Province is completely against handgun hunting.

[uglyelk]

I'd enjoy a hunting season and no restricion on how I choose to harvest.

I think everyone should be allowed a 22 pistol/revolver to collect a few grouse etc., while hunting larger game with the rifle.

I think my life is as worthy of protecting as a geologist or a trappers and if I find myself in the bush I should not end up in jail for carrying life insurance on the hip.

Why can't I use a Thompson Condender chambered in a big bore to take down big game? The logical next step for some of us who chose to shoot long range with flat shooting calibers is to put meat in the pot.

If you can't getrdun with anything but a rifle then go hunt with your rifle/bow etc., but don't impose your limitations on the rest of us.

[Camp Cook]

What I am reading is he is a dipper supporter that gets to keep and play with his firearms because we are not...

[uglyelk]

Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi

This handgun thing is a red herring that again makes hunters look like idiots to the general public, never mind the outdoors-oriented public. The average backpacker or whatever is generally fine with hunting, but would NOT be fine with a lot of people running around in the woods with handguns. We as a group need to focus on the issues that truly matter and improving our image with respect to those issues (access being the big one, CWD, habitat loss, etc), this isn't one of them, it's a diversion.

Beans (BGG) maybe you should go save the bunnies and just stay silent.

Your the last guy on these forums that should be championing lets work together as a group.

Every time I've interacted with you you've been the guy trying to limit hunters ability to use a quad.

Now your running your mouth against hand gun hunting.

It appears to me that your not the spokesperson for all hunters interest just the opposite actually. Go **** up a rope son. If your concerned about habitat loss then keep your pecker in your pants and move to your continent of origin, other wise your just flapping your cheeks. Actually I think your always talking out of your arse because you appear to only oppose what other outdoorsmen wish to pursue and if it's not how you wish to do it then your against it.

You suck!

[huntinstuff]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

Beans (BGG) maybe you should go save the bunnies and just stay silent.

Your the last guy on these forums that should be championing lets work together as a group.

Every time I've interacted with you you've been the guy trying to limit hunters ability to use a quad.

Now your running your mouth against hand gun hunting.

It appears to me that your not the spokesperson for all hunters interest just the opposite actually. Go **** up a rope son. If your concerned about habitat loss then keep your pecker in your pants and move to your continent of origin, other wise your just flapping your cheeks. Actually I think your always talking out of your arse because you appear to only oppose what other outdoorsmen wish to pursue and if it's not how you wish to do it then your against it.

You suck!

Ok, if we are gonna debate this issue, there has to be a rule that everyone participating must get DIRECTLY to the point and not beat around the bush. Say EXACTLY what you mean and be clear. I do not have the time to try and decipher what you are trying to say......

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

I'd enjoy a hunting season and no restricion on how I choose to harvest.

I think everyone should be allowed a 22 pistol/revolver to collect a few grouse etc., while hunting larger game with the rifle.

I think my life is as worthy of protecting as a geologist or a trappers and if I find myself in the bush I should not end up in jail for carrying life insurance on the hip.

Why can't I use a Thompson Condender chambered in a big bore to take down big game? The logical next step for some of us who chose to shoot long range with flat shooting calibers is to put meat in the pot.

If you can't getrdun with anything but a rifle then go hunt with your rifle/bow etc., but don't impose your limitations on the rest of us.

Got any pics to show your stuff?

[MattSako]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

Beans (BGG) maybe you should go save the bunnies and just stay silent.

Your the last guy on these forums that should be championing lets work together as a group.

Every time I've interacted with you you've been the guy trying to limit hunters ability to use a quad.

Now your running your mouth against hand gun hunting.

It appears to me that your not the spokesperson for all hunters interest just the opposite actually. Go **** up a rope son. If your concerned about habitat loss then keep your pecker in your pants and move to your continent of origin, other wise your just flapping your cheeks. Actually I think your always talking out of your arse because you appear to only oppose what other outdoorsmen wish to pursue and if it's not how you wish to do it then your against it.

You suck!

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by huntinstuff

Ok, if we are gonna debate this issue, there has to be a rule that everyone participating must get DIRECTLY to the point and not beat around the bush. Say EXACTLY what you mean and be clear. I do not have the time to try and decipher what you are trying to say......

The largest majority of long gun packing hunters that I've encountered in the last 3 years aren't matured enough to bear such a responsiblitly....thus nevertheless a handgun. There is no way to train stupid outta these people. I wouldn't have a problem with handgunhunting if I could rely on folks to act responsibly. That hasn't been the case, thus I stand where I'm at.

I'm done with this. You know where I stand!

[silver]

I have been following this post for a while and there are times that I must shake my head. Once you have decided to harvest an animal, the method you use is a minor point. The discussion back and forth as to the method used is similar to the one between bait fisherman and hardware fisherman and fly fisherman. A handgun is not as deadly as a rifle, but in its own way not much different than a bow or a muzzle loader. I have not used a bow but have hunted with a muzzle loader and would like to hunt with my handgun. I have Ruger revolver in 45 colt that with 22 grains of h110 and a 330 grain cast bullet, I can put 5 shots into 7/8 of an inch at 25 yards. I would not hunt with anything that I feel I could not efficiently take an animal with.
What bothers me about this discussion is the rude, in your face, insulting posts that are out there. This sort of thing makes me despair for the intelligence and understanding for this community. And when it gets really bad, I dont even want to turn on this web site. I am sure some of you will agree with me. but the culprets wont understand what I am saying.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Camp Cook

What I am reading is he is a dipper supporter that gets to keep and play with his firearms because we are not...

Pam, Pam, can you call my mom?......

[260 Rem]

Silver - I'm with you!! The vitriol and personal "picking" has taken this thread so far off course..its potential to get shooters to focus their attention towards constructive action has been long lost.

[beansgunsghandi]

I'm gone for a few hours and come back to a whole bunch of personal attacks, with very little sensible discussion or thought on the subject I posted on: handgun hunting. To clear a few things up:

This isn't about whether I hunt or not, it's about handgun hunting in Alberta. I don't support the idea at all, and I think most hunters won't either. Unlike some I'm not calling those who do support it idiots or other names, that's just my view. But for the record there's elk in my stomach right now that I shot (or harvested if that's a prettier word), and hunting is something I'm seriously passionate about. I don't want to see handguns in a hunting environment; others are against crossbows, whatever. I will likely be armed with a big handgun on an upcoming trip up north; they are tools to me, but some tools have restrictions on 'em for a reason.

I do think a lot of hunting in Alberta is done in ways that simply do not fit into what I'd call a "modern" view. Driving quads or trucks all over hell, chopping down trees to hang wall tents from and so on are practices that went out of fashion in the rest of the outdoor world decades ago. If we want to hunt in an increasingly populated Alberta then we likely want to start being seen as reasonable outdoor users, not a bunch of yahoos. Handgun hunting is not gong to be seen as real reasonable to most of our fellow Canadians. You can now resume attacking me personally, or think about what the above means for us. I want to preserve hunting access, not get banned along with the quads etc. that are eventually going to get tossed off public land as they have in so much of the US, Europe and elsewhere.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Silver - I'm with you!! The vitriol and personal "picking" has taken this thread so far off course..its potential to get shooters to focus their attention towards constructive action has been long lost.

Yeah, well I certainly didn't mean for it to go that way. As the dust settles, I am a shooter, gun owner and not an anti nor a troll as I have been called, nor a Liber nor a Dipper as those that have supported me. Yes, we are all gun owners, it's just that some of us have a more "harmonious outcome" as Wilfred Brimley" stated in "Cross Fire Trail" . Still though, I hold my own and that of those who stick with it....

[elkhunter11]

Yeah, well I certainly didn't mean for it to go that way.

Had you not decided to make several personal attacks yourself, it would not have gone so far that way.

[Scar270]

So far what I've learned from this thread is the following.

We should ban all scopes. Since I was unaware till now how prevalent scoping other people is, it's now become quite apparent that hunters cannot be trusted to carry binoculars to properly identify a target. Therefore we should ban all rifle mounted optics to prevent the idiots from scoping us.

We probably should make every firearm restricted, as there are so many idiots out there they should not be allowed to shoot anywhere unsupervised. If you want varmint control, or population control on your place, you can talk to the game warden who will find a government authorized and government trained firearms "expert" to come out and do all your animal control for you, that way there will be less wounded game, and less dangerous stray shots. After all the hundreds* of hunters shot every year in Alberta now by all the "idiots" has to stop. The government will send you a bill for the services of their professional shooters who are licensed to discharge a firearm outside of a range.

Basically the arguments I see against handgun hunting seem to be being applied in an effort to stop the above from happening, so why not address those issues directly?

* In case anyone missed it, I am being facetious about the number of hunters shot in Alberta, but based on the rhetoric in this thread, you would think there should be hundreds of accidents based on the behavior some seem to describe.

[elkhunter11]

* In case anyone missed it, I am being facetious about the number of hunters shot in Alberta, but based on the rhetoric in this thread, you would think there should be hundreds of accidents based on the behavior some seem to describe.

Based on the rhetoric posted by some people, a person would get the impression that putting a handgun in any person's hand is guaranteed to turn that person into a blood crazed maniac, that will shoot at anything that moves, and leave a swath of wounded animals behind him..

[rwm1273]

I see three sides to this argument.

1. Those totally against handgun hunting.

2. Those totally for unrestricted handgun hunting.

3. Those for handgun hunting with some restrictions.

I fall into the third category. I believe that this is the easiest argument to win, because you are willing to do something to appease those totally against handgun hunting, yet alone guns period. It also is a compromise to those who want unrestricted hand gun hunting, as these people will eventually be permitted to hunt with their choice of weapon.

I would rather have to prove I am capable of shooting a pistol and then be permitted to purchase tags than not be permitted to have the choice all together. We currently don't have the right to hunt with a modern hand gun, and it sounds like the government wants to remove any loopholes to prevent any hand gun hunting. There is no logical argument for this action.

As others have pointed out, handgun hunting will affect few hunters. I personally don't see myself hunting big game with a pistol, but I do want to take a .22 pistol to shoot grouse. Just because I don't plan to hunt big game does not mean I am against others who do, and just because I believe that some testing is warranted before a person can hand gun hunt does not make me anti hunting or anti guns. I consider myself a realist. There are lots of people who are very vocally against guns, and even more so against hand guns. These idiots don't differentiate between a conscientious hunter/shooter and a gang banger. All they look at is guns kill. I don't drink that water. Guns don't kill. People kill. Guns are just a tool. Any tool in the wrong hands has the potential to kill.

There have been too many name callings on this thread. Grow up.

[260 Rem]

Scar - with respect - Your "scoping" analogy is the kind of argument that does nothing to advance the HG hunting position ...everybody knows it is wrong...everybody knows scopes will never be banned..so what purpose is there to introduce a dead end argument that suggests ---before you talk about HG hunting---this "scoping' issue must be cleared up. I suggest we not try to drag in too many diversionary arguments and focus on strategy that has potential to gain ground. To that end, I suggested early on that if we are serious about intoducing HG hunting... we need to bend over backward with accomodations, compromises, etc to get our toe in the door. Just standing outside the door and shouting "I have a right" has never produced results regarding handgun use...that is the reality. As I advocated earlier, we need to take the "anti" arguments and come up with positions that adress some of their concerns. Bashing them, just because they are "anti" will not convince them...

[Scar270]

RWM, my only point to those restrictions is, why shouldn't they apply to every other tool we use to hunt with.

Other then the logistics of who does the testing, how available is it etc, I don't much care if that was what it took to do it. However how long do you think we would have competency testing with handguns before people were demanding the same for rifle and bow hunters? Do we really want to go down that road?

Also just because I can make the shots required for the testing at whatever the given distance is, doesn't prevent me from trying to make shots that are too far, just like the 70 yard bow hunters and 500 yard rifle hunters.

The point is nothing we put in place for a restriction will stop those who are not ethical from doing unethical things.

I have an antique status pistol, I have a CWD landowner tag that's still valid untill mid January, I could go out and legally shoot a deer with it this weekend. I won't because my particular antique pistol does not have the power I consider sufficient. If I had a couple grand laying around, I would seriously consider buying one I do consider sufficient to go do just that before SRD changes the law. Unfortunately Santa didn't deliver any winning lottery tickets.

I actually think from SRD's point of view, they would be more likely to just remove the restriction then bring in a bunch of competency stuff, because that would be a real pain for them to administer.

