Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

yubabill · 05-06-2019 08:41PM

deezell wrote: »

No, a safer one. And spliffs are illegal drugs, the use of which leads to far greater criminality and misery than ever was caused by guns, in their own right. Alcohol is also the root of a lot of misery, but only to the consumers and their affected circle. There is no criminality in the production and supply, only industry and commerce.
There's a saying, "Take a man and put a gun in his hand, sooner or later someone gets shot".

So our society would be safer if all of us licensed shooters gave up our guns?

Ullage.

And secondly, as regards someone getting shot - you are aware that target shooting has been going on in Ireland since mid-Victorian times without one - single- fatality?

Are you familiar with the hoops that have to be jumped to get a gun licence in Ireland?
there's a long list on this site somewhere.

You'll forgive me if I take offence at your comments.

Cass · 05-06-2019 08:43PM

deezell wrote: »

No, a safer one.

Australia has some of the toughest and strictest gun laws in the world. Didn't help here.

Chicago in America has the harshest/toughest gun laws for any state in America and yet there are an average of 50+ shootings and/or murders per WEEK.

Venezuela banned ALL guns 10 years ago, and now in the midst of one of the worse socialist atrocities of modern times, the people are defenceless against a dictator.

There's a saying, "Take a man and put a gun in his hand, sooner or later someone gets shot".

Never heard of it.

That aside it's a scathing indictment of the man in the fable and not the item used as per my list of examples above.

oldgit1897 · 05-06-2019 10:23PM

Cass wrote: »

Something extraordinary happened in Australia today. A paroled convict used a banned shotgun to open fire in downtown Darwin. He killed four people and wounded a fifth.

The firearm he used — a pump action shotgun — was banned in Australia 13 years ago. That’s beside the fact that it’s illegal for a parolee to possess a firearm. All this while wearing an ankle monitor.

So please, PLEASE, someone tell me how gun control works on criminals?

Well making something illegal means it disappears never to be seen again, like drugs.............Oh wait.

oldgit1897 · 05-06-2019 10:29PM

yubabill wrote: »

So our society would be safer if all of us licensed shooters gave up our guns?

Ullage.

And secondly, as regards someone getting shot - you are aware that target shooting has been going on in Ireland since mid-Victorian times without one - single- fatality?

Are you familiar with the hoops that have to be jumped to get a gun licence in Ireland?
there's a long list on this site somewhere.

You'll forgive me if I take offence at your comments.

All guns banned apart from .22 rifles and shotguns,from 1972. Boat loads and i do mean boat loads of firearms, rpg's, explosives were sent here by lovely people like Whitey Bulger, and Col Gadaffi, to the marxist socialist freedom fighters aka the IRA (show me your company and i'll tell you what you are) .

I think i am correct in saying at one point the provo's were better armed and funded than either the army or the guards.

So the ban did not make one jot of difference, despite what that dollop O'malley said.

Manic Moran · 06-06-2019 12:09AM

Cass wrote: »

Never heard of it.

That aside it's a scathing indictment of the man in the fable and not the item used as per my list of examples above.

It could be Chekov's gun. If it exists, it must be used.

Cass · 06-06-2019 12:12AM

Or remove the irrelevant parts.

Grizzly 45 · 06-06-2019 12:29AM

deezell wrote: »

Easy. In a society where the visibility of guns is the exception rather than the rule, there's less likelihood of a person thinking of using a gun to go on a violent rampage, and even less opportunity to obtain one from the 'spillage' of legally obtained weapons, through theft or carelessness, into the hands of criminals. Forget about your craving for guns. Get a fishing rod, or a football, or a pool cue.

Four sports that have killed more people in the last 30 years in Ireland than legally held firearms have in the last century here.;)
Banning things,lets see how well that has worked...Prohibition in the USA...Nope !
The "war on drugs" ...Drugs are now cheaper than ever before on the streets in the Western world and continue to do so,and of course gun control works so well in Ireland doesnt it?Where our native drug gangs use genuine full auto AKs in hotels to shoot each other...Something that hasnt happened in the USA since 1934,when genuine full auto machine guns were last available to the public.Contary to media propaganda.
Women obtaining abortions in Ireland or abroad when it was illegal to do so...Nope! Reading banned litature in Ireland in the censerious past...Nope!

The UK,banned handguns post Dunblane..Scroll forward 2018.over 120 shootings in the greater London area with the said banned handguns..And over 200 stabbings and knifings in the exact same timeframe.Answer..Ban knives!!
But lets ban guns THAT will work!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

deezell · 06-06-2019 02:00PM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But lets ban guns THAT will work!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

It would help reduce the stats. You can't deny that. Ban smoking too. Save a lot if lives, but smoking deaths are self inflicted, only a few gun deaths are, and the unfortunates would find other means anyway.

BattleCorp · 06-06-2019 02:48PM

deezell wrote: »

It would help reduce the stats. You can't deny that. Ban smoking too. Save a lot if lives, but smoking deaths are self inflicted, only a few gun deaths are, and the unfortunates would find other means anyway.

You won't find anybody to see things from your viewpoint on this forum.

Personally I don't see how banning my guns would do anything other than p1ss me off. I've invested a lot of time and money into my sport and have made sure that I comply with all laws related to firearms.

My guns aren't used for criminal activities. They are only used for target shooting. They are licenced by the Gardai. I am fully vetted by the Gardaí. I comply with all safe storage laws so nobody else can access them.

How would banning guns that I store securely and use only for law abiding purposes help reduce stats?

Grizzly 45 · 06-06-2019 08:04PM

deezell wrote: »

It would help reduce the stats. You can't deny that. Ban smoking too. Save a lot if lives, but smoking deaths are self inflicted, only a few gun deaths are, and the unfortunates would find other means anyway.

You dont get it do you?? Banning things Does.Not.Work!END OF! Gun bans have not worked anywhere in the World and I would contend that they have contributed over 100million deaths globally in the 20th century via disarmed societies being easily murderd by their opressors.But ell us..How do you think a gun ban will stop the local drug gangs from killing each other in Dublin?As obviously legislation of bans is aimed at preventing such??

Cass · 06-06-2019 08:37PM

deezell wrote: »

It would help reduce the stats.

Drugs are illegal, does that mean they are not available? Even in prisons that are even more secure than our borders they are freely available.

So if something that is illegal can be gotten in such a "secure"place like a prison how do you think introducing more laws would stop their proliferation. Same applies to guns. Criminals don't abide by the law and according to An Gardaí most stolen guns are never recovered, and the same with guns use din crimes. So there are not stats, other than wild guessing, to support the claim that reducing private ownership will stem or even reduce illegal activities.

As i said above, and you've completely ignored all my points, should we ban all cars, vans, trucks, etc. to stop drink driving or terrorist attacks that used these vehicles? That is what you are calling for with firearms.

You can't deny that.

not only can i "deny" it i have said above and in my previous why its a moot point.

Ban smoking too. Save a lot if lives,

So ban anything that is not liked by the majority or in most cases the more mouthy minority?

In that case i have a list that starts with "man buns", short jeans, skinny jeans, hipsters in general, cyclists............... I could go on but you get the point.

but smoking deaths are self inflicted

If being fat, a drug addict, etc. is considered a disease in our new, "enlightened" era, surely an addiction like smoking is too.

...... only a few gun deaths are,.

11 in the last 5/7 years and over those 60% are not civilians, and two were accidental. More people have died playing GAA than from shooting sports.

Shooting sports is over 165 year old, older than the GAA. It has the safest, self imposed, safety record of ANY sport which in itself is a testament to the people involved, but considering the tools we use in our sport(s) its even more incredulous how safe the sport is.

I'd advise you, and i mean this genuinely plus i'd be happy to discuss it further with you, to look into the sport in more detail. You'd be surprised about what we [shooters] have to go through to get our firearms, the liberties we sacrifice, the Data protected stuff we have to sign away all to take part in a sport that is constantly compared to illegal activities carried out by scum.

kowloon · 07-06-2019 02:10AM

oldgit1897 wrote: »

Never heard such crap. Why can't you have something in your own home as a wallhanger ? What makes something made before 1954 or made by hand less dangerous ? What about the contents of the shed ? I have an axe, a couple of hatchets, spades, pitchforks, are they not dangerous ?

It's so you can appreciate the fine artistry and craftsmanship of the sword as it goes through your neck.

tac foley · 07-06-2019 09:10AM

kowloon wrote: »

It's so you can appreciate the fine artistry and craftsmanship of the sword as it goes through your neck.

