Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

rlt7272 · Nov 5, 2009

By the time they shoot its too late if you don't already know they are there.
My comments are from a public hunting ground position. On public ground you can bet someone is there with you and being able to hear their shot may lead to an opportunity for you.

While you may not notice the sound when you shoot, it still does damage to your ears.
I have no doubt about that but if that is a major concern, wear plugs or protection, same as if you were at the range.

Hunting is not a dangerous activity. Its perfectly safe just like any other activity as long as you use some common sense. If hunting is dangerous then driving a car is certain death.
Hunting is dangerous. There are numerous ways to be injured or killed. Here is a recent example http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok--hunterkilled,0,333468.story . Not sure of the actual facts but I would classifly doing something that contains the possibilty of getting shot as dangerous.

Thinking more and more about it I don't see any reason why they should not be allowed. As for the hearing damage, I could buy a set of Walkers Game Ears (the good ear inserts) cheaper than I could get a can and tax stamp.
I completely agree, if hearing loss is the driving factor then there are cheaper, more effective ways to avoid it.

beer · Nov 5, 2009

For all of you so worried about your hearing, why don't you just get some hearing protection?

For way less than the license fee and the purchase of the silencer you could get a great pair of filtering plugs and or muffs. This would allow you to still hear the game animal approach, hunting partners, etc. yet still protect your ears.

Seems silly to me if that's your only argument for legalization. Do it for the children? Come on man.

I see no reason for it. I hunt everything known to man. Not once have I ever thought about using a silencer. I can kill a coyote and call one back into the same spot later the same day.

On that note I don't know if many of you have used such devices before but they kill your velocity and effective range of your rounds. Kind of pointless for the varmint crowd. Also, a "silencer" is far from silent. They also make your gun filthy and are a pain in the @#$ to clean. You want silence? Bowhunt.

It's this kind of thing that gives fodder to the anti crowd. There hasn't been a "legitimate" reason posted on here yet.

Now before you get angry step back and look at this from the outside. Think about how your father, grandfather, and his dad even took game. Honor the tradition. Honor the sport. Honor the lifestyle. These guys killed all kinds of game and most did it in a plaid jacket and jeans.

I can just see the look my granddad would have had on his face when he was alive if I'd shown up to go deer hunting with a silencer.

Just because one feels they should have the right to do something legally doesn't mean that it is right to do it morally or ethically.

My dad taught me a long time ago to pick my battles carefully. This my friends is a silly battle.

Poachers poach. Hunters hunt. Period.

Now, let the bashing begin.

bigcountryok · Nov 5, 2009

rlt7272 said:
Hunting is dangerous. There are numerous ways to be injured or killed. Here is a recent example http://www.kfor.com/news/sns-ap-ok--hunterkilled,0,333468.story . Not sure of the actual facts but I would classifly doing something that contains the possibilty of getting shot as dangerous.

The example you give was not hunting related. While tragic that a man lost his life, these were poachers who were operating outside of the hunting regulations and not using a bit of common sense. They were hunting with modern rifles during Muzzleloader season and not wearing orange. Deer ran between the two of them and one poacher shot hitting his poaching partner.

Saying that hunting is dangerous and as a result you should expect and accept bodliy harm is not an accurate statement. Hunting accidents in OK are very rare and most involve treestands and the lack of a saftey harness.

Would you classify a gun range as a dangerous place to be? Do you think children should be allowed to hunt even though it could be "dangerous"?

I guess the bottom line is that statements like "hunting is dangerous" is a dramatic and unrealistic statement that just gives ammo to the antis.

There are hazards in life, but in the woods hunting IMO is safer than most places people go for recreation.

Maybe I'm missunderstanding how you define dangerous.

I appologize for derailing the thread.

I hope everyone has a safe and outstanding hunting season.

bigcountryok · Nov 5, 2009

beer said:
Seems silly to me if that's your only argument for legalization. Do it for the children? Come on man.

I see no reason for it. I hunt everything known to man. Not once have I ever thought about using a silencer. I can kill a coyote and call one back into the same spot later the same day.

On that note I don't know if many of you have used such devices before but they kill your velocity and effective range of your rounds. Kind of pointless for the varmint crowd. Also, a "silencer" is far from silent. They also make your gun filthy and are a pain in the @#$ to clean. You want silence? Bowhunt.

IMO it's about freedom of choice and living in what should be a free country. Personally I doubt I would use one, but if I wanted to, why not. Why should anyone else not be allowed to make that choice. Just because myself or anyone else may not choose to hunt that way, doesn't mean our methods should be forced upon anyone else.

I see nothing about using one that would deprive anyone of their rights, cause a saftey problem, or be unethical.

I have not heard a single person give a legitimate reason against the use of one.

