• NRA Wants to Ease Laws on Buying Gun Silencers
    43 replies, posted
[url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/26/what-shooting-with-nra-revealed-about-silencers/102160750/[/url] [QUOTE]FAIRFAX, Va. — The instructor popped off a few rounds with a .22 semiautomatic rifle, first with a silencer and then without, before asking his loaded question. “By a show of hands, did anyone think that was silent?” Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association, asked reporters gathered for his demonstration. Silencers, so-called because they suppress the sound of firearms, are at the center of a heated debate as pro-gun lawmakers hope to advance legislation to make them easier to get. Gun control advocates say one of a gun’s most important safety features is the loud blast, alerting people to run in the event of a crime. But the National Rifle Association wants people to hear their side of the story — so much so that they invited reporters to their indoor firing range in Fairfax, Va., recently and even armed them for a demonstration. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The reporters’ demonstration — including suppressed and unsuppressed shooting with rifles, handguns and a shotgun — was similar to one the groups have been increasingly offering lawmakers as they ramp up pressure to pass the Hearing Protection Act. That bill that would remove silencers from the National Firearms Act, which has regulated silencers along with machine guns for more than 80 years since the days of gangland crime such as Chicago's 1929 St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Passage of the bill would mean silencer buyers would no longer have to pay a $200 tax, submit fingerprints and a photograph, notify law enforcement officers and wait about 10 months while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wades through a backlog to process the application and register the weapon. They would still have to pass an instant background check, as they would with any firearm. “It’s important for people to see it firsthand so they can understand fact versus fiction,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm. “A lot of people think that what you see in the movies is actually the reality as it relates to suppressors. They’re not silent.” [/QUOTE]
Goddamit Hollywood Suppressors Trope, In real life you still can hear the gunshot, it just a bit softer so you don't damage your hearing firing it.
good, there is no reasons for suppressors to be illegal or regulated as heavily as they are
One of those situations where it might be worth the US taking a page from the UK firearm accessories book. Here you can legally walk into a gun shop, buy a suppressor and walk out with it, same day within 10 minutes. All you have to do after is then notify your local firearms office/officer that you bought a suppressor for your X calibre and they put it on your record, no waiting, no taxes (other than VAT which you pay when you buy the thing) and everyone is happy. Hopefully this goes though, there's quite a big push for it especially because there is little to no downside to it other than scaremongering "it makes it quieter!!!", just have a damn record like we do and call it at that.
[QUOTE=Reagy;52285213]One of those situations where it might be worth the US taking a page from the UK firearm accessories book. Here you can legally walk into a gun shop, buy a suppressor and walk out with it, same day within 10 minutes. All you have to do after is then notify your local firearms office/officer that you bought a suppressor for your X calibre and they put it on your record, no waiting, no taxes (other than VAT which you pay when you buy the thing) and everyone is happy. Hopefully this goes though, there's quite a big push for it especially because there is little to no downside to it other than scaremongering "it makes it quieter!!!", just have a damn record like we do and call it at that.[/QUOTE] over here, the proposed law is that silencers are regulated the same as guns IE fulling out a background check form
Yeah I can't see any issue with suppressors being sold. Honestly most of the problem with guns in this country is mentally ill fucknuts getting their hands on them, and if there's some way to either fix the mentally ill people or keep the guns out of their hands I'd be mostly satisfied. Too much of a gun culture to restrict or ban them reasonable. Prohibition doesn't work when something's ingrained in a culture.
[QUOTE=Reagy;52285213]One of those situations where it might be worth the US taking a page from the UK firearm accessories book. Here you can legally walk into a gun shop, buy a suppressor and walk out with it, same day within 10 minutes. All you have to do after is then notify your local firearms office/officer that you bought a suppressor for your X calibre and they put it on your record, no waiting, no taxes (other than VAT which you pay when you buy the thing) and everyone is happy. Hopefully this goes though, there's quite a big push for it especially because there is little to no downside to it other than scaremongering "it makes it quieter!!!", just have a damn record like we do and call it at that.[/QUOTE] Too bad that rural America considers firearm registration an equal sin.
[QUOTE=Judas;52285218]over here, the proposed law is that silencers are regulated the same as guns IE fulling out a background check form[/QUOTE] Which is certainly better than the current system which I've heard a lot about, the horror story of a guy waiting over a year and a half just to get a bit of paper to get a .22 suppressor. Of all things, a suppressor for a .22 pea shooter, it would have likely been less effort to go and get an air rifle instead that does .22 pellets for the same level of sound when its fired.
If someone can be trusted to own a gun, they can be trusted to own a suppressor. If they can't be trusted to own a gun, a suppressor isn't going to make a difference.
I dunno. A gunshot in a neighborhood is pretty identifiable, whereas with a silencer it sounds like a door slamming or a book slapping hard down on a desk. Waiting 10 months to be approved is probably overkill though, so perhaps just reducing it to the quick background check in addition to photographs and fingerprints would be sufficient.
[QUOTE=Funion;52285259]I dunno. A gunshot in a neighborhood is pretty identifiable, whereas with a silencer it sounds like a door slamming or a book slapping hard down on a desk. Waiting 10 months to be approved is probably overkill though, so perhaps just reducing it to the quick background check in addition to photographs and fingerprints would be sufficient.[/QUOTE] Gonna play devil's advocate here, if someone wanted to commit a crime with a suppressor (which I assume is what you're hinting at here) it wouldn't have been acquired legally. It would make absolutely no difference if the process was made less strict or not, they would still acquire one and use it. Honestly all there needs to be is a background check and a record of purchase, no point punishing people who are going through the legal process.
Literally just make them equivalent to purchasing a firearm. In reality, it should be even less of a hassle to get than a firearm.
Repeal the entire fucking N.F.A. All of it. Putting a stock on a pistol makes it a "Short Barreled Rifle" and thus a felony to construct unless you go through all the legal hoops.
[QUOTE=Reagy;52285271]Gonna play devil's advocate here, if someone wanted to commit a crime with a suppressor (which I assume is what you're hinting at here) it wouldn't have been acquired legally. It would make absolutely no difference if the process was made less strict or not, they would still acquire one and use it. Honestly all there needs to be is a background check and a record of purchase, no point punishing people who are going through the legal process.[/QUOTE] How is a photograph and fingerprints punishing people going through the legal process? And it's a fallacy to say that we should make it easier to get something that could be used for a crime because someone could aquire it illegally. By definition it makes it easier to get something illegally if it's easier to get legally. Having a fingerprint and photograph taken makes it easier for law enforcement to crack down on common criminals that aren't as smart as society makes then out to be; that simply kill someone out of passion or without making master plans. Just my 2 cents though
[QUOTE=bitches;52285246]Too bad that rural America considers firearm registration an equal sin.[/QUOTE] It's lead to confiscation in other countries, so yeah we're not too hot on the idea.
[QUOTE=Funion;52285302]How is a photograph and fingerprints punishing people going through the legal process? And it's a fallacy to say that we should make it easier to get something that could be used for a crime because someone could aquire it illegally. By definition it makes it easier to get something illegally if it's easier to get legally. Having a fingerprint and photograph taken makes it easier for law enforcement to crack down on common criminals that aren't as smart as society makes then out to be; that simply kill someone out of passion or without making master plans. Just my 2 cents though[/QUOTE] i could literally go into my garage and make an effective enough disposable silencer right now in a few minutes. with a few extra tools and some supplies i could pick up at any hardware store i could make a silencer that is practically equitable to any commercial silencer, i might just need to replace some parts occasionally.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52285390]i could literally go into my garage and make an effective enough disposable silencer right now in a few minutes. with a few extra tools and some supplies i could pick up at any hardware store i could make a silencer that is practically equitable to any commercial silencer, i might just need to replace some parts occasionally.[/QUOTE] You could also make a pressure cooker bomb pretty easily. Just because you can make something with a little hard work doesn't give you footing to deregulate the purchase of manufactured hardware like silencers. One vital aspect to buying anything premade is the convenience of not having to make it yourself. Plus I doubt many people have the ability to make a silencer like you're saying.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52285389]It's lead to confiscation in other countries, so yeah we're not too hot on the idea.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Guess what? Happened in America, too. [url]http://www.courthousenews.com/calif-gunowners-call-magazine-ban-unconstitutional/[/url] "We're not coming for your magazines" and WHAM give them up, or destroy them otherwise you go to jail. [video=youtube;iJmFEv6BHM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0[/video] This is EXACTLY why I'm a far-righter. I probably would have been a Liberal otherwise (Hell I would have voted for Obama and Gore growing up) but when I realized this bullshit the liberals have been doing, I vowed to NEVER vote for a liberal. If they want to be relevant, they need to quit fucking it up! I'd NEVER vote for a bill I never read, but we get these gems instead! [video=youtube;9rGpykAX1fo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo[/video] Not like the republicans are much better, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the party that has a shred of conservatism (If you can even call it that, with all the RINO's in office lately.) and not the one that claims me existing is racist, wants to ban firearm ownership, and tax the hell out of me. I'm willing to create a third party but it'd never catch on. I can't think of a single independent who won election aside from Bernie Sanders.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52285430]This is EXACTLY why I'm a far-righter. I probably would have been a Liberal otherwise (Hell I would have voted for Obama and Gore growing up) but when I realized this bullshit the liberals have been doing, I vowed to NEVER vote for a liberal.[/quote] We have a system of lesser of evils; not ideals. Vowing never to vote for an entire ideology because there's some idiots that subscribe to that ideology honestly seems quite petty to me. [quote]Not like the republicans are much better, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the party that has a shred of conservatism (If you can even call it that, with all the RINO's in office lately.) and not the one that claims me existing is racist, wants to ban firearm ownership, and tax the hell out of me.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where you get the "that claims me existing is racist" thing from, but the Republicans is a party that actively opposes equal rights for everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. As to your other points; in theory, liberals want to tax everyone more, though primarily towards the upper classes of income to redistribute that wealth via social programs; while the Republicans want to cut taxes primarily for the wealthy while cutting safety nets for everyone. As to guns, while I agree some Democrats' assault on guns is ridiculous, I would argue there's more important issues, like the environment. But to each their own I suppose.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52285187]Goddamit Hollywood Suppressors Trope, In real life you still can hear the gunshot, it just a bit softer so you don't damage your hearing firing it.[/QUOTE] It's even worse. It can still damage your hearing in some cases. They aren't quiet at all Now subsonic ammunition and dunking the thing into water before putting it on and shooting, then it's quiet
