Suppressors?

There is an ignor function on this board. Feel free to use it.

I don't think that doing all the research on the subject and writing a 25 page paper on the subject qualifies as being "all talk". What have you done other than **** on the effort? Oh that's right ..... NOTHING.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is still a lot to do before the money part. That is important as well and needs not to be ignored. I think there is still a lot of brainstorming to do, discussion about direction and strategy, creating an org, selling ideas to key individuals etc...

We cannot just run at this head on with limited funds and no plans.

Greg
 
I have not followed this for some time and am happy to see it is still going, all be it with some un required exchanges. I have tinnitus (continuous ringing in the ear) which was caused by exposure to excessive noise. I have this documented by my Ph. and I am going to go to my MPs office and ask him why I can't protect myself from further damage. I don't have to quit my job to avoid further exposure there, I simply use the protection they now provide us (a little late after 24 years of service) nor should I have to quit my hobby to avoid further damage. The difference is I can't use the only thing that stops the noise at the source. I will bring with me the information gathered here and see what he has to say. Should be interesting.

DinoS
 
Last edited:
This thread has encouraged me to write my politicians about this as well. It'll be a goal of mine to flood Candice's office with hand written letters this year.
 
Suputin said:
The level of ignorance being displayed in this post by fellow gun owners is in a word .... disappointing.
Click to expand...

Today's "Daily Show With Jon Stewart" had an interview with David Saylors of Liberty Suppressors.
By the end he ended up supporting universal registration of firearms -- sort of.

The argument went (paraphrased)
a) No one will comply with universal registration of firearms. It will have no effect on the prevalence of firearms.
b) Suppressors prevent hearing loss. Other countries require suppressors. Like Germany. I've never been to Germany, but I've heard stories.
c) Americans don't buy suppressors, because of the regulation. They're universally registered, and has dramatically lowered the prevalence of suppressors.
d) Well, I see your point. Universal registration of firearms would have an effect.

The Daily Show implied that they'd only be used by murderers -- a position supported by another interviewie, Ladd Everitt for the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. "It doesn't make us safer to allow people to be able to shoot others in our community in stealth."
 
I have never met an old shooter who can post a decent score who is not hard of hearing. I think the availability of cans would prevent that.
 
rangebob said:
The Daily Show implied that they'd only be used by murderers -- a position supported by another interviewie, Ladd Everitt for the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. "It doesn't make us safer to allow people to be able to shoot others in our community in stealth."
Click to expand...
Same old argument. A suppressor is a muffler, nothing difficult to build if needed. That said, I already see the argument:

A: use of suppressor in crime is negligible
B: of course, they were not noticed, thus not reported.

This is all about belief, you cannot argue one way or the other.
 
Correct mr if im wrong here but I think a bigger part of the reason for the low number of suppressors in the US is the additional $200 BATF tax you have to pay on top of the price?
 
elicitone said:
Correct mr if im wrong here but I think a bigger part of the reason for the low number of suppressors in the US is the additional $200 BATF tax you have to pay on top of the price?
Click to expand...

And the fact that Class 3 firearm/device ownership is not universally legal in all US states. Nor is it a given that a local LE agency will actually sign off on the applicant's forms.
 
Hypothetically if they had canadain gun laws for one week and went back to the old laws they would sell thousands. I like Jon Stewart, he's funny and informative however it seems like he has a real bais against firearms. Another yes man following the orders from up top. That episode about suppressors was kind of funny an it was not totaly anti. However it always makes firearm owners seem like uneducated hillbillies who can't make informative choices. So I have the firearm already why not a suppressor. It's not like James Bond and totaly silent just more enjoyable to shoot.
 
rangebob said:
Today's "Daily Show With Jon Stewart" had an interview with David Saylors of Liberty Suppressors.
By the end he ended up supporting universal registration of firearms -- sort of.

The argument went (paraphrased)
a) No one will comply with universal registration of firearms. It will have no effect on the prevalence of firearms.
b) Suppressors prevent hearing loss. Other countries require suppressors. Like Germany. I've never been to Germany, but I've heard stories.
c) Americans don't buy suppressors, because of the regulation. They're universally registered, and has dramatically lowered the prevalence of suppressors.
d) Well, I see your point. Universal registration of firearms would have an effect.

