gun owners

[DMC]

Debates are more valuable when they're backed by data. Otherwise it's all hypothetical and philosophical bullshit.

I agree debates are better when a point is proven, however I don't agree that laws need to be changed and personal information needs to be taken to make your debate experience more rewarding.

[spurraider21]

It could also measure effectiveness and ineffectiveness of various regulations. Maybe states do away with the lol unconstitutional CHL when data shows it doesn't help

[DMC]

It could also measure effectiveness and ineffectiveness of various regulations. Maybe states do away with the lol unconstitutional CHL when data shows it doesn't help
What would be cool would be if the state or federal government would force IPs to reveal the names, addresses and other personal information of every poster on every forum to the rest of the world, along with the content of all their posts. That would make us safer since it seems all these pissed off mass shooters posted about it beforehand.

You like?

[Chucho]

Gonna need 'em more now than ever after this poor retard was sliced and gang beaten by four racist black sadists. In Chicago.

Just read the entire CNN a article. Not once do they mention these sick fucks were black like they do on their hachet jobs and sensationalist pieces when white trash beats up a black. LOLiberal media.

[Spurminator]

I agree debates are better when a point is proven, however I don't agree that laws need to be changed and personal information needs to be taken to make your debate experience more rewarding.

It's not about rewarding me, it's about real effects on real policy. We also have a law preventing federal funding of research on gun violence. How is that not suspicious?

[DMC]

It's not about rewarding me, it's about real effects on real policy. We also have a law preventing federal funding of research on gun violence. How is that not suspicious?

Research on all violence is fine, why single out gun related violence unless the desired outcome is to enact gun control legislation? The gun control crowd brought this upon themselves a few decades ago by trying to use federal funding to the CDC as a lever for gun control.

What question are you asking? "Do we need tighter gun control laws?"

[Spurminator]

Research on all violence is fine, why single out gun related violence unless the desired outcome is to enact gun control legislation?

Even a research initiative on all violence would be prevented from studying gun-specific violence as a part of that study. That's ludicrous.


The gun control crowd brought this upon themselves a few decades ago by trying to use federal funding to the CDC as a lever for gun control.

What question are you asking? "Do we need tighter gun control laws?"

Banning funded research presumes the conclusion will be "yes." Why is that?

If gun control laws actually made us less safe, gun control opponents would also have more data and opportunity to make that case.

[boutons_deux]

"If gun control laws actually made us less safe"

depends on the gun control regs.

I, and most gun control advocates, don't want to stop legit, validated owners, but only get guns out of the hands of criminals and non-validated.

However, even legit gun owners would be required to register all the SERIALIZED guns, buy and prove insurance (like car insurance), and pay and prove an annual registration fee (just like cars)

anti-Constitutional "undue burden"?

Fuck it, there is already an "undue burden" on non-gun-owning citizens who have to $10Bs for crimes and gun violence costs.

[boutons_deux]

http://cyber-breeze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Married-till-death-do-you-part.jpg

[TheSanityAnnex]

Only one of those women shoots guns.

And lol @ boutons jumping back in this thread pretending he never claimed more guns=more gun violence.

[boutons_deux]

Armed for 2017: New State Gun Laws Shrink 'Gun-Free Zones,' Expand Access to Concealed Carry Without Training or Permit

Although fatal shootings are already a more common cause of death (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gun-deaths-continue-to-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-missouri/article_c6b66d76-3d84-5b75-9e68-354c6cfb7a95.html) in Missouri than car accidents, a new law allows anyone 19 or older who owns a gun to carry it in public, concealed, without getting training or a permit.

“This law would allow anybody to go get a gun, carry it, and never have to fire the weapon until they think it’s necessary to use it, without any education whatsoever,”

Missouri now joins Idaho, West Virginia and Mississippi as one of four states (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/15/goa-missouri-4th-state-permitless-carry/) to adopt “permitless carry” in 2016, bringing the total number of U.S. states to 12.

, the law also expands the state’s castle doctrine and creates a controversial stand-your-ground right. The new law no longer requires people to attempt to back away from trouble in public, as in a tavern parking lot, before using deadly force if there is fear of bodily harm.

Over in Ohio, Republican Gov. John Kasich signed into law a new measure that allows service members to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and shrinks gun free zones in the state.

The new law allows concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms inside school safety zones as long as the guns are in their vehicles. That means that gun-owners in Ohio can legally carry hidden, loaded handguns near daycare centers and on some college and university campuses.

“Governor Kasich ignored the concerns of law enforcement, business leaders, gun violence survivors, moms, daycare providers, campus stakeholders and students,”

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/armed-2017-new-state-gun-laws-shrink-gun-free-zones-expand-access-concealed-carry-without

you people are fucking sick

[Chucho]

Armed for 2017: New State Gun Laws Shrink 'Gun-Free Zones,' Expand Access to Concealed Carry Without Training or Permit

Although fatal shootings are already a more common cause of death (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/gun-deaths-continue-to-surpass-motor-vehicle-deaths-in-missouri/article_c6b66d76-3d84-5b75-9e68-354c6cfb7a95.html) in Missouri than car accidents, a new law allows anyone 19 or older who owns a gun to carry it in public, concealed, without getting training or a permit.

“This law would allow anybody to go get a gun, carry it, and never have to fire the weapon until they think it’s necessary to use it, without any education whatsoever,”

Missouri now joins Idaho, West Virginia and Mississippi as one of four states (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/15/goa-missouri-4th-state-permitless-carry/) to adopt “permitless carry” in 2016, bringing the total number of U.S. states to 12.

, the law also expands the state’s castle doctrine and creates a controversial stand-your-ground right. The new law no longer requires people to attempt to back away from trouble in public, as in a tavern parking lot, before using deadly force if there is fear of bodily harm.

Over in Ohio, Republican Gov. John Kasich signed into law a new measure that allows service members to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and shrinks gun free zones in the state.

The new law allows concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms inside school safety zones as long as the guns are in their vehicles. That means that gun-owners in Ohio can legally carry hidden, loaded handguns near daycare centers and on some college and university campuses.

“Governor Kasich ignored the concerns of law enforcement, business leaders, gun violence survivors, moms, daycare providers, campus stakeholders and students,”

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/armed-2017-new-state-gun-laws-shrink-gun-free-zones-expand-access-concealed-carry-without

you people are fucking sick

Statistically, delusional white loners are most likely to go off on people with guns. That'd be YOU, YOU sick fuck.

[spurraider21]

anti-Constitutional "undue burden"?

Fuck it
lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

more guns=more gun violenceplease explain

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

[boutons_deux]

please explain

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

please compare USA gun violence, homicides with any other industrial country.

[DMC]

Even a research initiative on all violence would be prevented from studying gun-specific violence as a part of that study. That's ludicrous.


That doesn't make any sense. Studying all violence doesn't suddenly become "gun-specific". It's a contradiction in terms. Where do you think the data comes from for gun related deaths and violence, someone's asshole?


Banning funded research presumes the conclusion will be "yes." Why is that?

Because that's what the researcher is paid to find.

Besides, funded research isn't banned. Taxpayer funded research is. Are we going to pay to find out how Noah's ark got atop whatever mountain? Or pay to find out which religion is more true?


If gun control laws actually made us less safe, gun control opponents would also have more data and opportunity to make that case.
Or the 2nd Amendment. Do you feel unsafe?

[DMC]

please compare USA gun violence, homicides with any other industrial country.

That's not how these things work. There are more guns now and less violence now than when there were more guns. It doesn't matter what happened in another situation in another culture with different borders and different governments and different people and different histories. It matters what happens here, unless you're proposing that we somehow make the US become another country. Your solution would be to do something here, and if the effect was still not on par with some other country, you'd say "but look at how the numbers improved in the US" you cherry picking retarded fuck.

[TheSanityAnnex]

please compare USA gun violence, homicides with any other industrial country.
The USA had added more guns and seen a reduction in gun violence. Please explain.

[boutons_deux]

Conservative concealed carry activist who called for firearms on campus gunned down

http://usuncut.com/news/concealed-carry-activist-gunned-down/

[Winehole23]

The USA had added more guns and seen a reduction in gun violence. Please explain.Demographic trends. Per capita much fewer "at-risk" people (between 14-28 of age.) Also goes to explain the generation long decline in violent crime.

How would you explain it?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Demographic trends. Per capita much fewer "at-risk" people (between 14-28 of age.) Also goes to explain the generation long decline in violent crime.

How would you explain it?
That doesn't apply to boutons claim more guns=more gun violence

[boutons_deux]

Florida householder fatally shoots woman searching for dog
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/0132/production/_93360300_dog.jpg

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586215

one more gun meant more fatal gun violence.

[Thread]

Florida householder fatally shoots woman searching for dog


http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/0132/production/_93360300_dog.jpg

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38586215

one more gun meant more fatal gun violence.



You ain't gettin' the guns, daddy. No fuckin' way. Uh, uh. Nope.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/arizona-news/228691268-story

Tenopah, Ariz. - An Arizona state trooper stopped to help at a car wreck along a remote highway Thursday when he was shot and wounded in an ambush by a man who was bashing the officer's head against the pavement until a passing driver shot him to death, authorities say.

"My trooper would not be alive without his assistance"

one more gun, one more officer alive today :bobo

[boutons_deux]

GOP Introduces Perhaps Most Absurd Pro-Gun Law Yet

The GOP has just risen to a whole new level of crazy. Last week, it introduced (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-silencers-20170110-story.html) the Duncan-Carter (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21)Hearing Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. John Carter (R-TX).

The bill removes gun silencers from the scope of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act), and refunds the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased them after October 22, 2015.

Yes, we’re talking about gun silencers, or “suppressors” as they are euphemistically known in the industry.

You know – those things that assassins snap on the ends of their pistols in action movies to look all slick and cold-blooded.

Apparently, the logic is that the world would be a much safer place if silencers were more readily available to the average consumer. Sure.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/

[rmt]

That is a hard statistic to tie down. People just won't admit it in a survey. Call my house and ask if I have any guns? Who are you and hell no I don't have guns in my house.

I'd tell them I have LOTS of guns in my house. Actually did a gun survey yesterday even though they wouldn't tell me who sponsored the survey (don't want the surveyor to show any bias). They were using the recent Ft. Lauderdale shooting to ask if airports (outside TSA) should be gun-free and whether we should have more gun laws in FL (since Orlando and Ft. Laud shootings) or on school/college (with drinking) campuses. Poor woman got an earful.

But I'm glad all those Trump voters lied on those polls - kept Hillary from campaigning in Wisc. and more in Mich.

[Sec24Row7]

GOP Introduces Perhaps Most Absurd Pro-Gun Law Yet

The GOP has just risen to a whole new level of crazy. Last week, it introduced (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-silencers-20170110-story.html) the Duncan-Carter (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21)Hearing Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. John Carter (R-TX).

The bill removes gun silencers from the scope of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act), and refunds the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased them after October 22, 2015.

Yes, we’re talking about gun silencers, or “suppressors” as they are euphemistically known in the industry.

You know – those things that assassins snap on the ends of their pistols in action movies to look all slick and cold-blooded.

Apparently, the logic is that the world would be a much safer place if silencers were more readily available to the average consumer. Sure.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/




No, it's the legitimate concern that firearms can cause hearing loss for shooters. Something which anyone who has shot guns for any amount of time will tell you is of great concern.

[boutons_deux]

No, it's the legitimate concern that firearms can cause hearing loss for shooters. Something which anyone who has shot guns for any amount of time will tell you is of great concern.

:lol

[DMC]

:lol

Because evil features like forearm grips, bayonet lugs flash and noise suppression need to be banned.

So if your car is street legal now, if you put a quieter muffler on it, it should become illegal because cops might not be able to hear you driving by too fast..

[Spurminator]

No, it's the legitimate concern that firearms can cause hearing loss for shooters. Something which anyone who has shot guns for any amount of time will tell you is of great concern.

Are we talking about handgun silencers or are there other forms of noise suppressors that this covers?

[boutons_deux]

Because evil features like forearm grips, bayonet lugs flash and noise suppression need to be banned.

So if your car is street legal now, if you put a quieter muffler on it, it should become illegal because cops might not be able to hear you driving by too fast..

:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Are we talking about handgun silencers or are there other forms of noise suppressors that this covers?

It's the same principle whether used on a handgun or rifle. They aren't "silencers". They just reduce the decibel of the muzzle blast. With normal ammo they are still quite loud because of the bullet ballistic crack, just not "ear damaging" loud.

[TheSanityAnnex]

GOP Introduces Perhaps Most Absurd Pro-Gun Law Yet

The GOP has just risen to a whole new level of crazy. Last week, it introduced (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-silencers-20170110-story.html) the Duncan-Carter (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21)Hearing Protection Act of 2017, sponsored by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Rep. John Carter (R-TX).

The bill removes gun silencers from the scope of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act), and refunds the $200 transfer tax to applicants who purchased them after October 22, 2015.

Yes, we’re talking about gun silencers, or “suppressors” as they are euphemistically known in the industry.

You know – those things that assassins snap on the ends of their pistols in action movies to look all slick and cold-blooded.

Apparently, the logic is that the world would be a much safer place if silencers were more readily available to the average consumer. Sure.

http://lawnewz.com/opinion/gop-introduces-perhaps-most-absurd-gun-law-yet/




:lol "silencers"
:lol pew pew
:lol fearing silent assassinations like in James Bond
:lol champions European gun laws, doesn't realize suppressors are encouraged in Europe and sold over the counter
:lol easier to get a suppressor in Australia than California
:lol 125,000 suppressors in civilian hands, and zero of them have been used in any crime since 1934
:lol DailyKos supporting suppressors

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/405370/-

A Democrat's guide to why firearm sound suppressors ("silencers") should be made easier to obtain. (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/11/5/405370/-)

DISCLAIMER: I am a Democrat voter. I am also a gun owner.


Firearm suppressors, colloquially and inaccurately known as "silencers", are basic safety equipment when operating a firearm, as their use prevents both hearing damage and reduces the noise pollution of firing ranges. Due to a little-known section of Federal law called the National Firearms Act, their possession has been all but criminalized.
(This article refers to these devices by the correct "suppressors" instead of the more colloquial and inaccurate "silencers", as they do no such thing.)
Suppressors have the benefit of both decreasing the likelihood of hearing loss and decreasing noise pollution from hunting and shooting ranges. In the UK, Europe, and Scandinavia, they recognize the health and environmental benefits of suppressors, so they are sold over the counter without much regulation at all.
Democrats, as the party that pushes for safer health and environmental regulations, should embrace any effort to lessen the regulations surrounding firearm suppressors, preferably by making them subject to the same regulations as ordinary firearms - a simple instant background check and no onerous tax. This is called a "Title I" firearm. Let's explore a bit...


Invention and operation
The first firearms suppressor was invented in 1902 by Hiram Maxim, better known as the inventor of the Maxim machine gun. His design was sold over the counter for the price of about $2.
Firearm sound suppressors, colloquially called "silencers", are simple devices that screw onto the end of barrels to provide an expansion chamber for the propulsive gases expelled by the ignition of the gunpowder that propels the bullet. If the suppressor is not present, the rapid expansion of propellant gases creates the familiar "BANG!" of a gunshot.
So-called "silencers" don't make the noise of firing "silent" at all. n short, the (phut) of Hollywood suppressors is completely wrong. A suppressed gunshot is still very loud.
An unsuppressed .22LR out of a semi-automatic pistol is about 160dBA and will cause permanent and total hearing loss at close range. A suppressed .22LR out of a semiautomatic pistol is still 127dBA, or about as loud as the front row of a rock concert(!). However, this level of noise won't instantly damage your hearing.

Why are they so heavily regulated?

The answer is found in a section of federal law called the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934.
Firearm suppressors were relatively uncommon in the early 20th Century United States. Communities and populations were spread widely apart, and it was easy to find places to shoot recreationally.
The only common use of suppressors was in hunting out of season - remember, this was the Depression and if you had a starving family it made sense to take your suppressed 30-06 out to bag a deer out of season. The addition of suppressors to the NFA was mostly at the request of the Fish and Game enforcement folks - so they could charge mere poachers with a federal felony firearms violation instead of just the minor crime of poaching! Classist much?
The years under Prohibition had several high-profile machine gun murders (of course, the total number of machine gun murders was vanishingly low - even today, machine gun murders are virtually nonexistent), so the Congress was under pressure to Do Something. Additionally, with the repeal of Prohibition, the agents of the IRS previously tasked with breaking up small moonshining stills and busting people for possession of small amounts of alcohol for personal use (sound familiar?) now had nothing to do.


