Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 155
  1. #1
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073

    "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...45645796,d.dmg

    Good/Bad....you decide.

    (the article is from a Whiteville paper, but will affect ALL of NC)
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  2. #2
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Pointless

    I live outside of city limits where people can fire guns all they want.....and they do.
    The noise is not an issue.

    Never once found being in the forest with hunters to be overly noisy either and to be quite honest, I kind of like knowing their proximity to me.

    I am against current proposed gun legislation/bans but why our idiotic gubberment would even entertain trying to ease up on restrictions like this is beyond me.

    I mean seriously, "lets ban a certain type of gun stock but allow silencers".
    What utter idiocy.

    BTW, I don't hunt nor do I fire a gun outside my house ever.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.
    +1
    In addition to the fact that "silencers" do NOT silence the sound of a shot fired like the movies lead you to believe, I don't think hunters are going to be flocking to hunt in areas where we ride a lot so it's a moot point.

    I recently had to go help an acquaintance reign in his expectations of what his suppressor should sound like. Even a .22, which is relatively quiet to begin with, is tricky to make "movie quiet", and it's simply not going to happen with a pistol. In addition .22 is not legal to use for hunting in most cases so even a suppressed hunting rifle will be loud, the sound will just be muffled/different.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    421
    I grew up in a rural town in New England. Hunting was a norm. So was snowmobile racing and ice racing (cars on a frozen pond). Over the years more and more people moved into the town from the Boston area. They started complaining and the racing was stopped. Decades of doing it gone. The same crowd complains about the rifle shots during hunting season. The only public (on state land) rifle range was shut. Things like this just piss me off.

  6. #6
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    I support the proposed legislation.

    Why suppressors are regulated as a Class 3 weapon is beyond me. They do not change the functionality of the firearm, nor do the "silence" the weapon like you hear in the movies.
    Granted this is a home built silencer but allowing silencers will allow this.



    People really need to research things when it comes to passing any gun legislation.

    There is no reason to allow silencers for hunting.
    I ride right past hunters while biking and a riffle in the forest is not that loud.
    My next door neighbor who is about 100 yards away target practices regularly and it is not that loud either.

    There just is no need for it and it is pure silliness.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  7. #7
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    And here is a pistol silenced......yeah, not real quiet.

    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Granted this is a home built silencer but allowing silencers will allow this.



    People really need to research things when it comes to passing any gun legislation.

    There is no reason to allow silencers for hunting.
    I ride right past hunters while biking and a riffle in the forest is not that loud.
    My next door neighbor who is about 100 yards away target practices regularly and it is not that loud either.

    There just is no need for it and it is pure silliness.
    I would hazard a guess and say that you don't have a lot of trigger time.

  9. #9
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I have had plenty of "trigger time" but I don't know how you could make an assumption from my opinion of how loud a riffle shot is through all the trees that separate me and my neighbor. Making a statement like that from what I wrote is lunacy. Of course, I expect that since you already made the statement suggesting that silencers can not be that quiet.


    Now if you meant I don't hunt, you are correct.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Find me a video of a hunting caliber with a suppressor being as quiet as a .22 with suppressor.

    I'll wait.

    And my point on "it's not that loud" and you not having a lot of trigger time has nothing to do with how loud YOU think a rifle shot at your neighbor's house is.

    It has everything to do with how loud the SHOOTER thinks the shot is, and what THEY want to do to mitigate the sound.

    Some folks wear plugs and muffs, some like to use suppressors.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    And BTW -

    You don't need a suppressor to make a .22 quieter than a BB gun. CB Caps do that all on their own.

  12. #12
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    If your trigger time comment had nothing to do with my not that loud comment then why did you bold face my not that loud comment?


    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    Find me a video of a hunting caliber with a suppressor being as quiet as a .22 with suppressor.

    I'll wait.
    Is a 308 a large enough caliber?




    Next?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Not bad, but still louder than a .22 with suppressor.

    So, tell me again why this would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with?

  14. #14
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    LOL, did you actually listen to it?
    Not bad? lol
    The sound of the bolt was louder than the sound of the shot.

    You would not hear hear that being fired if in your back yard if you were standing in the front.

    I never said it would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with these.
    I just said it was pointless. The sounds of shots are not that bothersome and personally I like to know when weapons are being discharged around me and their proximity along with their general direction.

    Now, tell me why it would be a good thing to hunt with?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  15. #15
    Laramie, Wyoming
    Reputation: alphazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,949
    This should be legal without all the paperwork but not be forced on everyone.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    LOL, did you actually listen to it?
    Not bad? lol
    The sound of the bolt was louder than the sound of the shot.

    You would not hear hear that being fired if in your back yard if you were standing in the front.

    I never said it would be a bad thing to be allowed to hunt with these.
    I just said it was pointless. The sounds of shots are not that bothersome and personally I like to know when weapons are being discharged around me and their proximity along with their general direction.

    Now, tell me why it would be a good thing to hunt with?
    As I mentioned, and as you so aptly demonstrated with the post of the suppressed rifle - to protect the hearing of the shooter.

    And you wonder why I think you don't have a lot of trigger time?

    Or maybe the issue is you have too much, and I need to talk louder so you can actually hear me?

  17. #17
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    As I mentioned, and as you so aptly demonstrated with the post of the suppressed rifle - to protect the hearing of the shooter.

    And you wonder why I think you don't have a lot of trigger time?

    Or maybe the issue is you have too much, and I need to talk louder so you can actually hear me?
    Why would I care about protecting the hearing of the shooter more that my own personal safety? If the shooter is concerned with his/her hearing they can wear noise suppressing ear protection. It is what I do.

    I am beginning to wonder if you have ever fired a gun.

    As far as you talking louder, I don't know if you realize this but you are on the internet. You can talk as loud as you want and nobody here will hear you. Also, if you read the article, the proposed legislation has nothing to do with protecting the shooters ears.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    Why would I care about protecting the hearing of the shooter more that my own personal safety? If the shooter is concerned with his/her hearing they can wear noise suppressing ear protection. It is what I do.

    I am beginning to wonder if you have ever fired a gun.

    As far as you talking louder, I don't know if you realize this but you are on the internet. You can talk as loud as you want and nobody here will hear you. Also, if you read the article, the proposed legislation has nothing to do with protecting the shooters ears.
    I think I have determined one of the causes of our disagreement. You see this issue as about YOU and YOUR ears. I ma concerned with offering the HUNTERS the CHOICE of how they protect their ears.

    As for me "never firing a gun before", I will put it this way. My screen name is a tribute to my first unit - the A Co Jaguars 5/87 INF. I think I have fired quite a few weapons.

    And I propose you read more than the first 2 paragraphs.

    "Suppression devices would also help with one of the most common problems suffered by hunters—hearing loss. Conventional hearing protectors make it difficult to hear approaching game or other members of a hunting party, and even ear plugs can be an annoyance for hunters. Hearing damage from gunfire can be measured even in young hunters."

    YMMV

  19. #19
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    No, it isn't about me and my ears. Hunters already have a choice.

    "ear plugs can be an annoyance"

    LOL, forgive me for not giving a sh!t if a hunter who chooses to hunt is annoyed by their earplugs.

    I find it annoying not knowing where the guys near by with fire arms are firing their weapons.

    If ear plugs are too annoying and you are worried about hearing loss, than get bow.

    And before you make an assumption that I am against hunting, don't. I am all for hunting and well aware of the benefits to it. I will also be happy to eat any of the spoils. I just don't do it because I think it would be boring.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Seeing as how you are on an mtb forum, let me see if I can equate this to something you may be able to relate to.

    Should you have the choice of brakes on your mtb? Or should your neighbor, who rides a Wal-Mart bike around the neighborhood once a year dictate to you that you can't use disc brakes, you can only use canti's? After all, he doesn't care that discs are safer for YOU, he is concerned over his idea of what you should use.

  21. #21
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    That is a stupid analogy as the brakes that I use affect nobody.

    Actually correction, if I have safer brakes it could mean I don't crash in to you.

    Would you like to try again and come up with something that actually makes sense?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    The entire point is why do YOU get to dictate what somebody else uses? It's their ears, it should be their choice how they protect them.

  23. #23
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Hunters have options for ear safety.
    So forgive me for not caring about their "ear safety comfort" over my "life safety" while on the trails.

    And FYI the government does get to dictate things in the best interest of the people.
    For instance...
    I feel I can drive down many interstates at triple digit speeds.
    Why should anyone be able to dictate that I can not travel at the rate I want to travel at?

    Or should we just have a lawless country because somebody out there may not like the way the law limits their "rights"?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  24. #24
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    To add, if hunters had no other options or if people on the trails that had nothing to do with hunting were suffering hearing damage then I would support this.

    However, this proposal is not based on the safety of anyone in any way. It is based on the fact that a few people who don't hunt hear shots fired and it interrupts their perfect little silent world.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Now we're starting to get somewhere!!!

    Personally, there is NO WAY I would be riding on hunting land during hunting season. That's just stupid for many, many reasons. So where WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down that list would be if I could hear the report of a shot or not.

    RE: speeding, driving on a public road is a privilege, not a right. So, yes, the gov can regulate what happens on them. Guess what, though? You can drive as fast as you want to on private land! You don't even have to have a driver's license to do it! Nor do you have to have license plates nor registration on the vehicle!!!

    Please, keep going. This is fun.

  26. #26
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    You are right, now we are getting somewhere.

    Where I live in Western NC (Asheville area) hunting is allowed on most of the trails.

    So should mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians give up the trails that they most likely helped to build just so hunters can bag a deer?

    Sorry, but there really isn't a mountain bike park in my area. The "mountain bike park" is national forest where hunting is often allowed.

    Even if there options for hunting free zones near by, why should I limit myself to the trails I ride so a hunter doesn't have to be inconvenienced with ear plugs?

    And what hunters want to shoot with on private land is their business as far as I am concerned. I am riding on public land.

    You are right it is fun watching you continually shoot yourself in the foot. (pardon the pun)
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  27. #27
    Some Assembly Required
    Reputation: man w/ one hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,073
    The noise of a gun is like a safety thing for me . Just like an electric car is dangerous for pedestrians because they can't hear it coming, hearing a "report" from a shot is enough to know I should find a different trail to ride that day. I have stood on the dirt rd at Ginger cake & heard 25 or 30 rounds & new I was in the wrong area that day.
    "Why are you willing to take so much & leave others in need...just because you can?"

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    You are right, now we are getting somewhere.

    Where I live in Western NC (Asheville area) hunting is allowed on most of the trails.

    So should mountain bikers, hikers and equestrians give up the trails that they most likely helped to build just so hunters can bag a deer?

    Sorry, but there really isn't a mountain bike park in my area. The "mountain bike park" is national forest where hunting is often allowed.

    Even if there options for hunting free zones near by, why should I limit myself to the trails I ride so a hunter doesn't have to be inconvenienced with ear plugs?

    And what hunters want to shoot with on private land is their business as far as I am concerned. I am riding on public land.

    You are right it is fun watching you continually shoot yourself in the foot. (pardon the pun)
    So, you have more "right" to the public lands than a hunter?

    Interesting.

    I wonder - how many fees do you pay to have a place to ride your mountain bike? Are there imbedded taxes in every piece of cycling gear you buy to fund the trails? Do you have to go take a special class to get a license to ride on those trails? Do you have to buy a yearly license to continue to ride? Do you have to buy a different stamp for that license for each trail you want to ride on?

    And I still can't get over how you get to dictate to the hunter what gear he uses to hunt with, and what safety gear he can/cannot use.

    Sounds very...big bother-ish to me.

    So, do you also ride a road bike?

  29. #29
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    So, you have more "right" to the public lands than a hunter?

    Interesting.
    Where on earth did I even say that or hint to that?

    Did I say "hunters should not be allowed to hunt public land because I bike there"?

    No, I did not.

    I fully acknowledged their right to be there.
    However, I have the right to know where shots are being fired.

    You are expecting me to ignore my rights of physical safety in order so a hunter does not have to wear earplugs for his hearing safety. Now that is ridiculous.

    I am willing to share the trails safely for everyone's use.

    Also, this proposal IS dictating what safety gear a hunter must use.
    It proposes a MANDATORY use of silencers.

    You keep shooting holes in your own argument.

    BTW, your assumptions on what I donate as far as time and money are ignorant. I won't get in to it, but I guarantee it is more than the cost of a hunting license. After that there are no "imbedded taxes" in every piece of hunting gear either.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    LOL

    Please, go find me the portion of the article in the OP that says use of a suppressor is MANDATORY under this proposed law.

    I did not ask what you donate, I asked very specific question with regards to what you HAVE to pay to go mtb on those trails.

    And you may want to brush up on the imbedded taxes in firearms and ammo that go to fund those exact same national forests you love to ride in.

    But of course, you already know that because you go shooting all the time.

    Suffice it to say, I support the lifting of this ridiculous ban, just as I support the lifting of almost every firearms law.

    YMM(and I am sure will)V

  31. #31
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Hunting license in the state is not expensive.
    Any imbedded costs in the taxes of ammo is equal to the recreational shooter as it is to the hunter.

    Lifting of every fire arm law?
    Now that is a hoot.
    So people should be able walk around wit Uzi's and Bazookas. Riiiiiiiiiight

    I see no point in continue this as it is quite obvious that you have no common sense.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  32. #32
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    BTW, please do not infringe on my right to hunt with land mines. lol
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    You do know you have people walking around you armed every day, right?

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    BTW, please do not infringe on my right to hunt with land mines. lol
    Do you know that I can legally own a land mine right now?

  35. #35
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    But you can't legally go plant it on public land.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Maybe not, but that's not my point.

    You seem to have issues with inanimate objects. Why?

  37. #37
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I have a problem with not knowing where shots are being fired around me.

    If a hunter has or has access to private land then I am ok with them firing a silenced weapon all they want. If a hunter chooses to hunt public land where other people have a right to be also, I am not ok with them using silencers as I believe that infringes on the right of other people to know where shots are being fired. It also lowers the awareness of the use of the land by hunters to non-hunters which proposes safety issues.

    Either way, I stand by my original statement that was proposing to allow this while trying to ban things like certain types of stocks is ass backwards.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    So, how many folks would use the type of specialty ammo that the gentleman in your video used?

    Or do you think they would use their regular super sonic hunting rounds?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gunner66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    164

    Re: "Noise suppression" coming to a trail near you, (endorsed by the FS)

    No object that breaks the speed of sound can be silenced and that is why they are called suppressors not silencers. Silencer is a Hollywood and politician created term. Suppressors drop the sound pressure by a certain db level which is far from silent. Carry on with this strange argument just wanted to put the facts in place.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

  40. #40
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I am more curious on knowing why we should drop all gun legislation.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Get ready to laugh at me.

    See, there's this thing called the Second Amendment. I believe it means what it say is means, and the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms.

    I know, crazy, right?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Since you are uber concerned over noise - or the lack thereof - from hunters, am I safe to assume that you stay out of the woods during bow season?

  43. #43
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I do not laugh, but I do think you are misguided. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but I also do not believe that it is a free for all either. If it was, we would be allowed to own personal nukes too. I believe that second amendment is there to give us reasonable means to protect ourselves from both people who would harm us and our own government. I do not nor does anyone need a suppressor to do this.

    Someplace between protecting ourselves with butter knives and nuclear weapons lies the answer in what the 2nd amendment should allow.

    I have less concern with bow hunting for multiple reasons.
    1) there just are not as many bow hunters.
    2) You can not rapidly fire a bow
    3) Bows do not accidentally go off
    4) Bow hunters (although not always the case) are generally more skilled hunters. Rarely do first time hunters chose a bow as there weapon.

    That is just to just to name a few
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    I do not laugh, but I do think you are misguided. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but I also do not believe that it is a free for all either. If it was, we would be allowed to own personal nukes too. I believe that second amendment is there to give us reasonable means to protect ourselves from both people who would harm us and our own government. I do not nor does anyone need a suppressor to do this.

    Someplace between protecting ourselves with butter knives and nuclear weapons lies the answer in what the 2nd amendment should allow.

    I have less concern with bow hunting for multiple reasons.
    1) there just are not as many bow hunters.
    2) You can not rapidly fire a bow
    3) Bows do not accidentally go off
    4) Bow hunters (although not always the case) are generally more skilled hunters. Rarely do first time hunters chose a bow as there weapon.

    That is just to just to name a few
    So, what do I need to protect myself? What limitations do you feel there should be?

    1. Immaterial to the discussion about noise levels.
    2. All it takes is one shot.
    3. You have never used a mechanical release, I see.
    4. Agree with the first sentence. Withhold judgement with the second since I have no information either way.

    It boils down to the noise level generated, since we are discussion suppressors in use for hunting. Both are quiet, both are capable of killing you. Yet, you are comfortable with one, and not the other.

  45. #45
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    I am familiar with mechanical release but no I am not an archer.
    Still with mechanical release and a compound draw, it still takes the action of a draw and release. I guarantee I can unload a clip before any archer can fire a second arrow.
    Also, archers do not walk around with a bow ready to fire.

    Yes, both bullets and arrows can kill but like I said there are a lot less bow hunters and they generally take more time with a shot because they rarely get a 2nd one. So there is less worry in needing to know where they are.

    Not to mention the fact that a 308 round or 30-06 which are probably two of the most common calibers of hunting rifles is much more powerful than arrow.

    If I saw a reasonable explanation for suppressors while hunting than I would entertain the necessity. However, noise pollution IMO is not great enough of a concern and there are other reasonable options for hearing protection.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    What make is your Garand?

    You seem to be operating under a couple of inaccurate assumptions.

    1. Most hunter - regardless of weapon - take their time with a shot because they rarely get a second.

    2. You keep coming back to you getting to decide what the needs are of another. Let me ask you a question - do you ride a geared bike?

  47. #47
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post

    2. You keep coming back to you getting to decide what the needs are of another. Let me ask you a question - do you ride a geared bike?
    How on earth does the gears or lack of gears on my bike affect the safety of anyone around me?
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by kjlued View Post
    How on earth does the gears or lack of gears on my bike affect the safety of anyone around me?
    They allow you to go so much faster than the hikers and horseback riders that collisions are sure to happen.

    I just feel like you don't need to have more than one gear.

    For the safety of the hikers and horseback riders, of course.

  49. #49
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,956
    Quote Originally Posted by alphajaguars View Post
    They allow you to go so much faster than the hikers and horseback riders that collisions are sure to happen.

    I just feel like you don't need to have more than one gear.

    For the safety of the hikers and horseback riders, of course.
    Even with one gear, I can gear it however I want which means I can reach the same speeds.

    I also challenge you to go faster on a standard geared store bought mountain bike than an average horse at a consistent speed. Sure, maybe on a gravel road down hill you may hit speeds roughly equaling but average horses can do this on flat and consistently.
    So any day you want to race a horse on a bike, let me know. I can arrange it.

    That being said, some trails systems do have laws limiting the speeds of bicycles for the safety of other users. I guess that is infringing on the cyclists rights.

    Not to mention the number of people killed by all bicycles every year due to speed vs the number killed in hunting accidents is a lot lower.

    Your arguments are just ridiculous but entertaining nonetheless.
    Just stick it in granny and start grinding.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: alphajaguars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    903
    You sure that the number of cyclists killed in accidents per year is less than those killed in hunting accidents?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MC60 headshok "stuck" noise on rebound
    By jlself in forum Cannondale
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-25-2014, 10:04 AM
  2. Bandit 29 - rear suspension "knocking" noise?
    By Earthpig in forum Transition Bikes
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-31-2012, 02:24 PM
  3. Strange "slooshing" noise from rear brake
    By hankscorpio in forum Brake Time
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-10-2012, 06:56 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-25-2012, 08:54 AM
  5. 09 Talas 36 RC2, blown cartridge? Strange Noise "Video"
    By wantadhbike in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2011, 03:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •