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: 6,328
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 (1 - 19)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 15 2017, 01:31 PM
Post #2


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 15 2017, 09:04 AM) *
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?


From HowStuffWorks.com

I'll answer the first and third questions here:

Apparently they (suppressors) are legal for the general public (see above link), but it requires a background check and there is a steep tax.

QUOTE
The gun industry is positioning silencers as a health issue. In fact, the bill that would eliminate the $200 tax and ATF background check for buying a silencer is called the Hearing Protection Act. There's no doubt that repeated short-range exposure to gun blasts will inflict lasting hearing damage. But why can't hunters and other sportsman simply wear ear plugs?

The American Suppressor Association argues that many hunters don't wear ear protection because they want to be aware of their surroundings. It's hard to hear the call of a migrating duck or the sound of a buck moving stealthily through the underbrush if you're wearing earplugs or noise-reducing earmuffs. With silencers, gun advocates argue, hunters don't have to sacrifice awareness for safety.

Another safety benefit touted by the silencer industry is accuracy. The anticipation of a loud blast causes some shooters to flinch as they pull the trigger. This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Just as an anecdote, I live very close to a hunting range and I'd love for the hunters to use silencers. Beats being awakened at five thirty every weekend morning during hunting season from the sound of the blasts.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
According to Howstuffworks they aren't illegal. I'd guess they require a background check (just knowing how this kind of thing goes) because someone who didn't know that a silencer doesn't actually silence a gun saw a Hollywood movie or two that portrayed them inaccurately, said, "there outta be a law!"....and they told two friends, and so on, and so on....

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 15 2017, 01:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lo rez
post Jan 16 2017, 02:35 PM
Post #3


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 387
Member No.: 10,616
Joined: August-8-09

From: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Independent





Why should firearm silencers be legalized for the general public?

Strike that. Reverse it. The default should be that an object or act is legal until sufficient reason is found to make that object or act illegal.

Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?

Most likely the same reason that they're commonly referred to as silencers rather than suppressors.

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

To give to the jerk two lanes down who won't stop rapid firing his .50 desert eagle. I'm not sure it would be very effective but maybe it would calm my nerves a bit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Jan 16 2017, 04:42 PM
Post #4


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

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,328
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

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



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 15 2017, 09:31 AM) *
According to Howstuffworks they aren't illegal. I'd guess they require a background check (just knowing how this kind of thing goes) because someone who didn't know that a silencer doesn't actually silence a gun saw a Hollywood movie or two that portrayed them inaccurately, said, "there outta be a law!"....and they told two friends, and so on, and so on....

So are you maintaining that this law to make silencers/suppressors (same thing in the English language within this context) available to the general public is not needed, since if you can pass the tests for a permit and pay the fees, you get to use them?

Okay, I can understand that mode of thinking. It's like a law eliminating the need for a license to drive a car isn't needed because if you can pass the tests and pay the fees, you're free to operate one. It is technically legal to drive a car.

As for why sound suppressors for firearms, AKA silencers, were made illegal (using them without a permit being illegal), check out this from the linked article:

QUOTE
The legislation would remove silencers from the list of weapons banned for having "no common lawful purpose"
It's the subtitle of the article.

Can you think of a lawful purpose for using a firearm sound suppressor on a firearm, other than avoiding the annoying of people trying to sleep or have some peace-and-quite in their homes?

Around here the sound of really big guns around Fort Carson and the sound of really loud military jets and choppers is referred to as the sound of freedom. Don't like it? Use ear plugs, noise-canceling headsets, or move away.

I seriously doubt that your annoying hunters give a spit about the noise they make. If they did (and were real hunters), they'd take up archery and learn to shoot like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk

Lars Anderson can shoot three arrows accurately and silently in 0.06 seconds, and he does this on the run. Amazing? Not in the ancient world. It was a common requirement for carrying a bow in the old militaries, before firearms rendered the skills obsolete.

Ah well, there's so much the modern world has forgotten due to technological developments.

