Hearing Protection Act: A Bill to Remove Suppresors from the National Firearms Act of 1934 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;48968224]It sill sounds like a gun being fired. It's just a little quieter, it might actually help improve reporting the location of gunfire, [B]as the sound isn't as distributed.[/B][/QUOTE] Ah, good point. Now that you mention it loud reports do tend to echo off of fucking everything.

[QUOTE=Aman;48968196]Because you say it's dangerous? What exactly does dangerous mean in the context? I don't really get the point you're making.[/QUOTE] Civilians hearing gunshot sounds is an extremely important part of the police being called to a crime scene or ongoing incident, as often the person who is shot has no capability to do so. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should be banned, it would be nonsensical garbage to pretend they can't make someone much more dangerous if used effectively.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks that you can fire a suppressed weapon and no one is going to hear it. That shit is still just as loud as it was before, minus the sonic boom at the end. You can't go through someone's home undetected like you can in the movies, and I would wager that anyone vigilant enough to listen for and correctly identify a gunshot would be able to do the same to a suppressed weapon. Just go listen to YouTube videos comparing silenced/not silenced guns. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Elspin;48968252]Civilians hearing gunshot sounds is an extremely important part of the police being called to a crime scene or ongoing incident, as often the person who is shot has no capability to do so. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should be banned, it would be nonsensical garbage to pretend they can't make someone much more dangerous if used effectively.[/QUOTE] Please stop using movies as evidence for arguments...

Some of you seem to get the impression that suppressors are illegal. They're not. Basically anyone can own them, you just need to submit a $200 tax stamp in addition to the cost of the suppressor. You need to understand that most bullets are still supersonic, and make a loud explosion when fired. You can't muffle all of that. It's still going to be ~80-100 decibels. Thats why nobody who actually knows stuff about suppressors calls them "Silencers" because they don't silence the weapon. The only purpose of this is to take suppressors off the NFA legislation so that you don't have to pay $200 more to purchase a suppressor. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Elspin;48968252]Civilians hearing gunshot sounds is an extremely important part of the police being called to a crime scene or ongoing incident, as often the person who is shot has no capability to do so. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should be banned, it would be nonsensical garbage to pretend they can't make someone much more dangerous if used effectively.[/QUOTE] Suppressors usually cost upwards of $1000. Not only that, but your weapon needs to be threaded to accept said suppressor as well. Typically only really high-end weapons are threaded for suppressors. Considering that the average criminal uses hi-points and S&W 38S model 10 handguns that costs sub $300, a suppressor is out of their reach significantly. Thus, your argument is kind of moot.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;48968162]There's an association JUST for weapon suppressors? [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] Is there an association for every kind of gun mod?[/QUOTE] I'm a proud member of the American rail association for the advancement of rails

[QUOTE=Aman;48968155]A silencer doesn't reduce recoil. What would imply that it even would?[/QUOTE] IIRC it slows down the ejection of gasses out the muzzle. This might reduce recoil but I don't know if it's enough to notice.

[QUOTE=Aman;48968155]A silencer doesn't reduce recoil. What would imply that it even would?[/QUOTE] The extra weight theoretically could for something tiny like a .22 [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ossumsauce;48968302]Some of you seem to get the impression that suppressors are illegal. They're not. Basically anyone can own them, you just need to submit a $200 tax stamp in addition to the cost of the suppressor. You need to understand that most bullets are still supersonic, and make a loud explosion when fired. You can't muffle all of that. It's still going to be ~80-100 decibels. Thats why nobody who actually knows stuff about suppressors calls them "Silencers" because they don't silence the weapon. The only purpose of this is to take suppressors off the NFA legislation so that you don't have to pay $200 more to purchase a suppressor. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] Suppressors usually cost upwards of $1000. Not only that, but your weapon needs to be threaded to accept said suppressor as well. Typically only really high-end weapons are threaded for suppressors. Considering that the average criminal uses hi-points and S&W 38S model 10 handguns that costs sub $300, a suppressor is out of their reach significantly. Thus, your argument is kind of moot.[/QUOTE] I'd love a suppressor for my .45 with some subsonic rounds. It'd just make the range more enjoyable. Too bad the 4506 doesn't have a threaded barrel afaik.

[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;48968343]IIRC it slows down the ejection of gasses out the muzzle. This might reduce recoil but I don't know if it's enough to notice.[/QUOTE] Reduction of recoil from suppressors usually has little to nothing to do with the gasses. It very lightly reduces recoil because its simply adding weight to the front of the weapon. The muzzle is resisting the upward force slightly more because the recoil needs to push harder to get it to rise at the same rate. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Levelog;48968357]The extra weight theoretically could for something tiny like a .22 [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] I'd love a suppressor for my .45 with some subsonic rounds. It'd just make the range more enjoyable. Too bad the 4506 doesn't have a threaded barrel afaik.[/QUOTE] Actually standard .45 is already subsonic. So you're pretty much set. But as you said, your 4506 isn't threaded, which cooooould be an issue.

This is a pretty reasonable move. Anything I'm concerned about having a suppressor, I'm already concerned about (eg. handguns), so this doesn't make anything substantially worse, and hearing protection is actually quite a good reason to make suppressors more available. Something tells me it's not going to pass, though. The current political climate is pretty strong for gun control (justifiably so - we [I]do[/I] need better gun control), so even a reasonable loosening of a gun-control law will probably be blocked.

the weight of a suppressor reduces how much a postol can drift upwards during rapid fire

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48968370]Reduction of recoil from suppressors usually has little to nothing to do with the gasses. It very lightly reduces recoil because its simply adding weight to the front of the weapon. The muzzle is resisting the upward force slightly more because the recoil needs to push harder to get it to rise at the same rate. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] Actually standard .45 is already subsonic. So you're pretty much set. But as you said, your 4506 isn't threaded, which cooooould be an issue.[/QUOTE] Subsonic wasn't quite the right word. You can get slower .45 than typical.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;48968257]I'm not sure why everyone thinks that you can fire a suppressed weapon and no one is going to hear it. That shit is still just as loud as it was before, minus the sonic boom at the end. You can't go through someone's home undetected like you can in the movies, and I would wager that anyone vigilant enough to listen for and correctly identify a gunshot would be able to do the same to a suppressed weapon. Just go listen to YouTube videos comparing silenced/not silenced guns. [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] Please stop using movies as evidence for arguments...[/QUOTE] Minus the sonic boom? The bullet hasn't changed speed significantly, has it?

[QUOTE=gman003-main;48968379]This is a pretty reasonable move. Anything I'm concerned about having a suppressor, I'm already concerned about (eg. handguns), so this doesn't make anything substantially worse, and hearing protection is actually quite a good reason to make suppressors more available. Something tells me it's not going to pass, though. The current political climate is pretty strong for gun control (justifiably so - we [I]do[/I] need better gun control), so even a reasonable loosening of a gun-control law will probably be blocked.[/QUOTE] Dems just need to add in a mental health aspect as a rider. Like that'd ever get passed...

[QUOTE=Sableye;48968121]Eh I can't say that the bloods have anything on the mobs ov the past[/QUOTE] Thank god, right? The government's done a pretty good job keeping criminals from taking over cities since the depression

:snip:

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;48968416]why do they need to be legally used by civilians if earplugs are hundreds of times cheaper, easier to obtain, and LEGAL.[/QUOTE] suppressors are already legal, you just have to let the ATF extort you or they'll ruin your life there's literally no reason not to do this, they were added to NFA in 1934 when they were a relatively new concept because of fears of gangsters making their tommy guns hush-hush they don't silence a gun, all they do is reduce the report, which is an absolute boon for hunters (just ask Norway) and sport shooters alike

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;48968416]why do they need to be legally used by civilians if earplugs are hundreds of times cheaper, easier to obtain, and LEGAL.[/QUOTE] What harm would they do by being legalized?

[QUOTE=Mr_Awesome;48968416]why do they need to be legally used by civilians if earplugs are hundreds of times cheaper, easier to obtain, and LEGAL.[/QUOTE] Suppressors are already legal, the entire purpose of this is to remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act of 1934, so that people are not forced to pay $200 tax stamps per suppressor.

oh ok my bad. sorry guys bad reading x1

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;48968430] they don't silence a gun, all they do is reduce the report, which is an absolute boon for hunters (just ask Norway) and sport shooters alike[/QUOTE] I can't possibly think what else reducing a gunshot report might harm apart from hunters nope nothing

[QUOTE=meppers;48968380]the weight of a suppressor reduces how much a postol can drift upwards during rapid fire[/QUOTE] That really doesn't make that much sense. Most of the reason for why handguns push up is because of the sliding action, as well as amount of gas exerted through the barrel. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw[/media]

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48968085]It can allow criminals to get suppressors that could mask the sound of a gunshot, making home invasions/robbery killings harder to discover.[/QUOTE] A primitive suppressor is piss-easy to manufacture anyway, so there's nothing stopping an ambitious criminal from getting one if they really want. Outlawing them just makes it harder to get them for law-abiding citizens.

[QUOTE=DropDeadTed;48968210]Yeah, marginally. Any gun beyond a tiny-ass one like a .22 is still going to be pretty loud suppressor or not. Hell I'm not even sure if I'm correct about tiny ass .22s being suppressable. But it doesn't make the gun any easier to shoot or magically convert FMJ into hollow point, nothing "dangerous" about it beyond a slight reduction to noise.[/QUOTE] Typical suppressed .22 rifles/pistols are still audibly loud, the only times things go near silent is when you get something that's full on integral like the De Lisle carbine, which is so silent the bolt is louder than the bullet actually firing. The likelyhood of someone having a firearm like the De Lisle is extremely low so honestly. Suppressing weapons isn't "dangerous" in a sense, yes it makes the guns shot profile quieter however its still very easy to tell a suppressed gun being fired, especially indoors. Personally I think all civilian firearms should be suppressed or allowed to be suppressed from the factory without having to go through legal processes, its a tool that reduces the risk of hearing damage for the user and to me that's an important factor, never mind the fact its nicer to be around people firing away suppressed weapons than it is them unsuppressed, shit can get loud.

why the fuck would anyone need a suppressor [editline]23rd October 2015[/editline] cant you just wear ear muffs

[QUOTE=Splash Attack;48968130]Is there any reason that someone would need to use a suppressor, beyond the sake of saying you have one?[/QUOTE] shooting in the basement without waking your kids, one of the selling points of the Maxim suppressor in the 1920s

Suppressors may not sound like the *pzt* you hear in movies but they can be effective enough for 9mm and .22 subsonic to be easily mistaken for something being hit or rapped on.

Quick and dirty suppressor reference, featuring the innards of various suppressors [img]http://puu.sh/kV8kY/72dfd2c691.jpg[/img] They do not significantly influence the projectile going through them, they're really just hollow just tubes with a bunch of buffers that allows for expanding and exploding gases to dissipate inside of them They don't make a firearm anywhere near silent, they make a loud explosion slightly less loud, and they have zero effect on the supersonic crack most ammunition has They're basically the same concept as your car's muffler, it doesn't completely silence the sound of an engine, just makes it quieter

[QUOTE=Levelog;48968394]Dems just need to add in a mental health aspect as a rider. Like that'd ever get passed...[/QUOTE] Gun control needs several things. Mental health is only a small subset. There's also crime, suicides, and accidents, which are heavily overlooked. I've been thinking about gun laws quite a bit, because it's been in the news frequently and neither side seems to be arguing based on evidence. My principles are strongly divided on this issue, so all I can go on is actual science. I think it would be a good idea to model our gun laws on Switzerland. They have relatively high gun ownership rates (25-45% depending on the study), and very low gun crime rates (only 18 gun-related homicides in 2014, in the entire country), so they're obviously doing something right. Their methods seem to be gun licensing, a blanket ban on carrying loaded weapons (without a special needs-basis license), and restricting ammunition (you can only buy ammunition if you have a gun license, and only for the types of guns you own - this makes illegal guns relatively useless). To that, I would add a requirement to prove ownership of a gun safe before being issued a license, as is done in Norway (another high-ownership, low-crime country, although stricter). There's way too many negligent people keeping guns in the open, which is a hazard for children. I would also keep NFA laws for automatic weapons and destructive devices - in 90 years, only one crime has been committed with a legal privately-owned Title II weapon, and that was a police officer, so that law is obviously working and needs no further restriction.

[QUOTE=Elspin;48968252]Civilians hearing gunshot sounds is an extremely important part of the police being called to a crime scene or ongoing incident, as often the person who is shot has no capability to do so. Regardless of your opinion on whether they should be banned, it would be nonsensical garbage to pretend they can't make someone much more dangerous if used effectively.[/QUOTE] Unless they are familiar with guns already, civilians may not even know what a gunshot sounds like anyway, they'll assume it sounds like a movie and might ignore other sounds. A few years ago a person was shot and laid on the ground for a couple hours before someone saw the body. It was very early in the morning and anyone who did hear the shot thought it was a car backfiring, so nobody called for help or even looked outside.

Oh my, this would be a dream come true for hunting. I hate wearing electronic ear pro since most of those I've tried are hot, heavy, and clamp my head. Then again I also don't like going deaf so I don't have a choice.