Australia's Gun Problem

[The Atheist]

Evidence?

Nope; haven't seen you present any so far.

 

[uvar]

It's looking like, nearly twenty years after it was made illegal, paintballing might eventually be allowed in Tasmania: http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/3311414/first-paintball-site-proposed. Although it would require an amendment to the Firearms Act 1996, so it's not a certainty.

I don't remember if paintball guns were specifically included or the law was just unnecessarily broad - looking it up, apparently the entire concept of "war games" is banned, and maybe paintball gun design - but either way it's another one of those silly things that have got stuck because the few people who care aren't enough to counteract the political difficulty of changing gun laws. At least we got to keep Laser Tag.

Incidentally, while I was trying to find more about their inclusion, I remembered getting a showbag as a kid that included a knockoff Airsoft (also now banned), that fired shoddy yellow rubber balls with an elastic band. That was a fun toy.

 

[tyr_13]

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

I made up no such thing. In response to the question of if it's a safety feature or not, you said it wasn't mandatory and was illegal. If you were not trying to make that argument that you claim I 'made up', you should have communicated it better. You should have at least provided an argument in response to what your were, responding to.

And no, it's not my understanding that's the issue. You've continually done this on this issue. You throw out a lot of things in response to something, then insist that those things you said weren't actually arguments about what you were replying to. If you're not going to address what was being said, don't bother quoting. It's confusing.

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

Then your statement was essentially meaningless. They are a safety feature, and you're still against them.

True. But they should be.

Then you should want silencers to be mandatory.

Being optional doesn't make something not a safety feature. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature. Being illegal doesn't make something not a safety feature. Having drawbacks doesn't make something not a safety feature. Everything thus far argued about why something that increases safety isn't a safety feature isn't remotely valid.

Let me see if I've got the things you've admitted are your arguments correct. Some things should just be illegal, because. Silencers are one of those things. Silencers should be illegal because someone might make money selling them. Silencers should be illegal because they aren't a safety feature (even though the quite obviously are). All the other parts of your posts aren't arguments of why silencers should be illegal. Correct?

 

[tyr_13]

Very simple. Wear earmuffs, silencer is redundant.

The end.

That's a non-sequitur. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature.

Again a completely illogical analogy.

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

Airbags. And they don't 'obstruct' you. Or one could do the reasonable thing and use both.

Having other option in no way, shape, or form, makes something not a safety feature. Hell, having a better option doesn't even make something not a safety feature. Having drawbacks doesn't make something not a safety feature. Something is not a safety feature if it doesn't increase safety when properly employed.

In hunting, they increase the danger in two ways:

1 Obstruction.

Um, what? How is that a danger? Is a Mosin Nagant long rifle inherently unsafe because it's long? Pistols are safer because they're less of an 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.

No they don't. You don't tell where the hunters are by the sound of their gunshots. By the time you hear the shot, the bullet's already hit, and if you were in the bullet's way, you're already hit. Depending on what one is hunting, after you've fired, you're probably moving anyway.

You tell where the hunters are by wearing orange and coordinating. You avoid accidentally shoot someone by making damn sure about what you're shooting at and what's behind it before taking the shot. You don't simply listen for gunshots. Besides that, you can still plainly hear gunshots with silencers.

These things should be blindingly obvious.

If they weren't blindingly wrong, maybe they would be.

You're saying some countries insist on silencers?

Yes. Some countries insist on silencers in some situations. I believe it was Sweden and New Zealand.

 

[Ranb]

double post

 

[Ranb]

Nope; haven't seen you present any so far.

So when you claim; "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." someone else is suppose to provide some evidence to support or refute your claim? I understand that this is the usual sort of thing on forums like DI and LCF, but here it just gets a person laughed at. Going to suck it up and support your bizarre claim?

Ranb

 

[uvar]

So when you claim; "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." someone else is suppose to provide some evidence to support or refute your claim? I understand that this is the usual sort of thing on forums like DI and LCF, but here it just gets a person laughed at. Going to suck it up and support your bizarre claim?

Ranb

Here, I'll help with the first half of The Atheist's claim:

A string of hunting accidents is proof New Zealand's firearms laws need to be reviewed, a leading gun control advocate says.

In the past 10 years, 19 people have died and 57 have been injured by firearms.

(Source, May 11 2014)

Those are specifically from hunting; overall deaths are a lot higher, and mostly suicides (e.g.).

 

[The Atheist]

That's a non-sequitur. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature.

No, and I'll gladly amend it to "non-essential safety feature".

Airbags.

