- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:47 pm to TheCaterpillar
Tax stamp
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:48 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
if the argument is simply that they don't want to wear ear plugs, that is ineffective on a national stage when discussing something as controversial as firearms.
I think you are looking at it from a limited perspective. Yes, people shoot at the range and the use of hearing protection is standard, so it would likely not make that much of a difference, specifically at a public range. But people would also use them in home defense. In those scenarios, the person likely doesn't have time to don hearing protection, much less also ensure their family does the same. Firing even a handgun in the enclosed quarters of a residence would likely cause permanent hearing damage to anyone in the vicinity, such as children and spouses. A suppressor could mitigate any hearing damage in such a situation.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:50 pm to Clames
quote:
The part about making it harder for police to solve a shooting crime is false.
In principle I agree with you, but you simply can't argue simultaneously that suppressors reduce noise pollution but would not interfere with investigations. Even the chart posted acknowledges that the dB scale is logarithmic, meaning 170 and 120 dB are significantly different. The chart uses normal speech as a base unit and asserts that a non-suppressed report is 10,000 times louder than a suppressed one. If no one hears the gun shot through several walls, and the police are never called, then that definitely makes it harder for the police to solve a shooting crime.
I'm not sticking up for this woman's argument that since some criminal somewhere may do something bad with it is reason enough to keep it out of a law abiding citizen's hands, but calling a spade a spade helps normal people take gun proponents more seriously instead of just writing them off as zealots.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:50 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
What's the process for getting one now?
fingerprints, Id photos, paperwork, notifying local law enforcement, paying a $200 tax, and waiting for ATF to file paperwork (about 9 months right now).
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:50 pm to Clames
quote:
Your wittle feelings are easily bruised, FYI.
Says the snowflake melting over a guy casually asking questions about guns
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:51 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
What's the process for getting one now?
9-months and some ridiculous background checks and permits?
Clames can probably explain it better than me, but I believe you fill out a few forms and submit fingerprints (possibly a photo?) along with $200 then wait almost a year for approval.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:52 pm to stout
If someone is going to murder another human being, does she really think they care if the silencer is legal or not? These people are complete morons.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:54 pm to stout
Proof that they get their solid information from television and the movies
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:54 pm to upgrayedd
$500, a year for approval (I think) and fingerprints and all of that jazz...I believe you submit the application directly to the FBI.
So if you're a criminal, the laws on the books have made it impossible for you to obtain one legally.
right now it's easier to illegally obtain one than legally obtain one so this woman's legislation she's talking about is probably total nonsense. especially in NY where the gun laws are crazy strict.
So if you're a criminal, the laws on the books have made it impossible for you to obtain one legally.
right now it's easier to illegally obtain one than legally obtain one so this woman's legislation she's talking about is probably total nonsense. especially in NY where the gun laws are crazy strict.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:55 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
Why not ban 22lr ammo and firearms? Those things are pretty quiet compared to some larger caliber rounds and could make it more difficult for police to investigate.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:55 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I'm not sticking up for this woman's argument that since some criminal somewhere may do something bad with it is reason enough to keep it out of a law abiding citizen's hands, but calling a spade a spade helps normal people take gun proponents more seriously instead of just writing them off as zealots.
I get it. I think most people are saying that once criminals realize all the accoutrements that go with a suppressor to make it work, they'll probably give up. Plus, shooting a suppressed handgun is a PITA.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:55 pm to DelU249
quote:
if i'm a criminal i'm not submitting my application to the fbi and waiting up to a year to be able to buy one.
i'm going to some scum bag who will illegally sell them to me no questions asked at a markup
Of course, which is why her rationale is stupid.
I do think suppressors can be of use in avoiding detection or arrest. But I think the risk posed by more widespread suppressor ownership, even among criminals, is pretty small. Primarily because 1) the distinction isn't THAT great and 2) most murderer arrests certainly aren't contingent on how loud a gunshot is.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:55 pm to FooManChoo
The original silent killer
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:58 pm to Pettifogger
quote:well duh
I do think suppressors can be of use in avoiding detection or arrest.
they make them for a reason. they work. some guy at the range had a few and man it was just the funniest little sound and among a bunch of ambient and day to day noises, isn't noticeable at all.
that was just this one guy's shite, which was all really nice. he's a competition shooter.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I get it. I think most people are saying that once criminals realize all the accoutrements that go with a suppressor to make it work, they'll probably give up. Plus, shooting a suppressed handgun is a PITA.
Exactly. Criminals aren't lining up to get suppressors, or taking the time to measure the sound coefficient of walls to determine where they can get away with firing a gun. That's a much better argument than trying to assert suppressors don't make gunshots less detectable, as that's the entire point of the device.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 1:01 pm to DelU249
quote:
they make them for a reason. they work. some guy at the range had a few and man it was just the funniest little sound and among a bunch of ambient and day to day noises, isn't noticeable at all.
Yes.
But there is so much bullshite in this thread. I'm as pro 2A as they come, but not all suppressed shots are "loud", some are actually quite soft. Obviously it's dependent on ammo, firearm and suppressor, so when we say "well they're all louder than a rock concert" a lot of people (like me) who use suppressors for sport shooting are skeptical.
But I agree with you, getting a stamp is a PITA and there is no realistic threat of widespread criminal abuse of liberal suppressor laws.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 1:02 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:my first thought as well. I've never heard about this problem
Exactly. Criminals aren't lining up to get suppressors
but as TA pointed out, my first thought should've been "they aren't allowed to own guns"
Posted on 3/20/17 at 1:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:oh yeah. I've only seen a few shot, and the one this guy had on his handgun was fricking quiet. sounded like a stapler.
some are actually quite soft
Posted on 3/20/17 at 1:04 pm to Pettifogger
And don't forget the first round pop that every silencer company is trying to mitigate with mixed results.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News