In further evidence that mainstream media journalists are nothing more than wage slaves writing clickbait to generate ad revenue and support a failing business model, Tom Snowdon of the Courier Mail decided to continue this trend and launched a neurolinguistic attack on firearm suppressors:
“A MAJOR southeast Queensland council wants its pest assassins to use firearm silencers — which are banned alongside rocket launchers — to help control a growing feral deer population.
Logan City Council wants the State Government to provide a Ministerial exemption, or change the laws, to permit local governments to use silencers or noise suppressors to kill local pests. Both devices are category R weapons, placing them alongside bazookas or antitank rifles as banned weapons in Queensland.
The move is the latest ploy by a local government to control rampant suburban pests after and an application by Brisbane City Council to use silencers or suppressors last year was refused by Police Minister Mark Ryan.”
“Pest assassins” “Silencers” “Bazookas” “Anecdotal” “Looks set”
The usual deliberate use of language to craft thought around firearms. Total garbage. Guess what? That doesn’t work anymore. You know what does work? Actual arguments, which this article is completely bereft of.
Failfax have tried this on with us before and were promptly shut down last year.
Honestly speaking, this is also from the try-hards at Queensland Labor and their anti-gun platform at the upcoming Queensland election.
Quick Layman’s guide as to what firearm suppressor actually achieve:
A few basic questions that this article could have asked is:
Why is a small piece of tubular steel that (on average) reduces a 160db rifle shot to about 120db considered illegal?
Why are suppressors legal in most other western countries including New Zealand and are mandatory for private hunting in the UK?
Why are suppressors classified in the same category as explosive ordnance?
Why do only government contractors have access to them and not every licenced firearm owner?
Why are semi-auto rifles and suppressors still being restricted in Australia when it is quite clear that our invasive species problem is growing worse by the day?
Furthermore, Edith Cowan University conducted a study in 2011 entitled “An Investigation Into The Use Of Sound Moderators On Firearms For Game And Feral Management In New South Wales” and in it’s conclusion stated the following:
“New Zealand holds the view that moderators are merely non-critical devices designed to lower the sound report of an otherwise noisy firearm. They hold no sentience and discount the possibility they are criminally ‘contaminated’ by proximity to the crime portrayed in popular fiction. In New Zealand firearm sound suppression is viewed as something that has physical, community and animal welfare benefits.”
“One only needs to consider the lack of evidence of criminal misuse in New Zealand (of a concerning amount), or of crimes facilitated by the use of moderators over the years. This coupled with New Zealand continuing to find no issue with the item and one then is entitled to beg the question of the Australian authorities who granted, have not had an imperative (until now) to re-evaluate the status of moderators, what level of crime justifies the continued denial of the benefits provided by a moderated firearm?
It is the opinion of the report-panel that when the documented advantages of sound moderators are compared against a perceived amount of crime that criminalisation of the device purports to prevent, then it is argued that continued denial of the benefits is no longer in the public interest.”
Another question for you to ask yourself is: why are New Zealand different and why do they have actual common sense in their firearm laws?
So, the challenge to Tom Snowdon and the Queensland Weapons Licencing Branch is: make your case why suppressors should remain restricted?
And above all, have some professional pride in your work instead of writing this lowest common denominator garbage.