• 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!

Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to U.S. gun silencer law

pamak said:
You argue about things that I do not advocate. I never said anything about closing vast portions hunting ranges.
Unless you trespass or come dangerously close to private property during hunting, noise should not be an issue. Safety issues of range are actually more important if you neighbor is close enough to be disturbed by the loud sound of your shooting!
Click to expand...

Suppressors are mandatory some ranges, due to proximity. Wildlife management is not optional.
 
ecofarm said:
Suppressors are mandatory some ranges, due to proximity. Wildlife management is not optional.
Click to expand...

The laws are almost never an all or nothing affair, and there are often provisions which permit exceptions for business or other purposes. I see no reason to have a range with legal suppressors for the customers. I am fine with this!

Also, safety is not optional. I do not see the usefulness of wildlife management in the form of using suppressors shooting animals near your neighbor.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
The laws are almost never an all or nothing affair, and there are often provisions which permit exceptions for business or other purposes. I see no reason to have a range with legal suppressors for the customers. I am fine with this!
Click to expand...

We've recognized a necessary use of suppressors for non criminal purpose. I won't negotiate past yes.
 
ecofarm said:
We've recognized a necessary use of suppressors for non criminal purpose. I won't negotiate past yes.
Click to expand...

We also recognize the necessity of having many items which are banned for recreational or personal use. Drugs is one example! As said earlier, laws are not an all or nothing affair. There can be exceptions such as having silencers in ranges close to residential areas.
 
SLC said:
So the silencer killed people?
Click to expand...

The silencer helps in being more efficient in shooting people and in at least delaying your detection.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't know much about the topic of silencers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt...

Isn't the point of banning them about preventing silent crime? Gun shots alert everybody that gun use is in progress. It draws attention. Wouldn't allowing widespread silencer use also be a safety concern? I'm even thinking about shooting ranges, or people's backyards. Couldn't someone theoretically walk into harm's way if they can't hear guns being fired?
Click to expand...

Once again, all silencers do is take about 10-15 db off the noise a gun makes. It's still pretty loud, but they do prevent hearing loss. And, actually, silencer is a bad word for them. They are actually called suppressors. They suppress noise, not eliminate it. The word "silencer" is a made up BS Hollywood word. They make for good movie plots, but so do movies about aliens invading earth. The point is that neither exists in real life.
 
pamak said:
The silencer helps in being more efficient in shooting people and in at least delaying your detection.
Click to expand...
Have you ever shot a suppressed gun? Do you have any evidence the suppressor delayed the detection of the Virginia Beach shooter?
 
Last edited:
HumblePi said:
People murdered by a madman with a silencer don't pay money to gun lobbies. But madmen with guns support the NRA. That's all we need to know.
Click to expand...

Actually quite a few very sensible and sane people "support the NRA". However, that isn't to say that they support the political stance (which is "EVERYONE has the right to go around armed to the teeth all the time and doing that is much preferable than actually taking a look at what it is about American society that has caused a lot of people to believe that they NEED to go around armed to the teeth all the time. Take absolutely no notice of other countries where the "civility indicators" are higher than they are in the US and where people DO NOT feel that they NEED to go around armed to the teeth all the time. All of those countries are **S*O*C*I*A*L*I*S*T** [and probably **C*O*M*M*U*N*I*S*T**].") taken by the NRA
 
Fledermaus said:
How does wanting to save my hearing = Being a mad man?
Click to expand...

Why not try buying an $80 set of custom made "ear defenders" which won't interfere with the balance and/or accuracy of your weapons (and which you can wear when running your gas powered leaf blower).
 
prometeus said:
Oddly enough it is quite uncivilized in the UK to hunt without one.
Click to expand...

Now that is interesting can you provide some evidence to support it?

PS - You do know that, in the UK, a "silencer" MUST be registered, and only be for a single weapon (which the owner MUST have a license to possess), don't you?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Why not try buying an $80 set of custom made "ear defenders" which won't interfere with the balance and/or accuracy of your weapons (and which you can wear when running your gas powered leaf blower).
Click to expand...

I have sound suppressors. (Ear muffs style)

I have generic earplugs.

I have had custom ear plugs.

Don't like them.

Hard to hunt with them.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't know much about the topic of silencers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt...

Isn't the point of banning them about preventing silent crime? Gun shots alert everybody that gun use is in progress. It draws attention. Wouldn't allowing widespread silencer use also be a safety concern? I'm even thinking about shooting ranges, or people's backyards. Couldn't someone theoretically walk into harm's way if they can't hear guns being fired?
Click to expand...

