Australia's Gun Problem

[arthwollipot]

contrasted to flashing turn indicators, seat belts, which had to be retrofitted to all cars

air bags are not safety, but an accessory. And an unnecessary one.

I disagree. Cars without airbags may still be permitted on the roads in some places, but they are still unsafe.

 

[Noztradamus]

I disagree. Cars without airbags may still be permitted on the roads in some places, but they are still unsafe.

Well, if you have an Opinion, that settles it.

 

[The Atheist]

It's not a safety feature.

I have to agree with you here - a silencer has nothing to do with safety.

Some people like to use them, and that's fine with me, but they are an unnecessary addition to a rifle and I suspect the proponents of them are either target shooters or rank amateurs (or both).

From a hunting perspective, anything that lengthens the weapon is a bloody nuisance and makes carrying the rifle more difficult. It is more likely to get caught on scrub and plants and no serious hunter is going to put himself in a position of stopping to screw the silencer on, so using them for hunting isn't an option.

The noise concern is a red herring. If it were a real safety issue, they would be compulsory in competitions, which they are not.

 

[jenspen]

contrasted to flashing turn indicators, seat belts, which had to be retrofitted to all cars

air bags are not safety, but an accessory. And an unnecessary one.

Boggle.

 

[tyr_13]

It's not a safety feature. If it were, then all guns would be required to have them. Because that's what a safety feature is. It's an accessory. And an unnecessary one. It's optional. If it were a safety feature, then I wouldn't be against it being legal.

First, some places do require them. Secondly, your reasoning is circular. You say it shouldn't be legal. You say if it were a safety feature it should be legal. You say that it's illegal, and therefore not a safety feature. You also argue that it isn't a safety feature because you wouldn't be against it if it were one. That's not a valid argument that it isn't one. It being optional isn't an argument that it isn't either, see more below. In no way are all safety features for well, anything all mandatory.

I have to agree with you here - a silencer has nothing to do with safety.

Some people like to use them, and that's fine with me, but they are an unnecessary addition to a rifle and I suspect the proponents of them are either target shooters or rank amateurs (or both).

From a hunting perspective, anything that lengthens the weapon is a bloody nuisance and makes carrying the rifle more difficult. It is more likely to get caught on scrub and plants and no serious hunter is going to put himself in a position of stopping to screw the silencer on, so using them for hunting isn't an option.

The noise concern is a red herring. If it were a real safety issue, they would be compulsory in competitions, which they are not.

See above about being compulsory, but something being optional isn't evidence at all that it isn't a safety feature. Slings are a safety feature, they are not mandatory. Manual and grip safeties aren't mandatory, but if a safety isn't a safety feature, I don't know what is. Motorcycle helmets aren't mandatory everywhere, are they not a safety feature in PA? Motorcycle armor isn't mandatory anywhere (that I know of), and it is a safety feature. Floats in a pool are a safety feature, yet I don't see anyone but children swim in arm floats.

As for being inconvenient, yes, it can be. Like seat belts. Are they not safety features?

Noise complaints aren't a red herring in the least. Mufflers help protect hearing. In a competition environment, there are often many other elements to help mitigate the noise risk, including range design, baffles, and of course how much easier it is to wear full sized ear covers over top of ear plugs compared to well, any other time. Even then, silencers help make things more safe.

 

[The Atheist]

First, some places do require them.

Yeah, gun clubs and the like - fair enough too, in their circumstances. They have other people to consider, but I made the specific point of guns & hunting.

I also stressed it's not a safety issue at all and there's no confusion about that at all. My point about competition reinforces that, because serious competitions enforce stringent safety rules and the top level does not allow them.

If you want to try to claim they're about safety, you will need to present evidence.

I don't believe I commented on their legality at any stage.

The analogies of motorbike headgear, seat belts and airbags are both irrelevant and incorrect, because I can demonstrate very easily that those improve safety. There is no evidence to show that silencers make guns safer, and in a hunting situation I would argue strongly they are much more dangerous.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, gun clubs and the like - fair enough too, in their circumstances. They have other people to consider, but I made the specific point of guns & hunting.

I also stressed it's not a safety issue at all and there's no confusion about that at all. My point about competition reinforces that, because serious competitions enforce stringent safety rules and the top level does not allow them.

If you want to try to claim they're about safety, you will need to present evidence.

I don't believe I commented on their legality at any stage.

The analogies of motorbike headgear, seat belts and airbags are both irrelevant and incorrect, because I can demonstrate very easily that those improve safety. There is no evidence to show that silencers make guns safer, and in a hunting situation I would argue strongly they are much more dangerous.

