Time to reconsider suppressor?
- Thread starter rajczak_kashka
- Start date
you mean sound suppressor right?
- Location
- Georgetown Ontario
No CDN government will EVER voluntarily de-prohibit sound suppressors without being forced to. The only way we have any chance of overturning the prohibition on sound suppressors is via the route the UK shooters took. Sue the government on OH&S grounds that the ban violates both OH&S law as well as our rights to security of the person under the Charter of Rights & Freedoms.
Legalize Sound Suppressors White Paper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf
Legalize Sound Suppressors White Paper
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf
This is utter foolishness. Do you have any idea of the laws that would have to be written and passed in order to even contemplate something so stupid? Not to mention that it would violate the Charter in numerous ways. We have the choice to engage in risky behaviour if we so choose and no government or law can change that.
Your comments show a stunning lack of understanding of how sound suppressors are mounted to firearms and how they work. The only firearm I can think of that may not benefit from the addition of a silencer is a revolver. Pretty much everything else can be shot suppressed. Even at that there is a revolver that can be suppressed.
And since when did the government confiscate personal property that is not currently being used? There are several tens of thousands of prohibs in this country that cannot legally be taken out to a range yet the government has shown no inclination to confiscate any of those. You are engaging in unsupported scare mongering and it is not helpful at all to the discussion.
And you show a stunning amount of arrogance.
I lived in the UK, and dealt directly with both the govt. and the firearms industry, I think I know a little bit more about how things work over there than you think you do. I have also lived and worked in other countries where the govt. overnight banned and confiscated whatever they saw fit.
Have you tried driving a motor vehicle around without a muffer on it? Try it, and see how far you get. If they won't let you drive a motor vehicle without a muffler, and made laws to enforce it, what makes you think there is no chance that they can't do the same with regard to firearms? The govt. can make whatever laws they see fit, and the fact we now have a Liberal majority makes this even more likely.
As for suppressors, I am fully aware of how they work, that is why I referenced revolvers and shotguns. Suppressing them is not that simple. Also, some semi-auto handguns don't work reliably with certain suppressors, especially when they don't lock up properly due to the weight of the suppressor hanging off the end of the barrel. In fact some semi-auto rifles have issues with reliable operation once you add a suppressor, due to the increased back pressure.
I've seen you make these same comments before when this has been brought up, and you seem to think that because you have designed and built a few suppressors, and suppressed firearms, you are the only person who can have an opinion on the matter.
How long have you been beating the same drum regarding legalizing suppressors. Sued the govt. recently, have you? How far has your little white paper gotten you? Last updated in what, 2012? I wrote pretty much the exact same document for the UK police over two decades ago in order to be able to bring suppressors in from Finland to use at ranges in the UK. I have been buying and selling suppressors internationally for almost 30 years.
Get over yourself.
I'm done here, so respond however you want.
Regards.
Mark
I lived in the UK, and dealt directly with both the govt. and the firearms industry, I think I know a little bit more about how things work over there than you think you do. I have also lived and worked in other countries where the govt. overnight banned and confiscated whatever they saw fit.
Have you tried driving a motor vehicle around without a muffer on it? Try it, and see how far you get. If they won't let you drive a motor vehicle without a muffler, and made laws to enforce it, what makes you think there is no chance that they can't do the same with regard to firearms? The govt. can make whatever laws they see fit, and the fact we now have a Liberal majority makes this even more likely.
As for suppressors, I am fully aware of how they work, that is why I referenced revolvers and shotguns. Suppressing them is not that simple. Also, some semi-auto handguns don't work reliably with certain suppressors, especially when they don't lock up properly due to the weight of the suppressor hanging off the end of the barrel. In fact some semi-auto rifles have issues with reliable operation once you add a suppressor, due to the increased back pressure.
I've seen you make these same comments before when this has been brought up, and you seem to think that because you have designed and built a few suppressors, and suppressed firearms, you are the only person who can have an opinion on the matter.
How long have you been beating the same drum regarding legalizing suppressors. Sued the govt. recently, have you? How far has your little white paper gotten you? Last updated in what, 2012? I wrote pretty much the exact same document for the UK police over two decades ago in order to be able to bring suppressors in from Finland to use at ranges in the UK. I have been buying and selling suppressors internationally for almost 30 years.
