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 1st September 2015, 06:28 AM   #201
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun?
Actually they are not "so good"; there are limitations that go along with the benefits. they generally increase weight, length and expense. On auto loaders they usually have increased gas blow back into the shooter's face. They also heat up the barrel crown faster when rapidly fired leading to accelerated wear.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?
Due to the limitations above and some jurisdictions prohibit their use. I don't buy silencers, I make them. A detachable silencer is more flexible than an integral one. Not all firearms make acceptable hosts for silencers. Most revolvers and guns using black powders are examples. In some places unsuppressed gun noise is a violation of noise pollution laws.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time.
You are correct, but they are an option only in places that allow them. In Australia for example, they are not an option. Why is that?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times?
Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?
I have no objection to anyone hearing my rifle discharge. Where did you get the wild idea that I had anything to hide? The discharge of a suppressed hunting rifle (and nearly any other suppressed firearm) is entirely audible. The word silencer was used as a marketing gimmick back in 1905 and is now used as a legal term. It is a noun that is not entirely accurate about the effect it has on a gun. In other words a silencer does not make a gun silent.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting.
Join me at the rifle range someday and ask me if it is possible for me to hide the fact I'm firing any gun chambered in a center fire cartridge. Bring ear plugs; a suppressed 308 or 223 is going to be loud when fired under weather protection.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time.
Except in those backward people that ban them for some stupid reason.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.
Some people think they look cool with a long can hanging off their gun; to me they are strictly about noise suppression.

I'm quite certain you're participated in threads that discussed everything I said in this post. Willful ignorance is petty.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 1st September 2015 at 07:50 AM.
Ranb is online now   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 1st September 2015, 06:30 AM   #202
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
There ain't no way that's going to "hide the fact that you're shooting."
Theyre used to reduce the noise to below ear-drum busting level, that's all.

In Sweden (from memory?) it's illegal not to operate one, or so Ive been told.

To *ban* them is just the dumbest thing ever. There's no defense.
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 1st September 2015, 07:25 AM   #203
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
Nobody ever claimed the legislation(s) was perfect, or that legislators have a strong grasp of the nuances in the many and varied firearms available.
If a legislator wishes to restrict something, they should have at least a basic grasp of the item they want to control. What I've seen so far is that the loud mouths calling a lever action the same as a self loading action are either stupid or believe their constituents are. I know them when I see them as the USA has more than their fair share and not just on gun politics.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 1st September 2015, 07:29 AM   #204
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Nup. Our current theory is the lawmakers think they make guns go "pew pew!", and are only used by paid assassins.
I wonder where they got this idea from? Has a paid assassin ever used a suppressed firearm to kill a person in Australia? Is this another trashy American culture item imported from the USA?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 1st September 2015, 07:57 AM   #205
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,746
Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 1st September 2015, 08:01 AM   #206
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?
Depending on the muffler design, not much more than the barrel itself. They have to be taken apart and cleaned, but it's more a video-game idea that you only get 30 shots out of the muffler while getting infinite out of the barrel.

I understand it that some older designs deteriorated much faster than modern ones.
__________________
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 1st September 2015, 08:43 AM   #207
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Aren't silencers/suppressors a sort of disposable item anyway?

I thought they sort of disintegrated with use?
Most modern silencers made in the USA are durable goods fabricated from aluminum, steel or titanium. The bullets do not touch the baffles unless it is misaligned. Heat/erosion are what degrade a silencer and make them wear out. I found this out when I used aluminum baffles for a 223 Remington silencer and allowed people to dump 30 round mags through it making it hot enough to melt the paint. But it took over 5000 rounds to seriously degrade the suppression though. My stainless steel cans will last tens of thousands of rounds unless overheated on a machine gun or prolonged rapid fire on a semi-auto

A few silencers were (and still are) made with wipes. Wipes are rubber disks with X shaped slots cut into them. The bullet punches through them which wears them out in a few dozen rounds, lowers velocity and degrades accuracy. I'm told they are very effective in reducing noise for the first few rounds. While wipes are the only part of a silencer I can replace without a license or paying another making tax ($200), I have to destroy the old wipes prior to making (punching out of rubber sheet) new ones. This means the wipe cartridges that come old military designs used would not be useful to me as I can't have extra wipes ready to be installed when I finish the second magazine of my 9mm pistol.

Most silencers intended high powered center fire guns are sealed with welded end caps and require little or no cleaning as the high pressure allows very little gunk to build up as most of it gets blown out. I merely re-paint the exterior of my cans occasionally and keep the mounting threads clean.

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 1st September 2015 at 08:45 AM.
Ranb is online now   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 1st September 2015, 08:47 AM   #208
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,746
Thank you both
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 1st September 2015, 03:20 PM   #209
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,259
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How does that change what I said?
You made the claim about falling murder rates.

I was simply proving you wrong - they are increasing. Yes, they did fall, but they're now increasing.

I don't expect you to have an answer as to why that is.

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post

Plot the rate of leaded gasoline exposure to the homicide rate 23 years later (because it is childhood lead exposure that is linked to violent crime as adults) and there is a very strong correlation.
Seen it. It might even be true.

So please explain why the rates are going up now.

Also, it seems that gun death rates are lower in states with the harshest gun laws.

I don't expect you to have an answer for that either.
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 2nd September 2015, 01:57 AM   #210
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Dude, Im an Aussie
Awww man, way to go ruining my vibe!
Sceptic-PK 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 2nd September 2015, 01:59 AM   #211
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If a legislator wishes to restrict something, they should have at least a basic grasp of the item they want to control. What I've seen so far is that the loud mouths calling a lever action the same as a self loading action are either stupid or believe their constituents are. I know them when I see them as the USA has more than their fair share and not just on gun politics.

Ranb
I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.
Sceptic-PK 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 2nd September 2015, 03:05 AM   #212
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
i can buy a lever action 30-30, but not a lever action shot gun, and this is sane?

Silencers are *banned*, and this is sane?
Yes.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans 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 2nd September 2015, 04:24 AM   #213
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
Yes.
Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.

If you think silencers/suppressors are *dangerous* in any way, you know nothing about them.

Are you sure youre not a lawmaker yourself?
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 2nd September 2015, 05:09 AM   #214
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.
"Bloop tube". That's great.

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 2nd September 2015, 05:40 AM   #215
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.

If you think silencers/suppressors are *dangerous* in any way, you know nothing about them.

Are you sure youre not a lawmaker yourself?
I said they were Sane, not that they were good laws. There's a big difference between something that is sane and something that is good and effective.

For the record, I have held a gun but never fired one, and have no idea how much difference in sound a silencer really makes, other than knowing it doesn't sound anything like Pierce Brosnan pretended it does.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans 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 2nd September 2015, 06:52 AM   #216
devnull
Philosopher
 
devnull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 6,057
Originally Posted by Damien Evans View Post
I said they were Sane, not that they were good laws. There's a big difference between something that is sane and something that is good and effective.
Splitting hairs for the sake of it.

If they set speed limits based on the air speed of an unladen swallow, would you be making the same claim?
__________________
"Here we go again.... semantic and syntactic chicanery and sophistic sleight of tongue and pen.... the bedazzling magic of appearing to be saying something when in fact all that is happening is diverting attention from the attempts at shoving god through the trapdoor of illogic and wishful thinking." - Leumas
devnull 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 2nd September 2015, 07:10 AM   #217
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
A serious answer for you again. Perhaps you can remember it this time?

Silencers (or mufflers as they are also called in the US Code) reduce the noise of a firearm. Unless noise is the intended byproduct of a machine, a muffler or other noise abatement is usually a safety feature or benefit when used properly. Most rational people want noise reduction, is this hard to understand? Makes perfect sense to me and lots of other people.

I'm not sure why you would have a problem with a muffler that reduces the noise of a hunting rifle down to 135 decibels. A silencer has no effect on action noise, bullet flight noise and impact noise. It is impossible to completely hide the noise of a gunshot of a typical rifle. Pistols are even louder than rifles when suppressed.

I want a muffler for my rifle for the same reason I want a silencer on my motorcycle. Makes sense doesn't it? People/governments in many other countries including New Zealand and Great Britain see it this way, why not you and your Australian comrades?

Instead of appearing to be incredulous, why not explain why it seems you have a problem with silencers. Was there a silencer crime problem in Australia? I never heard of one.

Ranb
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If they're so good, why don't you use a silencer every time you fire your gun? Why doesn't everybody? Why don't you just buy guns with built-in silencers? Why is firing a gun without a silencer not against noise pollution laws?

It seems to me that silencers are an option - one that most people don't choose most of the time. It leads me to ask - why are you silencing your gun this time, and not other times? Why don't you want me to hear your discharge this time, when you're perfectly happy for me to hear it at other times?

Seems to me that you use a silencer only when you want to hide the fact that you're shooting. If it were just about noise control, then everybody would be using them all the time. Except for those who, like those wankers who ride unmuffled Harley Davidsons, just want to make as loud a noise as possible.
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Actually they are not "so good"; there are limitations that go along with the benefits. they generally increase weight, length and expense. On auto loaders they usually have increased gas blow back into the shooter's face. They also heat up the barrel crown faster when rapidly fired leading to accelerated wear.


