Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Suppressors

Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2017, 1:15 am

Raptor wrote:
I've surmised that the NFA became law primarily to give the ATF something more to do to justify its existence after prohibition ended in '33.


IIRC, FDR wanted to ban handguns, and the NFA was originally going to do that, but it was decided that that was politically infeasible, so the current form was passed as a compromise, and to sort of normalize the idea to the public. That's why short barreled weapons were included, as a prelude to the eventual planned ban of handguns. It was basically the assault weapons ban of it's time, a law banning uncommon weapons that were easily demonized as a prelude to a more categorical ban later. I'd love to see the whole thing scrapped, but that might be a bridge too far, even for a Trump administration. Maybe if the HPA passes and we get national reciprocity on the carry permits and nothing bad happens, we'll get a repeal of the Hughes amendment that closed the books on new automatics in the 80s, but that's about as far as I'm ready to imagine.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2017, 1:19 am

I'm pleasantly surprised that so far we haven't had any hysterical posts about only hitmen and spies needing silencers, it's a nice change from how these threads have gone in the past.

On a side note, I used to be a stickler about 'suppressor' versus 'silencer', since they don't silence anything, but the guy that invented the things back in the early 1910s called them silencers, so I've decided to relax and use the terms interchangeably.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

18 Jan 2017, 2:01 am

Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Gun suppressors aren't like the "silencers" you see in the movies. They muffle the sound of a gun being fired, but they don't take a loud "BANG BANG" and turn it into a quiet "pew pew". Instead, they just take the volume down a notch. If someone shoots a suppressed firearm where they're not supposed to, people are still going to hear it.

Down more than a notch, actually. Even more so with something subsonic like a .45 ACP. Suppressed centerfire rifles (.308 comes to mind) are still pretty noisy but nothing like un-suppressed. Suppressors not only cut the noise level but also alters the sound so that it doesnt sound like gunfire to the causal listener. Even if they hear it they won't immediately think GUN.

If they deregulated them to the point where I could buy one with no more legal difficultly than a handgun I might get one for one of my .45's just for shits-n-giggles. Personally, I like the sound of un-suppressed gunfire but sometimes it would be cool to shoot something suppressed that actually belongs to me. :D

So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2017, 3:26 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?


I doubt there would be any problem, most mass shooters don't seem to attack from stealth, they tend to spray crowds from relatively close range, where the fact that the gun was somewhat less loud wouldn't make much, if any, difference. There's also the fact that silencers are bulky, a long chunk of metal hanging off the end of the barrel, which makes the gun both less concealable and less maneuverable, and more vulnerable to being grabbed by a potential victim. Even in the "ordinary" murder scenario, the bulkiness is a real barrier, as most murders are spontaneous, and a gun with a silencer attached is simply not convenient to carry on your person, especially if you're trying to conceal it. I think there are around a million (legal) silencers floating around the US, and IIRC about once a year one gets used in a crime, so I don't see a huge criminal demand for the things.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

18 Jan 2017, 3:52 am

Dox47 wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?


I doubt there would be any problem, most mass shooters don't seem to attack from stealth, they tend to spray crowds from relatively close range, where the fact that the gun was somewhat less loud wouldn't make much, if any, difference. There's also the fact that silencers are bulky, a long chunk of metal hanging off the end of the barrel, which makes the gun both less concealable and less maneuverable, and more vulnerable to being grabbed by a potential victim. Even in the "ordinary" murder scenario, the bulkiness is a real barrier, as most murders are spontaneous, and a gun with a silencer attached is simply not convenient to carry on your person, especially if you're trying to conceal it. I think there are around a million (legal) silencers floating around the US, and IIRC about once a year one gets used in a crime, so I don't see a huge criminal demand for the things.

Another thought; criminals don't really care about obtaining guns legally, so why would obtaining suppressors for them be any different? I mean, it's kind of a simplistic argument, and theoretically there would be more suppressors floating around that could be stolen if they were legally obtainable, but if they only get used in crimes as infrequently as you say, then there doesn't seem to be much point in restricting them.

I have a feeling suppressors are illegal in Canada (and other areas) for much the same reason as switchblades; the legislators who made the laws against them watched too many movies where they saw the bad guys using them and thought "these are scary, there's no reason for them to be legal."


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

18 Jan 2017, 5:55 am

Dox47 wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised that so far we haven't had any hysterical posts about only hitmen and spies needing silencers, it's a nice change from how these threads have gone in the past.

On a side note, I used to be a stickler about 'suppressor' versus 'silencer', since they don't silence anything, but the guy that invented the things back in the early 1910s called them silencers, so I've decided to relax and use the terms interchangeably.


Image



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2017, 2:13 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Image


I prefer to use the piano wire myself, I'm old school like that.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jan 2017, 8:48 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I've surmised that the NFA became law primarily to give the ATF something more to do to justify its existence after prohibition ended in '33.


