Dear Is Mise,

Strewth mate, a quick dive to the semantics? Oh well par for the course.

The National Firearm Agreement strove for uniform gun laws nation wide. The States signed up for the provisions and they can only be changed if voted on unanimously.

It is the application of these provisions where the States have exercised wriggle room either by not applying them fully or eroding them in the breach so to speak.

You wrote;

“So, if I disagree then you take your bat and go home?”

No it is more if you are patently disingenuous in the discussion then I have better things to do with my time.

You wrote;

“The extending of the silencer provision in NSW was deemed necessary because certain persons needed a silencer and if they comply with the NSW guidelines then they may now apply.”

So weakening the provision of limiting silencers to business/employment applications by opening it up to recreational shooters in you terminology becomes 'extending the provision'?

You have just given a prime example why discussing this with you is so repetitive and inane. Most halfway intelligent people would accept this is a weakening of gun laws yet you are unable to do so. Why do you think that is? Are you so in thrall by the gun industry mantras that black becomes white?

Instead you bang on about how easy they are to make in the shed or that criminals can buy them anyway as though that gives some sort of justification when it obviously doesn't.

So it comes down to a very simple yes or no question. Do you believe that now allowing recreational shooters access to silencers qualifies as a weakening of what had been existing gun laws?

If you can't concede even something as clear as this then continuing the dance would seem to rather pointless don't you agree

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

My criticism concerning the endless use of quotes & references was not for you Steele, rather another on this Site. I (personally) like to hear of other's opinions & views no matter how awry they might be with mine. I guess it's a throwback from my working days where one virtually never cites conversations or opinions by others, except under special circumstances.

Do I support the legalization of 'sound suppressors' fitted to F/A's that would be made available to the ordinary licensed shooter? No! Such attachments should remain within the exclusive preserve of covert, military or law enforcement functionaries. I can't see any legitimate application for the ordinary shooter, though I stand to be corrected otherwise. IS MISE might have a better explanation than mine - His knowledge is immense, far more so than my own, when it comes to the needs of sanctioned hunters.

An area that I've discussed at an informal level, with other police; was the increase of penalties. Whereas during the commission of a crime, a F/A is used, an additional five years penal servitude is added, to the original head sentence, 'e curia.' This amendment might slow down some of the 'gun-toting' crooks who like nothing more than menacing and terrorizing staff during the prosecution of an armed robbery somewhere!

In conclusion Steele, I do encourage the sport of shooting, by responsible licensed shooters. I don't own a gun myself. Anybody who has possession of a F/A must ensure that F/A is secure, and locked away, separate from any ammunition. These other individuals (albeit they're licensed shooters) who by their irresponsible behavior, especially after they've been given the privilege to shoot on somebody else's property, are so uncaring, by leaving rubbish scattered about, paddock gates left open, and in some cases, the domestic stock has been shot dead. This type of behaviour is utterly intolerable and unforgivable in my opinion.!

Dear O Sung Wu,

I suspect that it was my you were referring to in your critique
of the consistent use of quotes and links. My sincere apologies
to you for obviously causing you stress. The only explanation
I can offer is that it's an occupational habit. As a librarian
you're taught to refer people to a wide variety of sources
and opinions for information and allow them to make up
their own minds on issues. We're taught that our own opinions
are irrelevant - that information has to be based on facts
and usually from expert sources. I have tried to sincerely
express my opinions in many cases - and I feel that I am
getting better at it. But old habits die hard.

Anyway, I shall keep trying and Thank You for pointing it
out to me. I respect your opinion.

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for your answer. It obviously leads to this question;

Given the rules around silencer use were changed to include recreational users in 2016 would you acknowledge this was a weakening of gun regulation within NSW?

Steele,

When did the National Firearms Agreement become Law?

It is an agreement, nothing more and not complying with its provisions is not weakening the law, in some cases, it strengthens the law.

My main objection to silencers is that I want to know if someone is shooting in my vicinity, likewise, if I'm shooting I want people within hearing range to know what is going on, for safety.
Then there is the effect on game, I want them to run when a shot is fired, I make one shot kills 99% of the time and I can only eat so much.
One of the reasons that I mostly hunt with a single shot muzzle loading shotgun is that I have to make the shot count and if I'm after rabbits then they have calmed down a bit by the time that I've reloaded, cleaned the flint and reprimed.
I can see a use for silencers when hunting foxes as I give them no quarter, I use an electronic lure and sub-sonic .22 rimfire ammo, so usually they don't hear much at all.
Except when the area doesn't have much cover then I use my Ruger single shot precision rifle in .220 Swift, it's a big bang rifle.

Dear Is Mise,

Good Lord are you really that thick?

This was your earlier post;

Quote

Steele,

"You asked for an example of a weakening of gun laws and there it was, yet your response was just 'well I don't support it so it is irrelevant'." ( in reference to weakening gun laws).

That is not an example of weakening gun laws as there has been no weakening, allowing more access to silencers is a proposal.

Now shew me where the gun laws have been weakened, you can't because they haven't been weakened but on the contrary, they have been strengthened.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 12 March 2019 8:38:02 AM

End quote

The link I gave was for Victoria where indeed this is still a proposal. However in NSW the laws were changed in 2016 to allow recreational shooters access to silencers. So by your own definition the laws have been weakened in that state.

Look mate you have made it pretty clear you really only think the only positive of gun laws is because of entirely selfish reasons;

“I'm all in favour of the majority of our gun laws for without them we would not have the world-class facilities of our major complexes, nor would the minor ranges be in such good condition”

You show scant regard for the victims of gun violence except when you are pushing the 'let's arm our civilians' garbage.

But you obfuscate and prattle of about your precious guns instead of answering a simple bloody question. I will ask it again will as little ambiguity as I can muster;

When NSW decided to no longer restrict silencers where "Applications under the business/employment genuine reason must demonstrate that a suppressor is ‘necessary’ in the conduct of the applicant’s business or employment." but rather them up to the recreational shooting did that constitute a weakening of its existing gun laws or not?