Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

[bigcountryok]

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. .

No, that would be unethical utilizing the cover of darkness and a blinding light that reduces the opportunity for escape in many cases.

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

Only because it's not legalized yet and has not been an accepted practice for the past 70 years in the US.

How does another person's use of a supressor constitute unethical hunting and infringe on your rigths? There is still a loud crack to alert the game, the muzzel blast is just not as extreme right next to the hunter.

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.
.

Regardless, its still one less freedom that we have because of the mind set of people that work for us that think supressors are evil. Why not at least bring it up.

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.

Thats fine, because you are not forced to head out to the woods with a supressor. In the eyes of those ignorant about nature hunting ,regardless of method, is not so funny. They are completly ignorant about the need for hunting and conservation. How is the use of a supressor going to change anything in that concern.

Honestly I really doubt that very few would take advantage of it because of the expense. Regardless there is no reason for it not to be allowed. It's just one right that has been taken away from us out of ignorance.

 

[beer]

Mr. Bigcountry we will just agree to disagree my friend.

I wish people would show your dedication and tenacity when the issue is that of the silencing of their speech.

 

[Glocktogo]

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.

How about we clear up some of your misconceptions and falsehoods here:

Yes, you could use hearing protection, but most hearing protection doesn't give you good indicators of where a noise is coming from like natural unsuppressed hearing does. Natural unsuppressed hearing will allow you to more quickly locate the sound of game, or an impending safety hazard.

Suppressors have been proven to increase velocity, not decrease it. Suppressors have been proven to increase accuracy as well. Yes, it makes your gun dirty more quickly, but just how much does that matter for a day afield? It's not like you're burning through hundreds of rounds on the range.

Just because you see no reason for it, doesn't mean that others who do are wrong. It's that kind of pseudo-logic that has the anti-gun crowd saying they see no reason for us to own a wide range of firearms. Do you really want to use the same type of arguments they do? Because I pretty much think your arguments here give more ammo to the anti-gunners than mine do. Remember Zumbo?

I remember well how my father and grandfather hunted. I also remember well how they couldn't hear a damn thing you said to them. Do you really count deafness as a good tradition? If so, go for it, just don't expect anyone to consider you reasoning for deafness as legitimate.

I guess you could say it goes well with plaid though.

 

[bigcountryok]

Mr. Bigcountry we will just agree to disagree my friend.

I wish people would show your dedication and tenacity when the issue is that of the silencing of their speech.

I'll agree on that. Hope you have a safe and outstanding deer season!

 

[okbowhuntr]

Wow, really could not hear what you guys said for this constant ringing in my ears. Comes in handy when my wife is telling me to do something that I really don't care to do, but other than that I don't really care for it. I probably would not have thought I could afford one when I was younger and dumber but 'if I had known then what I know now' and they had been legal, it would have been one of my first purchases.

 

[gillman7]

Keystone wma - Boston pool area North of cleveland Ok. Early 80's a guy wiped out entire turkey flock in roosting tree. with Homemade (unregistered) suppressor.
A-Hole didn't even do it for food, just mean-ness.
Luckily rangers saw his spotlight and caught him.

Sorry, I don't see validation for this, and even if I can find it, what relevance does it have to legally owned and permitted hunting? This is a criminal. That same logic would follow that all handguns are unsafe because someone found a way to possess them illegally and then commit a crime. That is exactly what this alleged poacher did.

People should also understand that for every 1 "Registered" MG,SBR,SBS,or Suppressor out there, Theres a 100 unregistered ones.

Reference for this? Don't make generalized ignorant statements. That's like saying 77% of all statistics are made up on the spot, like this one.

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

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.
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.

1) As GTG said, hunting with ear protection is far different than natural hearing, even with the best hearing protection out there. Once again, it is a choice.
2)So why did your fathers and grandfathers not hunt exclusively with blackpowders or flintlocks? In this line of reasoning we should not wear camo to hunt either? This is just an dumb statement, sorry.
3) So now my ethics are dictated by others? Freedom means the rights to follow my ethics as long as they do not adversely affect those around me.

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.

+1, thank you. I tend to feel the same in many situations, but would not look down on someone using one. It would be the same as someone that felt using iron sights are the only sporting way to hunt, and if you used a scope, you are cheating.

First, I sitck by my statement, hunting is dangerous. Meaning there is danger involved with undertaking the activity.

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.

Hunting is dangerous, I sure hope it is, otherwise I am doing it wrong. I thought the purpose was to kill something?

Did someone say that their motive was the cool factor of stalking in sniper mode? Not that there is anything wrong with it, I find stalking one of the most challenging ways to hunt, and having a suppressor has nothing to do with that.

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.

Again, pick your battles wisely.

By not allowing it, you are forcing someone's methods automatically. By allowing it, you are not forcing others to have to hunt that way. That was a self contradicting statement that you made?

I agree with all of the attacks on our rights, we should defend all of them. To give even one away cheapens the rest. If the shooting community does not stand together, they will lose more and more. Look at Great Britain, most of them did not stand up because it did not affect their particular enjoyment, until it is the situation that it is today.

I agree, pick your battles wisely, and fight all of them!!!

 

[beer]

\

2)So why did your fathers and grandfathers not hunt exclusively with blackpowders or flintlocks? In this line of reasoning we should not wear camo to hunt either? This is just an dumb statement, sorry

That was not my statement. That was yours. And I agree. What you wrote was dumb. Sorry. I'm also sorry you don't seem to catch what I was saying about honoring our family and the tradition of hunting.

\
3) So now my ethics are dictated by others? Freedom means the rights to follow my ethics as long as they do not adversely affect those around me.