This proposed law would make it so that any Tom, Dick or Mary can use a silencer on their firearm(s). I guess to not disturb the neighbors? Bull puckey, to help get away with murder. No more annoying calls to 911 bringing in police and thereby putting pressure on the murderer to flee right away, rather than taking the time to clean up the crime scene.

What a boon for terroists too -- can shoot lots more people in loud clubs before anyone knows why Tom, Dick and Mary fell to the floor, and the terrorists can then make their getaways without any messy standoffs. Perfect for them.

This is of course how I see it, AKA my opinion. However, Lars Anderson demonstrates why I and my oldest brother have contempt for firearm hunters. Very little skill is required to pop the game with those noisy, irritating semi-autos, and worse -- some can't tell the difference between the game and a human dressed in blaze orange duds. Bowhunters rule!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 16 2017, 09:50 PM
Post #5


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jan 16 2017, 12:42 PM) *
Okay, I can understand that mode of thinking. It's like a law eliminating the need for a license to drive a car isn't needed because if you can pass the tests and pay the fees, you're free to operate one. It is technically legal to drive a car.


No. It'd like a law eliminating a tax on a feature that would make a car safer. Because there is no advantage, (and obvious disadvantage) to a sound that is so loud it causes hearing loss.

From the link I supplied above:

QUOTE
A silencer is a lot like the muffler on your car (in fact, both were invented by the same guy). Screwing a silencer onto the barrel of a gun doesn't "silence" the explosive bang, it just muffles the noise. That's why folks in the gun industry call them suppressors instead of silencers.

The decibel level of an un-suppressed 12-gauge shotgun is 160 decibels, louder than standing on the runway when a jet is taking off (150 decibels). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets 140 decibels as the threshold of pain, although it takes far less than 140 decibels to inflict long-term hearing damage with repeated exposure.

According to a fact sheet from SilencerCo, a Utah-based silencer manufacturer, a 12-gauge shotgun equipped with a silencer registers 137 decibels and a silenced .22 rifle is muffled to 116 decibels, slightly louder than an ambulance siren. Still loud, just not eardrum-busting loud.


Still slightly louder than an ambulance siren.
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 16 2017, 09:53 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 17 2017, 03:02 AM
Post #6


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. P)
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.
laugh.gif Sounds more like a gun enthusiast's straw man than a Hollywood myth.

Look, I could buy a box of Cheerios and put it in front of you and ask you "What's its purpose???" Now you could say "to me eaten" or "to nourish the body", but then I could take out some string and thread it through a pile of Cheerios and present you with a Cheerio Necklace (don't tell the hubby, our secret wub.gif ). But at the end of the day the fact that I used for a purpose other than eating, doesn't mean the intention in its creation is different.

First the purpose of a firearm is to kill or maim. It was made to be a weapon. A suppressor is made to do this in a more stealthy manner. So that's the "con":

Con for society:

1) Allowing suppressors allows one person in society to kill another in a more stealthy manner

Pro for society:

1) People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor.

2) Those people that live by fire ranges will get more beauty sleep

So we all have seen how the proliferation of guns has increased the ease for illegal gun ownership... and now we want to compound that issue by making it easier and cheaper (more supply) for people to get suppressors?




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Jan 17 2017, 10:49 AM
Post #7


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Why were firearms silencers made illegal in the first place?
QUOTE
...
The first step in consideration of why suppressors might be removed
from the NFA involves a historical analysis of how they got
there in the first place. Get ready for a rendition of the insightful truism:
“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”
...
II. THE TORTUROUS HISTORY OF HOW NOISE SUPPRESSORS
CAME TO BE RESTRICTED