Due to the limitations above and some jurisdictions prohibit their use. I don't buy silencers, I make them. A detachable silencer is more flexible than an integral one. Not all firearms make acceptable hosts for silencers. Most revolvers and guns using black powders are examples. In some places unsuppressed gun noise is a violation of noise pollution laws.


You are correct, but they are an option only in places that allow them. In Australia for example, they are not an option. Why is that?


Can you be more specific about when I do and do not use a silencer? One time I can't is during small bore competition. The target rifle used is not a suitable host and the rules prohibit use of baffles in the bloop tube.


I have no objection to anyone hearing my rifle discharge. Where did you get the wild idea that I had anything to hide? The discharge of a suppressed hunting rifle (and nearly any other suppressed firearm) is entirely audible. The word silencer was used as a marketing gimmick back in 1905 and is now used as a legal term. It is a noun that is not entirely accurate about the effect it has on a gun. In other words a silencer does not make a gun silent.


Join me at the rifle range someday and ask me if it is possible for me to hide the fact I'm firing any gun chambered in a center fire cartridge. Bring ear plugs; a suppressed 308 or 223 is going to be loud when fired under weather protection.


Except in those backward people that ban them for some stupid reason.


Some people think they look cool with a long can hanging off their gun; to me they are strictly about noise suppression.

I'm quite certain you're participated in threads that discussed everything I said in this post. Willful ignorance is petty.

Ranb
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"Bloop tube". That's great.

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?

Why on earth are you having a problem here? It's pretty obvious that Ranb uses a muffler most any time he can, for the exact reasons he has already repeatedly given in this and other threads.

Gun noise is loud enough to damage hearing. Mufflers reduce that so less extreme hearing protection is needed to safely fire them. The noise is also less of a nuisance. People don't use them because they are targeted by laws specifically designed to make them expensive, illegal, difficult to get, or in a legal gray zone that may or may not get you a felony conviction. That is in addition to the other issues (already cited in the posts you quote from), such as when they do and do not work, and when the drawbacks overcome the benefits.

What about these explanations do you not accept? What sources would you accept?
__________________
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 2nd September 2015, 10:05 AM   #218
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"Bloop tube". That's great.
I get the feeling I have offended you, again. Not sure why this time. Do I need to explain what a bloop tube is or is the word itself somehow offensive to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing
Quote:
The bullet dwell time is the time between cartridge ignition, and the time the bullet leaves the barrel. Like lock time, dwell time is a window for error, and can be minimized with a faster bullet or a shorter barrel. In some cases, a shorter barrel is desired to reduce dwell time, but without losing the sight radius of a longer barrel. In this case, a sight extension tube, or bloop tube, can be used. This is a tube that fits on the muzzle end of the barrel, providing support for the front sight, but that is bored to much larger than bore diameter. This provides the sight plane of a long barrel with less weight and dwell time.
Here are some photos; https://www.google.com/search?q=bloo...w=1093&bih=426

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?
I use a silencer on any firearm I own which is a suitable host; rifles and handguns, no shotgun silencers yet. I use them anywhere they are legal to use; this includes hunting and target shooting. Silencers reduce noise and recoil; generally making shooting a more pleasant experience.

I made some baffles to fit into the barrel extension of my precision air rifle so it would not be as loud when I practice in my garage. Legally they aren't silencer parts, but they suppress the loud noise of the air rifle.

I've made an effort to answer every question you've asked of me. Why can't I expect the same from you?

Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 2nd September 2015 at 10:46 AM.
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 10:08 AM   #219
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.
Is that because legislator ignorance of the activities they want to restrict is so common or is it not insightful for another reason? Just asking.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 10:41 AM   #220
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,096
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Why were silencers banned in Australia? Was it in response to a silencer crime problem?

Ranb
They should more appropriately be called suppressors, I think, and they don't suppress the sound much. I think opposition to them is mostly due to watching too many movies where a gun equipped with one just goes "phwik".
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 2nd September 2015, 10:51 AM   #221
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They should more appropriately be called suppressors, I think, and they don't suppress the sound much.
Much time has been devoted to such an argument on guns forums; silencer and muffler are legal terms and no one ever thought I was talking about a flash suppressor when I said the word silencer.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think opposition to them is mostly due to watching too many movies where a gun equipped with one just goes "phwik".
True. But that is like a person objecting to our president because they saw someone on the internet claiming he was not a US citizen.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 10:59 AM   #222
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,096
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"Bloop tube". That's great.

