I agree with the main points of the Tom Gresham's article on the current attempts at demonizing gun ownership ("A Sneak Attack," February/March), but I would also like to state that as a gun owner with children in the house, it is my responsibility to correctly store my weapon and ammunition. So I encourage anyone to ask me how I store my rifles so that I may tell them and show them the correct and safe way to do so.
No, my rifles are not in a safe, but they are in a locked gun cabinet with trigger guards on them; the ammunition is stored in a separate compartment with different locks.
Yes, my wife and I have received a questionnaire from the children's schools similar to the one mentioned in the article, but I filled it out with pride to show them that I am a safe and responsible gun owner.
The article on "A Sneak Attack" by Tom Gresham was quite disturbing. I find it unbelievable that any organization would seek to destroy the rights of privacy of gun owners by campaigning that they disclose information about the guns that they have and how they are secured. I would completely refuse to have personal information on record at a school.
As a parent, I know, and will know, any parent/guardian and their family members who my child will spend time with. That is the responsibility as a parent. What I would like to know is whether or not the PAX group would request information such as whether a parent or guardian has ever been arrested or used illegal drugs--or even whether or not they consume alcohol. After all, more people are killed by drunk driving than by legally owned guns.
NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST
Reactions to the Big Five-0
I just finished reading Craig Boddington's "A Hunter Looks at 50" (February/March), and I feel that he's right on target. The hunting industry is too fixed on promoting "bigger is better" in everything from antler size to the gun used. Considering the kind of pressure that the industry puts on young hunters to compete for the prize, it's a wonder that any of them stay in the sport.
Second, the cost of hunting is killing the sport more effectively than any anti-hunting crusade ever could, and hunting magazines such as this one are in great part responsible for creating the problem.
Open any magazine and you are greeted by articles and stories depicting hunters on exotic, guided trips, armed to the teeth with the newest, baddest rifle that the manufacturer could supply. Most of what you print is beyond the grasp of many of us, and I imagine few new hunters could afford these hunts.
Send your experts on hunts that we can relate to: driving 30 hours straight to hunt on public land with no guide and sleep in a tent. That's hunting.
I just read Craig Boddington's story in the February/March issue, and he nails what is really important in hunting--from the importance of public land to the game-fence problems and the high cost of hunting that eliminates many from the sport. Craig's down-to-earth writing style is a treasure, and every month he takes me to places that I will never see; his stories and descriptions are as close as I'll ever get.
While reading your February/March issue, I was alarmed to see the picture on page 55. If Craig Boddington climbs ladders that way, he may not make the "big 51." You do not carry your rifle on your back. If you fall, it will make a great spear. Shame on you for printing the photograph.
In Layne Simpson's "Shotgunning" column on sight a turkey gun (February/March), he mentions the brand names of nine products we are supposed to try to make our shotguns perform better. He also mentions that he had to try three barrels of a gun he was testing before he found one that "shot close to where he was pointing"--no mention of the brand. Why don't you show a modicum of integrity and also use the brand name of this inferior product before we rush out and buy one?