Reply With Quote
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
"silencers"
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.
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 " le 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 " le 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 " le 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
Last edited by TheSanityAnnex; 01-17-2017 at 01:21 PM.
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.
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 . 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.
gun fellators GAF only about their own health
Opponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims
CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said 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 CNNOpponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims
CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said 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.Opponents are literally using movie clips to support their claims
CNN’s Victor Blackwell addressed the Hearing Protection Act and said 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.”
"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
CNN was just showing what opponents were using. They actually did a fair piece on it.
https://iqmediacorp.com/ClipPlayer/?...1-09d3708cf906
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 incon uously.
http://dontevenreply.com/view.php?post=84
mossbergs ar's have had pretty awful reviews outside of gun magazine's trying to pimp them
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.
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.
ear muffs!
this booolsheeet is nothing but a sales pitch
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