IIRC, FDR wanted to ban handguns, and the NFA was originally going to do that, but it was decided that that was politically infeasible, so the current form was passed as a compromise, and to sort of normalize the idea to the public. That's why short barreled weapons were included, as a prelude to the eventual planned ban of handguns. It was basically the assault weapons ban of it's time, a law banning uncommon weapons that were easily demonized as a prelude to a more categorical ban later. I'd love to see the whole thing scrapped, but that might be a bridge too far, even for a Trump administration. Maybe if the HPA passes and we get national reciprocity on the carry permits and nothing bad happens, we'll get a repeal of the Hughes amendment that closed the books on new automatics in the 80s, but that's about as far as I'm ready to imagine.


That wouldn't surprise me at all about FDR...


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jan 2017, 9:20 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised that so far we haven't had any hysterical posts about only hitmen and spies needing silencers, it's a nice change from how these threads have gone in the past.

WP just isn't as active as it used to be. That's why stopped coming here for several months, it just got to be too boring to bother with and I had other things on my plate. The most recent crop of gun haters seems to have dried up and blown away.

A few years ago our old friend khaoz started a thread about "silencers" that went on for several pages.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jan 2017, 9:24 pm

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Gun suppressors aren't like the "silencers" you see in the movies. They muffle the sound of a gun being fired, but they don't take a loud "BANG BANG" and turn it into a quiet "pew pew". Instead, they just take the volume down a notch. If someone shoots a suppressed firearm where they're not supposed to, people are still going to hear it.

Down more than a notch, actually. Even more so with something subsonic like a .45 ACP. Suppressed centerfire rifles (.308 comes to mind) are still pretty noisy but nothing like un-suppressed. Suppressors not only cut the noise level but also alters the sound so that it doesnt sound like gunfire to the causal listener. Even if they hear it they won't immediately think GUN.

If they deregulated them to the point where I could buy one with no more legal difficultly than a handgun I might get one for one of my .45's just for shits-n-giggles. Personally, I like the sound of un-suppressed gunfire but sometimes it would be cool to shoot something suppressed that actually belongs to me. :D

So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?

For the gun grabbers it's never about safety or crime but about control of people and sticking it to non-progressives.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

18 Jan 2017, 9:25 pm

No fun without a fight, is that the idea?

I'd never heard that about FDR.

I thought the impetus for that initial gun control push was a spate of felons using state lines to evade state law and the BAR and Tommy gun toting mobsters in turf wars and fights with G-men during the boom in rum running and speakeasies that attended prohibition.

I found a source that says "all firearms" I guess that would include handguns...

Quote:
Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. When gun owners objected, Congress scaled down FDR’s proposal to allow only for a restrictive tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, which were thought to be gangster weapons with no usefulness for self-defense.


https://newrepublic.com/article/111266/ ... un-control


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

19 Jan 2017, 2:44 am

Dox47 wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Image


I prefer to use the piano wire myself, I'm old school like that.


Whereas I like using the environment to cause 'accidents'.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

19 Jan 2017, 3:43 am

Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
Gun suppressors aren't like the "silencers" you see in the movies. They muffle the sound of a gun being fired, but they don't take a loud "BANG BANG" and turn it into a quiet "pew pew". Instead, they just take the volume down a notch. If someone shoots a suppressed firearm where they're not supposed to, people are still going to hear it.

Down more than a notch, actually. Even more so with something subsonic like a .45 ACP. Suppressed centerfire rifles (.308 comes to mind) are still pretty noisy but nothing like un-suppressed. Suppressors not only cut the noise level but also alters the sound so that it doesnt sound like gunfire to the causal listener. Even if they hear it they won't immediately think GUN.

If they deregulated them to the point where I could buy one with no more legal difficultly than a handgun I might get one for one of my .45's just for shits-n-giggles. Personally, I like the sound of un-suppressed gunfire but sometimes it would be cool to shoot something suppressed that actually belongs to me. :D

So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?

For the gun grabbers it's never about safety or crime but about control of people and sticking it to non-progressives.

How do you define "gun-grabbers", and why do you say those are their motives? I just want some clarification.


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,834
Location: London

19 Jan 2017, 6:41 am

Dox47 wrote:
mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
So if they're still audible, but sound nothing like an unsuppressed firearm, do you think there would be any public safety ramifications to deregulating them? I mean, mass shootings already happen without them, so it's not like their lack of availability is deterring people from shooting places up... or is it somewhat?


I doubt there would be any problem, most mass shooters don't seem to attack from stealth, they tend to spray crowds from relatively close range, where the fact that the gun was somewhat less loud wouldn't make much, if any, difference.

Yeah, I'm tickled by the idea that a mass shooter with a silencer would be more dangerous. If someone gets shot in front of you then you're probably going to run away even if you didn't hear the gun.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

19 Jan 2017, 7:16 am

I don't think anybody actually familiar with guns or suppressors would support banning them, it's just something ignorant people are afraid of because of what they seen on have tv or movies. Nobody is committing crimes with these and if you were you would be more likely to create your own rather than create a paper trail. It's kind of like how liberals want to ban 'that shoulder thing that goes up', they are so uneducated and ignorant it isn't even funny.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,377

19 Jan 2017, 8:55 am

This could be a business opportunity for an Aspie to invent a much more effective silencer.