| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
 Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:50 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | I lack empathy for their plight however as one group of shooters consumes a vast amount land as the sound of gunfire permeates an entire drainage and unneveres any other users in the area. |
That is partially due to the difficulty in obtaining sound suppressors. Sound suppressors are pretty common for shooters in Europe. Additionally, they are easily obtainable -- as in they can be bought "over the counter".
That isn't the case in the United States. Federal law requires a $200 on EACH suppressor that one wishes to own. On top of that, there is paperwork to fill out and a wait of 9-15 months as the paperwork is processed (rubber stamp).
The $200 tax per suppressor plus wait time plus suppressor cost (artificially high because of controlled supply) makes it unlikely for lower income shooters to bother with getting suppressors. Lower income shooters are more likely to want to use public land for shooting due to the reduced costs, especially when one can shoot for hours for $0 whereas going to a shooting range can cost $20-$40 per hour.
There has been legislation in Congress to address this. I think it was called the Hearing Protection Act.
Contrary to Hollywood movies, suppressors don't silence firearms. They merely perform a decibel reduction function. Most centerfire rifles are in the 150db-160db range. A suppressor will reduce that by 25db-35db, on average.
It is in both shooters' and non-shooters' interests to support legislation to help make the outdoors more enjoyable for everyone.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:59 am |
|
|
| Bedivere wrote: | | As someone who often wanders where there are no trails it would be good to know that someone a mile away who can't see me isn't lobbing bullets in my direction. |
There are very few commonly used rifle calibers that would be able to reach you a mile from point of firing. If you're wandering where there are no trails, a bullet fired from 5,280 feet away is going to hit a tree, the ground or other obstacle long before reaching you.
Furthermore, people with rifles capable of firing a mile aren't taking them to forest areas for target shooting. They normally go to ranges with 600/800/1000 yard (or greater) ranges built.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:02 am |
|
|
| DIYSteve wrote: | | MtnGoat wrote: | | . . . and there is no right to feel safe. . . . |
Not true. There are numerous laws against making threats or otherwise engaging in actions that make or have the propensity of making others subjectively feel unsafe or insecure. The premise of all such laws is the right of the victim to subjectively feel safe and secure. |
You're not talking about the same thing that MtnGoat is. You're talking about assault, which is making a threat with intention to harm. Simply being around someone with a gun is not assault.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Posts: 563 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Pahoehoe
Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:10 am |
|
|
I would be more inclined to support the desire of a few to place a huge impact on public lands by using them to target shoot if there was some assurance that those in control of deadly weapons had a basic understanding of how to operate those weapons safely.
Requiring training and a permit to shoot on public land with severe penalties for violations would help. The shooter should have to display the permit with permit number clearly visible so the public could document and report unsafe behavior.
There are too many people to allow whoever can find a gun to run around shooting them on public land and it's unfair to expect others to just automatically trust that random people will act safely, especially with mass shootings happening so often these days.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:38 am |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | You're talking about assault |
No, I'm not. There are numerous laws that protect people's right to feel safe and secure short of assault, e.g., anti-harassment laws, gender discrimination laws.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
Joined: 01 May 2012
Posts: 369 | TRs | Pics
|
|
xrp
Tactical Backpacker
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:51 am |
|
|
| DIYSteve wrote: | | xrp wrote: | | You're talking about assault |
No, I'm not. There are numerous laws that protect people's right to feel safe and secure short of assault, e.g., anti-harassment laws, gender discrimination laws. |
Could you document those laws here please? Thanks.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:44 am |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | Could you document those laws here please? |
No, not all of them. If you're sincerely interested, so some research. You might learn something. I'll provide one example: RCW Chapter 10.14, which authorizes the entry of a restraining order against someone who engages in conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to [the petitioner], and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose." Note the conjunctive or. This law is bottomed on the victim's right to feel safe and secure.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:35 am |
|
|
IME at least some "target shooters" are either don't care what effect their activity has on others or are too stupid to understand.
