Two parts of your statement again show your ignorance. Any firearm used at a significant distance is less likely to be recognized as a gunshot. I frequently shoot at a 1000 yards, you would not recognize it as a gunshot until the bullet hit you. The decibel scale is not logarithmic and a firearm without a suppressor is not 1000 times quieter, neither is it the other way around. I work for a defense contractor, we test AR10 style rifles suppressed and not suppressed all the time. Again you show your ignorance of firearms.
As they say, the one that gets you you won't hear... and it has nothing to do with a suppressor, just pure physics...
1,000 yards? That's an extreme example and an attempt to muddy the waters. Whatever you do does not appear to involve much math.
"Katie Peters, a spokeswoman for ARS [Americans for a Responsible Solution], supplied an article that stated: 'The average suppression level, according to independent tests done on a variety of commercially available suppressors, is around 30 dB, which is around the same reduction level of typical ear protection gear often used when firing guns.' " https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...with-a-silencer-quiet/?utm_term=.17ac763a6803 No one can prove what will happen in the future, but I have made logical arguments explaining why suppressors can put potential victims in a more vulnerable position. We have the NFA and a low rate of suppressors being utilized in crimes. Let's not try to fix what isn't broken. Let's not take the risk of making legislative changes which could lead to more people being victimized.
Please prove that the NFA reduced crime. Edit: Why are you telling me to don't fix what isn't broken when you're the one saying we need more gun control?
I started this thread and I am not going to move the goal posts. My position has been clear from the beginning. If you're talking about gun crime in general then it is broken. The US has way more gun crime than other developed nations. So what I am trying to fix IS broken.
What goalposts have been moved besides yours? actually when you exclude suicides we are pretty equal with the rest of the world.
Fact. The overriding truth in the initial stage of a firefight is complete chaos amid a cacophony of sound.
Lets do a thought experiment. Knives can kill soundlessly. Suppose a slasher begins stabbing in a classroom. The sound of a blade penetrating flesh is probably around 1 decibal. So to the students in nearby classrooms, the sound would be .5 decibals at most. So how is it ethical for us to not propose legislation banning knives, which could be putting the lives of schoolchildren in more danger during mass knifings?
Man you really have no idea what you are talking about...and 1000 yards is not an extreme distance, you are the one that stated 'a significant distance'. But yes I use math and sophisticated instruments that measure decibels at the ear of the shooter, 10 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards and 200 yards from the muzzle. I am a tool and die maker, I frequently use math with tolerances from +/- .0002 of an inch. So yeah I use math a lot, and I'll believe our measuring instruments before I believe someone like you that obviously has little to no experience with firearms.
30 decibels is hardly a 1000 times quieter, you just proved my point that you are completely ignorant of firearms.
An unlikely and never-has-occurred scenario is not "logic". It's supposition. Learn to tell the difference. Calling it logic is abuse of language.
BS. Anyone who has been in an elementary school knows that you can hear other classrooms when kids are excited and noisy, I don't care what your "STC ratings" claim. And this is the age of the "open classroom" in which classes share a large room which can be partitioned by a sliding panel if needed. And if the concern is what might put the lives of schoolchildren in more danger, then we better just shut down public schools in all the inner cities because graduating illiterates does more damage to children than firearms.
I don't have to understand anything about firearms to understand the decibel scale. You're desperately grasping at straws.
So is your point that suppressors should remain on NFA because people further away can't hear the gunshots as well?
1,000 yards is certainly not representative of the typical distance between a shooter and his intended victim. You seem to have forgotten the context of what we're debating. You don't get to win a debate just because you're a self-proclaimed expert. That's not the way it works here. If you can't make a logical, coherent argument in support of your position then you fail.
Man you have refuted your own arguments, first it was that it would make a shot unrecognizable at a significant distance...what is your definition of distance? Is it ten yards (typical handgun encounter), 100 yards for rifle or what? Then you go on to say that a suppressed firearm is 1000 times quieter than a regular shot because it is logarythmic instead of linear. Then you quote an article that states that most suppressors only reduce the decibels by 30 which is comparable to hearing protection. You have no argument to refute because of your ignorance of firearms.
So is your point that suppressors should remain on NFA because people further away can't hear the gunshots as well?
How have you refuted anything I've said? Claiming that I'm ignorant about firearms doesn't count. You rely too much on personal attacks which is probably because you don't have much of an argument. You're pretty transparent.
Your argument is lost. Supressors will still be controlled at the State level, and serial numbered and subject to a background check the same as a handgun is and will not be sold to anyone prohibited from owning firearms. So what is the problem here ?
Since you have demonstrated complete ignorance about suppressors, I'd say jmblt2000 thoughts carry significantly far more credibility than yours. If you have never fired a weapon with one or personally tested levels of perception as some here have, your only knowledge comes from others and considering your sources, it is doubtful they have firsthand knowledge. You are arguing from a complete base of ignorance and simply stated, an anti bias regardless. I have been waiting for thread from the left that optics should be banned because their use may improve accuracy and raise body counts...that is on an equivalent level silliness.