The Daily Show implied that they'd only be used by murderers -- a position supported by another interviewie, Ladd Everitt for the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. "It doesn't make us safer to allow people to be able to shoot others in our community in stealth."
Click to expand...

ughhhhh! Gun guys are good at being gun guys but they are often not good politicians which is what these kind of interviews need.

The reason silencers are not more prevalent in the US is due to two reasons. First is the $200 tax. Second is the fact the silencer has to be registered through the NFA act. Americans take their firearms owning freedoms seriously and most of them don't want to register their guns. This is the same reason that short barreled rifles are not as common in the US.

For a comparable example in Canada, non-restricted rifle ownership is much higher than restricted handgun ownership because most gun owners didn't want to register a firearm. Obviously C68 changed that a bit but the example is reasonably close.

I don't know how anyone can argue that placing a bit of paper next to a firearm prevents that firearm from being used in a crime?


Mr Ladd Everitt is a douchbag socialist without a clue. A legally registered silencer is not needed in order to shoot someone in stealth which is why silencers are hardly ever used in crimes. There are dozens of field expedient solutions to reducing the noise of a shot that do not require a silencer and the components of these can be found in nearly any household. These counter top devices can be just as quiet as a real silencer for a couple of rounds. The difference is a real silencer lasts tens of thousands of rounds.

Restricting the ownership of silencers won't reduce crime. We have lots of firearms related crime and poaching in Canada and silencers are illegal here.
 
sapper043 said:
I am still very eager to initiate and push for the prohibition to be lifted. What does it take to begin such a battle (as I am sure it will be)?
Click to expand...

In the UK, they sued the government on the grounds that the prohibition of silencers violated the OH&S laws requiring noise reduction at the source in the workplace. The people who were the focus of the lawsuit were those who had to use a firearm in the workplace. In the UK this was mostly professional stalkers.

It turns out our OH&S laws are virtually the same as the UK. Canadian 
Occupational 
Health 
and
 Safety 
Regulations 
section 
7.5 

states,
“Insofar 
as 
is 
reasonably
 practicable, 
every 
employer
 shall, 
by
 engineering 
controls 
or 
other 
physical 
means 
other 
than 
hearing 
protectors,
 reduce 
the 
exposure 
to 
sound
 of 
employees 
to 
a 
level 
that 
does 
not 
exceed 
the 
limits 
prescribed 
by 
section 
7.4.”


http://laws‐lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR‐86‐304/page‐26.html#h‐75


Maintaining 
the 
Canadian 
ban 
on 
sound 
suppressors 
is 
in 
actuality 
the 
federal 
government 
forcing 
Canadian
 shooters 
and 
hunters
 to 
expose 
themselves 
to 
damaging 
levels 
of 
noise
 that
 would 
not 
be 
allowed 
under
 Health 
and 
Safety 
regulations in the workplace. 
 
This 
is 
likely 
the 
only 
law 
on 
the 
books 
that 
says 
it 
is 
illegal 
for 
Canadians 
to
 protect 
themselves 
from 
a 
known
 health 
hazard. 

As 
such
 it 
is 
hypocritical 
and
 inconsistent 
with 
modern
 western 
values 
and
 quality
 of 
life.


The cost to the CDN economy of hearing damage is approximately $18 billion annually. This is a MAJOR health problem with major economic results.
 
Professional stalkers you say?

2013-02-28-15.16.32.jpg
 
What trades/jobs would be able to apply for such work conditions. Military (not possible under the code of service discipline) RCMP I am guessing the same. Maybe municipal police possibly, or self employed trappers/hunters? What about range employee's or wildlife conservation officers?
 
The obvious ones would be professional hunting guides, trappers, conservation officers, range employees, shooting coaches, gunsmiths, tactical trainers, pest control and anyone who has to use a firearm in their job or be near gunfire for their job.

The police can already have silencers, they just need to get their unions to force their employers to provide the equipment.
 
CTS said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's funny because it's called a "SUPPRESSOR".

You'd think that the majority of people are brainwashed into believing using a suppressor makes you a mafia killer for hire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom