Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Allow suppressors in Oklahoma for hunting purposes

  • Yes allow suppressors for hunting purposes

    Votes: 254 84.1%
  • No don't allow suppressors for hunting purposes

    Votes: 48 15.9%

  • Total voters
    302

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
84,556
Reaction score
61,840
Location
Ponca City Ok
I believe the language that the ODW put in the bill makes sure that anybody poaching with silenced guns, gets a stiff fine/sentence. More than a spotlighter. I'm all for that.
The gloom and doom thoughts about idiots using them AFTER the bill passes doesn't hold water. Same retoric about open carry and concealed carry with blood running in the streets never happened. Poachers are poachers. At one time it was said that more deer were killed by a spotlight and a .22lr than were killed during regular season.
Personally I doubt that, but never the less, it happens on a regular basis. The .22lr from a pistol is not as loud as a .308 that is silenced using standard ammo. Even with sub sonic ammo its about the same from the ones I've shot.
Folks that spend the money for a federal license, background check, and the price of preparing a gun, and purchasing a silencer are way down on the list of the low downs that are poachers.
 

Okie4570

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator Moderator
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
22,922
Reaction score
24,758
Location
NWOK
Is it a need or a want?

Or is it a need to want one.................maybe a want to need one, either way, I think we should be able to use them. If the ODOW can trust me to only use a five round .223 magazine, or not to use a 50gr .223 bullet instead of a 55gr., or immediately put my name, date, and time of kill on my turkey and deer, have my name on my traps, and have written permission on my person from said landowner while running my traps, if they can trust me not to shoot that trophy buck that's walking up to my stand 31 minutes after sunset, to use steel shot instead of lead, to only shoot 2 mallard hens instead of 3, to shoot a turkey 101 yards away from a feeder, the list goes on, then I think they should be able to trust me to not take advantage of using a suppressor to illegally harvest game. If they pass it will everyone use one? No, just like not everyone hunts with a crossbow now that it's legal for everyone. So yes, I really need one.:)
 

r00s7a

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
8
Location
Backwoods, OK
Want or need is irrelevant. Myself, I just hate laws that tell me what I can't do with no justification or logical reasoning behind it. Just another way for the man to keep me down.
 

vdub

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
796
Reaction score
5
Location
Edmond
Is it a need or a want?

Since I own two already, I do not have any wants right now.

To save my hearing from more damage and to help reduce hearing damage for all hunters that would like to use one, the need is great. That is why there was an ear-nose-throat doctor at the committee hearings to talk about the amount of cases he has seen during his career from just hunting with no hearing protection.
 

Okie4570

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator Moderator
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
22,922
Reaction score
24,758
Location
NWOK
Since I own two already, I do not have any wants right now.

To save my hearing from more damage and to help reduce hearing damage for all hunters that would like to use one, the need is great. That is why there was an ear-nose-throat doctor at the committee hearings to talk about the amount of cases he has seen during his career from just hunting with no hearing protection.

I agree, it's not easy to say otolaryngolongist.:) Do you know what he said, or what statitics he had about hunters hearing loss? Just curious.
 

vdub

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
796
Reaction score
5
Location
Edmond
Unfortunately I don't have any specifics but do know Bryon (Major Malfunction) had one come in from Tulsa to testify/comment at the hearing about the cases he has seen throughout his career. The doctor was Dr Tom Hamilton from Tulsa. I think it helped give a different form of legitimacy to our support of the bill.
 

rlt7272

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
1,666
Reaction score
12
Location
Newalla, OK
The hearing loss argument is weak. You guys need to stick with the "we bought them we want to use them" argument because there is no more logical reason to use them than there is not to be able to use them.
 

vdub

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
796
Reaction score
5
Location
Edmond
Just because you don't or can't see the validity in an argument doesn't mean that others don't and the agrument is not valid. There are lots of valid arguments to justify the use of suppressors while hunting. It is logic like you are using to try and argue for something with only one viewpoint that does more damage than good. On top of hearing damage and "we bought them we want to use them", there are numerous other valid arguments.

I bought the suppressor knowing I would not be able to hunt with it. However, the reason I bought them was to eliminate as much noise as possible while shooting as I do far more shooting than hunting. Getting to hunt with the suppressor is just an added benefit as I already use them for the exact reason I bought them for, shooting.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom