General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRepublican lawmakers want to loosen restrictions on silencers.
Disgusting, what next, full on weaponry with no checks, buy your machine gun here.....
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/21/news/companies/silencer-hearing-protection-act/index.html?sr=twCNN022117/silencer-hearing-protection-act/index.html0830PMStoryLink&linkId=34737350
The lawmakers say the devices are useful because they keep shooters from blowing out their eardrums. Gun control advocates see them as dangerous weapons that can be exploited by criminals, which is why they were subjected to rigorous constraints in the first place.
Identical bills, each called the Hearing Protection Act of 2017, have been introduced in the House and Senate. If they pass, silencers will no longer require extra layers of gun control that have been in place for more than 80 years.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EX500rider
(10,839 posts)And they don't "silence" anything, they reduce the decibel level some.
And if a hit man wants a silencer now, you can bet he can get one....or make a one time use one easy.
angrychair
(8,695 posts)Sarcasm can be hard to pick up on sometimes.
Anybody has the ability to figure out how to make a one time use silencer with a 5 min Internet search.
This isn't about "hitmen", life isn't a video game or movie.
Most weapons are not configured for a silencer.
Silencers, especially more advanced models, can make it very difficult to hear, determine the location, type and number of weapons.
Ear protection would still have to be worn. There is no practical, non-military, need to have a silencer on a gun.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)In those nations than the USA.
Let's have the same gun control laws as France or Norway and I agree.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Nonetheless. So far as I can determine by an admittedly quick google search , suppressors are rarely, if ever, used in crime despite their availability.
The homicide rate in France is .22 per 100,000
While in the US the homicide rate is 3.43 per 100,000.
In fact, based on the chart at the link, the US has the worst homicide rate of any 1st world nation (homicide, not suicide or accidental deaths)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Suppressors will only make the issue worst, not better. There is no practical reason for it.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)US gun homicides are high with considerably stricter regulations on suppressors. I'm not convinced that making them easier to purchase in the USA will have any noticeable effect on gun crime rates. As a life-long hunter and target shooter, it is my opinion that suppressors are indeed quite practical. I in fact have been considering purchasing a suppressor, but will now wait for the outcome of this bill.
angrychair
(8,695 posts)If we adopt French or English gun laws than I have no issue.
In my opinion the comparison between the two nations is apples and oranges. You want to add yet another factor to a wide open gun society that has little to no rules and gives all the deference to the rights of a gun owner to walk into a Taco Bell with a gun on their hip and a full auto rifle slung on their shoulder and I am forced to hope they are a "good guy with a a gun" because my personal right to "life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" is subservient to their right to walk around like they are living a real life "Walking Dead" world.
Problem in the US is that our government fights to allow mentally ill people to own deadly weapons. Fights to allow spousal abusers deadly weapons.
Our government, as well as a disturbing amount of our society, is "ok" with people shooting unarmed shoplifters and teenagers walking home at night because they were afraid.
How is it that billions of people, millions in the US alone, manage to go their whole lives without a gun "to protect themselves" and are perfectly fine?
The last thing we need is more enabling of these assholes and adding yet another factor to an already dangerous mix.
Do not worry though. As I already stated my rights don't matter, only the rights of post-apocalyptic zombie hunters do here in the US.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)angrychair
(8,695 posts)That was crafted to help prevent mentally ill people from owning a gun.
In France, gun owners are required to get a mental health evaluation before they can own a gun and every 3 years thereafter.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Representative payee for SSI benefits (for mental impairment) A rule opposed by the ACLU, National Council on Disability, and other civil and disability rights advocacy groups. But, I'm sure you know better than they. 
angrychair
(8,695 posts)Now guarantees mentally ill people the right to carry guns?
What about my rights? When do my rights to "life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" i.e. not have to walk around in fear, hoping the person that just walked in the Taco Bell like he just walked off the set of "Walking Dead" is "a good guy with a gun" and not a mentally ill person with a dissociative disorder that hasn't been taking his medication because they cannot afford it.
Sorry, absolutely nothing is going to convince me that manically depressed or schizophrenic or other significantly ill people should walk around with hidden weapons or even a full auto rifle in public.
Yep, after they shoot up an elementary school I'm sure the same people will offer their prayers.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Anyone else. Your prejudiced, patronizing attitude notwithstanding.
"Full auto", eh? Just how common do you think this is? Your use of this term suggests to me you have little knowledge on the subject.
angrychair
(8,695 posts)I don't like regular people walking around with rifles slung over the shoulder. I think it's completely ridiculous and unnecessary. Even in Washington it is not that rare an incident.
Many countries, including France, require a mental examination by a doctor and for that doctor to sign a clearance form, before a person is allowed to own a gun.
Why is that to much to ask?
It's as much for their safety as it is anyone. Antidepressants can and do cause suicidal thoughts and tendencies (FYI, something I have had personal experience with a family member and a friend).
There are lots of people that control otherwise significant mental illness with medication but often take it every other day or once a week to save money (again, something I have personal experience with), for some it would be a bad idea, for them and others, to put a gun in their hands.
A severely depressed, even controlled by antidepressants, person is far more likely to attempt suicide with easy access to a firearm than someone that does not.
With all due respect, I don't think barring someone from owning a gun is a significant infringement of their rights. It's a ridiculous misconception of the 2nd admendment to me that it gives a blank check to uninhibited gun ownership. If someone told me I had to go through process "X" and I may or not not get to own a gun, so what. I'm not in a "well regulated militia".
I still say it's puts a hell of a burden on me to trust that a person is a "good guy with a gun" in a public setting. If I'm hunting or at a shooting range I am assuming a certain level of risk to engage in that activity. I make no assumptions like that when I'm just going to the movies or out to dinner. Why don't my rights mean as much as a person that wants to carry a gun? What about my right to "life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
FYI, if you intended to be or not, your comments boarder on rude. I did not attack you nor was a crass or nasty in my comments.
We can disagree without being disagreeable.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)"Significant infringement", I have to wonder if it's worth continuing this discussion. What other of the enumerated rights do have such a cavalier regard of? Would you prohibit anyone taking prescription antidepressants from possessing firearms?
This comes down to a very different perspective of what the 2nd admendment does and does not do.
I believe owning a thing that was created with the express purpose to kill (yes, it is used for other, non-killing purposes, but that does not change the fact that a firearm was created to kill, it was not created to shoot at paper targets) comes with a significant obligation and responsibility and there are valid reasons why people should not own a firearm.
Let's be clear, I find it disheartening that we equivocate the 2nd admendment with the 1st or 4th or 5th or 14th for that matter. I also despise the "without the 2nd you can't protect the others" nonsense argument. There are always more people that will protect those rights through protest and voting than will not. If the only recourse is through violence or threat of violence, than our republic is in decline anyway and we have more significant issues to address.
I fail to see how we made the leap of logic from "a well regulated militia" to a blank check to obtain a firearm, even if you are convicted domestic abuser or mentally unstable (allowing both groups to own firearms is the stance of the NRA and the majority of republicans in congress)
To answer your last question, to the best of my knowledge, all antidepressants come with the very real possibility to having the side effect of sucidial thoughts and tendencies.
If a doctor is willing to sign a medical clearance for them to own a firearm I am willing to live with that as long as that doctor faces a medical license review board if that person than in turn uses that firearm on themselves or others.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)If this isn't about a fear of hitmen and assassins, what is it about?
angrychair
(8,695 posts)Thank you.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)So, your point is circular logic.
Calculating
(2,955 posts)They're a legitimate health and safety item which people are only afraid of due to Hollywood movies. They don't completely silence a gun, they merely bring the DB level down to a more manageable amount which won't cause immediately hearing damage to everyone nearby. Very useful for hunting, home defense and range use. Suppressors are even considered a courtesy item/required in a number of European countries.
Banning suppressors is as silly as banning car mufflers because 'loud pipes save lives!"
atreides1
(16,074 posts)EARPLUGS???
hack89
(39,171 posts)Especially in enclosed spaces. A silenced weapon is still extremely loud.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Constructed baffling, appropriate building acoustics, and efficient head gear nullifies this half-witted law.
I'm not surprised by people rationalizing it as effective, though... the narrative must be maintained.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Care to put a number on it? How many db?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)There is no "rationalizing" required, suppressors ARE effective. I know this from experience. So, what then is the "narrative"?
HAB911
(8,888 posts)Calculating
(2,955 posts)Are you gonna go put in earplugs while some guy is breaking in your back window? Hunting is another time when suppressors are quite useful. Earmuffs are uncomfortable to wear all the time, and you don't want to risk scaring the game off while putting them on. Suppressors are also nice for reducing general noise pollution associated with gun ranges and shooting sites out in the woods.
ck4829
(35,062 posts)Glass cutters - The don't hurt yourself act
Slim Jim kits - Threshold accessibility act
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Every gunshot without wearing proper shooting earmuffs causes immediate and permanent hearing damage to anybody nearby. Suppressors greatly reduce this damage by minimizing muzzle blast and the immediate pressure wave. Most rifle bullets will still produce a supersonic 'crack' though, so it's still not totally silent or anything.
RedWedge
(618 posts)
NickB79
(19,233 posts)When in reality, they reduce the noise from "REALLY LOUD!" to "Pretty loud, but not enough to rupture my eardrums."
The fear that criminals will be able to snipe unsuspecting victims with impunity is ridiculous. It also adds quite a bit of length to a firearm, making it much harder to conceal before a crime.
If someone put a silencer on a gun and a special silencing cover around the firing pin that allowed spent shells to exit, the gun would become almost silent. If you have indoor workout equipment, the concept with the gun modification is similar to addons that can be added to the workout equipment to silence noise generating parts of the equipment - basically the noise gets simultaneously rerouted and buffered out by the design of the addon. Removing regulations open things up for engineers to come up with modifications that make a fired gun silent enough that a person not beside it when it was fired would not sense that it was fired. Lastly, the design of most existing silencers is primitive compared with what dedicated sound and mechanical engineers can come up with if left unregulated.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)Even the link in the OP simply talks about getting rid of SOME of the paperwork needed to obtain one.
Secondly, suppressor tech is in fact a heavily researched and well-funded industry. In addition to civilian sales for decades, military investment has been huge.
better
(884 posts)That I'm for making it unlawful for a state to ban them outright, like NY has, but I don't necessarily agree with de- regulating them.
Personally, I'd like to be able to plink away with my .22 on my own land out in the country (i have 4 acres) without disturbing my neghbors. I'm perfectly happy to register one, undergo background checks, etc., but in NY, you can't have one at all, even if authorized at the federal level.
Unless it's integral and on a pneumatic firearm, modern ones of which are well more than capable of causing lethal damage.
Personally, I'm all for good and strong regulation.
Just not senseless outright bans.
No grenade launchers, sensible.
No thumb hole stocks, not so much.
NickB79
(19,233 posts)About 500 fps slower than normal .22LR ammo, so it's very quiet even without a suppressor, but still carries enough energy to dispatch gophers and rabbits in my garden to 40 yards. I use it on my 1.5 acre lot so I won't disturb the neighbors.
better
(884 posts)Unfortunately my rifle is stripped down to just a barrelled action at the moment. My archangel stock has a pistol grip and folding/telescoping stock, so it would be an unlawful "assault rifle". Thus, i had to dismantle it before i moved to NY. So, no plinking for me until I unearth the factory wooden stock or buY another one with no scary ergonomics.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)and registration are senseless. I personally don't care if a person has a gun that is made 100% silent, as long as that person undergoes a background check and registers the retrofits that silences the gun, anything else is opening up a buffet for gun using criminals of all types (assassins, cop killers, violent robbers, ect).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to make this tougher...well....what then?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)From reports, he had a silencer on the gun and shot from the trunk of a car. He could have made the setup even more silent and dangerous by using sound buffering in the car trunk body and sound buffering around the barrel and sight holes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)if one just can't give up sick habit.
HAB911
(8,888 posts)very hard, LOL
Renders shooting a sick habit? Now killing living things for sport, I can understand regarding thus, but shooting soda cans or killing off pests like rodents?
Is archery a sick habit?
And as has been alluded to, there's also the notion of being considerate to neighbors. I've got no problem with wearing hearing protection when I shoot, but that will only protect my hearing. It won't make my shooting any less disruptive to my neighbors.
Perfectly legal for me to shoot on my land, no matter how loud, so I could shoot all day and just force them to deal with it. I'd just prefer to be more considerate.
Surely we could find some middle ground. I don't have any need to be running about Town with a suppressed pistol like some movie villain, but why shouldn't they be legal at the very least on my own property, and with appropriate regulation?
Calculating
(2,955 posts)When I handle my guns or look at them I don't think anything remotely sexual. It's more of a sense of security and confidence in my ability to defend myself and my family if needed. They're also just plain FUN to practice with out at the shooting range. It's a skill just like archery or something.
better
(884 posts)There are definitely those who fetishize firearms to unhealthy and even dangerous degrees. Hence, I favor comprehensive and most importantly, recurring background checks.
But we should not lump all shooting enthusiasts together in the same bucket, any more than we conflate Nascar drivers with street racers.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)better
(884 posts)As for unhealthy obsessions, that's a very tricky subject, starting with how one is identified.
While I can certainly agree with severe scrutiny of someone who owns 40 identical assault rifles because of some jack booted thugs type argument (quite possibly indicative of paranoid delusions or some such condition which may well justify denial of ownership/possession) or with a demonstrated propensity for violence, sociopathic tendencies, etc.; I also see a very clear and reasonable distinction between that sort and a guy who owns 40 different types of rifles as a collector or out of enthusiasm for the various technologies, but who is nonviolent, of sound mind, and law-abiding.
Obviously determining the difference is where we get into the difficulty. A very high degree of interest can be either genuinely benign or indicative of a potential serious problem.
That's part of the reason I support the idea of background checks being not only universal, but also ongoing. I don't care what you have or how many of them you have, so long as what you do with them isn't a threat to public safety.
And of course I also believe that something can be a "right", yet have requirements and qualifications by which it must be both obtained and retained.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)better
(884 posts)But it also illustrates the difference between the essence of an activity and what one might bring into the activity. Some people imagine running down pedestrians in crosswalks. Some even actually do it.
It's not, in either case, that the underlying activity is inherently sick, though. And that's something we should factor into crafting our laws. And we rightly do, with respect to most things we regulate.
Firearms, however, we too often over-regulate the wrong things, and under-regulate the right ones. The first step to fixing that, imho, is learning the difference, from a position of knowledge based in facts, rather than rhetoric.
And that applies on both sides of the debate. Lord knows the gun rights side over reaches too. Hence I support making suppressors legal, but do not support de regulating them.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)better
(884 posts)I own exactly one firearm, a .22 with a single factory 10 round magazine, that I use exclusively for target shooting. And I'm not satisfied with how strong the requirements for me to retain the right to own that are. They need to be stronger.
What I am steeped in, at least more than many here may be, is the knowledge of how "gunz" work, what parts and features make them more or less dangerous, and which don't and should therefore not be banned.
And I am concerned about "white wingers" arming up. That's one of the reasons I support universal (and recurring) background checks.
I do, however, believe that guarding against dangers like that is both possible and necessary, yet should also not render a squirrel gun an "assault rifle" because of the shape of the piece of wood or plastic in which it is mounted.
Again, I'm all for strong regulation.
I just expect it to be sensible.
Let's take the "silencer" issue for example. There are valid arguments both for their use to be lawful in some ways and settings, and for it not to be in others. We don't have to outlaw their use in reasonable ways and settings to deal with that. There is a middle ground that both permits reasonable and lawful use and protects public safety.
By way of comparison, it's both legal to push a Ferrari to its limits on a race track where it's appropriate and acceptable, and illegal to do so on public roads where it's not. But you're not barred from owning one.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)will grab a few. So will armed white wing militia types and gun "enthusiasts" who get all excited about lethal weapons and accessories.
can be used to conceal killing people.
They are not, however, very well suited to keeping a couple hundred rounds of target practice from irritating one's neighbors.
Furthermore, they are not required to be registered.
Register "silencers" as well as firearms capable of accepting them. Catalog rounds fired using either. How many folks who have registered their guns, their "silencers" and submitted rounds fired from them for ballistics records do you suppose are going to run around murdering people with weapons they have ensured can be traced back to them?
Bottom line, this is a relatively easy concern to address, same as the red herring of universal background checks being a burden to small volume sellers. When was the last time a private car owner gave you a driving test prior to selling you a vehicle?
Never, because we have an effective system in place to demonstrate that the State has already done that.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)background checked and have them registered and secure them properly when not in use.
Just pissing you off is reason enough to own AR15s
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 21, 2017, 09:44 PM - Edit history (1)
One for each family member. As far as I know they don't piss anyone off.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)my entire family shoots.
better
(884 posts)that "white wingers" are not the only people whose rights we are discussing.
petronius
(26,602 posts)support. Expanded access to suppressors would have noise pollution and health/safety benefits, and the purchase of one should be given (at most) the same scrutiny as the purchase of an actual firearm. (I.e., a standard background check...)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)trying to exploit their use.
Center-fire rifles and shotguns are LOUD, and annoying to anyone in the vicinity when they are used. Certainly makes them more user-friendly.
Snackshack
(2,541 posts)Thread drips with irony...
"Health & Safety" absolutely. Silencers should be legalized forthwith. Guns will be so much more "healthier & safe".
napi21
(45,806 posts)Hide the natural noise a gun makes when fired. I don't believe the restrictions should be broadened.
Kaleva
(36,294 posts)An unsuppressed AR-15 when fired produces about 165 decibels. A jet engine from 100 feet away is approximately 140 decibels. An AR-15 fitted with a high quality suppressor produces about 130 decibels. Not much lower then a jet engine at 100 feet.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)
Marengo
(3,477 posts)And a strong argument can be made as to their desirability for legal firearm activities.
HAB911
(8,888 posts)TOO FUNNY
agenasolva
(87 posts)Why would anyone need a silencer? So you can kill people and get away with it with no one hearing???
Now anyone can be an assassin, right?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Target shooters, etc.:
http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/shooting-tips-understanding-benefits-suppressor
HAB911
(8,888 posts)Bike helmets would look nice, LOL
Calculating
(2,955 posts)They don't make a gun silent. They merely take the volume level down from a deafening 150+ DB to something which is still loud, but not quite so damaging to the ears of everyone around. Also, assassins would already HAVE silencers. These sound like the arguments against concealed carry "The streets will run red with blood if we allow people to carry guns". It never really happened outside of a few obvious bad cases such as Zimmerman.