Ah, but that's CRIMINAL, right?

oldgit1897 · 07-06-2019 04:49PM

kowloon wrote: »

It's so you can appreciate the fine artistry and craftsmanship of the sword as it goes through your neck.

Its a bit like saying if you have a Holland and Holland, or a Boss, or a Beretta SO, then you are safer than someone who only has a humble Baikal or Lanber. Snobbery enshrined in law. But nothing surprises me in this dreary place anymore.

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2019 09:38PM

oldgit1897 wrote: »

"Silencers" :rolleyes:

Actually the correct legal term for them.So registerd by Hiriam P Maxim Jnr,the inventor of them 110 years ago.
Both are interchangeable and correct terms.

Silencer - The legal definition for a firearm suppression device
Suppressor - The technical definition for a firearm suppression device

https://www.silencershop.com/blog/post/silencer-suppressor.

Cass · 16-06-2019 09:45PM

Because some guy called it that back way back when doesn't mean he was right either.

Silence - complete absence of sound.

A silencer does not remove all sound from a shot, at least in 95% of guns (unless using sub sonic ammo, in a small cartridge/chambering.

All that aside i use the term suppressor for the same reason i use the term firearm and not weapon. We don't live in the States and don't have the protection of the second amendment so we must use some neutral or non inflammatory words when speaking. Is it fair, no, but as long as firearms are a privilege here we tread water every day.

oldgit1897 · 16-06-2019 09:48PM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Maybe we should also ask Flanagan on the following?
[1] How many silencers have been found in criminal possesion that came from legal manufacturers[IE marked ith a trade name and serial nr?] or are homebuilt devices found in criminal possesion or use?

[2] How many silencers have been used in the last 25 years in gangland shootings in Ireland that are homemade or were stolen from civillian shooters in Ireland or came from ligit manufacturers??

Last time i bothered looking at anything to do with gangland ireland, there was one gang of headbangers wandering in to a boxing weigh-in with ak-47's to shoot another gang of headbangers, and they didn't care less who heard the shots.

Grizzly 45 · 16-06-2019 10:51PM

Cass wrote: »

Because some guy called it that back way back when doesn't mean he was right either.

Silence - complete absence of sound.

A silencer does not remove all sound from a shot, at least in 95% of guns (unless using sub sonic ammo, in a small cartridge/chambering.

Not necessarily true either.You can silence /suppress/muffle a 50 cal BMG or a 20mm Lathi using normal rounds.Lots of work and physics and sums involved,but its an uttr myth that you can only use subsonic in a firearm to silence it.

The said guy invented them and had the original patent for them. He was using the terminology common for his time,and no doubt would have made iallowances for revisionism and hair splitting 115 years later.
it is the SAME correct terminology for the same item.
But Hey What do I know?:rolleyes:

All that aside i use the term suppressor for the same reason i use the term firearm and not weapon.

And you are right as that is the technical term,it is the same as I use silencer as a legal term.

We don't live in the States and don't have the protection of the second amendment so we must use some neutral or non inflammatory words when speaking. Is it fair, no, but as long as firearms are a privilege here we tread water every day.

What is "inflamatory" about discussing a point of what is a correct definition in common English of a firearm component that is now common everyday terminology?

Lets put it like this?WHICH country has better definitions as to what an item is ,and which country has a classification on "silencers" and register them the same under Federal law as machine guns,destructive devices,sawn off shotguns and rifles,and demand a Federal backround check off any potential owners and a 200 dollar tax fee,as well as about a 1000 dollar price tag for a .22 silencer and have been doing so since 1934? And have been jailing wise guys who have tried this pendatism and word playing for just as long??

US Definition[ easy to understand]
(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Compared to Ireland where there is none because of laziness,ignorance, incompetence or deliberate obtuseness,or all four of the above,a to not even have a proper legal definition as to what a silencer/suppressor/sound modifier actually is??And if you were to challenge any State prosecution in an Irish court would be utterly unable to define the difference? Find me a definition that precisely describes what a "silencer,suppressor,muffler,sound modifier" is in this act?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/12/enacted/en/print#sec4

So in this case I do think the Americans do know what the correct definitions are compared to us.And the answer still is ALL of the above are correct definitions of a device put on a firearm intended to reduce,suppress,silence,muffle or otherwise affect the gun shot report.:)

Cass · 17-06-2019 12:31AM

Everytime something like this comes up you come along with an argument that, if i didn't know you, would be great to use against us, or at the very least is cannon fodder for the opposing side. "Silencing a 50cal". I mean, come on. No one owns one, in Ireland and saying sh*t like that only enforces any notions our "enlightened" leaders may have that we are a community of snipers.

It's a suppressor. What laws are in other countries is less than moot as we are in Ireland. They use the word silencers out of ignorance, and watching too much TV. Doesn't mean we have to propagate the myth.

As for completely silencing a "normal" shot, this is my point above. It cannot happen so why say it can. Any bullet doing super sonic speeds makes a sonic boom that a suppressor cannot "silence". It suppresses the heard report at the gun/shooter's position, nothing more. By doing this, in hunting terms, the quarry cannot detect the location of the shooter. Couple that with less felt recoil, hearing protection, quick follow up shot, and the reasons for owning them are clear.

Lastly when i say inflammatory i am not referring to this discussion or the use/misuse of a word. I'm talking in general terms. We don't have the freedoms most other countries enjoy and so shooting sports tends to fly below the radar. We do this by not drawing attention to ourselves and not using provocative or "inflammatory" language that in any other country wouldn't get so much as a raised eyebrow.

Grizzly 45 · 17-06-2019 01:09PM

Cass wrote: »

Everytime something like this comes up you come along with an argument that, if i didn't know you, would be great to use against us, or at the very least is cannon fodder for the opposing side. "

Fuk it! I'm done..You win...:) But as Gallielo said after being tortured by the church and forced to recant his theories on the Earth going around the Sun."Yet it still does such".They are still legally defined as "silencers":P:P:P:P

Cass · 17-06-2019 02:34PM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Fuk it! I'm done..You win...:)

It's a debate, a differing of opinion. There doesn't have to be a winner, but the rest of your post would seem to differ from this statement:

But as Gallielo said after being tortured by the church and forced to recant his theories on the Earth going around the Sun."Yet it still does such".They are still legally defined as "silencers":P:P:P:P

Its a misnomer.

You said above even a 50cal can be fully silenced with "normal" rounds. I said this cannot be done:

Cass wrote: »

As for completely silencing a "normal" shot, this is my point above. It cannot happen so why say it can. Any bullet doing super sonic speeds makes a sonic boom that a suppressor cannot "silence".

So prove me wrong. Show or explain to me how this is done using normal, super sonic, rounds.

Grizzly 45 · 18-06-2019 12:40AM

Using a big enough of a can,matched to the burnt powder volume and to the requirements of the guns action to cycle rounds using normal ammo has been and can be done.HK builds a world famous silenced SMG [Hk SD] that uses any type of 9mm ammo.Sub sonic as well as normal supersonic 9mm rounds for decades.
Barret has a can for its light 50 cal rifle that brings the noise of a 50 cal down by 28 decibels.And there is no such thing as subsonic 50 cal ammo.Feck I'm even using supersonic ammo in my AR10 with a can.So it has been out there for yonks.
As for the supersonic crack,[and no doubt youll argue this point] in real life it is actually very irrevelant both in a tactical or hunting situation,as the bullet is flying faster than the speed of sound,it is virtually impossible to identify where a silenced/suppressed/muffled round came from in the zone of confusion.What would give you away using somthing like an unsuppressed/silenced Barret is the "signiture" of the gun.IE the distinctive "THUMP!" of a 50 cal round,and a unavoidable dust cloud from the muzzle blast fired prone in a arid enviroment,were someone sharp eyed enough to spot it.

Cass · 18-06-2019 01:21AM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Using a big enough of a can,matched to the burnt powder volume and to the requirements of the guns action to cycle rounds using normal ammo has been and can be done.

Show me one example of a supersonic round being used in any type of firearm and it being "silenced".

HK builds a world famous silenced SMG [Hk SD] that uses any type of 9mm ammo.

Ah yes, the MP5 SD SMG. SD - Schalldämpfer, German for sound suppressor. As most 9mm stuff is just super sonic it still makes a sonic crack, so to get full effect ammo is loaded slightly less to make is subsonic.

