Suppressors are illegal in Canada

apexanimal said:
An mp5sd isn't a suppressor. Ive met so many cops like you training and shooting with them over the years, the ones with the biggest mouths were always absolutely dogshlt at the range, so no offense but the fact you diddled the trigger on an mp5 a few times does not make you an expert on suppressors or anything frankly. Theyre safety equipment and should be available to the general public, again i probably need to say this a few more times but an MP5SD isnt a suppressor, and would still be prohibited regardless of whether sound moderators/suppressors are legalized.
Click to expand...

The amazing facts displayed and your credentials are astounding and on par with most of CGN I must say !

Here's a tid bit though. The folks with MP5SD don't consider them safety equipment ! Laugh2Laugh2

GerardSamija said:
Oh, he's police? That explains it... I'll not bother arguing with his idiocy and boasts, as there is never any point arguing with a cop about anything: they know they are right, by definition. I think it's part of the application process - they ask if you're always right and wonder why other people are so stupid, and if you check the 'yes' box instead of the 'no' box you're basically hired.
Click to expand...

Name calling and organizational insults.

Maybe you can turn the volume up on Ian's vids and make a better argument. Laugh2
 
https://gundebate.ca/silencers/



Supporting Information for the Video:



Amount of Noise Reduction

Sound Moderators reduce the sound of a firearm enough to make it safe. Often, traditional hearing protection is still recommended in addition to a Sound Moderator.

This Study by the Health & Safety Laboratory in the UK published in 2004 looked at the noise levels encountered at various positions around both moderated and un-moderated firearms and made recommendations on hearing protection to stay safe.

Interestingly, the study found that while using un-moderated firearms, traditional hearing protectors which were predicted to provide adequate protection according to standardized methods, were found to be inadequate as they did not always reduce the peak exposure below 140dB.

It also found that Sound Moderators do NOT give any reduction to the noise of a bullet in flight and therefore gave little to no noise reduction forward of the firearm.



Rarely Used in Crimes

Silencers are rarely used in crimes, according to a 10-year study published in 2007 by the Western Criminology Review in the United States. Researchers estimated silencers were involved in 30 to 40 of the 75,000 federal criminal cases filed each year. The study found only two federal cases over a 10 year period involving a silencer used in murders. To put this number in perspective, environment Canada estimates that 10 people per year are killed or injured by lighting strikes.




Countries with a degree of legal use for Civilians

Our research found that the majority of G7 nations and many others have recognized the benefits of these devices. These countries include the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Poland. We are sure there are other counties in addition to the ones we've listed.



Benefits

Sound Moderators are prohibited in Austrailia, but when a University was asked to do a study and offer their opinion on the topic, the authors’ opinions were that the prohibition should be lifted. The study examines the many benefits associated with the use of these devices.

Edith Cowen University in Austrailia published their study in 2011 on the implications of allowing Sound Moderators for use on firearms for game and faral management. It was prepared for the Game Council of New South Wales. The studies conclusion is no surprise:

“It is the opinion of the report-panel that when the documented advantages of sound
moderators are compared against a perceived amount of crime that criminalization of the
device purports to prevent, then it is argued that continued denial of the benefits is no
longer in the public interest.”
 
Dukester said:
Here's a tid bit though. The folks with MP5SD don't consider them safety equipment ! Laugh2Laugh2
Click to expand...

Nah, it's just another tool, nothing fancy about them. At the end of the days, people just want to come back home. MP5SD isn't that quiet as people think especially if you are shooting 9mm p+ rounds and you really want p+ for 9mm.
 
Dukester said:
The amazing facts displayed and your credentials are astounding and on par with most of CGN I must say !

Here's a tid bit though. The folks with MP5SD don't consider them safety equipment ! Laugh2Laugh2



Name calling and organizational insults.

Maybe you can turn the volume up on Ian's vids and make a better argument. Laugh2
Click to expand...

Your literal entire point is "sUpPreSsoRs aRe dAnGeRoUs bEcAuSe iVe sHoT a mP5!" Lmao
 
apexanimal said:
Your literal entire point is "sUpPreSsoRs aRe dAnGeRoUs bEcAuSe iVe sHoT a mP5!" Lmao
Click to expand...

Cops often love to keep the fun stuff for themselves. I spotted a Crosman 2240 with a lot of customization work on CraigsList about 9 years ago, and as one of the mods was a 'silencer' which the seller was saying made it "very, very quiet," I sent him an email suggesting he delete the ad and consider deleting the device as well, before he got the attention of the police. He emailed back thanking me for the suggestion, and did in fact delete the ad. He went on in the email about why he'd posted the ad like that:

I grew up with my dad being the head of the RCMP crime lab which meant i could shoot any gun i wanted on Saturdays.
Click to expand...

He offered quite a few more details, but that'll suffice. Essentially he grew up thinking any sort of gun was something to which we could have access. Machine guns, silencers, whatever. So it hadn't occurred to him that such a device on an air pistol might ruffle police feathers, because it was police who were using such things for fun. Many police are scared of the public, so they push against our rights to have the sorts of things they take for granted among themselves. I've had a number of other communications online and face to face with other police and police-related folks who confirmed such things.

And we can see it in the news all the time; police aren't really here primarily to protect us, rather they are doing their jobs to get paid, their priorities are to stay safe themselves, to get the 'bad guys' after the fact, and often to help us after the crime has been committed (if we're still alive to be helped). Civilians with firearms are bad enough in RCMP and local police minds. Making them quieter, even a little bit? That's a cop's nightmare. Not because such devices actually increase danger to them. Rather it's because it diminishes their sense of being in control, of having something more than us, because they're 'special.' Part of why that seems strange to me is that the average RCMP or VPD officer spends less time training with their firearms every year than the average PAL/RPAL holder. A lot less. They are far from experts in this field.
 
^ yeah ive worked with alot of police orgs and have seen some heinous shlt they do when they take their works guns to the range with their family. Many truly think they are above the law or something special. Part of it is the thin blue line mentality where they pretend like theyre in frequent heavy combat in Canada as if they were LA SWAT lol. Ive met a ton of great ERT guys but an alarming number of pure FUBAR types.
 
Working at a gun range, about the most terrifying words I could hear were, "I'm in the Police" or "I'm in the military"... you just know it's gonna be a bad day...

An Australian cop visited the range one time, after we were done shooting, he told me that my 10 seconds of instruction made more sense and allowed him to shoot better than any training he had received from his police department. I'm flattered... and UTTERLY TERRIFIED...

Another time, an Israeli Parliamentary security guard came to the range... he requested like 200 rounds of 9X19... couldn't hit anything... I really felt bad about letting him leave, without teaching him how to shoot, but he didn't speak English, and wasn't interested in learning... I think they watch too many TV dramas about the Mossad over there... they like to "act" like Mossad agents, with all kinds of funny, dramatic movements... but can't actually shoot...

And of course more than a few IDF conscripts... they don't know anything about guns...

OH yes and then there was the US soldier... he kept insisting on engaging the safety on every gun I gave him AFTER he finished shooting... I asked him not to do that... he blew a gasket over it... [remember, with a mil-spec AR trigger, you can't drop the hammer when the safety is engaged, and you can't engage the safety when the hammer is dropped. We don't put guns back in the arsenal with the action cocked...] the safety is for when you are given permission to chamber a round [weapon status "Red"], but are not yet ready to fire [weapon status "black"]...
 
1ABNDT said:
https://gundebate.ca/silencers/


**Image and video linking functions will be enabled after you have contributed more to the forum**

Supporting Information for the Video:



Amount of Noise Reduction

Sound Moderators reduce the sound of a firearm enough to make it safe. Often, traditional hearing protection is still recommended in addition to a Sound Moderator.

This Study by the Health & Safety Laboratory in the UK published in 2004 looked at the noise levels encountered at various positions around both moderated and un-moderated firearms and made recommendations on hearing protection to stay safe.

Interestingly, the study found that while using un-moderated firearms, traditional hearing protectors which were predicted to provide adequate protection according to standardized methods, were found to be inadequate as they did not always reduce the peak exposure below 140dB.

It also found that Sound Moderators do NOT give any reduction to the noise of a bullet in flight and therefore gave little to no noise reduction forward of the firearm.



Rarely Used in Crimes

Silencers are rarely used in crimes, according to a 10-year study published in 2007 by the Western Criminology Review in the United States. Researchers estimated silencers were involved in 30 to 40 of the 75,000 federal criminal cases filed each year. The study found only two federal cases over a 10 year period involving a silencer used in murders. To put this number in perspective, environment Canada estimates that 10 people per year are killed or injured by lighting strikes.




Countries with a degree of legal use for Civilians

Our research found that the majority of G7 nations and many others have recognized the benefits of these devices. These countries include the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Poland. We are sure there are other counties in addition to the ones we've listed.



Benefits

Sound Moderators are prohibited in Austrailia, but when a University was asked to do a study and offer their opinion on the topic, the authors’ opinions were that the prohibition should be lifted. The study examines the many benefits associated with the use of these devices. Various research papers and scientific data only testify to the benefits of silencers. In college, I turned to https://ca.edubirdie.com/research-paper-writing-services when researching the impact of sound intensity on the human body. Their experts also share this opinion. Edith Cowen University in Austrailia published their study in 2011 on the implications of allowing Sound Moderators for use on firearms for game and faral management. It was prepared for the Game Council of New South Wales. The studies conclusion is no surprise:

“It is the opinion of the report-panel that when the documented advantages of sound
moderators are compared against a perceived amount of crime that criminalization of the
device purports to prevent, then it is argued that continued denial of the benefits is no
longer in the public interest.”
Click to expand...

That's it. It's like they make decisions based on movies, not reality. I thought it was already obvious to everyone that suppressors don't make shots completely silent, they just reduce the noise level to a safe level for hearing. Who are these decisions aimed at? I mean, if people don't know this, it means they don't use weapons and they don't care. What's the point of prohibiting it.
 
Last edited:
Just need to sell better: Hey liberals, how would you like to #### with shooters with a safety product availability, that makes shooting more expensive, guns longer, and biases them towards airgun velocities. Your in! Let's talk... It's a long gun prosthesis...
 
Enfieldfan said:
Now use sub sonic and repeat the demo, so we have all information to sound suppression.
Click to expand...
My understanding is suppressors take the commercial jet engine sound down to loud rock concert. Perhaps something like a 22 short or cb, fired with a suppressor, would sound like what's portrayed in Hollywood. Of course, at anything more than say 10 yards, one would be quieter and more deadly using a rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom