Readers Split On Military-Style Weapons' Negative Impact

Home > Readers Split On Military-Style Weapons’ Negative Impact

There are several concerns hunters have as to what might influence public opinion both positively and negatively about hunting. As a result of the recent debate concerning comments made by former Outdoor Life editor Jim Zumbo dissing “military-style” weapons, the editors of the Black Bear Blog ran another poll to get a take on what our readers thought about whether these weapons had a negative affect on hunters’ image. Here are those results.

Question – Do you think the use of ‘military style’ weapons hurts the image of hunters?

There were a total of 325 votes cast.

Results

154 voters or 47% believe that the use of “military-style” weapons give hunters a bad image.

161 voters or 50% believe it doesn’t have a negative affect.

10 voters or 3% didn’t know one way or the other.

As you can see, it is pretty much evenly divided among our readers.

Thank you for taking part in the poll. We are posting another poll in the left side-bar and appreciate you taking a moment to offer your vote.

Tom Remington

http://www.huntingsense.com Cliff

I hate to say it, but the ones who believe it doesn’t reflect negatively are the ones with their heads in the clouds. Maybe in an ideal world, where all things worked like they should, it would be realistic. But this isn’t an ideal world. People form opinions, and no matter if they are based on truth, myth, or ignorance, they are held onto for dear life. It isn’t fair, but since when has anything in life been fair? If we want this perception to change, we first have to agree that it is real, then together we can go about changing it.
Ithaca37

The use of so called “assault” weapons (which by the way is not a real term) does not negatively impact the image of hunters. Huinters already have a negative image resulting from the anti-gun motivations of animal rights activist groups and others.

Frankly it doesn’t matter what people think of various weapons (be they “civilian” or “military”) and whether or not people should be able to own them because it is constitutionally protected and is a fundamental right of every person whether the government chooses to acknowledge it.
http://www.skinnymoose.com/ Steve Remington

Cliff, I think people should also distinguish the difference between whether military style weapons hurt the image of hunter or whether military style weapons SHOULD reflect negatively.

There is a big difference. Personally I think they should NOT reflect negatively but I know that they do. So by looking at the question I would have to say YES it does but I definitely don’t think it should.

Hope that makes sense.
http://www.huntingsense.com Cliff

Steve, that makes perfect sense.

Basically, what I was getting at is, people need to look beyond how they view it at how others view it. If we pretend everyone sees it the the same as we do, we can never truly change the mis-conception others have.

Ithaca,

You make good points, but consider this. If I lie and cheat, I have a bad image. But what happens if I start stealing as well? Doesn’t the image others have of me grow worse?

The statements in your last paragraph bother me for two reasons. First, if it shouldn’t matter what anyone thinks, then why does it matter what you or I think? That is flawed logic, because if we want our voice to be heard, we have to be worried about it.

Second, the Constitution was drafted by the founding fathers of our government. It was the very creation of that government that granted us the Second Amendment. We aren’t able to effectively argue that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right no matter what the government says if we say that it is constitutionally protected. Of course, we can say that the current government doesn’t have the right to take that right away, but there is a fine line to walk in the way it is presented. I hope that makes sense.
Ithaca37

I understand what you are saying. However you clearly don’t understand the foundation of this country. The government is given the right to rule over the people. All powers of the government are given to it by the people. The reason for the second amendment is to make clear to the government that it the people did not surrender their right to overthrow it should they choose to do so. I don’t know about you, but I derive my rights form God not man.

Also it not a fine line to walk to say that the government can not take away my GOD GIVEN rights. I am not beating around the bush when I say that. Government rules with the permission of the people. The people don’t serve government, government serves the people. Like any employee we can fire their ass without a second thought if we believe that to be the best course of action for the country (our business in which the government is employed). As soon as you have decided that you serve the government and not the other way around, you have resigned yourself to slavery.
http://www.huntingsense.com Cliff

Actually, I understand the foundation of the country very well.

I think we are on the same side here, although we have different ways of approaching the subject. For that reason, I digress.
Ithaca37

Good, glad to see we agree on the fundamentals then, that is what matters.

Readers Split On Military-Style Weapons’ Negative Impact

Related Posts

Tom Remington

Related Sites

Archives
Categories