So not silenced, just suppressed.

Sub sonic as well as normal supersonic 9mm rounds for decades.

Sub sonics are the only type of ammo that can be used to fully suppress the heard report although that still leaves the environment, impact of the bullet, and action type of the firearm.

Barret has a can for its light 50 cal rifle that brings the noise of a 50 cal down by 28 decibels.

Down by 28db is not silenced. To fully suppress it you need sub sonic ammo which can be hand loaded.

And there is no such thing as subsonic 50 cal ammo.

Yes there is, as i said above it's hand loaded. Would drop like a stone, but it can be done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cK9WQeNqN4

Feck I'm even using supersonic ammo in my AR10 with a can.So it has been out there for yonks.

And it's silent? No, it;s not. I've shot beside you. Its quieter than without the can, but not silenced. It's suppressed.

As for the supersonic crack,[and no doubt youll argue this point]

How can there be any doubt as i mentioned it above:

Cass wrote: »

Any bullet doing super sonic speeds makes a sonic boom that a suppressor cannot "silence".

This is the very basis for my argument that a super sonic round cannot be "silenced" only suppressed.

in real life it is actually very irrevelant both in a tactical or hunting situation,as the bullet is flying faster than the speed of sound,it is virtually impossible to identify where a silenced/suppressed/muffled round came from in the zone of confusion.

Said that too:

Cass wrote:

It suppresses the heard report at the gun/shooter's position, nothing more. By doing this, in hunting terms, the quarry cannot detect the location of the shooter.

What would give you away using somthing like an unsuppressed/silenced Barret is the "signiture" of the gun.

An unsuppressed shot from anything supersonic would do the same.

This might seem like an exercise in futility as it's "only a word" but it's important to correct misinformation especially when it's used against us. The term silencer summons the same negative thoughts and imagery as the word weapon.

The fact that one TD is asking about them may amount to nothing or a lot. There will be a general election by the end of this year and while no one campaigns on gun control as it's a dead duck/pointless, these little sound bites and a pledge to "get guns off our streets" go a long way with the great unwashed.

Taking the extra time to correct misnomers like this one is important because for the little it can do, it's doing it. Ignore this as nothing burger and you'll find in a couple of years you won't be able to license/get them because a retrospective ban will be announced but never implemented (like the semi auto situation) or an outright ban of them. There are already cases, and i'm hearing more each time, of people being outright refused them already. Couple that to the amount of changes i've seen with no legal basis in the last 18 months and i have to wonder if another shooting group is working behind the scenes to throw the sport under the bus to save their own little corner, or if there are already plans to introduce something int he near future.

BryanL · 18-06-2019 09:18AM

Moderators should be viewed as a health and safety device.

BattleCorp · 18-06-2019 09:21AM

BryanL wrote: »

Moderators should be viewed as a health and safety device.

But but but but............ how can you hear the bullet coming and duck out of the way of it?

Melodeon · 18-06-2019 09:31AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

BryanL wrote: »

Moderators should be viewed as a health and safety device.

But but but but............ how can you hear the bullet coming and duck out of the way of it?

This is obviously what BryanL was talking about:

Grizzly 45 · 18-06-2019 04:01PM

Cass wrote: »

Show me one example of a supersonic round being used in any type of firearm and it being "silenced".
Ah yes, the MP5 SD SMG. SD - Schalldämpfer, German for sound suppressor. As most 9mm stuff is just super sonic it still makes a sonic crack, so to get full effect ammo is loaded slightly less to make is subsonic.

Nope directly translated "Shall" Sound "Dampfer" to reduce or to muffle, so a sound reducer or muffler. And again,not necessarily so,it can use BOTH types ,as you mightnt have the selection of subsonic rounds within a mission parameter

Sub sonics are the only type of ammo that can be used to fully suppress the heard report although that still leaves the environment, impact of the bullet, and action type of the firearm.

As I said on all those points a silenced semi auto,is going to be always noiser than a single shot break open rifle or pistol.

Down by 28db is not silenced. To fully suppress it you need sub sonic ammo which can be hand loaded.

It is lot if you have ever shot or been near a 50 cal!:D
Indeed it can,BUT DOES the rifle then work if it is a SA??Are you going to trade noise reduction for functionality and reliability?Bad choice unless you are paper punching maybe?

