related to the ability to operate a gun. regular (every 5-10 years maybe) check ups to ensure that you are still mentally and physically capable of operating a gun like you have with your car might be a good idea though. I donno, it is a can of worms.
Edit: for instance, if larry, in his ten year checkup was found to believe he was getting audits, credit hits and and computer viruses because of his love of hunting, he could be diagnosed as mentally unsound to have a gun. and we would all feel better.
Honestly those two stories suggest that people should have a restriction of 100 IQ before they can have CHILDREN, instead of a restriction on gun purchases. I mean, I have to get a special license to ride a motorcycle, but society trusts anyone and anything that can figure out to combine Slot A on a woman with Tab B on a man to raise a child properly? *shudder* It’s more of an issue of parenting here…
I mean, I don’t take my kids along when I go do dangerous things, or things that could potentially be dangerous.
I don’t take my toddler when I play Russian roulette… no, I take my mother-in-law.
My family leaves the kids with the grandparents before we go rock climbing over an open-cliff ravine.
And I don’t hide children in bushes and then shoot aimlessly at anything that rustles bushes.
You need to pay attention to the 4 basic rules of gun safety:
-Treat every firearm as if it is loaded;
-Keep your finger outside of the trigger guard unti you are ready to shoot;
-Always point the muzzle in a safe direction;
-Be certain of your target and what is beyond it.
You are not thinking outside of the box–you need to get to a gun safety class yourself if you have not taken one. Most of what you are talking about, (except the absurd IQ suggestion), are standard topics in a Hunter Ed or gun safety class.
Most all of the gun incidents that are classed as accidents could be avoided by heeding the 4 rules above.
I live in the Twin Cities, and have heard all I need about this story. It was a tragedy, and an accident, but very avoidable. The father made a series of poor decisions that led to the death of his son. The consequences will never be fully known to us.
That said, I don’t know that this man’s IQ was low. He drank, smoked pot, and took his kid hunting. While that breaks all kinds of common sense rules, it doesn’t mean he is stupid. There’s all kinds of people that drive cars with IQ’s much lower than 100, yet nobody is calling for an IQ restriction on automobile ownership. In fact, the automobile kills more people each year than will die from firearms accidents in a decade, or 50 years!
People do stupid things, and there is no way to prevent it without trampling the rights of every individual that behaves responsibly. Freedom has its costs. As Ben Franklin says:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Having a high IQ has no relevance in any firearm situation. That’s either owning or using one. For example:
A 32 year old Barrister was shot dead at his home in Chelsea (UK), after a 5 hour stand of with armed police. He ranted and raved, possessed a firearm and still ended up in a coroners van. His high IQ didn’t apply then.
Here’s a man who handled high cases, was respected throughout the court, and probably had a higher IQ than most of us working class folk – yet he didn’t apply any of his intelligence that day.
We’ve also had high ranking police shoot themselves, along with their wives and family so again, what does IQ have to do with owning a firearm.
All it should take, is good education, common sense, safety awareness, some more education and a helpfull and more understanding Government (instead of one that works against us.) Accidents will still happen though, and nearly all can be avoided.
But, this all said, despite all the checks and/or experience, there will still be the odd 1 or 2 folk that disregard everything they learnt, and as a result, will pay the ultimate price for their moment of madness.
Quote: …if IQ were a means of establishing who gets to have a weapon, then 3/4 of the USA would have to surrender the right to bear arms. The other 1/4 would have to give up the gun-store as there would be no more customers… (Michael Moore)
I have yet to see an IQ test which was not culturally biased. For extreme example, a test given in a foreign language would tend to lower many people’s scores. Concerning the bizarre news reports, the bizarre makes the news, and is anything but typical of ordinary folks. Plus, the leftist bias of the news concerning gun rights is plainly gun confiscation oriented to pave the way for a Socialist Takeover. If the IQ test were arranged by leftists, simply liking the shooting sports itself would get one a low score! And likely legal harassment on tax audits, credit rating hits, and viruses in the e-mail! Oh, excuse me, that’s already happening to hunters.
Quit giving these people a break. If someone shoots someone accidently . Murder. Throw away the key.
maybe this was a real accident but I assure you that many aren’t
If people started doing real time the already rare occurences would go to zero
Wow two sad stories divided by millions of hunters who don’t have accidents = no leg to stand on to justify restrictions of ANY type for gun owners.
Statistically I am far more likely to be killed by a teenage or elderly driver who simply isn’t paying attention to the road. It’s far more reasonable to call for restrictions on those two groups of drivers in an effort to save lives.
Additionally those hunting accidents are the exception rather than the rule, all studies show hunting related deaths have been on the decline for years now while traffic related deaths continue to increase. Go figure.
You can’t fix stupid. Some people could hurt themselves sitting. Start reading some of the Darwin Awards. Its not the guns that are the problem. Its people, and how they act with power saws, cars, electricity, pneumatic power, hydraulic power, and etc. Its people, not the object. Inalienable Rights Granted us by our Creator.
Forget about your proposal.* Accidents do happen regardless of gun restrictions.* Nobody’s perfect.* Its a proven fact that anyone familiar with firearms is more likely to injure themselves or others by accident, due to being overconfident, and careless as compared to someone that has never fired a gun in their life.*
an IQ test?!?!?!? the person might be stupid but they might be really responsible with guns, and knowing how to work the gun. so that really would not be practical but the alcahol and drug use thing is good.
