America's Hunters?

B

blacksky

New member
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed.

There were over 600,000 hunters. Allow me to restate that number.

Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world:

- more men under arms than Iran;
- more than France and Germany combined
- deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.

But that pales in comparison to:

Pennsylvania’s 750,000 hunters,

Michigan's 700,000 hunters,

West Virginia’s 250,000 hunters,

The hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.

Imagine adding in the numbers from the other 46 states?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion of troops with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting- it's not just a way to fill the freezer.

It's a matter of national security! :eek:
 
Run???

That is just the point! We don't have to run as we are armed and ready! :p

I read somewhere that was the reason that America wasn't invaded during WWII. Because every soldier from WWI and farmer in America was armed and ready... ;)
 
Yes, as I understand it the armed citizens of America was a major factor if not THE factor why Germany and Japan did not try to invade the continental U.S. IMO, the lack of firearms and ammunition in the hands of its citizens in some other countries was likely a contributing factor of why they were invaded.
 
I recall an interesting statistic.

1.25 million registered hunters took over 300,000 whitetail deer last year, in yhe state of Mississippi. That is well over double the number 25yrs ago, when the number deer harvested was over 90,000 whitetail, second that year only to the state of Texas.

Here's to effective wildlife management. if confined to whitetail.
 
Here's a statistic I picked up on the other day. The Army determined that 15% of it's troops under arms accounted for all enemy small arms casualties during the second world war. It wasn't a matter of our boys fearing that they might be killed in the attempt, they didn't want to be responsible for killing the enemy combatant. They would fire their weapons, however it wouldn't be directed at a specific individual. I'm sure this wasn't the case in every engagement, but it was interesting none the less.

In our professional all volunteer Army the numbers are far different with a far greater number of soldiers finding and eliminating, or at least incapacitating their target. Training and motivation a have a great deal to do with the differences. I think it would also be influenced by the branch of service Even with 100% of all able bodied men armed not all would be able to take the life of an enemy combatant when push comes to shove, but the numbers today would be far greater than in past wars. I think it shows in the numbers of enemy casualties as compared to those of our own troops.
 
I also read that in WWII the average combat experienced per soldier was 10 days a year. In Viet Nam it was over 175 if I remember. Don't know what it was in Iraq wars.
 
My previous comment "how many can run half a mile?" Wasn't entirely in jest. At most gun shows/gun shops people are in terrible shape. It amazes me how most of us demand the best equipment and pursue the perfect weapons (myself included) but don't have any real training (I have a good amount training) and let their bodies completely get out of shape (I do keep reasonably fit). Most of the folks fearing invading forces should be more concerned about diabetes and heart disease.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
I can run a half a mile and have really good blood pressure, and colesteroll for my age, but if i were to run i wouldnt get to shoot my guns. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top