Technically the morals and ethics of our founding fathers were infused into our Constitution to which we still follow today. Therefore to an extent your ethics, at least in part, are dictated to you. And thank god for that. I like the fact that they believed our self defense and that of our neighbor enough of an ethical and moral issue to add the second amendment. We have a moral obligation to protect ourselves against tyranny.

\
I agree, pick your battles wisely, and fight all of them!!!

And lose most. This is something I would have agreed to when I was 19. I would have thought it possible. Now I'm older and know better. Prioritize. Sometimes you fight and win the big ones and the little ones will take care of themselves. Spread yourself and your resources to thin and see what happens.

Look we're on the same team. I'm not saying you do or don't have the right. I'm saying that as a group this topic is way down on my personal list of problems I see facing hunters/gun owners and a potential waste of precious resources.

On a final note maybe we should go back and investigate the clothing, rifles, methods, etc of our grandfathers. They sure knew where to be from opening day to closing day. Never a shortage of deer meat in the freezer or antlers on the wall!

Don't get to riled up man. Just good 'ol internet banter here. Passes the time while the ambien kicks in my insomniac butt! I may not ever agree with your words but I'll fight beside you for your right to say them.

 

[ez bake]

I'm not saying you do or don't have the right. I'm saying that as a group this topic is way down on my personal list of problems I see facing hunters/gun owners and a potential waste of precious resources.

No - you argued against folks who want this - this is far from it just being low on your list and honestly, its the same logic that anti-gun people use when arguing against guns "because they don't feel the need to own a gun" or "I live in a bad neighborhood and I never felt the need to own a gun".

An argument against something is completely different than just saying something is low on your list of problems facing hunters/gun owners. If it were that low on your list, why are you still adamantly defending your position? This is a Poll - if you voted against it, then its not that low on your list, is it?

Silencers are not evil - to say "I can just see the look in my Grandfather's face" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not using a silencer is right or wrong. If used properly/responsibly, its no more dangerous than a rifle. To cave into the media's miseducation that silencers are only to be used for "evil" is very anti-gun.

Are you against hi-capacity "clips" or "cop killer" guns as well? How about semi-auto evil ARs or AKs? I can just see the look on (insert name of old-timer who doesn't like modern-day guns)'s face when he sees the AR that I use to hunt with. Once you give-in on one of your rights, you've set a precedence. That's not picking your battles - its showing the anti-gun lobby that you're not willing to defend all of your 2nd amendment rights.

That my friend is a slippery slope.

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.

 

[rlt7272]

I guess I had better shelf my hunting is dangerous agrument, wouldn't want any anti gun people to get any extra fodder.

Let me ask this question. Are the suppressors for hunting on shotguns or rifles or both?

 

[gillman7]

That was not my statement. That was yours. And I agree. What you wrote was dumb. Sorry. I'm also sorry you don't seem to catch what I was saying about honoring our family and the tradition of hunting.

What I did was follow the logical process of what you said in your post. You inferred that we should hunt like our grandfathers, and honor their way of hunting. In your line of reasoning, you may have meant blue jeans and flannel shirts, someone else might feel that they should only use a open sighted gun, another might think everyone should wear a fuzzy eared hat like a Canadian. My post was following your line of reasoning. I believe you even post the same thing later on in your post, (see below)

Technically the morals and ethics of our founding fathers were infused into our Constitution to which we still follow today. Therefore to an extent your ethics, at least in part, are dictated to you. And thank god for that. I like the fact that they believed our self defense and that of our neighbor enough of an ethical and moral issue to add the second amendment. We have a moral obligation to protect ourselves against tyranny.

Technically, we do legislate morality in our society, whether I agree with it or not. The challenge is that we live in a democratic society, (or Republic, depending how you look at it), and I have the option of changing laws I do not agree with. My concern is that you employ the same rhetoric that so many of our opponents do. When someone within our community can not even understand the basis for our beliefs, how are we to help the ones outside of it to understand?

And lose most. This is something I would have agreed to when I was 19. I would have thought it possible. Now I'm older and know better. Prioritize. Sometimes you fight and win the big ones and the little ones will take care of themselves. Spread yourself and your resources to thin and see what happens.

Look we're on the same team. I'm not saying you do or don't have the right. I'm saying that as a group this topic is way down on my personal list of problems I see facing hunters/gun owners and a potential waste of precious resources.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I am hesitant to think of someone as being on my team, that is overly wise at the age of 35. It is sad to see someone become disillusioned, apathetic and cynical in 16 short years, from 19 to 35? What I am talking about is convictions of right and wrong, not personal views or preferences that can and will change as we mature. You will realize that there are some things worth standing for. I agree, keyboard commandos are a dime a dozen, but to see someone post that they believed in something when they were 19, and now that they are much older and know better at 35, leads me to think that you really didn't believe in it at all, just had a intellectual assent to it's correctness. Knowing and believing are world's apart.

On a final note maybe we should go back and investigate the clothing, rifles, methods, etc of our grandfathers. They sure knew where to be from opening day to closing day. Never a shortage of deer meat in the freezer or antlers on the wall!

Isn't this a contradiction of what you just said a minute ago at the top post?

Don't get to riled up man. Just good 'ol internet banter here. Passes the time while the ambien kicks in my insomniac butt! I may not ever agree with your words but I'll fight beside you for your right to say them.

The reason I respond so strongly is that you post in a public gun forum and take an attitude that is the same the arguements that the anti gunners do. I do hope that we are on the same team, but in light of your apathy of fighting, I do wonder if you will fight along side of me......