Suppressors?

Really? Hows that working out for the ranges that have been shut down or are about to be shut down?



And what would those be?



You really have no clue do you. This is almost getting laughable. Go look up the NRR of most hearing protection and then look up the DB rating of some center fire pistols or rifles. Then take a look at how inclosed spaces effect DB.

Also you need to look into how conventional hearing protection is inadequate because it fails completely to block any of the sound transmitted through the bones in your head.

You think it is absurd because you are to lazy to look into the reality of the situation. And no matter what the people that do know tell or show you, it is invalid or absurd because you are ignorant and refuse to educate yourself on the subject.

Shawn

I read all that.... And still not convinced.

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

Anyways, think what you want im not here to convince anyone. I'm just saying that i believe that health concerns argument is weak.
 
Anyways, think what you want im not here to convince anyone. I'm just saying that i believe that health concerns argument is weak.

I'm glad you're not trying to convince anyone, because it'd take someone as dim as you in order for anything to sink in. (Yes, someone who suggests tossing a rag over a muzzle brake is dim in my books)


And we're not here to say why we think why they should be legal either; they shouldn't have been outlawed in the first place. The fact is:

1) Illegal suppressor are on our streets right now (just like all the illegal guns)
2) Criminals by and large have no interest in using them because (other than all the sniper assassins running rampant) no one needs a suppressor to rob/mug/threaten someone.

There is no good reason they are illegal. The status quo you mention is more bullsh*t than a good reason to take such a position such as yours.
 
I'm glad you're not trying to convince anyone, because it'd take someone as dim as you in order for anything to sink in. (Yes, someone who suggests tossing a rag over a muzzle brake is dim in my books)


And we're not here to say why we think why they should be legal either; they shouldn't have been outlawed in the first place. The fact is:

1) Illegal suppressor are on our streets right now (just like all the illegal guns)
2) Criminals by and large have no interest in using them because (other than all the sniper assassins running rampant) no one needs a suppressor to rob/mug/threaten someone.

There is no good reason they are illegal. The status quo you mention is more bullsh*t than a good reason to take such a position such as yours.

It was an obvious joke...... I even said a ShamWow to make it even clearer.

Other than that i respect your opinion.
 
Interesting thead, what I read is: I want what I want, but forget what you want it'll just lead to more crime.

I want to be able to protect my hearing when I am shooting, and the best way is to stop it at the source, with a suppressor. I also want the right to choose, how I protect my hearing, I think I am old enough to decided for myself how I do that.


You guys worry about zombies. I worry about Fudds. They are here, now and surround us. Clear and present danger!

You sir have hit the nail square on the head. They are everywhere.
 
Well the only way I see them legalizing anything is a large amount of noise complaints, and then telling some environmentalists that gunshots screw up migratory bird patterns or scare deer.
I cant see the laws changing from the action of just gun guys we need to get others involved like a home owners association who complain about noise or really push the health part making really pushing it numbers on money saved.

That or put a Outdoor shooting range in earshot of parliament hill.
 
http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Images/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

It's interesting in this report that the RCMP have laid down recommendations for construction of ranges with respect to sound suppression or shielding yet they condone the use of deficient ranges as they use them for their own training and qualification. One would almost think that if they are prepared to continue to use such ranges that they would be proponents of suppressor use as an alternative. How much are they really concerned with public safety?
 
Its kind of wierd seeing the same twisted logic and ignorance used by the anti's over the last 20 years against us being applied within our group of responsible gun owners. Suppressors make so much sense when being utilised on a range, I can't even imagine why it is not something we can all consider seriously as a future implementation in Canada. I am lucky enough to hang at Bisley in the UK one day, and Silverdale in Niagara a week later and I will take suppressed target fire when it comes to high power rifles now that I have a reference point. I am not saying everyone should have to use one, but the option should be there.

We all know it will never happen in the near future but it is worth discussing.

By the way, do you know what the number one poaching weapon in the UK is? A slingshot (catapult here). Poachers here love rabbit and pheasant which are plentiful and a small pocket rocket does the trick. The point is really not applicable to Canada as deer, bear and moose are the prime targets but I thought it interesting. I don't buy the rise in poaching if suppressors were legal. I would assume if suppressors were made legal, they would be for range use only like a restricted firearm.
 
Using a suppressor for hunting is legal in 37 states now with Texas and Alaska going next . In no state has the DNR observed an increase in poaching which was the antis big argument . The second argument , it's no longer fair chase because the animal should be able to hear a shot and react . The speed of sound is about 1,100 fps and the speed of .308 is about 2,700 fps . So much for that argument . I was in on the push in Wisconsin to legalize hunting with hand guns about 3 decades ago . The antis argument , armed robberies , assauts and murders would skyrocket . What they forgot , hunters and sportsman don't go deer hunting for the day and decide to knock over a 7/11 on the way home . Zero increase in crime . Nanny quasi draconian gun law police states , like England , suppressors are legal . Of course the leftards in Quebec would blow a gasket at the thought of legalizing suppressors , while suppressors are legal in the socialist paradise of France and Italy and Greece and Switzerland and Finland and Norway and New Zealand , and the list goes on . Get the right permit and they're legal in Russia . You'd think the antis would demand suppressors on easily concealable , death by murder evil handguns . Turn a hand gun into a carbine length and us criminals wouldn't be able to easily conceal them . Keeping suppressors illegal is part of the agenda . One range after another gets shut down and they win when most shooters have no place to shoot . I'm some glad i'm not allowed to have a one hand auto rescue knife . In 60 years i've never stabbed a kitten , but give me one of those auto knives ... Now if i could only get an 8 foot blow gun and an Amazonian poison dart frog . Not one monkey in Canada would be safe .
 
I for one think that this should be one our next battle and I do think it can be win. We have lots going for us and if we can gather the correct resources, we should move forward.

Greg
 
Last edited:
I think silencers are bad. And guns are bad. So is night vision.

You wouldn't need these things if you didn't have some malicious intent for them.

Also let me read your emails. Only a criminal would say no because they have something to hide.

:weird:
 
Last edited:
I would like to have a suppressed 17 hmr rifle, but I don't think they will ever be allowed eh.
One day if I go to texas I'll pay to have fun shooting their automatic rifles there, I think they have "try full autos" shops
 
Last edited:
I do a fair bit of large caliber shooting and I know supressors are prohib but I mount a large transport truck filter to a braket I made that ataches to my tripod. The base of the filter has been removed and hollowed out so that the barrel is slightly in but not touching the barrel. It works quite well to supress the sound and techically it is not attached to the gun. It works great for .338 LM on my Timberwolf. Is it legal ..... I think it would be because in theory you are just shooting through the filter after the bullet leaves the gun. But who knows.
 
You might want to rethink that:

"prohibited device" means

(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,



I do a fair bit of large caliber shooting and I know supressors are prohib but I mount a large transport truck filter to a braket I made that ataches to my tripod. The base of the filter has been removed and hollowed out so that the barrel is slightly in but not touching the barrel. It works quite well to supress the sound and techically it is not attached to the gun. It works great for .338 LM on my Timberwolf. Is it legal ..... I think it would be because in theory you are just shooting through the filter after the bullet leaves the gun. But who knows.
 
Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.


Actually, from an accident (harm) prevention stand point you are incorrect. The aim is to always to control the harmful condition as close to the source as you possibly can by engineering it out. PPE is a last resort. In this case making the firearm quieter is the most efficient way to prevent hearing damage.
 
Back
Top Bottom