ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia issues , Australia politics

Reply
Old 3rd September 2015, 07:02 AM   #241
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That's why they are overwhelmingly more popular among criminals than rifles.
Not in the USA from what I've read. Haven't seen any rifle vs shotgun stats in Australia although I've read knives are much more often used.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2015, 03:48 PM   #242
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
The "infinitely" claims are hyperbole.

Ranb
Obviously, just as your sentence is tautological. Infinitely is deliberately hyperbolic - don't you know how staggeringly huge infinity is?

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Not in the USA from what I've read. Haven't seen any rifle vs shotgun stats in Australia although I've read knives are much more often used.

Ranb
Well, there have been plenty of crimes conducted using shotguns, most notably the Lindt siege.

It seems to work that where handguns aren't available, shotguns are the next choice.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2015, 11:46 PM   #243
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Since you know they don't make guns quiet by any means, why not?

You say that you have no problem with farmers and hobby shooters, since they're strictly regulated in Oz. Why not let them shoot with a little less hearing damage?

To me it's the equivalent of banning earplugs for motorcyclists.
Because they can still use earplugs and over-ear protection (and many people do), which are products that are useful for other purposes as well. Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:37 AM   #244
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Because they can still use earplugs and over-ear protection (and many people do), which are products that are useful for other purposes as well. Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:05 PM   #245
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
Horrors! Far better to tax that money into the coffers to support govermint eaters to police unnessessary regulations.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:15 PM   #246
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb

His argument is very rational for his goals. He doesn't want people having guns, and it's rational to make is more difficult and unpleasant to own and operate a firearm to achieve that goal.

The problem is that I don't believe most people, Aussie or otherwise, agree with his specific goal, and are basing their support on misunderstandings of what silencers are, how they work, and how they are used.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:18 PM   #247
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb
Invalid analogy (and slippery slope fallacy). I was talking about the shooter wearing earmuffs for protection against hearing damage, but you're right that it would indeed be annoying for bystanders as well.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:19 PM   #248
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
His argument is very rational for his goals. He doesn't want people having guns, and it's rational to make is more difficult and unpleasant to own and operate a firearm to achieve that goal.

The problem is that I don't believe most people, Aussie or otherwise, agree with his specific goal, and are basing their support on misunderstandings of what silencers are, how they work, and how they are used.
Interesting. Care to tell me what my specific goal is? I mean, because you're an expert on what goes on in my head and all.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:30 PM   #249
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Interesting. Care to tell me what my specific goal is? I mean, because you're an expert on what goes on in my head and all.
I'd read your posts the same way as tyr. Maybe you should be more specific?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 06:50 PM   #250
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Interesting. Care to tell me what my specific goal is? I mean, because you're an expert on what goes on in my head and all.
You don't want people having guns. I believe I stated that in my last post. Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible? Isn't that what you were getting at for silencers being illegal with all that 'discouraging manufacturing' stuff?

If not that, I don't understand your argument and I was wrong about it being rational.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 07:03 PM   #251
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You don't want people having guns. I believe I stated that in my last post. Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible? Isn't that what you were getting at for silencers being illegal with all that 'discouraging manufacturing' stuff?

If not that, I don't understand your argument and I was wrong about it being rational.
Yeah, you don't understand my argument, but I guess that's expected. I've only explained it about nine times.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 07:09 PM   #252
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yeah, you don't understand my argument, but I guess that's expected. I've only explained it about nine times.
You don't want silencers to be legal.

You don't want manufactures to manufacture gun accessories because people will buy them.

I'm sorry, without what you said is not your argument, I don't see an argument. Why shouldn't silences be legal again? If you don't want to explain a tenth time, could you link to your explanation? I just see the one.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 07:58 PM   #253
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
In short...

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible?
No. Neither of those things is my goal. If either of them were my goal, posting on an internet forum would be a pretty piss-poor way to achieve them.

My overarching goal, insofar as I have one, is to make Americans aware of how utterly ludicrous and horrifically dangerous their collective love affair with guns is, how the rest of the world sees them because of it, and perhaps to make a few of them have second thoughts about why they want guns. But that's beside the point.

My goal in this thread, as stated in my OP, is to highlight the fact that despite comprehensive and effective gun control laws, Australia still doesn't have a perfect record with guns and to point out some of the times when those laws have failed the people they're supposed to be protecting.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:33 PM   #254
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
That still makes your opposition to silencers irrational.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:39 PM   #255
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That still makes your opposition to silencers irrational.
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. 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.

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.

"Freedom" is the biggest con ever sold to the American people.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:47 PM   #256
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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. 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.

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.

"Freedom" is the biggest con ever sold to the American people.
No, your opposition is still irrational. You're opposing a safety feature, essentially, 'just because'. Your seeing no good reason is an argument from incredulity. How does one identify those 'some things' that should be illegal as a proiri? There is no such thing. You can ascribe that to 'freedom', but that's not my argument. My argument is that logical reasoning and analysis for or against (tempered by desired ideals/outcomes) determines what should and should not be legal. This first part, by the way, is the definition of 'rational'.

Your advocacy does not match your stated goals. Your advocacy is much more in line with my analysis of your goals.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:50 PM   #257
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No, your opposition is still irrational. You're opposing a safety feature, essentially, 'just because'. Your seeing no good reason is an argument from incredulity. How does one identify those 'some things' that should be illegal as a proiri? There is no such thing. You can ascribe that to 'freedom', but that's not my argument. My argument is that logical reasoning and analysis for or against (tempered by desired ideals/outcomes) determines what should and should not be legal. This first part, by the way, is the definition of 'rational'.

Your advocacy does not match your stated goals. Your advocacy is much more in line with my analysis of your goals.
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:54 PM   #258
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.
Things which are not safety features: car air bags
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 08:58 PM   #259
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Things which are not safety features: car air bags
On the contrary - they are safety features, and that's why they're required on all new cars.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 09:34 PM   #260
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
On the contrary - they are safety features, and that's why they're required on all new cars.
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.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 09:59 PM   #261
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 10:05 PM   #262
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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 Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2015, 10:58 PM   #263
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 12:22 AM   #264
jenspen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
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.
jenspen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 12:44 PM   #265
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

Last edited by tyr_13; 5th September 2015 at 12:48 PM.
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 05:54 PM   #266
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 06:14 PM   #267
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,834
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 06:38 PM   #268
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
EDIT: And no, not just gun clubs. Countries.
You're saying some countries insist on silencers?
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 06:58 PM   #269
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 07:12 PM   #270
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
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.
__________________
put tiny words on my posts how change signature forum signatue ideas best sandwich filling to disguise mold steal forum signature not get caught peanut butter expiry danger pictures how clear search history
uvar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 07:50 PM   #271
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by uvar View Post
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.

Originally Posted by uvar View Post
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.

Originally Posted by uvar View Post
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.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 08:12 PM   #272
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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)?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 08:22 PM   #273
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"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

Last edited by Ranb; 5th September 2015 at 10:15 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 08:30 PM   #274
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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

Last edited by Ranb; 5th September 2015 at 09:14 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 08:48 PM   #275
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 09:04 PM   #276
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
1 Obstruction.
How often are hunters harmed by this obstruction problem? Has any hunter ever been harmed by an obstruction in a silencer?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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

Last edited by Ranb; 5th September 2015 at 09:26 PM.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2015, 09:08 PM   #277
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
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
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 04:45 AM   #278
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 04:47 AM   #279
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,017
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
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.
__________________
Wake up, you cardboard.
- Pixie of Key
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 07:22 AM   #280
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,471
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
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
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.