You've given me one example of when you don't use a silencer. Can you give me one or more examples of when you do, and why?
I thought he did: to suppress the sound.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 2nd September 2015, 11:45 AM   #223
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,598
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post
I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.
Allow me:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


In California, if there is a legislative issue involving agriculture, the state legislature will bring in experts on the subject before they get down to the task of enacting any statute impacting farmers or agribusiness - wrt proposed gun control laws, the last person they speak to is a firearms forensics expert or a criminologist familiar w/ criminal firearms use and in fact during the run up to the first California AW law LE Forensic experts were deliberately excluded from the legislative process:

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/usa2.html

"The memorandum admits the following circumstances surrounding the assault weapons legislation:

No specifically defined problem.

Artificial distinctions were made between semi-automatic weapons. The AK 47 was targeted but the Ruger Mini 14 was exempted. The two weapons are the same caliber, magazine capacity, size, etc. Past legislation that focused on machine guns and submachine guns was successful because it dealt with an entire class of weapons. The Roberti/Roos Act attempts to make distinctions between weapons in the same class (semi-automatic).

Too many people were adding or subtracting weapons from the legislation.

Most, if not all, of the of the principal players in crafting the legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms.

Most of the weapons on the list are low production or long out of production items that constitute absolutely no conceivable threat.

No data collection mechanism was built into the legislation to provide data for objective decisions concerning possible future additions or deletions.
The ongoing diversity and inconsistency of legal opinions: For example, in May 1989, Deputy Legislative Counsel Thomas Heuer opined that the Norinco 56Ms (an AK 47 variant) which Purdy used was not covered by the bill. While we were crafting the legislative language, the foundational legal logic provided was that the AK/AR "series" approach was valid. This seems to have now been cast aside."


When someone can't even accurately describe a very simple physical characteristic of a firearm that said person is basing some of their intended legislation on, that absolutely demonstrates that the politician in question doesn't have enough knowledge in the subject matter to have a reality based pov in the subject.
BStrong 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 2nd September 2015, 05:05 PM   #224
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,259
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.
Well, I've handled plenty and I agree that a lever-action shottie is much, much more dangerous than a lever-action rifle. (does anyone still use them outside of USA?)

Rifles are worthless at short range - you could confirm that with the ghost of Peter Blake if you like - while shotguns are both a weapon of choice and highly effective for short-range death.
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 2nd September 2015, 05:10 PM   #225
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,783
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Some of us can occasionally be guilty of holding up Australia as a model for good gun policy. Unfortunately, it's usually not true.

Coalition accused of undermining senate inquiry into illegal firearms market
Australian gun policy insures only criminals have guns.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 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 2nd September 2015, 05:39 PM   #226
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,494
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Australian gun policy insures only criminals have guns.
You really ought to stop with a generalisation so bad that it is not even wrong.

Are you calling my brother a criminal because he has a shotgun on a hobby farm to kill feral animals? Or most other farmers who own guns for very real and legitimate reasons (e.g., again feral cats, putting ill animals down, shooting rabbits)? Or are Armaguard security guards criminals? Or duck shooters? Or Kangaroo cullers? Or rifle club members? Or Buffalo shooters in the Northern Territory?

Incidentally, criminals tend to mostly only shoot each other in gang wars, as a mass shooting in a school or a theatre is not good for business. And as I have said before on other threads, if criminals want to take each out of the gene pool, let them go for it.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 2nd September 2015 at 05:43 PM.
fromdownunder 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 2nd September 2015, 06:39 PM   #227
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Well, I've handled plenty and I agree that a lever-action shottie is much, much more dangerous than a lever-action rifle. (does anyone still use them outside of USA?)

Rifles are worthless at short range.
There is plenty to disagree with in both posts, depending upon your point of view. What is the range? 2 meters, 50 meters, 200 meters? While a 12 gauge shotgun of the pump or lever variety "may" be just fine out to 50 meters, I'm better off with a rifle past that. There are other variables; barrel type, shot or slug, sights; bead, peep or dot? Are you shooting a bird (something fast) or a bear (something dangerous)?

Rifles can be quick accurate and deadly at very close range, such as 5 meters. Check out a three gun competition with handgun, rifles and shotguns. At the ones I've seen handguns were typically used at 1-15 meters, shotguns 5-25 meters including flying clays and rifles 20-190 meters.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 07:30 PM   #228
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I get the feeling I have offended you, again. Not sure why this time. Do I need to explain what a bloop tube is or is the word itself somehow offensive to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing
Offensive? No! I said it was "great". Does "great" mean something other than "great" now? I thought it was a fantastic term. I have no idea what it means, but I love the term.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I use a silencer on any firearm I own which is a suitable host; rifles and handguns, no shotgun silencers yet. I use them anywhere they are legal to use; this includes hunting and target shooting. Silencers reduce noise and recoil; generally making shooting a more pleasant experience.

