Suppressors?

[blueskies]

I lived in South Africa which has the highest crime and murder rates in the world. There are over 50 murders per day, many with (illegal) firearms.

Suppressors are also completely legal in South Africa and you can buy them at a gun store. So criminals have easy access to both firearms and suppressors and yet I do not know of a single documented case of a suppressor being used in a murder or robbery in South Africa.

Criminals have no use for suppressors, they add length to a handgun making it more difficult to conceal. The noise of firing a rifle is also a very effective intimidation tactic for a criminal.

The people that write the laws don't know how things work in the real world and watch too many James Bond movies. That is why a blow dart is a prohibited weapon a .50 cal Barrett is non-restricted.

I enjoyed using my suppressed .22 for target shooting, it made it much more enjoyable.

 

[albertacoyotecaller]

I enjoyed using my suppressed .22 for target shooting, it made it much more enjoyable.

You lying poaching criminal! Lol. Did you hear me? I said you poaching....

Oh ya, I don't have to yell as you still have your hearing intact.

How many endangered animals did you poach? It must have taken many years of therapy to change your criminal behavior.

 

[hometownhero]

You lying poaching criminal! Lol. Did you hear me? I said you poaching....

Oh ya, I don't have to yell as you still have your hearing intact.

How many endangered animals did you poach? It must have taken many years of therapy to change your criminal behavior.

He was probably shooting elephants and tigers today. Maybe he hit up the credit union as well. Because we all know that with a suppressor you cant even hear a gunshot

 

[Suputin]

The level of ignorance being displayed in this post by fellow gun owners is in a word .... disappointing.

For those who think there is no use for sound suppressors and only criminals etc need silencers and silencers will increase crime and poaching, please read this paper. A lot of time was spent researching the subject in order to counter the thoughts and feelings approach to banning objects.

http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Images/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

 

[DG Photography]

opps!

 

[DG Photography]

Would love if it was legal but you guys need stronger arguments.

Ear protection is lame (Too obvious to detail why) and neighbour reasons too.

I'm not an anti at all but negative sides seem to outweight positive ones.

Really! Yes you are an anti !

 

[dan belisle]

So safety (hearing loss protection), being a good neighbour and having concern for your fellow citizens aren't good enough reasons for suppressors? Interesting logic. - dan

 

[electricjesus]

Would donate to a lawsuit about this.

 

[Forest1488]

Actually, when I move back to Canada, suppressors will be one of the things I will miss most about the UK. Target shooting with a suppressed 308 is quite enjoyable with the edge taken off the blam blam. Hunting rats in the middle of the night on a farm with a suppressed 22 with a NV scope is too much fun for words. Keeping the noise down and taking out some vermin is much appreciated with the locals. Then again it's all about health and safety here.

There are the usual ignorant wankers and tossers on CGN who don't get the big picture on any topic. Then again, no matter what you are into, they is always a small proportion of people who whine (lots here in the UK) and bellyache yet come up with no constructive arguments one way or the other.

 

[SeamusMac]

Suppressors have been cool to fool around with while I've been here in NZ but I haven't felt the need to front the cash for a 22 suppressor or one for my 308. They're definitely useful but in most of the situations I've been in it's just as easy ( cheaper) to throw in some ear plugs. I wpn't really miss em, but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Kanaima]

My previous gun club WAS shut down because of noise complaints. Suppressors would have resolved that issue.

 

[ShawnM]

I believe that if you shoot a rifle people around should be aware of what is going on and the noise is doing that work pretty well.

I don't see any use for silencer other than illegal ones.

If you want to protect your ears, invest in a 15$ muffs.

I am for gun rights and i would like for them (suppressors) to be legal but that position (for ears and noise pollution) is just too absurd.

Here is another lame argument that i found for you guys !

It reduce the amount of lead that might be inhaled by the shooter and others around them !

Don't be mad. Its just how i see it. It might change.

I feel your pain here Rob911... Intelligent discourse between firearms enthusiasts can be rare at the best of times. The community fractures itself by the "rabid" owners/hobbyists lumping people with differing opinions as "anti" even if it's the furthest thing from the truth. It's something the liberal media and politicians do all the time. If you're not all the way with us then you're with them. In this case if you don't believe that suppressors should be available to the common citizen then you are a gun-hating "anti" with no education as to the subject at all. Sounds very similar to a Liberal campaign a few years ago where CBC released "statistics" showing that if you had a post-secondary education you were some high percentage more likely to vote Liberal than another party. The idea was to paint any dissenting votes as "unintelligent" and thereby marginalizing opposition. The wild conclusions that if we don't feel suppressors should be legal then "we are assuming all hunters/shooters/etc. are criminals etc." are the same.

I've been involved with firearms for as long as I can remember, probably even longer than many posters on this thread have been alive. I've read countless opinion papers on the topic and a couple included arguments for/against suppressors. I've been an organizer, a voter, and an educator on the general topic and guess what guys: I STILL don't believe there is a slam-dunk argument for suppressors. Would I like to have one? It could be pretty cool, I am curious as to how some of my favorite rifles would perform with one. But I can't justify that as a reason to let every person who can possess a firearm have one.

Yes I believe poaching would increase substantially if suppressors were commonplace. And if you don't have room for my opinion in your discussions then ask yourselves why the "anti's" should have room for yours?

 

[shawn]

But I can't justify that as a reason to let every person who can possess a firearm have one.

Why not, explain it. All your BS and you have yet to explain how it would be bad.

Yes I believe poaching would increase substantially if suppressors were commonplace

Pure BS and you know it.

Show us where this has happened in the places that they are legal. And how does the arguement that laws dont effect criminals fly for the LGR but when it comes to suppressors some how laws magicly work on criminals?

And if you don't have room for my opinion in your discussions then ask yourselves why the "anti's" should have room for yours?

There is room for your opinion, but there is also room for us to call you on your BS.

Shawn

 

[ShawnM]

Why not, explain it. All your BS and you have yet to explain how it would be bad.



Pure BS and you know it.

Show us where this has happened in the places that they are legal. And how does the arguement that laws dont effect criminals fly for the LGR but when it comes to suppressors some how laws magicly work on criminals?



There is room for your opinion, but there is also room for us to call you on your BS.

Shawn

See, you may not realize this so I'll explain it to you: Calling someone else's opinions "BS" isn't really leaving room for their opinions. It's dismissive and rude. I haven't done that to you, so please adjust your attitude.

 

[JayCarver]

I believe that the hearing issues alone is enough of of reason to push for this. Like others have said, criminals are going to be criminals no matter what the laws say, thats why there criminals. I'm sure there isn't going to be a law abiding citizen that is going to do something wrong just because there rifle will be less loud.

Of all our silly gun laws that we have this is one that I could see getting changed. Not tomorrow thou thats for sure.

 

[shawn]

See, you may not realize this so I'll explain it to you: Calling someone else's opinions "BS" isn't really leaving room for their opinions. It's dismissive and rude. I haven't done that to you, so please adjust your attitude.

I never said you cant have an opinion. I said your opinion that having suppressors not prohibited would some how magicly raise suppressor crime was BS.

Your right it is rude and dismissive, because that is the only way you respond. You have been asked more than once to provide substantiation that legallizing suppressors would raise crime. And all you do is ramble on about how everyone is trambling on your opinion and it is fracturing the community.

And everyone else has the right to call your BS BS because that is their opinion. Or does this dont tramble on my opinion thing only count for you?

Shawn

 

[albertacoyotecaller]

Lost cause guys.

Plus what's with the "oh drop dead" comment?

