|
17 Feb 12 - 01:07 PM (#3310129) Subject: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Wesley S There is a new bill in the Georgia legislature right now that reads as follows: Code Section 27-3-4 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to legal weapons for hunting wildlife generally, is amended by revising paragraph 374 Any firearm otherwise authorized for use in the hunting or taking of game may be equipped with a silencer, as defined in paragraph (7) of Code Section 16-11-121, possessed by the user in accordance with paragraph (4) of Code Section 16-11-124. So among other things this bill would allow hunters to use silencers. Can any of the hunters here tell me why this is a good thing? There are a lot of other nasty provisions in this bill but this one really jumped out at me. Are there any legal silencers? I didn't think so. If there are why do hunters need them? The complete bill can be found here: House bill 981 |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:17 PM (#3310136) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu Fer jackin deer outta season? Yes, I know that. It was a joke. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:32 PM (#3310150) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Greg F. Man, ya gotta love them Southerners! I hope the bill allows hunters(sic) to use fully automatic weapons with silencers. Then jus' sit back and wait for a replay of the Gabrielle Giffords show. Be even better than all them Black folks that tried to swim rivers carrying anvils and log chains. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:43 PM (#3310155) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Penny S. Round here (or closer to where I used to live) there were notices in the woods (mostly private in Britain) which announced that there was shooting with a silenced rifle in the woods. Now we don't have deer hereabouts (unless they're the tiny muntjak) and the biggest game would be rabbit. (No game birds in the area, hare absent). Not rifle targets, I would have thought. Unless they were after the Beast of Bluewater, one of those elusive big cats. It always made me a bit uneasy, and I wasn't sure how legal it was - but it definitely kept me out of the place. Penny |
|
17 Feb 12 - 01:54 PM (#3310163) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: bassen Well, I was surprised to find out some years ago that silencers were both legal and increasingly popular here in Norway. Reasons given on a hunting blog: Less noise when hunting early mornings, late evenings; less noise when hunting close to houses and farms; protect hunters' hearing (and dogs!); less noise and recoil so you can see how well you shot; less noise and recoil so you shoot more precisely; no flame from the barrel so you aren't blinded when shooting early morning/late evening. Also, the way hunting is organized in Norway, your license may only be for a fairly limited area, silencers will keep you from scaring animals off your "ground". Sample silencer ad here Sorry it's all in Norwegian. Oh and semiautomatic rifles are limited to 3 or 4 bullets when hunting. Norway has very strict gun control laws but Norwegians have a lot of guns and shooting, target or hunting, is extremely popular and widespread. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:04 PM (#3310172) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Rapparee Silencers -- actually sound suppressors, since a truly silenced weapon has to be built that way from scratch -- are legal under Federal law ASSUMING you have a license to possess such a thing. The same is true of fully automatic weapons (machine guns, submachine guns, full auto assault rifles, Uzis, Tommy guns, machine pistols, etc.). Suppressors reduce the sound of a shot, they do not eliminate it. Wikipedia has a nice discussion of "silencers". Please note that you CANNOT, because of the mechanics of the thing, use a suppressor on a revolver. So the next time you see the gangster screwing a "silencer" onto his snub-nosed .38 revolver.... I cannot see any value in using them in hunting. They may have some use in poaching. As a side note, I should mention that it is quite simple to make a single use or few uses suppressor. If you really want to know look it up -- like making explosive devices at home I ain't gonna tell you how. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:21 PM (#3310181) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu Rap... lots of potatoes around here... >;-) |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:43 PM (#3310191) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Rapparee Speaking of potatoes, did you know that Idaho leads the US in the production of farmed trout? It's a bigger production than potatoes and frankly I'd rather have "Famous Trout" on my license plates than "Famous Potatoes." |
|
17 Feb 12 - 02:51 PM (#3310196) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: olddude Useless in hunting unless you are a poacher. Typically they need a reduced power load also to be effective hence reducing the weapons ability to take game ... Been illegal forever unless you have the FFL license. Yes easy to make ... but unless you are special forces or a hit man , hunting game ... why nonsense |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:04 PM (#3310202) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Joe Offer I suspect it's a move toward reducing restrictions on firearms in general, since the goal of many seems to be the elimination of gun controls altogether. I sometimes hike in areas where there's hunting - for that matter, I live in an area where there are hunters. If I can hear the guns, at least I know I need to be on guard. -Joe- |
|
17 Feb 12 - 03:28 PM (#3310225) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnomad I am not a shooter of any variety, did target shooting in my teens, but nothing since and have no personal axe to grind here. As I understand it a 'silencer' reduces the noise from a shot without truly eliminating it. OK, that might be useful in hunting if either shot 1+ is unsuccessful, or you need to shoot several beasts (rats to elephants, the point is the same). Bassen more or less summarises the pro arguments. Against, well what have you? An illegal shooter isn't going to say 'Ooh nooo, mustn't use a silencer, thaat's naughty.' (S)He won't give a toss. Restricting the use of a silencer will only affect the legitimate shooter, and frankly - why bother. If you can't get 'em on the use of the gun, then getting them on doing it quietly is a nonsense. That said the State-side predilection for arms is one of the main reasons I cannot envisage going there, even briefly. PennyS's query re UK, well, IANAL either (what am I, dunno) but that notice sounds legal enough for me, without legal effect, but legal. Of course, like 'Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted' there's a world of difference between the notice and what will happen. Keeping folks out is the aim, evidently achieved, 'Beware the Agapanthus' sounds menacing, and might work, but it has no legal status, and little real menace. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 05:16 PM (#3310282) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Wesley S Here are some more exerts from the article this morning: Georgians would be allowed to carry concealed weapons in bars, public schools, most government buildings, college campuses and other locations under a sweeping gun bill filed in the House. In addition to banishing many current restrictions, House Bill 981 would prevent police or the National Guard from disarming people during states of emergency, and it would allow citizens to sue if that occurred. Rep. Sean Jerguson, R-Woodstock, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said Thursday that it strikes a balance between the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, and personal property rights. For instance, any church or business, such as a restaurant or bar, would be able to decide whether to allow concealed weapons, he said, and regulations that limit the right to carry, such as when consuming alcohol, are still in place. Critics say it goes too far and could endanger the public. Rep. Roger Bruce, D-Atlanta, introduced a bill this session that would require four hours of training for anyone who gets a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The bill, which he described as "common sense," has yet to have a hearing in a committee. Bruce said he does not understand why gun rights supporters have filed so many bills in recent legislative sessions to loosen requirements for carrying deadly weapons and allowing them in places such as schools. "I keep trying to figure out what they are preparing for?" he said. "Is there some war they have to be ready for? Is there something pending that the rest of us need to know about?" |
|
17 Feb 12 - 05:27 PM (#3310285) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: GUEST,999 DHS's budget for 2012 is 40 billion dollars. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 05:30 PM (#3310286) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Richard Bridge What a funny place the USA is. That's funny peculiar, not funny ha ha. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 06:24 PM (#3310303) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: GUEST,olddude The problem with allowing suppressors is that every state has hunting laws regarding distance from occupied buildings, towns, ect... Nobody is going to blast one off in town at that big buck in their yard cause the neighbors are going to call the police. Now the jerks will just put on a suppressor and do it. The purpose of not allowing them is to keep people shooting in the woods not in a town or next to a house for safety reasons. That is my issue |
|
17 Feb 12 - 06:43 PM (#3310311) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu We are FAR more civilized in Canada regarding weapons in schools. Teenagers are not allowed to carry guns in high schools. We draw the line at killing daggers. But, only if their god tells them they must carry a dagger. The other kids' gods don't count. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:10 PM (#3310317) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Wesley S Gods only count if they are spelled with a capital "G". Everyone knows that. Heathen. |
|
17 Feb 12 - 07:46 PM (#3310332) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Rapparee If I were a tunnel rat in 'Nam I could justify a suppressor. If I were in certain Special Operations Groups I could justify it. But I see no reason to have one just because I can. I can own a Gatling gun (technically it's a single shot weapon) but I don't, even though I could buy one, all legal and above-board, for only USD 49,999.00. One of the last things I want is making it legal to pack a gun in a bar! 90% or more of Ye Olde West towns didn't allow you to pack heat in town -- and they WOULD arrest you. See Bill Hickock, Bear River Tom Smith, Bat Masterson, etc. If the law in Georgia passes they're going to run slam up against Federal Law. Guess who has trumps.... |
|
17 Feb 12 - 09:21 PM (#3310354) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Bobert Silencers = Poaching... People gonna be out hunting where they ain't 'sposed to be because if folks don't hear the shot then they ain't gonna call the game warden... Pure and simple nod to poachers... B~ |
|
18 Feb 12 - 02:16 PM (#3310621) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Bee-dubya-ell Hell, half the fun of shooting is hearing the gun go BANG! |
|
18 Feb 12 - 02:24 PM (#3310623) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Greg B As a horse-owner I guess it'd reduce the occasions where the horses spook either in the pasture or (worse) with a rider. Except for the fact that just about all of the hunting done around here, from quail to deer and even bears on occasion is done with shotguns, and they go ka-boom no matter what. My .22 varmint-eliminator is so quiet I doubt the sound gets much off the property. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 02:41 PM (#3310633) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Jack the Sailor "for that matter, I live in an area where there are hunters. If I can hear the guns, at least I know I need to be on guard" Better be on guard at all times. If they accidentally point the first shot at you, when you hear it it will probably be too late. And stop wearing the elk antlers on your head when you hike. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:05 PM (#3310663) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Rapparee Nah, he won't hear it. It's quite true (really!) that you don't hear the one that gets you. The bullet reaches you before the sound does. That would almost certainly happen even with a subsonic round. All you have to know about hunting is that old saying, "Deer are orange, hunters are brown" and you'll be as safe as you can get. |
|
18 Feb 12 - 04:40 PM (#3310678) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu Orange deer are tough and don't taste good. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 02:35 AM (#3310857) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: GUEST,BigDaddy To gnomad: The scariest sign I ever saw while walking in the woods stated: "Trespassers Will Be Violated." |
|
19 Feb 12 - 09:34 AM (#3310959) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Little Hawk "stop wearing the elk antlers on your head when you hike" Damn! Well, there goes half my fun down the drain... I can see some good reasons for hunters to use silencers. Less noise. Less strain on the ears for them and others in the vicinity. I can see some objections to it too. It would benefit people up to no good, such as poachers. Regarding scary signs, I am thinking of putting up this one on my house: BEWARE OF FROG! First he croaks...then YOU do! Beware the Frog!!!!!!!!! (picture shows an apparently enormous frog with a human arm and hand dangling from his mouth. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 03:37 PM (#3311019) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu I got a beware of dog sign on my garage and a fake doggie door with 100 grade chain going "into" it attached to a u-bolt on the wall. Pizza comes to the front door. |
|
19 Feb 12 - 11:37 PM (#3311114) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: Greg B If you object to silencers, then what do you have to say about bow-hunters. (By the way, I still suspect that a bow-hunger pinked one of our horses a few years back. That was one nasty, mysterious, wound.) |
|
20 Feb 12 - 11:43 AM (#3311274) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: GUEST,Teribus Most sensible comments I have seen introduced so far have come from Bassen "Reasons given on a hunting blog: Less noise when hunting early mornings, late evenings; less noise when hunting close to houses and farms; protect hunters' hearing (and dogs!); less noise and recoil so you can see how well you shot; less noise and recoil so you shoot more precisely; no flame from the barrel so you aren't blinded when shooting early morning/late evening. Also, the way hunting is organized in Norway, your license may only be for a fairly limited area, silencers will keep you from scaring animals off your "ground". Hunting Red Deer Stags in Scotland the land owner insisted that only "estate" guns were used - ALL were fitted with "suppressors" - the land being "shot" over included hikers paths and rights of way all the land owner had to do was post notices at every entrance that Stalkers were out on the hills and that hunting was in progress. |
|
20 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM (#3311301) Subject: RE: BS: Hunting with Silencers? From: gnu Hmmm... don't ya get the same recoil? It's the initial mass X acceleration until the bullet leaves the barrel, right? I realize that if the diffuser is moreso "angled upward" it will aid in keeping the barrel down after the bullet leaves the barrel but even an amateur marksman shouldn't have a problem when using a long gun if trained to shoot properly. And, yes, I will agree that when using large calibres it can be tricky to deter lift in ALL situations. Of course, it can be a problem when shooting handguns and many custom made handguns are "vented forward" on the top of the barrel to alleviate lift but, as stated above by a small arms expert, there is no noise suppresion for a handgun (revolver). |