Yes there is, as i said above it's hand loaded. Would drop like a stone, but it can be done.

Can and actual doing are poles apart here. In the circumstances of using a 50 cal as a sniper weapon.Belive me,if they thought there was value in doing so they would.I cant see what purpose a sub sonic 50 cal would bring to anyone?You are losing power,and distance for quitness,which is moot as the noise becomes mostly irrevelant as the distance from the target is over 1000 meters if you are using a 50 cal properly?

And it's silent? No, it;s not. I've shot beside you. Its quieter than without the can, but not silenced. It's suppressed.

Technically and mechanically correct,legally as in definition and on my liscense,its a gun with a silencer.Both correct terms.

This is the very basis for my argument that a super sonic round cannot be "silenced" only suppressed.

The sonic crack of the round cant be suppressed/silenced.The venting explosion at the muzzle certainly can be silenced/suppressed.The action noise can be silenced.You are really only left with the sonic crack.

An unsuppressed shot from anything supersonic would do the same.

Not necessarily, it depends again on where you are in the zones of identification or zone of confusion.Unsuppressed gunshots are easily heard in the zone of identification.A silenced/suppressed shot opens the zone of confusion vastly. The signiture of a rifle,in the big calibres,is the dust cloud they raise when fired close to the ground.That is a big giveaway if people know what to look for after a hit comes in.Thats why you should see professional personel protection,looking intently in the direction they think the shot came from.they are looking for a tell tale dust /dirt/snow frost/cloud.

This might seem like an exercise in futility as it's "only a word" but it's important to correct misinformation especially when it's used against us. The term silencer summons the same negative thoughts and imagery as the word weapon.

The simple fact that it is misinformation to say that a suppressor is not a silencer,when both terms are correct for the same item.One is a legal term that has been in use since 1905 and the other is a technical term that came into fashion in the 1960s after the US Armed forces got into the act of using them in Vietnam and had to apply their langauge to it. Calling it a silencer,suppresor ,sound modifier,is all correct for the same thing.

Taking the extra time to correct misnomers like this one is important because for the little it can do, it's doing it. Ignore this as nothing burger and you'll find in a couple of years you won't be able to license/get them because a retrospective ban will be announced but never implemented (like the semi auto situation) or an outright ban of them.

Anyone who can google,can see the difference of this.But the trouble is not the words we use,it is whether those want to LISTEN to us or are just too pig headed and looking for a PR opportunity to make a noise for themselves.TBH seeing that we are now all on saving the planet,by banning diesel and petrol cars and going on an utter retrogressive Luddite energy policy of building giant bird slicers,and putting solar panels on every spare inch of roof and field crazy trip,in the face of reality of major industrial countries like Germany not being able to produce 40% of its domestic daily energy under optimal conditions of wind and sun,and having now the third most expensive energy in the EU.This is an utter dead duck...but then being Ireland I shouldnt be surprised either.:rolleyes:

There are already cases, and i'm hearing more each time, of people being outright refused them already.

Already granted lics or new applications?Both should be DC challenges then and I'm not hearing anything?OR are they being offered,to be used in limited areas .IE specific bits of ground/ranges and people are not taking the deal?

Couple that to the amount of changes i've seen with no legal basis in the last 18 months and i have to wonder if another shooting group is working behind the scenes to throw the sport under the bus to save their own little corner, or if there are already plans to introduce something int he near future.

Always possible here.But if we dont point these incidents out and inform others..How are we to know whats going down.Boards.ie/shooting is now THE only really quick and fast way of getting any info on whats going on here.So it does behoove us to put this info out pronto

PS..Not telling your Mod biz,but shouldnt we take this off thread,as it isnt parlimentary debate anymore?

Cass · 18-06-2019 05:08PM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

PS..Not telling your Mod biz,but shouldnt we take this off thread,as it isnt parlimentary debate anymore?

Done.

Cass · 18-06-2019 05:09PM

Before i go any further i should tell you i've edited your post above. i didn't change a word, but rather fixed the quotes because they were a little off, and one was you placing a response in quotation marks which made it look like i said it. Just in case you see the "edited" mark under your post.