Greg

 

[Rick911]

I feel your pain here Rob911... Intelligent discourse between firearms enthusiasts can be rare at the best of times. The community fractures itself by the "rabid" owners/hobbyists lumping people with differing opinions as "anti" even if it's the furthest thing from the truth. It's something the liberal media and politicians do all the time. If you're not all the way with us then you're with them. In this case if you don't believe that suppressors should be available to the common citizen then you are a gun-hating "anti" with no education as to the subject at all. Sounds very similar to a Liberal campaign a few years ago where CBC released "statistics" showing that if you had a post-secondary education you were some high percentage more likely to vote Liberal than another party. The idea was to paint any dissenting votes as "unintelligent" and thereby marginalizing opposition. The wild conclusions that if we don't feel suppressors should be legal then "we are assuming all hunters/shooters/etc. are criminals etc." are the same.

I've been involved with firearms for as long as I can remember, probably even longer than many posters on this thread have been alive. I've read countless opinion papers on the topic and a couple included arguments for/against suppressors. I've been an organizer, a voter, and an educator on the general topic and guess what guys: I STILL don't believe there is a slam-dunk argument for suppressors. Would I like to have one? It could be pretty cool, I am curious as to how some of my favorite rifles would perform with one. But I can't justify that as a reason to let every person who can possess a firearm have one.

Yes I believe poaching would increase substantially if suppressors were commonplace. And if you don't have room for my opinion in your discussions then ask yourselves why the "anti's" should have room for yours?

Good read. Thanks for this.

 

[Rapt]

Why do think its important for everyone to know that you're doing?

Do you post your whereabouts and activities on facebook or twitter constantly? Do you announce your bedroom activities with your partner via loudspeaker to the neighbourhood when you are there? ... I'll bet not... so why would it be necessary when shooting?

Don't tell me its "safer"... Because most of the danger if someone is unsafe is to people so far down range that they will never hear it, just receive it... SO the safety is still dependent on the shooter being safe.

BUt the best argument against them being prohibited is there is no reason, and no need for them to be, its just another example of the government infringing the rights of Canadians, ALL Canadians, to own property.

I believe that if you shoot a rifle people around should be aware of what is going on and the noise is doing that work pretty well.

I don't see any use for silencer other than illegal ones.

If you want to protect your ears, invest in a 15$ muffs.

I am for gun rights and i would like for them (suppressors) to be legal but that position (for ears and noise pollution) is just too absurd.

Here is another lame argument that i found for you guys !

It reduce the amount of lead that might be inhaled by the shooter and others around them !

Don't be mad. Its just how i see it. It might change.

 

[electricjesus]

I've been involved with firearms for as long as I can remember, probably even longer than many posters on this thread have been alive.

yet you have been here since may.

I'm not stabbing anyone in the back. I failed to see the gun ownership members rules that said we all had to agree 100% on every issue. If you cant stand a differing view point you are in exactly the same trap that the anti's are in. They paint us all with the same brush and brow-beating people that speak up with different view points facilitates that.

Anyway.
The whole "people will poach more": negated by bows. Does the potential reduction in poaching by banning bows justify it? Does the reduction in gun crime (naturally, to be taken up by other weapons) created by banning guns justify banning guns? Point is you cannot justify a ban by potential misuse, as this breaks the fundamental tenet of a free country, that one is to be considered innocent unless proven guilty. The reason others are coming down on you hard is because you do not realize the philosophical incompatibility of holding the beliefs "suppressors should be illegal" and "supporting gun rights"; you are saying one thing should be regulated because of potential for misuse, and something should be allowed despite potential for misuse. You are in the same trap as the antis who have no problem with knives, but want to ban guns.

The "people need to know somebody is shooting": why? This sounds like the idiotic argument for loud pipes on motorcycles "people need to hear me or they will run over me" "people need to hear me or they will run into my bullet trajectory"

How many clubs have had noise complaints which would not have happened with suppressors? England got them legalized based on a lawsuit that suppressors were personal protective equipment.

Saves money for indoor ranges too as they need less sound proofing.