logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Should Firearm Silencers Be Legalized?, Yearning to be free from ear cups and plugs or something
AuthorMusician
post Jan 15 2017, 01:04 PM
Post #1


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The story:

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-L...ed-to-Congress/

Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
LoneWisdom
post Oct 5 2017, 09:22 PM
Post #41


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2017, 03:51 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Oct 5 2017, 02:58 PM) *
Outlawing silencers . . .

They are already outlawed for those without the prerequisites. The proposed law in question would make it easier for anyone to buy them.



So...

The Pros and Cons of Subsonic Cartridges

QUOTE
Quietest of all is to use a silencer in tandem with subsonic ammunition, which can reduce the sound of gunfire to a whimper in the rain. But if all we wanted was quiet, we wouldn’t pull the trigger at all.


QUOTE
Since energy is the product of mass times velocity squared, a slower bullet has exponentially less energy than a faster one of the same weight. Take your average 55-grain .223 Rem. bullet. At 3250 fps, it produces 1,280 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. But if you reduce the velocity to a subsonic 1100 fps, it produces only 150 foot-pounds. In other words, it turns a .223 Rem. into a .22 LR—the difference between a load for deer and a load for prairie dogs.


Just another inane debate.




Regulated doesn't equal outlawed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Oct 8 2017, 07:08 AM
Post #42


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Why are gun silencers (suppressers) so strictly regulated?

QUOTE
First ... Congress passed a law requiring a $200 "tax stamp" for all regulated weapons -- machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors, among other devices. The law enabled the very rich to still have access to these weapons, but kept them out of the hands of average Americans.

Congress utilized a masterful subterfuge: They weren't regulating firearms, they were regulating interstate trade, which was specifically authorized by the Constitution. So rather than denying access to the arms with a special permit, which would have been unconstitutional, they denied access to the arms by taxing them outrageously.

So why are they still specially regulated? That's reason #2: The movies. Suppressors have gained such an aura as an assassin's tool that it's doubtful they will ever be dropped from special regulation.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Nov 11 2017, 01:37 AM
Post #43


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 2 2017, 04:43 PM) *
Huh, another mass shooting with 58 or so deaths and hundreds injured in Las Vegas yesterday. The responses from politicians are the usual, but more to the point of this thread, legislation that would make firearm noise suppressors easier to get may not ever make it to the House floor.

Then again it could with the current Republican-controlled federal government. If done before the 2018 elections, it could become an issue -- maybe good for Republicans, maybe good for Democrats, it's getting very difficult to call these things.

Oh, and just for grins, the bill would deregulate cop-killer bullets. Yay, making life easier for criminals.


But aren't all cops evil racist white supremacists? Or Nazis, even? Why are you denying the innocent angels in places like Baltimore and Chicago a chance to defend themselves? YOU MONSTER!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 12 2017, 01:16 PM
Post #44


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Looms @ Nov 10 2017, 09:37 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 2 2017, 04:43 PM) *
Huh, another mass shooting with 58 or so deaths and hundreds injured in Las Vegas yesterday. The responses from politicians are the usual, but more to the point of this thread, legislation that would make firearm noise suppressors easier to get may not ever make it to the House floor.

Then again it could with the current Republican-controlled federal government. If done before the 2018 elections, it could become an issue -- maybe good for Republicans, maybe good for Democrats, it's , getting very difficult to call these things.

Oh, and just for grins, the bill would deregulate cop-killer bullets. Yay, making life easier for criminals.


But aren't all cops evil racist white supremacists? Or Nazis, even? Why are you denying the innocent angels in places like Baltimore and Chicago a chance to defend themselves? YOU MONSTER!

No, no, and I'm not.

But I do get your attempt at humor. With a little bit more talent, maybe you could produce right-wing political cartoons. However, consider that a tide is turning, meaning that liberal-bashing won't be selling all that well. Part of the reason is that the audience is shrinking (generational arrivals/departures, changing minds), and the other part is that President Trump is accelerating the process.

Heh, while people were worrying about the government confiscating their weapons, Trump slithered into office and poses an actual threat to our nation. Oh yeah, and then there's Texas.

So what happens to liberal-bashing humor under these conditions? Let's just say a fire hose that has lost pressure is more turgid.

