Poll about allowing suppressors for hunting purposes

[Glocktogo]

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.

You might think that...but you'd be wrong. It's one of the reasons I don't hunt anymore. Every shot fired without hearing protection is permanent damage to your hearing. How do I know? Because I can't hear for ****! Since unimpeded hearing is one of the senses needed for a successful hunt, I didn't wear plugs in the field. Besides, you have no valid reason to not want them used in hunting. It simply doesn't impact you in any way whatsoever if someone else uses one.

If they allow cans, I'll go hunting again. I simply cannot believe someone who's supposed to be a shooter doesn't understand this.

 

[Erick]

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.

When I teach my son how to shoot, I will teach him with a sound suppressed rifle. You might be amazed how much easier it is to teach the fundamentals to people new to our sport when you take away much of the component that scares them. It makes it easier to teach and learn. So it makes perfect sense to utilize it when hunting too.

 

[rlt7272]

No, I see your reasons, however, the main stated reason for supressor has been hearing protection. I mean have you guys not ever hear of ear plugs or those fancy ear muffs that block the shot but let the rest of the sound in? If that equipment is available (with out the need to file any paperwork or get an additional goverment approval) then why is that a less favorable solution?

You guys talk about the goverment getting into your business but all of those of you who legally have a supressor had to bow down to the goverment regulations to obtain one. Since you did this why is the goverment regulation not to be able to use them in one aspect of your shooting bother you?

As for teaching new shooters, I have alreay taught my daughter and son ( with 2 more sons left once they get old enough) how to shoot, handle firearms and take game using said firearms. All have been taught without the aid of a supressor thru simple basic steps, all with hearing protection. If you are not able to teach your children how to shoot with out supressor, you might want to rething your methods and the firearms that you are trying to start them out on and or the age when you are starting them out. However your statement assumes that I am against supressors, I am not. I simply do not see the need in the while hunting. By the way, neither do the game wardens.

I am a long time shooter, hunter and gun owner, like my dad and his dad. The implication that because I am anti supressors for hunting means I am anti gun is an insult. The supressor is an optional add on to your firearm that is not needed to protect your ears or to take game in a more eithcal way. If someone has facts to say that a supressor is better than ear plugs for reducing hearing damage or makes for a better kill on game then please post wasy. Until then the actual facts are that there are already solutions to the problems that you say supressors will solve.

 

[Okie4570]

This is really my gripe, surrounded by those who get the choice.

 

[Glocktogo]

No, I see your reasons, however, the main stated reason for supressor has been hearing protection. I mean have you guys not ever hear of ear plugs or those fancy ear muffs that block the shot but let the rest of the sound in? If that equipment is available (with out the need to file any paperwork or get an additional goverment approval) then why is that a less favorable solution?

You guys talk about the goverment getting into your business but all of those of you who legally have a supressor had to bow down to the goverment regulations to obtain one. Since you did this why is the goverment regulation not to be able to use them in one aspect of your shooting bother you?

As for teaching new shooters, I have alreay taught my daughter and son ( with 2 more sons left once they get old enough) how to shoot, handle firearms and take game using said firearms. All have been taught without the aid of a supressor thru simple basic steps, all with hearing protection. If you are not able to teach your children how to shoot with out supressor, you might want to rething your methods and the firearms that you are trying to start them out on and or the age when you are starting them out. However your statement assumes that I am against supressors, I am not. I simply do not see the need in the while hunting. By the way, neither do the game wardens.

I am a long time shooter, hunter and gun owner, like my dad and his dad. The implication that because I am anti supressors for hunting means I am anti gun is an insult. The supressor is an optional add on to your firearm that is not needed to protect your ears or to take game in a more eithcal way. If someone has facts to say that a supressor is better than ear plugs for reducing hearing damage or makes for a better kill on game then please post wasy. Until then the actual facts are that there are already solutions to the problems that you say supressors will solve.

Natural hearing is superior to suppressed hearing. I challenge you to prove otherwise. A suppressor is absolutely a superior method to prevent hearing damage while retaining full, directional hearing in the field. In many instances, locating game is done initially through sound. Reducing the ability to detect and locate game noise will effectively reduce the success rate.

What you think and the game wardens think is irrelevant to my experience when hunting. You're not there, I am. I have no issues with you or them not using a can. I do have an issue with you or them saying I shouldn't be able to, for no other reason that your own biases. As a tax stamp holder, I am more thoroughly vetted than you with your simple hunting license. The federal government has already deemed me to be responsible enough to legally use a suppressor, and I have the paperwork to prove it. Who are you or the game wardens to assume I'm a criminal or have criminal tendencies, just because I want to hunt with one?

Please answer this: Do you always use hearing protection when hunting? Do you require your children to always use hearing protection when hunting?

PS: Please use a spell check if you have one available. There are over 15 grammatical/typographical errors in your post, which makes it difficult to read. Thanks.

 

[338Shooter]

Using silencers is unfair to the game. Using rifles is not. Logic escapes these people. Absolutely no reason to discuss anything further with them.

 

[rlt7272]

Wow, a hunting lesson and an english lesson all in one post. Thank you.

My simple hunting license is all that my state says I need to take game, as long as I follow the rules set out by the state. Having a tax stamp does not make you any better of a hunter or sportsman than me. It only means that you decided to allow the goverment to dig just a little deeper in your life so that you can have a suppressor.

Hearing loss is a red herring argument used to distract from the underlying basis of your reason for wanting to be able to use supressors. Those of you who have them want to use them, that is it. I do not use hearing protection while hunting. I also do not use hearing protection while mowing the grass or operating power tools. Do you have an extra muffler on your mower or a super quiet skill saw? The risk of hearing loss is part of the hobby. That risk can be lessened with available hearing protection.

I have nothing againt supressor ownership, you guys paid your money and thats cool. I do have an opinion regarding their use for hunting. You guys want to use them because you think they will save your hearing and because everyone around us gets to (strong argument by the way). I do not agree and I have not seen anything yet that would change my opinion (excuse me, my grammatically/typographically incorrect opinion).

Oh, as for your tax stamp and being more vetted than me, how long of a security clearing process do you think those secret service members who got busted in Columbia went thru to get their clearance? Probably just as involved as your tax stamp approval process but that really didnt do anything to keep the knucklehead from popping up in them. Forgive me if I do not put a lot of weight in your extra tax stamp holder status.

 

[rlt7272]

Using silencers is unfair to the game. Using rifles is not. Logic escapes these people. Absolutely no reason to discuss anything further with them.

Your solution to potential hearing loss while hunting was to purchase a supressor versus hearing protection knowing that it was not legal for use while hunting, now how logical is that?

 

[vdub]

However your statement assumes that I am against supressors, I am not. I simply do not see the need in the while hunting. By the way, neither do the game wardens.

The game wardens have already been outed for spreading falsehoods and misrepresenting what would happen if suppressor were allowed to hunt. They keep trying to use already illegal activities as reasons to not allow suppressors to be used while numerous other states are finding exactly the opposite. You are against suppressors. You cannot pick and choose which activities you would like suppressors to be used or not and get to say "I support suppressors".

The implication that because I am anti supressors for hunting means I am anti gun is an insult.

No, it isn't! You either support gun rights or you do not. Plain and simple. You do not get to pick and choose which gun rights you support while making blanket statements that you support gun rights. If you said "I support gun rights with certain conditions and expectations of my chosing." then I would agree with you as you are more than willing to put conditions on others' rights.

The biggest difference between all of us supporting it and you not support it is we are not trying to force our views on you. If the regulation didn't exist and you had a choice to use a suppressor, you still have the choice of not using it. However the regulation does exist and we don't have a choice on using a suppressor or not.

Trust me I have taken numerous animals without a suppressor and zero animals with one. So the need for a suppressor to just take animals is zero. This is not some form of rocket science. Hunting is not that difficult.

Hearing loss is a red herring argument used to distract from the underlying basis of your reason for wanting to be able to use supressors. Those of you who have them want to use them, that is it. I do not use hearing protection while hunting. I also do not use hearing protection while mowing the grass or operating power tools. Do you have an extra muffler on your mower or a super quiet skill saw? The risk of hearing loss is part of the hobby. That risk can be lessened with available hearing protection.

Try buying a new car or lawn mower without a muffler!!! Bet you cannot do it. I do use eye and ear protection while mowing the yard. I cannot help it if you are not smart enough to do so and run the risk of doing damage to your hearing. Seems like your trend in running that risk carries over to hunting. You can keep trying to force your view on why we want to suppressors while hunting. Fact remains is there are a multitude of reasons why we want to use. Guess it is hard for you to accept and I am sure you will keep trying to force it on us in hopes we just accept it and move on.

Oh, as for your tax stamp and being more vetted than me, how long of a security clearing process do you think those secret service members who got busted in Columbia went thru to get their clearance? Probably just as involved as your tax stamp approval process but that really didnt do anything to keep the knucklehead from popping up in them.

I would certainly hope for the sake of this country's security that getting a top secret security clearance required by the Secret Service takes longer than the typical background check to receive a tax stamp. I think your ignorance of the tax stamp process, the security clearance process, and what really happens to obtain one aids you in making a statement like this. Since I have been interviewed a few times for friends that have security clearances in the armed forces, I can say the process for obtaining or keeping your security clearance is way more in-depth than the tax stamp process. None of my family and friends were interviewed before they approved my tax stamps. Let's try to keep off the wall comparisons to prove points out of this thread because they will end up like the one you just did.

Your solution to potential hearing loss while hunting was to purchase a supressor versus hearing protection knowing that it was not legal for use while hunting, now how logical is that?

Here you are again making assumptions that have no basis. Again, I think most if not all of us have made the suppressor purchase knowing full well that they were forbidden by current hunting regulations. There is no problem with trying to get them changed either as you will still have your choice of not using them.

 

[338Shooter]

Your solution to potential hearing loss while hunting was to purchase a supressor versus hearing protection knowing that it was not legal for use while hunting, now how logical is that?

I bought a silencer because it is bad ass. Now that I have it I would like to use it to hunt with to protect my hearing. Thanks for playing.