Silence the Debate?

longview said:

I think there is a lot of mystery surrounding silencers.
Silencers are simply a high cut frequency filter attached to a weapon.
It slows down the release of the gasses, so the sound of the firing is spread over a longer period of time.
Silencers work best when using subsonic ammunition, in which case they are suppress the majority of the sound of firing,
you usually hear the action of the bolt over the sound of the firing.
Silences do not work well on revolvers, as the sound escapes out of the front of the cylinder before ever getting to the silencer.
If they were legal, they would not have to be expensive, likely under $10,
it is about as complicated as a muffler on a lawn mower, (Which does the same basic thing).

Click to expand...

You can make a suppressor out of a soft drink bottle and a few cents worth of insulation. Yet criminals, who will purchase guns illegally don't use them.

jimbo said:

You can make a suppressor out of a soft drink bottle and a few cents worth of insulation. Yet criminals, who will purchase guns illegally don't use them.

Click to expand...

In that respect the laws may actually have a deterrence, I think any criminal activity involving a silencer,
moves the crime to federal court. The federal system from what I have heard does not have a real parole system,
so 10 years is 120 months.

longview said:

In that respect the laws may actually have a deterrence, I think any criminal activity involving a silencer,
moves the crime to federal court. The federal system from what I have heard does not have a real parole system,
so 10 years is 120 months.

Click to expand...

See Brady Act Enforcement 2010 - the federal government really doesn't care about enforcing laws.

longview said:

In that respect the laws may actually have a deterrence, I think any criminal activity involving a silencer,
moves the crime to federal court. The federal system from what I have heard does not have a real parole system,
so 10 years is 120 months.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I think the reason is that suppressors serve no real function when holding up a convenience store or killing a rival gang member and in fact are a nuisance.

Rexedgar said:

I am a gun enthusiast. I get to a range a few times a year and I enjoy this pastime in moderation. Every public range I have frequented has an onsite range monitor, a PA system for range status announcements, requirements for both eye and hearing protection to be used when the range is "hot" and posted rules for shooters and bystanders. The NRA is calling for silencers to be more readily accessible and legal. The stated purpose is to protect the shooter from hearing loss that can occur after many years of shooting. I cannot speak to the expense of these devices, but for about $20 US, I can get a set of over ear "muffs" and for a lot less a pair of soft rubber inserts. I don't think the real reason is nefarious, but I am pretty sure the NRA doesn't give too much thought to my hearing "later in life!" Have I got this all wrong and the NRA is really warm and fuzzy and concerned for my hearing?


Not staying quiet on the public health benefit to firearm suppressors - The Washington Post


There is a paywall. The article is penned by Mr. Chris Cox from Fairfax, VA, whose stated position is Ex. Dir. NRA,
Institute for Legislative Action

Click to expand...

As a life long hunter who's hearing is going downhill I'd sure have considered an appropriate suppressor had they been available. Ear plugs or muffs are not ideal in all situations, but yes I've always used them when shooting trap or going to the gun range, just never did hunting.

jimbo said:

I doubt it. I think the reason is that suppressors serve no real function when holding up a convenience store or killing a rival gang member and in fact are a nuisance.

Click to expand...

We should be happy that gang members lack imagination!

Rexedgar said:

I am a gun enthusiast. I get to a range a few times a year and I enjoy this pastime in moderation. Every public range I have frequented has an onsite range monitor, a PA system for range status announcements, requirements for both eye and hearing protection to be used when the range is "hot" and posted rules for shooters and bystanders. The NRA is calling for silencers to be more readily accessible and legal. The stated purpose is to protect the shooter from hearing loss that can occur after many years of shooting. I cannot speak to the expense of these devices, but for about $20 US, I can get a set of over ear "muffs" and for a lot less a pair of soft rubber inserts. I don't think the real reason is nefarious, but I am pretty sure the NRA doesn't give too much thought to my hearing "later in life!" Have I got this all wrong and the NRA is really warm and fuzzy and concerned for my hearing?


Not staying quiet on the public health benefit to firearm suppressors - The Washington Post


There is a paywall. The article is penned by Mr. Chris Cox from Fairfax, VA, whose stated position is Ex. Dir. NRA,
Institute for Legislative Action

Click to expand...

I have said from the beginning that the Hearing Protection Act 2014, 2017 has nothing to do with protecting a persons hearing. It was a creatively way of titling legislation to make it easier to swallow. The fact remains that ear pugs, and ear muffs will always be a more cost effective way of protecting your hearing. All of this being said I don't believe there is any logical reason why there should be any restriction on silencers, they are not a firearm, they by themselves can not hurt anyone. The reduction of sound is barely hearing safe. The currently process requires a person to purchase the silencer, fill out the ATF form 4, get finger printed, have passport photos taken, and mail all of that to the ATF with a $200 check. Due to silencers popularity the current wait time is 9-14 months to get the approval back. The current legislation would remove silencers from the NFA, where they would be treated the same as a rifle or pistol. Purchasers would still have to fill out the 4473 form, and go though a FBI background check. The Hearing Protection Act does nothing more than update an 83 year old way of doing a background check, and transfers that job to the FBI NICS instant check system.

Rexedgar said:

So..... your thoughts on silencers are what?

Click to expand...

my thoughts-the federal government has no legitimate power to claim such devices need to have a 200 dollar stamp to own-especially if they are made in my home state. The reason for including them in the 1934 NFA was based on lies that had nothing to do with public safety

If you can legally buy a 30 round AR 15 rifle with a instant background check you shouldn't have to pay a 200 dollar fee and wait 11 months to buy a suppressor

Captain Adverse said:

Any argument on legalization of silencers revolves around the validity of silencers vis-a-vis self-defense, which is the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

Silencers are "stealth" modifications, designed to allow the user to suppress gunfire sounds from the hearing of foes, not to reduce the noise on a firing range.

When one is involved in a revolution/rebellion, then law holds no bar to what one may use to fight with.

In a civilized society at peace with itself, silencers only serve to aid those trying to hide a violent crime from discovery.

As such, I am not so sure they deserve "protection" under the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

two problems with this

1) there is no legitimate reason for the 1934 NFA and no legitimate power for the FEDERAL government to restrict their sales-especially INTRASTATE sales

2) They allow a defender in a home to maintain his hearing so he can listen for other intruders after taking out an intruder

3) they are also useful for certain hunting applications. when I was shooting Partridge in England, the game keeper on the estates I shot at (Chargot and Miltons) used suppressed rifles for culling the many foxes on the estates.

Skeptic Bob said:

I want a suppressor, and it isn't for the range. Yes, I wear hearing protection at the range. The suppressor is for my home defense weapon, because if I am confronted with a home intruder I am not going to take the time to put on hearing protection. And you need your hearing in a home intrusion scenario. Which is where the suppressor comes in.

Firing a weapon inside will hurt your ears even more, leaving you temporarily without hearing after the first shot. This puts you at a disadvantage, especially if there are multiple intruders in the house. The suppressor will increase the odds that you have some hearing available when clearing your home and finding your family members.

Click to expand...

exactly-which is why my nephew-when he was conducting house clearing operations in Iraq as a captain in the rangers, had a suppressed weapon as did several of those who went into the buildings first

blackjack50 said:

Claiming hearing protection is silly. The NRA does not NOW and has not EVER cared about individual rights. Their REAL concern is manufacturers' and by extension...their...wallet's. Silencers cost a lot. They require upgrades. Just one more tacticool toy for people. There are SOME legitimate uses. Hunting/target shooting in areas near cities, home defense (blast can be deafening and a suppressed shot is easier for you to manage without hearing protection), and that is about all I can think of.

But no. It isnt about my health or even my rights. I'd rather focus efforts on the SBR requirements (especially in handgun caliber weapons). Or on taking away the weight of law of no gun signs and forcing every state to be like Florida (no weight of law and to disallow firearms via a sign with weight of law you MUST be listed in the state law). Or making knife and other self defense weapons more easily carried with a concealed license.

Click to expand...

that's BS about the NRA.

=Captain Adverse;1067281773]Any argument on legalization of silencers revolves around the validity of silencers vis-a-vis self-defense, which is the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Self defense may be one argument but kinda a moot one.Personally I don't keep ear protection handy when I go to bed, 9mm but not hearing protection.
But ear protection is a must when punching holes in paper.Several hundred holes both 7.62x39 and 9mm.

Silencers are "stealth" modifications, designed to allow the user to suppress gunfire sounds from the hearing of foes, not to reduce the noise on a firing range.

Click to expand...

What in the world are you shooting a MK3 target pistol? The old Hollywood pffft. Yes gun range even if everyone doesn't have a suppressor.

When one is involved in a revolution/rebellion, then law holds no bar to what one may use to fight with.

Click to expand...

A whole separate bridge to cross. Even though that is the whole crux of the Second Amendment.

In a civilized society at peace with itself, silencers only serve to aid those trying to hide a violent crime from discovery.

Click to expand...

Are they trying to hide "violent crimes from discovery" in a lot of Europe where they are pretty much mandatory? Almost anywhere $25 -100 and a kid can buy it.

As such, I am not so sure they deserve "protection" under the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

$200 tax stamp plus $100s to by it after jumping through the hoops.

Captain Adverse said:

Any argument on legalization of silencers revolves around the validity of silencers vis-a-vis self-defense, which is the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Who told you that? How about just plain self determination?

In a civilized society at peace with itself, silencers only serve to aid those trying to hide a violent crime from discovery.

Click to expand...

That is at best an ignorant talking point. Have you ever heard gun fire in urban areas both suppressed and not?