As far as tradition goes, thats great. I remember hunting with my grandpa. I'm and avid bowhunter. Why should my traditions be forced on anyone else. No person is less of a hunter because they hunt using the methods I prefer.

rlt7272 · Nov 5, 2009

First, I sitck by my statement, hunting is dangerous. Meaning there is danger involved with undertaking the activity. Regardless if in the link I posted the activity legal or illegal, it was still a hunting accident. However, I too am sorry for taking away from the original subject.

The only reason I see for hunting with a suppressed guns is because you want to. Not that you need to, not that it makes for a better hunt, or a more humane kill, not that it helps prevent waste. Simply because you want to. Not to mention the cool factor of stalking game and killing them in sniper mode.

ez bake · Nov 5, 2009

rlt7272 said:
First, I sitck by my statement, hunting is dangerous. Meaning there is danger involved with undertaking the activity. Regardless if in the link I posted the activity legal or illegal, it was still a hunting accident. However, I too am sorry for taking away from the original subject.

The only reason I see for hunting with a suppressed guns is because you want to. Not that you need to, not that it makes for a better hunt, or a more humane kill, not that it helps prevent waste. Simply because you want to. Not to mention the cool factor of stalking game and killing them in sniper mode.

Saying something is dangerous is sort of relative to the standard amount of danger we go through every day. Responsible hunting with responsible hunters who are all law-abiding and gun-safety-conscious is not anymore dangerous than driving a car at 65mph surrounded by other responsible law-abiding drivers (I would almost argue that hunting is far less dangerous).

This statement is similar to statements used by anti-gun people such as: "owning guns is dangerous" - no the act of hunting responsibly is no different that responsible gun ownership - neither of which is more dangerous than most of the things you do in life - irresponsibility makes everything more dangerous.

MAS GunWorks · Nov 5, 2009

rlt7272 said:
First, I sitck by my statement, hunting is dangerous. Meaning there is danger involved with undertaking the activity. Regardless if in the link I posted the activity legal or illegal, it was still a hunting accident. However, I too am sorry for taking away from the original subject.

The only reason I see for hunting with a suppressed guns is because you want to. Not that you need to, not that it makes for a better hunt, or a more humane kill, not that it helps prevent waste. Simply because you want to. Not to mention the cool factor of stalking game and killing them in sniper mode.

Being alive on this planet is dangerous. Hunting or any other activity can be dangerous. On any given day you get in your car and depend on other drivers and yourself to not make a mistake so you can get to where you are going safely. What is the difference when you are out hunting? Hunters depend on other hunters to do what is right and be safe. When they are not is when accidents happen. That is life. Accidents happen. It is your responsibility to make sure you and your family is safe.

(My opinion) The main reason for using a suppressor while hunting is to save your hearing. Any long time hunter can tell you that they have lost some of their hearing.

ez bake · Nov 5, 2009

bigcountryok said:
Where does the ODWC define game animals, game, and non-game birds? I didn't see it in the regs.

That's an excellent question - and probably the biggest technicality that can get you into trouble - Hogs aren't considered "game animals" according to the warden I spoke to with regards to Okmulgee's WMA - I was asking not for silencers, but for my son who was old enough at the time that he needed a hunter-safety card (and hadn't had a chance to get his yet) to deer hunt, but I asked if he could hog hunt because hogs weren't "Game animals".

He said that was ok per the regs - I didn't bother pushing the issue with a silencer, but I'd love to call the same guy back and ask about silencers just to see what his answer would be - some folks are against things they're not familiar with (not saying he would be) but it would still be interesting to get the feel for all of the local game wardens.

waynemorgan · Nov 5, 2009

i vote YES, but dont think it will happen

beer · Nov 5, 2009

bigcountryok said:
IMO it's about freedom of choice and living in what should be a free country. Personally I doubt I would use one, but if I wanted to, why not. Why should anyone else not be allowed to make that choice. Just because myself or anyone else may not choose to hunt that way, doesn't mean our methods should be forced upon anyone else.

I see nothing about using one that would deprive anyone of their rights, cause a saftey problem, or be unethical.

If I apply your logic and line of thought then I guess we should be allowed to use a spotlight? I mean your opinion could just as easily be used to support that as well.

Not allowing someone to use a silencer is not forcing someones methods on another.

I just think that with all the attacks we have on our rights our energy would be better spent fighting/defending something not quite so silly and with a wider benefit ratio.

I'm sorry but the thought of heading out on a hunting trip with a silencer is almost comical. I can assure you however, that those in the anti crowd would not find it so funny and would have a field day with it. I think even those who don't hunt yet are indifferent to the gun issue would have a problem with this one.

Again, pick your battles wisely.

Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

Allow suppressors in Oklahoma for hunting purposes

Yes allow suppressors for hunting purposes

No don't allow suppressors for hunting purposes

rlt7272

Sharpshooter

beer

Marksman

bigcountryok

Sharpshooter

bigcountryok

Sharpshooter

rlt7272

Sharpshooter

ez bake

Sharpshooter

MAS GunWorks

Sharpshooter

ez bake

Sharpshooter

waynemorgan

Sharpshooter

beer

Marksman

Similar threads

Latest posts