Supressors... worth the effort?

[Plowboy]

Yeah Frakka that's what would happen for sure. In the current political climate of reactionist law makers that are very influenced by the loudest group, it is very hard to get laws "relaxed". Always a chance and a good one at that of backfiring on even harsher restrictions being put in place.

[Curtley78]

Fellas,

If you wanted to whack someone you wouldn't need a firearm, you could go to Bunnings and find a numerous tools that could be employed, one doesn't need a firearm let alone a silencer for such task. Escherichia coli and Salmonella would be more then sufficient and one could add it to lipstick, cigarettes or whatever.

But if someone really wanted to manufacture a silencer they could do so in minutes using either electrical conduit filled with steel wool or a newspaper rolled nice and tight.

Unfortunately the antis live in a world where everything is viewed through a haze of purple bong smoke with their fears fueled by Hollywood action movies that are directed by pole smoking queers.

Fact remains that more people die each year in the hands of medical professionals and because Governments of either persuasion have failed to administer health care services then because of firearm related incidents.

Regards

Sean

[Plowboy]

Yeah sean but you see don't have guns so they don't care about those things... Try and ban something like have and they would scream like a banchee! This is all about ignorance and mistruths reinforced my the movie special effects. Cars kill more people and I would think that if you had to apply for a permit to aquire a car would be howled down as an infringment on rights of people yet it is fine for guns. There are proabably 10 times the amount of deaths associated with cars as guns. Yes there are more of them and no doubt if there were as many guns as cars, there would be more deaths but I actually think there would be less by a fair way.

Your comments on medical negligence is dead on as I type this I was also watching a story on a current affairs program about that very same thing. One fact is that 12 people die PER DAY due to stuff ups in hospitals but it could be a high as 50. Wow you need a licence to practice medicine but shit sound like they should apply for a permit to treat people!

Does anybody have numbers of registered gun in Australia??? Would be interesting to see how many legal firearms there are. I reckon you could add at least 30% to that number to account for unregistered guns.

[dangaff]

How about suppressors on air rifle's these days, more for looks you would say considering the noise doesnt come out the end of the barrel would it.

[jeffk]

How about suppressors on air rifle's these days, more for looks you would say considering the noise doesnt come out the end of the barrel would it.

No, they shut PCP's up too, as they do have a fair amount of muzzle blast.

[Plowboy]

Ok well nothing better to do so I have been searching around a bit. So far I have found there is about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia belonging to a little over 730,000 owners in Australia Now I reckon you could add mabye 100,000 illegal guns onto that so 2.6 million guns.

Now deaths, in 2002 there were 299 in Australia involving guns a death rate of 1.5 per 100,000. Suicide accounted for 77% of deaths in a period from 1979-2002. Thie site I am looking at does not give total numbers in more recent time so I have to estimate some of these numbers but taking out suicide, there are about 69 deaths relating to guns per year in Australia that is about .5 per 100,000

Compare that to cars, in 2005 there was 13.5 million cars on the roads. There were 1627 deaths involving cars. Now It would be hard to find out how many were used to kill but there would be a few. The vast majority are accidental. and there would also be some suicides in there. This is about 8 deaths per 100000 population.

OK now what I did was multiply the number of guns so that it was equal to the number of car(aprox) and same with the deaths. It came out as 2.5 death per 100,000 if there were the same amount of guns as car. Yeah dangerous eh?

[Mick]

You have to also factor in that 99.9% of the firearm related deaths that are not suicide are at the hands of unregistered, illegal firearms held by unregistered, unlicensed owners. A fair portion of those have also probably never been legal for a civilian to own in this country.

At the end of the day, as we all know all too well, none of the restrictions on firearms have worked at all. Amazingly enough, people wanting to commit murder are also quite happy to go out and buy illegal firearms. Who'd have thought they wouldn't bother to get a licence and put in a PTA before they went and did a drive by? I'm shocked.

[Plowboy]

"Another consistent finding over the years is that the majority of firearms used in homicide were not registered, and the offenders who used them were not licensed. During the current year, 13 per cent of offenders who used a firearm were licensed to own the firearm and 10 per cent of the firearms used were registered to the offender. Earlier research found that in 1997–98 and 1998–99, nine per cent of offenders were licensed to own the firearm and nine per cent of the firearms used were registered to the offender."

