Some times I Hate being from Texas

[Malloch]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16157202/

Uh boy. and me and the wife are going down there in a week.

[biochemgirl]

I was just going to say, we're driving down there in a week. Oh yea.

Is that dueling banjos I hear?

[godfry n. glad]

Stay the hell outta the woods!

I think this is wonderful... It's nice to know that when we disemploy Uncle Dickie, the father-in-law of the turkey baster, he'll have an opportunity to start his own bidness, leading blind hunters on "Texas safari".

I just know I'm happy I'm not a Texas attorney.

[JackDog]

If this was anywhere but Texas I'd say that this bill didn't have a chance of becoming law, but...it is Texas. Hopefully this is just some right-wing nut trying to make a name for himself, because this would be bad for the sport of hunting. I don't believe that a hunter that's legally blind can shoot accurately enough to humanely kill the game animal.

[godfry n. glad]

What makes you think they're talking 'bout "game animals"?

If justice is blind, then the blind outta be able to hunt attorneys, too.

[chick]

Originally Posted by JackDog

I don't believe that a hunter that's legally blind can shoot accurately enough to humanely kill the game animal.

However, thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings, a blind hunter may humanely fingerfuck a game animal in the ass.

As long as the game animal consents.

[California Tanker]

Forgive me, but what's the issue?

At any rate, there is some precedent.
Blind North Dakota man passes shooting test, is issued CCW permit.

Really makes me wonder about California's policies...

I don't believe that a hunter that's legally blind can shoot accurately enough to humanely kill the game animal.

Chances are that at likely ranges, they'd be close enough to quickly administer a coup-de-grace. However, other, less accurate, forms of hunting are quite legal (How accurate are you going to be with a black-powder firearm or a bow?) so I don't think that's really a major argument.

NTM

[Artemis Entreri]

Well as silly as it sounds, if it passes, it probably won't be an issue. How many blind chaps are going to be running around in the woods?
I think there might be a good many blind people that will get to take advantage of it to hunt for the first time, or for the first time since losing their sight, but I figure only a handful of blind would hunt on a regular basis.
But this makes me wonder... If a blind hunter had a "hunting accident" and shot a person would his partner be held responsible? After all, he is the one telling the blind person where and when to shoot.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Forgive me, but what's the issue?

I think the issue is whether legally blind people in Texas should be issued firearms hunting licenses.

[California Tanker]

If a way can be found for them to hunt with a firearm, (i.e. use of a spotter) why shouldn't they?

I think Artemis is right, there aren't suddenly going to be swarms of blind people coming out the woodwork with 30-06s, but if a few wish to, what's the problem? I don't think the deer (or whatever) cares that whoever aimed is a different person to whoever pulled the trigger.

I should point out, perhaps, that gun-mad though I am, I am not a hunter, have never hunted, and have no intention to hunt. (Or fish). I don't see the point in it. But neither do I see the point in prohibiting those who wish to do so.

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

However, other, less accurate, forms of hunting are quite legal (How accurate are you going to be with a black-powder firearm or a bow?) so I don't think that's really a major argument.
[...]
I don't think the deer (or whatever) cares that whoever aimed is a different person to whoever pulled the trigger.

I'm quite certain that the game animal in question cares a great deal whether or not their potential executioner is efficient with his weapon. I just don't see how a legally blind person could be accurate enough to kill with one shot. The other forms of hunting that you mentioned are practiced by a very small percentage of hunters, and the vast majority of those who do participate in bowhunting or use black-powder are much more highly-skilled shooters than your average hunter, so that doesn't apply to this argument.

[TomJoe]

Why is Oklahoma so windy? Because Kansas sucks and Texass blows.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

I'm quite certain that the game animal in question cares a great deal whether or not their potential executioner is efficient with his weapon. I just don't see how a legally blind person could be accurate enough to kill with one shot.
The only problem would be a moving target or firing multiple shots. I wouldn't think that a blind hunter would ever do either of those.

Well as a fairly decent marksman (best was 3 shots in a dime at 110yard with my 17hmr) I'd say that the true test of a good shooter is steadiness, not necessarily sight. If a spotter tells the shooter that his lazer dot is on target then as long as the shooter is calm and steady he'll hit the mark.

The other forms of hunting that you mentioned are practiced by a very small percentage of hunters, and the vast majority of those who do participate in bowhunting or use black-powder are much more highly-skilled shooters than your average hunter, so that doesn't apply to this argument.

Blind hunters will be by-far an even smaller percentage of hunters than primitive weapon hunters. And I would think that they would take the whole thing very seriously and practice at shooting ranges before venturing into the woods.

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know, you guys are right... Blind hunters aren't the problem. Drunk hunters are.

Take a blind man out into the woods and get him all good an liquored up, like all the other hunters, and I'll bet he couldn't hit a buck at ten paces.

I've taken my deer, at age 14. I haven't been back since. What was really scary is the numbnuts you'd run into in the brush...with their fucking elephant guns and whiskey flasks.

[California Tanker]

OK. Some new information has come to light which changes the arguments slightly.

From the BBC website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173535.stm

Blind hunters are not a new phenomenon in Texas.

Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger.

However, hunters say that without a laser pointer it is difficult to time the shot.

So what this bill does is it allows modifications to the existing legislation to allow blind hunters, who already can hunt blind, to make them more accurate. That deals with the issue of accuracy that JackDog brings up, as it's an improvement on the current status.

As for accuracy of other things, whilst I appreciate that a truly skilled bowman or black powder marksman can be more accurate than the average bloke with a rifle (Well, for a bow, at any rate, I'm not sure about the black powder), I don't think the numbers of people who make it to that level of skill truly are enough to counterweight the inherent inaccuarcy of those systems.

NTM

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Y'know, you guys are right... Blind hunters aren't the problem. Drunk hunters are.

Take a blind man out into the woods and get him all good an liquored up, like all the other hunters, and I'll bet he couldn't hit a buck at ten paces.

I've taken my deer, at age 14. I haven't been back since. What was really scary is the numbnuts you'd run into in the brush...with their fucking elephant guns and whiskey flasks.

A-fucking-men


I'd rather hunt with a blind man than a drunk man.... unless the blind man's guide is drunk.

[Joshua Adams]

On a slightly off-topic note, can anyone explain why the laser pointer thingies are illegal for everyone else?

[California Tanker]

Just wouldn't be sporting.

Really.

Laser sights, spotlights and headlights are banned in hunting in Texas, because they can make the animals freeze in their tracks.

NTM

[Artemis Entreri]

I don't think laser sights would make a deer freeze like conventional "spotlighting."
I think spot-lighting is also illegal because of the danger. Some yokels, which most spot-light hunters are, will fire on anything that has eyes and looks remotely like a deer; dogs, cows, guys in brown shirts, ect.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I don't think laser sights would make a deer freeze like conventional "spotlighting."

Well, if you manage to lase the eye, the deer might see a flash, which might attact its attention: It would stop to see what that was.

On the other hand, you might also get the kitty-chasing-the-laser effect with some animals... Wonder what a bear would make of a laser pointer?

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger.
[...]
I don't think the numbers of people who make it to that level of skill truly are enough to counterweight the inherent inaccuarcy of those systems.

Okay.....if that's the way that things are right now, then I fully support letting 'em use laser sights. I still don't think that they'd be accurate enough to hunt effectively, but since they're already doing it....whatever.

And I think that you're missing my point about bowhunters and black-powder shooters. Joe Sixpack isn't gonna choose between a thirty ought six, a muzzle-loader, or a bow--he's gonna go with what's easiest. If you've made the choice to move away from a rifle and begin hunting with a bow or muzzle-loader, I'm 100% certain that you're more accurate than the average rifle-hunter.

[California Tanker]

You may be, but that doesn't mean that the weapon system is. If one works on the basis that you are using a 'replica' weapon, built to modern tolerances, as opposed to using an actual 19th century piece with its own quality problems, you still have inherent inaccuarcies inbuilt into the design. For example, black powder has a different burn time, and the ignition sequence also takes longer. Muzzle velocity is slower, and a fast, flat trajectory is going to be more accurate than a slower one. A projectile that is rammed down the muzzle will not be as 'snug' a fit in the rifling (assuming you have a rifle, not a smoothbore musket), and the shape of the projectile will also be less aerodynamic. A muzzle-loader usually runs the risk of a varying amount of powder per load, whereas a modern cartridge contains a much more consistent amount per round. In short, you need to be a better shooter just to obtain the same accuracy levels as Joe Bloggs with a deer rifle.

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

In short, you need to be a better shooter just to obtain the same accuracy levels as Joe Bloggs with a deer rifle.

I see what you're saying, but I think that it backs up my view better than yours. You need to be a better shot, so by definition, those hunters are better shots. Right? Because unless you're just as good or better with a muzzle-loader, you're not gonna waste your time hunting with one.

[ImGod]

Originally Posted by Joshua Adams

On a slightly off-topic note, can anyone explain why the laser pointer thingies are illegal for everyone else?

Laser pointers are dangerous. Don't you read the warnings? You wouldn't want to put out an eye.

You can use range finders and whatnot.

[Malloch]

I think the problem with laser pointers legality is that a properly aligned laser sight does not miss. There's no looking down the sight nothing. Just point and click. This technology has obvious benefits, and is used heavily bu the military and law enforcement. However because it makes hitting somthing with a firearm so easy, it worked its way into the criminal element, and was utilized against law enforcement. Which is why in many places laser pointers are illegal. I'm sure some dumb kid thought it would be cool to point one at a cop, then got a .40 unloaded at him.