Also what would you make the test? Do you have to be tested with each pistol you may want to hunt with? Can I come pass the test with my single shot target pistol, then take my 1911 hunting? What if I don't feel the handgun I have is sufficient past 20 yards, yet the test is at 50 yards? Getting into a discussion on testing like this would be an entire thread on it's own, so many variables, and so many unique circumstances to deal with.

[Scar270]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Scar - with respect - Your "scoping" analogy is the kind of argument that does nothing to advance the HG hunting position ...everybody knows it is wrong...everybody knows scopes will never be banned..so what purpose is there to introduce a dead end argument that suggests ---before you talk about HG hunting---this "scoping' issue must be cleared up. I suggest we not try to drag in too many diversionary arguments and focus on strategy that has potential to gain ground. To that end, I suggested early on that if we are serious about intoducing HG hunting... we need to bend over backward with accomodations, compromises, etc to get our toe in the door. Just standing outside the door and shouting "I have a right" has never produced results regarding handgun use...that is the reality. As I advocated earlier, we need to take the "anti" arguments and come up with positions that adress some of their concerns. Bashing them, just because they are "anti" will not convince them...

Sorry 260, I maybe didn't make my point clear. My point was that those on hear who seem to be opposed to handgun hunting, seem to be because of idiots with long guns. I was simply trying to point out how ridiculous their arguments are. Also trying to point out that if they were really concerned about what they are going on about, these are the things they should be asking for, not a handgun hunting ban.

I would not support either of the idea's I brought up in the post you are referring too. My apologies for not making that more readily apparent.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Scar270

RWM, my only point to those restrictions is, why shouldn't they apply to every other tool we use to hunt with.

Other then the logistics of who does the testing, how available is it etc, I don't much care if that was what it took to do it. However how long do you think we would have competency testing with handguns before people were demanding the same for rifle and bow hunters? Do we really want to go down that road?

Also just because I can make the shots required for the testing at whatever the given distance is, doesn't prevent me from trying to make shots that are too far, just like the 70 yard bow hunters and 500 yard rifle hunters.

The point is nothing we put in place for a restriction will stop those who are not ethical from doing unethical things.

I have an antique status pistol, I have a CWD landowner tag that's still valid untill mid January, I could go out and legally shoot a deer with it this weekend. I won't because my particular antique pistol does not have the power I consider sufficient. If I had a couple grand laying around, I would seriously consider buying one I do consider sufficient to go do just that before SRD changes the law. Unfortunately Santa didn't deliver any winning lottery tickets.

I actually think from SRD's point of view, they would be more likely to just remove the restriction then bring in a bunch of competency stuff, because that would be a real pain for them to administer.

Also what would you make the test? Do you have to be tested with each pistol you may want to hunt with? Can I come pass the test with my single shot target pistol, then take my 1911 hunting? What if I don't feel the handgun I have is sufficient past 20 yards, yet the test is at 50 yards? Getting into a discussion on testing like this would be an entire thread on it's own, so many variables, and so many unique circumstances to deal with.

Since we are asking for a new privilege, I don't see much of a problem with agreeing to some testing/prerequisites before you can hunt. Before I could get my first hunting tags I had to prove I had taken a hunting course. Perhaps all we need is something like this.

As for range testing, I believe Germany has this requirement before you get a license to own a gun. I think that if you can prove you know your way around a pistol, and can put lead on target consistently, I don't think it matters which pistol you test with.

Currently it sounds like SRD wants to remove all loopholes to prevent any discussion on hand gun hunting. That was what was originally posted, and what this discussion was all about. They seem to claim it is easier to ban it than to come up with rules for it. Before it appears they claimed it was federal laws that prevented this, but in fact this was not the case, as you could possibly hunt with an antique pistol, and they are trying to close this loophole. The SRD are not our friends.

As for future testing of hunters with rifles and bows, we may see that in the future anyways. It could be like all other changes, if you were legal before the changes, then you will be grandfathered. Any new licenses will require more testing.

I am merely putting out solutions. Some may not like what I say, but I think the arguments I make are the least intrusive of what some people who are totally against guns would demand. We currently can't hunt with hand guns. So if we want to be given this privilege, lets put forth what a possible solution would be, and we need to be smart enough to know that we will have to do something to appease those against guns. I would rather have a solution that we can deal with than have a solution to what they will permit. I doubt you will get many politicians willing to back an unrestricted hand gun hunting bill, let alone getting it passed. People need to be realistic. Do you want to hunt with a hand gun, or do you want to continue to argue that we should be able to do it.

