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

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48968109]IMO, it's the gun lobby trying to get a new item to peddle. suppressors shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.[/QUOTE] They should. Even with proper protection my Mosin-Nagant is earsplitting. I wouldn't mind a suppressor on that thing just so's my ears aren't ringing after I shoot it. Without the muffs? [i]Deafening.[/i]

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;48968109]IMO, it's the gun lobby trying to get a new item to peddle. suppressors shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.[/QUOTE] Right. It's not like actual criminals won't just use the black market, anyway.

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;48986316]Do you know how easy it is to juryrig a silencer out of components [I][B]anybody[/B][/I] can get their hands on? Do you have any idea what you're even talking about?[/QUOTE] Most murders aren't evolved around R&D projects, most of them aren't even premeditated at all. There is big difference betwheen having to make/research something yourself and having it in the back of your car.

[QUOTE=Cold;49104842]Most murders aren't evolved around R&D projects, most of them aren't even premeditated at all. There is big difference betwheen having to make/research something yourself and having it in the back of your car.[/QUOTE] If they take the time to decide to use a suppressor to cover up the crime then it's premeditated.

[QUOTE=Cold;49104842]Most murders aren't evolved around R&D projects, most of them aren't even premeditated at all. There is big difference betwheen having to make/research something yourself and having it in the back of your car.[/QUOTE]So what exactly is the problem here? So they have the gun in the back of the car (a gun that 99% of the time they shouldn't have because most crimes are committed by repeat offenders or with illicit firearms, usually stolen) but you're still pissy about a fucking suppressor? You asserted that murders are heat of the moment affairs, crimes of passion that aren't thought through and are a result of means and circumstance. (not precisely what you asserted but still, that is how it happens) So why would they take the extra step to screw on their suppressor that really just makes their ears not hurt when they empty their piece into somebody? Again, the people you are concerned about [I][B]are not most people, they aren't even most criminals[/B][/I] and every single argument you've made to keep suppressors out of their reach is fucking baseless horseshit. They're already professional criminals and have the money and means to [I]manufacture[/I] a suppressor that is far, far more useful to them than getting one legitimately. By that I mean they're not going to pay a lot of money for something that they're going to throw away immediately after their murder, that would be fucking stupid and counterproductive. Simply put your arguments do not line up with reality's facts.

Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49105773]Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?[/QUOTE] Many times a range will not be allowed into an area due to noise pollution from all the shooting. A suppressor would cut that down significantly. As for specific places, you have to either own a lot of land, know a guy, or drive a good distance to reach a range and that's even if they allow your type of firearm to be used (many do not allow rifles or buckshot).

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49105773]Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?[/QUOTE] It's called sound. Guns a very loud. It pisses of cities when there's a gun range from noise pollution. Hunters usually don't wear hearing protection while hunting, and thus damage their hearing. Some people want to shoot without hearing protection on so that they can communicate with others without shouting, and some people like the benefit of less felt recoil and muzzle blast.

I love how in countries like Finland, owning a suppressor is no big deal, but the moment someone wants to get rid of a stupid law, people wonder why people would want to put something own their firearm which slightly reduces sound and saves hearing... I shouldn't have to go through hoops and bounds and pay a 200 fee to own a suppressor for my firearm because of an outdated act that should be repealed.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49105773]Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?[/QUOTE] So what about hunters and people taking care of wild pests? We just move the animals they're shooting to these specific places for shooting guns as well?