Cass · 18-06-2019 05:28PM

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nope directly translated "Shall" Sound "Dampfer" to reduce or to muffle, so a sound reducer or muffler.

Dampen, muffle, suppress. They all mean the same thing, to reduce something, not eliminate it entirely which is what silence means.

And again,not necessarily so,it can use BOTH types ,as you mightnt have the selection of subsonic rounds within a mission parameter

Not disputing the ability to use any type of ammo in the firearm only the ability for the firearm, using a suppressor, to silence a shot or not. With super sonic ammo it's not possible to silence the shot.

Indeed it can,BUT DOES the rifle then work if it is a SA??Are you going to trade noise reduction for functionality and reliability?Bad choice unless you are paper punching maybe?

Not interested in functionality as the topic we're discussing is can ANY firearm with a suppressor using "normal" super sonic ammo be fully silenced. Answer is always no.

Can and actual doing are poles apart here. In the circumstances of using a 50 cal as a sniper weapon.Belive me,if they thought there was value in doing so they would.I cant see what purpose a sub sonic 50 cal would bring to anyone?You are losing power,and distance for quitness,which is moot as the noise becomes mostly irrevelant as the distance from the target is over 1000 meters if you are using a 50 cal properly?

Again not germane to the discussion. The topic is about the ability of a device to silence a super sonic shot or not. Anything outside of sports shooting is moot to us, and this conversation.

The sonic crack of the round cant be suppressed/silenced.

Exactly.

You are really only left with the sonic crack.

Exactly, again.

Not necessarily, it depends again on where you are in the zones of identification or zone of confusion.Unsuppressed gunshots are easily heard in the zone of identification.A silenced/suppressed shot opens the zone of confusion vastly. The signiture of a rifle,in the big calibres,is the dust cloud they raise when fired close to the ground.That is a big giveaway if people know what to look for after a hit comes in.Thats why you should see professional personel protection,looking intently in the direction they think the shot came from.they are looking for a tell tale dust /dirt/snow frost/cloud.

Not relevant.

The simple fact that it is misinformation to say that a suppressor is not a silencer,when both terms are correct for the same item.

Suppress - To reduce
Silence - the absence of

Not the same thing.

One is a legal term that has been in use since 1905

Because someone first used the term and for want of a better way to put it, it stuck. Does not mean it's correct.

Calling it a silencer,suppresor ,sound modifier,is all correct for the same thing

Once again the words above don't have the same meaning. In fact suppress, modify, reduce, muffle are all closer to each other whereas silence is a separate thing.

Anyone who can google,can see the difference of this.But the trouble is not the words we use

Perhaps for some, but for me it's like nails on a chalk board. Everytime we see something on the news it's "weapon" this and "weapon" that. When they show an air rifle, BB toy, even a 22lr they use the term "sniper rifle". We all know better but that misinformation is hard to combat and once its out there the greater population that don't know anything about firearms or get their info from CNN, Facebook, etc. think we're all operators walking around with high powered military weapons.

,it is whether those want to LISTEN to us or are just too pig headed and looking for a PR opportunity

Hah.

Read that again and ask yourself when have we ever gotten anything other than that. Look at the pistol ban, the semi auto ban, the proposed lead ban, etc.

This is an utter dead duck...:

Until it's not. Look at New Zealand and semi autos because of one nutter. Ireland has a history of smaller groups being stepped on for virtue signaling, minority agendas, or just good old fashioned PR stunts.

Already granted lics or new applications?

Both, and not just suppressors.

Both should be DC challenges then

This all sounds well and good, but 99% will never take a DC case if refused.

and I'm not hearing anything?OR are they being offered,to be used in limited areas .IE specific bits of ground/ranges and people are not taking the deal?

Outright refusals, and no court cases. I have PMs, e-mails, phone calls, going back nearly two years with lads asking about what they should do. So i'm speaking from a personal point of view.

Always possible here.But if we dont point these incidents out and inform others..How are we to know whats going down.Boards.ie/shooting is now THE only really quick and fast way of getting any info on whats going on here.So it does behoove us to put this info out pronto

It's not my info to put out. If someone contacts me via the means i mentioned above then i treat it with a level of privacy and don't go posting about it here or anywhere else. If the person involved wants start a thread then haveatit, but until then i'll keep their confidence.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County