• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you support the hearing protection act of 2015

Do you support removing suppressors from the 1934 NFA

  • Yes, but only removing the 200 dollar fee-not the lengthy investigation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30
Now to be fair that did not actually establish a solid correlation between the two. As an Op-Ed piece I wouldn't expect a source to that assertion either. From the context of the "When Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 to regulate machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and short-barreled rifles favored by Prohibition-era gangsters, silencers were thrown in for good measure." If anything that more firmly establishes the crime motive. Though honestly I don't truly know if silencers were prevalent in crime of that period either.

I am persuaded by the safety aspect, but isn't there already effective protection available through headsets?

can you find any evidence of "silencers" being used in crime.

it seems to me the duty should be on the government to prove this sort of attempted ban is needed, not the other way around. I don't believe in banning anything civilian police officers have in terms of firearms-the only laws we need are ones that punish the MISUSE of an item.
 
As I said, for home protection. If someone breaks in I am not going to take the time to put on hearing protection.

In a shootout, your hearing's the first thing to go, so why worry about it.
 
I do too and for a 57 year old, my hearing is actually well above normal. Now when I shoot shotguns competitively I wear muffs (or plugs when shooting ISU Skeet since you have to quickly shoulder your shotgun and muffs can get hit doing that)

when I hunted driven birds in England I wore plugs and when hunting pheasant or quail over dogs I wear one plug in my right ear or electronic muffs so I can hear the dogs and birds.

I have never used the electric muffs. How effective are they?
 
I have never used the electric muffs. How effective are they?

the well made ones-which are 150-400 dollars are very good. I use them when teaching large classes. I don't want to be working with one student and not hear another student chambering a round at the waiting line etc. Many competitive shooters use them for speed events so they can hear the beep on a start clock etc. Its also much easier to communicate with shooters and range officers than constantly having to take passive muffs off and on-especially if you are on a hot range where others are shooting.

the biggest dislike-most don't have automatic shut off switches (many modern red dot scopes DO) and its easy to drain out batteries if you leave them on after you are done shooting.
 
If you're shooting at bad guys are you sure you need a silencer?

First, it's not a silencer. It doesn't silence the report, only suppresses it slightly. Second, shooting at bad guys is not the purpose of a suppressor, reducing noise pollution and reducing hearing loss potential is the purpose of a suppressor which would make them invaluable at shooting ranges and when hunting.

However, have you ever shot a high powered weapon inside an enclosed room like in a home? The noise can literally be deafening and disorienting which can put you in a further unsafe position if you are trying to protect yourself from an intruder in your home.

So, to answer what I think was the root of your question, yes. If you are firing a high powered weapon inside your home to protect yourself from an intruder (the bad guys as you called them) then a suppressor would reduce temporary hearing loss and potential disorientation that the loud report of the weapon could cause to you which could endanger you further if it were not suppressed.
 
First, it's not a silencer. It doesn't silence the report, only suppresses it slightly. Second, shooting at bad guys is not the purpose of a suppressor, reducing noise pollution and reducing hearing loss potential is the purpose of a suppressor which would make them invaluable at shooting ranges and when hunting.

However, have you ever shot a high powered weapon inside an enclosed room like in a home? The noise can literally be deafening and disorienting which can put you in a further unsafe position if you are trying to protect yourself from an intruder in your home.

So, to answer what I think was the root of your question, yes. If you are firing a high powered weapon inside your home to protect yourself from an intruder (the bad guys as you called them) then a suppressor would reduce temporary hearing loss and potential disorientation that the loud report of the weapon could cause to you which could endanger you further if it were not suppressed.

Homeowners almost never pick the time and place when they are attacked by robbers. You might have time to grab your firearm. But probably not muffs, earplugs, several magazines etc. having a suppressed home defense gun makes lots of sense. One that has plenty of rounds in it and versatile sighting options. My current weapon to grab is a SW AR 15 that has red dot, NV and a high intensity flashlight on it and a 30 round magazine. If I have slightly more time, I will grab the ballistic vest hanging on the bed post that has 3 more magazines in it. Muffs-nope-no time for that.
 
Homeowners almost never pick the time and place when they are attacked by robbers. You might have time to grab your firearm. But probably not muffs, earplugs, several magazines etc. having a suppressed home defense gun makes lots of sense. One that has plenty of rounds in it and versatile sighting options. My current weapon to grab is a SW AR 15 that has red dot, NV and a high intensity flashlight on it and a 30 round magazine. If I have slightly more time, I will grab the ballistic vest hanging on the bed post that has 3 more magazines in it. Muffs-nope-no time for that.

When being awoken from a dead sleep at home by an intruder, any action you take in time to protect you and your family's life will be instinct, repetition from practice, and muscle memory since you will not be completely awake and therefore not completely coherent. The same way we were in combat. You sleep with your weapon in the exact same location in the exact same position with your vest and Kevlar either still on or as your weapon is, in the same location every time you fall asleep so you don't have to think, you just get it and react.

