Suppressors?

k lads......we are all on the same team right? I dont want anything gun related Banned simple as that.....I want idiots Banned and punished for being idiots


if the powers that be could make money off Cans( like that tax stamp in the US) or a fee per uncapped mags we would have it passed in no time
 
It's actually ridiculous when you think of it. We can have guns that spit out lead at 1000's of feet per second and hit stuff with lethality 100's of yards away, but WHOA you want to attenuate the sound as it comes out??? Now that's some serious sh*t that needs to be banned! Retarded!
 
Bottom line is there has been no increase is "suppressor" crime any where in the world that they are legal. So that argument is pure BS and based purely on emotion.

Not to mention the pro ban side are arguing against military, suppressor manufactures, and I think there are even a cop or two in this thread. And yet they some how know better than the people that are actually involved in their use, manufacture, and sale.

And there there is the whole hearing protection is an absurd argument for their legalization but the argument of convenience is a justifiable and acceptable argument for removing mag limits. Hearing protection = absurd, but "pain in the ass" = solid argument :rolleyes:

I really should have listened too albertacoyotecaller, he was right they are a lost cause.

Shawn
 
yeah well.. Good luck convincing people about that.

I am for guns and everything and the first time i heard arguments for suppressors i was sure it was a joke.

As for the pinned mag thing its pretty simple. It can't be solved legally.

Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.

Statu quo wins over changing the regulations because suppressors looks fun to use (the strongest argument we have)

Thats how i see it.

Anyway, keep dreaming that is not a bad thing either.
 
Rick911 said:
yeah well.. Good luck convincing people about that.

I am for guns and everything and the first time i heard arguments for suppressors i was sure it was a joke.

As for the pinned mag thing its pretty simple. It can't be solved legally.

Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.

Statu quo wins over changing the regulations because suppressors looks fun to use (the strongest argument we have)

Thats how i see it.

Anyway, keep dreaming that is not a bad thing either.
Click to expand...

Your the one that needs to do the convincing. You guys are the one claiming that this would some how increase crime when it has not happened.

So your to lazy to load magazines and that some how that translates into a valid argument for removing mag restrictions? Yeah your argument is invalid.

So tell me how with $2 you can provide hearing protection for urban sprawl that is encroaching on ranges. Or how $2 brings shooting firearms other than rim-fire in indoor ranges brings the sound level into hearing safe levels. At what price level does it become a valid argument in your theory?

You really need to read the info that has been linked in this thread as you have no clue about this subject.

Also just to let you know in almost every place that suppressors are legal, it was based on health and safety. Ie hearing protection.

Shawn
 
Rick911 said:
I am for guns and everything and the first time i heard arguments for suppressors i was sure it was a joke... Ear protection can be achieved with a 2$ ear protection. This is where your argument is invalid.

Statu quo wins over changing the regulations because suppressors looks fun to use (the strongest argument we have)
Click to expand...

Suppressors reduce upwards of 30 decibels, so it's equivalent to being able to shoot with just plugs alone. That's not only more convenient for the shooter, but other range participants as well (not too mention those living within earshot of any range).
 
shawn said:
Your the one that needs to do the convincing. You guys are the one claiming that this would some how increase crime when it has not happened.

So your to lazy to load magazines and that some how that translates into a valid argument for removing mag restrictions? Yeah your argument is invalid.

So tell me how with $2 you can provide hearing protection for urban sprawl that is encroaching on ranges. Or how $2 brings shooting firearms other than rim-fire in indoor ranges brings the sound level into hearing safe levels. At what price level does it become a valid argument in your theory?

You really need to read the info that has been linked in this thread as you have no clue about this subject.

Also just to let you know in almost every place that suppressors are legal, it was based on health and safety. Ie hearing protection.

Shawn
Click to expand...


Just saying that i believe that health concerns arguments are not giving the cause enough credibility to roll back the legislation.

Think what you want.

Maybe one day...
 
Well if you knew anything about poachers you'd know they generally are better in the bush then most people otherwise they'd get caught and their poaching careers would end. Further if they criminals, (which they are by definition) then breaking laws doesn't deter them if they really want to break them. Making a surpressor legal doesn't change their attitude to breaking the law. It just inconveniences law abiding folks.

Again I repeat the biggest argument against all this is not the possibility crime or criminal use, because once you start that you have agreed the to princila and now no one should own fireams, knives, baseball bats, sticks, trees, scissors, pens, money (yes money can and does get used for crime all the time), once you assume that the government job is to make any possible law breaking impossible then you guarantee that nothing will be legal, because anything can be used to break the law... so we'd best just give up all our rights and freedoms now.

Or ... you can suggest that freedom matters and that government has no place in telling us what we can or cannot own as this removes a basic fundamental right to property and instead replaces it with a priviledge where they (the state) are the arbiters of what we are allowed to own and they are then free to take anything and everything when it suits them. Is that the kind of country you want to live in?

I bet not, if not then the only rational position is the one where that is not the end result.

