Incorrect. The inventor of the firearms suppressor, Hiram Maxim, stated that their creation was a matter of courtesy to those that were in the area, who had to put up with the muzzle report of a firearm being discharged. Except for the fact that they are not. Demonstrate the evidence of such. None of which changes the fact that a firearms suppressor does not render the muzzle report of a firearm as nearly silent. They do not work in the manner the entertainment media would have you believe. Meaning the terrorists in question were quite intellectually deficient if they believed a sound suppressor would do anything to assist them in their endeavors. "Dorner murdered four people and wounded several others and used silencers to help accomplish his deadly mission. According to a Police Foundation analysis of the attacks, Dorner killed Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence in a 'gang-style hit' while they sat in their car in a parking structure. Nothing but biased rhetoric. Even with firearm suppressors are not utilized in murders, even when the discharge is heard, many who are questioned will still claim that they saw nothing, and heard nothing, because they simply do not want to get involved, especially if they fear retaliation for speaking up. Which would indicate that the process involved for legally acquiring a firearms suppressor is ultimately useless, correct? What is the point of keeping them restricted in the current manner, if the current restrictions are apparently doing nothing whatsoever? Meaning that firearms safety is the same thing as indoctrination? None of which is factually accurate. Except for the fact that nothing that was said, is in any way factually accurate. It is nothing more than hyperbole based on feelings rather than logic.
Saying that it is as loud as a rock concert is misleading. The duration of the sound of a gunshot is extremely short (2 to 5 milliseconds) which means we perceive its volume to be less than it really is. Rock concerts also often take place in auditoriums which are designed to promote sound reverberation so that the loss of volume over distance is minimized. Otherwise there would be a loss of 75% in sound intensity each time you doubled your distance from the source of the sound. I'm simply saying that a gunshot coming from a gun with a silencer is less likely to be perceived as such and thus potential victims are less likely to be aware of what is happening.
Pray tell how much less likely? What degree are you referring to? Two percent? Four percent? Twenty five percent? One hundred percent? How much less perceptible is the discharge of a firearm when it is just below the decibel level that causing permanent physical harm? Is there any data to demonstrate just how much of a difference is made, to make that difference significant when it comes to identifying when someone is shooting at others?
Many gun banners have little clue about the technology and weapons they want to ban beyond what they learn from Hollywood... he's a classic case.
they don't know weapons, they don't know the law or how firearms are used what they do know is that gun owners and the NRA often vote against liberal politicians and that is what triggers them
Stupid banners of firearms and related accesories make stupid claims. Nothing of what they say is based on facts. Suppresors need not be regulated any more than ordinary firearms, so the banner movement has no real objections to this proposition.
And finally, Quality suppresors are easily made in any well equipped machine shop, and excessive regulation will NOT prevent that from happening, if Criminals and Terrorists want suppresors, they will steal them, make them or improvise.
You watch too many Hollywood movies, a suppressor does not silence a firearm. The best on the market lowers the gun shots to around 135 decibles, that is not quiet. It makes the shooting experience safer for the shooters hearing. People like you that have proabably (I'm guessing) never fired a firearm and only get their news from the left wing propaganda machines. You might want to go to a range and try shooting before you prove how ignorant you are.
It's only at that decibel level for people within the immediate vicinity of the firearm. The further away you are from the firearm the more the sound signal is spread out so the less intense it. Google "inverse square law".
Straw man. I didn't claim that suppressors completely silence a firearm. Do try to address the argument actually being made.
If this was such a concern then we should have more crimes committed with suppressors. And don't throw me the " our current laws makes it hard to get one" excuse. First off, please show me the suppressor crime rate before they were regulated. Secondly, anyone with a bit of know how can build their own using materials from Home Depot.
Does it really have to spelled out to you? Suppressors decrease the volume of a gunshot. Thus, potential victims (especially those at a distance) are less likely to be aware of what is happening during a mass shooting. Thus, they are less likely to flee the scene and call 911 and more likely to end up victims themselves.
If it isn't broke don't fix it. You guys are the ones trying to change the status quo so according to the rules of debate the burden of proof is on you guys to prove the NFA is ineffective. I think that the threat of serving up to ten years in a federal prison would be a significant deterrence.
Ugh... how did I miss this thread? In 22 pages Im sure its been mentioned ad-nauseum that silencers/suppressors only reduce muzzle noise and do not actually make a gunshot 'silent.' Anyone that has actually used one will understand the lunacy of the idea that they make getting away with shooting-crimes easier. Additionally, as with many gun laws, DIY dynamics render silencer laws inneffective. Not only are they incredibly easy to make, but they're incredibly difficult to legally differentiate from other unrestricted products. For example you can buy 'oil catches', a reservoir that attatches on the end of the barrel that catches oils and cleaners used to clean the barrel, and also makes an excellent suppressor/silencer (these are sold as 'not meant to be used as a silencer/suppressor wink wink, nudge nudge') without any regulation. Theres also flashlights that seem to be made with the express intent of being easily made into silencers,like the 'Greatlight':
It's been ineffective. crimes with suppressors have not changed when they were regulated. Also murder has a life sentence yet people do it anyway.
Anyone intent on murder won't give a Tinker's for obeying the law and likely won't spend the money on a suppressor which is likely to cost more than the gun they are mating it to and inhibits concealability. And why? As you say, you can get parts at Home Depot... easier yet... various oil filters can be quickly adapted and simply be disposed after use. YouTube provides the knowhow. Guns like the AR cannot be easily suppressed despite Hollywood's truth. In many mass shootings, many witnesses often report they didn't immediately recognize a gun was being fired... surprise, recognition context, etc.. or... the direction of a shooter...sound reflection, poor sound direction recognition...etc. ... Grassy Knoll, eh? I have been shot at many times from a distance and in some of those times rounds impacted near me before I heard the report. I heard the crack of the bullet first or an impact on an object ... the body and windows of car parked behind me in one instance. It took time to figure out what was happening, recast to seek cover and then to try to figure the basic direction of the shooter, and that was during a firefight when I was expecting to be shot at. Much of the opposition to suppressors has been formed by myth and speculation, Hollywood and the use of the miss used term 'silencer'. I suggest, most of the opposition is not related to function, but is political in nature... ban...regulate...'suppress' pun intended, anything to do with guns and the political views of the Left's opposition. Galileo exemplifies all of that in his comments.
Pray tell what difference does such make in the matter. Does the one operating the firearm have a lower expectation of safety than others? Which does nothing to suggest that those who are in the vicinity of a mass shooting being perpetrated with a suppressor would be unable to hear what is taking place. To what extent that it makes such actually significant? According to your own post, the further someone is from a firearm, the less intense the sound of the discharge, even without a suppressor being involved. Several examples were cited by yourself, showing that criminals did indeed procure firearm suppressors after going through the current legal process involved for acquiring them. If even that is insufficient for preventing criminals from acquiring them, there is no point in maintaining the restrictions any further.
I did address the issue, you seem to believe that people won't recognize a gunshot when suppressed...That is why they are called suppressors, not silencers...so your whole premise is false. At an industry average of 160 decibles, no one will not recognize it...After all I work in the industry. So you can keep repeating the drivel put out by the left wing press...it still makes you ignorant.
Again straw man. I said that a suppressed gun shot is less likely to be recognized as a gun shot especially by people at a significant distance. A suppressor results in a reduction of 30 dB which is very significant. The decibel scale is logarithmic not linear. So a gun without a suppressor is one thousand times quieter.
Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a shooter begins firing a handgun with a suppressor in a classroom. The gun shot is 125 dB in volume. Sound that passes through a classroom wall is reduced by 50 decibels (the recommended STC rating for classroom walls is about that). So to the students in the next classroom the suppressed gunshot would be 75 decibels at most- about as loud as a car travelling at 60 mph. The suppressed gunshot wouldn't be more than 25 decibels after passing through a second wall. The intensity of the sound signal would weaken over distance too. So a suppressed gun shot would likely not be louder than a whisper by that point in time and wouldn't be recognized as a gun shot. So how is it ethical for the NRA to propose this legislation which could put the lives of schoolchildren in more danger during mass shootings?
While I can never equate what you've gone through as a service member (I assume you are or were one), I can however attest that it takes awhile for me to realize what's happening too. I'm currently in the police academy and often times we'd go through the shoot house using simunition rounds. There was this one scenario where I was evacuating people from a bomb threat and while I was doing so one of the supposed victims pulled out a gun and shot me in the leg several times from like ten feet. At first I thought it was the responders up ahead shooting at the bad guy. Then I felt something hitting my leg and thought it was backup shooting from behind and the casings were hitting my leg. Finally I looked up and saw that it was the bad guy shooting me.
And you have evidence backing up your claims about the suppressor's sound level, right? Also, you have yet to prove that suppressor deregulation would cause an uprise in crime.
