I am a lifelong gun owner and hunter and have hunted all over this country and in Europe. Everywhere that I have enjoyed the sport, I have willingly accepted regulations to protect wildlife populations from being overharvested and to protect public safety.
There are regulations on what gun types and calibers can and cannot be used for certain wildlife, places where you can and cannot hunt, season and bag limits and safety zones. The number of rounds allowed in magazines while hunting waterfowl is limited. Hunting near residences or from roadways is prohibited for safety reasons.
Hunting regulations were developed because egregious market hunting in the 1800s and early 1900s drove many species to extinction or nearly so. Regulations on hunting came about to protect wildlife. They impede neither gun ownership nor the freedom to hunt, but they have successfully allowed a rebound of wildlife populations to the sustainable levels that sportsmen enjoy today.
If sportsmen have accepted regulations to protect wildlife, then why is there such push-back against any measures to protect people, especially our children? It seems common sense to have a system of universal background checks before people can purchase a gun. Only those who shouldn’t have a gun would be affected.
If hunting regulations limit the number of shells in my shotgun, why do I need a large-capacity magazine? Federal laws prohibit the ownership of fully automatic weapons by private citizens, and these have no conceivable use as hunting firearms. There is also no reasonable use for “bump stocks” and other devices to get around the law.
Until we care as much about protecting people, especially children, from the misuse of guns, and institute common-sense regulations, as we have for hunting wildlife, then I am very concerned that the carnage of innocents will continue.
Allen Crabtree
Sebago
Send questions/comments to the editors.
