2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: mamalukino on October 22, 2015, 09:57:07 AM
-
Hope this passes:
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/asa-announces-hearing-protection-act-a-bill-to-remove-suppressors-from-the-nfa/
http://www.guns.com/2015/10/22/bill-introduced-to-remove-suppressors-from-nfa-regulation/
NRA Backs Hearing Protection Act:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151022/nra-backs-hearing-protection-act
-
Our state still prohibits them.
-
Average Hawaii citizen response:
Oh the horrors! We're going to have assassins. Mass shootings that no one will "hear" about. More shootings. Dogs and cats breeding. Women can go use men bathrooms, men can go use women bathrooms....close down the range! Psychos! Butterflies wont know what shot them!
-
Our state still prohibits them.
What he said.
-
Still, this is a start. If it gets removed from the National list of "things that are dangerous," it has a better chance of being removed from the state list of "things that are dangerous."
-
Still, this is a start. If it gets removed from the National list of "things that are dangerous," it has a better chance of being removed from the state list of "things that are dangerous."
exactly
-
I agree. Because if it gets removed from the list then on what basis would they have to keep it banned? ... because they said so? That would be BS
-
I apologize for being so cynical.
I agree that this is a valid 1st step.
I was disappointed with my first experience with a suppressor. I thought it was broken as I could still hear something :shake:
Imagine mandating suppressor use at the range to minimize noise to our HK citizens. Night shoots.
-
I am curious on the numbers, what are the alarming numbers of a legal suppressor used in a crimes throughout the nation and possibly by each state?
-
I'd add that a lot of "education" / misinformation comes from fantasy Hollywood land.
As I mentioned before, the only time I was exposed to suppressors was what I saw in movies and I was obviously disappointed by "hearing" a real one in use.
And thanks to our all knowledgeable lawmakers I'm sure the rest of the population has an ill-conceived view of suppressors as well.
-
Still, this is a start. If it gets removed from the National list of "things that are dangerous," it has a better chance of being removed from the state list of "things that are dangerous."
Yep, it's a start at least. IDK, but does Hawaii LE use suppressors and if so for what reason?
-
I am curious on the numbers, what are the alarming numbers of a legal suppressor used in a crimes throughout the nation and possibly by each state?
There have only been 167 prosecutions at the federal level regarding suppressors in the last 10 or so years; most for possession.
-
Some have also argued that suppressors would be used in more crimes if they are legalized. However, the facts show this is not the case. Suppressors are rarely used in crimes, according to the Western Criminology Review. After a review of ten years of criminal prosecution by the federal government, they found, on average, only “30-40 total cases per year” of a suppressor being used in connection with a crime. That’s less than 1% of federal prosecutions, considering each year there are between 75,000 and 80,000 federal criminal prosecutions by the federal government. Additionally, those charged with using a suppressor in a crime were often charged after an illegal suppressor was found during a lawful search and not necessarily during the commission of a violent crime.
-
...
-
Some have also argued that suppressors would be used in more crimes if they are legalized. However, the facts show this is not the case. Suppressors are rarely used in crimes, according to the Western Criminology Review. After a review of ten years of criminal prosecution by the federal government, they found, on average, only “30-40 total cases per year” of a suppressor being used in connection with a crime. That’s less than 1% of federal prosecutions, considering each year there are between 75,000 and 80,000 federal criminal prosecutions by the federal government. Additionally, those charged with using a suppressor in a crime were often charged after an illegal suppressor was found during a lawful search and not necessarily during the commission of a violent crime.
I think we would see a rise in their use in crimes if legalized here, but I suspect it would be marginal.
-
I think we would see a rise in their use in crimes if legalized here, but I suspect it would be marginal.
No. That's the mentality that the anti gun crowd has.. If legal in Hawaii, the suppressors would be owned by people who registered them with the ATF and paid a $200 for each one. People who own legal NFA items in general don't use those items in crime pretty much at all. If a criminal wants a suppressor in Hawaii, they will just make it like they already can and have. I am positive there are a ton of unregistered suppressors in Hawaii. Making them legal for law abiding citizens to own won't raise there use in crime at all. I wish this mentality towards NFA in Hawaii would change. I wish I could bring my machine gun collection to Hawaii, but fear that will never happen because of mentality like this in the state. :(
-
No. That's the mentality that the anti gun crowd has.. If legal in Hawaii, the suppressors would be owned by people who registered them with the ATF and paid a $200 for each one. People who own legal NFA items in general don't use those items in crime pretty much at all. If a criminal wants a suppressor in Hawaii, they will just make it like they already can and have. I am positive there are a ton of unregistered suppressors in Hawaii. Making them legal for law abiding citizens to own won't raise there use in crime at all. I wish this mentality towards NFA in Hawaii would change. I wish I could bring my machine gun collection to Hawaii, but fear that will never happen because of mentality like this in the state. :(
I think the increase in presence would mean we would see an increase in their use simply because they would be much more available. Now your average legal gun owner isn't going to turn into a murder just because he has a silencer, but the increased availability means it would be easier for someone bad to get one. Even if it is just one stollen from a legal gun owner. But I don't think it would amount to a significant number of crimes.
That being said I haven't seen much in the way of data about silencer use in crimes to prove it one way or another. I would think that when it comes to using a silencer to commit a crime, it would be a hard thing to study. If someone shoots an individual with a silencer equipped, is forensics able to tell the a silencer was used? How would we collect accurate data on when and how silencers were used in murders? (Absent a witness or video camera capturing the incident)
-
You can send a pre-written letter of support to Tulsi just by filling out a form and clicking your mouse a coupla times, here is the link: :thumbsup:
http://www.fightthenoise.org/take-action/?mc_cid=33096ab366&mc_eid=5e38917178
-
No. That's the mentality that the anti gun crowd has.. If legal in Hawaii, the suppressors would be owned by people who registered them with the ATF and paid a $200 for each one. People who own legal NFA items in general don't use those items in crime pretty much at all. If a criminal wants a suppressor in Hawaii, they will just make it like they already can and have. I am positive there are a ton of unregistered suppressors in Hawaii. Making them legal for law abiding citizens to own won't raise there use in crime at all. I wish this mentality towards NFA in Hawaii would change. I wish I could bring my machine gun collection to Hawaii, but fear that will never happen because of mentality like this in the state. :(
This^^^ And as has been said above by Ren the general misconceptions and misinformation regarding silencers/suppressors is grossly overstated. People are afraid of things they have no knowledge about its especially rampant here in HI regarding anything firearm related. As Ren found out through Experience silencer's are not silent. And depending on the type of ammo used it still has a sound signature that is very audible depending on caliber and velocity. Even sub sonic ammo while quieter still has a sound again depending on caliber will dictate the amount of sound created. And like Ren I speak from experience too bad those who make the decisions that matter don't know jack!!! And they use the general public's ignorance to their advantage by spewing unfounded rubbish and/or claims and misinformation. And when the general public's main information on silencer's/suppressors is Hollywood its not hard to see why.
-
You can send a pre-written letter of support to Tulsi
(http://i.imgur.com/3UwUaw2.gif)
(http://i.giphy.com/O5NyCibf93upy.gif)
(http://i.giphy.com/Ic97mPViHEG5O.gif)
-
I apologize for being so cynical.
I agree that this is a valid 1st step.
I was disappointed with my first experience with a suppressor. I thought it was broken as I could still hear something :shake:
Imagine mandating suppressor use at the range to minimize noise to our HK citizens. Night shoots.
Just wait a little longer. The more you pass 30 the quieter it's going to get....................
-
Just wait a little longer. The more you pass 30 the quieter it's going to get....................
Silence is golden.......
-
No. That's the mentality that the anti gun crowd has.. If legal in Hawaii, the suppressors would be owned by people who registered them with the ATF and paid a $200 for each one. People who own legal NFA items in general don't use those items in crime pretty much at all. If a criminal wants a suppressor in Hawaii, they will just make it like they already can and have. I am positive there are a ton of unregistered suppressors in Hawaii. Making them legal for law abiding citizens to own won't raise there use in crime at all. I wish this mentality towards NFA in Hawaii would change. I wish I could bring my machine gun collection to Hawaii, but fear that will never happen because of mentality like this in the state. :(
Think this through. By and large, guns used in crimes are neither legally registered to, nor legally possessed by, the criminals who used them. So where do criminals get guns? An awful lot of the guns that end up in criminal hands were stolen from law-abiding citizens. If silencers become commonplace amongst law-abiding citizens, of course they are going to be used in more crimes! Rather than deny the obvious, why not work on methods of rational defense? How about the fact that silencers make guns less concealable? How about asking how many violent crimes are reported because of the sound of gunshots? How about comparisons of noise levels between silenced and unsilenced guns?
This is the thing I've talked about several times before. Lying because you want it to be true is never going to convince the other side that you're right. After all, they're lying because they want it to be true as well! Own the truth, and point out why "so what?" is actually the appropriate response.
-
Think this through. By and large, guns used in crimes are neither legally registered to, nor legally possessed by, the criminals who used them. So where do criminals get guns? An awful lot of the guns that end up in criminal hands were stolen from law-abiding citizens. If silencers become commonplace amongst law-abiding citizens, of course they are going to be used in more crimes! Rather than deny the obvious, why not work on methods of rational defense? How about the fact that silencers make guns less concealable? How about asking how many violent crimes are reported because of the sound of gunshots? How about comparisons of noise levels between silenced and unsilenced guns?
This is the thing I've talked about several times before. Lying because you want it to be true is never going to convince the other side that you're right. After all, they're lying because they want it to be true as well! Own the truth, and point out why "so what?" is actually the appropriate response.
According to a new study that actually asked criminals in prison (go figure!), the guns they carried were from various sources:
Their primary findings were that criminals get guns from their “social network,” i.e. friends and persons known to them, but generally not from the various legal sources available to them.
They do not buy guns in gun stores. They do not get guns at gun shows. They do not buy them from Internet sources. The study even found that criminals only rarely steal guns.
Maybe some part of the guns used were stolen and THEN found their way to a friend/known person. So, I guess we'd need to track the pedigree of each gun used in crime back to it's post-manufacturing origin to see if it was actually acquired legally and then stolen from that owner.
Once it is "on the street" and in the hands of someone illegally, it could be passed around many times. The study also confirmed that the criminals do not hold onto guns very long for fear of being in possession of a weapon linked to other crimes. They have a need, find a source, use the gun, then get rid of it. If it was used in a murder, they'd be smart to toss it in a river somewhere.
I would like to have a better explanation as to where the gun came from prior to the source having it in their possession. If it was stolen, do we count that? It would support your belief that "an awful lot" of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal purchasers. I just don't know that we'll find that gun data nationally.
I read there are proposed measures to require all guns used in crimes be traced back to the last known owner (REGISTRY!!!!), but if the numbers are properly removed, that's going to be ineffective.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150904/study-criminals-don-t-get-guns-from-legal-sources
-
According to a new study that actually asked criminals in prison (go figure!), the guns they carried were from various sources:
Maybe some part of the guns used were stolen and THEN found their way to a friend/known person. So, I guess we'd need to track the pedigree of each gun used in crime back to it's post-manufacturing origin to see if it was actually acquired legally and then stolen from that owner.
Once it is "on the street" and in the hands of someone illegally, it could be passed around many times. The study also confirmed that the criminals do not hold onto guns very long for fear of being in possession of a weapon linked to other crimes. They have a need, find a source, use the gun, then get rid of it. If it was used in a murder, they'd be smart to toss it in a river somewhere.
I would like to have a better explanation as to where the gun came from prior to the source having it in their possession. If it was stolen, do we count that? It would support your belief that "an awful lot" of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal purchasers. I just don't know that we'll find that gun data nationally.
I read there are proposed measures to require all guns used in crimes be traced back to the last known owner (REGISTRY!!!!), but if the numbers are properly removed, that's going to be ineffective.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150904/study-criminals-don-t-get-guns-from-legal-sources
Yeah, there's a reason I went with "an awful lot" rather than tossing out a statistic, because I've not been able to find a believable statistic. But a little reason (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=20799.msg186961#msg186961) tells us that it would be a rare person who would walk into a gun store, buy a new firearm, provide legal identification, pass NCIS, then go out and use that firearm in a crime.
-
Yeah, there's a reason I went with "an awful lot" rather than tossing out a statistic, because I've not been able to find a believable statistic. But a little reason (https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=20799.msg186961#msg186961) tells us that it would be a rare person who would walk into a gun store, buy a new firearm, provide legal identification, pass NCIS, then go out and use that firearm in a crime.
True, BUT ....
The instate secondhand gun market requires no background checks in most places. Most states do not require guns being transferred instate to be recorded or registered to the new owner. There is nothing in those states stopping "friend/known person" from obtaining a gun from a classified ad in another town, then selling/giving/lending that firearm to said criminal. Also, even though the criminal got caught, that doesn't mean the firearm used was ever recovered. It may have been sold again, given back to the source he obtained it from, or "lost" in a place it'll never be found. If it's still on the street, it's now potentially going to be used and passed around who knows how many times for various crimes (robberies, rival gang shootings, whatever). One gun, never stolen, but not in possession of the original buyer.
I can come up with more potential scenarios, but you get the picture. Just because Hawaii has strict tracking, and no one on here would ever sell a gun without reporting the transfer, doesn't mean everyone would do that. If they ever were asked by HPD where their gun is, they can always say it must have been stolen and he never noticed it missing (not stolen, but reported as would add a false report to the "stolen" numbers).
-
Read through the article but have to question the results of the study.
"Criminals only rarely steal guns"
The man arrested for having 10,000 stolen guns would seem to suggest otherwise, though that is of course an anecdotal incident. If they don't buy them through legal sources and they don't steal them, then how do they get them? The article does not address this unfortunately. It suggest a "social network" but where do the social network get them from? Does the social network get them through legal means because if they don't then they are essentially criminals too. A chicken or the egg of sorts.
Perhaps I should ask the question in a different way, do you believe that the number of silencers possessed by criminals will remain the same regardless of whether they become legal here or not?
-
Read through the article but have to question the results of the study.
"Criminals only rarely steal guns"
The man arrested for having 10,000 stolen guns would seem to suggest otherwise, though that is of course an anecdotal incident. If they don't buy them through legal sources and they don't steal them, then how do they get them? The article does not address this unfortunately. It suggest a "social network" but where do the social network get them from? Does the social network get them through legal means because if they don't then they are essentially criminals too. A chicken or the egg of sorts.
Perhaps I should ask the question in a different way, do you believe that the number of silencers possessed by criminals will remain the same regardless of whether they become legal here or not?
Once again, the rule will have exceptions. If you only look at outliers, you will NEVER be able to draw correct conclusions from statistics.
Everyone who studied statistics should understand that.
-
Read through the article but have to question the results of the study.
"Criminals only rarely steal guns"
The man arrested for having 10,000 stolen guns would seem to suggest otherwise, though that is of course an anecdotal incident. If they don't buy them through legal sources and they don't steal them, then how do they get them? The article does not address this unfortunately. It suggest a "social network" but where do the social network get them from? Does the social network get them through legal means because if they don't then they are essentially criminals too. A chicken or the egg of sorts.
Perhaps I should ask the question in a different way, do you believe that the number of silencers possessed by criminals will remain the same regardless of whether they become legal here or not?
Were any of the 10,000 guns used in a shooting or other gun crime? If not, that example is a completely irrelevant example.
-
The instate secondhand gun market requires no background checks in most places. Most states do not require guns being transferred instate to be recorded or registered to the new owner. There is nothing in those states stopping "friend/known person" from obtaining a gun from a classified ad in another town, then selling/giving/lending that firearm to said criminal.
Does not this then become an argument that second hand sales should be tracked?
The logic is this, lets say I am a legal firearm owner and have a legally purchased firearm. I decide to sell it on the second hand market and someone wants to buy it from me. Absent some sort of a background check I am unable to determine whether the buyer is allowed to own it and I may end up selling a gun to a criminal. How do you suggest one addresses this problem?
-
Were any of the 10,000 guns used in a shooting or other gun crime? If not, that example is a completely irrelevant example.
Hard to tell, as you suggested guns are used then traded. We won't know until a pretty extensive police investigation is done.
-
Does not this then become an argument that second hand sales should be tracked?
The logic is this, lets say I am a legal firearm owner and have a legally purchased firearm. I decide to sell it on the second hand market and someone wants to buy it from me. Absent some sort of a background check I am unable to determine whether the buyer is allowed to own it and I may end up selling a gun to a criminal. How do you suggest one addresses this problem?
You are way off topic. This is not about new gun control laws for secondhand sales. it's about NFA items and Tom's comment that an awful lot of guns used in crimes are stolen by the criminals.
:stopjack:
-
Hard to tell, as you suggested guns are used then traded. We won't know until a pretty extensive police investigation is done.
If you don't know, then making an argument based on no facts won't support your statement that this case "would seem to suggest otherwise."
No, it doesn't. It suggests only that they MAY have been. You are grasping at straws.
-
You are way off topic. This is not about new gun control laws for secondhand sales. it's about NFA items and Tom's comment that an awful lot of guns used in crimes are stolen by the criminals.
:stopjack:
I was supporting Tom's argument that:
"If silencers become commonplace amongst law-abiding citizens, of course they are going to be used in more crimes!"
The analogous part is to how legal silencers might end up in the hands of people who cannot have them.
-
I was supporting Tom's argument that:
"If silencers become commonplace amongst law-abiding citizens, of course they are going to be used in more crimes!"
The analogous part is to how legal silencers might end up in the hands of people who cannot have them.
That has nothing to do with background checks. Secondhand sales legal requirements are unenforceable if the buyer fails to register, uses a fake ID, has a straw buyer, etc, etc, The seller has no FFL license, and therefore under fewer federal restrictions.
If you really need to discuss this in detail, why not start another thread.
-
Perhaps I should ask the question in a different way, do you believe that the number of silencers possessed by criminals will remain the same regardless of whether they become legal here or not?
No. I think it's all a matter of availability. Right now, there is no availability, so the use of silencers in the commission of a crime is unheard-of. When availability rises to "some," the use of silencers in crimes will be "rare." When availability rises to "commonplace," the crime statistic will rise to "not uncommon." And by the time legal silencers are as commonplace as rubber slippahs, the crime statistic will approach "nearly half."
Whatever mechanisms exist for putting firearms in the hands of criminals, these same mechanisms will presumably function for other items, including silencers.
Note that FBI statistics do tell us that handguns are far and away the weapon of choice to use in murders (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls). This implies a degree of selectivity and practicality in the criminal element. Those same characteristics are going to suggest that a silenced handgun could be a "better" choice.
Again, though, I don't feel this is the argument we should be making. It doesn't matter if we're talking about handguns or oranges, someone is going to find a way to abuse them. We should instead focus on things like cost/benefit analysis and overall statistics of abuse rates.
-
No. I think it's all a matter of availability. Right now, there is no availability, so the use of silencers in the commission of a crime is unheard-of. When availability rises to "some," the use of silencers in crimes will be "rare." When availability rises to "commonplace," the crime statistic will rise to "not uncommon." And by the time legal silencers are as commonplace as rubber slippahs, the crime statistic will approach "nearly half."
Whatever mechanisms exist for putting firearms in the hands of criminals, these same mechanisms will presumably function for other items, including silencers.
Note that FBI statistics do tell us that handguns are far and away the weapon of choice to use in murders (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls). This implies a degree of selectivity and practicality in the criminal element. Those same characteristics are going to suggest that a silenced handgun could be a "better" choice.
Again, though, I don't feel this is the argument we should be making. It doesn't matter if we're talking about handguns or oranges, someone is going to find a way to abuse them. We should instead focus on things like cost/benefit analysis and overall statistics of abuse rates.
I agree. I think that the rate would go up, but I think that it would not represent a significant increase.
-
Regarding the use of suppressors in crimes, they are incredibly simple to make and can be done with some simple off the shelf parts with the help of some instructions on the internet. Really, if criminals thought it were better to use a suppressor, they would be doing it already.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Gs5aEUo.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/fYu26JI.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/ezU6lie.png)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwj4uoaL8urIAhUP_mMKHXi5CpY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.guntrustlawyer.com%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F02%2FSilencer-caselaw.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHMk-VDxcpd_sMMgrE-d5deMdXNyA&sig2=jZW_YwYRaeM6LHFL0pozhw
Bottom line: If silenced firearms are so much more dangerous than unsilenced, why is the rate of discharge for unsilenced guns during the commission of a crime 2.5 X higher than silenced weapons? Unsilenced weapons were used in federal crime 3 times more often. In California, there were 3 or 4 cases in which a silencer was used in a murder out of 1,700 murder cases prosecuted over 5 years (2000 - 2004).
Silencers exist even without them being legal everywhere. They are simple to make and use, you can make one from an oil filter, and so forth. For that matter, a pillow makes a nice silencer.
The overwhelming majority of convictions related to silencers are for illegal possession, and those charges are normally added to the charges of the crime for which the arrest was made in the first place ... drugs, illegal gun possession, etc..
So, the last argument would be we don't know what we don't hear. If silencers make it more likely the crime goes unnoticed and gives the criminal time to leave the scene and avoid arrest, then how do we know how many times that's happened?
Well, unless the existence of a silencer "convinced" a criminal to commit the crime based on the increased chances of getting away with it, these unsolved crimes only affect solving the crimes. It's more likely the crime would have been committed regardless of a silencer being available. Leaving the scene and escaping arrest completely are two different things. Using a silencer in no way avoids ballistics, forensics, and eye witness evidence.
-
Does anyone know if a silencer leaves any forensic evidence, such that someone could tell whether a silencer was used or not?
I know silencers get dirty so that might stop some of the powder burns and particle imbedding you get from close range gunshot wounds. Not sure if it would affect the forensic investigations.
I do agree with you Maui that a criminal is probably going to commit the crime either way, but the argument can still be made that we would want the person stopped or caught sooner. If there was a mass shooting at some college campus and the shooter used a silencer, I am sure someone would claim that the silencer made it so that people had less advanced warning to flee. Though again, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of gun murders.
-
Does anyone know if a silencer leaves any forensic evidence, such that someone could tell whether a silencer was used or not?
I know silencers get dirty so that might stop some of the powder burns and particle imbedding you get from close range gunshot wounds. Not sure if it would affect the forensic investigations.
I do agree with you Maui that a criminal is probably going to commit the crime either way, but the argument can still be made that we would want the person stopped or caught sooner. If there was a mass shooting at some college campus and the shooter used a silencer, I am sure someone would claim that the silencer made it so that people had less advanced warning to flee. Though again, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of gun murders.
One more time .....
(1) silencers are not totally silent.
(2) silencers are not illegal in all states. They can be manufactured or purchased with an NFA tax payment and proper paperwork in 39 states, and the list is growing.
(3) silencers are manufactured illegally, just like many guns are.
(4) silencers are available to any criminal that wants to use them for mass shootings or any other crime.
So, if a college shooter wanted to use a silencer to make it "so that people had less advanced warning to flee". there is no reason to believe it hasn't happened simply because the mass shooters couldn't get their hands on one. The obvious reason this scenario hasn't happened is because it makes no sense.
When was the last mass shooting in which the primary weapon was a .22LR weapon? Any larger caliber gun than that will not be anywhere close to silent.
No matter how many movies have silencers that make a gun sound like an airy fart, it's just not reality when you pick a 9MM pistol or larger caliber.
First, the way sound is measured is complicated. Most commonly, sound is measured by the decibel level, named after Alexander Graham Bell. The hard part is that decibels work on a logarithmic scale. This means that 20 dB is not twice as loud as 10 dB—it’s actually about 10 times as loud. But we won’t get involved in all that. Just realize that a few decibels can make a huge difference in perceived noise.
Second, you have to worry about duration of exposure to loud noise. One momentary “exposure” to a 140-dB sound can permanently damage your hearing. But so can repeated exposure to sound levels less than that. In fact, OSHA limits average sound exposure over an eight-hour shift to 85 dB—not a whole lot more than the noise of a vacuum cleaner.
Now back to guns. The venerable 1911, firing a 230-grain .45 ACP cartridge, will generate about 162 dB of sound. One shot near unprotected ears will cause permanent hearing loss. Each additional exposure will add cumulative hearing loss. The problem is, you won’t know you’ve damaged your hearing until it’s too late, and nothing can be done to repair the damage. Always wear hearing protection, folks!
Putting a suppressor on that 1911 will reduce the sound to somewhere around 133 dB. That’s below the OSHA maximum exposure level for an “impulse noise.” But you don’t want to expose your ears to a continuous barrage of 133-dB noise, either.
The bottom line is that silencers are great, and a massive improvement to hearing safety. Just be smart and use hearing protection anyway when firing suppressed. A shot or two here and there probably won’t hurt you, but you don’t want to spend hours at a shooting range surrounded by noise in the 130-dB range.
-
Does anyone know if a silencer leaves any forensic evidence, such that someone could tell whether a silencer was used or not?
I know silencers get dirty so that might stop some of the powder burns and particle imbedding you get from close range gunshot wounds. Not sure if it would affect the forensic investigations.
I do agree with you Maui that a criminal is probably going to commit the crime either way, but the argument can still be made that we would want the person stopped or caught sooner. If there was a mass shooting at some college campus and the shooter used a silencer, I am sure someone would claim that the silencer made it so that people had less advanced warning to flee. Though again, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of gun murders.
Most modern, professionally manufactured silencers leave no additional marks or embedded baffle or cleaner materials on the projectile. The amount of filth on a bullet will vary based, among other things, the number of rounds put through the silencer and whether it was ever cleaned, the amount of clothing a bullet might pass through, and the type of ammo and powder being used.
As long as there is no cleaner material touching the ammo as it passes (which slows the bullet, affecting both accuracy and effectiveness/lethality) and the silencer is properly affixed and aligned with the bore, there should be nothing on the bullet that the unsilenced gun would not have left.
-
Silence is golden.......
Married? ;)