Presume the OP thinks we should have silencers/suppressors easily and cheaply available. I agree, but until it becomes a hot issue nothing is apt to change.
Considering NZ license laws to own firearms, and the hassles that one has to go through just to own one, I see the availability of suppressors as moot.
Suppressors have only one purpose... crime. Why they are not out right banned is beyond me.
Suppressors have only one purpose... crime. Why they are not out right banned is beyond me.
You're supposed to know that by his body language and the tone of his voice.You forgot the sarcasm smiley...
You forgot the sarcasm smiley...
I can agree that to be true most of the time.Sorry here you go
Since most of the stuff I say is sarcastic and the rest is nonsensical I didn't think I needed one.
but seriously silencers are bad
I am deeply ashamed at the pleasure I get from shooting with mine
stay safe
Presume the OP thinks we should have silencers/suppressors easily and cheaply available. I agree, but until it becomes a hot issue nothing is apt to change.
Welcome to OCDO armysniper5752 - thank you for your service too.As a army sniper, I used suppressors / silencers everyday. That way I could hear if someone was coming up behind me. If I had used earmuffs or earplugs I would not have heard anybody around me or at least not that well. Yes suppressors and silencers can be used in crimes. Most of the people using weapons of any caliber are using them on the firing range or as self defense. When I use my silencer is to protect my hearing for one and number 2 it allows me the safety of knowing what's going on around me with unblock ears.
I believe silencers should be regulated but only to the extent that of a criminal background, weapon type, and the weapon it will be used on the the license to own a weapon.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Oh oh oh is the answer that they can't afford the $200 tax stamp?????Welcome to OCDO armysniper5752 - thank you for your service too.
Most will agree with a criminal background being a limiting factor/restriction (gun ownership & possession are already restricted), but don't see type having anything to do with it and "license to own" is totally abhorrent.
The purpose is hearing protection, not crime facilitating. How many street criminals use suppressors as part of their bag of tricks?
Suppressors have a logical use for hunters too.
I don't tink so.Oh oh oh is the answer that they can't afford the $200 tax stamp?????
What I am talking about when I say "type" is "pistol or rifle". most times when a criminal uses a weapon to commit a crime it's a pistol. so rifle silencers should not be regulated as far as I'm concerned, but pistol silencers should. Putting the $200 tax on any silencer or suppressor it's just stupid.Welcome to OCDO armysniper5752 - thank you for your service too.
Most will agree with a criminal background being a limiting factor/restriction (gun ownership & possession are already restricted), but don't see type having anything to do with it and "license to own" is totally abhorrent.
The purpose is hearing protection, not crime facilitating. How many street criminals use suppressors as part of their bag of tricks?
Suppressors have a logical use for hunters too.
I believe silencers should be regulated
What, speak up, I can't hear youMe too...by silencer manufacturers to ensure a quality product.