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 
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 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 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.

 

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.

 

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.  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.  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.

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.