Anyway, there's still no logical argument for liberalizing the restrictions on firearm noise suppressors, aka, silencers, aka (by me) firearm mufflers. And as you, I see no reason for people to have cop-killer bullets. Well, other than criminals. Maybe SWAT? You know, since criminals can also buy body armor on sale at Outdoor Man. No questions asked, no liability allowed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bikerdad
post Jul 13 2018, 05:55 AM
Post #45


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,830
Member No.: 715
Joined: May-8-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?
Because the restrictions on suppressors infringe on the right to keep and bear arms AND the restrictions increase the risk of personal injury when exercising one's right of self defense.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
Hollywood. Movies in the '20s and '30s represented suppressors as silencers that made the shot so quiet it couldn't be heard in the next room, used by sneaky assassins. The reality is the average suppressor reduces the sound of the shot by about 30db, which is about the same as earplugs.

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?
If I had firearms, I would by suppressors for them order to protect my hearing and the hearing of others. In the event of having a firearm and needing to use it in self defense, it's highly unlikely that whatever challenge has presented the need to use the firearm isn't going to give me the time to find and insert hearing protection.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jul 13 2018, 08:42 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 13 2018, 12:55 AM) *
If I had firearms, I would by suppressors for them order to protect my hearing and the hearing of others. In the event of having a firearm and needing to use it in self defense, it's highly unlikely that whatever challenge has presented the need to use the firearm isn't going to give me the time to find and insert hearing protection.


My spouse retired (ceremony was yesterday, change of command today woohoo!) with some disability related to tinnitus and hearing loss (related most likely to jet engines and firearms).
Even with ear protection, a person can sustain hearing loss (especially in an indoor range).
Hearing protection plus a suppressor would be optimal.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jul 13 2018, 08:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 16 2018, 04:07 AM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

I question that they should be. I figure that in this case, the cons of legalization outweigh the pros. Some reasonable explanations can be given for legalizing them, Bikerdad said to protect his hearing and that of others. While there are other ways to protect hearing, I suppose it would make it more convenient not to have to put something like ear-plugs in if you're still wanting to hear other things well. Perhaps hunters could use them to not scare away an animal if they're hunting and miss their shot. In the scenario that two or more intruders are in your house and are trying to kill you, it could be argued that with a silencer you'd have a better chance of picking them off one by one without alerting the others.

So for the sake of argument the pro-gun rights diehards could make some points worth hearing but I figure that all of that is outweighed by the fact that the ones who don't want to be heard shooting a gun the most are often those who are doing something wrong. They have a lot to lose by getting caught shooting a gun, especially if they're about to commit murder.

From my understanding, many pro-gun rights advocates are more worried in cases like this because they don't think there will be an end to the chipping away of gun rights by the Democrats. They think that some Democrats are lying when they say they don't want to take it to the point of taking away all guns, or that the Democrats will evolve to propose ever stricter rules and regulations. To their credit, there is reason to have that concern. Here are three good reasons (from my Quora writings) which demonstrate that we should be skeptical that the Democrats won't take gun restrictions to an extreme, or perhaps try to eventually ban firearms altogether...

1.
Democrats have been evolving for a while, you can go back to the early 90's and see that the Democrats used to not view restricting guns as central to their policymaking. Restricting guns became central to the Democrats with the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. which passed in the Clinton Administration and they've focused on that issue more ever since, especially today.

2.
More recently than that, the Democrats didn't push for a single-payer healthcare system, or government funded healthcare at all, at least not near as much as they do now. Most of the phasing into that took place under the Obama administration and now, pushing taxpayer funded healthcare even further, is picking up more momentum with the Bernie Sanders wave within the Democratic party.

3.
Very recently Democrats said they supported a border wall and were more verbal when criticizing immigrants who came into the country and broke multiple laws. Now that Trump is in office they don't support a border wall and much of the time they can't even criticize murderers if they came here illegally. They're so afraid to offend law-abiding immigrants that their language and policies have become incredibly sensitive and lenient, (I can show quotes from a few years back to demonstrate if you wish).

I happen to agree with some of the gun restrictions that the Democrats propose but feel that it should be kept within reason as well, the doubt that they will comes from the realization that the Dems are embracing a far left European model for our government. There are conservatives in nations like Britain, but as a whole Britain has gotten to the point where they're now pushing knife bans...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...n-a8293686.html

Apparently, the gun restrictions, bans, and gun buyback program within Britain increased the rate of knife stabbings so now they're targeting knives. To paraphrase, pro-guns rights advocates often argue that if you ban guns, that criminals will come at you with knives, and if you ban knives they'll come at you with something else. A knife ban, if you think about it, is a worse idea than a gun ban given you can make a shank out of about anything. All of this gives credibility to the idea that it's people more than guns which is the primary problem. That's an argument that's very difficult if not impossible to counter, so it's usually something the Dems sidestep in debates.

Having said that, the right often tries to hold onto certain guns and accessories that have little practical purpose, like bump stocks. So in short, I'm with the Democrats on some of the policies they've proposed, but don't trust everyone in the party not to get more extreme on the issue because the extreme positions of yesterday keep becoming the mainstream positions of today.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

I'm not sure, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I wouldn't doubt if its for a similar reason I mentioned above, silencers are the perfect accessory for those who don't want to be heard, that sounds harmless enough until you consider that criminals and those who want to commit a mass murder are often the ones who have the most to lose by being heard. This, in my opinion, is similar to the concept of invisibility. Invisibility would be the perfect superpower or technological achievement for those who are either a villain in a science fiction film, or a criminal, assuming we ever achieve that technologically. Perhaps apart from some military and police force applications, invisibility is a perfect ability for those who want to do bad things. For example, stealing, guys who may want to peep on the neighbor next door, those who want to commit a murder, a rape, or perhaps taking pranking way too far, etc. etc.

Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?

I can't think of a reason, as of now I've fired a couple guns but haven't owned anything apart from a pellet rifle. Even if I owned a gun, at best a silencer would serve as a curious gadget for me until I got bored with it. My overall position on guns is that while they're not important to me personally, I can sympathize with those who want to keep most legal guns that are available now, for hunting or defense. As a moderate conservative, I feel we need a balanced government. Not a government so small that taxes, laws, and regulations are reduced to the point that it has negative consequences, but I think the Democrats often get carried away. Too much government discourages the public and can also have negative consequences.

California is a prime example of government expanding to the point that it has severe consequences....

QUOTE
"Between 2007 and 2016, some 5 million people moved in to California and 6 million people moved out to other states, a net loss of about 1 million residents"


QUOTE
"Out of all 50 states, the state of California has been ranked as the worst state for business for 12 years in a row."

QUOTE
"California has the highest state income tax rates in the entire nation"

QUOTE
"they are talking about going to a single-payer health care system for the entire state that would cost California taxpayers $400 billion a year."
(This would compound the problem of taxes that are already high enough to scare away millions of residents)
QUOTE
"California is one of the most litigious states in the entire nation. According to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the "lawsuit climate" in California is ranked 47th out of all 50 states."

QUOTE
"Due to a lack of affordable housing, rents have soared to wild extremes in San Francisco, where one poor engineer was actually paying $1,400 a month to live in a closet."


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinio...-htmlstory.html
https://www.charismanews.com/opinion/63520-...by-the-millions

There were other reasons listed like the ever-increasing number of homeless people in the state and illegal immigration having an impact, the quotes I have above are more related to an inflated government with too much power. They say, as goes California, so goes the nation, I think that's been beneficial at times but they've gone too far. Their model for governing is failing and the state is in a lot of trouble. Personally, I don't want to live in a country where either side dominates because both sides have good ideas but taking gun restrictions to the point that Europe has is one of the bad ideas that some modern liberals have, in my opinion. To me, politics are about balance, as with life.

Edited to correct spelling and mention that points 1 -3 in my reply were quoted from my writings at Quora.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 16 2018, 06:50 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jul 16 2018, 11:47 AM
Post #48


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 15 2018, 11:07 PM) *
Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
I'm not sure, but it's not something I'm losing sleep over.


That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).

QUOTE
I wouldn't doubt if its for a similar reason I mentioned above, silencers are the perfect accessory for those who don't want to be heard, that sounds harmless enough until you consider that criminals and those who want to commit a mass murder are often the ones who have the most to lose by being heard. This, in my opinion, is similar to the concept of invisibility. Invisibility would be the perfect superpower or technological achievement for those who are either a villain in a science fiction film, or a criminal, assuming we ever achieve that technologically.


It can't be likened to invisibility because a suppressor isn't silent. It's actually pretty damned loud. (as has been mentioned in this thread)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 17 2018, 04:21 AM
Post #49


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE
It can't be likened to invisibility because a suppressor isn't silent. It's actually pretty damned loud. (as has been mentioned in this thread)


The analogy admittingly isn't perfect but the amount of noise made depends on what's being "suppressed", with some guns being less noticeable than others. The goal is to be less likely to be heard, apart from some of the side benefits mentioned previously. To me, this sounds like the suppressor made a significant difference in the noise level of the 9mm pistol.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw

Even though it can still be heard, it will alert fewer people so it would still be true that this type of device can benefit criminals immensely as could invisibility, or let's just say partial invisibility to meet you halfway and be fair. On your end do you see the risk involved with these devices? Edited to add: A lot of things have risk which I believe should remain legal and on firearms, generally speaking, I'm not the strictest of individuals you'll run into. In this case, I think there's a debate to be had but believe most of what's legal should stay legal as well.

QUOTE
That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).


Or to be completely accurate it depends on the state right?

They're illegal in some states and regulated in states where they are legal, from my understanding....

https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal

Perhaps AuthorMusician lives in one of the states where they've been made illegal, just a thought.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 17 2018, 05:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jul 17 2018, 12:46 PM
Post #50


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 16 2018, 11:21 PM) *
The analogy admittingly isn't perfect but the amount of noise made depends on what's being "suppressed", with some guns being less noticeable than others. The goal is to be less likely to be heard, apart from some of the side benefits mentioned previously. To me, this sounds like the suppressor made a significant difference in the noise level of the 9mm pistol.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw


Droop and I had this conversation in this thread already.
Starting about here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100034499

QUOTE
That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).

Or to be completely accurate it depends on the state right?

They're illegal in some states and regulated in states where they are legal, from my understanding....

https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal

Perhaps AuthorMusician lives in one of the states where they've been made illegal, just a thought.


The article referenced Tennessee. As you can see from the link you just provided, suppressors aren't banned in Tennessee. The article was in error.
(as has been mentioned) The proposed bill wasn't an attempt to lift a ban, it was an attempt to lift a tax.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jul 17 2018, 12:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jul 17 2018, 03:29 PM
Post #51


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,351
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Jul 13 2018, 01:55 AM) *
Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?
Because the restrictions on suppressors infringe on the right to keep and bear arms AND the restrictions increase the risk of personal injury when exercising one's right of self defense.

So you are equating buying a firearm muffler with the right to bear arms? I frankly don't see the connection, since the firearm remains an arm regardless of the accessorizing of the firearm.

The personal injury side of things has a tad bit more credence, but not a whole lot. Having worked in a foundry while younger, the use of earplugs and ear cans together worked great at reducing the deafening cacophony to a safe level, and we are talking eight hours of exposure to the noise each and every day of the workweek for about six months.

This is why I don't swallow the health safety argument. Mufflers are not needed when ear protection tech from the 1970s works fine, is probably cheaper, and can't be used to reduce the sound levels of gunshots fired during crimes.
QUOTE
Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
Hollywood. Movies in the '20s and '30s represented suppressors as silencers that made the shot so quiet it couldn't be heard in the next room, used by sneaky assassins. The reality is the average suppressor reduces the sound of the shot by about 30db, which is about the same as earplugs.

So not so effective, eh? Kinda goes against the health argument.
QUOTE
Why might you buy a firearm silencer if they're legalized?
If I had firearms, I would by suppressors for them order to protect my hearing and the hearing of others. In the event of having a firearm and needing to use it in self defense, it's highly unlikely that whatever challenge has presented the need to use the firearm isn't going to give me the time to find and insert hearing protection.

That I can agree with -- nobody using firearms in self-defense cares about preserving their hearing. Perhaps you can come up with an article in which the defender had put a muffler on before using the firearm in self-defense, but until then, I doubt anyone does. Looks like an unnecessary expense and increase of firearm mass that would also reduce firearm accuracy.

The use of cups with plugs works in a foundry -- should work for repetitive use of firearms during practice/recreation as well. Use during self-defense is moot, since nobody cares about the noise.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Jul 17 2018, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Jul 17 2018, 06:07 PM
Post #52


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 17 2018, 08:46 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 16 2018, 11:21 PM) *
The analogy admittingly isn't perfect but the amount of noise made depends on what's being "suppressed", with some guns being less noticeable than others. The goal is to be less likely to be heard, apart from some of the side benefits mentioned previously. To me, this sounds like the suppressor made a significant difference in the noise level of the 9mm pistol.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZU5TGljAmw


Droop and I had this conversation in this thread already.
Starting about here: http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100034499

QUOTE
That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread).

Or to be completely accurate it depends on the state right?

They're illegal in some states and regulated in states where they are legal, from my understanding....

https://www.silencershop.com/where-are-they-legal

Perhaps AuthorMusician lives in one of the states where they've been made illegal, just a thought.


The article referenced Tennessee. As you can see from the link you just provided, suppressors aren't banned in Tennessee. The article was in error.
(as has been mentioned) The proposed bill wasn't an attempt to lift a ban, it was an attempt to lift a tax.


I'm not referencing the bill, I'm saying the link demonstrates that silencers are illegal in some states. I don't want to make a big stink out of this but you're pushing me to be a little more clear, which in itself is understandable. I met you halfway on your first point, but what you said here seems a bit foggy to me..... "That's good because they aren't illegal anyway (as has been mentioned in this thread)."

The link I shared, as well as others I've come across suggest that it depends on the state whether or not silencers are legal so I was seeing if you'd meet me halfway, and sharing something new. If you're disputing the information in the link, you're welcome to substantiate if I'm wrong. As a side note, when you engage me I think it'd be nice to have a debate with you, we haven't had that many debates at AD over the years. I do usually read back in the debates, as you can see I referenced Bikerdads comment, but with that said I'm not always able to read every post in every debate depending on the amount of time I have in my personal life. To paraphrase, I remember once that you told me that we don't know what's going on in the personal lives of others. This when you felt I was being a little impatient with another member, which I thought it was a fair point Mrs. P.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jul 17 2018, 06:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jul 17 2018, 09:15 PM
Post #53


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,328
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 17 2018, 01:07 PM) *
The link I shared, as well as others I've come across suggest that it depends on the state whether or not silencers are legal so I was seeing if you'd meet me halfway, and sharing something new. If you're disputing the information in the link, you're welcome to substantiate if I'm wrong. As a side note, when you engage me I think it'd be nice to have a debate with you, we haven't had that many debates at AD over the years. I do usually read back in the debates, as you can see I referenced Bikerdads comment, but with that said I'm not always able to read every post in every debate depending on the amount of time I have in my personal life. To paraphrase, I remember once that you told me that we don't know what's going on in the personal lives of others. This when you felt I was being a little impatient with another member, which I thought it was a fair point Mrs. P.


Net, point taken.
Keep in mind though this goes both ways.
This thread is VERY short by ad.gif standards. Look, I can understand getting lost in a long thread....but this is short and has been up at the front for months.
Did you really not have time to read the few posts or are you burning your scroll wheel to get past my commentary?
At any rate, I'm in the middle of a move so maybe my mood will improve in a few days/weeks when things settle down.

I'll be back then.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jul 17 2018, 09:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Yesterday, 02:04 AM
Post #54


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jul 17 2018, 05:15 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Jul 17 2018, 01:07 PM) *
The link I shared, as well as others I've come across suggest that it depends on the state whether or not silencers are legal so I was seeing if you'd meet me halfway, and sharing something new. If you're disputing the information in the link, you're welcome to substantiate if I'm wrong. As a side note, when you engage me I think it'd be nice to have a debate with you, we haven't had that many debates at AD over the years. I do usually read back in the debates, as you can see I referenced Bikerdads comment, but with that said I'm not always able to read every post in every debate depending on the amount of time I have in my personal life. To paraphrase, I remember once that you told me that we don't know what's going on in the personal lives of others. This when you felt I was being a little impatient with another member, which I thought it was a fair point Mrs. P.


Net, point taken.
Keep in mind though this goes both ways.
This thread is VERY short by ad.gif standards. Look, I can understand getting lost in a long thread....but this is short and has been up at the front for months.
Did you really not have time to read the few posts or are you burning your scroll wheel to get past my commentary?
At any rate, I'm in the middle of a move so maybe my mood will improve in a few days/weeks when things settle down.

I'll be back then.


I didn't have time to read all of the exchanges this time, unfortunately. I read the opening post for the first time just recently and all of the recent post going back a page or so. I try not to do that but things have been incredibly hectic the last few days, and no I don't scroll past your post. flowers.gif

Looking back, I think it was a fair point that you brought up that silencers AKA suppressors aren't silent. I'd still quibble with you if you were to argue that suppressors can't give criminals an edge. When you shared the comparison between a suppressor and a siren, I believe the fact you presented is true but that it could be misleading as well, (not that you intended it that way, my analogy earlier could have been clearer as well). As far as the siren/suppressor comparison goes, I'm sure they measured a silencer and siren with instruments to come up with a similar decibel level, but we're also comparing a very fast burst of sound to a sustained sound. It seems self-evident that for the suppressor/siren comparison to be completely accurate, the siren would have to be turned on and off as fast as you can flick a light switch in order to more closely match the duration of a gunshot which is very brief.