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52285300]Repeal the entire fucking N.F.A. All of it. Putting a stock on a pistol makes it a "Short Barreled Rifle" and thus a felony to construct unless you go through all the legal hoops.[/QUOTE] Eh. The NFA isn't as bad as it could be, you can still own that shit with a $200 tax stamp and a longass waiting period. The Hughes Amendment now... that can go fucking die. No good reason for it to exist.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52286280] I'm not sure where you get the "that claims me existing is racist" thing from, but the Republicans is a party that actively opposes equal rights for everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation. [/QUOTE] [video=youtube;BsM2AJT6Ot0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsM2AJT6Ot0[/video] That is absolutely a thing. Sorry about the weird source, i couldn't find anything better on it's own without the text 'n such
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;52286767][video=youtube;BsM2AJT6Ot0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsM2AJT6Ot0[/video] That is absolutely a thing. Sorry about the weird source, i couldn't find anything better on it's own without the text 'n such[/QUOTE] So a single DNC chair [i]candidate[/i] saying something racist is on par with the [i]Republican party[/i]?
Can we please just focus on the story and not turn this thread into an all-out partisan war zone :v: Thanks
yeah suppressors here aren't regulated at all and are apparently relatively popular for hunting. when a large part of europe where gun laws are much, much stricter than the US doesn't regulate suppressors at all I don't see why the US should. might as well get rid of the 1989 semiautomatic import ban, that only exists to prop up US gun manufacturers and prevent foreign competition
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;52287062]might as well get rid of the 1989 semiautomatic import ban, that only exists to prop up US gun manufacturers and prevent foreign competition[/QUOTE] Well, the original intent was to keep them damn drug dealers from getting their hands on serious firepower, but it did have that effect.
Honestly, having fired .22LR before, I personally feel that a silencer for .22 is a bit redundant anyway? I mean it just sounded like an ever-so-slightly louder BB gun to me.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52285430]Not like the republicans are much better, but if I had to pick, I'd pick the party that has a shred of conservatism (If you can even call it that, with all the RINO's in office lately.) and [B]not the one that claims me existing is racist, wants to ban firearm ownership, and tax the hell out of me.[/B] [/QUOTE] You dont want to hold this as your base for an argument.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52287805]Honestly, having fired .22LR before, I personally feel that a silencer for .22 is a bit redundant anyway? I mean it just sounded like an ever-so-slightly louder BB gun to me.[/QUOTE] Some of the more powerful .22 ammo like CCI Stingers and Aguila supermaximum hypervelocity (lol) is loud as hell in comparison to standard .22LR. The most common application of a .22 suppressor would be on handguns anyways because they're just a lot louder for they have a much shorter barrel and the gasses expand earlier and quicker. I have these relatively new .22 rounds called CCI Quiet, and out of a 20 inch barreled rifle, they absolutely are quiet enough to use without hearing protection. It's basically a small pop like that of an air gun. But if I fire one out of my handgun, it sounds like a decent firecracker, a real nice sharp bang. Regular ammo is painful to shoot, and stingers are absolutely deafening. Lucky for me, my .22 handgun has a threaded barrel for a suppressor, and as soon as the HPA passes, I'll pick one up for $150 or so.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52285187]Goddamit Hollywood Suppressors Trope, In real life you still can hear the gunshot, it just a bit softer so you don't damage your hearing firing it.[/QUOTE] Suppressors do not do anything to make the gun safe for the user to operate [I]period[/I], yes they sound quieter but it's still far too loud for human ears. Even with subsonic ammunition, ear plugs and ear muffs combined you are still highly likely to do damage to your ears because you, the operator, are too close to the source of the sound, there is no way around it (unless you litterally hold the weapon around a wall). People don't like to be told this but it is fact, hearing damage can occour at 85db though it is somewhat 'safe' dependant on the time you are exposed to it. You are litterally playing with fire from that point onwards though, for every 10db higher you have doubled your risk. At 110 db? all but guarenteed hearing damage from a less than 15 mins exposure (but i stress, damage at 100db is something that can happen instantly). For reference the average firearm clocks in at the instant hearing damage threshold of 150db, with everything you can humanly do to lower that the absolute best you can get is possibly around 120db. And that is still instant hearing damage territory. There is no immunity here, every human is fucked at that point, it's just a matter of what kind of damage you get from it. Instant hearing loss, gradual, deaf, tinnitus? Could be just 1 or litterally all 4. So yeah, please don't say it's safe. It's anything but and it's dangerous to suggest otherwise. (fully expeting a Welrod or Delisle to pop up somewhere along the line but this is for people with 'everyday' firearms.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.