Thinking aloud here.

I wonder if the noise suppressor ban was framed in terms of a safety/health issue that would be stronger legal grounds to challenge it?

Consider for example this scenario

1. Intruder breaks into your home
2. Pulls out a knife, approaches your pregnant wife.
3. You proceed to blast him into oblivion
4. You and your wife (And possibly your unborn child?) suffer permanent hearing loss
5. You sue the state over the injury.

Now of course this is not exactly a scenario on-demand, but there are lots in between and it's totally plausible (The above is just more viral-worthy from a marketing/PSA perspective).

Also, framing it this way seizes the narrative. The core argument is one of safety and wellness. "We want to protect the health of our keiki, blah blah blah".

Basically take the commercial format Everytown used and change the ending (with a DGU) but now with a child that is now deaf and crying parents.. blah blah..

Thoughts?

Thinking aloud here.

I wonder if the noise suppressor ban was framed in terms of a safety/health issue that would be stronger legal grounds to challenge it?

Consider for example this scenario

1. Intruder breaks into your home
2. Pulls out a knife, approaches your pregnant wife.
3. You proceed to blast him into oblivion
4. You and your wife (And possibly your unborn child?) suffer permanent hearing loss - This is my primary reason for not taking out the garbage...
5. You sue the state over the injury.

Now of course this is not exactly a scenario on-demand, but there are lots in between and it's totally plausible (The above is just more viral-worthy from a marketing/PSA perspective).

Also, framing it this way seizes the narrative. The core argument is one of safety and wellness. "We want to protect the health of our keiki, blah blah blah".

Basically take the commercial format Everytown used and change the ending (with a DGU) but now with a child that is now deaf and crying parents.. blah blah..

Thoughts?

I think we'll have to make it about something more than just hearing loss by itself.  Maybe if we combined it with another issue or attacked the reasons why we can't have suppressors here.  I would use Washington state as a template, they recently got suppressors and SBRs if I'm not mistaken.

I believe that the people who decide to ban suppressors have never actually heard a gunshot up close in real life, and assume suppressors turn gunfire into soft muffled kitten farts like in the movies.

I think if we go them all in a room, and fired a single shot unsuppressed, and a single shot suppressed, they would all change their minds.

Can you believe that in many parts of England and Europe, suppressors are actually REQUIRED to hunt on certain lands.  They are concerned with noise pollution, and startling the other wildlife in the area for other hunters.

IMHO the idea of a suppressor saving hearing in a limited round engagement in one's home is not a good argument.

It makes much more sense if you fire a lot of rounds, such as a range.  Also at that situation not all people might have the proper PPE (such as Japanese visitors)........it's those people who would be affected. 

That is a pretty terrible argument. No offense but it is really weak. Otherwise all police officers should have them since they often have to shoot without hearing in a  deadly force scenario.

That is a pretty terrible argument. No offense but it is really weak. Otherwise all police officers should have them since they often have to shoot without hearing in a  deadly force scenario.

Cops depend on the noise from their firearm to intimidate people into compliance.   

A nice, quiet report from a fired weapon would lose that intimidation factor.

Cops depend on the noise from their firearm to intimidate people into compliance.   

A nice, quiet report from a fired weapon would lose that intimidation factor.

I always figured the bullet hitting them was the intimidation factor, I guess I had it all wrong.

I always figured the bullet hitting them was the intimidation factor, I guess I had it all wrong.

Considering the average "shots fired at bad guys"-to-"bad guys hit" ratio for Cops is less than 50%, they can't count on the bullet stopping anyone other than bystanders.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

That is a pretty terrible argument. No offense but it is really weak. Otherwise all police officers should have them since they often have to shoot without hearing in a  deadly force scenario.

We can always cite the fact the number one injury for returning vets is hearing loss.

We can always cite the fact the number one injury for returning vets is hearing loss.

A better argument but the simple obvious reply is buy hearing protection.

Considering the average "shots fired at bad guys"-to-"bad guys hit" ratio for Cops is less than 50%, they can't count on the bullet stopping anyone other than bystanders.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/

Considering all that goes into  police shooting 50% might not be a bad number.

Considering all that goes into  police shooting 50% might not be a bad number.

I've tried to figure out what "all goes into police shooting", but I'm lost.  All what?

I've tried to figure out what "all goes into police shooting", but I'm lost.  All what?

Consider that many police shootings involve the following factors, all of which impair accurate fire:
-close proximity to the threat (most police shootings occur within 7' IIRC)
-sudden presentation of threat (not obvious and predictable)
-adrenaline rush from scary and/or dangerous situation
-has to make a lethal force decision within a matter of seconds
-liability concerns (policy, the media, lawsuits, public image, etc)

Consider that many police shootings involve the following factors, all of which impair accurate fire:
-close proximity to the threat (most police shootings occur within 7' IIRC)
-sudden presentation of threat (not obvious and predictable)
-adrenaline rush from scary and/or dangerous situation
-has to make a lethal force decision within a matter of seconds
-liability concerns (policy, the media, lawsuits, public image, etc)

I have news for you. There is nothing in that list that is unique to shootings involving police.

If you think 50% is a reasonable hit rate for police firing a weapon, that is your opinion.

My opinion is, if that's as good as they can hit on average, we should be issuing non lethal measures and shotguns exclusively!  I don't want to rely on that kind of accuracy when a cop draws his sidearm in my vicinity!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/

its mathematics:
suppressor / gun = muffler / car

it makes the gun more quiet, just like a muffler does on a car
you can run any car without a muffler, it'll just be louder.
every car has a muffler off the assembly line.
on city streets, muffler on a car is a welcome piece of equipment bc it makes it more quiet, everyone can appreciate that.

suppressor does not make the gun any more deadly, or any more unsafe, only more quiet.
I don't see any logical arguement that makes the suppressor into something bad for society, it can only make it better for society bc it cuts down on noise.

I believe that the people who decide to ban suppressors have never actually heard a gunshot up close in real life, and assume suppressors turn gunfire into soft muffled kitten farts like in the movies.
I think if we go them all in a room, and fired a single shot unsuppressed, and a single shot suppressed, they would all change their minds.

Can you believe that in many parts of England and Europe, suppressors are actually REQUIRED to hunt on certain lands.  They are concerned with noise pollution, and startling the other wildlife in the area for other hunters.

I was next to a guy shooting a suppressed .308 at a range in Alaska.  I was just getting my stuff together on the bench and saw that he had a can and didn't rush to put on my ear pro.  That was the first time I'd been next to a rifle with a can and I figured it would be pretty quiet.  It was a LOT louder than I thought it would be.  Since then, I've shot ARs with cans and while they are ok without ear pro, they aren't THAT quiet, especially when shooting steel plates. 

its mathematics:
suppressor / gun = muffler / car

it makes the gun more quiet, just like a muffler does on a car
you can run any car without a muffler, it'll just be louder.
every car has a muffler off the assembly line.
on city streets, muffler on a car is a welcome piece of equipment bc it makes it more quiet, everyone can appreciate that.

suppressor does not make the gun any more deadly, or any more unsafe, only more quiet.
I don't see any logical arguement that makes the suppressor into something bad for society, it can only make it better for society bc it cuts down on noise.

Sadly, logic is often seemingly thrown out the window when arguing discussing firearms.  It's impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable. . .

Sadly, logic is often seemingly thrown out the window when arguing discussing firearms.  It's impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable. . .

Yes, logic and "facts" are in short supply on the "commonsense gun safety regulations" side. Also at play here, I believe, is the movie-based myth that a firearm having a "silencer" goes "pffft" (10 decibels or maybe even less) when fired... thus making it possible to commit gun crimes without the person in the next room knowing about it. And we can't make it easier for criminals to commit gun crimes, even if the whole premise and facts are wrong. End of discussion. Now fork over $200 to our government and maybe they will allow you to purchase and use ONE.

A lot of laws are made by legislators who know nothing about the subject. Well, they claim to know about the subject - from watching movies and we all know how accurate movies are!
How many of them actually think bullets can curve around an object ala Angelina Jolie flick of wrist?

I have news for you. There is nothing in that list that is unique to shootings involving police.

If you think 50% is a reasonable hit rate for police firing a weapon, that is your opinion.

My opinion is, if that's as good as they can hit on average, we should be issuing non lethal measures and shotguns exclusively!  I don't want to rely on that kind of accuracy when a cop draws his sidearm in my vicinity!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/times-square-police-shooting/

Rather my point is that most shooters would have pretty bad accuracy rates under such extreme stresses. Unless someone trains in tactical shooting under stressful situations their accuracy will take a big dive when placed in such a life or death situation.