Get over yourself.
I'm done here, so respond however you want.
Regards.
Mark
Well Mr Mark,
I hold two U.S. patents for sound suppressors and have worked and tested with most of the top U.S. Designers and testers.
That you don't know about shotgun suppressors and clearly are unaware of the Neilsen Device and the Nagant Revolver says volumes to me. But then there has never been a shortage of those who think they know when they really don't.
My role is not to do the suing but to research and assemble the information required for those who may want to. I'm a technical guy, not a legal or political guy.
I hold two U.S. patents for sound suppressors and have worked and tested with most of the top U.S. Designers and testers.
That you don't know about shotgun suppressors and clearly are unaware of the Neilsen Device and the Nagant Revolver says volumes to me. But then there has never been a shortage of those who think they know when they really don't.
My role is not to do the suing but to research and assemble the information required for those who may want to. I'm a technical guy, not a legal or political guy.
Bringing up the sound and lead issues is a bad idea.
The last thing we want is giving the government a reason to mandate the use of sound suppressors everywhere or even worst, start making laws dictating the conditions where firearms can be discharged based on sound (and lead ) pollution . Sure the suppressor manufacturer will see a great opportunity for business, but at the risk of affecting everyone in the community in a negative way who did not ask for it in the first place. Health and Safety issues always end up with MANDATORY rules, as they are not something usually end up with VOLUNTARY measures with CHOICES by the people who are affected.
Canada is NOT the US. Suppressors are prohibited by federal laws in Canada. In the US, the states have say about if they allow suppressors. I do not believe the US suppressor legalization movement at the state level is necessarily applicable to Canada, especially one that is run by the Liberals now.
Kinda like the Alberta who wanted to get a PC minority, but ended up with the NDP. Once you bring up an issue and make a big deal out of it, it is difficult to control the outcome and stop the run-away train with this issue.
The last thing we want is giving the government a reason to mandate the use of sound suppressors everywhere or even worst, start making laws dictating the conditions where firearms can be discharged based on sound (and lead ) pollution . Sure the suppressor manufacturer will see a great opportunity for business, but at the risk of affecting everyone in the community in a negative way who did not ask for it in the first place. Health and Safety issues always end up with MANDATORY rules, as they are not something usually end up with VOLUNTARY measures with CHOICES by the people who are affected.
Canada is NOT the US. Suppressors are prohibited by federal laws in Canada. In the US, the states have say about if they allow suppressors. I do not believe the US suppressor legalization movement at the state level is necessarily applicable to Canada, especially one that is run by the Liberals now.
Kinda like the Alberta who wanted to get a PC minority, but ended up with the NDP. Once you bring up an issue and make a big deal out of it, it is difficult to control the outcome and stop the run-away train with this issue.
Last edited:
Hey Greentips,
I do understand your point, however, is that a good enough reason to not try anything?
The whole point is that regulating items based on fear has got to go.... suppressors are the best example of a piece of equipment that does contribute to reduced risk of hearing damage.
There is also a happy precedent of some other countries that allow suppressors specifically for that reason.
I do understand your point, however, is that a good enough reason to not try anything?
The whole point is that regulating items based on fear has got to go.... suppressors are the best example of a piece of equipment that does contribute to reduced risk of hearing damage.
There is also a happy precedent of some other countries that allow suppressors specifically for that reason.
Yes not likely going to happen. A terrorist or mad man could go on a shooting spree decimating the population and no one would know. All that you would hear is a sound like pop corn and bodies hitting the floor. Well that's the way the movies make it sound and how the anti's will betray it. We would have a better chance of getting restricted discharge limitations removed than having suppressors. Considering that most restricted firearms, being shorter in barrel length, actually have a shorter trajectory. It's all about Hollywood.
I was looking at suppressors on one sponsor site and holy cow, these things are expensive! For a passive device with no moving parts, how the heck do they end up costing more than the gun they're attached to?
Has Hollywood lied to us again?
Has Hollywood lied to us again?
