Quoted:
Quoted: No offense intended to hunters as a group, but my experience has been that for the most part, hunters are not neccesarily firearm enthusiasts...and in many cases, are a damn liability. I do know a few guys that hunt that define the term 'gun nut', but they are few and far between. Most of the hunters I have interacted with dont understand gun ownership beyond a 12ga or a scoped bolt gun. They buy a box of 20 round per year, and shoot maybe 5-10 shots of it.
Dont expect that just because a guy hunts, he will be proficient with guns. Not always the case.
|
If it wasn't for hunters we would not have firearms today.
|
I would say if it wasnt for the military surplus we wouldnt have firearms today.
Hunters create a market for certain types of guns. They create no market for others, like AR15's, AK's, etc. The reason we have guns today is that it generates revenue, plain and simple. If there was no profit in it, they wouldnt be sold. Who generates more profit....5 hunters that go through a few dozen shotgun shells each season, or 5 guys at random from this site that burn up 10,000 rounds of 5.56 over the course of the summer? Where are the sales tax profits being earned? For the local shop selling the used, .270's for a few hundred bucks...or the surplus shop that has a wall of $1000 AR's lined up?
Its nothing against hunters, but lets keep thing in perspective.
Saying the hunters are responsible for the firearm market is like saying that we owe the invention of the automobile to race car drivers. Hunters a small part of the overall market. More ammo and weapons are sold as surplus from former armory stock than all the hunting rifles and shotguns on the planet. Just do the math.