I made some baffles to fit into the barrel extension of my precision air rifle so it would not be as loud when I practice in my garage. Legally they aren't silencer parts, but they suppress the loud noise of the air rifle.
Great, thanks for answering.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I've made an effort to answer every question you've asked of me. Why can't I expect the same from you?
I've no idea why you can't expect that, because I've answered everything I can to the best of my ability as well. If there's an outstanding unanswered question, please point it out to me because I must have missed it.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 2nd September 2015, 07:42 PM   #229
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by devnull View Post
Splitting hairs for the sake of it.

If they set speed limits based on the air speed of an unladen swallow, would you be making the same claim?
African or European Swallow?
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans 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 2nd September 2015, 07:44 PM   #230
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Offensive? No! I said it was "great". Does "great" mean something other than "great" now?
My sarcasm meter is broken. Sorry.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 07:46 PM   #231
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Australian gun policy insures only criminals have guns.
Guess this must have been criminal activity then:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans 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 2nd September 2015, 07:47 PM   #232
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
My sarcasm meter is broken. Sorry.
To be fair, I understand why you might assume the worst of me.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 2nd September 2015, 07:52 PM   #233
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
I went back and looked, the only outstanding question is one you probably can't answer. Why are silencers illegal in Australia?

Several years ago when I was trying to convince a legislator to sponsor a bill that would allow WA residents to use their registered silencers; WA being the only state that allow ownership but prohibited use by civilians and the police. Finding out that the ban went into effect in 1934 was easy, but since there was not actual written legislative intent on the bill banning use, no one could tell me why use was banned. The rumor was that it was an anti-poaching attempt.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 2nd September 2015, 07:55 PM   #234
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,259
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
There is plenty to disagree with in both posts, depending upon your point of view. What is the range? 2 meters, 50 meters, 200 meters? While a 12 gauge shotgun of the pump or lever variety "may" be just fine out to 50 meters, I'm better off with a rifle past that. There are other variables; barrel type, shot or slug, sights; bead, peep or dot? Are you shooting a bird (something fast) or a bear (something dangerous)?

Rifles can be quick accurate and deadly at very close range, such as 5 meters. Check out a three gun competition with handgun, rifles and shotguns. At the ones I've seen handguns were typically used at 1-15 meters, shotguns 5-25 meters including flying clays and rifles 20-190 meters.

Ranb
Most gun murders happen at 10 feet, not 50 metres.

If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
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 2nd September 2015, 08:02 PM   #235
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 64,690
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I went back and looked, the only outstanding question is one you probably can't answer. Why are silencers illegal in Australia?
You're right - I can't answer that. But nothing you have said makes me want to change it.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 2nd September 2015, 08:48 PM   #236
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,579
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Most gun murders happen at 10 feet, not 50 metres.

If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
Have you ever seen an ar-15 fired fast at multiple 7 yards targets? Talking A-zone hits every half-second or less (the good shooters were better than that).

Pshaw on the "shotguns are infinitely more dangerous than rifles at close range". It depends on the rifle and the wielder.
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 2nd September 2015, 11:41 PM   #237
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 23,259
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Have you ever seen an ar-15 fired fast at multiple 7 yards targets? Talking A-zone hits every half-second or less (the good shooters were better than that).
No, but I've fired plenty of auto and semi-autos.

Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Pshaw on the "shotguns are infinitely more dangerous than rifles at close range". It depends on the rifle and the wielder.
In the hands of an experienced shooter, rifles may well be more dangerous, but any amateur can pull the trigger of a shotgun. That's why they are overwhelmingly more popular among criminals than rifles.
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, 06:28 AM   #238
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Is that because legislator ignorance of the activities they want to restrict is so common or is it not insightful for another reason? Just asking.

Ranb
Yes, that's what I meant
Sceptic-PK 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, 06:33 AM   #239
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,677
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You're right - I can't answer that. But nothing you have said makes me want to change it.
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.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon 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, 06:34 AM   #240
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,949
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
From your link above;
Quote:
As one of the robbers held a gun to the head of a crewmember, Blake sprang from the cabin wielding a rifle. He shot one of the assailants in the hand before the rifle malfunctioned; he was then fatally shot in the back by assailant Ricardo Colares Tavares....
Just about any gun is going to be more useful than a rifle that will not shoot. The "infinitely" claims are hyperbole.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   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 07:15 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.