"There is information available on the number of stolen firearms, including handguns. In Firearms theft in Australia 2004–05 the AIC found that less than 0.1 per cent of registered firearms (almost 1500 firearms) were reported stolen to police. In 2004–05, rifles accounted for the majority (58 per cent) of all stolen firearms, with bolt action rifles the most often listed. One-quarter of stolen firearms were shotguns, and nearly 40 per cent of these were single-barrelled. Handguns constituted seven per cent of firearms reported stolen, with around 40 per cent of these being semi-automatic handguns. This report also includes data on incidents by jurisdiction and by geography. For more AIC reports see their firearms publications list and the weapons page"

From the Parlimentary library

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/bn/2 ... 08bn01.htm
Having all of this informationat their fingertips, Govtment still think that it is best to put some extremly strict regulations on licenced firearm owners. Just shows you that they really do not make fair decitions but do what is considered by public opinion to be the right thing no matter how misguided the view is.

[kjd]

Plowboy?

You mean evidence based legislation? HAHA you have to be kidding me.
Who would all the people out there who think we SHOULDN'T have semi auto's or silencers (I'm talking to you stalker) vote for if they didn't have candidates that appealed to their emotional side?

Why don't governments write legislation based on evidence? BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T GET F**KEN VOTES!

[kjd]

You are preaching to the converted boys, as a rec shooter I would like to see some changes to the firearms laws too.

Really? Are you sure you we are preaching to the converted? Even with the evidence easily available online (see plowboys latest posts) that clearly shows that law abiding firearms owners are not at all dangerous (less dangerous than drivers in fact) you still elude to not wanting semi auto's in the hands of law abiding folk as well as suppressors. I am not saying you are anti as I don't believe you are and I know it seems like I am picking on you and I am because I truly believe that you either have not put much thought into your stance on certain issues related to firearms and hunting. This is one example the other example was the native animal thing.
I haven't worked it out quite yet but
It is either you haven't put much thought into it which then creates the inconsistencies in your philosophy OR you just don't care what happens or what people want because you are OK with how it is now. Which is fair enough but not conducive to preserving the sport/hobby/activity whatever you want to call it.

Give it a go mate. You can only try. The simple answer is....recreational hunters/shooters do not need supressors.

Should law abiding recreational hunters be allowed to carry and use a suppressor without any BS?

My opinion is no mate. It is a prohibited item under the firearms act. If they allow silencers to all, what next a total reform, semi-auto centerfire??? I mean, sure that would be great but I just don't think it's feasible, not in thius lifetime anyway. Imagine the poachers getting around and blokes spotlighting deer etc if everyone had silencers.

Yeah cool mate. I dunno, if they drop their guard so to speak, it would open the flood gates for a heap of other shit. Where would it end??

Tell me why as a law abiding citizen I shouldn't be able to own a 10/22 or AR15 or have a suppressor on my airgun?

As for me taking the easy way out, I offered some first hand advice to Plowboy who asked if going through the wringer to get a silencer permit was worth the effort.

Easy way out for not answering my question mate that is all.

[Rath]

I started off intruigued that there seems to exist a "battered wife syndrome" attitude towards changing or fighting against our moronic gun laws.

Now it just pisses me off because it spreads like a f*%#ing plague ! The defeatist obtuse stance is for people who don't care for freedom. FFS gents surely we are better than that!
Rant over, more morphine..back to sleep!

[makrand]

This debate is interesting but taking away our guns is not about safety.
An armed population is a free(ish) population.
Take away our arms and you can use the armed police (aka Corporate enforcers) to bully us.

[Curtley78]

This debate is interesting but taking away our guns is not about safety.
An armed population is a free(ish) population.
Take away our arms and you can use the armed police (aka Corporate enforcers) to bully us.

Makka,

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually....George Mason, founding father US Constitution.

Then came Thomas Jefferson who declared "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

If the Iraqi people were able to defend themselves by means of armed resistance then the US not needed to have invaded Iraq.

Regards

Sean

[Curtley78]

The hearing protection thing is not gonna hold up. Thats what ear plugs or muffs are for.

No but the noise pollution issue will. I would like to see someone tell one of the neighboring locals to simply 'put his ear muffs on' whilst there is a shoot on.

It could be mandatory that silencers be used on all small bore ranges that are situated in an urban environment. I would even go as far as lobbying the locals to gain their support and that of Council.

I can't believe what a backward nation we are and like someone posted it comes down to the old battered wife syndrome in that we have been taking it up the @rse for that long that certain people now enjoy it.

Regards

Sean

[Plowboy]

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.