Case in point: I was river camping on a gravel bar of the Upper Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie when I heard rounds whizzing overhead from the far side of the river. I got myself and my kids behind a large driftwood log for cover. We hunkered down for a while. After a pause I waved my lifejacket overhead and was spotted by the group of shooters. They were too far off to hear words shouted. But they at least stopped firing.
There is a whole array of both laws and common decency that these knuckleheads were violating.
Relaxing the 1934 restrictions on silencers, just means that the velocity of rounds striking unsuspecting other users will be increased and more risk of accidental deaths.
Requiring some sort of non-idiot test for firearm possession seems inline with the "Well regulated milita" intent of the founding fathers -- but that would curtail profits for Colt and other gun makers.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kascadia
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2014
Posts: 651 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Kascadia
Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:43 am |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | Bedivere wrote: | | As someone who often wanders where there are no trails it would be good to know that someone a mile away who can't see me isn't lobbing bullets in my direction. |
There are very few commonly used rifle calibers that would be able to reach you a mile from point of firing. If you're wandering where there are no trails, a bullet fired from 5,280 feet away is going to hit a tree, the ground or other obstacle long before reaching you. |
You're hitting a tree and missing the forest. . .
It is as though I had read a divine text, written into the world itself, not with letters but rather with essential objects, saying:
Man, stretch thy reason hither, so thou mayest comprehend these things. Johannes Kepler
It is as though I had read a divine text, written into the world itself, not with letters but rather with essential objects, saying:
Man, stretch thy reason hither, so thou mayest comprehend these things. Johannes Kepler
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now |
|
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:14 pm |
|
|
| xrp wrote: | | There are very few commonly used rifle calibers that would be able to reach you a mile from point of firing. |
Not true. See this chart from WA Hunter Education Course site:
| xrp wrote: | | If you're wandering where there are no trails, a bullet fired from 5,280 feet away is going to hit a tree, the ground or other obstacle long before reaching you. |
There are very few trees in the subject area of this thread.
And where are you going with this? It seems an attempt to justify rifle target shooting with no backstop. Every responsible firearm user knows that a backstop is absolutely required when target shooting.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MyFootHurts
Huge Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 912 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kekistan |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Relaxing the 1934 restrictions on silencers, just means that the velocity of rounds striking unsuspecting other users will be increased and more risk of accidental deaths. |
Silencers are completely legal in WA and most other states. (I own two).
They have almost no effect on velocity and there has not been a single death attributed to them.
In other words, like most gun control supporters you have no idea what you`re talking about.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RodF
Member
Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA |
|
RodF
Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:13 pm |
|
|
| DIYSteve wrote: | | I'll provide one example: RCW Chapter 10.14, which authorizes the entry of a restraining order against someone who engages in conduct that "seriously alarms, annoys, harasses, or is detrimental to [the petitioner], and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose." Note the conjunctive or. This law is bottomed on the victim's right to feel safe and secure. |
Is there a Federal law on this? Most Americans and all the rest of the world are feeling unsafe and insecure because of the Very Stable, Very Smart Genius (except Putin, and even he's getting annoyed he clearly didn't get his money's worth). No one seems able to restrain him! 
Maybe those laws aren't so effective, eh?
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir
"the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cambajamba
Member
Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs | Pics
|
Oh thank goodness xrp decided to weigh in! I've been missing his proof of how very very smart he is and his trenchant analysis of the law.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:21 pm |
|
|
| MyFootHurts wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Relaxing the 1934 restrictions on silencers, just means that the velocity of rounds striking unsuspecting other users will be increased and more risk of accidental deaths. |
Silencers are completely legal in WA and most other states. (I own two).
They have almost no effect on velocity and there has not been a single death attributed to them.
In other words, like most gun control supporters you have no idea what you`re talking about. |
Silencers reduce the sound emitted, so that the distance that other users are alerted to the plinkers presence is reduced.
I guess I need to be more direct and obvious with "huge members" like you.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBrunyon
Member
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: the fitness gyms!! |
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Silencers reduce the sound emitted, so that the distance that other users are alerted to the plinkers presence is reduced. |
What's the deal with velocity getting changed?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
