Good suppressor campaign

[Baronvonrort]

When was the last crime that even involved the use of a suppressor? They never seem to pop up in any shootings that I've noticed, I'll have to Google it.

Mr Eastman shot Colin Winchester with a sound moderator on his ruger 10/22, the gun was never recovered,forensics linked his silencer to the crime.

Mr Eastman's appeal mentioned the fact witnesses heard the gunshots which he claimed would not be possible if he used a silencer, the PMC ammo he used was not subsonic.

The Gemtech catalog lists a 20-30 Db reduction when using their silencers.

This is one case of a silencer being used for murder, the silencer was crucial in forensics linking that silencer to the crime.

[WesleySnipes]

One case of a suppressor being used in early 1989, 25 years ago.

We need to be looking for statistics on crime with suppressors in recent years, not cherry picked incidents on high profile targets from over 2 decades ago.

No wonder they're still heavily restricted if this keeps being brought up, you're playing right into the hands of the people who want them banned.

[Baronvonrort]

WS

The silencer was crucial in convicting Mr Eastman for the murder of Colin Winchester,the prosecution had little else as the gun was never recovered.

Yes Mr Eastman used one and it was a key piece of evidence leading to his conviction.

[Die Judicii]

If silencers were ever to be allowed back, I see no reason why they shouldn't be treated the same as a firearm.

ie: Have a serial number, be registered to the owner, and be kept in the F/A Safe when not in use.

Pardon the pun, but surely any "sound" thinking critic would have to see the sense in that.

[mausermate]

I think for the argument to develop any worthwhile political debate it must contain a benefit to the wider community, not just a few firearm users.

Furthermore, I do not believe the argument will gain any momentum with a "you choose" policy attached. I see, and I would guess the public will see little benefit in 10 people on the firing line with suppressors and 10 not. That then leads us to the question. Do we all want suppressors on all our guns, all the time? I think not.

This may be a case of "careful what you wish for".

[SendIt]

I see, and I would guess the public will see little benefit in 10 people on the firing line with suppressors and 10 not.

I have to disagree with that...

This is from Old Bloke in an earlier topic on electronic ear muffs.

According to the current Australian OHS/WHS regulations exposing employees to noise levels over a peak of 140db or to noise at or above an average of 85dB(A)leq for the period of an 8hr shift.

It is the “peak” of 140db that applies to shooters. Above this level you will have some hearing loss.

It's pretty straight forward to me...

20 guys on the line fire a shot each, you're subject to 20 potentially hearing damaging sound peaks.

10 guys on the line with suppressors and 10 without, you're subject to only 10 potentially hearing damaging sound peaks.

I see a 50% benefit right there.

You've above comment suggests that if you can't fix a problem 100% there is no point in doing anything, and I'm sure you don't agree with that.

In either case, that's obviously not the reasoning that's applied to other legislation. You could just as easily say "I see little benefit in outlawing speeding when 50% of people driving do it anyway".

I don't see why you wouldn't apply the same reasoning to suppressors.

[mausermate]

In either case, that's obviously not the reasoning that's applied to other legislation. You could just as easily say "I see little benefit in outlawing speeding when 50% of people driving do it anyway".

I don't see why you wouldn't apply the same reasoning to suppressors.

I am hearing you! pardon the pun, but Speeding is not self regulated, you might want to speed and yes, half might do it but if you are caught you are fined.

Likewise, you may not want to wear a helmet on your bike to protect your head but you will be fined if you do not.

You may not want to fit a suppressor to your firearm to protect your ears and those of others around you but if you don't...

[SendIt]

That still brings me back to applying the same reasoning to suppressors, I'd be perfectly happy for them to be similarly regulated if it meant having them.

Off the top of my head I would suggest a set of regulations along the lines of...

You may (optional) use a suppressor at the range.
You may (optional) use a suppressor in a hunting environment.
You may not travel with a suppressor fitted.
Suppressors must be secured while being transported (similar to ammo, in a locked box etc.).
Suppressors must be stored securely at home (similar to firearm or ammunition storage).

Like driving, while you're doing the right thing you should be able to go about your business without interruption but if you're found to be doing the wrong thing then there is an appropriate penalty.

That's perfectly reasonable in my opinion. Do you agree?

[mausermate]

Yes, I agree in principal to what you are saying but unfortunately it does not always work that way.

I'd say more but in the world of politics it's often wise not to blurt out all on a public forum.others may be listening

It's a good topic, worthy of discussion. I still say "err on the side of caution".

[SendIt]

Yeah mate, I know.

Not suggesting anyone goes outside the rules, just my opinion of what the rules should be.