Gaznazdiak wrote:We need to point out that "silencers" don't silence, merely reduce the report to a level safe for the user. A level less likely to disturb stock and scare off potential feral target animals and allows for better situational awareness of the person operating the firearm.
Nobody hunts in built up areas with firearms, so bringing the idea up is counter productive.
Southpaw wrote:Actually the only reason we’re pushing for suppressors down here is for the shooters OH&S. Obviously the fact that we wouldn’t be keeping people awake at night is a big plus. And there are a quite a few suburbs that back right onto farm land where shooting takes place.
So he is actually right.
And while we’ve got a government down here willing to actually listen to shooting groups we need to be pushing back against the anti’s. They say “you want to use suppressors so you can shoot in built up areas!” We say “no, we already legally shoot NEAR these built up areas, we just want to use suppressors so we don’t keep hard working Mum’s and Dad’s awake with all the noise”.
No matter what we do, the anti-gunners want our guns.
So we need to be honest about what shooters do, and why we need regulations changed.
Right now in Tassie, both political parties support shooters, with greens support at a historic low.
Strike while the irons hot.
Just like Howard did.
bigfellascott wrote: well said.
bigfellascott wrote:Or it could be that it would be a blessing for those who live close to ranges or in the outskirts of country towns whom don't wish to be hearing gunshots at night as roo culls or fox culls happen. But as usual simple people will just do what they always do and overreact. Tell me the last time you can recall law abidding licensed firearm owners shooting up the "suburbs" - it doesn't happen, it does however if you are a drug dealing outlaw motorcycle gang member who of course don't have firearms legally and I'm sure if they wanted silences which aren't silent anyway they'd be able to get their hands on them as they are piss easy to make out of just about anything you can imagine, even a farking orange!
YoungBuck wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:We need to point out that "silencers" don't silence, merely reduce the report to a level safe for the user. A level less likely to disturb stock and scare off potential feral target animals and allows for better situational awareness of the person operating the firearm.
Nobody hunts in built up areas with firearms, so bringing the idea up is counter productive.
A good start might be to stop calling them 'silencers' as they do not silence the shot...
Suppressors or moderators should be the terminology.
bigfellascott wrote:Gaznazdiak wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Or it could be that it would be a blessing for those who live close to ranges or in the outskirts of country towns whom don't wish to be hearing gunshots at night as roo culls or fox culls happen. But as usual simple people will just do what they always do and overreact. Tell me the last time you can recall law abidding licensed firearm owners shooting up the "suburbs" - it doesn't happen, it does however if you are a drug dealing outlaw motorcycle gang member who of course don't have firearms legally and I'm sure if they wanted silences which aren't silent anyway they'd be able to get their hands on them as they are piss easy to make out of just about anything you can imagine, even a farking orange!
I can't tell if you are jesting or just had trouble understanding my comment.
I didn't and don't call them silencers, I was qutoting someone who should know better.
I did not suggest that people would be shooting up the suburbs, if you actually read my comment you'll see that I said people DON'T.
My inference, which obviously went straight over your head, was that the ANTIs would.
And I'm the one overreacting?
Pays to actually read the comment before deciding to attack the author from a mistaken inference YOU put on it.
You just look like a nong otherwise.
Your heading to the thread says it all for all to read!
Your infering that the firearms shop owner some how made an error in judgement that somehow will cast a bad light on shooters, he did nothing of the sort, just pointed out the truth but apparently that's too much for you to handle - oh well.
P.S. they've always been known as silencers, just lately people have started to change the name to make it more palitable.
bigrich wrote:fellas, gazza, BFS. c'mon..... beers all round fellas
bigrich wrote:fellas, gazza, BFS. c'mon guys it's a forum with views/opinions and sometimes critisism that shouldn't be taken too seriously. it's a interesting topic, and i think if their wasn't so much scare mongering , proffessional roo and vermin shooters, shooters with a genuine need (in england i think it is determined by the size of the property ) should be able to access silencers/supressors . beers all round fellas
bigrich wrote:here's a story for ya's. had a mate who while in england was shooting rabbits on crown land legally. or so he thought. was sighting up and heard "ahem" from behind him. was the local coppers. he was warned about a breach of the law. for not using a "sound suppressor" ! in england they WANT you to use a silencer so you don't disturb anyone. as has been said before, silencers are easy enough to make. have read somewhere special forces are issued with a adaptor that screws on the end of the muzzle to adapt a OIL FILTER ! with a perforated metal inner sleeve, a outer metal case and filter medium in between they apparently make a very good sound suppressor. i would put the hole in the end of the filter first though otherwise a nasty explosion may result. just what i read
Southpaw wrote:Actually the only reason we’re pushing for suppressors down here is for the shooters OH&S. Obviously the fact that we wouldn’t be keeping people awake at night is a big plus. And there are a quite a few suburbs that back right onto farm land where shooting takes place.
So he is actually right.
And while we’ve got a government down here willing to actually listen to shooting groups we need to be pushing back against the anti’s. They say “you want to use suppressors so you can shoot in built up areas!” We say “no, we already legally shoot NEAR these built up areas, we just want to use suppressors so we don’t keep hard working Mum’s and Dad’s awake with all the noise”.
No matter what we do, the anti-gunners want our guns.
So we need to be honest about what shooters do, and why we need regulations changed.
Right now in Tassie, both political parties support shooters, with greens support at a historic low.
Strike while the irons hot.
Just like Howard did.
Bent Arrow wrote:bigrich wrote:fellas, gazza, BFS. c'mon..... beers all round fellas
Most sensible thing I've read all day
Wombat wrote:bigrich wrote:here's a story for ya's. had a mate who while in england was shooting rabbits on crown land legally. or so he thought. was sighting up and heard "ahem" from behind him. was the local coppers. he was warned about a breach of the law. for not using a "sound suppressor" ! in england they WANT you to use a silencer so you don't disturb anyone. as has been said before, silencers are easy enough to make. have read somewhere special forces are issued with a adaptor that screws on the end of the muzzle to adapt a OIL FILTER ! with a perforated metal inner sleeve, a outer metal case and filter medium in between they apparently make a very good sound suppressor. i would put the hole in the end of the filter first though otherwise a nasty explosion may result. just what i read
Actually one of the very few instances of bad people using suppressors in Australia was with such a device. A Man murdered three people in Melbourne and months later tried to commit an armed robbery in St Kilda rd with a sawn off Ruger 10/22 with an oil filter suppressor.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-or ... d47e7025f5
bigrich wrote:your both wrong BFS ! their called "Quiet-ners "
bigfellascott wrote:Or it could be that it would be a blessing for those who live close to ranges or in the outskirts of country towns whom don't wish to be hearing gunshots at night as roo culls or fox culls happen.
Gwion wrote:bigfellascott wrote:Or it could be that it would be a blessing for those who live close to ranges or in the outskirts of country towns whom don't wish to be hearing gunshots at night as roo culls or fox culls happen.
Yep. Our range is very close to town. Not that we would use suppressors as i don't think the comp rules allow so why practice with something you can't use in comp. This could change and doesn't apply to all target shooting, thiugh.
The point about culling is very valid. We often hear gunshots from the neighbours. Doesn't worry me but it would for some people.
Still. People should think about how they phrase things in public and the media. It may suck arse but we all have to act as ambassadors for the sport if wecwant any traction to effect positive change.