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49105773]Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?[/QUOTE]This isn't about the restriction of actual suppressor use or laws regarding them or any other NFA item, this is entirely about the 200 dollar tax stamp that's imposed [I]on top of[/I] the listed price. You can buy a suppressor right now if your state allows it, you don't need some fancy permit for one.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;49105773]Yeah, I dunno about this. I'm all for civilians being able to own guns, but there are other methods for protecting your ears, and specific places you can go to shoot if you're conscious about others hearing your gunfire. I just can't see that many reasons for a law abiding citizen to NEED a suppressor, you know?[/QUOTE] It's getting harder and harder to find places to shoot in Colorado along the front range because the cities are starting to creep up into the foothills. That, and once empty forest area that could be used for a shooting range is now being overrun by hikers, bicyclists and ATVers. Shooting doesn't coexist well with other outdoor sports.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49105121]So what exactly is the problem here? So they have the gun in the back of the car (a gun that 99% of the time they shouldn't have because most crimes are committed by repeat offenders or with illicit firearms, usually stolen) but you're still pissy about a fucking suppressor? You asserted that murders are heat of the moment affairs, crimes of passion that aren't thought through and are a result of means and circumstance. (not precisely what you asserted but still, that is how it happens) So why would they take the extra step to screw on their suppressor that really just makes their ears not hurt when they empty their piece into somebody? Again, the people you are concerned about [I][B]are not most people, they aren't even most criminals[/B][/I] and every single argument you've made to keep suppressors out of their reach is fucking baseless horseshit. They're already professional criminals and have the money and means to [I]manufacture[/I] a suppressor that is far, far more useful to them than getting one legitimately. By that I mean they're not going to pay a lot of money for something that they're going to throw away immediately after their murder, that would be fucking stupid and counterproductive. Simply put your arguments do not line up with reality's facts.[/QUOTE] My only statement was that accessibility is not a null factor. Apparently thats not something i can say without getting an largely unrelated questionable guncrime statment based lecture. I have to agree tho that its probably not very significant, in overall murder (rates). EDIT: I just realized this thread is 2 weeks old.

[QUOTE=Cold;49110352]My only statement was that accessibility is not a null factor. Apparently thats not something i can say without getting an largely unrelated questionable guncrime statment based lecture. I have to agree tho that its probably not very significant, in overall murder (rates). EDIT: I just realized this thread is 2 weeks old.[/QUOTE]Really though it is a null factor, the people who use them in crimes already get them via illicit means or make their own. All this piece of legislation addresses is the [I]tax stamp[/I] and not any laws regarding who can and can't have them, that's a decision for state legislators to make. There also really isn't any criminal demand for suppressors, gun crime here isn't a cloak and dagger affair it's quite often a spontaneous action that's met with general apathy by those not immediately involved.

[QUOTE=Cold;49110352]My only statement was that accessibility is not a null factor. Apparently thats not something i can say without getting an largely unrelated questionable guncrime statment based lecture. I have to agree tho that its probably not very significant, in overall murder (rates). EDIT: I just realized this thread is 2 weeks old.[/QUOTE] It appears more so that you don't have a fundamental understanding as to how a suppressor works. Think of a muffler on a car, a suppressor works the same way. Suppressors are probably some of the easiest NFA/felony items any person can build. A soda bottle filled with wet newspaper works as a suppressor surprisingly well, and that's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to procure than a legitimate suppressor. Of course if you want something that lasts the same can be done with a flashlight or a pipe, since all you are doing is slowing down gasses.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49113017]It appears more so that you don't have a fundamental understanding as to how a suppressor works. Think of a muffler on a car, a suppressor works the same way. Suppressors are probably some of the easiest NFA/felony items any person can build. A soda bottle filled with wet newspaper works as a suppressor surprisingly well, and that's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to procure than a legitimate suppressor. Of course if you want something that lasts the same can be done with a flashlight or a pipe, since all you are doing is slowing down gasses.[/QUOTE] The thing is, that if i wanted to kill somebody and got my gun to do it, my first reaction wouldn't be, "I should engineer a suppressor to reduce my chances of getting caught", but if i had one i would take it, that's the accessibility factor. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49112790]Really though it is a null factor, the people who use them in crimes already get them via illicit means or make their own. All this piece of legislation addresses is the [I]tax stamp[/I] and not any laws regarding who can and can't have them, that's a decision for state legislators to make. There also really isn't any criminal demand for suppressors, [B]gun crime here isn't a cloak and dagger affair it's quite often a spontaneous action that's met with general apathy by those not immediately involved.[/B][/QUOTE] And if many of those guncrimes used a suppressor, they wouldn't be any harder to response or track down or anything along those lines? You pretty much just agreed with my only statement there tho, people who really want one can get a tax stamp, people who really want one illegally can make one. And all the non cloak and dagger crimes that make up most of the crimes committed will not have the "benefit" of a silencer.

[QUOTE=Cold;49114030]The thing is, that if i wanted to kill somebody and got my gun to do it, my first reaction wouldn't be, "I should engineer a suppressor to reduce my chances of getting caught", but if i had one i would take it, that's the accessibility factor. And if many of those guncrimes used a suppressor, they wouldn't be any harder to response or track down or anything along those lines? You pretty much just agreed with my only statement there tho, people who really want one can get a tax stamp, people who really want one illegally can make one. And all the non cloak and dagger crimes that make up most of the crimes committed will not have the "benefit" of a silencer.[/QUOTE] And you're implying that it's more difficult to pick up a pop bottle than to go and spend $500-$1000+ on a suppressor?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49114046]And you're implying that it's more difficult to pick up a pop bottle than to go and spend $500-$1000+ on a suppressor?[/QUOTE] Where did i imply this? People keep repeating how cheap these things are to make, and this law is supposed to mainly make it cheaper because you don't have to pay for the tax stamp, why are you talking about 500-1000$? Why would you have a poorly ducttaped bottle attached to your gun at all times if you don't plan on doing something illicit? Are you that much annoyed by having to wear ear protection when shooting indoors? The alternative to not R&Ding a suppressor is not buying once, its not using one at all.

[QUOTE=Cold;49114057]Where did i imply this?[/QUOTE] You stated [quote=Cold]The thing is, that if i wanted to kill somebody and got my gun to do it, my first reaction wouldn't be, "I should engineer a suppressor to reduce my chances of getting caught", but if i had one i would take it, that's the accessibility factor.[/quote] Implying that it is difficult to assemble a suppressor. If you have a Soda bottle, or any other bottle in your possession, you own a suppressor. Things that can be suppressors are literally everywhere already. Hell its a felony if you take that soda bottle and put it on the end of a firearm barrel, that is how stringent the law is.

[QUOTE=Cold;49114057]Where did i imply this? People keep repeating how cheap these things are to make, and this law is supposed to mainly make it cheaper because you don't have to pay for the tax stamp, why are you talking about 500-1000$?[/QUOTE] lets just pretend that all labor is 100% free and this bill reduces the price of a suppressor to the scrap price of aluminum, which is about 80 cents assuming it started with a 2 pound piece of round stock aluminum lets go to the side of the road, find a discarded beer can, fill it with leaves, and duct tape it to the end of your gun which scenario is cheaper?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;49114065]You stated Implying that it is difficult to assemble a suppressor. If you have a Soda bottle, or any other bottle in your possession, you own a suppressor. Things that can be suppressors are literally everywhere already.[/QUOTE] I am not implying its difficult, just that most murderers aren't even premeditated let alone cloak and dagger R&D projects. People don't go on the internet to find out how to make a shitty silencer to slightly reduce their chance of getting caught in a spontaneous action. They just go and kill the fucker.

[QUOTE=Cold;49114030]And if many of those guncrimes used a suppressor, they wouldn't be any harder to response or track down or anything along those lines?[/QUOTE]... They wouldn't, and no, they wouldn't. [QUOTE=Cold;49114030]You pretty much just agreed with my only statement there tho, people who really want one can get a tax stamp, people who really want one illegally can make one. And all the non cloak and dagger crimes that make up most of the crimes committed will not have the "benefit" of a silencer.[/QUOTE]So wait, what are you saying here? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you seem to be contradicting yourself here, or perhaps you're typing phonetically and I'm missing your tone. [QUOTE=Cold;49114057]Where did i imply this? People keep repeating how cheap these things are to make, and this law is supposed to mainly make it cheaper because you don't have to pay for the tax stamp, why are you talking about 500-1000$?[/QUOTE]That's what the actual price of one is, the $200 dollar tax stamp is in [I]addition[/I] to the actual price. [QUOTE=Cold;49114057]Why would you have a poorly ducttaped bottle attached to your gun at all times if you don't plan on doing something illicit? Are you that much annoyed by having to wear ear protection when shooting indoors? The alternative to not R&Ding a suppressor is not buying once, its not using one at all.[/QUOTE]Okay okay okay. One, literally the act of taping a bottle to the end of the gun is a [I]felony crime[/I] if you don't have a license to manufacture suppressors; the people who do that are already going to commit a crime within a very short period of time. (that bottle is unwieldy after all, so one would assume the guy would put it on immediately before using it) Two, you absolutely have to wear hearing protection indoors, but quite often it isn't enough which is why most indoor ranges completely ban rifles. You seem to be misunderstanding a lot of things here.

[QUOTE=Cold;49114078]I am not implying its difficult, just that most murderers aren't even premeditated let alone cloak and dagger R&D projects. People don't go on the internet to find out how to make a shitty silencer to slightly reduce their chance of getting caught in a spontaneous action. They just go and kill the fucker.[/QUOTE] And that's the point I'm getting at. If they want to kill someone they're not going to go out of their way to find a suppressor. Sure if they break into a house and find one I'm sure they'd take it and use it, but that's the same for anything else for that matter. It's just as quick and "stealthy" to do a drive by or just kill the guy and flee.

Seriously, just up and making a suppressor is a big fucking no no, it will get you prison time. You can make your own firearms (as long as they don't count as a NFA item) but you absolutely cannot under any circumstances make a device that is intended to muffle the report of a firearm. [editline]14th November 2015[/editline] god DAMN IT JEMMEMA you ruined everything

[QUOTE=Cold;49114078]I am not implying its difficult, just that most murderers aren't even premeditated let alone cloak and dagger R&D projects. People don't go on the internet to find out how to make a shitty silencer to slightly reduce their chance of getting caught in a spontaneous action. They just go and kill the fucker.[/QUOTE] don't know why you think anyone needs to go on the internet to find out how to make a homemade suppressor. scream into a pillow, notice how it muffles the sound? that pillow is now a suppressor. any idiot could figure out that the same thing would work with a gun not sure why you feel like more accessible factory perfect suppressors would make any difference either. the sound of a gunshot isn't what gets murderers caught. it's not like every gun in the world would have a suppressor anyway since any caliber that breaks the sound barrier can't be effectively suppressed, most guns don't have provisions for a suppressor, and even guns that do accept one probably won't have one because they'll still be expensive accessories and they'll still throw off the balance of the gun and they'll still be next to impossible to conceal

My buddy was shooting my AR-15 on the indoor (concrete) range on the lane beside me and my earpro got knocked off by my shotgun - def. support suppressor freedom after that

I had to read the thread in order to figure out that certain people are actually against this from going through, after reading the argument of those who are in favor of it, you guys keep on saying "You can create a silencer with a taped soup can" etc... Well ok, do you realize that many people sell weapons to felons with serial numbers filed? Some of the crime guns in the US are actually bought by people with the proper stature to do so, then they file the serial in order to sell it to a felon. This of course costs a hefty hand but some rich felons are willing to do it in order to get the best equipment possible. It's the same deal with silencers, and people will often even do it for their felon friends. If a criminal wanted to acquire one of these, he could, he could also make a tape can one, but that would look fucking stupid if you are in some type of mob or gang. The fact of the matter here is this; When they are legalized, there will no doubt be several murders which are not found out at the time of death because of them, no doubt, does that mean those who just want them for quiet shooting and hunting shouldn't get the right to them? Does this mean the death will even be STOPPED?... No. You know why? Because you can buy them the same fucking way as you buy any illegitimate contraband, you find a person or ask someone who knows someone who is into heavier shit, then ask them, if it doesn't work for those individuals you can find another hook by hanging around those type of people (bottom of the dump people, any criminal knows someone with a hook, they often know others.) Basically what I'm trying to say is that yes, now they will be acquired more easily BUT.... Those who are even intelligent enough to be stealthy are DEFINITELY the type who were raised up in a risky environment, and therefore can be SLIGHTLY resourceful and find one that a dealer acquired somehow, and their are plenty around, they can be easily milled.

[QUOTE=Blue Meanie;49114139]The fact of the matter here is this; When they are legalized[/QUOTE][B]This piece of legislation is about the removal of a [U]tax[/U] [U]stamp[/U] and not about the regulation of suppressors. States that restrict the sale or use of suppressors will continue to do so, this does not affect their laws.[/B]