Supressors... worth the effort?

[Mick]

Because obviously only pro shooters are trustworthy enough to own such a weapon of mass destruction.

Are you fucking kidding?

Where's the smiley for retard?

This right here is the reason we keep getting rammed in the arse with gun laws.

[Rath]

Because obviously only pro shooters are trustworthy enough to own such a weapon of mass destruction.

Are you fucking kidding?

Where's the smiley for retard?

This right here is the reason we keep getting rammed in the arse with gun laws.

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.

Good on you mate

My letters are long sent, I have a monthy reminder that sparks me to get one off regularly

Rath

[Rath]

I have a monthy reminder that sparks me to get one off regularly

mmm, that reads kind of strangely in hindsight

[kjd]

Because obviously only pro shooters are trustworthy enough to own such a weapon of mass destruction.

Are you fucking kidding?

Where's the smiley for retard?

This right here is the reason we keep getting rammed in the arse with gun laws.

Exactly Right mate.

[Mick]

I guess I just never knew about all the extra responsibility that came with paying extra money for a pro shooters licence, over say, a guy who hunts every weekend or so.

[Curtley78]

Now, on this noise pollution topic, but just how would a suppressor stop the sonic boom of a bullet breaking the sound barrier? Answer - it wouldn't.

I think that you will find that certain people use an exhaust pipe from a motor bike.

If we can get Rob & Roy to table this as an amendment to the existing legislation, I will raise it at our next committee meeting that the use of such device be trialled including an impact study and feedback from the neighboring homes.

It was only a few weeks ago that I received a letter from the State member in regard to community funding.


Regards

Sean

[Stalker]

My apologies for the dummy spit, I was not in the right frame of mind. I was trying to offer some insight to Plowboy on the issue, it was never my intention to get into a debate about gun laws.

I am sorry if I offended anyone.

Geez, I was just trying to help the bloke, then somehow felt like I was being pushed into a corner. Came out swingin'. That's just me.

Again, sorry fellas.

[kjd]

Dont victimize yourself mate,
you have views that are counter-intuitive as a shooter which is fine but don't express them and not expect to be questioned on them!
No one was knocking you for answering a question but your attitude made me at least question your views!
I still think the attitude of "I should be trusted but none of you should be able to have a silencer because you will poach and I would never do that" is BS! I am no more likely to poach or go AWOL with a silenced rifle or an unsilenced one!

But hey just because we disagree doesn't mean any one is a victim.

[jeffk]

"I should be trusted but none of you should be able to have a silencer because you will poach and I would never do that" is BS! I am no more likely to poach or go AWOL with a silenced rifle or an unsilenced one!

And lets be honest, anyone who wants a sound mod to commit an offence with, is just as likely to spend a day on the lathe and commit another offence by building one....

[Stalker]

Dont victimize yourself mate,
you have views that are counter-intuitive as a shooter which is fine but don't express them and not expect to be questioned on them!
No one was knocking you for answering a question but your attitude made me at least question your views!
I still think the attitude of "I should be trusted but none of you should be able to have a silencer because you will poach and I would never do that" is BS! I am no more likely to poach or go AWOL with a silenced rifle or an unsilenced one!

But hey just because we disagree doesn't mean any one is a victim.

Yeah I don't recall saying any one of you blokes could not be trusted with a silencer.

[kjd]

In a round about way you did mate see the points in bold:

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.

[Stalker]

Ok, in a very round about way. I am sure that most of the blokes on this site are very responsible etc......The fact remains, they are prohibited items, you can get a permit by showing evidence of need (not want). Whether that is right or wrong is not up to me to decide.

Because obviously only pro shooters are trustworthy enough to own such a weapon of mass destruction.

Are you fucking kidding?

Where's the smiley for retard?

This right here is the reason we keep getting rammed in the arse with gun laws.

You dickhead. It is not a matter of trust mate, they want to keep tabs on it and that is their way of doing so. A permit system.

Have a look at some of our other laws for totally ridiculous setups.

When you say you get rammed in the arse Mick, what excatly do you mean?? The loss of semi-autos??

[Stalker]

I guess I just never knew about all the extra responsibility that came with paying extra money for a pro shooters licence, over say, a guy who hunts every weekend or so.

Obviously you have absolutely NFI about that mate.

[jeffk]

You dickhead. It is not a matter of trust mate, they want to keep tabs on it and that is their way of doing so. A permit system.

A permit is fine - same as the US, and same as the UK - I have no issues there. I have an issue with the fact the permits seem almost unobtainable without jumping through seemingly stupid requirements for no good reason (and allegedly needing to be a pro shooter is one great example of a stupid requirement).

Just make them legal, have them licensable the same as the rifle they're to be used on (CAT A, B, etc.), and set extra conditions on their use if needed...simple.

[Mick]

Ok, in a very round about way. I am sure that most of the blokes on this site are very responsible etc......The fact remains, they are prohibited items, you can get a permit by showing evidence of need (not want). Whether that is right or wrong is not up to me to decide.

Because obviously only pro shooters are trustworthy enough to own such a weapon of mass destruction.

Are you fucking kidding?

Where's the smiley for retard?

This right here is the reason we keep getting rammed in the arse with gun laws.

You dickhead. It is not a matter of trust mate, they want to keep tabs on it and that is their way of doing so. A permit system.

Have a look at some of our other laws for totally ridiculous setups.

When you say you get rammed in the arse Mick, what excatly do you mean?? The loss of semi-autos??

The loss of semi autos, restrictions on caliber and mag size of handguns, legislating the "appearance" of a rifle, legislating against "pistol grip" stocks, 28 day PTA wait on every firearm purchase, etc etc etc.

I'm not the dickhead proposing that the laws are just fine as they are. I'm not the tool saying nobody else in the country should be allowed to use a suppressor, and not the wanker saying perfectly law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed semi autos. But yea....