I'm stunned at the false analogies, but keep going. Airbags don't do the same job as seat belts.

Um, what? How is that a danger? Is a Mosin Nagant long rifle inherently unsafe because it's long? Pistols are safer because they're less of an obstruction?

Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.

Where anyone hunts in NZ is always in bush, so obstructions are an issue. If you're hunting on the savannah, it probably doesn't matter.

No they don't. You don't tell where the hunters are by the sound of their gunshots. By the time you hear the shot, the bullet's already hit, and if you were in the bullet's way, you're already hit. Depending on what one is hunting, after you've fired, you're probably moving anyway.

You've missed the point.

If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.

You tell where the hunters are by wearing orange and coordinating. You avoid accidentally shoot someone by making damn sure about what you're shooting at and what's behind it before taking the shot. You don't simply listen for gunshots. Besides that, you can still plainly hear gunshots with silencers.

You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.

The identifying the target only goes to the target - the problem with being too close to another hunter is missing the target, which has been known to happen.

It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.

Yes. Some countries insist on silencers in some situations. I believe it was Sweden and New Zealand.

"Some situations".

I don't know of any compulsory silencer requirements in NZ, so if there are they must be secret.

I can't find any evidence of Sweden requiring silencers, either.

They are legal in both countries, but not compulsory.

 

[Ranb]

Here, I'll help with the first half of The Atheist's claim:

That is not the problem. Claiming that there are hunting deaths associated with gun use is not unusual nor is there any lack of evidence to support the claim. Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.

Par for the course on this forum when it comes to claims about guns. Make an unsupported claim about guns and demand that anyone not falling for the crap refute it with their own evidence.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.

What about with a pistol like the TC Contender or Encore? https://www.google.com/search?q=tc+...ChMI6vmGx9vkxwIVBhw-Ch01Ywjz&biw=1093&bih=457

It seems you are falling into the same trap as the moonbats who like to call the Apollo program a hoax; they don't like it.

If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.

How much easier? A lot or a tiny bit? Is it statistically significant?

You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.

How did you determine this?

It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.

If you can hear a suppressed gunshot from miles away, what is the problem?

Ranb

 

[uvar]

That is not the problem. Claiming that there are hunting deaths associated with gun use is not unusual nor is there any lack of evidence to support the claim. Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.

Par for the course on this forum when it comes to claims about guns. Make an unsupported claim about guns and demand that anyone not falling for the crap refute it with their own evidence.

Ranb

While I agree that expecting someone else to research a claim is a bad setup, my 'help' was sarcastic. it was easy to find evidence in this case, and the original claim was apparently off by a factor of ten. It seemed worse to let that go uncorrected.

 

[tyr_13]

No, and I'll gladly amend it to "non-essential safety feature".

Yay! It was being to boggle my mind how this distinction wasn't accepted.

I'm stunned at the false analogies, but keep going. Airbags don't do the same job as seat belts.

Actually, they do. A seat belt protects you by absorbing some force gradually and isolating your movements so as to prevent you from hitting a harder surface or be thrown from a car. Guess what airbags also do? They both have benefits and drawbacks, but the basics of what they are doing is the same; protecting you from impacts. This is very analogous (although like all analogies not perfectly so) for the difference in ear mufflers and silencers on the gun itself. Both protect your ears from the loud report of a firearm by preventing most of it from reaching your ears. They do it in different ways (although even that is closer than one might think). They have different benefits and drawbacks. I'd say using both is the right thing to do.

I meant to link to this earlier, but this is worth the watch. I know people don't tend to like argument via youtube video, but this one is short (less than five minutes), entertaining, and not from gun nuts. It's the Mythbusters. The last part is especially useful.

Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.

Where anyone hunts in NZ is always in bush, so obstructions are an issue. If you're hunting on the savannah, it probably doesn't matter.

In either case, safe movement procedures should be followed. I'm not asking this to attack your knowledge on the subject, but have you ever taken a hunter safety course? They're required in New York to hunt, and moving safely with firearms takes up a lot of the course work. They even cover going over a fence safely with firearms. In no case does having a slightly longer or front heavy rifle actually make it more dangerous, unless one is not actually following safe movement practices. In that case, a front heavy gun could fall and has a (very, very small!) chance of firing. Of course if you were following safe practices, you would have unloaded the firearm before leaning it against something so you can go around/over/through and obstruction. Even better, you would have had a proper sling for your gun and wouldn't have likely needed to lean it in the first place. (This is another reason I've become somewhat distrusting of many of the people proposing more gun regulations, as some have called for bans on safety features not only on things like silencers, but on slings.)

You've missed the point.