A review of the historical background explains how mere noise
suppressors came, paradoxically, to be placed in the National Firearms
Act of 1934 in the same category as machine guns and short-barreled
shotguns. Astonishingly, no facts or data were ever set forth in the
legislative record suggesting that suppressors were a crime problem.
The legislative history also demonstrates how, independently of the
NFA, wholly separate restrictions focusing on keeping suppressors out
of the hands of prohibited persons and punishing criminal misuse developed
in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of
1968, and the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. NFA restrictions
became arguably superfluous upon enactment of these provisions.
...
Maxim’s suppressor had not been on the market long before crank extraordinaire
William T. Hornaday published his Our Vanishing Wildlife
(1913), which railed against both improved firearms and ethnic
groups such as Italians and blacks.64 Hornaday saw catastrophe looming
in the use of more accurate rifles and better binoculars, regretting
also that “in Wyoming the Maxim silencer is now being used.”65 But
he first trained his wrath on disfavored ethnic groups. Because “all
members of the lower classes of southern Europe are a dangerous menace
to our wild life,” he proposed a law to “[p]rohibit the use of firearms
in hunting by any naturalized alien from southern Europe until after a
10-years’ residence in America.”66 He denounced the blacks and “poor
white trash” of the South for hunting doves and other birds for food,
claiming “[n]o white man calling himself a sportsman ever indulges in
such low pastimes”67 and harkened to the days “when the negroes were
too poor to own guns . . . .”68

But “[t]he time came when . . . single breech-loading guns went
down to five dollars apiece. The negro had money now, and the merchants
. . . sold him the guns, a gun for every black idler, man and boy in all the South.”69 ...
...
Hornaday proceeded to rate the “degree of deadliness” in guns beginning
with “Single-shot muzzle loader” and moving up to “Repeating
rifle, with silencer,” and after that to “‘Pump’ shot-gun (6 shots)” and
then “Automatic or ‘autoloading’ shot-guns, 5 shots,” at the top.71 He
denounced as unsportsmanlike five-shot pump shotguns and self-loading
shotguns, which he wrongly called “machine guns,” averring that
“[t]he machine guns and ‘silencers’ are grossly unfair . . . .”72 He declared:
“The use of automatic and pump shotguns, and silencers, should
immediately be prohibited.”73

Hornaday gave no explanation of why silencers should have been
banned. A review of Hornaday’s book blamed “rapid transportation,
improved fire-arms, smokeless powder, the ‘Maxim silencer,’ the
‘pump gun,’ and like abominations” for the depletion of game birds and
mammals.74 It seems that modern technology was the great evil.
...

Link: http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_...m_sound_mod.pdf

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 17 2017, 04:41 PM
Post #8


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Jan 17 2017, 05:43 PM
Post #9


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,932
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 04:41 PM) *
An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.


Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns. Unless my memory is completely shot, pretty much any handgun under about .45 calibre is quieter than either a shotgun or a rifle. (It's over 20 years since I was anywhere near a discharging firearm of any kind.)

But I did chuckle at this quote from the linked article (emphasis mine):
QUOTE
This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Erm, isn't an injury to the animal kind of the point of hunting with any sort of gun, suppressed or not? (I know they mean "a non-fatal injury causing unnecessary pain and suffering", but that's not what they said.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 17 2017, 07:06 PM
Post #10


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 17 2017, 01:43 PM) *
Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns.


.22 is the lowest caliber as far as I am aware. Because a pistol barrel is shorter than a rifle barrel, there is less time for the energy to dissipate and i would expect a pistol to be louder (and a sawed-off shotgun would be louder than a non-sawed off one. But to be sure I found some numbers here.

.22 LR rifle is the quietest. .22LR pistol 18 decibels louder. And it goes up from there.

FWIW, per hunting and bows and guns...
The guns I hear in the AM are duck hunters. I have no idea why anyone would duck hunt, but Duck Dynasty would indicate it's a popular sport (how else could a family become wealthy from duck whistles?). Truly, when's the last time anyone invited you over for duck? They're on the golf courses in retirement communities and the retirees feed them so much they cannot even fly. Literally, sitting ducks. Their livers are probably so fatty they'd make a good faux gras but who would want to eat them? Nasty birds.

My husband hunts with a bow and arrow. That's all they allow in this area (for hunting deer) at this time. But is that really so sporting? He's up there in a tree stand, with three different types of deer calling devices, doe-in-estrus-pee sprinkled around the tree, ect. He has a little noisemaker designed to sound like bucks fighting, but not big bucks, sort of smaller sized ones so the bigger ones will approach with confidence. But it's still more sportsmanlike than raising an animal in a pen and slaughtering it. I mean, these things live the good life roaming free until they don't. And it's organic!

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 17 2017, 07:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 17 2017, 11:31 PM
Post #11


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Julian @ Jan 17 2017, 12:43 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 04:41 PM) *
An ambulance siren is actually designed, purposely, to be heard.

A .22 with a so-called "silencer" is still slightly louder than this noise.
In what world would that be considered stealthy?

Yah, I guess an ambulance siren is more stealthy than a rocket going off right next to your head, sure.
This is absurd beyond belief. I honestly thought the discussion would end with the HowStuffWorks link.

Silly me.


Not to be picky, but you were specifically quoting data on the suppressors available for a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, unless I misread you. The article didn't mention the noise levels for quieter guns. Unless my memory is completely shot, pretty much any handgun under about .45 calibre is quieter than either a shotgun or a rifle. (It's over 20 years since I was anywhere near a discharging firearm of any kind.)

But I did chuckle at this quote from the linked article (emphasis mine):
QUOTE
This may lead to inaccurate shots, which could endanger other hunters or result in an injury to the animal.


Erm, isn't an injury to the animal kind of the point of hunting with any sort of gun, suppressed or not? (I know they mean "a non-fatal injury causing unnecessary pain and suffering", but that's not what they said.)



LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.

Mrs P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY This is a difference in sound on a video for some gun. But lets not get lost in the weeds about this gun sounds like... and that gun sounds like... . The reason why I called you out for the straw man is only because you were dismissing a "Hollywood myth" that no one is seriously proposing.

But if we look at out current situation to see the proliferation of illegal gun ownership in our country, its not a stretch of logic to say making suppressor easier to obtain, will lead to a similar result.

I'm not arguing or dismissing your facts. I'm not saying a gun with a suppressor makes no noise, I'm saying it makes significantly less noise (and has less muzzle flash) than if it did not have a suppressor attached. That what stealthier is, IMO, more silent, less visible. From there my point is... why... just why?!?!?

I think making it easier for people to kill each other in a more stealthy way is a "con"... and yes RPGs should still be illegal as well(I know it has nothing to do with the debate, just thought I would get that out there in the ether).









This post has been edited by droop224: Jan 17 2017, 11:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 18 2017, 02:27 AM
Post #12


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 07:31 PM) *
LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.


I just posted facts. Actual facts with decibel levels for each weapon.

HowStuffWorks is not some gun-lover's shill site. It's a website that explains how....(wait for it) stuff works. All sorts of stuff.
Like the plague.
Or...How to sharpen a knife with sandpaper.

Notice how we didn't need earplugs to listen to the gun firing without the suppressor that first time? It didn't even sound that loud. Nowhere near loud enough for the need to use earplugs.
Hmm.....I know you've fired a gun before and you know that wasn't the real sound of a gun firing. It was the amount of sound the recording device can capture and the speakers can transmit.
And if it wasn't the sound of the real gun without the suppressor....how do you know the sound WITH suppressor is accurate?

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 18 2017, 02:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 18 2017, 04:14 AM
Post #13


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jan 17 2017, 09:27 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 07:31 PM) *
LOL Thanks Julian. Maybe it softens the blow coming from someone else.


I just posted facts. Actual facts with decibel levels for each weapon.

HowStuffWorks is not some gun-lover's shill site. It's a website that explains how....(wait for it) stuff works. All sorts of stuff.
Like the plague.
Or...How to sharpen a knife with sandpaper.

Notice how we didn't need earplugs to listen to the gun firing without the suppressor that first time? It didn't even sound that loud. Nowhere near loud enough for the need to use earplugs.
Hmm.....I know you've fired a gun before and you know that wasn't the real sound of a gun firing. It was the amount of sound the recording device can capture and the speakers can transmit.
And if it wasn't the sound of the real gun without the suppressor....how do you know the sound WITH suppressor is accurate?

Just so we are clear I want to reiterate I am not, absolutely not, throwing shade, dashing salt, or degrading in any way your facts...(like decibel levels).

My comment about the "gun enthusiast" making a straw man refers only to this statement:
QUOTE
So, no, it would appear that suppressors don't enable terrorists/murderers/psychos to stack up bodies in silence and stealth. That is a Hollywood myth.


Comparing gun shot to a siren does no justice, anyways, just my opinion. Imagine that you heard a siren for less than a second. Just "EH!!!!!" You could also characterize the sound as "less than the sound of a firecracker" but you chose not to.(not saying you had to)

but the gist of my discussion on this doesn't concern any of that. You are spot on about the video and that I have shot plenty of guns. As have you. So I find it hard to believe your brain didn't do what my brain did... adjust. See the key isn't the actual sound in the video in comparison to real life, but the differences in the sounds with and without a suppressor on the gun, in the same video. Would you agree that the difference in sound is significant?

Which gets me to my main point... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner... just so hunters don't have to wear freakin ear protection?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Jan 18 2017, 10:14 AM
Post #14


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 18 2017, 02:40 PM
Post #15


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 12:14 AM) *
Comparing gun shot to a siren does no justice, anyways, just my opinion. Imagine that you heard a siren for less than a second. Just "EH!!!!!" You could also characterize the sound as "less than the sound of a firecracker" but you chose not to.(not saying you had to)


Firecrackers are loud enough to cause nerve damage to the ears. How about what the Italians call a bomba?
Which is both legal (in Italy, not here), and essentially a real bomb. Yah, that thing is hella loud.

QUOTE
but the gist of my discussion on this doesn't concern any of that. You are spot on about the video and that I have shot plenty of guns. As have you. So I find it hard to believe your brain didn't do what my brain did... adjust. See the key isn't the actual sound in the video in comparison to real life, but the differences in the sounds with and without a suppressor on the gun, in the same video. Would you agree that the difference in sound is significant?


We have inaccurate information which leads to inaccurate perspective. So I submit nothing whatsoever can be concluded here that wasn't known before.
Yes, the suppressor suppresses some of the sound...I'd expect so because that is its actual purpose.
Let's take this "louder is better" argument to an absurd extreme.
Shorter barrels are louder. Longer barrels absorb some of the sound. All barrels should be shorter.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 18 2017, 02:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 18 2017, 02:47 PM
Post #16


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.

Is it absurd to call planes stealth fighters or stealth bombers even if they are detectable? They aren't invisible or undetectable, but they are harder to detect... that's what makes them stealthy.

If you reduce the noise and muzzle flash by a significant amount, which I hope we all can agree on that fact, then you have made the weapon less detectable. Because the point being made even by you proponents is "When I shoot a gun it is SOOOOO loud that it hurts my ears and I need ear protection to not suffer hearing loss. However, with a suppressor the sound is reduced to a point where its not loud enough to need hearing protection" We don't have to proliferate suppressors through out our society and that is what will happen if we open the flood gates. We can simply use ear plug when firing a gun. We don't have to make this big strawman of "its not like Hollywood movies"... reality is rarely like Hollywood movies.

Honestly, though I'll admit this: this debate to me is like telling someone that they shouldn't put the lemon glaze icing on the Pound Cake that was made from 6 sticks of butter. Its pretty obvious that person doesn't care about their caloric intake. laugh.gif

Edited To address Mrs P

QUOTE
Firecrackers are loud enough to cause nerve damage to the ears. How about what the Italians call a bomba?
Which is both legal (in Italy, not here), and essentially a real bomb. Yah, that thing is hella loud.
And a suppressed gun makes less noise. BTW I don't miss how Italians would light off fireworks for no better reason than... its Tuesday!! But I do miss the festiveness.

