Cold day in hell for us here, regardless of the benefit to our hearing.



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 ...

 

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 ? 

How many of those shootings utilized a suppressor ? 

Only the ones we didn't hear about!

How many of those shootings utilized a suppressor ? 

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!   

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!   

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.