Legalizing suppressors

Ardent

Ardent

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
818   0   2
Location
Northern BC, Coastal BC, or Africa. Depends on the
I'd like to get a letter campaign started to push for the legalization of suppressors, and the reason I post this in hunting and sporting arms is this is the target audience I'd like to reach. As many of us have probably experienced, wearing ear protection when hunting is not always practical, and moreover, it would sure be nice to be able to suppress the .22's on the gopher patch in order not to unduly upset livestock, your hearing, and neighbours.

Suppressors are legal in many Europeon countries, heck required in some districts, and are sensible technology. Lets approach this from the health, public courtesy, and sensibilty standpoint, and point out that the rifle suppressors we wish to use are not stereotypical evil things like hollywood would have us believe. For me my greatest yearning for a suppressor is during gopher shoots and anything else high volume and snap shooting.

Anyone interested in helping out?
 
You make a lot of good points to support the legalization of sound suppressors. However, all of those points have a flip side that could be used to support the ban of firearms. Think about it......... In addition, its not too likely that it would ever happen anyway from a risk versus reward standpoint.
 
Don't forget clay target shooters. If any group could benefit from quieter guns it is trap, skeet and sporting clays shooters. Those who live around the ranges would benefit as well.

I am equally sure that handgunners, especially those that use indoor ranges, would jump on the bandwagon.

The guns do not have to be silenced, just moderated to the point where ear damage is unlikely. The best "ammo" for this argument would be to compile health care statistics to show the medical costs associated with treating deafness and aural nerve damage.

Unfortunately raising this subject in Canada is much like discussing euthanasia or other controversial subjects - no one wants to have their name associated with the cause. People automatically assume criminal intent.

A well thought out, properly documented presentation from a group such as the CSSA would be the best way to start such a campaign. Letters from individuals, even a bunch of individuals, are too easy to categorize as "lunatic fringe" and can be dismissed out of hand. Perhaps the Canadian Medical Association or the Canadian Association of the Deaf could be conscripted. Credibility is everything when trying to change an apparently "sensible" (to the non shooting public) law.

I support what you are trying to do, but I do not believe that a letter writing campaign will help at this point. Perhaps when there is a serious and credible movement to promote the use of suppressors then public opinion in the form of letters to MPs would do some good. Until then, you will just look like a nut case and damage your own cause.

Sharptail
 
Hey, it seems worth a try to me. That law doesn't make sense anymore and as Ardent points out, in many other countries with very oppressive gun laws, suppressors are legal and in cases required. If addressed from a health standpoint and a strong well thought out argument is presented, we might have a chance. I think many of us have all but given up on sensibility in our gun laws, maybe we have to try to change this little thing first.
I'm in, give us some direction Ardent.
 
Presumably if you have hearing damage from shooting as a result of suppressors being banned you could take legal action. Maybe they should ban seat belts to prevent street racing
 
Great idea Everytime I see a german single shot with a supressor I think "gee is'nt that a good idea"

I wonder if a different name would help: "noise pollution mitigation device"or
"Muzzle mounted auxillary hearing protection"
 
It would be an uphill climb but a good place to start might be enlisting the support of township councils in rural municipalities. Usually they understand the need to dispatch nuisance animals and predators and probably would like fewer gunfire-related noise complaints. Then the objective would be getting a resolution passed by federations such as the Rural Ontario Municipalities Association. This would give some political heft to the request.

The second thing I'd do is drop the word "suppressor" and certainly never mention the word "silencer." The term generally used in Europe is "moderator."
 
to own a can...I would pay a one time Tax stamp like the States

and if the powers that be see that they can make money from it I think it might just happen

Jamie Barkwell
 
BIGREDD said:
In some European Countries they are mandatory on firearms!
Click to expand...

Mandatory in some for hunting purposes...especially considering the proximity of villages, towns and cities in some countries. People would be pissed every weekend when a bunch of hunters are firing off in the woods just a stone-throw away.

I definately agree with legalising suppressors but I'm not sure it's the first priority when we are surrounded by ignorants who want to ban this and that.
 
BIGREDD said:
In some European Countries they are mandatory on firearms!
Click to expand...

Finland is one such place.

I was talking to a hunter from there online last year, who thought the idea of hunting without a suppressor on his rifle would be...
A) Rude to other people in the woods.
B) Distressing for the animals.
C) And bad for the shooters hearing.

I can't argue with that. :D

Also...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland
 
Claybuster said:
It would be an uphill climb but a good place to start might be enlisting the support of township councils in rural municipalities. Usually they understand the need to dispatch nuisance animals and predators and probably would like fewer gunfire-related noise complaints. Then the objective would be getting a resolution passed by federations such as the Rural Ontario Municipalities Association. This would give some political heft to the request.

The second thing I'd do is drop the word "suppressor" and certainly never mention the word "silencer." The term generally used in Europe is "moderator."
Click to expand...

A very good point, and approaching from the angle of moderation, rather than "silencing" or "suppressing" would be a big help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom