A Democrat's guide to why firearm sound suppressors ("silencers") should be made easier to obtain.

[johnbraun]

Interesting article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/5/141240/187/431/405370

DISCLAIMER: I am a registered and contributing Democrat. I am also a gun owner.

Firearm suppressors, colloquially and inaccurately known as "silencers", are basic safety equipment when operating a firearm, as their use prevents both hearing damage and reduces the noise pollution of firing ranges. Due to a little-known section of Federal law called the National Firearms Act, their possession has been all but criminalized.

(This article refers to these devices by the correct "suppressors" instead of the more colloquial and inaccurate "silencers", as they do no such thing.)

Suppressors have the benefit of both decreasing the likelihood of hearing loss and decreasing noise pollution from hunting and shooting ranges. In the UK, Europe, and Scandinavia, they recognize the health and environmental benefits of suppressors, so they are sold over the counter without much regulation at all.

Democrats, as the party that pushes for safer health and environmental regulations, should embrace any effort to lessen the regulations surrounding firearm suppressors, preferably by making them subject to the same regulations as ordinary firearms - a simple instant background check and no onerous tax. This is called a "Title I" firearm.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. Ear protectors work better than silencers

I'm sure you already thought of that.

[johnbraun]

3. The idea is to prevent noise pollution as well.

It allows gun owners to have a range without the attendant noise pollution.

Additionally, it will also give Republicans a stroke. :)

[sabre73]

12. Not this Republican!!!

I welcome the open selling and manufacture of suppressors! So do my ears!:hi:

[johnbraun]

15. The point is it would reduce the clout of Republicans who use "Dems will take your guns!"

as a means to get votes.

[sabre73]

16. I bet it would.

I would be interested in seeing it play out.

[sabre73]

17. Show me a Dem who is truly pro RKBA and pro suppressors

PLEASE! So I don't have to throw my vote toward John Mcpain in my butt!

[johnbraun]

20. Richardson.

I would have voted for him, but he didn't sing the "ban assault weapons" tune loud enough, so the DNC canned him.

[Deep13]

24. same here.

He has a lot of experience.

[zanne]

30. Republicans?

How about just the people in the gun forum?

[Boomer 50]

8. Sound reduction is only one benefit of a suppressor

Suppressors also reduce recoil, enhance accuracy (when properly built and employed). For safety and consideration to nearby people, suppressors should absolutely be removed from the NFRTR (class 3 registry) and made available for most firearms. Ear protectors only effect the one wearing them, a suppressor works for everyone around the shooter.

[sabre73]

10. Actually they DON'T.

Suppressors used in conjunction with ear protection is the best for preventing loss of hearing. However, "ear protectors" do nothing for noise pollution.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Good luck getting everyone on the firing range to use silencers then

I bet you would get less than 1% compliance.

[sabre73]

14. All the gun owners I know don't call them Silencers

And I know for a fact that 99.% of them would gladly comply. They are tiered of damaging their ears too.

But what would I know.... I mean, I only run a federal shooting range and work a public one as well.

[sergeiAK]

21. From a quick straw poll

~50% of the gun owners I know would buy one immediately were the tax removed and suppressors treated as firearms are.

So not 100%, but significant.

Plus, if you make them legal, the massive demand would stimulate the US economy :P

[Turbo Teg]

25. If we didn't have to

Go through all the bullshit NFA paperwork, there would be lots more people using them. All you really need to do is buy 1 and you can use that one on lots of different guns with that same thread pattern and caliber.

[gorfle]

34. I wouldn't use one...

None of my weapons can accept a silencer.

I always wear hearing protection at the range anyway. No biggie to me.

[bossy22]

2. excellent post

but i dont think it will ever happen....the shmuck shoomers and diane feinsteins are going to be saying on cnn "silencers are used by assasins and criminals so that no one can here when they fire a gun" "Law enforcement would have no idea where the gun shot would be coming from"

[monktonman]

5. ....and? n/t

[bossy22]

6. .....and

they are wrong...thats the simple answer...if you want the complicated one just ask

[monktonman]

7. ok, how about the complicated one.

[SteveM]

9. I'll complicate it for you. Deer hunters especially use their ears...

just as their prey does; many times I have heard a deer approaching before I have seen it. When a deer is in your shooting lane, you don't want to be fiddling around with ear plugs lest the deer sees you. With a suppressor, you can fire your rifle with little harm to your ears and without disturbing the other wildlife.

The chief reason given by fish & game departments for banning suppressors is that they will not be able to locate a gun discharge to investigate poachers. But they also ban (with greater justification) the use of .22 rim fire rifles for deer hunting. Why? Certainly, there is a greater chance a deer will not be killed quickly nor recovered by the hunter (a bad thing). But these rifles also make little noise. The .22 is often cited as the chief weapon for poachers for this reason. And they still use it.

In short, poaching is not going to go up, IMO, because folks use silencers on powerful deer rifles. Poachers will continue to use the $60 .22 for illegal taking of game animals and not bother with a suppressor.

[a_bcr]

32. Check state laws - hunting w/ suppressors may be legal

I have hunted whitetail deer in VA, WV, and PA - and used a suppressor on my rifle each time. Due to my misspent youth, I'm already suffering a bit from tinnitis (rock concerts) and my doctor advised me to never ever shoot without ear protection or that annoying, constant, high-pitched whine would get worse. So, I use a suppressor and ear protection when I'm on the firing range, and I have a suppressor on my rifle when I hunt. The suppressor makes my rifle quiet the same way a muffler makes a car quiet. It's not completely silent, but it's not dangerously loud either.

[bossy22]

11. even with silencers

guns are still loud- a 9mm silenced pistol still makes a loud sound- just less loud, it would not prevent police/people from still hearing it. If you shot a silenced 9mm in your house, the person outside would still probably hear it.


not to mention many other countries sell them at regular stores.

[Boomer 50]

18. Depends on the suppressor

On rifles, all you suppress is the muzzle noise, the sonic crack of the bullet is still there and can be heard for a long distance.... sometimes a couple of miles. It is legal to hunt in Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and a few other states with suppressors. All of the DNR, land management type folks appreciate the use of suppressors that I've spoken with.

99.9% of the people in the US have no idea what a suppressor really sounds like or what it does. Hollywood really twisted that one up into a messed up knot. It's the same for most other NFA firearms. People freak out over machineguns which is utter stupidity. Were I someone who wanted to ban guns, I'd go for the long range scoped rifles capable of removing trash at 1000+ yards with little effort. These are the reason that a gun grab will never work. No gun grab person wants to be eliminated from 1000, 1500 or more yards out.

Yet, they have to go for the politically incorrect guns that won't get the hunting community riled up, so they strike out at machine guns, semi-autos, and some handguns. Yet, the leave the guns that can do the absolute most damage alone. Suppressors are no different. Liars in Congress got them put on the NFA in 1934 much to the detriment of our nation. Again, politicians with no understanding of the subject sticking their noses unwanted and unneeded into a mechanically based subject without having a freaking clue about it.

Gun bans have hurt our nation more than you guys know. My company has been approached many times in the past to produce items that will give our troops a major advantage in special operations. Sadly, we've only been able to help out a couple of times because frankly, the technology application doesn't exist to produce what these guys need. And they are dying for it on our behalf. Had the 1968 GCA and the 1986 MG ban not been passed, we would be decades ahead in firearms technology and we'd be losing a lot fewer lives today. Meanwhile, our enemies have advanced firearms technology far beyond what we have. Recoil delay systems, variable fire rates, special purpose ammunition, lighter firearms that are capable of longer range hits that what we have now. All of this is what our enemies have accomplished and WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A CLUE AS TO HOW MUCH OF IT IS DONE. Civil defense is absolutely non-existant in the US. Something bad happens, people run in panic and wait to be told to do the right thing. And yet, there are still people out there that want to make us naked before those that would see us all dead. The enemies of the United States don't care if we are Democrats, Republicans, white, black, or whatever religion or lack thereof we may be. We are Americans and in the eyes of many, we should die. These are the very people that those who push for gun bans are helping. While many believe that it is the Democrats that have set us on this course, I have found that party allegience has nothing to do with it. Republicans want us disarmed too. If everyone on this board were smart, they'd at a minimum learn how to safely operate a firearm.

[johnbraun]

19. Dern tootin.

"variable fire rates"

Are you talking about the AN-94?

That's a neat rifle.

What other firearms are you talking about?

[Dukkha]

4. Id' prefer no visits from my local sheriff

when I shoot on my parents rural country home he shows up occasionally to check it out when a neighbor calls about gunfire. No biggie but still an annoyance for everyone.

[L1A1Rocker]

22. Now you're talking!!! Check this out.

Lets see if I can make this work.

This is a short clip of me with my completely legal home made suppressed .308 rifle.

http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j154/L1A1Rocker/?action=view¤t=sup308.flv>

[L1A1Rocker]

23. Try this link

That embed did not work so click here to see the rifle in action.

http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j154/L1A1Rocker/?action=view¤t=sup308.flv

[Turbo Teg]

26. Holy Shxt, that was homemade?

That sounded like a damn .22. PM me the details on how you made that, I'd like to know.

[Turbo Teg]

27. Also, if you get to post a vid of you shooting, then...

Here's one of me and my friends out at the range last year. The vid is pretty cool, but it could have been way better. We plan to make some more vids when it gets warmer this year...using tanerite!

Here's the link.

http://media.putfile.com/Range-Day-18

[L1A1Rocker]

35. PM sent

[zanne]

28. Aren't sound suppressors usually used by criminals...

Who want to cover up their tracks? If somebody's firing a gun in my neighborhood, I want to know about it so I can get the kids inside. Range shooting is fine, but I can see where it would be dangerous in hunting (to other hunters).

[Turbo Teg]

29. No, not now anyway.

Silencers are NFA restricted, so they are a pain to get. Also, most handguns will need to be set up for silencers by using a threaded barrel. Even if silencers were easier to get, I doubt many criminals would go the extra mile to get the threaded barrel, and more so, adding a silencer would take away from bieng able to carry it concealed easy. On a rifle, it will still be loud, just not as loud. There will always be the sonic crack of the bullet when using normal velocity ammo aswell.

[benEzra]

33. A hunting rifle with a suppressor is still very loud,

louder than an unsuppressed .22 rifle. A good suppressor will reduce the radiated sound by ~20 to 30 dBA, but considering that a deer rifle starts out at 155 to 160 dBA, you're still looking at 125 to 140 dBA depending on barrel length. The sound will still carry for a mile or so, it just won't carry as far, and won't hurt your ears unless you're very close.

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

Table 2. CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA

.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18 _" barrel.....155.5dB
.243 in 22" barrel...........................155.9dB
.30-30 in 20" barrel.........................156.0dB
7mm Magnum in 20" barrel.....................157.5dB
.308 in 24" barrel...........................156.2dB
.30-06 in 24" barrel.........................158.5dB
.30-06 in 18 _" barrel.......................163.2dB
.375 — 18" barrel with muzzle brake...........170 dB

Basically, a suppressed .22 squirrel rifle loaded with subsonic ammunition would sound like a big air rifle, and a suppressed deer rifle will sound like an unsuppressed .22.

Hunting rifle bullets are also supersonic (between Mach 2 and Mach 3) and relatively large, so a suppressor won't do anything about the sonic boom ("crack") radiating from the bullet itself.

[L1A1Rocker]

36. No that is a bunch of Hollywood trip.

Suppressors are great and legal in most states. It can also be very enjoyable to build them yourself. (just do it the legal way and get all you approvals first)

[virginia mountainman]

31. When I ever need to be discreet...

I can use sub-sonic .22 ammo...

I bought a box of CCI sub-sonic ammo over the summer, and I was amazed at just how quiet it is, it makes less noise than many air rifles.

http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpage.exe/showproduct?saleitemid=678232

In Europe, those that DO, get to keep guns, use of a silencer is almost required. It is considered "un neighborly" not to use one.

[iverglas]

37. "without much regulation at all"

In the UK, Europe, and Scandinavia, they recognize the health and environmental benefits of suppressors, so they are sold over the counter without much regulation at all.

Yeah, if you forget about that one teeny tiny bit of regulation they do have:

a licence is required to acquire and possess a firearm, and (it seems, without googling each country intensively) to acquire and possess firearm accoutrements.

So to follow that assertion with this:

Democrats, as the party that pushes for safer health and environmental regulations, should embrace any effort to lessen the regulations surrounding firearm suppressors, preferably by making them subject to the same regulations as ordinary firearms - a simple instant background check and no onerous tax.

... well, it just seems to me that one would have to be really, really dishonest.


A "simple instant background check" just really really is not equivalent to a licensing system.

So pretending that making suppressors available to anyone who qualifies to acquire a firearm in the US is equivalent to suppressors being available to anyone who qualifies to acquire a firearm in a country with a licensing system just really really is not honest.

Lucky nobody here was actually saying that, I guess.

[iverglas]

38. okay, who drug this up?

I got that feeling, and I was right. There's me talking to a tombstone. I need a long weekend ...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Guns are Noise Polluters

..........and that is why 'silencers' should be permitted.

Give me a break.

The gun lobby gets more and more desperate every day with some of the most ridiculous arguments.