So the NFA was passed, making possession of a machinegun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, destructive device (eg. bombs), or suppressor without a $200 tax stamp a 10 year federal felony. This class is called "Title II" firearms.
Now, it's time to play "One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others" (do you still know the Sesame Street song?). Of course, the suppressor. All the others are things that blow up or shoot a projectile - the suppressor is the only one that's a safety device.
Now, what' the big deal with $200? That's nothing, compared to some guns today that cost in the thousands of dollars, and suppressors that are $500 or more.

The answer is that back in 1934, a tax of $200 on a $2 suppressor was the same as a tax of *$3000* today. Can you imagine that? A ten thousand percent tax on a basic safety item! The intent was to prevent the poor from being able to own these devices - because they didn't want them poaching the deer that was "rightfully" owned by the rich!


In order to obtain this piece of basic safety equipment almost exactly like a car muffler in all but name, you must be fingerprinted, fill out reams of paperwork, and get the blessing of a chief law enforcement officer who can arbitrarily deny you if you're the wrong color, sex, or if you didn't donate to his election campaign. After all this, you must then pay a $200 tax for the privilege of owning what's basically a car muffler.
(BTW, did you know that the UK still calls car mufflers "silencers"?)
And if you do so much as to stick a pop bottle filled with foam on the end of a gun barrel in the interest of just seeing what happens (it explodes), you're guilty of a felony and are going to prison for 10 years for "intent to manufacture a suppressor"! Did you also know that if you have a pistol as well as a bag of potatoes in your car, that's "illegal possession of a silencer" and is also a federal felony?

Why should Democrats like me support making firearm suppressors "Title I"?

The simple answer is that Democrats have a strong record of promoting health and environmental regulation.

Widespread use of suppressors would be a health benefit.
Even exposure to 85dBA of noise causes hearing loss over time. Though target shooters seldom are without earplugs, hunters often do not wear ear protection because they need to hear the sounds of the environment around them. Deregulating suppressors would be a net health benefit to shooters and hunters.


Widespread use of suppressors would be an environmental benefit.
Shooting ranges, even those situated out in the country, often are a source of noise pollution. Though some people would advocate "just close the damn shooting range!", such an action would create stress and conflict in the community. Instead, we Democrats should stand behind our environmental principles and make it easier for these target sports enthusiasts to be good community members by reducing noise pollution.


Widespread use of suppressors would not result in increased crime.
Because suppressors would be subject to the same background checks as an ordinary pistol, they wouldn't be sold over the counter. Additionally, suppressors for pistols are several inches long. The primary reason that criminals use handguns is concealability. Having a suppressor on a handgun makes it virtually impossible to conceal. What about suppressed rifles? (Shotgun suppressors are almost useless, providing only 5-6dBA of noise reduction) Murders with rifles in this country are so rare anyway (less than 3% of firearm murders are with a rifle of any type), that any additional danger posed by "suppressed sniper rifles" is non-existent. Lastly, the historical record shows that legal suppressors aren't misused. There are already 125,000 suppressors in civilian hands, and zero of them have been used in any crime since 1934.


Lastly, it will cause the Republican Party to have a stroke.
The Republicans count on having the gun owner vote, and to have Democrats take a stand to make suppressors easier to obtain would absolutely make the NRA and the GOP shake in their boots - "Holy crap. Aren't we the party of gun owners? Where will our votes go?!?"

Because of the health and environmental benefits of making firearm suppressors easier to obtain, I urge us Democrats to consider legislation making

[Spurminator]

It's the same principle whether used on a handgun or rifle. They aren't "silencers". They just reduce the decibel of the muzzle blast. With normal ammo they are still quite loud because of the bullet ballistic crack, just not "ear damaging" loud.

I guess I'm just not sure why noise suppression specifically for handguns is a pressing need that outweighs the potential advantage it gives criminals, given how and where handguns are typically (even legally) used.

[Thread]

I guess I'm just not sure why noise suppression specifically for handguns is a pressing need that outweighs the potential advantage it gives criminals, given how and where handguns are typically (even legally) used.

Sure is cool though.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I guess I'm just not sure why noise suppression specifically for handguns is a pressing need that outweighs the potential advantage it gives criminals, given how and where handguns are typically (even legally) used.
What advantage does it give a criminal? You've watched too many movies if you think a handgun with a suppressor is somehow silent. They are still loud as fuck. Only thing I've shot that was relatively quiet was a suppressed .22 with sub sonic ammo, but criminals aren't running the streets with .22's

and that once concealable criminal handgun just added 6 inches to its overall length. Try shoving that down your waistband.

[boutons_deux]

gun fellators GAF only about their own health

[TheSanityAnnex]

Opponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims :rollin


CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said (https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906) opponents of suppressors see any hearing benefits claims as a “facade.” He then showed movie clips from Casino Royale and No Country for Old Men and a narrator said, “A gun silencer, shooting enthusiasts call it a suppressor. It’s an assassin’s must have in movies.”

[CosmicCowboy]

Opponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims :rollin


CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said (https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906) opponents of suppressors see any hearing benefits claims as a “facade.” He then showed movie clips from Casino Royale and No Country for Old Men and a narrator said, “A gun silencer, shooting enthusiasts call it a suppressor. It’s an assassin’s must have in movies.”




fake news using fake movie footage...typical CNN

[Thread]

Opponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims :rollin


CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said (https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906) opponents of suppressors see any hearing benefits claims as a “facade.” He then showed movie clips from Casino Royale and No Country for Old Men and a narrator said, “A gun silencer, shooting enthusiasts call it a suppressor. It’s an assassin’s must have in movies.”

They do it a lot in (Casino) and it effective for taking the [alarm] out of a hit/murder. It's easier to watch, to take in while snacking.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"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

[TheSanityAnnex]

fake news using fake movie footage...typical CNN
CNN was just showing what opponents were using. They actually did a fair piece on it.

https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906

[Trill Clinton]

fellow gun owners, i'm looking for a beginner AR in the $500 to $700 price range. any suggestions?