Can you explain why .25 and .32 are prohibited? No good reason. Was to get rid of the "Saturday night specials" but it didn't do this, and in fact the length of barrel is a far better restriction if you are worried about concealed guns.

[elkhunter11]

Before I could get my first hunting tags I had to prove I had taken a hunting course. Perhaps all we need is something like this.

To hunt in Alberta, you already need to meet a qualification. To acquire or possess a firearm in Canada, we are already required to have a license. Therefore a person wishing to hunt with a handgun in Alberta would already have to meet two existing standards dealing with hunting and firearms safety. Having to pass two existing standards seems more than reasonable to me.

[Scar270]

As elk hunter said, also if we end up with restrictions on it, so be it. However I'm hesitant to be the one to suggest them.

Fight for what we actually want, and accept what we can get. If we say we want the restrictions, how do we get rid of them later after we supported them.

If SRD chooses to implement restrictions so be it. I may support the legislation when it comes forward. However at this point I'm not going to be putting further restrictions in place on myself or others.

I'd bet a lot of non hunters don't even know we can't hunt with handguns. I can't count how many times I've been asked by people looking to buy a handgun if they can go shoot gophers in their pasture with them. Then are stunned to find out they cannot, not even on their own land. Most people who are not involved with this stuff have no idea. Heck the amount of gun owners who are completely clueless about the firearms act is incredible. If you spend any amount of time on any of the gun forums that becomes apparent very quickly. Good for those who are on here learning, but people just don't know. If the province just dropped the restriction, the federal law would basically implement exactly what the current provincial law says anyway. However then we could start lobbying the feds to relax the restrictions. The provinces part would not likely be a political hot potato, but their seem to be elements in SRD that are as opposed to this as gitRdone, heck maybe he is one the the SRD staff I've ticked off with this.

They won't remove the restriction because their isn't enough of a lobby, yet they want to make the restriction tighter. Why is that? Was their a lobby for that? Do you think their was ever a single letter written asking for that? They didn't even know it was their law till I explained it to them several times. They will ignore the lobbying of the AFGA, but are going to implement a law for a reason no one can give me.

[Scar270]

This is like the idea of a muzzleloading or blackpowder season in this province. So often it comes down to bickering about what firearms should qualify.

I don't know why we as hunters should be debating that, we ask for a season, if SRD grants it with restrictions to flintlock and loose powder, so be it. If the deer populations can sustain it, lets increase the hunting opportunity. If the populations cannot, then I don't care what tools we use, we shouldn't be having the harvest.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

To hunt in Alberta, you already need to meet a qualification. To acquire or possess a firearm in Canada, we are already required to have a license. Therefore a person wishing to hunt with a handgun in Alberta would already have to meet two existing standards dealing with hunting and firearms safety. Having to pass two existing standards seems more than reasonable to me.

Yes, but you still can't take your restricted firearm and discharge it any place other than an approved range, and you most definitely can't hunt with it.

I know that when I got my FAC, the course was simple. My hunter training course I took in grade 7. I didn't start hunting until my late 20s. How many others have not had any formal training or updated training in many years? Yes I hunt now, and I go to the range often. I also reload. I also spent time in the military and got good hands on experience. Not every one has this. It would be nice to have a refresher once in a while. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that we need this now, but it would be nice. After all not everyone shoots regularly.

I have seen some idiots at the range. Some old, and some young. I saw a young couple all dressed up in fatigues and holsters walking around CHAS one day. Both shooting their black rifles and all. Neither of them knew what they were doing, but they looked the part. Right out of Rambo. Another idiot was the self anointed range safety officer. My 10 yr old had to tell him to keep his muzzle pointed down range as he was trying to clear a jam in his pistol. This guy was about 60, and this was after he gave me crap for not holding my son's .22 while he shot it. (my son has much better gun skills than this idiot) At SPFG some idiot was shooting his M16 clone through the safety fence while my buddy and I were down range changing targets. He too was about 60. How do you do that? And these are the idiots that will want to hunt with a pistol, and each of them had passed the existing standards. Kind of points to the fact that the standards is set too low for many.

