Suppressors?
- Thread starter logan1080
- Start date
Civilians can't own them. They often improve accuracy because they capture the gases before they disturb the bullet. They add length to the barrel which affect maneuverability (even the ones that slip over the barrel add some length).
You got that right.
All those neighbourhoods that do NOT want gun clubs (or ranges) opening in their vicinity, should be pushing for allowing suppressors. (Their only objection is the noise. The "stray bullet" objection can easily be countered by the discipline and training of the club's members. Noise is the main criterion they raise.)
Jwirecom109
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Rural Alberta
haha yep
People who make gun laws don't want civilians owning guns period, forget about suppressors. They aren't considering whether the law is ridiculous or not, that wasn't even a factor in their thinking. Whatever law they pass is just the biggest step they were able to get away with at the time towards completely outlawing the ownership of firearms.
I just had this conversation with a friend who is a police officer.
ME: I think suppressors should be legal
HIM: please tell me why they should be legal
ME: To help protect my hearing while shooting.
HIM: hmm, never thought of it that way.
ME: I think suppressors should be legal
HIM: please tell me why they should be legal
ME: To help protect my hearing while shooting.
HIM: hmm, never thought of it that way.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
for the countries where shooting is just another sport NOT some anarchist evil band out for the destruction of mankind, they REQUIRE supressors or at least allow it to be purchased.
Noise IS the number 1 concern from neighbours in those countries so shooters are encouraged to quiet them down.
Europe is the main group of countries that come to mind.
So if Canada is to ever allow Suppressors, the Govt has to accept that shooting is just another sport with noise as its biggest neg. Only then will the possibility of Suppressor ownership be possible.
Jerry
Noise IS the number 1 concern from neighbours in those countries so shooters are encouraged to quiet them down.
Europe is the main group of countries that come to mind.
So if Canada is to ever allow Suppressors, the Govt has to accept that shooting is just another sport with noise as its biggest neg. Only then will the possibility of Suppressor ownership be possible.
Jerry
I can see the political dilemma with suppressors, It seems the same as restricted firearms. So why don't they just apply restricted status to them? I'd gladly get an att and transport it accordingly.
Furthermore, don't they realize that they can make money from things like this?
A tax stamp system would work as well.
Furthermore, don't they realize that they can make money from things like this?
A tax stamp system would work as well.
If it was restricted then I could only take my suppressed rifle to our local 100yard range vs my own farm land where I can safely shoot well over 1000 yards if I want. Thats another thing. Its safer for me to shoot my pistol alone on my own farm land (i have never done this) vs at a gun club where there are multiple other shooters which increases odds of accident. Makes no sense.
As noted they are prohibited (which is insane of course). Accuracy is not affected in our experience however POI is generally lower by a small amount.
Main downside is they get VERY hot under sustained fire and the resultant mirage can make it difficult to use the scope. Covers can be added to help with this.
I can see the point of suppressors. In Europe every 22 lr I saw had a suppressor.
Unfortunately there are idiots with guns that make us look bad, and there are idiots that hate guns also. Until the idiots are gone we're basically screwed.
The same arguement can be made in regards to many other things outside of shooting and hunting.
I know of a few idiots in both the shooting and hunting community that continue to make us all look bad. Unfortunately some of the "antis" (as people on here call them) have only had interactions with the select few I am referring to. A friends neighbour was killed during the shotgun hunt, a neighbour of mine years ago had hunters and shooters on their property without permission on more than one occassion.
Most of us are responsible and respectful. Stewarts of the sport and conservation (in regards to the hunters in the group). But I can see where the lack of a report or suppressed fire could be dangerous especially in southern ontario.
We are precieved poorly and for the most part without reason and it frustrates me also. But I do see where the other side is coming from sometimes even if it is a little far fetched.
As for the hearing issue? Isn't that what hearing protection is for?
Unfortunately there are idiots with guns that make us look bad, and there are idiots that hate guns also. Until the idiots are gone we're basically screwed.
The same arguement can be made in regards to many other things outside of shooting and hunting.
