More Rhode Island Stupid….

[hunt4riches]

The sound of gunfire could emotionally cripple the residents and cause all out pandemonium. One of the best parts about moving to New Hampshire has been hearing rifle fire when going about my daily business. Saturday mornings during deer season I would awake to far off shots. I find it oddly comforting.

My wife is still getting used to that. She's from just outside Newburgh NY and says "where I come from, that means someone died". She went full libtard on me when I said that when people die from a gunshot it's not necessarily a bad thing. My brain was grinding the home-defense gear...

 

[hunt4riches]

5.56x45 and 5.45x39 are designed to be used with FMJ bullets at full auto or burst fire against humans. Burst firing into a deer would reduce the level of edible-ness, in addition to breaking RI's full auto ban.

dude you put 'burst fire' and 'edible-ness' in the same sentence -- totally worthy of rep points! Speaking of edibleness, we left a chunk of prime rib in a freezer for 3 years. The flavor was epic!!!!! Even better than traditionally aged beef.

 

[seraxmd]

Not trying to be a d*ck.....But I disagree that maiming a soldier with multiple rounds of 5.56 NATO FMJ is humane, while killing a deer with the same, is not. I would bet many a wounded vet would disagree as well. Oh and you can buy Lake City green tip (penetrator) NATO 5.56 at your local Walmart store.*


*Not so much lately.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I guess i was just questioning the whole "inhumane" argument against using a (.223) rifle to deer hunt in RI (or "most states"....as stated in the OP). I really see no difference in humaneness, with respect to what is a legal, and what is not a legal, projectile. I'm pretty sure a 12 gauge slug, leaving a large exit wound, would impact, "edibility," as well. But the post was about culling the population, humanely, not dinner at the lodge. Lastly, I was assuming a single, well-placed shot, not burst fire or full auto. (But if the deer start shooting back, go for it.)

This is all academic. Whether you believe .223 or NATO 5.56 is effective or not, it is banned for hunting against deer in a number of states where hunting is allowed by centerfire rifle. It is allowed in others. I don't know the number of states and I don't know the reason but I have always been told it is because the caliber is too small to reliably kill the deer. As for military use, there is no point in debating the humaneness of .223. Going to .223 had a lot more to do with politics, weight, rifle, etc. than stopping power. The simple fact is that if you get hit in the torso with a .30-06 you're not getting up again. If you get hit with a .223, you've got a better chance.

BUT, I want to know how the Town of New Shoreham can break state law and get away with it. I still have yet to get an answer and I cannot find an exemption in the state laws that would allow anyone, even contract hired cullers, to do it any other way than with slugs. And frankly, I think you have to be out of your mind shooting .223 on that island. It's a giant suburb. If you miss, that round could go anywhere.

 

[seraxmd]

This is all academic. I want to know how the Town of New Shoreham can break state law and get away with it.

As you state, if the law is that no centerfire rifles can be used to hunt, never mind the use of suppressors, then no exception should be allowed. However, as stated above, I've seen police put down wounded or rabid animals with a sidearm. Perhaps Block Island will not label it a "hunting" endeavor, thereby skirting any hunting laws. My point was to try to determine the origin (or the logic) of the law in the first place. Then again, it is New England, and I should not expect that all laws apply equally to its citizenry. Nor should I expect that legislation originates from fact-based, or even common sense, motives.

 

[seraxmd]

Alternatively, they could release a pack (?) of coyotes on the island, allow them to cull the deer population, then grant Tk491 a special weekend license to "humanely" cull the coyote population with suppressed .223 fire.

 

[n1bsbri]

Alternatively, they could release a pack (?) of coyotes on the island, allow them to cull the deer population, then grant Tk491 a special weekend license to "humanely" cull the coyote population with suppressed .223 fire.

I can think of multiple ways that scenario could go to hell.

 

[seraxmd]

I can think of multiple ways that scenario could go to hell.

Me too, but it might be worth the price of the license.

 

[Jonny5]

One additional thing to note on .223/5.56 vs deer is the area you are hunting. In the South .223 is seen as a good choice for deer because they are typically smaller and thinner. Against New England deer in winter with a bit of fat and skin I wouldn't EVER make .223 a preferred deer round. Could it kill a deer reliably? Yes it could. Will it do it every time? Probably not.

Hunters must also be concerned about how far the deer can travel after being shot. The farther it runs the harder it can be to track. Property boundaries must also be considered as walking onto the neighbors property with a loaded rifle may cause mass hysteria. Although there are laws (I believe) to protect hunters and game in this situation we all know how well people react.

On regards to suppressors I would love to see RI make them legal for EVERYONE. If I have to defend my home in the middle of the night the suppressor could very well save my hearing. If you've ever shot in a confirmed space you'll prefer to only do it once and your ears will hate you regardless.

 

[RedSoxandAKs]

One additional thing to note on .223/5.56 vs deer is the area you are hunting. In the South .223 is seen as a good choice for deer because they are typically smaller and thinner. Against New England deer in winter with a bit of fat and skin I wouldn't EVER make .223 a preferred deer round. Could it kill a deer reliably? Yes it could. Will it do it every time? Probably not.

Hunters must also be concerned about how far the deer can travel after being shot. The farther it runs the harder it can be to track. Property boundaries must also be considered as walking onto the neighbors property with a loaded rifle may cause mass hysteria. Although there are laws (I believe) to protect hunters and game in this situation we all know how well people react.

On regards to suppressors I would love to see RI make them legal for EVERYONE. If I have to defend my home in the middle of the night the suppressor could very well save my hearing. If you've ever shot in a confirmed space you'll prefer to only do it once and your ears will hate you regardless.

Just wait until the first wounded deer wanders into a residential neighborhood or store parking lot. Any of you watch Chasing Tail...it's a group of hunters(Bow) in suburban Conn. who get special permits to cull deer on peoples private property. One episode a guy hits a deer...it takes off and when he finds it it is dead on a guys front lawn...The Moonbats formed an angry mob as he tried to claim his kill, was pretty funny to watch actually.

 

[frenchman]

The sound of gunfire could emotionally cripple the residents and cause all out pandemonium. One of the best parts about moving to New Hampshire has been hearing rifle fire when going about my daily business. Saturday mornings during deer season I would awake to far off shots. I find it oddly comforting.

Bah, that's nothing. Where I used to work, I could hear the sound of full auto freedom, from the sig academy. There were days where it sounded like Beirut in 82/83.
Awesome.

 

[seraxmd]

Point taken...larger game makes a kill more likely. Still, what's the difference if you walk onto the guy's front lawn with a "killy" looking crossbow, and there's a dead deer with an arrow sticking out of it's ass?

 

[caboose84]

Looks like the cull is off due to the inability to use suppressed weapons

http://www.providencejournal.com/br...ck-islands-deer-herd-postponed-for-a-year.ece