Full-auto/Suppressors or Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions

Full-auto/Suppressors or Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions?

  • Full-auto/Suppressors

    Votes: 58 14.8%

  • Integrated ATT/No Shooting Restrictions

    Votes: 334 85.2%
  • Total voters
    392
Auto would be fun to own, but I can't realistically see myself using it more than once or twice. Suppressors would be very appreciated for gun owners and hoplophobes alike for shooting near urban areas.
But if forced to pick, I'd rather be able to hunt with my AR15 than have a suppressor.
 
Don't care about full auto.........its for AMERICANS who can't aim. ;)

I do wish to carry NON ANTIQUE revolvers in the bush tho.
 
I want full Auto and suppressors.

I want to use suppressors the most, due to the fact that most hearing protection available on the market still does not provide sufficient hearing protection to reduce the sound pressure level to safe levels. A suppressor also significantly reduces the environmental impact of the noise pollution as well as not pissing off the ranges neighbors.

Full auto would be down right fun and I wouldn't think twice about putting $500 of .308 through my m14 if it was full auto.

I don't hunt and rarely use my firearms on crown land, so I do agree on rolling the ATTs into our licences and allowing restricted hunting, it isn't as "useful" to me as a suppressor would be.
 
I cant vote on this one. What I would like is supressors and being able to carry "restricteds" hunting. In other words, have them declassified. I would especially like to be able to carry something light and appropriate for wilderness defense (revolver, prolly), instead of something bigger and heavier.
 
Integrated ATT and no arbitrary shooting restrictions. If I am allowed to buy the gun I should be allowed to transport it. The current Restricted range-only shooting limitations make little sense since restricted status is arbitrary and not based on things such as caliber or effective lethal range. If guns were restricted based on size, such as handguns, or power and lethality such as big-bore rifles that can put holes in things from miles away, then it would make sense to restrict when and where they can be carried and used. Basing it on scary factor is ridiculous.

Same with hunting regulations. I can understand using minimum caliber and power restrictions so as to prevent unnecessary suffering, but the gun that bullet is fired from should not affect eligibility based on anything other than functionality. A deer is not going to know the difference between a restricted and a nonrestricted if they're both shooting the same bullets.

Same goes for magazine limits. If I am allowed to shoot 10 rounds from one firearm, why not from another firearm?If I am allowed to shoot 30 from a rimfire, why not from a centerfire?
 
i'd personly rather have rull auto. supressors not intrested in, i like the sound of guns and the noise doesnt bother me. then i could possibly get some of my dream guns like MP40, PPSH41, browning 1919, Browning M2, Minigun, and many more.
 
Because 30 rounds of .223 REM from an AR15 will do a lot of damage if it falls into the wrong hands and used during criminal activity. (eg. that shooting for the bank of America in the US like 15 years ago..2 robbers with AK47 equipped with 100 rounds magazines basically destroyed the police)

But I think 5 rounds is a bit stupid...10 rounds is better.
But our gun laws are alot better than British gun laws....at least semi auto are allowed here.

Stevebot-7 said:
Integrated ATT and no arbitrary shooting restrictions. If I am allowed to buy the gun I should be allowed to transport it. The current Restricted range-only shooting limitations make little sense since restricted status is arbitrary and not based on things such as caliber or effective lethal range. If guns were restricted based on size, such as handguns, or power and lethality such as big-bore rifles that can put holes in things from miles away, then it would make sense to restrict when and where they can be carried and used. Basing it on scary factor is ridiculous.

Same with hunting regulations. I can understand using minimum caliber and power restrictions so as to prevent unnecessary suffering, but the gun that bullet is fired from should not affect eligibility based on anything other than functionality. A deer is not going to know the difference between a restricted and a nonrestricted if they're both shooting the same bullets.

Same goes for magazine limits. If I am allowed to shoot 10 rounds from one firearm, why not from another firearm?If I am allowed to shoot 30 from a rimfire, why not from a centerfire?
Click to expand...
 
andrew3081 said:
Because 30 rounds of .223 REM from an AR15 will do a lot of damage if it falls into the wrong hands and used during criminal activity. (eg. that shooting for the bank of America in the US like 15 years ago..2 robbers with AK47 equipped with 100 rounds magazines basically destroyed the police)

But I think 5 rounds is a bit stupid...10 rounds is better.
But our gun laws are alot better than British gun laws....at least semi auto are allowed here.
Click to expand...

What a typical anti response.
 
andrew3081 said:
Because 30 rounds of .223 REM from an AR15 will do a lot of damage if it falls into the wrong hands and used during criminal activity. (eg. that shooting for the bank of America in the US like 15 years ago..2 robbers with AK47 equipped with 100 rounds magazines basically destroyed the police)

But I think 5 rounds is a bit stupid...10 rounds is better.
But our gun laws are alot better than British gun laws....at least semi auto are allowed here.
Click to expand...

So someone willing to go shoot a bunch of people would be unwilling to risk spending 5 seconds to drill out a rivet, or just buying a 30 round unpinned mag that was smuggled from the US, or while we're at it, a 60 rounder, or 150 round drum?

I voted for the integrated ATT/no shooting restrictions, although I would rather see mag limits gone before anything else.
 
I voted for Suppressors/Full-Auto, as I don't really hunt - however - I'm not super interested in Full-auto, and much more interested in having 30 round magazines and suppressors. Even then, 30 round magazines > suppressors for me.
 
I would love the oportunity to register, possess, and use a supressor for each of my firearms including the shotguns. I don't care if they have no hunting applications, the range applications alone would make it worth while. Also by "range" I mean any place save to discharge a firearm without injury or damage to personal property (IE; anywhere I could potentially hunt).

Suppressor
Suppressor
Suppressor
Suppressor
One for everyday of the week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom