After yesterdays animated discussion, I was standing in the local taco joint looking at the day’s Times Herald Record…
Apparently a negligent douchebag hunter was not only using a bait trap, but after hitting one deer, he fired off a second round that missed, went through the thin walls of a trailer, and shot a 16 month old in the neck. Now I adore hunters, but this guy was a scumbag. He was firing within 500 feet of a building that he did not own, which was occupied by people he did not know. This guy should get the needle. There’s a difference between an accident – and a crime which was the result of negligence.
The thing that caught my attention, more than the tragic story – is that it didn’t take long for an opportunistic politician to make news by proposing to ban high powered hunting rifles like the one that was used in the killing of the toddler.
The story clearly outlines that the hunter who used the gun was a negligent jackass. Since we can’t ban jackasses, I don’t see why we should have to ban guns. They’ll surely find another way to screw up while the majority of .300 Winchester Magnum rifle owners use them responsibly. If anything, what must be revisited – is the 500 foot restriction. I think it’s patently absurd to allow anyone to fire a weapon that powerful within as little as 500 feet away from a home.
The maximum effective range of a .300 Winchester Magnum is 1270 yards, or 3,810 feet – meaning that if you’re good enough, and shoot at something 3800 feet away with this rifle – you could hit it hard enough to kill it.
The law which mandated the distance requirement could be modified to perhaps lessen the likelihood of a similar occurrence, however banning the gun itself is a slippery slope which should be avoided at all cost.