Silencers reduce the level of noise produced from shooting a gun from a dangerous level to a less or even non dangerous level. This is, in and of itself, a safety feature. Duh.

They are a safety device, and your insistence they are not is not an argument. You don't get to simply claim it's not a safety issue and that there is no confusion on that. I already addressed exactly why and you just handwaved it. Why do competitions ban them? That competitions ban them is not evidence they are not a safety feature.

How on earth do they make it more dangerous? Again, like seatbelts in rare situations make it more dangerous?

EDIT: And no, not just gun clubs. Countries.

 

[The Atheist]

Silencers reduce the level of noise produced from shooting a gun from a dangerous level to a less or even non dangerous level. This is, in and of itself, a safety feature. Duh.

Very simple. Wear earmuffs, silencer is redundant.

The end.

How on earth do they make it more dangerous? Again, like seatbelts in rare situations make it more dangerous?

Again a completely illogical analogy.

You cannot take an option other than seat-belts. You can wear earmuffs.

In hunting, they increase the danger in two ways:

1 Obstruction.

2 Hunters in the same forest can hear other gunshots and stay away from each other. Christ, even a little country like NZ gets a dozen or so hunting deaths a year and using silencers increases the chances of people getting in each other's line of fire.

These things should be blindingly obvious.

EDIT: And no, not just gun clubs. Countries.

You're saying some countries insist on silencers?

 

[arthwollipot]

First, some places do require them. Secondly, your reasoning is circular. You say it shouldn't be legal. You say if it were a safety feature it should be legal. You say that it's illegal, and therefore not a safety feature.

No, you've got that bit entirely backwards. Without that bit that you just made up, it's not circular.

You also argue that it isn't a safety feature because you wouldn't be against it if it were one. That's not a valid argument that it isn't one.

Good thing I didn't argue that. You made that up too.

It being optional isn't an argument that it isn't either, see more below. In no way are all safety features for well, anything all mandatory.

True. But they should be.

 

[uvar]

Am I missing something, The Atheist?

• Silencers reduce the noise of guns.
• Earmuffs reduce the noise of guns.
• Earmuffs reduce gun noise at least as much as silencers.
• Earmuffs are an alternative to silencers.
• (Hunting is dangerous.)
• Silencers make hunting more dangerous by making it harder to hear someone else's gun.
• Earmuffs... make hunting even more dangerous than silencers?

This isn't some cunning trap, it just seems like a strange pair of arguments. The 'solution' I prefer is: earmuffs aren't a perfect alternative and hardly make silencers redundant.

I'd be hard-pressed to argue in-ear hearing protection is physically obstructive, but it's not like everyone goes hunting with handguns just because they're short either. Plus I'm not sure that having to dodge tree branches and the like is a big problem at the typical shooting range.

 

[The Atheist]

Am I missing something, The Atheist?

Yes. I've yet to see a hunter wear earmuffs.

Like a silencer, you're not going to hope the target stays still while you put them on.

The 'solution' I prefer is: earmuffs aren't a perfect alternative and hardly make silencers redundant.

Yes, they are a perfect alternative to silencers. While they may not reduce the sound as much as a silencer, they will protect hearing 100%, so that's as perfect as they need to be.

Plus I'm not sure that having to dodge tree branches and the like is a big problem at the typical shooting range.

No they're not.

Like I said, if you want to use them at a shooting range, that's cool, but they are not essential in any form.

Accordingly, calls to legalise their use based on safety is simply nonsense.

 

[Ranb]

Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products,

What existing legal products reduce the muzzle blast of a gun to something more tolerable to the shooter (who may have ear plugs) and those nearby (who don't)?

only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.

So your sole problem with silencers is that someone might make money with their sale? That is it? I've never seen anyone have this kind of problem with silencers before.

What if we take the licensed manufacturer out of the equation and allow the hobbyist to fabricate them? I've conversed with several gun owners in New Zealand who make their own silencers as a hobby like I do. Not only do we avoid the high cost of purchase, we learn much about metal working at the same time. I do invest in manufactured metal tubing and bar stock which is far more often used for non-firearm purposes, but for now that is unavoidable as I lack the skill/machinery to make good tubing or bar stock at home.

Your NZ cousins don't seem to have a silencer crime problem, would it be a problem in Australia if gun mufflers were allowed to be used?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Retraction noted. But I don't hold to the opinion that some American "freedom"-lovers hold, that you need reasons to make things illegal and that everything should otherwise be legal.

Your argument sounds like the noble born who is appalled that the simple peasant has the gall to live his or her own life without so much as a by your leave.

I believe that there are some things that should not be legal unless there is very good reason for them to be. I see no good reason to make silencers legal.

Very backwards thinking as far as I'm concerned.

If you start from the position that things can be illegal unless there is reason to make it legal, then my opposition is perfectly rational.

Of course it is. It's an absurd position to take in my opinion.

"Freedom" is the biggest con ever sold to the American people.

Only if a person is perfectly willing to be told what to do all the time.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

It's not a safety feature. If it were, then all guns would be required to have them. Because that's what a safety feature is. It's an accessory.

It seems that you do not understand what a safety feature is. Most people would say that a safety feature is something that is designed to ensure/increase machine or tool safety. Most people would say that a gun safety (a device that prevents accidental discharge) is meant to increase safety, not all guns have manual or even automatic safeties. Some revolvers and black powder rifles are examples.

And an unnecessary one. It's optional. If it were a safety feature, then I wouldn't be against it being legal.

It has been claimed that the most common and avoidable injury associated with gun use is hearing damage. While silencer use is optional (where legal) in most circumstances, it is very useful and extremely low risk as experience has shown.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I have to agree with you here - a silencer has nothing to do with safety.

A suppressed firearm is less likely to damage hearing; safer.

Some people like to use them, and that's fine with me, but they are an unnecessary addition to a rifle and I suspect the proponents of them are either target shooters or rank amateurs (or both).

I'm a target shooter and an amateur; lots of experience I have, so a rank amateur I'm not. I occasionally hunt.

From a hunting perspective, anything that lengthens the weapon is a bloody nuisance and makes carrying the rifle more difficult.

A suppressed rifle is not always longer than one that is not equipped with a silencer. Some people will shorten a rifle barrel then blind pin the silencer to keep the total barrel length sixteen inches, no longer than the original unsuppressed length. The barrel length is not a signifgant issue when using ammunition loaded for it.

It is more likely to get caught on scrub and plants and no serious hunter is going to put himself in a position of stopping to screw the silencer on, so using them for hunting isn't an option.

Why would a hunter screw on a silencer while hunting instead of prior to? Do you know any hunters who do this? I've yet to meet a hunter who hunts suppressed and screwed on the silencer after starting the hunt. Most knowledgeable hunters sight in their rifle and don't do anything to change the zero prior to the hunt.

The noise concern is a red herring. If it were a real safety issue, they would be compulsory in competitions, which they are not.

Not a red hearing. Not everyone who is affected by the sounds from shooting areas wears hearing protection.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

1 Obstruction.

How often are hunters harmed by this obstruction problem? Has any hunter ever been harmed by an obstruction in a silencer?

2 Hunters in the same forest can hear other gunshots and stay away from each other.

Hunters can't hear suppressed gun shots? Surely you're not making a claim like this are you? If you're not, what is the problem? If you are, some evidence would be nice.

Christ, even a little country like NZ gets a dozen or so hunting deaths a year and using silencers increases the chances of people getting in each other's line of fire.

Evidence? Surely you understand that the dominant sound of a high powered gun shot as heard by the observer down range is the sonic boom of the bullet; something a silencer has no effect on.

These things should be blindingly obvious.

Actually to anyone who shoots a suppressed hunting rifle it is blindingly obvious that these rifles are not silent and can be heard a great distance away. Where are you getting this "blindingly whatever it is" stuff from anyway?

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Yes, they are a perfect alternative to silencers. While they may not reduce the sound as much as a silencer, they will protect hearing 100%, so that's as perfect as they need to be.

Silencers reduce the noise of the gun, ear muffs only reduce the noise for the people who are wearing them. In other words, not a perfect solution.

Ranb

 

[arthwollipot]

So your sole problem with silencers is that someone might make money with their sale? That is it? I've never seen anyone have this kind of problem with silencers before.

I'm glad to be bringing new perspectives into your life.

No, it's not my sole problem, but it was one that came immediately to mind.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your argument sounds like the noble born who is appalled that the simple peasant has the gall to live his or her own life without so much as a by your leave.


Very backwards thinking as far as I'm concerned.


Of course it is. It's an absurd position to take in my opinion.


Only if a person is perfectly willing to be told what to do all the time.

Ranb

This is a topic for another time.

 

[Ranb]

Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products,....

What existing legal products reduce the muzzle blast of a gun to something more tolerable to the shooter (who may have ear plugs) and those nearby (who don't)?

Ranb