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: 6,350
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 - 45)
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: 6,350
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: 7,325
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

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 16th, 2018 - 02:43 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.