The term "trophy hunt" is indeed a loaded term, meaning different things depending on who you ask and the circumstances in which it is used.
We should start with defining a "trophy". Basically, it is any part of an animal which is kept for purely decorative and memory purposes. Tusks, horns, antlers, etc kept on a wall are a prime example of trophies. Trophies are not bad thing, as I will explain in a minute.
As Odin stated, trophy hunting in its worst form is when the animal is taken merely for the trophy bits and the rest of the animal is not used. And this is what most people think of when they here the term "trophy" associated with hunting.
Now let's go to the other end of the trophy hunt spectrum. If a hunter takes an animal and uses nearly every bit of the animal including meat, hide, and bones, but keeps an antler for a memento, perhaps it was the first hunt with a child or the first such animal taken, or maybe just to remember a great hunt, then by definition they have kept a trophy and by extension the person is a trophy hunter.
Those that practice the former are very rare and are generally considered unethical at the least and quite possibly criminal.
Most hunters fall more towards the latter end of the spectrum. If you go into the home of most hunters, you will find at least one such trophy. As author, hunter, and TV personality Steven Rinella opines, these trophies are usually more to remind the hunter of the event than they are to brag to people about how great a hunter they are.
The problem with a rail system between Colorado Springs and Denver is summed up in one simple dilemma "Once I get to Colorado Springs or Denver, how do I get to my final destination?" If the lightrail, bullet train, what have you dumps you off at a station, you still have to get from that station to where you want to be. Europe (lived there for over a decade) has this taken care of by excellent intra-city mass transit. The US, not so much. Personal autos are very much a privilege and definitely not a necessity in Europe.
"Worth a try" -- Chris Donahue
You have a short memory. We tried it before. It failed. Multiple studies showed it failed. We predicted the failure, but no one listened. Even the gun controllers whined about what a spectacular failure it was.
I also noted you mix up so-called "assault weapons" and assault rifles -- they are NOT the same thing.
Furthermore, people are 1.6 times more likely to be killed by an attacker using blunt objects like bats, 2.3 times more likely to be killed by unarmed attackers, and 5.3 times more likely to be stabbed/cut to death by an attacker than you are to be killed by an attacker using a rifle of any kind. (FBI CIUS/UCR, 2014, Table 8)
"looking at the links provided, the most common .223 caliber is not suggested for most hunting."
It is not suggested for most larger game like elk and such and in this state cannot be used for deer, though in several other states it can be. It is suggested for a lot of hunting including varmints, predators, and pigs.
" the links do specify that the recoil is less with the AR which lead to quicker follow up shots."
When used with the smaller calibers.
"I don't think any legitimate hunter is going to take an assault rifle into the woods.."
Many legitimate hunters take AR-15s and AR-10s into the woods and they are NOT assault rifles. Assault rifles are a type of machine gun, meaning they fire multiple shots per trigger pull. The hunting ARs I showed you are all semi-auto only, meaning one trigger pull fires only one shot. Semi-auto hunting rifles have been sold commercially in the US for over a century.
It is pretty clear you have very limited knowledge of firearms or of hunting.
I could go on, but I think you will get the picture.
happyfew, the previous AWB was a failure in reducing the number of deaths via firearms. Study after study has shown this. The only place where it was a success was in creating a demand for these firearms. They were NOT used at Ft Hood. And yes, they are the same as a hunting rifle and many are used for exactly that. The low recoil is due to the small caliber, low power of the cartridge.
"We must fix the assault weapon problem" - John Morse
The "assault weapon problem" is that people like you have no clue what they are talking about.
"military-style weapons" - John Morse
You know, when I was in the military, we carried .38 caliber revolvers. So I supposed in your mind that makes them "military style".
"We will hear that this isn't about guns." - John Morse
And it isn't. Whenever these things happen, people like you make it about the guns. You are obsessed about the object used and completely ignore the behavior, the causes of the behavior, and the person's responsibility. This is the problem.
"When we fall short, as even the best of people do, the person we miss can go to the local Cabela's, purchase an AR-15 and more ammunition than will ever be needed. He/she will be required to wait three days. " - John Morse
Not in this state. No waiting period. And waiting periods are pretty useless as it is pretty uncommon for a firearm to be used in a crime within 15 days of purchase -- the average time of possession to criminal use is over a year.
"Americans have the right to a handgun in their home for their own protection. They don't have the "right" to military-style assault rifles. Scalia says so, right in the opinion." - John Morse
You misread the opinion. He doesn't say that they don't have a right to them, he says that is a separate question from the one being decided.
"Can we hold bars responsible for drunk-driving accidents? Yes." - John Morse
Only if they know the person was impaired. And the same holds true for firearm dealers -- by federal law they can be held responsible if they sell a firearm to someone they think is impaired or intends to use them in a crime. So you are barking at the moon with this argument.
"Knives serve many very useful purposes in everyday life. Military-style assault weapons don't. " - John Morse
The firearms you speak of are very popular for recreational shooting, competition, personal/home defense, and hunting.
"Military-style assault weapons don't. They belong on the battlefield, " - John Morse
Then please explain why the military does not use the semi-auto AR-15 or the semi-auto version of the AK-47.
"It is illegal to sue a gun manufacturer or gun seller for any shooting involving their gun. It shouldn't be." - John Morse
Yes, it should be.
And switching back to knives for a minute, are you aware that you are more than 5 times as likely to be killed by an attacker using a knife or other stabbing/cutting instrument than to be killed by an attacker using one of these so-called "assault weapons".
Also, multiple studies have shown that the previous AWB had no demonstrable reduction on deaths involving firearms. In fact, it had the unintended consequence of people buying more effective calibers, higher power ammo, and more effective bullets.
In short, you continue to show the same ignorance that cost you your Senate seat.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation