Why the shooting in Virginia Beach sets an ominous precedent

Citing an ATF retiree on guns is not much different than citing a PETA member on the meat industry. People like him are a threat to public safety and an enemy of our constitutional rights.

 

The gun banners who want us so badly to emulate European gun control seem to ignore the fact that many European countries not only allow them to be used, but encourage or require their use for such things as hunting and target practice close to housing.

https://www.quora.com/Which-European-country-allows-to-buy-a-gun-suppressor

Just a blog, but I read this same info from other sources over the years.

I also read that in VA beach, the office building was a maze but the officers were able to zero in on the suspect by following the sound of gunfire.

 

That's not how it works. I gave you a CHART for god's sake.
130 decibels is still loud as ****. Like a jackhammer going off. Please educate yourself.

 

In an article appearing in the Virginian-Pilot, Chipman claims, "The gun does not sound gun-like. It takes the edge out of the tone . . . This is how I would describe it: It makes a gun sort of sound like a nail gun."

But, a suppressed .45 caliber pistol, like the one that is reported to have been used in Virginia Beach, is many times louder than a nail gun:

•A suppressed .45 caliber pistol produces about 130-135 dBA.

•A nail gun produces about 100 dBA.

•Decibels (dBA) are a logarithmic scale, so sound levels increase in a non-linear fashion. A 3 dBA increase doubles the sound pressure level. (Although most people perceive a 6 to 10 dBA increase as double the noise level.)

The 30-35 dBA difference between a nail gun and a suppressed pistol will be perceived as at least eight times louder to the human ear.

 

Logic and reality is lost in this discussion. It’s the same type of discussion that occurs when the left refers to civilian semi automatic rifle as a powerful military style assault weapon capable of shooting a bazillion rounds a minute, dangerous, in part because they may have a device that hides flash from the LE, an adjustable plastic stock, vertical grip, can mount a super deadly quiet bayonet for stealth, and is usually camouflaged for optimum concealment, in scary black.
The OP’s assertion, that “the shooting in Virginia Beach sets an ominous precedent” can be translated to mean, the Anti-Gun Clack can reach new levels of ignorance and leverage Hollywood myth as fact, with another line of attack to attempt to increase the demonization of guns rights advocates among the ill informed.
Funny though, the police said they followed the sound of gun fire to the shooter...they must have not got the post incident talking points memo to say such a thing.

 

How do you figure? If the Constitution can be interpreted to allow for something like gay marriage, which is not an enumerated right, or worse force citizens to buy products from private companies, how could a gun accessory really be something questionable?

 

Then that means you accept SCOTUS rulings above.

 

Let me sum up the responses for you

A) nooooooo
B) but good guy with a gun
C) I can’t dazzle with science so I will baffle with bullshit
D) guns wanna keep ma guns

 

You're the one that needs a lesson in logic and reality. A sound signal attenuates with distance. It also attenuates when passing through a wall. So a gun with a suppressor could very well be perceived as a nail gun by some potential victims according to the information posted by Well Bonded. Not every potential victim will be right next to the gun of the mass shooter. Let's say that the sound of a gun being fired is decreased by 30 decibels over a certain distance. So the sound of an unsuppressed gunshot would be about 130 decibels to potential victims at that distance from the gun. In contrast, the sound of a suppressed gunshot would be about 105 decibels by the time it reached potential victims at the same distance. Which sound is more likely to be perceived as a gunshot?

 

Such is an insufficient argument for continuing to attempt prohibiting the legal acquisition and use of sound suppressors. It is nothing more than speculation by those who have no understanding of basic physics.

 

It's a long process, took me over 9 months, but it's pretty simple, especially when you use a trust ao you can avoid that pesky chief LEO sign off. And the cost is minimal, only $200.


What this does say is that this guy planned this for nearly a year prior to actually carrying it out. This was no spur of the moment fit of rage or crime of opportunity. Much like Vegas, these are the types that probably couldnt have been stopped even with a complete ban on guns in the US.

 

Great post.

Something to add: A .45 round is subsonic already since its a fat slow round. 9mm is the average caliber in the nation and 9mm is supersonic unless you're using special ammunition. So with a 9mm you'll get the sound of the shot, and then the whip crack of the supersonic round too boot

 

Again something anti-gun reporters fail to understand when writing hack jobs on suppressors.

 

Making blanket statements as above is generally misleading and makes for a number of mis-assumptions.
The threshold for supersonic velocity is dependent on temperature/air density and is generally somewhere about 1,100 fps. While standard loads for 230 gr .45 ball ammo is usually loaded to pressures delivering sub 1000 FPS, hand loads, lighter projectiles (HPs, all copper) or different propellants (used for +P ammo), or different combinations designated as different cartridges (.45 supper or .450 SMC) can significantly exceed supersonic velocities. Likewise, some 9mm rounds, like 147 or heavier rounds, are often delivering subsonic velocities. Then too, most any caliber cartridge, even rifle cartridges like .308 and .223, can be hand loaded to deliver subsonic velocities and many manufacturers also sell ammunition labeled subsonic ammunition for use in hunting or sports not necessarily specifically designed for suppressors. Lots .22 ammo out there with subsonic loads, some labeled such, for target practice or stealth varmint hunting (.22 shorts, CB caps ... very quiet even unsuppressed out of long barrels. Barrel length is also a factor. Some rounds in short barrels might be subsonic, but in longer barrels may not be.
While suppressors may be effective for some applications like shooting at a range or in defense in enclosed spaces to reduce blast shock, they can have significant downsides. With handguns, accuracy can be a major issue as few have sights that will not be obscured by a suppressor and many suppressors shift, sometimes significantly, the poa/poi. Shooting a suppressed weapon at range and sighting for it can mean shooting it unsuppressed will deliver different accuracy results. Then too, suppressing many semi autos, particularly those with barrel hinge release/lock (think 1911 type, Glocks) or some blowback designs (often .22s, some .380s) will fail to eject or cycle properly without a compensating device like a Neilson compensator, particularly when using subsonic loads. Anyone looking for suppressing a weapon would need to have a threaded barrel mated to the threads of a suppressor, and then, test and select ammo for subsonic suppression potential for that specific rig and test it enough to insure accuracy and cycling reliability. Then too, there is the issue of concealment.
Suppressor tech has been around a long time, can be legally acquired folLowing the Gov hoops (add $200 to cost), and can even be homemade using the huge array of available plans, DIY videos, etc. but their use by common criminals is almost non existent for some of the downside reasons above.
As for use in mass shootings, there are few fish in a barrel situations where their use would be much more effective than using an unsuppressed weapon...perhaps, even, being a detriment to a warped shooter’s objectives...particularly those wishing to create fear and panic. If body count is the objective, with less cost, testing, time and effort arson or bombs would be far more effective.

 

Not really, I accept the Constitution, any ruling can be changed with a 5-4 vote, so its hardly permanent so my agreement isn't really relevant...