If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.


You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.

The identifying the target only goes to the target - the problem with being too close to another hunter is missing the target, which has been known to happen.

It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.

Right into someone else who hasn't fired yet. You can still hear the report from a shot fired from a silencer miles away.

If you don't know who is hunting around you, you should make an effort to be highly visible and to greet anyone you find hunting so you can coordinate. This has such a greater effect on your safety than walking away from gunshots, that it's actually inadvisable to rely on the listening for safety. One's ability to tell what direction a gunshot is actually coming from can be easily confounded, and you can end up traveling into their field of fire anyway. Can it be useful sometimes? Of course, but suppressors don't actually prevent this, so it's still not a knock on them.

"Some situations".

I don't know of any compulsory silencer requirements in NZ, so if there are they must be secret.

I can't find any evidence of Sweden requiring silencers, either.

They are legal in both countries, but not compulsory.

You know, I could be mistaken. I thought I read about when a silencer is required in one of the nordic countries, but I can't seem to find it now.

 

[The Atheist]

Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.

That is pure, unadultered nonsense.

What the hell size sample do you think there is?

They're banned outright almost everywhere.

In the lack of evidence, it's perfectly reason to use rational thinking.

What about with a pistol like the TC Contender or Encore?

I wouldn't have a clue as I've never seen one.

I'm sure there are some hunters who use pistols.

How much easier? A lot or a tiny bit? Is it statistically significant?

Highly significant, in my view.

If I can hear shots faintly and can pinpoint them to a mile away or more, then I'm almost 100% safe where I am.

I also know that moving in that direction will put me in harm's way, while moving away will take me further from a chance of being hit accidentally.

How did you determine this?

With an aural receptor.

If you can hear a suppressed gunshot from miles away, what is the problem?

Ranb

I know it's an attempt at facetiousness, but I'll note anyway that you cannot hear silenced shots from miles away, exactly unlike unsuppressed shots.

...for the difference in ear mufflers and silencers on the gun itself. Both protect your ears from the loud report of a firearm by preventing most of it from reaching your ears. They do it in different ways (although even that is closer than one might think). They have different benefits and drawbacks. I'd say using both is the right thing to do.

That is ridiculous.

Grade 5 earmuffs are specifically designed to reduce sounds to a level damage cannot occur. From hearing safety perspectives, earmuffs are 100% effective.

ie, safe movement procedures should be followed.

I'm not talking about accidental discharges, because anyone carrying a gun with it able to fire under any circumstances is a moron and I'm not here to discuss morons.

I'm talking about the logistics of moving over broken ground and in bush. Longer things get in your way, and when you're focusing 100% attention on not falling into a ravine, extra length is not good.

Right into someone else who hasn't fired yet. You can still hear the report from a shot fired from a silencer miles away.

Yeah, right.

You know, I could be mistaken. I thought I read about when a silencer is required in one of the nordic countries, but I can't seem to find it now.

How decidedly inconvenient.

 

[Ranb]

That is pure, unadultered nonsense.

If you make a claim, either qualify it or at least be prepared to show any evidence at all to support it. You have done neither.

What the hell size sample do you think there is?

It is rather small; about zero in Australia I presume. What about data from other countries. Have you never compared Australia gun culture to others?

They're banned outright almost everywhere.

Wrong. Why say something so easy to prove wrong? Even a brief look at Wikipedia will show you how foolish your claim is.

In the lack of evidence, it's perfectly reason to use rational thinking.

Evidence appears to be lacking only because you refuse to look for any. Your thinking on this topic certainly is not rational at all. It appears you have no clue about the physical limitations of silencers or their legalities.

I wouldn't have a clue as I've never seen one.

You should have one prior to making any claims then.

I'm sure there are some hunters who use pistols.

Finally, a claim that is correct. I'm good enough with mine to take game out to 200 meters. Yes it takes lots of practice.

Highly significant, in my view.

It seems you have no idea about how loud a suppressed high powered hunting rifle is. Why do you think it is highly significant?

If I can hear shots faintly and can pinpoint them to a mile away or more, then I'm almost 100% safe where I am.

I also know that moving in that direction will put me in harm's way, while moving away will take me further from a chance of being hit accidentally.

So a suppressed gunshot heard from a mile away or more makes you feel unsafe then? Why does it matter if it is suppressed or not?

With an aural receptor.

From your previous posts it appears that you know nothing about silencers, but now you are telling me that you've heard the actual difference between suppressed and unsuppressed gunfire? Or are you making a completely uninformed guess like the rest of your claims?

