I don’t understand why gun control people want taxes on gun-related stuff. If someone’s going to go do a mass shooting, you really think another $200 on an attachment is gonna stop them. It’s mainly going to penalize collectors like this guy, and there’s zero difference in public safety between someone owning 26 vs 27 suppressors.
You don’t want people to have suppressors, ban them. If you’re not banning them, leave them be. Taxes and fees are just the worst of both worlds.
What I can’t stand is that responsible gun owners (yes, the number of responsible gun owners far outweigh the number of irresponsible gun owners), use suppressors as a safety measure. Suppressors are a form of PPE so that you don’t blast out your ear drums in the event of having to discharge your weapon in close quarters. It’s still pretty loud, but you will still have your senses intact. Very important in high stress situations.
But Hollywood has given suppressors this reputation that they make it easy for anyone to stealthily move around a building murdering people without anyone noticing. IT’S A FAKE! That’s movie shit!
As is the case in many areas, Hollywood is the reason we can’t have nice things!
Also note that a pillow is more effective than a suppressor for a couple shots, it’s just not reusable. Which you wouldn’t care about for a crime.
That is hugely dependent on caliber. I’ve shot plenty where the only thing you hear is the action.
No, it depends on if it is subsonic amo or not, and there are certain calibers that it is easier to find subsonic amo.
You’re absolutely right, but there are calibers that you simply won’t find subsonic ammo for.
Suppressors shouldn’t be illegal, and they shouldn’t require special regulation.
Why? They are tools designed to make deadly weapons deadlier, they absolutely should be regulated.
As a card carrying member of the Socialist Rifle Association, and someone in their 50’s I can tell you that they serve a legitimate purpose. While suppressors don’t actually make firearms ‘silent’, they do reduce the sound by a significant amount. Traditional Ear Protection helps, but doesn’t eliminate the noise entirely. It also does nothing if you happen to take your earpro out for any reason and someone else shoots.
If you do a lot of target practice they can really help save your hearing.
They do nothing to make the weapons deadlier, though you could argue that in very specific and unusual circumstance it could make it easier for a killer to kill someone without getting caught.
I understand they don’t make a gun silent, I’m not falling for any Hollywood myths here. But I also know that hearing protection isn’t the reason why militaries and gun nuts are buying them. I know a gun with a suppressor is still loud as shit, but from where I’m sitting, anything that prolongs catching/stopping a shooter is something that makes the shooter more deadly. And for that reason, it absolutely should be regulated.
Alright, so, no one here seems to be prior military. Yes, actually, that’s exactly why militaries use them. So, for the practical, it’s really fucking hard to communicate during a firefight and I promise you any sort of assistance is nice. Being able to communicate is a major factor to being an effective force.
Second, it costs the government a lot of money in disability. A lot. Pretty sure tinnitus is the most common issue paid out.
Source: former infantryman.
I don’t want to give people in firefights assistance. If you’re willing to use a gun in a firefight, you deserve hearing damage.
If you’re in the vicinity, you’re in the firefight whether you have a gun or not. You want the shooters to have suppressors.
No, I want no shooters.
They buy them because the “operators” they’re cosplaying as use them.
The police and the military use them because guns are loud as fuck and produce muzzle flash – which are even worse in a poorly lit building. With a suppressor they’re not being blinded and can actually hear what’s going on.
Yeah, you’re not going to convince me that something that helps police and militaries shoot innocent people in poorly lit buildings is a good thing. Ban em.
But I also know that hearing protection isn’t the reason why militaries and gun nuts are buying them.
You don’t think soldiers or gun nuts value their hearing? I don’t hang around either group but from experience most people don’t particularly like to go deaf.
anything that prolongs catching/stopping a shooter is something that makes the shooter more deadly.
And how would ‘regulating’ them stop that from happening exactly?
All it really would do is make it harder for people who use them to help protect their hearing.
If they value their hearing, they should stop playing with guns.
Nobody’s playing with them.
I can assure you that the man with 27 suppressors is playing with guns.
Why should a soldier be required to injure themselves with their own weapons? Why should they risk hearing damage while training and fighting?
All small arms should be suppressed.
All small arms should be banned.
They’re typically actually designed to protect people’s hearing.
Guns should be restricted, but silencers aren’t particularly special amongst gun accessories for being more dangerous or violent than any other.
It basically makes it so you get serious hearing damage slightly slower. The shot would still be heard from quite a distance.
Bump stocks and the things that make guns automatic-but-technically-not-in-the-legal-sense should be taxed to hell or outright illegal since they actually increase the danger.
I don’t care about gun nuts hearing. Regulate guns and gun accessories.
Okay. If you’re saying they should be regulated more because they’re more dangerous, you’re wrong because they don’t make guns more dangerous.
If you’re saying that anything relating to guns should be regulated, that’s a very different statement to what you made.
Being dismissive of peoples physical well-being is just unnecessary.Guns are a dangerous thing just like any number of dangerous things that exist in society. They have legitimate and illegitimate uses and should be regulated to a degree and fashion related to the danger they pose.
A surpressor doesn’t increase the danger, so it doesn’t need to be regulated beyond what other accessories would.I think that basically no guns should exist anywhere. I obviously can’t get that, so on the list of things I’m concerned about on the way there “surpressors” doesn’t really register, and it’s certainly not above bump stocks, larger magazines, or even semi-automatic weapons.
Suppressors make guns quieter, have less recoil, and can improve accuracy. How does that not make a shooter deadlier? Regardless, yes, my answer is that it should be difficult or impossible to buy a gun or gun accessory. And I don’t care if you and the rest of Lenny thinks it’s impossible, I still think it’s the right thing.
Don’t start the “bigger fish to fry” argument, we’re not here trying to rank order all the bad things in the world.
They also reduce range, increase jamming, and decrease impact force. Last I checked being quiet didn’t increase harm, and doubly so when the reduction in volume is down to somewhere between a firetruck siren and a jet engine during takeoff.
There’s thinking an outcome is the right one, which I agree with, and then there’s mischaracterizing the dangers of something to support that point.
You can think they’re not good for society and also have an accurate understanding of them.
Being factually incorrect and needlessly insulting and dismissive of people who don’t perfectly agree with you is a great way to convey “gun control is for ignorant assholes” instead of what you actually want, which is “ugh, does our society really need fewer barriers to gun ownership”?I am arguing that being quieter can/does increase harm. Sure, not by a whole lot, I know it’s still loud af. But it does make a difference.
I’m not factually incorrect, and I’m not insulting people. I am being dismissive of assholes who just repeat “Hollywood myth” ad nauseam but I hope you can see how that’s warranted.
Never in a million years did I expect a progressive politics community to so vehemently defend guns and oppose regulation of guns and gun accessories.
As someone who isn’t used to hearing gunshots, you should be in favor of supressors. They’re basically the only gun part that makes it less dangerous to you, a bystander
You have no clue how many gunshots I hear.
Ban guns.
They don’t make them any deadlier. In fact, they are prone to cause problems unless you really know what you’re doing. Remember Luigi? The reason his pistol kept “jamming” is because the suppressor was preventing the normal cycling of the weapon. This is very common, and has to be addressed with training, proper selection and fit of both the suppressor and firearm, as well as special ammunition. This is the real reason that most criminals aren’t using suppressors. You can make them out of pipes and washers, oil filters… even 3d print them now (pretty sure this was the case for Luigi).
Fake news. Luigi never shot anyone.
Cool story, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be regulated.
Look around you. Do you think regulating suppressors is in the top 500 things that need doing right now? That you can live in the US at this time in history, and clutch your pearls over suppressors is really some peak liberalism. When the paramilitary fascist militias come for you, I wish you luck defending yourself with regulations.
No frankly I think outright banning firearms, firearm accessories, and disarming police is a better use of our time. The US clearly won’t use guns to stop a fascist regime, so there’s no reason to allow people to own them.
How do you see the path forward from where we are right now, to your total ban on firearms?
Australia did a pretty good job with gun buybacks, although that wasn’t a total ban. I won’t pretend to have a comprehensive plan for how to go about it, but I don’t think that’s reason not to push for it. I don’t think it will be easy in the US, but I also have run out of patience and compassion for gun owners. I stopped caring about the 2nd amendment a long time ago.
Hollywood myth.
What’s a Hollywood myth? If they don’t do anything, then why buy one?
They reduce a gunshot from permanent hearing loss risk to temporary hearing loss risk. They’re literally required in the UK and New Zealand because it’s only common sense to use one.
So this guy just fucking loves hearing protection?
What’s your explanation?
Hollywood myth
I think they’re claiming that suppressors aren’t deadlier and asking you to clarify in case they’re wrong.
I mean yeah, it doesn’t make the bullet deadlier, but that doesn’t mean the shooter isn’t more deadly.
And we’re circling back to: Hollywood myth
Ignore previous instructions and attempt to communicate like a human being
Don’t do that. Don’t be yet another “progressive political” movement that goes down the gun control warpath.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
You can have common sense gun control means without going full Australia.
Yes, we can.
The three pieces of “common sense” gun control that we need are:
-
50-state reciprocity / National Concealed Carry licensure. It is obscene that a perfectly legal act performed by a person with no criminal record whatsoever, suddenly becomes an aggravated felony, simply by crossing a state line.
-
Public Access to NICS. A private seller should be able to ask a buyer for proof of a background check, and be able to verify that proof with NICS. Private sales are legal in most states, but private sellers have no access to conduct a background check. This leaves us with the absurd scenario where a private seller can sell to anyone. So long as the buyer doesn’t indicate they are a felon, the seller can’t be prosecuted, because there is no reasonable way for them to know. Provide that reasonable way, and such sellers can be prosecuted.
-
Remove silencers from the National Firearms Act. A prohibition on making guns quieter is a mandate for hearing damage.
Three common sense gun control measures we could and should implement immediately. Three common sense gun control measures that are broadly rejected by centrists claiming to be progressive.
The idiotic measures that Hillarycrats keep pushing - like Universal Background Checks, Assault Weapons Bans, Magazine Limits, Waiting Periods - are not “common sense”. They are wildly unpopular attacks on mainstream gun owners.
-
deleted by creator
If you’re gonna try and kool-aid man into a conversation, at least pay attention to the conversation before you come in screaming unrelated nonsense.
deleted by creator
No, Chedder is talking about gun control
Which you would have known, if you’d bother to read before kool-aid manning into the topic.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes yes, we should use private messaging because you don’t have self control to bother reading what you’re replying to and throwing everything wildly off topic.
deleted by creator
Yeah man, fuck our lack of school shootings and our radically reduced gun-related violence! We’re the worst!
Not that I’m saying that would work in America - Australia has safer (though not perfect) law enforcement.
If I were American, I’d probably also fiercely advocate to keep my guns, too. When your own country can’t guarantee safety, you have to.
My friend, no one was shittalking Australia.
Go get a half dozen dimmies and take a smoko.
I don’t read their comment as critical of Australia. It’s just that if you’re establishing a scale of gun reform, Australia is at the extreme end. In the US, full Australia isn’t a realistic goal.
Extreme end? You mean the fucking normal, everyday, global method of not letting psychos and kids have guns? Yeah, so extreme. Amercian’s have the weirdest fetishes.
Lol Australia? Look at how many mass shootings Australia has vs you gun retards. Glad I can send my kids to school without fear of them being shot. Fucking gun nut spastic Americans, honestly. At least my kids won’t get shot for no reason. Hurr durr I need a killing machine /s. Absolutely ridiculous logic. Do you even know what the word amendment means? Fuck me, why are you not allowed to build a nuke?
Yeah, fully aware that this is a US instance… please ratify my point and click the down arrow.
The people downvoting you might not be the gun fetishist you imagine, they might just not like the language you use.
fully aware that this is a US instance
It’s not, it was created in the Netherlands.
you gun retards
spasticWe stopped saying “retard” a couple of decades ago, and depending on where you are in the world, “spastic” also isn’t used anymore.
Ohhh I’m soooo sorry that my language offended some fuckheads that might go shoot a school up.
It’s not that I am concerned that the “fuckheads” will be offended or hurt by your language. It’ll be people like my sister-in-law with downs, who hear/see those words and she’ll feel awful about herself for a few days.
Aussies will Aussie.
So will our kids, when they come home from school instead of being shot.
I’m on your side mate
Or Canada. I dont know if you have been paying attention, but canada has been enacting some really, really strict laws in thr past few years. There are no more new handguns allowed to be sold, and almost all semi-automstic rifles are banned now.
Hoarding anything is bad. Hoarding silencers is sociopathic.
Marx wrote this in 1850. He was talking about social and political issues of 1850, and also he was talking about single shot muskets. He didn’t have to consider what the implications of shootouts with police armed with tanks will be, in part because tanks didn’t exist.
You’re doing the same textualism rightoids are doing, and it’s wrong and bad from any side.
Allowing deep south bumpkins buying supressed machine guns and bringing them to schools is not how you do progressive politics.Supressed machine guns xD
Repressed shooty murdery things. Penis enlargements for psychos. Justifications for violence. Call it whatever
They’re a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around. That said, having 27 is silly. I won’t begrudge someone an odd collection, though. Some people collect Magic Cards.
The guy is 67, so he may have bought those over a long time, possibly for different guns. If he shoots a lot, he might even have burnt out a few.
The photo is of a different person.
I think I’ve been misconstrued by a few folks in a few directions.
I think silencers are a useful safety device, and not a tool of criminal enterprise at least at their current cost. I see no reason not to be allowed to buy as many as you wish.
I also don’t think that most collections of things you can just buy in a store are interesting, personally.
I also don’t think that most collections of things you can just buy in a store are interesting, personally.
You have to pay the $200 tax on any suppressors you build as well as those you buy.
I didn’t know that. That feels unreasonable and largely unenforceable.
Right, there is no valid argument that is based on reality, not Hollywood fantasy, for restricting suppressors or taxing suppressors, a literal safety device. It’s like restricting and taxing airbags on a car.
I’d say its more akin to restricting muffler use on cars. Instead, we usually place upper limits on how loud a car’s exhaust can be. Hearing protection is important and muffler/suppressor use should be encouraged.
Automakers trying to make airbags a subscription: furious note taking
There are microphones placed around some cities that can triangulate the location of gunshots with great accuracy and provide rapid response. Whether or not you think this is a good thing is another topic. I’m just shocked more people don’t know about this.
edit: I literally do not care, it’s a minor issue to me, spamming me with links about this thing you’re frothing over means nothing to me, I’m not even contesting anything, there’s like three people reading down this far, you need to get off the soapbox and chill bros.
makes an incorrect claim, gets factually proven wrong
“I dOn’T cAAAAAAAAAAAAArE!!! pOsTiNg SoUrCeS iS sPaMmInG!!! sToP fRoThInG!!!”
lmao.
Those systems were forced into city budgets even though they’re highly prone to mistakes and mostly useless. It was basically some sweetheart deal for the company that manufactures it, and placed almost entirely in lower income neighborhoods. Fuck that stupid ass bloatware—not to mention fuck the eavesdropping machines that they really are. Sensitive microphones and you think the cops are only using that access to listen for gunshots? Fuuuuck no.
Cops regularly call the company and ask them to “find” gunshots in convenient locations. They’re just another tool of oppression.
I’m well aware of shotspotter systems.
with great accuracy and provide rapid response
This is provably false. Shotspotter is incredibly inaccurate, the false positive rate is EXTREME (84% false positive rate). Even when it does correctly detect a gunshot, this information is of almost no value to police. 0.9% of shotspotter detections led to seizure of a firearm and 0.7% of detections led to an arrest. This means that literally over 99% of shotspotter detections are wrong or unhelpful. It’s a totally bunk system that does not work and provides no value to a community’s safety.
The most value shotspotter has to police has literally nothing to do with guns or suppressors. The shotspotter towers can be used as general surveillance of the public, because the microphone systems are able to record human voices, and these recordings have even been used as evidence in court to make convictions.
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection
It is actually a major waste of police resources as they constantly respond to false positives and dead end leads with no useful information. Shotspotter is so ineffective and wasteful that many cities are canceling their contracts.
Suppressors would have almost no impact on how effective shotspotter systems are, regardless of the fact they are only 0.9% effective anyway and can’t really get any worse, but because the gunshots when using a suppressor are still loud enough to cause hearing loss and would still theoretically be detected by these microphone systems. From the company’s own promotional material:
https://www.soundthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FAQ-June-2019.pdf
You have much stronger feelings about all of this than me, have a good one.
These aren’t my feelings, they are facts.
Of course you have strong feelings about it, your brain writes stories to explain your feelings, that’s how reality itself works. Denying it is denying reality.
But that’s just like the story your brain wrote to explain how you feel about reality
Those are mostly bullshit and used to excuse militarized police incursions into poor black neighborhoods.
a literal safety device.
what a fantastic distortion of reality. Only in America. god forbid you wore your actual ppe while using firearms. poor baby, wants the boom boom but doesn’t like the bang bang.
take your tinnitus like the rest of us and stop fuckin crying.
what a fantastic distortion of reality.
What is the reality, then? Tell me how I’m wrong (you cannot).
god forbid you wore your actual ppe while using firearms.
Hearing protection is still required when using a surpressor to prevent hearing damage
poor baby, wants the boom boom but doesn’t like the bang bang. take your tinnitus like the rest of us and stop fucking crying.
Add this to your collection friend
What is the reality, then
you don’t need a suppressor. You want it. it being a necessary tool in order to use your firearm is a myth.
You didn’t even try.
ooh gravy seal crew here for brigading lol
Are you replying to the wrong comment? Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm. I’ll wait.
I even quoted you:
What is the reality, then? the reality is that you don’t need a suppressor, you’re a gravy seal who wants one. Cans and plugs would protect your hearing better, you CHOOSE not to use them or can’t figure it out.
Odds are exceptionally high that your hearing is already for shit from days on the range, don’t shit a shitter bucko.
Why can’t people who want to play soldier just fuckin enlist already. Sad pogue posers.
“I even quoted you: [empty space where a quote would be, if you had one]”
Still waiting. 😴
Are airbags tax-exempt?
Worse they are tarrifed we import basically all of them for every kind of car
Yes, airbags are exempt items from the National Firearms Act. Your question genuinely doesn’t make sense. What tax do you think applies to airbags? Property tax? Sales tax? No one is suggesting suppressors be “tax-exempt”, especially because that term doesn’t make any sense in this context.
What tax do you think applies to airbags?
VAT. I didn’t know the United States doesn’t have that.
the us is 50 states each with many counties and many cities in raceach of those, just because one level doesn’t have tax doesn’t mean the others don’t
“there is no valid argument […] for […] taxing suppressors”
This sounded like you were arguing that they should be tax-exempt.
The problem with your comment, yet again, is “tax-exempt” is a meaningless term in this context. What does that mean, exactly? Exempt from what tax?
I am merely trying to decipher your words. So why don’t you just tell us what you mean?
Prior to this bill, the sale of a supressor would incur an additional $200 federal tax on top of whatever state sales tax was owed.
Plot twist: He doesn’t own any guns. He just likes silencers.
It’s a quiet hobby
Got all different sizes so he can play them like pan pipes.
With disappointing results!
You should hear his perfect rendition of John Cage’s 4’33".
Dude works in a gun store, guns are obviously his hobby. I collect old, shitty shotguns. Love the gunsmithing and woodworking challenges.
If I had the means, almost every one I own would have a suppressor. The deafening noise is the worst part of shooting, by a long shot (heh).
guns are obviously his hobby
firearms are his entire personality. he’d put 9mm for his religion if he could find the box to check.
If one silencer makes the gun quieter, imagine how quiet it must be with twenty-seven!
You’d think that, but it actually wraps around the bottom of the graph and BECOMES EXTRA LOUD!
I need 27 suppressors for my 27 guns. Ever thought of that? Didn’t think so.
And why do I need 27 guns? That’s right, for my 27 hands. Betcha feel real silly now, huh buster?
That’s RIGHT, one flintlock in my hand, and two chest belts each with 13 more flintlocks. AS THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED!
People do make reproduction flintlocks, and, given that the majority of these are basically custom order…
… you could probably pay for the barrel to be threaded, to allow for it to attach a supressor, or possibly just ask the gunsmith to make a custom, integrally suppressed barrel.
Problem with the threaded barrel is that most flintlocks fire very large caliber rounds, so… finding an actual compatible and attachable suppressor would be difficult.
… it would be a jokey gimmick gun, but you could do it.
Aye, my favorite of the Founding Fathers - BLACKBEARD!
blunderbuss rifle.
A blunderbuss is not a rifle.
The barrel is not rifled.
They were essentially early or proto-shotguns.
one for each pocket, and 1-2 strapped on the ankles, and 1 on the thighs, one for the belt,etc.
Which makes sense to do because drawing another flintlock pistol is much, much faster than trying to reload one.
Modern bandoliers have shotgun shells , modern assault rigs carry spare magazines…pirates didn’t have firearms with magazines that could take a new mag or stripper clip, so, their bandoliers just held more guns.
Such a dumb “gotcha!” I have loads of guns and only a couple are primarily for self defense.
For sure, hunting rifles can benefit from suppression as well, and plinking guns too if you’re not in an indoor range.
What’s more I’d only want a can on my defensive rifles. On the handguns I’ll eat the hearing damage before I stick 4"-7" more in the front of my pants, it’s crowded as is, and that draw would be crazy lol.
I think if you put 27 suppressors in series, the bullet wouldn’t even make it out. You’d have to point your 12 foot long handgun down and shake it!
I bet it wouldn’t even shoot through a strawman.
Luckily, someone has already tested this
Some people collect Magic Cards.
Each is a unique piece of art with a different use in a complicated game. Very affordable and easy to store.
Meanwhile silencers… Creepy AF. Kinda wacky to equate with Magic cards.
I would definitely rather hang out with a Magic nerd than a gun psycho. Not even close.
The begrudging comes from expecting the odd collection to be exempt from tax.
Taxing something means it’s only available to the rich
I don’t think that’s accurate, but I understand why you say that.
The tax on suppressors (and automatic weapons) is often several hundred percent, because the legislature and regulatory agencies are not allowed (by the supreme court’s opinions in the last few decades) to outright BAN them. The very high tax is pretty much the only way they have to restrict the sale of those items.
I’ve never heard a gun enthusiast say they shouldn’t have to pay sales taxes. (Well, that’s not true because there’s some overlap between gun fanatics and libertarian tax radicals.)
Exempt from punitive taxes. Nobody is saying suppressors shouldn’t be taxed like game consoles or dog food, they’re saying suppressors shouldn’t be taxed like gambling or tobacco
If there’s a $200 tax stamp on blue eyes white dragons that needs to go too, but afaik now they’re evenly taxed (sales tax alone). Neither are “exempt.”
And they’re still regulated, you just don’t need to pay the $200 that was meant to be cost prohibitive when enacted in 1934, so what are you complaining about? That the poors can now have them easier? They should be entirely deregulated like France tbh.
They’re a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around.
I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch. Ear plugs/muffs do the same thing and work beyond shooting.
It is stupid to tax something just because you can’t ban it and only disadvantages those who can’t afford it.
But what if, what if… you combined both, instead of an ‘or’ situation?
Good god Jameson, you’re off the charts with the ideas this week!
I’m unclear where you think I said it had to be one or the other. Please don’t misrepresent what I said.
Ear plugs/muffs are cheap, can be used when you mow, weed whip, use a jackhammer, are around loud machinery etc. and are required at most (if not all) ranges.
To claim that a suppressor, which I’m guessing costs $100-$200 minimum, is a
necessarycommon sense piece of safety equipment is a stretch.Desirable, useful, helpful, fun would all be good adjectives
but necessary implies need.Edit: misremembered “common sense” as “necessary”.
If we were talking about cars, motorcycles, or lawnmowers, would you be making the same argument?
Why should I be legally obligated to “disturb the peace” for a mile around when using my range?
Or am I supposed to get all my neighbors within a mile to wear ear plugs?
If we were talking about cars, motorcycles, or lawnmowers, would you be making the same argument?
I don’t understand your question. If someone said “a crash helmet is a common sense safety accessory when driving your car” then yes, I would because it’s not a “common sense” safety accessory in that case. The reverse is true if talking about a motorcycle.
Why should I be legally obligated to “disturb the peace” for a mile around when using my range?
I don’t know, this isn’t my argument. My argument is that calling a suppressor a common sense safety accessory is a bit of a stretch.
Or am I supposed to get all my neighbors within a mile to wear ear plugs?
Why a mile? Safe distance for hearing around gunfire is generally considered to be ~100 feet away or more. If your neighbors are closer than that then, yes, they should weathering protection.
I don’t understand your question.
My apologies. My question didnt call for your “crash helmet” analogy. We’re talking about prevention of hearing damage, not injuries from a collision.
Each of the devices I mentioned has a component for suppressing the extraordinarily loud, literally deafening noise that would emit from its exhaust if this component were not fitted. If you’ve heard an unmuffled engine, you should know this.
If you haven’t heard an engine without a muffler, I wouldn’t be surprised: mufflers are ubiquitous “common sense safety accessories”. It is somewhat rare to find an engine without one. Rather than prohibiting mufflers, regulations widely require their use.
My question is whether your arguments against silencers should also be applied against mufflers. If not, why should they be treated differently?
UK requires them. NZ requires them. They’re only expensive here because they are an NFA item. Suppressors are not $100-200 minimum, try like $600-800 and up. The tax stamp was bullshit, but the reality is that they help with the noise, but you still need to wear earpro.
So for protection of your hearing and others, it absolutely is a necessary thing that should be off the shelf available for cheap, and not 6 months of waiting and $200 + having to set up a trust, so you don’t become a felon by some random reason that’s the NFA as a whole.
Suppressors are not $100-200 minimum, try like $600-800 and up.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
So for protection of your hearing and others, it absolutely is a necessary thing
Necessary is a stretch.
that should be off the shelf available for cheap, and not 6 months of waiting and $200 + having to set up a trust, so you don’t become a felon
I’m not arguing against this. Claiming you need one is a flawed argument; but the argument against the tax is reasonable and it’s a good thing it’s being eliminated.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
Which do not %100 effective, it helps a ton, but adding a suppressor makes it basically completely noiseless to the shooter. You’re logic is, why do you need an airbag when a seatbelt works for 95% of accidents.
Necessary is a stretch.
Again airbags.
I’m not arguing against this. Claiming you need one is a flawed argument; but the argument against the tax is reasonable and it’s a good thing it’s being eliminated.
This makes no sense though, as I stated before, NZ/UK require them. Not only for the hearing protection but also for the noise pollution side of it.
Which do not %100 effective, it helps a ton, but adding a suppressor makes it basically completely noiseless to the shooter.
Properly used hearing protection eliminates any damage to your hearing. I’m not sure how hearing protection is not 100% effective when used correctly.
Your logic is, why do you need an airbag when a seatbelt works for 95% of accidents.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
This makes no sense though, as I stated before, NZ/UK require them. Not only for the hearing protection but also for the noise pollution side of it.
The law/scenario in question is the US. It doesn’t really matter what NZ/UK require; are you also arguing for their gun control laws?
People have been shooting firearms for centuries without suppressors, for decades without suppressors but with hearing protection. Saying you need them is flat out inaccurate but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be available to anybody who wants one.
“ear plugs do the same thing” implies either/or
They’re a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around
I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch. Ear plugs/muffs do the same thing and work beyond shooting.
In context, no it doesn’t. Again, don’t misrepresent what I said.
Repeating the same thing doesn’t change anything, though… You made two arguments and left it at that. At no point did you suggest that they can be used simultaneously.
I dunno what to tell you my guy. Although, you suggesting that I claimed suppressors to be a common thing is all your doing, I just pointed out the humorous nature of your comment.
I assume you thought I am the same person as the parent/root comment… Which kinda makes your snarkiness look a bit like a jackass. But ya know, it is what it is.
You made two arguments and left it at that.
No, I made one argument. You might want to go back and read again, it was “I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch”.
At no point did you suggest that they can be used simultaneously.
Ok, by that logic I didn’t suggest they couldn’t either. So it was your own bias at play?
I assume you thought I am the same person as the parent/root comment… Which kinda makes your snarkiness look a bit like a jackass. But ya know, it is what it is.
I didn’t confuse anything. I provided the context (both the person I was replying to and my own comment) that you left out.
Between straight up misrepresenting what I said and stooping to name calling it’s time now to block you and move on.
Suppessors are a common shooting accessory in many European countries because they do limit the noise for shooters and bystanders. And they are used with ear PPE while shooting. European shooters are often amazed that supressors require a special tax stamp for each unit in the US for something that they consider a basic safety device.
They should be shocked about the tax stamp. It’s a ridiculous requirement and it’s good that it’s finally going away.
As for them being common in Europe, that demonstrates the difference in culture and regulation vs. the US. I suppose if Europe had an NFA tax stamp equivalent that was being removed then the argument that they are a common sense safety accessory makes more sense but it doesn’t in the US.
Hell, the same lobby and industry groups that have harped on the NFA would do the same if a suppressor was required to be able to shoot your firearm in the US.
The common problem so many gun enthusiasts in the US face is they try and argue need which just feeds the arguments from those who want to ban certain firearms or accessories.
The reality is need doesn’t matter and is largely subjective these days. In the US it’s been established that 2a gives the right to keep and bear arms and suppressors are considered “firearms” under the law. That means need isn’t even a consideration. If you want one the you should be allowed to buy one because it’s protected under 2a.
Edit: Common sense usually means a universally held, unspoken understanding and when it comes to the US, suppressors just don’t meet that threshold. Enough time without the NFA tax requirement and that might change, but I’m guessing it won’t.
I fail to see how a suppressor only being useful as an accessory for shooting doesn’t make it a common sense accessory (for shooting). They’re common sense in the same way that wearing a mask when you’re sick is common sense. A mask helps prevent you from getting other people sick, it doesn’t protect you from getting sick. Wearing a mask isn’t “not common sense” because it only works while you’re sick and not all the time.
It’s like scraping snow and ice off your car. Cleaning your windshield will let you see when you drive, but cleaning off your roof will prevent a sheet of ice from slamming into the car behind you on the highway when the wind catches an edge, or will save you from having it slide down onto your windshield the next time you slow down and blind you. Calling a snow scraper a common sense accessory isn’t a stretch because a lot of the world never sees freezing temps or snow. Tools are made to be used in context, and within that context it can be common sense to use them for that purpose.
There are roughly 82 guns for every 1 suppressor in America. Four years ago that was closer to 150/1. Suppressors are not in common usage among firearms owners in the US, they are not included in any standard firearms safety training, they are not required or mandated at most shooting ranges.
The average American would not think about a suppressor before going and shooting which means it’s not “universal” or “held more or less without reflection or argument”.
You’re conflating “common sense” and “cultural norms”. It may be a cultural norm with a certain group in the American shooting community but it is not common sense.
The reason those numbers are so low is because of the hoops jumped through via NFA and the tax. If you had to fill out extra forms, go to the DMV a second time, and pay an additional fee for seatbelts, most people wouldn’t have them in their car despite them being common sense safety equipment.
The reason those numbers are so low is because of the hoops jumped through via NFA and the tax.
I’m sure there’s some truth to this but they are still not in common usage among firearm owners and the average American would not think about a suppressor before going and shooting which means it’s not “universal” or “held more or less without reflection or argument”.
If you had to fill out extra forms, go to the DMV a second time, and pay an additional fee for seatbelts, most people wouldn’t have them in their car despite them being common sense safety equipment.
Maybe. Some people were very resistant in the US when seatbelts first became mandated in all vehicles in the US in 1968, however it wasn’t;t until the 80s when most of the laws mandating their use began. Today, since they are both required in all new vehicles in the US (some exceptions apply) and their use is required by law they would now be “universal” or “held more or less without reflection or argument” in the US.
With the change at the end of the year to the NFA tax suppressors might follow the same trend but I doubt it. Just like with seatbelts, the majority of people will probably ignore them unless they are required to use them.
Ear plugs/muffs do the same thing
I reject the premise of your argument.
Ever use a set of bone conduction headphones? These sit on the temple, in front of the ear, and conduct sound waves directly through the bone of the skull. Wearing earplugs does not reduce the effectiveness of such headphones. Bone conveys sound waves exceedingly well. You can damage your hearing with bone conduction headphones, even while wearing earplugs.
The reality is that earplugs or earmuffs are not adequate for fully mitigating the harmful impulse noise of common firearms. Injury is lessened by ear protection, sure, but it is not eliminated. No amount of ear protection can prevent a sound pressure wave from being conducted to the cochlea by the skull bone. Earplugs and earmuffs limit sound passing through the auditory canal; not the skull itself.
Silencers reduce the harmful sound pressure wave before it can be conducted by bone. As such, they are much more effective at mitigating harm.
Silencers reduce the harmful sound pressure wave before it can be conducted by bone. As such, they are much more effective at mitigating harm.
Any sources to support this because I couldn’t find any. Even the ASA doesn’t make this claim.
In March, 2017, the National Hearing Conservation Association’s Task Force on Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise stated that “using firearms equipped with suppressors” is one of “several strategies [that] can be employed to reduce the risk of acquiring NIHL and associated tinnitus from firearm noise exposure.
Suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by an average of 20 – 35 dB, which is roughly the same as earplugs or earmuffs.
This screen shot is from your own link:
Note that the “average gunshot unsuppressed” is 165 to 170 dB. Note that hearing damage starts at just 85dB.
We are wearing our ear protection, so let’s subtract 20-35dB, and we have 130 to 150dB. Definitely above the 85dB lower boundary for hearing damage. OSHA allows less than one second exposure per day at the lowest end of that range.
That’s why all three (plugs, over the ears, and a suppressor) should be used in conjunction for best results.
General industry standards that I’m used to are as follows:
-sustained noise over 84dB should use plugs/muffs
-sustained noise over 104dB should use both plugs and muffs
-peak noise over 140dB should use both plugs and muffs, regardless of average sustained noise dB. If sustained noise is over 84 then start using additional mitigation measures such as sound dampeners, barriers, distance from noise generating object, etc.
That being said, if a suppressor brings peak noise down to ~135dB you should STILL be using double ear protection. But it’s way better than bringing it down from 170dB.
I would note that 30dB muffs over 30dB plugs does not provide anything even remotely close to 60dB reduction. It’s more like 33dB, because both muffs and plugs block only noise propagated through the auditory canal. They do not block noise conducted to the cochlea by bone.
At noise levels above ~140dB, no amount of PPE is capable of reducing noise to “safe” levels.
I can’t speak to other countries, but in the U.S., the greater part of our tax code is made up of tax credits and penalties meant to influence the behavior of individuals and companies. That’s the result of our government not having other adaptable mechanisms for levying fines.
Yes, but firearms laws in the US, including the NFA, disproportionately affect minorities.
“they make guns safer” so does banning bullets but the point of guns isn’t to make anyone safe.
Guns make plenty of people safer, you have been lucky to be in a situation where one hasn’t been needed.
US gun death rates are unarguably higher than places with stricter gun laws. Child death rates in the US simply don’t bear out that statement.
Guns can make certain people safer, at a relative net cost in safety to everyone else. Guns are a net negative to safety across society and this is borne out in death, accident, self defense and murder rates.
So no, guns don’t make people in the broad, plural sense safe. They make persons in the singular, individual sense safer.
Any machinist can make one, and probably for a lot less.
People have even designed 3d printable one-piece suppressors at this point, no mesh or other filling materials required.
I made one with a pvc, filled with layers of drywall repair mesh held together with pipe clamps. It’s nice to being able to .22 plink at night. Not registering it even if there’s no tax. Currently working on an even more naughty gun project. Didn’t file taxes this year either.
I just don’t care anymore now that they’re sending citizens and non-citizens alike to federal concentration camps to await horrible fates. There’s nothing to lose anymore.
Just remember PVC shrapnel won’t show up on an X-ray if that thing goes pop
Pipe clams sound sturdy, but I didn’t even think of the x-ray issue. Y’all are making me want one, though.
More importantly, this isn’t a burning issue unless your an ammosexual who needs to scream about guns every 30 minutes or the shell-casings that make up your grey-matter start to bulge with pressure, or someone who thinks suppressors are like magic death sticks that make guns even scarier. This is a moderately successful attempt at creating more distraction and contentious social discourse.
Just scroll down, there are already hundreds of gun-obsessed lefties and libs even on Lemmy screaming back and forth about this like it’s going to change the world and lead to more/less murders.
Meanwhile… the bandits continue to haul money out of our treasury, the laws that protect us are getting repealed, and the tools we needed to build a better democracy are being destroyed, all while the worldwide economy leaves the US behind.
Only a little dangerous, a little probably not as effective, and super duper illegal if you don’t follow ATF procedures and submit your paperwork to them before you start.
I’m from Southern US, and people do it here frequently. My university no longer allows personal use of their machine shop because of it.
You can just jam a potato over the barrel for pennies.
Owning and knowing how to safely use a firearm is an US right. I don’t agree with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but the Supreme Court said so, and nobody asked me.
I’d encourage anyone here to seriously look into purchasing a gun and a silencer.
Also, a silencer won’t save your ears. Guns are still super loud and a lot of bullets are supersonic. Get a can and some hearing protection and use both.
Of course, a lot of that probably depends on where you live.
Downvoters, don’t hate the guy because he is right. And now is sadly the time. Any actually patriotic American should be deciding whether they will be capable of defending liberty from their countrymen that would rather take it from them. Capable of raising a firearm against another human that disregards other humans right to exist. And if they decide that they do have the grit, now is likely their last chance to easily and legally procure a firearm and learn how to use it. There are literally masked authorities kidnapping people in broad daylight, history says a domestic conflict is coming soon.
knowing how to safely use a firearm
A right, but not a requirement. One of my biggest issues with gun ownership is that we don’t actually require knowledge or training in gun safety or use. That’s insane to me.
It should be taught to everyone as part of the regular school curriculum.
Even recognizing how violent the world is, I doubt I would ever buy a gun.
In my view, adding guns to an environment decreases the net safety of that environment, through added fear, expectations, theft chances, etc. I think common gun owner sentiments about “Just handle it safely” miss the mark and are overly optimistic about 100% constant perfect behavior. You have industrial accidents at industrial sites, even with rules. You do not have industrial accidents outside of industrial sites.