[CosmicCowboy]

fellow gun owners, i'm looking for a beginner AR in the $500 to $700 price range. any suggestions?

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/improved-ar-sub-moa-m-lok-mmr-5-56-full-review/

[SpursforSix]

fellow gun owners, i'm looking for a beginner AR in the $500 to $700 price range. any suggestions?

You should get in touch with this guy. He's got a modded AR15 that allows you to carry inconspicuously.

http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=84

http://dontevenreply.com/images/m16.JPG

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/improved-ar-sub-moa-m-lok-mmr-5-56-full-review/

mossbergs ar's have had pretty awful reviews outside of gun magazine's trying to pimp them

[TheSanityAnnex]

fellow gun owners, i'm looking for a beginner AR in the $500 to $700 price range. any suggestions?

http://palmettostatearmory.com/ar-15-05.html

pick a completed upper and completed lower and slap them together.

I've got 3 from here, solid company.

[Spurminator]

What advantage does it give a criminal? You've watched too many movies if you think a handgun with a suppressor is somehow silent. They are still loud as fuck. Only thing I've shot that was relatively quiet was a suppressed .22 with sub sonic ammo, but criminals aren't running the streets with .22's

and that once concealable criminal handgun just added 6 inches to its overall length. Try shoving that down your waistband.

I'm aware they don't work like Bond movies. But they do significantly muffle the noise. Why would anyone buy one otherwise?

The difficulty of concealment would seem to impact the legal carrier more than the illegal carrier. As you mentioned, you can't really concealed-carry a handgun with a suppressor attached, so it doesn't really do CHC's any good anyway. As far as illegal use, even a Bond-movie silencer wouldn't do criminals much good in a public place so their ability to conceal the weapon isn't really relevant. What is relevant is their ability to shoot someone near/inside a home, in the dark, etc., without drawing a lot of attention.

Given that the legal firing of handguns is usually limited to (1) recreational use at a gun range where ear protection is mandatory, or (2) self defense, there doesn't seem to be such a pressing danger of ear damage for handgun shooters that we need to eliminate them from inclusion in the NFA and make them more easy to obtain.

I'm sure there was rationale when Reagan signed the ban in 1986 that went beyond being scared of what he saw in movies. This reeks of NRA pork, imo. Buy some ear plugs.

[boutons_deux]

ear muffs!

this booolsheeet is nothing but a sales pitch

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm aware they don't work like Bond movies. But they do significantly muffle the noise. Why would anyone buy one otherwise?

The difficulty of concealment would seem to impact the legal carrier more than the illegal carrier. As you mentioned, you can't really concealed-carry a handgun with a suppressor attached, so it doesn't really do CHC's any good anyway. As far as illegal use, even a Bond-movie silencer wouldn't do criminals much good in a public place so their ability to conceal the weapon isn't really relevant. What is relevant is their ability to shoot someone near/inside a home, in the dark, etc., without drawing a lot of attention.

Given that the legal firing of handguns is usually limited to (1) recreational use at a gun range where ear protection is mandatory, or (2) self defense, there doesn't seem to be such a pressing danger of ear damage for handgun shooters that we need to eliminate them from inclusion in the NFA and make them more easy to obtain.

I'm sure there was rationale when Reagan signed the ban in 1986 that went beyond being scared of what he saw in movies. This reeks of NRA pork, imo. Buy some ear plugs.

Hundreds of thousands of people legally shoot handguns at places other than gun ranges. I live in San Diego and can do this legally any day I choose to.

Do you consider a reduction from 160db to 130db significant? Do you think a 130db gun shot would not draw a lot of attention?

[TheSanityAnnex]

ear muffs!

this booolsheeet is nothing but a sales pitch:lol @ the CDC sales pitching for suppressor use

"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

[DMC]

I'm aware they don't work like Bond movies. But they do significantly muffle the noise. Why would anyone buy one otherwise?

The difficulty of concealment would seem to impact the legal carrier more than the illegal carrier. As you mentioned, you can't really concealed-carry a handgun with a suppressor attached, so it doesn't really do CHC's any good anyway. As far as illegal use, even a Bond-movie silencer wouldn't do criminals much good in a public place so their ability to conceal the weapon isn't really relevant. What is relevant is their ability to shoot someone near/inside a home, in the dark, etc., without drawing a lot of attention.

Given that the legal firing of handguns is usually limited to (1) recreational use at a gun range where ear protection is mandatory, or (2) self defense, there doesn't seem to be such a pressing danger of ear damage for handgun shooters that we need to eliminate them from inclusion in the NFA and make them more easy to obtain.

I'm sure there was rationale when Reagan signed the ban in 1986 that went beyond being scared of what he saw in movies. This reeks of NRA pork, imo. Buy some ear plugs.
That's fucking stupid. Why not just cut your auto muffler off at the manifold and buy some ear plugs? You do realize other people hear the shots as well?

Have you ever fired a suppressed weapon? (not silenced, that's a movie term gun ignorant fucksticks use)

Do you think a suppressor is a dangerous item? It's a tube with baffles, like a muffler.

Do you think a gun becomes more deadly when it's quieter?

Do you think a suppressed semi-auto is actually silent? It has a slide that makes a hell of a noise you probably never heard unless you shot a suppressed weapon. Even a suppressed .22 like the Sig Mosquito is loud enough to turn heads in public. An integrally suppressed .44 is pretty quiet though, firing pin and projectile hitting target (subsonic round). There's no such as a suppressed revolver (other than the odd Nagant that can be suppressed but good luck finding ammo), but I've seen them portrayed in movies.

lol, the fear mongering stupidity on the forum knows no limits.