QUOTE
We have inaccurate information which leads to inaccurate perspective. So I submit nothing whatsoever can be concluded here that wasn't known before.
Yes, the suppressor suppresses some of the sound...I'd expect so because that is its actual purpose.
Let's take this "louder is better" argument to an absurd extreme.
Shorter barrels are louder. Longer barrels absorb some of the sound. All barrels should be shorter.
LOL we don't have inaccurate information, you are actually hearing the difference. As opposed to trying to use decibel levels.... which is like trying to explain sight to someone by showing the red, green, and blue wave lengths.. both are very scientific, but really aren't helpful in understanding the difference from the perspective of actual hearing or seeing. When you see a video on youtube or watch a movie you aren't actually seeing in 3D but your brain compensates to give you the needed perspective to see it in a 3d manner.

And I don't think the argument is "louder is better" I don't think anyone here has proposed, "you know, we should implement gun safety by making them louder". That would be another.. you know... scarecrow. innocent.gif I think the argument is "The gun make significant amount of noise why make it less detectable, more stealthy, in an uncontrolled manner?"

But sure if you stand for making ALL guns as short barreled as possible, I would too...lol Would you want that? I doubt it.



This post has been edited by droop224: Jan 18 2017, 04:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Jan 18 2017, 07:13 PM
Post #17


Group Icon

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

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,308
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 10:47 AM) *
LOL we don't have inaccurate information, you are actually hearing the difference. As opposed to trying to use decibel levels.... which is like trying to explain sight to someone by showing the red, green, and blue wave lengths.. both are very scientific, but really aren't helpful in understanding the difference from the perspective of actual hearing or seeing. When you see a video on youtube or watch a movie you aren't actually seeing in 3D but your brain compensates to give you the needed perspective to see it in a 3d manner.


Let's use a different example.
When you look at a picture of sunspots on the sun, the image is a dark mass surrounded by brilliant light.
That is what the "senses" tell us.
The sunspots are "cool" in comparison to the temperature of the rest of the sun so those spots look dark.
But in reality (that scientific reality) those sunspots are burning very very bright and they are 3900 degrees Celsius,
but the surrounding photosphere has a temperature approximately degrees 1500 degrees higher.

There are many, many other examples of our senses not offering "needed" perspective, but very inaccurate perspective.
Bottom line (repeated again and again) is...guns with suppressors are still loud.
There's really not much else to say. We're just arguing over whether they should be ear-bustlingly loud, or just very loud with an extra tax, or just very loud without extra tax.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Jan 19 2017, 01:22 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Jan 18 2017, 08:56 PM
Post #18


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf

This post has been edited by akaCG: Jan 18 2017, 08:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jan 19 2017, 05:32 AM
Post #19


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

Group: Members
Posts: 2,808
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 03:56 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf


Man o' man to think like you guys is a blessing, I'm sure. Ummmm... YOUR links disprove YOUR facts. There were guns that were higher than 120 db and guns that are lower than 120 db. Come on. Read your own links.

Mrs P

QUOTE
Let's use a different example.
When you look at a picture of sunspots on the sun, the image is a dark mass surrounded by brilliant light.
That is what the "senses" tell us.
The sunspots are "cool" in comparison to the temperature of the rest of the sun so those spots look dark.
But in reality (that scientific reality) those sunspots are burning very very bright and they are 3900 degrees Celsius,
but the surrounding photosphere has a temperature approximately degrees 1500 degrees higher.
I think I understand you and if I do you are more proving my point than you intend to. I can't see warmth, just like I can't see sound. I feel warmth and I hear sound. So if I look at picture of a sun, with dark spots I can see its cooler (now this where it becomes a bad example) but since I am looking at a picture I won't feel the difference, so I have to feel the difference to get an understanding(since you decided to talk about the sun the heat is incomprehensible either way) Same with the video showing you the difference in sound. I maintain that you have a better chance of understand the difference of sound by hear the difference(even if distorted in a video when compared with real life) than you do reading decibel ratings on paper.

And saying that here is another video where you can hear the guy make the gun "Hollywood quiet" by shooting it "wet". Its just as quiet if not quieter than the paint gun he shoots interchangeably. Who knew?!?!

QUOTE
There are many, many other examples of our senses not offering "needed" perspective, but very inaccurate perspective.
Bottom line (repeated again and again) is...guns with suppressors are still loud.
There's really not much else to say. We're just arguing over whether they should be ear-bustlingly loud, or just very loud with an extra tax, or just very loud without extra tax.
You are correct, but just to remind you as I bow out.. my argument isn't how loud they are. My argument has yet to be addressed by anyone.

QUOTE
Con for society:

1) Allowing suppressors allows one person in society to kill another in a more stealthy manner

Pro for society:

1) People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor.

2) Those people that live by fire ranges will get more beauty sleep

So we all have seen how the proliferation of guns has increased the ease for illegal gun ownership... and now we want to compound that issue by making it easier and cheaper (more supply) for people to get suppressors?








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Jan 19 2017, 12:26 PM
Post #20


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

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 03:56 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 18 2017, 09:47 AM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Jan 18 2017, 05:14 AM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 17 2017, 11:14 PM) *
...
... why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a more stealthy manner ...
...

Let's rephrase the above, in order to highlight the absurdity of using the word "stealthy" in this context.

Why as a society would we further propagate a means by which people can shoot a gun in a manner that produces a sound that is as stealthy as a thunderclap?
Please do. Feel free. Now lets be honest here... did you make an accurate statement? The answer is... Maybe!! Depending on the gun, the suppressor, and the ammunition. Maybe you are correct that it as loud as a thunderclap and maybe you are not and there in lies the issue.
...

There's no "Maybe" about it. It is a FACT that a nearby thunderclap produces about 120 decibels. And it is a FACT that a .22 (or a 9mm) cal semi-automatic pistol equipped with a ... cough ... "silencer" produces about ... 120 decibels.

ps:
There is, admittedly, a sure-fire (pun intended) way to reduce the impact of a 120 decibel sound to levels that can indeed be considered stealthy:

Place the tip of the index finger of each hand against the opening of the corresponding ear, press firmly against said openings, and loudly chant "La la la, I can't hear you!".


Sources:
https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/i-love-wha...r-common-sounds
http://www.dakotasilencer.com/wp-content/u...rsion_chart.pdf

...
... YOUR links disprove YOUR facts. ...
...

Utterly false. See below.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
...
... There were guns that were higher than 120 db and guns that are lower than 120 db. ...
...

1. From my second link: Glock B17 9mm suppressed emits 126 dB. Walther P22 .22LR suppressed emits 116 dB. Average: 121 dB. Which, as my first link shows, is about the same as a ... thunderclap.

2. The only suppressor-equipped firearms in that table that emit less than 120 dB: Ruger 10/22 .22 with a regular suppressor (113 dB) and one with an integral suppressor (111 dB). Average: 112 dB. That, as my first link shows, is as "stealthy" as the sound emitted by a chainsaw or a jackhammer.

3.
The remaining item in that table that emits less than 120 dB is a ... BB gun (97 dB). Not a weapon that's particularly popular with assassins, spree killers, drive-by shooters, jealous spouses, etc., 'far as I know.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jan 19 2017, 12:32 AM) *
...
... My argument has yet to be addressed by anyone.

Utterly false, again. Your argument HAS been addressed, REPEATEDLY. Both "Mrs. Pigpen" and I have done so, by using FACTS in order to highlight the absurdity of the central premise upon which it rests, that being that a suppressor-equipped firearm is "more stealthy" than one without a suppressor, which is as ridiculous as describing the sound of a chainsaw as "more stealthy" than the sound of a thunderclap.

Furthermore, ...

As the table (provided, incidentally, courtesy a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services associated organization) in my first link states, "Regular exposure to sound over 100 dB of more than one minute risks permanent hearing loss.". IOW, the second point in your argument ("People who CHOOSE to shoot guns without proper ear protection could suffer hearing loss, but they wouldn't if they have a suppressor") is also invalid, when it comes to the millions of people who either regularly (or even just occasionally) go to a gun range. Unless they spend less than a minute there, or unless they and everyone else there are shooting BB guns, ear plugs and such would still be a mighty good idea.

ps:
Watching YouTube videos of guns (even ones without suppressors) being fired, however, is perfectly safe. No ear protection needed. Unless you crank the volume waaay up, that is.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 20th, 2018 - 02:04 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.