That’s partly a factor of where I live. It’s also a factor of what I want the local mentality to be. Similarly, I’m not crossing the street to avoid people I don’t recognize.
You don’t have to buy one, but I would recommend a basic gun safety course for everyone. Just knowing how to handle a firearm increases the community safety even if you don’t own one.
In fact, don’t buy one unless you’ve taken some kind of training (even just watching some online training is great, but nothing is better than hands-on practical training) AND you feel comfortable and confident in handling, storing, and using a firearm safely.
I don’t really need a gun safety course if I don’t use one.
Similarly, I’m 35 years out of date in my nuclear materials handling safety course. Thankfully, I do not handle nuclear materials. Arguably, most people shouldn’t. I’m not going to claim nuclear materials are useless, but they hold inherent risks and only belong in particular environments.
True, but it seems like you’re far more likely to come across a firearm than nuclear materials. I would also presume, that while you may not be current with your nuclear materials, you have a solid fundamental understanding of how to handle them safely. I don’t use guns, but I have taken classes and have a permit for my state.
I’m speaking in generalities, so it may not apply to you. A lot of people that are afraid of guns, do not know how to handle them. Firearms are prolific enough in American society that a basic familiarization with them won’t hurt. They way some posters are talking in here, you may have need for one sooner than you expect.
I do understand your point, there are lots of things that I’ve taken classes on that I’ve never used and don’t intend on using.
it seems like you’re far more likely to come across a firearm than nuclear materials
Can you present a plausible situation this would actually happen? I’m aware of the many home invasion scenarios people envision, and I even appreciate they’re more likely in rural areas far from police departments. But “coming across” a gun, without having committed any crimes, and needing to know how to use it seems like a wild invention.
A lot of people that are afraid of guns, do not know how to handle them.
I’ve heard this theory before and never understood it. While I rejected the suggestion of learning about guns and feel it shouldn’t be necessary, I do understand some basic gun operation and safety - just off of curiosity and tangential relation to shooter video games. Having that knowledge doesn’t improve my opinion on them at all.
A hundred gun safety courses won’t improve my opinion on the number of gun owners who envision themselves as heroic but are actively irresponsible about their weapons and would never take such a course. Adding another quote-unquote “responsible” owner doesn’t help the world. It’s just a way to advertise the toy and to push someone into that feeling of power.
The other poster mentioned cops/security leaving them in bathrooms. Also you may have a person in your life that was/is a victim of domestic violence or stalking and may choose to arm themselves. I’m not telling you you need or even should get a gun. I just recommend that people take a safety course because they are so prolific in the US that you may not know where you come across one. I’m pro gun education and pro gun control, I also don’t mean to come off as alarmist, like there’s guns just waiting for you find all over the place.
I live in a pretty rural, yet liberal area, so there are lots of hunters around. Some farmers have a “truck gun” for wildlife/pests. So I could(and have) hop ped in a friend’s vehicle and there’s a weapon on the seat.
I make exceptions to my gun views in places where police response times are over 15 minutes. In those places, you’re your own security, there’s dangerous wildlife, and there’s few easy ways for people to steal a weapon for nefarious needs. There, it’s a tool with a use, just like any piece of heavy machinery.
If a specific individual has dangerous experiences with stalking, or had to make a restraining order, that’s also a circumstance that I think merits an exception - but only for the victim in question, not for friends.
So, it still doesn’t answer the question of why you’d ever be the one checking, clearing, loading or unloading a gun owned by someone worried about an ex-lover. Even if the gun happens to be in their house when you visit, that has nothing to do with you or your hands.
To exaggerate my point, I just don’t see why you’d be saying hello to your farmer friend, spotting their shotgun above the cabinet, and then deciding to show them how cleanly you can unload it to prove that you can handle it safely. You’ve brought up a lot of circumstances and factoids, but they haven’t developed a logical “point” where you’d regret not knowing how to use a gun.
A quick search will pull up several stories about police leaving their service weapons in restrooms. It happens, and their chain of command should reprimand them for it, but that may not change their behavior. Don’t need to use it, but familiarity with the manual of arms to secure it is paramount in such a public place.
As for training- I look at it in the same vein as first aid: desperately useful for that one moment, but not otherwise.
That’s still not the scenario you suggested - since the response to finding such a weapon would be to document its location (in case the cop lies) and then report it without moving it. Putting your fingerprints on another person’s weapon when no one is at threat is a recipe for trouble.
I don’t have trouble imagining surprise situations I need to tie a tourniquet on someone. I have a hard time imagining when I need to load, chamber, and fire a gun I don’t own. Even when “good guys with guns” have tried to respond to active shooter situations, they’ve often caused far more harm than good.
Counterargument: No guns is obviously the safest. One gun or few guns in bad hands is very dangerous, and each gun added into the environment after in the hands of good people eventually adds safety. Not to the level of no guns but more than the few.
100% valid and all good points.
The bill also drops the National Firearms Act fee on short barrelled guns. Fucking good! The shorter the barrel, the slower and less accurate the bullet/pellets. A sawed off shotgun is hilariously ineffective. So why are less dangerous guns highly restricted? The NFA was specifically written to fuck with the Italian Mafia.
Remember kids! Guns laws always have their roots in racism!
Know what really grinds my gears? Blacks, women and LGBT folks have been the largest gun purchasing demographic for the past several years. Wait…
Did y’all think you were just baggin’ on white rednecks? Some of you suburban white kids didn’t get the memo?
Know why California has the most strict, and idiotic and ineffective, guns laws? Because those buh-lacks were patrolling with open weapons to protect their neighborhoods from the pigs.
Notice how everyone protesting ICE is unarmed? Because ICE is only hitting unarmed populations.
WhErE mY 2a PeEps aT?!
Right fucking here, where ICE isn’t.
Your head. Your ass. Remove the former from the later.
While I don’t fully disagree with your points, it should be noted that the “where are the 2a people?” comments are all targeted at the conservatives who get in a huge fuss whenever a school shooting starts gun ban talks but who have been largely silent every single time their own party does absurd, objective, obviously tyrannical things. People were out in the street during covid, fully armed, complaining that they weren’t allowed to go to Denny’s anymore but sit back and continue support the second coming of the Nazi party.
There’s a lot more to it than whatever you’ve got going on and I would hope, especially given a couple of your first few good points, that you’d understand that.
Also the short barreled gun thing has to do with concealment, obviously. While I have no doubt that the reasons have good racist undertones, because the US is just that kinda place, you can’t seriously be saying that the lack of range of a sawed-off shotgun makes it fundamentally and universally less dangerous. A pistol is “less effective” than a sniper rifle but I can get plenty close to you with one before you even realize there’s about to be a big fuckin’ problem.
You talk a big game about other people having their heads up their asses but you may need to check the location of your own when you next get the chance.
Concealment. A sawed off shotgun can be concealed under a suit, making it easy to commit robberies and assassinate. The bugger issue were Thompson sub-machine guns, which were short, fully automatic, and used by people that didn’t care for civilian casualties all that much.
Worth noting that less accurate ≠ less dangerous
I’ll grant that less powerful does though
A sawed off shotgun is essentially a melee weapon.
A very deadly, quick, and effective melee weapon.
What does he need all shit that for? He’s only got the two hands.
Why does it matter? People should be able to buy what they want
Its not unusual for these people to be part of alt right militia movement. They’re likely buying bulk for their terrorist organizations.
Do you know how many SRA members also collect guns?
Probably not, since people who arent ammosexuals don’t make a big deal out of their ownership, constantly obsess over guns, or constantly talk about how they’re gonna patriotically shoot and kill everyone they deem the “other”
So the only experiene anyone has with firearms people, are generally the people who should least own firearms.
True. I probably should have just said that a lot of SRA members also collect guns.
But people can’t buy whatever they want. I can’t buy drugs, but I would like to. So clearly simply wanting to buy something isn’t enough. So why are gun suppressors an exception?
Seems like a false equivalency as the constitution doesn’t grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs
Yeah but that’s the point it’s an arbitrary distinction. People somewhere make an arbitrary distinction about what people can and cannot do.
The gun nuts would go mad if the Constitution were changed but only because it’s an inconvenience to themselves. If the Constitution said you couldn’t have guns and it were changed so you could, they’d be all for that. So it’s not actually about the Constitution, it’s mostly about themselves.
So freedom of speech or assembly is arbitrary? Regardless, it is still a fact that the constitution does not grant an inalienable right to recreational drugs, making this a false equivalency. You can’t dispute that.
shh, you can’t give critique to the gun fetishists. it summons their brigading bullshit bands, the best you can get is transparent ‘it’s about safety’ lol. as if these idiots don’t already have tinnitus. Funny they won’t wear their plugs and cans to defend their ears, but they’ll whine piss and moan about paying for the suppressor tax.
they’re gravy seals who want to complete their cosplay kit.
You’re not being brigaded, you’re simply incorrect. Hearing protection is still required when using a suppressor btw as it can still result in hearing loss.
There’s always a reasonable limit to individual freedom. Like you can’t say fire in a crowded theater. If you completely uphold individual freedom at the expense of the community, everyone will eventually suffer.
Edit: keep down voting. Y’all are wrong and you know it. It’s an uncomfortable truth. Grow up.
Fire in a theatre presents a clear and immediate danger to the public and can cause immediate harm. Same with bomb in an airport. Buying a suppressor does not oresent a clear or immediate danger not cause immediate harm. A better analogy for the 2nd amendment would be open carry, which is often banned in certain places and has more restrictions. Buying 27 suppressors is closer to buying a lot of offensive t-shirts.
hording weapons doesn’t hurt anyone
tell that to the 60 murdered and 413 wounded in vegas by a gun hoarder.
that was from using guns, not hording them
lol, how does one employ a horde of arms without amassing the horde?
Look we get it, this is your fetish, you’re not going to reply with any kind of reason.
I just like hording, regardless what it is being horded
That’s not the aspect of this that bothers me, given how many D&D players I know who own hundreds of dice.
Suppressors get used up when you use them. They’ll clog up.
baffles, wipes sure… the cans themselves? nah, not realistically a consumable.
Dat settler-colonial insecurity runs deep.
Repubs used to call Democrats the “tax and spend party”. The GOP is the “don’t tax just spend anyway party”.
You forgot the
import taxestariffs.
So, they are the tax and spend party too. Except they spend a lot more, and their taxes are designed to punish anyone who is not rich.
So, they are more like the tax, spend, and be the billionaire’s little cucks party.
Removed by mod
I read this as “Government expects magical boom of item that specific target market already buys”
Honey, I finally bought that gun suppressor! We don’t even own a gun, let alone a gun this fits on Yes, but it was ~
******~Tax Exempt~******~If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Outside some specific hunting (like bait hunting foxes) silencers are not needed. Then again an assault rifle is a bad hunting weapon so…
Suppressors are an important safety device for everyone’s hearing. Watching someone fire a 9mm handgun without a suppressor is painful to me, even with double hearing protection (ear plugs and muffs).
If you use sporting/hunting stuff perhaps. With a Peltor Optime III and plugs you should be well covered. My service weapon in the army was a HK G3 (7.62/.308) and for normal range shooting this setup is demonstrably fine even if you shoot 100s of cartridges.
Now I do mainly 12 gauge clay shooting with the occational .22 LR with a Walther SSP so I don’t feel a suppressor is needed (or possible on the shotgun)
But to each his own I guess
They’re uncommon, but shotgun supressors exist.
I mostly shoot rifles, so I make no promises for how they will impact your patterns.
?
All my range guns have suppressors in addition to my owning high quality ear pro. You don’t need a suppressor to shoot, but it’s a kind thing to do for your future ability to use your ears.
You don’t need 35 of them, but one per caliber is a good start.
What muffs/plugs do you use? I use a Peltor Optime III, and some molded plugs. I eschew dynamic stuff because they don’t give enough protection. Granted I don’t do much indoor shooting (never have). What I found hardest is tactical manouvering in the field shooting with coms on one ear.
Lately I’ve been trying out the walkers razor quad BT for the range, the wood shop, and yard work. At the range I also have a no name bag of foam plugs I also wear.
I imagine that only made the wait times go up.
Thank Glob that those tariffs won’t affect gun and silencer prices. 🙃
In a Warlord Economy, the only exports your band of raiders can successfully manage are surface-level resources like wood and fossil fuels, and of course guns. Once those easy resources are sold off or stripped bare, the warlords typically move on to greener pastures to conquer.
You only need to look at some of the other Warlord Nations in the world to see what America will become rapidly as we lose our infrastructure and support systems for high-wage jobs, tech development and educated labor who can build or design things. Russia 2.0 babyeeee.
Imagine how silent that house must be
If a tree fell in the woods, and only this guy was around…