If the muzzle velocity of the weapon is higher than 1125.33 ft/sec, then the "silencer" isn't much good.

I suspect that SOME hunting weapons have muzzle velocities that are lower than 1125.33 ft/sec, but I'm also sure that there aren't very many.

If "Fledermaus" wants to provide information about what weapons he uses for hunting, you can check to see what the muzzle velocities of those weapons are to see whether or not a "silencer" has any real effect (other than adversely affecting the balance and accuracy of the weapons).
 
SLC said:
Have you ever shot a silenced gun?
Click to expand...


Let's not make it about our personal experience and let's debate the facts!
In the military, we were using the FN FAL (7.62 mm) without silencers.

Do you disagree that a silencer makes your shooting more effective?
Do you disagree that it helps with your aiming, reduce the recoil and lowers your sound signature which can make a difference in detection in many situations (think a scenario similar to Las Vegas shooter)?
 
Fledermaus said:
They reduce the sound. They do not eliminate it.

Hollywood silencers are different from real ones.
Click to expand...

Actually they aren't.

On the other hand the muzzle velocity of the weapons used in movies closely approximates 0.00000 ft/sec, so those Hollywood "silencers" are likely to be VERY effective.

PS - Generally speaking the weapon's sound and muzzle flashes are "edited in" because any real weapons user would know immediately that the weapons being fired on screen were firing blanks if the real sounds and muzzle flashes were used.

PPS - What I want to know is where I can buy some .455 Magnum handgun ammunition that will only go IN to someone when fired at 20 feet and will NOT come out the other side in a huge spray of blood and macerated internal body parts which spray all over the nicely painted clean wall that the person was standing in front of. Do you know where I can do that?
 
Northern Light said:
I don't know much about the topic of silencers, so take my opinion with a grain of salt...

Isn't the point of banning them about preventing silent crime? Gun shots alert everybody that gun use is in progress. It draws attention. Wouldn't allowing widespread silencer use also be a safety concern? I'm even thinking about shooting ranges, or people's backyards. Couldn't someone theoretically walk into harm's way if they can't hear guns being fired?
Click to expand...

Do you have any clue what one has to do to buy one legally?
 
ecofarm said:
What about neighbors. We don't need the noise.
Click to expand...

anti gun lefties who hate the politics of people who want to own suppressors legally, really aren't going to care about facts.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
PPS - What I want to know is where I can buy some .455 Magnum handgun ammunition that will only go IN to someone when fired at 20 feet and will NOT come out the other side in a huge spray of blood and macerated internal body parts which spray all over the nicely painted clean wall that the person was standing in front of. Do you know where I can do that?
Click to expand...


The Glaser Safety Slug® was designed in 1974 in response to the possibility of having to use a handgun on an airplane by the Sky Marshals. The concerns at that time were over penetration on soft tissue and ricochets on hard surfaces and possible excess penetration. In 2002, we purchased the company, because we knew that Safety Slug would be a perfect compliment to the COR®BONfamily of products and a great home defense round. With a bit of engineering enhancement, today, Glaser® offers this excellent performing self defense round for civilian use. It’s the perfect round for apartment complexes, and close quarter security areas such as; courthouses, hospitals, amusement parks.
Click to expand...

Safety Slug - Blue


A thin jacket with bird shot in teflon. Not likely to penetrate. At least, not much.
 
Fledermaus said:
First, don't want them when I hunt, if I hunt.
Second, It isn't a gun.
Click to expand...

Okay, but the Supreme Court has better things to do instead of addressing such wants...
 
pamak said:
Whoever sits with a safety off is not a responsible person. In any case, your complains about the uncomfortable things you see in spending less than a second to wear a headset before you shoot should not be a constitutional concern. The easier location of a mass shooter has higher priority over the discomfort you perceive in having a headset ready to wear just before you shoot (and which I honesty do not see).

By the way, I do understand that there are case where people need to kill animals for practical reasons, but it is clear than when a hunter (as it often happens) takes a selfie or a photo over a dead animal for his "accomplishment," he takes some pride and joy for what he does. So, I am not speculating! I just do not buy the BS that I hear from almost every hunter I have heard that for him hunting is just about serving a practical need!
Click to expand...

Cultural dislike of those who hunt is what is motivating your positions. Probably because you see hunters as not being supportive of the collectivist nonsense you wish to see imposed on this nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom