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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
Even doubling up on earpro, you’re still only reducing the shot to around 100db, and over time that can cause hearing loss.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
No it is not. The suppressor in this analogy is the airbag. You’re suggesting we just use earpro, because it’s good enough.
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?
I’m pointing out that it’s required in those countries with massive amounts of gun control, to show that even they are on board with suppressors and not looking at them like more dangerous devices, which is what the antigun crowd does.
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.
This is just silly, we also used to cook over open fires, and ride in wagons and sail across the oceans. New tech shows up, you don’t magically say “well fuck that, that’s not how grandpappy did it”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection
I’m well aware of shotspotter systems.
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.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/12/05/new-study-nypd-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-is-wildly-inaccurate/
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.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-not-renewing-contract-with-shotspotter-program/PYYGLLNVRJGUHEAF4OSJJ7K4NA/
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.
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 is the reality, then? Tell me how I’m wrong (you cannot).
Hearing protection is still required when using a surpressor to prevent hearing damage
Add this to your collection friend
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. 😴
the reality is you don’t need it, you just want it because you want to be like a real soldier.
I can’t dumb it down further for you, sorry, I didn’t bring my crayons.
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.
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
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).
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
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5ehmdV80IiE
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
Necessary is a stretch.
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.
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.
Again airbags.
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.
Properly used hearing protection eliminates any damage to your hearing. I’m not sure how hearing protection is not 100% effective when used correctly.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
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.
No it is not
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frf1hxgq4sgbe1.png
Even doubling up on earpro, you’re still only reducing the shot to around 100db, and over time that can cause hearing loss.
No it is not. The suppressor in this analogy is the airbag. You’re suggesting we just use earpro, because it’s good enough.
I’m pointing out that it’s required in those countries with massive amounts of gun control, to show that even they are on board with suppressors and not looking at them like more dangerous devices, which is what the antigun crowd does.
This is just silly, we also used to cook over open fires, and ride in wagons and sail across the oceans. New tech shows up, you don’t magically say “well fuck that, that’s not how grandpappy did it”.
“ear plugs do the same thing” implies either/or
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.
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”.
Ok, by that logic I didn’t suggest they couldn’t either. So it was your own bias at play?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Any sources to support this because I couldn’t find any. Even the ASA doesn’t make this claim.
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.