AlanF wrote:On the subject of hearing protection, I'd like to see the a coordinated push by the STAs and the NRAA to have suppressors allowed. Any objective analysis would conclude that benefits of reduced hearing damage far outweigh the police concerns (theories?) about criminal use of silencers. Our case is particularly strong for target shooting with heavy single shot rifles. The rifles would be completely unsuitable for crime, plus our sport involves hundreds of shots being fired in close proximity to other people every week. The police stance on this issue is indefensible.
Agree 100% Alan
I have spent 20+ years shooting rabbits in NZ.
Calibers .22lr; 17HMR; .204 Ruger; 223 Rem; 22/250 - all suppressed.
Between myself and friends in immediate vicinity possibly 100,000 rounds
Once you use them nothing else is agreeable.
Even the UK with pretty draconian firearm laws allows suppressors ( or moderators)!
The problem in my state is WLB driven by a Hollywood mentality of the completely incorrect term of “silencer”! They have even refused an exemption application from their own aerial culler to use when having to work close to a city!
You still need earmuffs but you don’t get battered! And they work to some extent like a brake and reduce recoil too!
But when can we talk logic to government about any subject let alone firearms?!
I see a relatively new crew in National Shooting Council doing very good things!
Maybe they could take up this fight supported by us?
They are the reason my business is operating again and the whole firearm industry would have collapsed in Australia if Qld; WA and Victoria got their way to close dealers “ for the duration of the emergency” ! Which is still in place here!
NSC got WA and Victoria into court over our closures! The cops in those states saw they would lose so reversed the closures! Qld followed suit!
The really big win if suppressors were allowed here would be a way lower issue of public noise
on our ranges!