Re: Hunting with a suppresser
You still didn't answer the question. Why do you think hunting with a suppressor, for the specific purpose of doing so quietly, is wrong?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dirtyname</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is the type of shit that keeps some states from allowing the use of suppressors.
There is no such thing as silent hunting and discussing the use of suppressors to gain an advantage over game is not appropriate. </div></div>
This is the statement myself and others take issue with. First the idea that using technology to gain advantage over game is inappropriate, and second, the implied guilt associated with your statement about suppressors being allowed.
As mentioned by others several times in this thread, using a gun period is an advantage, a scope is another, a broadhead, a knife, ect. ect. Why all of a sudden is a suppressor un appropriate? I doubt you only take one cartridge into the forest when you hunt, or do you?
I understand and agree that suppressors can make a rifle more accurate, but take issue with your statement that their primary function is accuracy. This is the first time I've ever heard somemone say that their primary purpose is to make a gun more accurate. Silencer's as they are often called, and inaccurately so, must have been labeled such because of their obvious muffling capabilities. There are plenty of other options to make a rifle shoot well, I cant imagine suppressors were designed and built for the primary purpose of accuracy, the word suppress means: cover, hush,censor, silence; repress, smother, squash. If they were made for accuracy, why arent they called accurizer's?
BTW, since you know nothing of me or my professional life, dont pretend to know what level of professionalism me or anyone else is capable of. It detracts from whatever opinion or point you are trying to convey, and comes across as unprofessional.
Forgive my misunderstanding of your comments about stirring the pot and LOL, I mistakenly took that to mean that your original post was insincear. I see now that it is, which is why I had initially asked you to defend or explain what exactly you meant. Something we are still waiting to hear........
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dirtyname</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I hope this follow up pleases you, Mr. Miracle. </div></div>
Please, call me Cold.