[Scar270]

RWM, my point is no level of training requirements will deal with the willfully ignorant.

I don't doubt your stories at all, all I doubt is that anything can be done about it from a certification point.

Better off to report them to the range and try to get their memberships revoked.

I'm fortunate that I really haven't seen that kind of behavior at my ranges, but if I did it would change fast or you would be on your way out the door. Same sort of thing goes for my hunting partners.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Scar270

This is like the idea of a muzzleloading or blackpowder season in this province. So often it comes down to bickering about what firearms should qualify.

I don't know why we as hunters should be debating that, we ask for a season, if SRD grants it with restrictions to flintlock and loose powder, so be it. If the deer populations can sustain it, lets increase the hunting opportunity. If the populations cannot, then I don't care what tools we use, we shouldn't be having the harvest.

This was a bad hunting year for me. I did not fill any tags. I had only one reasonable chance to take a shot, but could not see the whole animal to determine species, so I did not shoot. I did not have a mule doe tag. It was a white tail, but only saw that after it bounded away, and by that point I did not have a shot. Others would have shot anyways. Most would be like me and not have taken the shot. Will there be a change next year for the amount of tags issued? The one area where I did see lots of animals, the mule does are protected and I did not see any Mule bucks which were in season, yet for the last 4 or 5 years, I have seen huge herds of both of them. Not too many white tails there, yet they are in season.

I think that the SRD is out to lunch. They take action too late to protect the herds. And then they take the position that they want to eliminate any loopholes in the current laws to limit what you can hunt with. Why?

Now if hand gun hunting were permitted, should it be permitted in the primitive season, or just like the long gun hunt? Or should it have it's own season? Should you have a separate license to hunt grouse from big game?

[Scar270]

I'd agree with your general assessment of SRD's ability to react to changes in game population.

I'd be very happy to use my handgun in rifle season, I'm not looking for an added season, just the removal of a restriction.

Your example where you state others would have taken the shot. Do you think any amount of training or restrictions would prevent those few from doing that? You obviously did not require extra training to be able to make that decision.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Scar270

RWM, my point is no level of training requirements will deal with the willfully ignorant.

I don't doubt your stories at all, all I doubt is that anything can be done about it from a certification point.

Better off to report them to the range and try to get their memberships revoked.

I'm fortunate that I really haven't seen that kind of behavior at my ranges, but if I did it would change fast or you would be on your way out the door. Same sort of thing goes for my hunting partners.

I had a chat with the idiot who was shooting when people were down range. Told him to go home, and then had a chat with the range officer. He had already had a couple complaints about the situation.

My hunting partners I trust. However some of the others I don't. You can't protect yourself from everyone, but an accident only takes a second. I was hunting a few years ago on some crown land, and monitoring a nice trail at first light. There was this truck that kept driving around and poking his lights into the area. I did not feel safe, and I got up and left the area. I don't like that feeling, and it is people like that that I think need to be monitored. Perhaps if it was harder to get a gun, then idiots like that would not be out hunting. Every year there are stories of people getting shot because someone mistook the other for an animal. No current training course teaches you how to react when you are actually shooting, yet there should be some tests.

You are right that the ignorant will do what they want, despite the current laws. You can't fix stupid.

[Scar270]

That's the biggest problem, "you can't fix stupid".

However I'm against punishing me and stopping me from enjoying things because of what a stupid person might do. (This is a general statement, not directed at RWM)

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Scar270

Your example where you state others would have taken the shot. Do you think any amount of training or restrictions would prevent those few from doing that? You obviously did not require extra training to be able to make that decision.

I hunt because I enjoy it, not because I need the meat. I feel I am an ethical hunter. I make sure I have a good shot before I shoot. I ensure that what I am shooting is what I think it is. I don't want to make a mistake, and I especially don't want to hurt or kill someone. I don't get "Buck Fever" when I have a deer in my sights. When I shoot, animals die. And they die fast, and if I can't ensure a good shot, I don't shoot. I do this because I had good role models to follow. I teach this to my son now.

No I didn't need extra training to know how to hunt. But I did benefit from my military and cadet training. I have been shooting since I was young, and I have been taught good firearm respect all my life. Not all people are as lucky, nor as respectful.