I know of a few idiots in both the shooting and hunting community that continue to make us all look bad. Unfortunately some of the "antis" (as people on here call them) have only had interactions with the select few I am referring to. A friends neighbour was killed during the shotgun hunt, a neighbour of mine years ago had hunters and shooters on their property without permission on more than one occassion.
Most of us are responsible and respectful. Stewarts of the sport and conservation (in regards to the hunters in the group). But I can see where the lack of a report or suppressed fire could be dangerous especially in southern ontario.
We are precieved poorly and for the most part without reason and it frustrates me also. But I do see where the other side is coming from sometimes even if it is a little far fetched.
As for the hearing issue? Isn't that what hearing protection is for?
Got Juice?
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Peoples Republik of Kanukkistan
Why are Suppressors illegal anyways. If you use the argument that there are too many idiots out there comitting crimes with them, well, ok, I suppose you could ALMOST make a case.
But how many suppressors are seized in crimes?
But how many suppressors are seized in crimes?
Idiots with guns are still going to be idiots regardless of a suppressor, barrel length and magazine capacity. Those things do not prevent idiots from being idiots. We have to take courses and tests and have references to get pal and restricted pal, dont we prove we are mature enough to have firearms? The government thinks so. Are we mature enough to have a quieter gun or larger magazine? Apparently not. But yet, carry around all the spare mags u want just as long as they aren't bigger than the law states! Id be more than happy if they asked my references if I was sane enough to have a quieter gun or larger magazine. I just hope they listen to themselves and hear how ridiculous they sound.
Thats the thing, ppl are still going to commit crimes regardless of suppressor or not. The only thing they prevent by not allowing them is from people enjoying a quieter gun which makes fellow shooters and people living near by happier.
The major downside to shooting with a suppressor is that you will never want to do it without a suppressor. Shooting loud is simply uncivilized.
The better question would be "Why do you think suppressors should be illegal?"
Every single answer that can be offered is easily countered as anti-gun bunk.
Suppressors are illegal for the exact same reason Paris Hilton is famous. No reason at all. They are simply illegal because they are illegal. There was no reason for it in the first place and the law has just be perpetuated over the decades without anyone ever asking "Why?"
I'd like to hear how a loud shot could be safer than a quieter shot?
You are assuming that current hearing protection devices are effective. A doctor who specializes in hearing issues did a study which shows they are not and you are still being exposed to damaging levels of noise even when wearing hearing protection.
A sound suppressor is the only way to ensure that damaging levels of gunshot noise do not reach the ears. Sound suppressors also protect those around the shooter and the environment, things that no set of earplugs can do.
There was a study done in the US that shows suppressed firearms are actually less likely to be used in the commission of a crime than a non-suppressed gun. The presence of a suppressor during a crime is very rare, the actual discharge of a suppressed firearm during a crime is an even rarer event to the point of being a non-issue.
There is simply no good reason for them to be prohibited and there was no good reason they were written into the law in the first place. It was just something someone though should be included at the time the laws were written and nobody has challenged it since.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
We should set up a class action lawsuit and SUE the Govt for putting us in danger of injury.
Their negligent laws are denying us the use of ENHANCED safety gear to protect ourselves and those around us.
The govt is forcing us to 'drive unmuffled'.
Irony will be some lawyer may actually win THEN shooters will all ##### that they need to spend another $$$ to suppress each rifle
Jerry
Their negligent laws are denying us the use of ENHANCED safety gear to protect ourselves and those around us.
The govt is forcing us to 'drive unmuffled'.
Irony will be some lawyer may actually win THEN shooters will all ##### that they need to spend another $$$ to suppress each rifle
Jerry
I would love to see this study you are talking about as it sounds like complete horse #### to me.
As for being able to hear a gun shot and how that could be safer? I think its pretty self explanatory.
Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.
I agree with the points here but someone has to be the devils advocate. The only thing I have more than anti gun folk are the idiots with gun that give them a reason. I realize all of you are responsible but tell me straight up that you've never seen someone doing something stupid.
As for being able to hear a gun shot and how that could be safer? I think its pretty self explanatory.
Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.
I agree with the points here but someone has to be the devils advocate. The only thing I have more than anti gun folk are the idiots with gun that give them a reason. I realize all of you are responsible but tell me straight up that you've never seen someone doing something stupid.
