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.
I also want no shooters, and yet there are shooters. Given that there are shooters, if you don’t want them to have suppressors, then you do want them to cause hearing damage to bystanders.
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.
You don’t know that, and further you don’t care. You’ve made up your mind that “Guns Bad” and you won’t consider anything that disagrees with you. You are a zealot.
You do you, but it’s useless to discuss the issue with people like you. You ain’t going to hear it no matter what people say.
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
We are not even remotely close to the conditions of Australia when they implemented their ban. Believe it or not, I’d love to live in a gun-free country myself. I just look around and I can’t even imagine it. Right now, I can much more easily imagine right-wing death squads roaming the streets with the support of the police and military. Given the relative likelihood of those two scenarios, I really don’t think that pushing for any form of gun control is worthwhile right now. I know leftists are getting armed and training, and liberals would do well to consider doing the same. The fascists have been arming themselves for decades.
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.
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.
I also want no shooters, and yet there are shooters. Given that there are shooters, if you don’t want them to have suppressors, then you do want them to cause hearing damage to bystanders.
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.
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.
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.
You don’t know that, and further you don’t care. You’ve made up your mind that “Guns Bad” and you won’t consider anything that disagrees with you. You are a zealot.
You do you, but it’s useless to discuss the issue with people like you. You ain’t going to hear it no matter what people say.
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.
We are not even remotely close to the conditions of Australia when they implemented their ban. Believe it or not, I’d love to live in a gun-free country myself. I just look around and I can’t even imagine it. Right now, I can much more easily imagine right-wing death squads roaming the streets with the support of the police and military. Given the relative likelihood of those two scenarios, I really don’t think that pushing for any form of gun control is worthwhile right now. I know leftists are getting armed and training, and liberals would do well to consider doing the same. The fascists have been arming themselves for decades.
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
Guess you don’t have a response that actually addresses my comment?