Reply With Quote
110db suppressed would be with using something in the .22 caliber range. Not the typical choice of caliber for someone looking to kill a person.
Supressed 9mm and up are 130db+
Chart here
http://www.gatewaytactical.com/_lite...encer_Db_Chart
Well if we assume 110-130 is the dB level for the shooter, that means it's quite a bit lower for anyone else at a distance with walls between them. Certainly at the 110 level, for example, if I honk my car horn in my garage with the garage door down, my next door neighbors *might* hear it from inside their house if they don't have any other noise... And a garage door has much less noise insulation than a normal wall.
160 to 130 is a significant difference, and 110 even more so.
110db suppressed would be with using something in the .22 caliber range. Not the typical choice of caliber for someone looking to kill a person.
Supressed 9mm and up are 130db+
Chart here
http://www.gatewaytactical.com/_lite...encer_Db_Chart
Define "not the typical choice of caliber." What percentage of gun crime committed with a .22 would qualify as significant, in your opinion?
Believe it or not, this isn't a specific issue I'm especially passionate about. But my bull radar has been conditioned to go off when there's any obviously-NRA-coordinated effort to rally gun owners behind a specific deregulation.
Suddenly shooting earmuffs (which are recommended even with the use of suppressors) are such insufficient ear protection that we need to make suppressors (which aren't illegal) easier to get. Because the right to unfettered noise suppressors for people shooting guns recreationally on private, non gun-range land is a crucial 2nd Amendment issue, and if you love your 2nd Amendment rights, get on board with the tribe.
I don't have a specific percentage really. If you wanted to kill someone or planned on having to possibly shoot someone while committing a crime a .22 would be far down on the list of calibers to choose. 9mm seems to be the most used in gun crime.
If suppressors suppressed as much as you think additional hearing protection would not be recommended/needed.
Did the NRA lobby the CDC to release this statement?
"The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students' or instructors' noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of suppressors that can be attached to the end of a gun barrel."
-Centers for Disease Control & Prevention 2011
Same reason a short barrel shotgun or rifle was... idiots like you who know nothing about guns assigning some arbitrary inherent evil to features that have nothing to do with the effectiveness or deadliness of a firearm.The hysterical reaction to any suggestion of gun control is far more limitless than any gun-fear mongering. I'm just asking questions here. I never said they made guns silent. Change your panties and reread the post because 80% of this response has nothing to do with anything I said. You read better when you're not emotional.
Why were noise suppressors regulated in the first place?
Unless you are using subsonic ammo, the breaking of the sound barrier will still issue a significant report. Of course you only practice the hysteria, and know nothing of the object behind it.
But if I close my garage and honk the horn my neighbors might not hear it
You are wasting your time. They are going to be against it even if they don't understand it.
I've noticed you only tend to favor anecdote over data when it suits you.
They should regulate garage doors. The real question no one has asked is why 200 dollars as a tax stamp? In the 1930s that was a of a lot of money and so only the affluent could afford them. That kept the opposition from buying them, and of course like today, they used a 4 year old gang war as a reason so they could move the sea of emotion from the gun ignorant folks. Today 200.00 is more of a nuisance than a cost prohibiting measure.
Throughout this whole argument it's as though you're unaware that sound decreases with distance. None of my hypotheticals have involved what a gun shot sounds like to the shooter.
This is a quote you've taken out of context from a report whose key recommendation is the use of hearing protection.Did the NRA lobby the CDC to release this statement?
"The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students' or instructors' noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of suppressors that can be attached to the end of a gun barrel."
-Centers for Disease Control & Prevention 2011
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-19-2017 at 07:12 PM.
Actually I do.
You can keep projecting some kind of unmovable hysteria on me if it makes you feel better, but you're the one in this thread going into hysterical rants when all I'm asking for is for you guys to defend your rationale on a subject I've already admitted to not knowing a lot about.
that ar is listed at $910. out of my price range.
looks too rich for my blood. i'm trying to stay in the $500-700 range.You should get in touch with this guy. He's got a modded AR15 that allows you to carry incon uously.
http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=84
does it matter if the upper and lower are made by different companies? is it that easy to buy em separate and just slap them together?
You were given the db data
Doesn't matter if they are both in spec. I like to have matching uppers and lowers, much easier to sell if you want. And yes no tools required if you buy a complete upper and lower. Slap it together and push the pins in. If you check in on that site every few days for the daily deals you'll easily build one for under $600
Your hypotheticals are bogus though, 130db is still a loud ing noise.
I'd suggest finding a gun range near you that rents suppressed guns if you are truly curious. It's really the only way to find out.
Yeah the tax stamp was originally to keep poor people from hunting during the off season or something.
Poaching and riots with coal miners or something like that. Poaching was rampant during the depression, almost to the point of exhaustion for some areas and suppressors kept the game warden from hearing shots from miles away. It's illegal to hunt game animals with suppressed weapons, however trapping is much greater threat than shooting since trapping makes almost no sound and traps many many more animals.
It's not a problem these days, but it's not because of the suppressor regulations. Poaching is still an issue, but it's at night off county roads. Also, it's relatively easy to make a suppressor with a steel pipe and some washers. Still illegal unless you are a class II manufacturer
Last edited by DMC; 01-19-2017 at 07:58 PM.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...you-now-215196
Interesting.
Car insurance works pretty darn well why not for guns.
If one really wanted to get into this business as a for profit one would want good numbers. But they are lacking. Anytime you look at health issues related to gun accidents you can forget getting good data.
Trigger Warning
^lucky he didn't burn one off in the chamber. Idiot
We've got 3 lasers, 3 red dot sights, a magnifier, 4 lasers
If only SJW snowflakes made fun of their own
because owning a car isn't a cons utionally guaranteed right.
That said, having that insurance isn't a bad idea. A CHL instructor once told me you can expect to pay $100k to justifiably
shoot someone in self defense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
