In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:25:39 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:06:13 AM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Alleged experts/liars who know nothing.


MSNBC Guest: Hunters Use Suppressors So Deer Can't Hear Them [VIDEO]



http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/02/ms...ear-them-video


Depends on your definition of hunter. Here in NJ the state has used
silencers to cull the overpopulated deer herds. With a silencer you

Therefore everyone should be able to get one, huh?

So when you shoot, then kill someone, the person in the next room won't
know to escape out the back door. And no one will hear it and call the
police?

If your goal is to kill a lot of deer, because NJ has decided there are
too many of them, then a silencer makes sense according to this, but if
you're a hunter, you're not much of a hunter if you trick the deer,
don't give them a sporting chance. It's like the people who go to
private farms and have a pheasant released when they are 20 feet away,
because they want to be sure they shoot one. They should go to a target
range. (That's where Cheney was when his "buddy" shot him.)

BTW, the deer population in Baltimore County has spread to my yard. I
have a 40" picket fence but even an 8' fence is no trouble for them, the
adults at least, to jump over. I have seen them right outside the
fence, not in the yard yet, but one of them ate a lot of bark off my new
cherry tree 3 years ago. I could see hir hoof-prints in the snow, and I
guess there was nothing else to eat. Does a very young tree have bark or
the stuff underneath that's easier to eat? Fortunately it didn't
really hurt the tree.

More below:

can kill many deer, because the sound does not serve as a warning.
That is the principle involved.

Which was a point Hillary was making, about how stupid it is that the
GOP has legislation in Congress, under the guise of "hearing protection",
that would make it much easier and cheaper for people to legally
obtain silencers. Do we really need silencers out there too to add
to the problems? It's another example of why so many of us are getting
fed up with the GOP. Not only do they oppose some very basic, minimal
laws that should be on the books, eg closing the private sale background
check loophole, but they are actually trying to make silencers more
readily available. I'm a lifelong Republican and a gun owner, but
this is like Alice in Wonderland crazy.

An old mostly-accepted principle: It's better for 10 guilty people to
go free than for one innocent person to be convicted.

And it's better for 10 criminals to be able to buy guns then that one
deserving person be delayed a week when he wants to buy one. What
part of that isn't clear.

On 10/04/2017 12:18 PM, micky wrote:
So when you shoot, then kill someone, the person in the next room won't
know to escape out the back door. And no one will hear it and call the
police?

You watch too much TV.

If your goal is to kill a lot of deer, because NJ has decided there are
too many of them, then a silencer makes sense according to this, but if
you're a hunter, you're not much of a hunter if you trick the deer,
don't give them a sporting chance.

Sporting chance? Do you want to eat the ****ing thing or play with it?
Personally if the deer don't lay off the bird feeder this winter they're
going to catch a very quiet rock upside the head.