- 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
re: NY Senator believes gun "silencers" completely silence a shot
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:42 pm to Ingeniero
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:42 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
For the record, this point sounds kind of dickish.
As intended because he responded to simple, innocent questions with aggression. I reciprocated
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
quote:
Why do people by rolexes? A timex tells the time just the same. Why do people buy white gold instead of traditional gold? It's preference. If a suppressor serves the same purpose as ear plugs, like you're implying, what's the problem with making the process to get them easier?
I am not against suppressors being easier to get.
But compared something you put on a gun to make it quieter is clearly something that has a little more significance than someone spending money on a watch.
My point was, 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. The recoil argument is far, far better IMO.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 12:45 pm to TheCaterpillar
It makes sense to make them easier to get.
I agree that criminals would not use this. That is stupid. I just wasn't sure why anyone else would either besides not wanting to wear hearing protection at the range.
This thread has answered that.![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconcheers.gif)
I agree that criminals would not use this. That is stupid. I just wasn't sure why anyone else would either besides not wanting to wear hearing protection at the range.
This thread has answered that.
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconcheers.gif)
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.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)