2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: robtmc on May 28, 2015, 10:12:27 AM
-
Cold day in hell for us here, regardless of the benefit to our hearing.
(http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/asa_edu_map_0522151.jpg)
http://weaponsman.com/?p=22974 (http://weaponsman.com/?p=22974)
-
Unless you become a cop and get the exemption. I am actually surprised that many states allow it, I thought it was less.
-
Unless you become a cop and get the exemption. I am actually surprised that many states allow it, I thought it was less.
That's because you can't hear them ...
:rofl:
-
One could only wish to have it legal for hunting here.
-
I do not hunt, but I have very little hearing left, and guard it as much as I can.
I am often surrounded by POS Harleys with no or barely any mufflers, and no one seems to give a shit about the racket.
Ask about something to help protect my hearing shooting, and you are suspected of being an assassin. Sure, I wear muffs, but occasionally I pull them off, and someone else may crank off a round.......
-
The normal nanny State do not allow them.
HI, CA, IL, NY, MA, NJ, CT
-
The normal nanny State do not allow them.
HI, CA, IL, NY, MA, NJ, CT
Please note that all of these states have strict gun control laws and, with the exception of HI, rank in the top ten for criminal use of a firearm in the nation.
Chicago and Baltimore had over a hundred shootings between them, just over the weekend.
-
Please note that all of these states have strict gun control laws and, with the exception of HI, rank in the top ten for criminal use of a firearm in the nation.
Chicago and Baltimore had over a hundred shootings between them, just over the weekend.
How many of those shootings utilized a suppressor ? :wave:
-
How many of those shootings utilized a suppressor ? :wave:
Only the ones we didn't hear about!
-
How many of those shootings utilized a suppressor ? :wave:
Is that a fair question? If suppressors aren't legal in those states I don't think we would see them very often. Rather a better question would be to look at shootings in states where suppressors are legal and see how many of murders involve suppressors.
-
Is that a fair question? If suppressors aren't legal in those states I don't think we would see them very often. Rather a better question would be to look at shootings in states where suppressors are legal and see how many of murders involve suppressors.
No, a better question is, why are we banning something from people who never shot anyone, with or without a suppressor?
We always seem to be looking at banning something that a tiny percentage might misuse which punishes all the gun owners who are law abiding. To top it off, the "solutions" don't solve anything.
-
No, a better question is, why are we banning something from people who never shot anyone, with or without a suppressor?
We always seem to be looking at banning something that a tiny percentage might misuse which punishes all the gun owners who are law abiding. To top it off, the "solutions" don't solve anything.
The best way to prove that the solutions don't work, in my opinion, is to show places where those "solutions" were not implemented and show that legalized suppressors have not caused a significant problem.
As to the first part they are banning it to everyone, not just to those who have never shot someone. Murderers are all people who at some time in their life can claim they are people who never shot anyone before.
Banning what they see as the problem seems to be a certain innate human response. The best way to disprove that, I think, is to use facts to prove that these particular laws are have no significant effect.
-
The best way to prove that the solutions don't work, in my opinion, is to show places where those "solutions" were not implemented and show that legalized suppressors have not caused a significant problem.
That's a fallacy based on a misguided belief there is a need for a solution. The first step to solving any problem is to accurately define the problem.
What problems do suppressors cause? More directly, what problem does banning suppressors solve?
-
The best way to prove that the solutions don't work, in my opinion, is to show places where those "solutions" were not implemented and show that legalized suppressors have not caused a significant problem.
As to the first part they are banning it to everyone, not just to those who have never shot someone. Murderers are all people who at some time in their life can claim they are people who never shot anyone before.
Banning what they see as the problem seems to be a certain innate human response. The best way to disprove that, I think, is to use facts to prove that these particular laws are have no significant effect.
If ANY of these gun control laws were having an effect, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As to your premise, please refer to the OP's map and note that the big red portion is where suppressors are "allowed". They don't seem to be experiencing any problems. Also note that the few areas where they are not allowed, which also happen to have the most restrictive gun control laws, have high rates of gun violence despite their lack of access to suppressors.
-
Banning what they see as the problem seems to be a certain innate human response.
You seem to be implying there was some perceived problem here that someone decided needed banning.. Care to elucidate what that problem was and how it came about?
Darned if I recall an epidemic of suppressed shootings, just a lot of Hollyweird bullsqueeze.
-
That's a fallacy based on a misguided belief there is a need for a solution. The first step to solving any problem is to accurately define the problem.
What problems do suppressors cause? More directly, what problem does banning suppressors solve?
To answer my own question .....
In the eyes of the anti-gun supporters, having a suppressor allows shooters to operate in more locations, since the noise problems and "fear-inducing blasts" won't be reported to police. This will increase the likelihood more people can shoot more often and in more places, thereby causing more people to want to own and use guns. Having limited locations and strict noise restrictions reduces the opportunity for shooting fun and reduces the interest in buying guns.
So, if you haven't figured it out yet, the problem is not one of misuse of guns with suppressors. It's one of INCREASED use of guns -- period. Hence, suppressors must not be allowed.
-
That's a fallacy based on a misguided belief there is a need for a solution. The first step to solving any problem is to accurately define the problem.
What problems do suppressors cause? More directly, what problem does banning suppressors solve?
I figured that by showing that in states where suppressors are legal that suppressors have not caused problems, thus, as you say, more accurately defining the problem, or lack there of.
-
To answer my own question .....
In the eyes of the anti-gun supporters, having a suppressor allows shooters to operate in more locations, since the noise problems and "fear-inducing blasts" won't be reported to police. This will increase the likelihood more people can shoot more often and in more places, thereby causing more people to want to own and use guns. Having limited locations and strict noise restrictions reduces the opportunity for shooting fun and reduces the interest in buying guns.
So, if you haven't figured it out yet, the problem is not one of misuse of guns with suppressors. It's one of INCREASED use of guns -- period. Hence, suppressors must not be allowed.
I do not know if I would agree with the latter half of the reasoning. I think you are right on the first half though, that people who shoot others will be more able to escape section and apprehension. Now the core element of that logic is true, that a suppressor would enable someone to get away with murder easier. My personal counter argument would be that for starters suppressors are not exactly CCW friendly and thus would not likely be involved in many spur of the moment shootings. The second half would be that right now in other states suppressors are legal but are not shown to be a problem. The one weakness to using the argument that suppressors (or any particular gun tech) have not caused problems is that it leaves open the argument that if it indeed ended up causing a problem our reasoning to make it legal would end up being a reason to make it illegal. So if California legalized suppressors and the number of murders involving suppressors skyrocketed then it would just support their argument that it was a problem. I think professional murder for hire guys might use suppressors more if the were more available but that doesn't represent a significant chunk of murders in America I think.
-
I do not know if I would agree with the latter half of the reasoning. I think you are right on the first half though, that people who shoot others will be more able to escape section and apprehension. Now the core element of that logic is true, that a suppressor would enable someone to get away with murder easier. My personal counter argument would be that for starters suppressors are not exactly CCW friendly and thus would not likely be involved in many spur of the moment shootings. The second half would be that right now in other states suppressors are legal but are not shown to be a problem. The one weakness to using the argument that suppressors (or any particular gun tech) have not caused problems is that it leaves open the argument that if it indeed ended up causing a problem our reasoning to make it legal would end up being a reason to make it illegal. So if California legalized suppressors and the number of murders involving suppressors skyrocketed then it would just support their argument that it was a problem. I think professional murder for hire guys might use suppressors more if the were more available but that doesn't represent a significant chunk of murders in America I think.
I'd like to know where you get ideas like "I think professional murder for hire guys might use suppressors more if the were more available but that doesn't represent a significant chunk of murders in America I think". Do you develop them from movies, mystery books, or "graphic novels?"