Another thing, I'd still have a bit to learn on the following point but I wouldn't doubt if the pitch difference between a suppressed gun and a siren means that one would be easier to hear than the other at the same decibel level. I have a rough idea about this from playing the guitar, higher pitched notes are often easier to hear than lower pitched notes even if both notes are struck at the same intensity, though I think that the very highest of notes are an exception to this. I found some substantiation for this point if I'm interpreting the following accurately....

QUOTE
QUOTE
"Pitch helps us distinguish between low and high sounds. Imagine that a singer sings the same note twice, one an octave above the other. You can hear a difference between these two sounds. That is because their pitch is different.

Pitch depends on the frequency of a sound wave."


QUOTE
"The human ear is more sensitive to high sounds, so they may seem louder than a low noise of the same intensity."


https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/H.../components.htm

The exception to this appears to be if the pitch is high enough to be ultrasonic or close too it, like with a dog whistle or the very highest of notes on a musical instrument. With all of that said, when comparing a siren to a suppressor, it appears that one would be easier to hear at the same decibel level than the other. The pitch of a siren sounds higher to me but it variates between low and high so that would complicate the siren/suppressor comparison a bit further.

So we have a pitch difference and the fact that a siren is a sustained sound, the latter of which is sure to make a siren easier to hear. I've also heard a suppressor compared to a book slapping shut or being dropped which to me seems like it would be closer to the pitch of a gunshot and certainly a brief burst of sound like a gunshot.

Also, at first glance, the decibel difference between a suppressed gun and an unsuppressed gun doesn't appear to be significant if you're just looking at the numbers but I ran across this earlier today.....

QUOTE
"These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving"


I want to be clear though that this quote came from a fact-checking website which completely debunked Hillary Clinton's claim that a suppressor reduces the sound of a gunshot to the point of being nearly inaudible....

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/10/03/fact-c...nd-of-gunshots/

What I take from all of this is that a suppressor brings you "10,000 percent" closer to being completely stealthy when firing a gun. In fairness, that amount of reduction still doesn't bring a person down to being "nearly inaudible" as Hillary Clinton claimed but the word stealth doesn't necessarily mean you can't hear or see something. The B-2 Stealth Bomber can still be seen and it's a stealth aircraft. I'd say the B-2 Stealth Bomber is more stealthy (for it's intended purpose) than a suppressed gun is compared to an unsuppressed gun, but can a suppressor be classified as a stealth device?

Depending on the situation I'd say yes because while it's likely that if you're somewhere nearby you'd hear the suppressed shot, a suppressor reduces the radius that another person could hear it. That could mean the difference between alerting a cop that's a half a mile away or not alerting them and at a certain point the shot could be mistaken for a number of things or be inaudible depending on the distance and terrain. As far as those closer to the person firing a gun with a suppressor, it'd be fun to experiment with but I don't doubt there are situations where you wouldn't hear it at all or mistake it for something else. Say for example if someone is in a building and separated from the shooter by a few doors or there's music playing at a decent volume, or say it's a combination of those two things, I'd imagine it could be mistaken for the circuit breaker flipping or someone dropping something, that's if it's heard. If the shooter is also pointing the other direction from a person who's behind them when they fire, that'd also have an effect and reduce how much they'd hear.

A lot of scenarios could play out so to me this is about percentages and a suppressor reduces the chances you'll be heard firing a gun, being why stealth is one of the military's primary applications for suppressors....

QUOTE
"For Staff Sgt. Troy Hauck, a platoon sergeant with Bravo Company’s Weapons Platoon, not having to worry about ear protection when firing his rifle is a nice bonus. But a potentially bigger boon is the element of surprise that comes with a suppressed weapon.

“Just doing some of the training attacks that we’ve done on this deployment has been good,” he said. “I’m on one side of the hill and [part of the company is] on the other side of the hill, and I can’t hear them firing their weapons. It’s pretty nice, real stealthy.
”"


I do hear your argument though. Suppressors aren't devices that remove the risk of being heard entirely and they're not as quite as how movies depict them. I think pro-gun rights advocates and many conservatives have a point on this but I'd still maintain that criminals have a lot to gain by using them.

Edited to add: I almost forgot the link for the last quote...

https://taskandpurpose.com/suppressors-marine-unit-weapons/

This post has been edited by net2007: Yesterday, 03:00 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 20th, 2018 - 04:46 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.