ShawnM said:
There is no philisophical contradiction in support firearms rights and not supporting everything that is related to them. .....snip... Suppresors on rifles WOULD result in increased poaching, I think it's either niave or intentionally blind to insist they won't. You can't compare a crossbow or a bow to a suppresed rifle. One has a range of hundreds of yards, the other has a range of about 50. 90% of hunters don't have the skill or physical ability to get that close to an animal, and I think the number must be higher with the poachers....

I don't take issue with people that are of a differing view point, in fact I encourage it which is why I posted on this train wreck of a thread in the first place. Look at some of the replies to me or Rob911, they are insulting, dismissive, rude, and jump to wild conclusions about my knowledge level. My words have been twisted in many cases into some unintelligable interpretations.

The disappointing side is that there is a community, such as the ones that feel they need to insult and shout down different viewpoints in this thread.
Click to expand...

Ok so actually... *YOU* were the one who started the personal attacks and insults. I wouldn't even have posted in this thread if you hadn't started that nonsense by telling someone to "drop dead" because they had the temerity to suggest your opinion was a bit ... ummmm... irrational, in their opinion... And then you whine and moan about it when people return the favour? Hmmmmm.... I smell something... I think its ... well why... oh never mind ...

I know I'm done with this. My parting statement? *Don't feed the trolls".
 
albertacoyotecaller said:
You guys worry about zombies. I worry about Fudds. They are here, now and surround us. Clear and present danger!
Click to expand...

You have no idea how seriously correct you are...

ElmerFuddZombie.jpg
 
Rick911 said:
Just saying that i believe that health concerns arguments are not giving the cause enough credibility to roll back the legislation.

Think what you want.

Maybe one day...
Click to expand...

That is not what you said, you said it was an invalid and absurd argument.

And again you are wrong, as I already pointed out a lot of places that suppressors are legal, that is exactly the route they took to do it.

So are you going to explain how with $2 you can accomplish the things I mentioned? Or are you hoping we forget about it?

Shawn
 
shawn said:
That is not what you said, you said it was an invalid and absurd argument.

And again you are wrong, as I already pointed out a lot of places that suppressors are legal, that is exactly the route they took to do it.

So are you going to explain how with $2 you can accomplish the things I mentioned? Or are you hoping we forget about it?

Shawn
Click to expand...

It is an absurd argument, the issues you pointed can be solved by more rational ways. Just wanted to forget about it because arguing is useless, especially over the internet.

First, if you buy a house and there is noise pollution because of a range, the price is reflecting that and you are accepting it. That is your problem, just as if you move beside a highway that was already there, it affects the prices of houses. A study on how much a shooting range affects the price of surrounding houses would be interesting to measure the importance of the issue.

This can also be fixed by proper city regulations.

If you are in a range everybody should wear ear protection.

What else ? Less lead inhalation ? Solution: fit a Sham Wow in your muzzle brake.
 
dryfire said:
Guys, they want 'em for the cool factor not because of the benefit to health and safety .
Click to expand...

Or you have no clue about what your talking. Which is the more likely of the two as the majority of the people in this thread have a grand total of 0% experience with suppressors.

The only difference is most of the pro side have actually done the research and learned about it and don't rely on BS emotional argument to justify their postilion.

Shawn
 
ShawnM said:
I feel your pain here Rob911... Intelligent discourse between firearms enthusiasts can be rare at the best of times. The community fractures itself by the "rabid" owners/hobbyists lumping people with differing opinions as "anti" even if it's the furthest thing from the truth. It's something the liberal media and politicians do all the time. If you're not all the way with us then you're with them. In this case if you don't believe that suppressors should be available to the common citizen then you are a gun-hating "anti" with no education as to the subject at all. Sounds very similar to a Liberal campaign a few years ago where CBC released "statistics" showing that if you had a post-secondary education you were some high percentage more likely to vote Liberal than another party. The idea was to paint any dissenting votes as "unintelligent" and thereby marginalizing opposition. The wild conclusions that if we don't feel suppressors should be legal then "we are assuming all hunters/shooters/etc. are criminals etc." are the same.

I've been involved with firearms for as long as I can remember, probably even longer than many posters on this thread have been alive. I've read countless opinion papers on the topic and a couple included arguments for/against suppressors. I've been an organizer, a voter, and an educator on the general topic and guess what guys: I STILL don't believe there is a slam-dunk argument for suppressors. Would I like to have one? It could be pretty cool, I am curious as to how some of my favorite rifles would perform with one. But I can't justify that as a reason to let every person who can possess a firearm have one.

Yes I believe poaching would increase substantially if suppressors were commonplace. And if you don't have room for my opinion in your discussions then ask yourselves why the "anti's" should have room for yours?
Click to expand...

shawn
I refer to the above comment by this poster
 
Rick911 said:
First, if you buy a house and there is noise pollution because of a range, the price is reflecting that and you are accepting it.
Click to expand...

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

Rick911 said:
This can also be fixed by proper city regulations.
Click to expand...

And what would those be?

Rick911 said:
If you are in a range everybody should wear ear protection.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom