excerpts below,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...obby-co-opts-sportsmens-agenda-with-share-act
"And then there are the provisions eliminating all restrictions on the purchase of silencers, eliminating restrictions on armor-piercing bullets, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms across state lines.
Hearing loss is a serious issue, and hunters should protect their hearing. But given that silencers cost several hundred to over a thousand dollars, earplugs seem like a more efficient solution.
When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine. And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.
In my travels I have yet to come across wildlife wearing body armor. Why would hunters need armor-piercing bullets to kill a deer?
Armor-piercing bullets can have unpredictable effects when they enter a body, but there is clear research on what happens when a lead bullet impacts a target like a deer or elk. The lead breaks apart into lots of tiny pieces so small that hunters often don’t even know they are eating them; poisoning themselves and their families.
The SHARE Act undermines the Endangered Species Act by legislatively delisting wolves in the Midwest despite two federal court decisions that wolves still need protections. It also would eliminate restrictions on killing bears and wolves in their dens on Alaska National Preserve lands. And it undermines the Marine Mammal Protection Act by opening a loophole on polar bear hunting.
But these anti-wildlife provisions are almost an afterthought to the SHARE Act’s extraordinary giveaways to the gun lobby.
The SHARE Act should really be titled the National Rifle Association Enhancement Act. Whatever legitimate grievances sportsmen’s groups have with access to hunting and fishing, this bill is a terrible way to address them. It is sad to see hunters give political cover to the gun lobby and fall for this cynical ploy, hook, line and sinker.
Brett Hartl is the government affairs policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "
-----------------------------------
Dear Brett Hartl,
I hope you have a chance to read my reply to your article so you may better educate yourself on the facts of the subject you're writing about because your ignorance is showing for the whole world to see. That is why it is better to use scientific fact rather than emotions or in an attempt to "fit into the crowd" or to maybe impress your peers.
I want to open my reply and say that firearm ownership isn't about hunting.
While many hunters use firearms, that is not the only or true purpose for them.
You say:
When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine."
I say, if you hunt with earplugs or ear muffs, you're going to be at an even more disadvantage because you won't be able to hear what you are hunting for, and from a personal safety issue, won't be able to hear predators that may be hunting you and sneaking up on you, rattlesnakes, yellow jacket nests, or more importantly won't be able to hear where other hunters are or are approaching from a public safety point of view.
Electronic hearing aids or muffs often disorient the user and electronic equipment are also prone to failure due to batteries, moisture, temperature, etc.
Further, firearm silencers have a lot more utilitarian purpose than while hunting.
What if I were to have to defend myself or my family within my home?
Have you ever fired a gun indoors?
What would happen to my helpless newborn grandsons' ears if I were to have to fire a weapon from within my bedroom feet away from him to defend us from a violent attacker(s)?
Permanent hearing loss or possibly deafness.
Furthermore, here is where your ignorance truly shines.
Silencers are NOT silent. Even the most "quiet" silencer is about 120 db when measured by government approved methods. Most firearm silencers, and especially suppressed rifles are even in excess of 130 or 140 decibels.
(reference: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/...nsic_examination_guidelines_for_silencers.pdf ).
To make it easy, here are mention of just two things that most people can recognize that are measured between 120 and 130 decibels (which is how loud even the most quiet suppressed firearm measures for reference).
-------------------
Ambulance siren
120 db.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/77185.pdf
--------------------
Air raid siren
129 db
https://www.superiorhorns.com/loud-...MIlsr6scS71gIVD4GzCh2qkwKHEAQYASABEgJC9fD_BwE
-------------------
Can you hear your neighbor when he's mowing their grass? Or car(s) driving down the street? Those decibel ratings are ~90-110 db (considerably less quiet than a suppressed firearm shot).
I bet you can hear them even while inside your house watching TV.
(That's OK. You don't have to admit it. Everyone else knows they can too.)
Then you'll be able to hear a gunshot, EVEN WITH A SUPPRESSOR.
And here's more ignorance and misinformation coming from your article:
"And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss. "
Although you totally ignored basic facts and this is why critical thinking skills are important, here's why your statement and point of view is fundamentally flawed.
The speed of sound (otherwise known as the sound barrier) is approximately 1,116 feet per second.
Most rifle and even handgun bullets travel faster than the speed of sound. For reference, most 30 caliber rifles that are commonly used to hunt large and dangerous game, their bullets travel at nearly 3000 feet per second. (almost 3 times the speed of sound).
I assure you that even without a silencer attached to a gun, if you shoot a deer or elk, the bullet is traveling faster than the speed of sound, which means that bullet is going to contact the animal well before it hears the sound of the report.
That is elementary grade science class stuff. Sorry you missed it. Or are incapable of the logic to come to that conclusion on your own.
Further, there are a lot of states where it is 100% lawful to hunt with suppressors anyway. Including three states where you said you have lived and worked.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...obby-co-opts-sportsmens-agenda-with-share-act
"And then there are the provisions eliminating all restrictions on the purchase of silencers, eliminating restrictions on armor-piercing bullets, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms across state lines.
Hearing loss is a serious issue, and hunters should protect their hearing. But given that silencers cost several hundred to over a thousand dollars, earplugs seem like a more efficient solution.
When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine. And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss.
In my travels I have yet to come across wildlife wearing body armor. Why would hunters need armor-piercing bullets to kill a deer?
Armor-piercing bullets can have unpredictable effects when they enter a body, but there is clear research on what happens when a lead bullet impacts a target like a deer or elk. The lead breaks apart into lots of tiny pieces so small that hunters often don’t even know they are eating them; poisoning themselves and their families.
The SHARE Act undermines the Endangered Species Act by legislatively delisting wolves in the Midwest despite two federal court decisions that wolves still need protections. It also would eliminate restrictions on killing bears and wolves in their dens on Alaska National Preserve lands. And it undermines the Marine Mammal Protection Act by opening a loophole on polar bear hunting.
But these anti-wildlife provisions are almost an afterthought to the SHARE Act’s extraordinary giveaways to the gun lobby.
The SHARE Act should really be titled the National Rifle Association Enhancement Act. Whatever legitimate grievances sportsmen’s groups have with access to hunting and fishing, this bill is a terrible way to address them. It is sad to see hunters give political cover to the gun lobby and fall for this cynical ploy, hook, line and sinker.
Brett Hartl is the government affairs policy director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "
-----------------------------------
Dear Brett Hartl,
I hope you have a chance to read my reply to your article so you may better educate yourself on the facts of the subject you're writing about because your ignorance is showing for the whole world to see. That is why it is better to use scientific fact rather than emotions or in an attempt to "fit into the crowd" or to maybe impress your peers.
I want to open my reply and say that firearm ownership isn't about hunting.
While many hunters use firearms, that is not the only or true purpose for them.
You say:
When I worked as a park ranger in Montana and Alaska, I had to become proficient with rifles, shotguns and handguns. I spent many hours on firing ranges, and ear muffs worked just fine."
I say, if you hunt with earplugs or ear muffs, you're going to be at an even more disadvantage because you won't be able to hear what you are hunting for, and from a personal safety issue, won't be able to hear predators that may be hunting you and sneaking up on you, rattlesnakes, yellow jacket nests, or more importantly won't be able to hear where other hunters are or are approaching from a public safety point of view.
Electronic hearing aids or muffs often disorient the user and electronic equipment are also prone to failure due to batteries, moisture, temperature, etc.
Further, firearm silencers have a lot more utilitarian purpose than while hunting.
What if I were to have to defend myself or my family within my home?
Have you ever fired a gun indoors?
What would happen to my helpless newborn grandsons' ears if I were to have to fire a weapon from within my bedroom feet away from him to defend us from a violent attacker(s)?
Permanent hearing loss or possibly deafness.
Furthermore, here is where your ignorance truly shines.
Silencers are NOT silent. Even the most "quiet" silencer is about 120 db when measured by government approved methods. Most firearm silencers, and especially suppressed rifles are even in excess of 130 or 140 decibels.
(reference: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/...nsic_examination_guidelines_for_silencers.pdf ).
To make it easy, here are mention of just two things that most people can recognize that are measured between 120 and 130 decibels (which is how loud even the most quiet suppressed firearm measures for reference).
-------------------
Ambulance siren
120 db.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/77185.pdf
--------------------
Air raid siren
129 db
https://www.superiorhorns.com/loud-...MIlsr6scS71gIVD4GzCh2qkwKHEAQYASABEgJC9fD_BwE
-------------------
Can you hear your neighbor when he's mowing their grass? Or car(s) driving down the street? Those decibel ratings are ~90-110 db (considerably less quiet than a suppressed firearm shot).
I bet you can hear them even while inside your house watching TV.
(That's OK. You don't have to admit it. Everyone else knows they can too.)
Then you'll be able to hear a gunshot, EVEN WITH A SUPPRESSOR.
And here's more ignorance and misinformation coming from your article:
"And it doesn’t seem particularly sporting to hunt an animal when that animal can’t even hear you if you miss. "
Although you totally ignored basic facts and this is why critical thinking skills are important, here's why your statement and point of view is fundamentally flawed.
The speed of sound (otherwise known as the sound barrier) is approximately 1,116 feet per second.
Most rifle and even handgun bullets travel faster than the speed of sound. For reference, most 30 caliber rifles that are commonly used to hunt large and dangerous game, their bullets travel at nearly 3000 feet per second. (almost 3 times the speed of sound).
I assure you that even without a silencer attached to a gun, if you shoot a deer or elk, the bullet is traveling faster than the speed of sound, which means that bullet is going to contact the animal well before it hears the sound of the report.
That is elementary grade science class stuff. Sorry you missed it. Or are incapable of the logic to come to that conclusion on your own.
Further, there are a lot of states where it is 100% lawful to hunt with suppressors anyway. Including three states where you said you have lived and worked.