First, rights are not tied to IQ, they are yours until you have proven that you cannot have them.
We all have the right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle you to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. Mentally less advanced people are more likely to fail to understand the ramifications of this, should we therefore keep them gagged? I say no. The only people we should gag are those who HAVE yelled FIRE in a crowded theater.
Second, parents do many dumb things that endanger children. How many children are killed because a parent was drinking while driving, or driving while overly tired, or speeding? How many children die because simple precautions at home like keeping household chemicals out of low cabnets aren’t followed?
Unfortunately, accidents happen.
Also, this guy was found to have been drinking and smoking pot beforehand. It seems to me that these are the key issues in this accident, the firearm was just the tool he happened to have been using.
I’ve thought about the same thing as well, guns don’t kill people, stupid people kill people, so we need to find a way to stop stupid people, criminals and mentally disturbed people from owning firearms without making it so restrictive that our 2nd amendment right is taken away through so much legislature it’s impossible to obtain a gun… Obviously this incident seems like an accident and even someone with a high IQ could make this mistake but as a hunter you should know not to shoot unless you know what you’re shooting at and what’s behind it..
My idea is that there be a gun competency test where you must demonstrate you have enough knowledge about firearms and firearm safety in order to own a gun. I get real tired of people asking if they can shoot a 357 in a 38 b/c you can shoot a 38 from a 357, if you can shoot a 12 ga shell from a 20 gauge, people shooting themselves or others from lack of firearm safety knowledge and all the other ridiculous and stupid things ignorant gun owners do. Too many people that are ignorant about firearms and firearm safety own firearms and that hurts the shooting and hunting community b/c it gives us a bad rap and the liberal media always puts there anti spin on it… I don’t know about the IQ argument b/c I’m sure there are people with high IQs that don’t know crap about firearms and how to safely use them but I’m sure there are a ton of rednecks and country boys with low IQs that do know how to own and use a firearm safely… If anything, at least the dumb ones kind of weed themselves out either by going to jail, shooting themselves, someone else or just scaring them out of gun ownership by a negligent discharge or something similar.
Any idiot who accidentally shoots someone should be tried in a court of law and found guilty for some crime lesser than murder.
It was their own stupidity that caused the death of another human and they defied the most basic of hunting rules. Never take a shot unless you are 100% sure of your target. I mean, if your mistaking a human for a turkey then how in the heck did you know you werent shooting a tom instead of a hen?
People who do these things are few and far between. I do believe they shouldnt walk away with a slap on the wrist, as they are acting in a neglegent manner.
hehe, I guess that makes Cheney first in line for confiscation if we were to pass your first idea.
Alcohol would probably knock me out next.
I have seen guys in the Marines who were dumber than a box of rocks but could shoot and handled the firearms with expert care. And per the above, some of the smartest folks I know would shoot their foot of and kill 3 neigbors in the condo below them if given access to firearms.
Go figure.
Wow there is so much wrong with this thought I almost do not know where to start.
1. Lots of people make terrible mistakes behind the wheel of a car. Some are smart some are not. It is no fairer to limit who can purchase a car based on IQ as it is to limit the purchase of firearms, household chemicals, lawnmowers, swimming pools, propane bbq grills, fireworks or other potentially dangerous devices.
2. The problem is not with the IQ level, but with the lack of training. The four safety rules are good but they are not taught to be strictly adhered too. People far too often do not treat unloaded guns as if they were loaded because It’s unloaded. The flag each other, they do not check the weapon multiple times during the course of carry, before a dry fire, when picking up or putting down.
3. Another common problem is a lack of familiarity. Many police only touch their weapons once a year when they qualify. Weapons have been found unloaded, uncleaned, with bits of food in them on the annual qualification range. This leads to unfamiliarity and improper execution of procedure.
4. Guns are simple… This often leads to overconfidence on the part of many users. Too often shooters are to busy being macho then they are being professional and following safety rules.
5. The military does a poor job of teaching and enforcing firearms safety. Often soldiers have unloaded weapons that they must carry all the time and this leads to severe complacency. Range events are tightly controlled for safety and weapons are kept unloaded for the maximum amount of time, increasing the complacency and negative habit patterns become instilled for when loaded weapons are actually handled.
6. Every gun owner must understand the responsibility and grave consequences of their carelessness. Just as Drinking and Driving is an insanely stupid thing to do, so is not being sure of your target and what is beyond.
7. The unfortunate fact of life is that there are no guarantees. There are plenty of things you can do to completely alter your life for the worse. Find out what they are and keep form doing them.
Life is hard. It’s harder when you’re stupid.
The only restriction I in good conscience can recommend, is strict training in a variety of subjects. Weapons handling, loading unloading, and a long case study of typical tragedies that occur, as well as storage methods, and emergency procedures (break ins). The training would not make gun fighters out of people, but would make them highly competent.
Following the training, they would be issued a card, that was not tracked, but was required for the purchase of any firearm, or the possession of a firearm. It would expire every two-seven or so years, based on the performance of the individual. The cards would be available for a nominal fee and could only be issued by schools that taught to standard.