Muffler in other countries


PDA






Oleg Volk
August 15, 2006, 02:59 AM
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/16230-2/why1474.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Muffler in other countries" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
el44vaquero
August 15, 2006, 03:19 AM
nice

U.S.SFC_RET
August 15, 2006, 06:58 AM
New Zealand, Switzerland and Finland don't have Black on Black crime that enfluences our country's way of conducting politics OLEG. Inner City is vapid anti-establishment to this country as a whole. That sub culture has a strong foothold with democratic numbers you will never ever see "mufflers" because of the fear of them. Political points sell in this country whether valid or not. The rest of the country not in the bounds of big cities are really not free as freedom is supposed to be. Take Maryland for example. You cannot stop at a Mc Donalds drive through while transporting a locked pistol in the trunk of your car with the ammunition separated. This kind of crap results from the Baltimore and Washington D.C Black on Black Crime rate.:fire: Every time you purchase Ammunition in Md you get put on a list to get scrutinized by the state police. :fire:
America needs to change

Will Fennell
August 15, 2006, 09:03 AM
Oleg,
Add the UK to your list of suppressor friendly countries. I'm over there a couple of times a year for shotgun tournaments, and EVERY rimfire rifle I see over there has a can on the end of it. Most centerfires also. The family that I'll be staying with next month in southern England will have a Ruger stainless .22mag with a suppressor and bipod waiting for me in the bedroom that I'll be sleeping in........they want me to kill rabbits every morning and evening, as they are a serious pest[there will be a hundred or so in the yard every morning]. As te lady of the house said, to start shooting a .22 every morning, without using a muffler, would be [I]rude[I] to the neighbors. :cool:

Oleg Volk
August 15, 2006, 10:26 AM
I am not using the UK as an example here because of their overall gun-unfriednly laws. I do use them for contrast in conversation, where the details can be discussed.

Prof. A. Wickwire
August 15, 2006, 10:36 AM
Oleg,

The contrast might be even greater if you list some of the extremely anti-gun countries that allow "mufflers" compared to the "Home of the Free" where they are strictly controlled.

Perhaps that could be used on another poster.

Sincerely,

Prof. A. Wickwire

Justin
August 15, 2006, 10:42 AM
Suppressors are easier to obtain in France than they are here.

FRANCE!

sterling180
August 15, 2006, 10:44 AM
I am not using the UK as an example here because of their overall gun-unfriednly laws. I do use them for contrast in conversation, where the details can be discussed.

Oleg has it all wrapped up in a nutshell,but a suppressor is only available to people,who have "good reason",to own them.These are restricted in the same way as a Categories C and D weapons are in Australia.On occasions,they can be used for range work-but that is only on certain ranges,with exceptions.

I am disgusted with those in the UK population,who voted the reds in to power-because they disarmed us-directly and indirectly.In 1996,by putting pressure on John Major and in 1988,by putting pressure on Thatcher.:fire: :fire:

Lupinus
August 15, 2006, 10:46 AM
was about to say that

Even the anti-gun UK....

Would kind of drive the point deeper.

Also not sure if it is intentional or just by design, but I like the use of the rifle instead of a pistol. Pistols with them in movies have totaly ruined the image and people just aren't used to seeing them on rifles. Drives in the point that there are practicle sporting reasons for them.

Technosavant
August 15, 2006, 10:51 AM
Suppressors are easier to obtain in France than they are here.

FRANCE!

Well, if the neighbors hear the gunfire, they might surrender prematurely.

Seriously, though, if this is intended for the US audience, then "suppressor" or "silencer" might be better than "muffler", which makes most Americans think of car parts or winter wear.

But heck, the sentiment is dead on. Such devices aren't even legal in my state of MO, no matter what kind of tax stamp you have. :cuss:

Henry Bowman
August 15, 2006, 10:57 AM
Who is that handsome guy? :neener:

Seriously, I wish our point could be made in fewer words. But most people have no concept of the issue (which is a big part of the problem) and really you have abreviated the full extent of the hassel (finger prints, CLEO sign off, etc.).

Good work Oleg. Well done.

sterling180
August 15, 2006, 11:02 AM
Also not sure if it is intentional or just by design, but I like the use of the rifle instead of a pistol. Pistols with them in movies have totaly ruined the image and people just aren't used to seeing them on rifles. Drives in the point that there are practicle sporting reasons for them.

In 1987,after the Hungerford massacre(The one where a whacko,used an AK47,M1 Carbine,Browning shotgun and a 9mm Beretta M92F pistol,to murder 17 people and injure 30 more persons.)there was alot of Hysteria about whackos armed with silencers and going around,copying Micheal Ryans actions-so only rimfire silencers,were approved and it was years later that centrefire silencers,were approved for usage-in the field and on the range.

Jeremy Bamber,used a .22 LR Anshutz rifle,with a fitted silencer,to murder his adopted parents,his sister and her two sons-in order to get his hands on his parents money.He was jailed for life in 1986,for the murders that occurred in 1985.

The UK approved rifle silencers for hunting,pest control and for range work,where the shooting locations,were near populated areas or near areas,where people would be in-so that the sound of gunfire did not upset them,in any way.This was also included with animals too.

Pistols silencers,wern't really considered nessesary tools,for pistols,in the good old days of modern handgun shooting and ownership.Pistols wern't owned for hunting anyway,in the UK-back then.

Oleg Volk
August 15, 2006, 11:15 AM
The main points of this poster are for the fence-sitters:

- cans are legal, if taxed and regulated
- cans don't cause crime in other countries

Other issues and arguments are secondary to these info nuggets served to those who didn't know them.

sm
August 15, 2006, 01:43 PM
Who is that handsome guy?