[Th'Pusher]

That's fucking stupid. Why not just cut your auto muffler off at the manifold and buy some ear plugs?.

This might be the stupidest analogy I've ever read on this board. There are hundred if not thousands of vehicles contributing to noise pollution in an area at any given time.

You have a point, but you insist on throwing in shitbag analogies that devalue your argument.

Sharpen up you lazy motherfucker.

[DMC]

This might be the stupidest analogy I've ever read on this board. There are hundred if not thousands of vehicles contributing to noise pollution in an area at any given time.

Ears sense noise as noise. They don't care if it's from autos or guns.


You have a point, but you insist on throwing in shitbag analogies that devalue your argument.

It's a good analogy, you're too sloppy to understand it.


Sharpen up you lazy motherfucker.
Copycat schtick.. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Ears sense noise as noise. They don't care if it's from autos or guns.

It's a good analogy, you're too sloppy to understand it.

Copycat schtick.. :lol

There aren't hundreds or thousands of guns being fired simultaneously causing noise pollution as there would be if cars didn't have mufflers. It's a shitty analogy.

I'm not stealing your shtick. I'm holding you accountable for your inability to effectively craft an argument in an effort to help you hone you skill.

[DMC]

There aren't hundreds or thousands of guns being fired simultaneously causing noise pollution as there would be if cars didn't have mufflers. It's a shitty analogy.

I'm not stealing your shtick. I'm holding you accountable for your inability to effectively craft an argument in an effort to help you hone you skill.

"noise pollution" is just a gimmick. Who cleans it up?

:lol idiot... yeah a dull drone of cars is much worse for the auditory system than a loud, ear drum rupturing bang from a powder discharge. Makes you wonder why bikers and joggers don't wear hearing protection, but shooters do.

:lol dumb ass

[Sec24Row7]

The real deal is this... in order for a gun to get "movie quiet" it has to shoot bullets that are subsonic.

This is because the bullet actually generates noise outside of the barrel as it breaks the sound barrier.

When a rifle or pistol round is subsonic, it carries much less punch... for example... a normal .223 is going north of 3000 fps... the sound barrier is 1,100 fps.

Suppressors lower the sound of the "crack" where it doesn't hurt your ears. This has a very real use in hunting purposes where you have to make split second shots.

If I see a coyote running in the road and pull over to shoot it... it's not going to wait for me to put in earplugs. I can't tell you how much hearing I have lost from just that scenario.

Pistol suppressors vs rifle suppressors etc... a suppressor will lower the crack of any round that will go through it... so... with a modification or adaptor... you can take a say... .30 cal suppressor and use it on anything lower... from .308 to .223 .222 on down...

[boutons_deux]

https://www.facebook.com/billyeichnerofficial/videos/959199007557794/

[TheSanityAnnex]

What is relevant is their ability to shoot someone near/inside a home, in the dark, etc., without drawing a lot of attention.



Take a look at 130db-110db and tell me if you think these things would not draw attention. The belief that a gun equipped with a suppressor would allow people to murder without drawing a lot of attention is laughable.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm


Noise Sources and Their Effects


Noise Source
Decibel
Level
comment


Jet take-off (at 25 meters)
150
Eardrum rupture


Aircraft carrier deck
140



Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft (130 dB).
130



Thunderclap, chain saw. Oxygen torch (121 dB).
120
Painful. 32 times as loud as 70 dB.


Steel mill, auto horn at 1 meter. Turbo-fan aircraft at takeoff power at 200 ft (118 dB). Riveting machine (110 dB); live rock music (108 - 114 dB).
110
Average human pain threshold. 16 times as loud as 70 dB.


Jet take-off (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 ft (100 dB).
100
8 times as loud as 70 dB. Serious damage possible in 8 hr exposure


Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). Newspaper press (97 dB).

90

4 times as loud as 70 dB. Likely damage 8 hr exp


Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash at 20 ft (89 dB); propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 ft (84 dB); diesel train at 45 mph at 100 ft (83 dB). Food blender (88 dB); milling machine (85 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB).
80
2 times as loud as 70 dB. Possible damage in 8 h exposure.


Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. (76 dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB).
70
Arbitrary base of comparison. Upper 70s are annoyingly loud to some people.


Conversation in restaurant, office, background music, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft
60
Half as loud as 70 dB. Fairly quiet


Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large electrical transformers at 100 ft
50
One-fourth as loud as 70 dB.


Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban ambient sound
40
One-eighth as loud as 70 dB.


Quiet rural area
30
One-sixteenth as loud as 70 dB. Very Quiet


Whisper, rustling leaves
20



Breathing
10
Barely audible

[boutons_deux]

SUPER SLOPPY, SEMI-AUTOMATIC DOUBLE DARE!!!

https://www.facebook.com/billyeichnerofficial/videos/959199007557794/

[TheSanityAnnex]

post the facebook link a third time, do it.

[Th'Pusher]

"noise pollution" is just a gimmick. Who cleans it up?


In your inept analogy the suppressor and the muffler clean up the noise pollution, dumb ass. While they serve a similar function, it is an ill-suited analogy in the application. Since you appear to be dense, I'll explain it in terms you should be able to understand. Imagine every single car in NYC doesn't have a muffler. Now imagine every single firearm in NYC doesn't have a suppressor. Both are used at the same frequency as they are today. Idiot :lol

[DMC]

In your inept analogy the suppressor and the muffler clean up the noise pollution, dumb ass. While they serve a similar function, it is an ill-suited analogy in the application. Since you appear to be dense, I'll explain it in terms you should be able to understand. Imagine every single car in NYC doesn't have a muffler. Now imagine every single firearm in NYC doesn't have a suppressor. Both are used at the same frequency as they are today. Idiot :lol

:lol not understanding acute vs chronic
:lol cars deafen people
:lol still lives in a city
:lol isn't deaf

[Th'Pusher]

:lol not understanding acute vs chronic
:lol cars deafen people
:lol still lives in a city
:lol isn't deaf

:lol acute vs chronic
:lol trying to sound smart
:lol so readers won't know you've lost the argument

maybe WC will think you won :lol

You're horrible dude.

[DMC]

:lol interjects in intelligent discussion
:lol gets told to hesh up by the adults
:lol spends the next 4 days trying to recover
:lol stealing my "sloppy" schtick
:lol likely Pinoy

Noise levels of firearms:
.22 caliber rifle 130dB
.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18" barrel 155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel 155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel 156.0dB.
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel 157.5dB.
.308 in 24" barrel 156.2dB.
.30-06 in 24" barrel 158.5dB. In 18" barrel 163.2dB.
.375 18" barrel with muzzle brake 170 dB.
.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB. 26" barrel 150.25dB. 18" barrel 156.30dB.
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB. 22" barrel 154.75dB.
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB. 26" barrel 156.10dB. 18" barrel 161.50dB.
.25 ACP 155.0 dB.
.32 LONG 152.4 dB.
.32 ACP 153.5 dB.
.380 157.7 dB.
9mm 159.8 dB.
.38 S&W 153.5 dB.
.38 Spl 156.3 dB.
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB.
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB.
.44 Spl 155.9 dB.
.45 ACP 157.0 dB.
.45 COLT 154.7 dB.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol gets told to hesh up by the adults


If only. You could have easily shut me up by simply acknowledging your analogy was innacurately applied or simply ignoring me, but you lack the self control.

Oh and...
:lol @ intelligent discussion.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol interjects in intelligent discussion
:lol gets told to hesh up by the adults
:lol spends the next 4 days trying to recover
:lol stealing my "sloppy" schtick
:lol likely Pinoy

Noise levels of firearms:
.22 caliber rifle 130dB
.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18" barrel 155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel 155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel 156.0dB.
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel 157.5dB.
.308 in 24" barrel 156.2dB.
.30-06 in 24" barrel 158.5dB. In 18" barrel 163.2dB.
.375 18" barrel with muzzle brake 170 dB.
.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB. 26" barrel 150.25dB. 18" barrel 156.30dB.
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB. 22" barrel 154.75dB.
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB. 26" barrel 156.10dB. 18" barrel 161.50dB.
.25 ACP 155.0 dB.
.32 LONG 152.4 dB.
.32 ACP 153.5 dB.
.380 157.7 dB.
9mm 159.8 dB.
.38 S&W 153.5 dB.
.38 Spl 156.3 dB.
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB.
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB.
.44 Spl 155.9 dB.
.45 ACP 157.0 dB.
.45 COLT 154.7 dB.

:lol at still not getting the difference between comparing cars to firearms.

[Th'Pusher]

Man you're fucking stupid and stubborn.

[Spurminator]

That's fucking stupid. Why not just cut your auto muffler off at the manifold and buy some ear plugs? You do realize other people hear the shots as well?

Have you ever fired a suppressed weapon? (not silenced, that's a movie term gun ignorant fucksticks use)

Do you think a suppressor is a dangerous item? It's a tube with baffles, like a muffler.

Do you think a gun becomes more deadly when it's quieter?

Do you think a suppressed semi-auto is actually silent? It has a slide that makes a hell of a noise you probably never heard unless you shot a suppressed weapon. Even a suppressed .22 like the Sig Mosquito is loud enough to turn heads in public. An integrally suppressed .44 is pretty quiet though, firing pin and projectile hitting target (subsonic round). There's no such as a suppressed revolver (other than the odd Nagant that can be suppressed but good luck finding ammo), but I've seen them portrayed in movies.

lol, the fear mongering stupidity on the forum knows no limits.

:lol 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?

[Spurminator]

Take a look at 130db-110db and tell me if you think these things would not draw attention. The belief that a gun equipped with a suppressor would allow people to murder without drawing a lot of attention is laughable.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm

Is 130 and 110 the difference between a suppressed and non-suppressed handgun?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol 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.

Why were noise suppressors regulated in the first place?

Legislative hysteria over Hollywood portrayals of "silencers".

[Spurminator]

Legislative hysteria over Hollywood portrayals of "silencers".

Link?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Is 130 and 110 the difference between a suppressed and non-suppressed handgun?
No. 130-110 is suppressed.

160 is about average unsuppressed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Link?
CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said (https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906)opponents of suppressors see any hearing benefits claims as a “facade.” He then showed movie clips from Casino Royale and No Country for Old Men and a narrator said, “A gun silencer, shooting enthusiasts call it a suppressor. It’s an assassin’s must have in movies.”

https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906

[Spurminator]

CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said (https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906)opponents of suppressors see any hearing benefits claims as a “facade.” He then showed movie clips from Casino Royale and No Country for Old Men and a narrator said, “A gun silencer, shooting enthusiasts call it a suppressor. It’s an assassin’s must have in movies.”

https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?ClipID=f6cdd0f9-93d3-477a-b641-09d3708cf906

But what about 1986?

[Spurminator]

No. 130-110 is suppressed.

160 is about average unsuppressed.

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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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/_literature_157516/Silencer_Db_Chart

[Spurminator]

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.

Define "not the typical choice of caliber." What percentage of gun crime committed with a .22 would qualify as significant, in your opinion?

[Spurminator]

Believe it or not, this isn't a specific issue I'm especially passionate about. But my bullshit 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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Define "not the typical choice of caliber." What percentage of gun crime committed with a .22 would qualify as significant, in your opinion?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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Believe it or not, this isn't a specific issue I'm especially passionate about. But my bullshit 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.

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

[DMC]

:lol 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?

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.

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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But if I close my garage and honk the horn my neighbors might not hear it

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[Spurminator]

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.

I've noticed you only tend to favor anecdote over data when it suits you.

[DMC]

But if I close my garage and honk the horn my neighbors might not hear it

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 hell 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.

[DMC]

I've noticed you only tend to favor anecdote over data when it suits you.

:lol none of you give 2 shits about the data

[Spurminator]

If suppressors suppressed as much as you think additional hearing protection would not be recommended/needed.

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.


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

This is a quote you've taken out of context from a report whose key recommendation is the use of hearing protection.

[Spurminator]

:lol none of you give 2 shits about the data

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.

[Trill Clinton]

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/improved-ar-sub-moa-m-lok-mmr-5-56-full-review/
that ar is listed at $910. out of my price range.


You should get in touch with this guy. He's got a modded AR15 that allows you to carry inconspicuously.

http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=84

http://dontevenreply.com/images/m16.JPG

looks too rich for my blood. i'm trying to stay in the $500-700 range.


http://palmettostatearmory.com/ar-15-05.html

pick a completed upper and completed lower and slap them together.

I've got 3 from here, solid company.

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?

[TheSanityAnnex]

I've noticed you only tend to favor anecdote over data when it suits you.
You were given the db data

[TheSanityAnnex]

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.



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?
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

[TheSanityAnnex]

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.
Your hypotheticals are bogus though, 130db is still a loud fucking 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.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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 hell 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.
Yeah the tax stamp was originally to keep poor people from hunting during the off season or something.

[DMC]

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

[pgardn]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/27/the-nra-would-like-to-insure-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.

[SnakeBoy]

Trigger Warning


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E&t=22s

[DMC]

^lucky he didn't burn one off in the chamber. Idiot

[TSA]

Trigger Warning


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpfQd1397E&t=22s

We've got 3 lasers, 3 red dot sights, a magnifier, 4 lasers :lmao

If only SJW snowflakes made fun of their own

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/27/the-nra-would-like-to-insure-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.

because owning a car isn't a constitutionally 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.

[Blake]

because owning a car isn't a constitutionally 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.


Gun insurance wouldn't infringe the 2nd amendment

[spurraider21]

Gun insurance wouldn't infringe the 2nd amendment
no more than sales tax does, anyway

[TSA]

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc297/desertrider_bucket/DSCN4037_zpsbheyj7ue.jpghttp://s218.photobucket.com/user/desertrider_bucket/media/DSCN4037_zpsbheyj7ue.jpg.html

[Adam Lambert]

if you want a good picture of how unhinged gun fanatics are these days i highly recommend the new nra commercial

[spurraider21]

conservative activist judges, smh

[boutons_deux]

if you want a good picture of how unhinged gun fanatics are these days i highly recommend the new nra commercial

... which is getting enormous pushback for coming within a hair fomenting rebellion against and murdering of libruls

gun sales continue to drop now the mass-gun-confiscating knitter and fat bitch aren't in office.

gun industry/NRA cons ignorant gun owners as reliably, thoroughly as Trash/Repugs con their ignorant tribe.

[Splits]

949436273957072896

Judging by the attendance, must have been the premier of "15:17 to Paris"

[Pavlov]

949436273957072896

Judging by the attendance, must have been the premier of "15:17 to Paris":lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Those aren't contradictory positions. Why do posters disguise themselves to talk shit then call out a large group of people who tell you their stance right on their personal vehicle?

The initial email cross reference :lol

[koriwhat]

buy more guns and ammo! fuck the pussies!

[boutons_deux]

Gun insurance wouldn't infringe the 2nd amendment

Insurance and annual paid permit renewal for each gun

[Mark Celibate]

Only very stable geniuses should own guns.

[DMC]

The initial email cross reference :lol

Because no one knew that was an alt :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Because no one knew that was an alt :lmao

So at what point did you cross reference the email used to create the Adam Lambert account with other ST accounts to out this as spurminator's alt? Was it later itt when he had you all charged up about guns and leftists?

[DMC]

So at what point did you cross reference the email used to create the Adam Lambert account with other ST accounts to out this as spurminator's alt? Was it later itt when he had you all charged up about guns and leftists?

Am I under oath?

[Th'Pusher]

Am I under oath?

It’s just a question.

[DMC]

It’s just a question.

So was mine.

[Th'Pusher]

So was mine.

If you haven’t noticed I DGAF about your answers. My goal is to continue to seed the narrative that you’re a weird email sleuth who looks up anonymous men’s personal information...

[DMC]

If you haven’t noticed I DGAF about your answers. My goal is to continue to seed the narrative that you’re a weird email sleuth who looks up anonymous men’s personal information...

Good luck with that.

[Chucho]

My goal is to continue to seed the narrative that you’re a weird email sleuth who looks up anonymous men’s personal information...

Weird fascination.

[Th'Pusher]

Good luck with that.
Thanks! I don't think I'm going to need much luck though. Most people were on board as soon as it became clear you used the email addresses people use to register their ST accounts with to look up their personal information.

[TeyshaBlue]

Because no one knew that was an alt :lmao

Knew he was a sock puppet from the get go tbh.

[Spurminator]

I mean I never really tried to suggest otherwise.

I was certainly more dedicated to the character in the early days though. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Knew he was a sock puppet from the get go tbh.

There are sock puppets all over the place tbh. The important thing to remember is that DMC cross referenced the email addresss of the puppet to out the puppeteer. That’s really what we want everyone to take away from this experience :lol