Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 900 yd head shot Video

We shouldn't base what is legal and what's not on what the non-hunting populace would deem acceptable. Otherwise running shots would be illegal, shooting trophy bucks instead of meat does would be illegal, etc.

Shodd, from reading your post and others, I believe I'd be one of the few on the jury to listen to and follow the law rather than my own emotional reaction to what this guy did.

If you want to explain what law he broke (I'm talking about the shot selection, not the stupidity of putting it on youtube, or blaze orange, or shooting across the road) and why he broke it (evidence) then be my guest, I'll tell you exactly how I'd vote.

Agreed, and that's not (I hope) what is being discussed here. There are already statutes in UT that may well deal with this specific case. They've been discussed and at no point (at least IIRC) were those discussions in regard to what a non-hunting populace would find agreeable or not.

Last I checked the general populace of this forum does not write, nor enforce UT law.



I call hogwash. The youngins would be like "Cool shot!" and the Libs would be like "You murderer!" Either way, no way you're gonna get a 90% vote on anything.



Chicken-Little much?



If no law was broken, you have to. Otherwise, YOU are the one breaking the law.



Google Communism. Me thinks you need a refresher course.

Shodd, that means a ballot initiative in most states.

Why don't you provide a brief summary of what your ballot initiative would say, in other words, describe what you would make against the law that would specifically apply to what this guy did.

I find this 'all day long' as hard to believe. Also, anyone shooting that far would be going for center mass, if they really knew what they were doing. This was a stupid shot regardless of who shot it. Like John Burns said...why pass up a 2 moa shot for a 1/2 moa target that has a tendency to move quickly and regularly.

"just because you CAN, doesn't mean you should"

Unless part of their goal was to continue participating in a ongoing thread called "headshots" (see one of my earlier posts for a link). An opportunity to get your ego stroked if you can pull it off or lead people to believe you pulled it off.

CR

Yeah...I saw that thread. An interesting take on 'sportsman' in that thread.

Very true. If we're talking about long-range hunting in general though, just because you wouldn't doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Shodd,



Anti-hunters are irrational. If the guy made a perfect center punch on the elk's head the anti's would react the same.

Smokepole has at least one ally here.

We don't need more laws!

Very few have suggested more laws.

The "laws" are already there. And have been for some time.

Yep. Just like laws against employers not paying employees for work done.

We'll know soon enough if any Utah laws were broken.

Anyone care to wager on that? I'm talking about his shot selection, not the blaze orange or the issue of shooting over the road.

I'd wager that he will not be convicted of any offenses because he was stupid enough to take a 900-yard head shot.

Any takers?

Your statement

So you feel that taking a head shot at 900 yds is wrong but on the other hand you feel it would not warrant being against the law? I'm a bit confused

Shod

I'd bet him being an asswipe gets him max fines for a bunch of little things.

He'll be getting harasses for years by the gamies for any tiny thing he slips up on.

As a parent if your child behaved as such do you feel it would warrant zero discipline?

Shod

I think you should've put the effort into getting closer. But then you couldn't show off what a great shooter you are. And trying for a head shot at that distance - if that's what you were even aiming for, which I doubt. It was a real azzhole stunt. And it didn't work did it? Then you're dumb enough to be posting the video.

There's nowhere that smokepole said anything like that.

He's been very consistent in his position that he doesn't think the douchebag's shot broke any CURRENT laws. I've disagreed with that position, and stated why.

As for new laws: none are needed. Enforce the ones on the books. They are there, and if you look at them in the same perspective that I have, then they are sufficient.