In combat you may or may not have time to put on your vest and Kevlar, hence the reason why I said you may sleep with them on, which depends on situational awareness. Although I got where I could sleep on both fixed wing and rotor aircraft during flight with earplugs in, unless your spouse snores like a dull chainsaw or thumping UH-1 Huey, I seriously doubt anyone will have hearing protection on while sleeping at home.
 
First, it's not a silencer. It doesn't silence the report, only suppresses it slightly. Second, shooting at bad guys is not the purpose of a suppressor, reducing noise pollution and reducing hearing loss potential is the purpose of a suppressor which would make them invaluable at shooting ranges and when hunting.

However, have you ever shot a high powered weapon inside an enclosed room like in a home? The noise can literally be deafening and disorienting which can put you in a further unsafe position if you are trying to protect yourself from an intruder in your home.

So, to answer what I think was the root of your question, yes. If you are firing a high powered weapon inside your home to protect yourself from an intruder (the bad guys as you called them) then a suppressor would reduce temporary hearing loss and potential disorientation that the loud report of the weapon could cause to you which could endanger you further if it were not suppressed.

Yes, I've been to indoor rangers before, but I do wear hearing protection. And there's a gun website that used the term "silencer" as well, so it's a flash suppressor or sound suppressor, "silencer" is just the short cut, so I get it. And if the sound is disorienting, isn't that what you want to do to the home invader?

So, it's just a silly toy, and if they really don't work anyway, then why bother?
 
Yes, I've been to indoor rangers before, but I do wear hearing protection. And there's a gun website that used the term "silencer" as well, so it's a flash suppressor or sound suppressor, "silencer" is just the short cut, so I get it. And if the sound is disorienting, isn't that what you want to do to the home invader?

So, it's just a silly toy, and if they really don't work anyway, then why bother?

They do work for the reasons why honest gun owners are buying more and more and more of them in most states (not California which might answer some questions)

the don't work to make firearms a silent "assassination" accessory.
 
people who have actually hunted deer or elk or rams know that.

I thought there was a fair play rule where one had to shoot a warning shot while sneaking.
 
I thought there was a fair play rule where one had to shoot a warning shot while sneaking.

I think you have hunting confused with the Joe Biden school of home defense!
 
Yes, I've been to indoor rangers before, but I do wear hearing protection.
In a home invasion, where you're asleep when the intruder comes in, you will not have time to put your hearing protection on.
And there's a gun website that used the term "silencer" as well,
Then they are either ignorant or trying market to ignorant people because although the movie name is a silencer, it is not a silencer.
so it's a flash suppressor
Nope. Totally different thing. Go to Google Images and search for flash suppressor.
or sound suppressor,
That's the correct term.
"silencer" is just the short cut, so I get it.
It's a slang term that is used by the movies and TV, but it isn't correct. It's like calling a muffler on a car a silencer.
And if the sound is disorienting, isn't that what you want to do to the home invader?
Not if it's going to happen to me as well, that would be stupid of me to do if I had an alternative that would prevent that such as a suppressor. That's like saying that it's okay to shoot myself since that's what I want to do to the intruder.

So, it's just a silly toy,
By what thought process did you possibly get to that conclusion?
and if they really don't work anyway, then why bother?
They work. Why would you think that they do not work? A number of people, including me, on here have explained to you pretty well in-depth as to how and why they work. Why in the world would you suddenly make a statement like this that is so disjointed from the actual conversation and so far afield from what has been stated so far?
 
I think you have hunting confused with the Joe Biden school of home defense!

Ahh, wait, I know that one. Shoot through the door at unidentified persons on the other side.
 
Although I have never had a need for a silencer , I enthusiastically support any policy that lessens Government power over firearms.
 
Although I have never had a need for a silencer , I enthusiastically support any policy that lessens Government power over firearms.

That is why the 2a was written. The problem is like any law it need protection and enforcement and that is our job to protect our laws.
 
which was referred to the relevant subcommittee of congress a couple weeks ago? This law would remove sound suppressors from the 1934 NFA -meaning people wouldn't have to pay a 200 dollar "tax" stamp fee to the ATF and wait up to a year to buy a suppressor

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3799

I strongly support this law and I note that in ENGLAND you can buy these things for hunting rifles. CRIME CONTROL-in the sense of violent crime was not the motivation for the restrictions-rather Depression era game wardens SPECULATED that poor people would use the suppressors to poach deer.

The current law is stupid and needs to be eliminated or at least modified for suppressors

Seems like this bill doesnt have much of a chance

Prognosis: 1% chance of being enacted according to PredictGov

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3799
 
Back
Top Bottom