Suppressors can be manufactured without much technical knowledge and using relatively common materials and parts. In fact, you can buy or manufacture a threaded adapter that will attach an oil filter as a suppressor. Even a soda bottle and duct tape can effectively reduce the noise from a gunshot.
To make a comment that commercial availability of suppressors somehow might affect whether "murder for hire guys might use suppressors" is just crazy! :crazy:
-
I'd like to know where you get ideas like "I think professional murder for hire guys might use suppressors more if the were more available but that doesn't represent a significant chunk of murders in America I think". Do you develop them from movies, mystery books, or "graphic novels?"
Suppressors can be manufactured without much technical knowledge and using relatively common materials and parts. In fact, you can buy or manufacture a threaded adapter that will attach an oil filter as a suppressor. Even a soda bottle and duct tape can effectively reduce the noise from a gunshot.
To make a comment that commercial availability of suppressors somehow might affect whether "murder for hire guys might use suppressors" is just crazy! :crazy:
If I were hired to kill someone and planned on using a firearm I would look into using a supressor. Yes one can manufacture a silencer but the more commercially available the more likely, I think, that it will be used. But like I said there does not appear to be a significant amount of murders or attempted murders involving silencers (that I know of) so I think it a moot point for now.
-
If I were hired to kill someone and planned on using a firearm I would look into using a supressor. Yes one can manufacture a silencer but the more commercially available the more likely, I think, that it will be used. But like I said there does not appear to be a significant amount of murders or attempted murders involving silencers (that I know of) so I think it a moot point for now.
Nobody on this board does anything illegal. :shake:
What's a "silencer" ? :wacko:
-
If I were hired to kill someone and planned on using a firearm I would look into using a supressor. Yes one can manufacture a silencer but the more commercially available the more likely, I think, that it will be used. But like I said there does not appear to be a significant amount of murders or attempted murders involving silencers (that I know of) so I think it a moot point for now.
It's funny to me that people actually believe a murderer is going to follow gun laws.
Too bad murder isn't illegal, then we wouldn't have to make the tools murderers use illegal.
Scenario: say suppressors are only available to law enforcement and the military. A wanna-be hit man wants a suppressor. How difficult do you think it will be to fake his credentials to buy one, to steal one, or to do use a straw purchaser -- a friend or family member -- to get that suppressor?
If you don't think that's likely, then I'd like to direct your attention to the current levels of illegal drug use in the US. Making something illegal does not prevent it's availability. It simply makes it less convenient and more expensive to obtain.
-
It's funny to me that people actually believe a murderer is going to follow gun laws.
Too bad murder isn't illegal, then we wouldn't have to make the tools murderers use illegal.
Scenario: say suppressors are only available to law enforcement and the military. A wanna-be hit man wants a suppressor. How difficult do you think it will be to fake his credentials to buy one, to steal one, or to do use a straw purchaser -- a friend or family member -- to get that suppressor?
If you don't think that's likely, then I'd like to direct your attention to the current levels of illegal drug use in the US. Making something illegal does not prevent it's availability. It simply makes it less convenient and more expensive to obtain.
I am not suggesting that having suppressors being illegal will prevent a criminal from obtaining one, only that it will make it more difficult. Take gambling for example, since it is illegal here it makes it harder to do even though there are places you can go and gamble at. But being harder to do and being illegal deters some.
I think it is a fairly empty argument to say that people who commit crimes are not going to follow the laws anyway because it is a self fulfilling statement. By definition if someone commits a crime they are a criminal so it is silly to say criminals aren't going to follow the law.
I don't think that even liberals in california believe that a murderer is going to follow the gun laws. Rather I think their aim in enacting strict gun laws is to make it more difficult for someone to go out and murder another by making the tools more difficult to obtain. Now you can disagree on whether that is an effective method of course.
