Supressors... worth the effort?

[Curtley78]

G'day Plowboy,

Yes, I hope that we are able to increase our political leverage too, however, that will come down to those with an interest in firearms playing an active role.

I recall as a child my father would often return from the range with bumper stickers & posters unfortunately these days the activism just isn't there.

There used to be an old poster (I think from the days of Barry Unsworth) it featured a jackboot stepping on a farmer with the title 'disarmed by Labor'. Not that I agree with blaming one party over the other. It would be good to see that old poster retrieved from the archives and freshened up, perhaps it could read 'disarmed by Greenies'.

Regards

Sean

[Rath]

Sean I wish it was as simple as saying to someone "puf your muffs on" when shooting at a range. Thing is the way of thinking here with the decision makers is that if the shooting range is making complains, move or shut down the shooting range. It happens with many things out here, piggeries, airports, roads etc. When houses get built near a noisy, smelly dangerous areas, the tendency is to make thing easier for the home owner. Now my thinking is if they build there OR BUY.... put up with it. but they have it arseway around. Americans are lucky in that you a constitutional right to bear arms. Australians don't. It is considered a privledge here along with car licences. If a situation came up where others would be disadvantaged because of shooters, the laws would be changed so the shooters were restricted. We are seeing atm state forest right along the Murray river being turned into national park therefore banning shooters from these areas(as well as many other things). The attitude in this country is antigun not just political but in the wider community. There would be a hell of a lot of people would have never seen/held/ fired a gun and have no idea about them and they have been sucked in by gun control groups(who also have no idea). I hope that shooters can regain some political clout but I doubt whether we would get many laws relaxed as media here would be onto it in their usual "covertly political" fashion.

Plowboy, what exactly is your point?
I would encourage you to re-read you post and then look up the meaning of the word defeatist.

It seems rather logical that if some members of the public are complaining (as they most certainly are) about "noise pollution" resulting from shooting ranges that we as shooters are presented with an Opportunity

How about shooters being proactive? How about shooters saying: "look we understand that you are concerned about noise pollution, we are willing to compromise at expense to ourselves and invest in silencers for our weapons, we'll ensure that we use these during certain times to best manage any perceived damage"

It's not hard to make a bloody effort and I'm frankly sick of attitudes like yours (no disrespect intended just MHO) that make it easier for ridiculous laws to exist and even worsen.

Rath

[Plowboy]

Rath I am cynical in my attitude to gun laws and the people who make/influence them. Maybe it has been years of being trampled on by Govt in other areas(farming). I do agree that there could be an opportunity to use this as a start for a push to change. But the way things like global warming(crap), Govt debt(disgraceful) speed camera revenue(scandalous) have been spun out of all hell I am cautious about the way this could be spun against shooter favour. Hell I don't shoot at ranges so in theory I have nothing to loose. My occupation(farming) essentially requires a firearm for pest control and humane disposal of stock. yes you can farm without them(a lot do) but it makes the job easier. For me I see the supressor as a OH&S thing. The UK has this attitude to them and I will be asking questions about it to relevant people. However this could also backfire and introduce new regulations and training for people using firearm for an occupation. Plus getting workcover involved just adds to more arseholes wanting to check out your business.

I have no intention of going any further with further relaxing of laws because it would be like bashing you head against a wall. A semi auto .17HMR would be great but I don't NEED one. An auto shottie is a different story though. They are needed. I think that a supressor is about the only thing that would have half a chance of getting through as it can be proven it does nothing to increase the lethality of a weapon. It just makes it quieter(once again only the muzzle blast). I know I will be using a senate/upper house vote for a shooters party candidate if there is one in the next election.


And Sean I agree we cannot blame one party for all of our gun laws(the libs took away semi autos) Dunno who took away the supressors as it was a long time ago.

[Plowboy]

Well Rath in light of your previous post I have emailed the shooters party of NSW highlighting my concerns. There does not seem to be any Vic reps so NSW will be the test rat! I encourage you to back up your critisism of me and fire one off too.

[Ackley Improved]

I would own 2 Suppressors in a heart beat if I were allowed to own them... Why wouldnt you?

No hearing protection needed, reduced recoil. They are just all positive!

I would have no issue with them being registered and considered even a firearm by the law, as in they are treated like a firearm.

Where do I sign up for two?

Cheers

[fenring]

Now, on this noise pollution topic, but just how would a supressor stop the sonic boom of a bullet breaking the sound barrier?

Answer - it wouldn't.

[Plowboy]

Agree entirely AI. Maybe a similar application to aquiring a firearm. I don't care if they know who has them. Just make them available to people who need them(same for reasons for a firearm). I would get 2 aswell.

GODAMMIT How many times do we have to repeat this!!! It is NOT ABOUT THE BLOODY SONIC BOOM!!!! FFS

[fenring]

I know it's not about the sonic boom, but people are offering a reduction in noise pollution (presumably because an area is settled) as a premise for access to suppressors.

So presumably the sonic boom would still be a problem?

And if it's that closely settled that you need to give a crap about the neighbours, why would you be using such a big banger anyway?

Not having a dig, but these are questions you could expect to have to answer in justification of your case, I'd think.

[Plowboy]

Here is a quick youtube clip before and after thing with an AR 15.

You can still hear the sonic boom but the muzzle blast is very reduced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvQUhzMHk98

Here's another one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SIWkwO-ZhI

[fenring]

Yes, big difference.

Makes the AR15 sound like a .22LR.

[kjd]

I WANT ONE NOW!!!!!!

Hey Fen,

Would you worry if Silencers were legal to shooters?

[fenring]

Well it doesn't make a firearm any more dangerous, and there are "ways and means" anyway, as we all know.

So no, wouldn't care.

[Stalker]

Righto sorry Keith. Fark me dead. If you want my honest opinion........I have my permit and silencers for most of my firearms. I am a professional vermin controller and it helps immeasurably in my work. I would rather no-one else in the farkin country had one.

To everyone that fuckin wants one....get over it, move to UK or NZ or become a pro shooter and take all the responsibility that comes with it.

Be thankful for the gun laws we have......It could be a whole lot worse!!! Im signing off. Enjoy the whinge girls.

[LoneRider]

oi stalker,you want that dummy back ?
i think it landed on me roof....

[jeffk]

To everyone that fuckin wants one....get over it, move to UK or NZ or become a pro shooter and take all the responsibility that comes with it.

Be thankful for the gun laws we have......It could be a whole lot worse!!! Im signing off. Enjoy the whinge girls.

Why should we have to move to the UK or NZ just to quieten down a weapon? Sound moderators make them no more dangerous, and far nicer to use and be around when used. Why should only pro shooters be allowed mods? The law makes no sense as it is, and your post even less so.