I know, but it will cost you a $1 a person donation to something RKBA related. :D

INTENT

Poster gets back to the basic of many of the Idiotic Gun Restrictions.

A Muffler , firearm, match, edged weapon, motor vehicle...and similar are just "things".
Things that cannot do anything all by themselves.

Intent of the user of said "thing" - not the "thing".

Enacting Restrictive Controls using brainwash tactics, buzzwords and sensationalism is a tool used by Tryanny to Control Folks.

Toss a Muffler on a table and 98% of gun grabbers would have no idea what is was, most likely pick it up and piddle with it.

Mention the fact it goes onto "gun" and they will drop it like a hot potato. Run screaming with flayed hands...

Perception of Tyranny to make "things" bad, to control people.

--

My agrument?

Ear Protection. Be it E-A-R[tm] earplugs with a string or Muffs such as those by Peltor [tm]

"Yeah, Ear protection is 'bad' - gun folks use those to shoot evil guns"

Tell it to OSHA, Gubmint Agency concerned in "keeping you safe" from dBs in using machinery at a factory , using lawn and garden equipment, around the Airport terminal, NASCAR, Monster Truck ....

INTENT is to protect hearing -

Is the Gubmint going to mandate matches be "loud" to discourage Arsonist using them?

How about we mandate speakers on them surviellance cameras on stop lights?

"You in the White SUV, put down the cell phone, you can "go" now - the light has turned green"

"And you lady "citizen" in the dress about to cross the street- your slip is showing".


Just what the hell is the INTENT of Gubmint? That is the question.

Gubmint - Tyranny....I repeat myself.

qlajlu
August 15, 2006, 01:56 PM
As an avid shooter WITH substantial hearing loss (stupid, I know), I can think of many instances where a "suppressor" would be beneficial. However, I can "hear" the Brady Bunch now. Making them easily accessible here in the good ole U.S. of A. would really put knots in their knickers. {Oh, goody, let's do it then :D }

Oleg, I think calling them "mufflers" here in the States conjures up a totally wrong mind's eye picture (scarf, hand-warmers, auto part).

ChestyP
August 15, 2006, 03:04 PM
in many Euroepan countries come with threaded nuzzles. I was in a sporting goods store in France several years ago and saw blued steel tubes sitting in a display case, marked "Moderatur du sond." I asked if they were suppressors. "Oui," the clerk replied. "What kind of paperwork would I need to purchase one," I asked. His response? "One hundred-franc note." (A little under $20 at the time. I suspect it wasn't a very effective suppressor, but at that price!)

Oleg Volk
August 15, 2006, 03:24 PM
Oleg, I think calling them "mufflers" here in the States conjures up a totally wrong mind's eye picture (scarf, hand-warmers, auto part).

That's what they are, functionally. I want them to be thought of as variations on car or bike or lawnmower mufferls.

ChestyP
August 15, 2006, 03:28 PM
Drive your car without a muffler and get a ticket. Use a firearm WITH a muffler and get raided by BATF. Unless it's a REALLY good muffler and no one knows you have it!

zoom6zoom
August 16, 2006, 04:00 PM
INTENT is to protect hearing -

That's exactly why SWAT and similar organizations use them, too. It's not for "stealth".

iapetus
August 16, 2006, 06:38 PM
The UK approved rifle silencers for hunting,pest control and for range work,where the shooting locations,were near populated areas or near areas,where people would be in-so that the sound of gunfire did not upset them,in any way.This was also included with animals too.


Ironicly, hoplophobic townies moving to the country have made it easier for hunters/game-keepers to get licences for moderators (as they're normally refered to here).

Apparently, the rural police have been getting so frustrated by newly-arrived townies calling them whenever they've heard gunfire that they have become more willing to issue the licences.


I also found an official government document recomending the use of moderators by gamekeepers/ wildlife managers, on health and safety grounds (i.e. to stop them going deaf, especially when they are using rifles in situations where wearing ear protection would be impractical).

El Tejon
August 16, 2006, 07:04 PM
Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption! For the children.

O.K., you guys knew I was going to say it, I just wanted to make it official.:D

Spinner
August 16, 2006, 07:27 PM
OK, while you can get a suppressor in the UK, I understand you need to get a licence for one.

Here in New Zealand you don't need a licence for a suppressor at all. Yes, you need a firearms licence to buy a firearm or ammunition, but anyone can walk into a gun shop and buy a suppressor without a licence in exactly the same way as you can buy a scope or a bipod or a recoil pad. Its simply an accessory for a firearm.

I have to say that suppressors on firearms are so cool. Its just really neat to fire a subsonic suppressed .22LR and to hear the projectile hit the target. :D

Spinner

razorburn
August 16, 2006, 08:18 PM
I'm also extremely opposed to the legislation against silencers/moderators. In fact, I'd support silencers on every gun as they come from the factory. Most non gun people don't even know silencers are so hard to get. I don't need or care about shooting in silence. Just silencers reducing firearm report to 100 db would be good. It's still very loud by human standards, and there'd be no hiding the fact that you discharged, but it wouldn't blow out your ear drums. Just being able to have basic hearing safety for myself and those in the vicinity of the gun shot is all I ask.

cavman
August 16, 2006, 08:47 PM
I would trade my safety trigger lock, my safety magazine lock, my safety loaded chamber indicator, for a sound safety (silencer).

OEF_VET
August 16, 2006, 11:47 PM
As a manufacturer of suppressors, I bet it's pretty obvious where I sit on the issue.

Of course, if suppressors were made Title I weapons, the benefit of selling more would be offset by the necessity to lower prices to compete with a larger supply market. Still, I'd rather earn less money building and selling suppressors if it meant the repeal of NFA34.

If you enjoyed reading about "Muffler in other countries" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!