I know it's an attempt at facetiousness, but I'll note anyway that you cannot hear silenced shots from miles away, exactly unlike unsuppressed shots.

I can't? Why not? Can you explain why a supersonic bullet creating a sonic boom >100 decibels and a muzzle blast of over 130 decibels can't be heard miles away from the shooter?

That is ridiculous.

Grade 5 earmuffs are specifically designed to reduce sounds to a level damage cannot occur. From hearing safety perspectives, earmuffs are 100% effective.

Grade 5 ear muffs? I assume they are rated for about 30 decibel reduction? That is good, but I'll still be using ear muffs (good ones) along with the silencer when I shoot my 50 BMG rifle. Not ridiculous.

Yeah, right.

What makes you the expert? Here is a video I made on the limitations of silencer use. Start watching at 6 minutes in for the relevant portion. While one has to be present to appreciated how well a silencer works, hunting rifles are still rather loud when suppressed.


Ranb

 

[The Atheist]

If you make a claim, either qualify it or at least be prepared to show any evidence at all to support it. You have done neither.

I admit there is no evidence available and your response is to demand evidence.

Highly rational.

Wrong. Why say something so easy to prove wrong? Even a brief look at Wikipedia will show you how foolish your claim is.

I admit that I was wrong. It's more 50/50 than a majority of countries.

From your previous posts it appears that you know nothing about silencers, but now you are telling me that you've heard the actual difference between suppressed and unsuppressed gunfire? Or are you making a completely uninformed guess like the rest of your claims?

Of course I've heard the difference and it's more than significant. A measure would be that a suppressed shot is about the level of a loud hand clap or bullwhip.

 

[Ranb]

Of course I've heard the difference and it's more than significant. A measure would be that a suppressed shot is about the level of a loud hand clap or bullwhip.

You're on the right track. I've compared a suppressed firearm using subsonic ammo to a door slamming and the sonic boom of a high speed bullet to a whip cracking sound. I'm not sure how loud an actual whip crack is as I'm not able to locate good sound data with the proper equipment.

Here is some noise data; http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm While there has been slight improvement a suppressed 308 hunting rifle is going to be heard a long ways away.


Ranb

 

[arthwollipot]

Woman dead after being shot in head at Gold Coast McDonald's, gunman taken to hospital

A woman is dead after being shot in the head at a McDonald's restaurant at Helensvale on the Gold Coast.

The 49-year-old was shot by a 57-year-old man, who then turned the gun on himself, in the dining area of the restaurant on Siganto Drive about 9:15am.

Queensland Police Services' Detective Inspector Mark White said the man was taken to Gold Coast University Hospital with critical head injuries.

The man and woman were known to each other and were both from Maryborough on the Fraser Coast.

No-one else was physically injured.

 

[The Atheist]

Copycats!

We had a bloke shot dead at Maccas Upper Hutt on Tuesday.

(that one was ok - the cops shot him)

 

[arthwollipot]

Pro-gun lobbyists disrupt gun control appeal in Sydney, claim they are being vilified as criminals

Gun owners have disrupted a press conference in Sydney calling for a ban on a new rapid-fire shotgun, claiming they are being branded as criminals.

Gun Control Australia (GCA) teamed up with the Homicide Victims Support Group to call on the states and the Federal Government to ban the Adler A110 lever action shotgun in Australia.

The A110 uses a lever action to load cartridges into the barrel.

Ms Cusumano told the press conference the A110 threatened to take Australia back to the days before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

"I suppose I'm just a little bit angry that we're still dealing with [the issue of gun control] 20 years later," she said.

"We need to stop this gun from coming into Australia just in case it gets into the wrong hands."

New South Wales Greens MP David Shoebridge joined the call to ban the Adler and said any weapon with the capacity to fire eight shots in quick-succession should be considered a risk to the community.

Three gun owners from NSW disrupted the press conference and claimed they were being vilified by the gun control lobby.

Gun owner Justin Luke said law-abiding shooters were being treated like criminals.

"We are being painted as criminals and that has to stop," he said.

"The vilification of law-abiding shooters has to stop and ... the attention needs to be on criminals."

Sounds like our gun lobbyists are trying to import American arguments and methods into our country. These are exactly the same invalid arguments that gun owners on this forum have used.

 

[theprestige]

Pro-gun lobbyists disrupt gun control appeal in Sydney, claim they are being vilified as criminals







Sounds like our gun lobbyists are trying to import American arguments and methods into our country. These are exactly the same invalid arguments that gun owners on this forum have used.

Australians, eh? There's no accounting for folk, I suppose. Good luck with your lever action shotgun problem.