-
I am not suggesting that having suppressors being illegal will prevent a criminal from obtaining one, only that it will make it more difficult. Take gambling for example, since it is illegal here it makes it harder to do even though there are places you can go and gamble at. But being harder to do and being illegal deters some.
I think it is a fairly empty argument to say that people who commit crimes are not going to follow the laws anyway because it is a self fulfilling statement. By definition if someone commits a crime they are a criminal so it is silly to say criminals aren't going to follow the law.
I don't think that even liberals in california believe that a murderer is going to follow the gun laws. Rather I think their aim in enacting strict gun laws is to make it more difficult for someone to go out and murder another by making the tools more difficult to obtain. Now you can disagree on whether that is an effective method of course.
You haven't answered the question yet.
What problems do suppressors cause?
-
You haven't answered the question yet.
What problems do suppressors cause?
Do you mean what problems can they cause or are you talking about actual documented incidents of them being used? I don't personally know of any studies suggesting that suppressors are or are not a problem so i don't want to just guess whether they are used in a significant percentage of crimes. Their potential should be obvious because of what suppressors are able to do. Able to mask or conceal the sound of the gun being fired. Lets not kid ourselves by pretending that the only use for suppressors is saving our hearing.
-
Do you mean what problems can they cause or are you talking about actual documented incidents of them being used? I don't personally know of any studies suggesting that suppressors are or are not a problem so i don't want to just guess whether they are used in a significant percentage of crimes. Their potential should be obvious because of what suppressors are able to do. Able to mask or conceal the sound of the gun being fired. Lets not kid ourselves by pretending that the only use for suppressors is saving our hearing.
And in the absence of a suppressor, people never use guns in crimes for fear of alerting people.
And there are no other quieter alternatives than a suppressed gun for murdering someone, like bats, knives, suffocation, strangulation, a blunt object, scissors, poisons, drowning, ....
As for "Lets not kid ourselves by pretending that the only use for suppressors is saving our hearing", the same can be said of cars, knives, bats, bathtubs, scissors, blunt objects like hammers, plastic bags, ....
I still haven't seen you say what problems suppressors cause. If they make a gun less loud, is that a problem?
Sounds like you're using the same argument the anti's use to ban all guns. The mere existence of a suppressor is bad because someone might use it to hurt someone. that explains why there are no gun murders in the US now. People are afraid the sound will give them away.
And, as I mentioned, there are alternatives to commercially available suppressors that don't require a really long wait for an NFA tax stamp to legally own one. Empty a 2-liter soda bottle and tape it to the barrel. From what I've seen, it's not a bad alternative.
-
As far as I know, suppressors only "silence" 22s.
Everything else is stil pretty loud just not as loud.
We pop 45 primers occassionally (empty case) and that shit is loud.
Friggin movies screwed us. (And uber-liberal politicians)
Fwup fwup fwup. Bullshit.
Suka would know more about this first hand.
-
As far as I know, suppressors only "silence" 22s.
Everything else is stil pretty loud just not as loud.
We pop 45 primers occassionally (empty case) and that shit is loud.
Friggin movies screwed us. (And uber-liberal politicians)
Fwup fwup fwup. Bullshit.
Suka would know more about this first hand.
With the right subsonic ammo and a well-made suppressor, you can pretty much reduce the noise from the exploding gases to almost nothing. The remaining noise is from the slide or bolt cycling and ejecting the fired brass.
-
With the right subsonic ammo and a well-made suppressor, you can pretty much reduce the noise from the exploding gases to almost nothing. The remaining noise is from the slide or bolt cycling and ejecting the fired brass.
Are there any videos that show this ?
All the stuff I've seen, center fire ammo still hits some serious decibels.
Like I said, popping primers ( no bullet so definitely sub sonic ) is still loud.
I agree noise is significantly reduced, but reducing the noise to almost nothing except the slide and bolt cycling might be a stretch.
Sounds like the movies.
Suka ? ( he has videos and experience)
-
Are there any videos that show this ?
All the stuff I've seen, center fire ammo still hits some serious decibels.
Like I said, popping primers ( no bullet so definitely sub sonic ) is still loud.
I agree noise is significantly reduced, but reducing the noise to almost nothing except the slide and bolt cycling might be a stretch.
Sounds like the movies.
Suka ? ( he has videos and experience)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izU7I1xB57s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izU7I1xB57s)
CCI makes a Quiet-22 ammo the guy in the video demonstrates. I think a better suppressor can be found over the one he's using, but the lack of sound is impressive.
Of course, you have to hand-cycle the next round due to the round's low pressure, but for those of us in the "murder for hire" racket, you will want to avoid leaving brass at the scene anyway! :crazy:
-
Yeah, Suka has impressive videos of suppressed .22s also.
But like I said, they're .22s.
Lawmakers gotta realize that center fire suppressors just reduce the sound enough to preserve hearing, especially when hunting so minimal ear pro.
-
WOW, nice twist of an off the rails thread. Map of suppressor legal states to best method of taking someone out to the quietest suppressor shot.
-
And in the absence of a suppressor, people never use guns in crimes for fear of alerting people.
And there are no other quieter alternatives than a suppressed gun for murdering someone, like bats, knives, suffocation, strangulation, a blunt object, scissors, poisons, drowning, ....
As for "Lets not kid ourselves by pretending that the only use for suppressors is saving our hearing", the same can be said of cars, knives, bats, bathtubs, scissors, blunt objects like hammers, plastic bags, ....
I still haven't seen you say what problems suppressors cause. If they make a gun less loud, is that a problem?
Sounds like you're using the same argument the anti's use to ban all guns. The mere existence of a suppressor is bad because someone might use it to hurt someone. that explains why there are no gun murders in the US now. People are afraid the sound will give them away.
And, as I mentioned, there are alternatives to commercially available suppressors that don't require a really long wait for an NFA tax stamp to legally own one. Empty a 2-liter soda bottle and tape it to the barrel. From what I've seen, it's not a bad alternative.
Of course there are alternatives, that is not the point. And no, I am not making their arguments, I am analyzing them. A suppressor can make it easier to kill someone with a gun and get away with it, bottom line. Will not having a suppressor stop murder? Of course not, but it might make the difference between catching the shooter. It might be possible that someone who would not normally shoot a person might feel more safe and willing to do so with a suppressor but I doubt such a thing has been measured at this point so who knows.
-
Eatingeye, you and MauiD should get a room. :rofl:
Lawmakers gotta realize that center fire suppressors just reduce the sound enough to preserve hearing, especially when hunting so minimal ear pro.
:stopjack:
-
Eatingeye, you and MauiD should get a room. :rofl:
:stopjack:
Hey! I've successfully ignored him for over a month. But when he makes comments that are 100% made up garbage from movies or, even worse, his imagination, then he needs to be called out for that!
You do notice he keeps typing his unsupported BS, but refuses to answer the question I asked several times, right?
What problems do suppressors cause?
Still waiting for an answer ....
"A suppressor can make it easier to kill someone with a gun and get away with it, bottom line"
Is that it? That's your answer??
-
Haven't you guys realized that eyefisheater is just a plant in our forum, here to cause dissension and arguments amongst the 2a community.
I work real hard to not respond to his garbage.
I've been accused of being a little too honest when it comes to people like that.
-
Haven't you guys realized that eyefisheater is just a plant in our forum, here to cause dissension and arguments amongst the 2a community.
Noticed that a long time ago, and still swear he admitted to being a cop at one time.
-
Hey! I've successfully ignored him for over a month. But when he makes comments that are 100% made up garbage from movies or, even worse, his imagination, then he needs to be called out for that!
You do notice he keeps typing his unsupported BS, but refuses to answer the question I asked several times, right?
What problems do suppressors cause?
Still waiting for an answer ....
"A suppressor can make it easier to kill someone with a gun and get away with it, bottom line"
Is that it? That's your answer??
I answered your question, you just ignored it or didn't like it.
Can you not see the difference between supporting the left and just analyzing their arguments? Pro 2A people will make these counter arguments that end up missing the basis of some of the arguments the left makes. We would be better off, I think, analyzing their arguments, finding the kernel of truth and defeating that argument instead of ignoring it. If you defeat that kernel of truth then you destroy their argument but instead I see arguments that always assume the wrong motives and just dismiss their reasoning.
We covered this before in the discussion about suicide and firearms. The argument was dismissed under the asinine argument that people who want to die will kill themselves either way but I pointed out the kernel of truth in that argument. With that knowledge we can form a better argument with someone who wishes to argue against firearms. They want to pass laws to restrict our firearms, I would think you would be more interested in developing sound arguments to defeat them. The better the case we can make the greater the chance we can get suppressors legalized here. Is that not your interest?
-
Haven't you guys realized that eyefisheater is just a plant in our forum, here to cause dissension and arguments amongst the 2a community.
I work real hard to not respond to his garbage.
I've been accused of being a little too honest when it comes to people like that.
Well sir, sorry to disappoint but you are wrong. I am here for my own interest in firearms and the keeping 2nd amendment. I do enjoy a healthy debate from time to time though. If I were here to cause dissension there are more better ways I could go about it.
Though it constantly amazes me that when someone tries to be objective they are thought to be really for the other side.
This post might not convince you of anything different, and if so then so be it but I won't stand by while people make false accusations against me.
-
With the right subsonic ammo and a well-made suppressor, you can pretty much reduce the noise from the exploding gases to almost nothing. The remaining noise is from the slide or bolt cycling and ejecting the fired brass.
found this while cruising the web
http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2015/03/03/art-science-and-fact-combine-to-explain-suppressors/ (http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2015/03/03/art-science-and-fact-combine-to-explain-suppressors/)
-
Great find Mac.
Propose legislation ?
Too bad our legislators wouldn't believe the facts and science.
They've seen too many movies.
-
Great find Mac.
Propose legislation ?
Too bad our legislators wouldn't believe the facts and science.
They've seen too many movies.
Perhaps if we put together a list of facts and studies on the matter? I doubt any representative would take the time to seriously research suppressors by themselves if we can present them a short list of all the relevant info they might be more willing to support it since it wouldn't mean as much work for them. I am not going to hold my breath that we will convince enough people but who knows, might be worth a try.
-
found this while cruising the web
http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2015/03/03/art-science-and-fact-combine-to-explain-suppressors/ (http://gearscout.militarytimes.com/2015/03/03/art-science-and-fact-combine-to-explain-suppressors/)
Nice informative concise piece, thanks. I would have been curious to see the pistol unsilenced as well though. And unless I missed it there is no mention of whether the ammo used was subsonic or not. Would be good to know. I did a quick search and found some videos showing how different a suppressed firearm sounds but I couldn't find any scientific measurements to refer to. In the videos the suppressed shot is quieter however the most significant part seems to be in the duration of the sound. The suppressed subsonic ammo comes out in a much shorter bang so a little quieter and a good deal shorter which changes the sound profile and not just the volume.
-
Since it has been twisted to the political side, IMO there are only ways to sway a politicians view 180*, one is to become one of those lobbyist and dump a bunch of money into his/her trough. We all know the facts. Some just seem to be blinded and play follow the leader. It has been proven before, politicians/people will follow the scent of money. The question is how strong of a money scent will make their/your head turn, like the old saying, "everyone has a price."
The other being a combination of a tragic act that personally affected him/her and them pulling their head out of their ass taking a big sniff of reality.
-
Twisted to the political side ?
this is posted in legal and activism.
And I agree with your cynicism 100%.
-
Twisted to the political side ?
this is posted in legal and activism.
And I agree with your cynicism 100%.
Sorry, meant "twisted" as in funky off the rails sudden twist of direction this roller coaster thread has been going.