Earplugs, fuckhead.
Hearing Protection Act. M*therF#ckers.
Funny, I shot skeet and trap for years, and used to go hunting for meat pretty frequently, and have no hearing issues. Granted the honorable Representative Duncan is probably a bit longer in the tooth than me and these may not have been invented when he was young, but we always wore earplugs. Just those cheap disposable foam ones.

I also have to wonder why this is a priority. You can already buy and own a suppressor in all but 16 states, with less hassle than you need when buying a new car, provided you pass the background checks.

Imagining a hunter using a suppressed rifle is also pretty humorous. You need a fair amount of heavy gear when hunting deer and the like, and no hunter is going to want to lug around a huge rifle suppressor that is not even going to quiet the weapon much.

Well, other than those "tacti-cool" losers.
Despite what you've seen in the movies, Katie, that's not how silencers work. But please go on with the histrionics.
Seems like earplugs and over-the-ear hearing protectors --already readily available-- would make more sense, for many reasons.
Silencers can significantly reduce muzzle flash, which the people being shot at used to figure out where to take cover, and to point the SWAT team in the right direction.
> I also have to wonder why this is a priority. You can already buy and own a suppressor in all but 16 states, with less hassle than you need when buying a new car, provided you pass the background checks.

The backlog is months, and apparently even the ATF is tired of it because its a huge sinkhole of cash and resources for them.

The bigger news is some of the pork on this bill basically repeals the wilderness act, but look at the shiny wedge issue and don't worry about it.
I'm honestly not sure why gun users would even want silencers.

1. Earplugs work fine and don't wear out (silencers wear out rather quickly).
2. Silencers reduce muzzle velocity
3. Silencers do not make guns silent. When you hear it, you'll still know it's a fucking gunshot.

That said, I'm fine with silencers being more available if people actually want them for some reason. They'd probably make shootings less deadly, not more (because of the muzzle velocity issue above... that and they're clunky, it's much easier to lug around a gun without a silencer attached).
Deepest condolences to the families, friends, and loved ones of the victims. Instead of thoughts-and-prayers, I can only hope we as a nation will finally come to our collective senses, although given our patent inability to do so after similar tragedies in the past, that must be small solace to those affected.

This bill is less about safety/hearing protection (as @2, 4 & 6 note) than it is about more pandering to the weapons manufacturing lobby, who, now that the scary black president isn't around anymore to drive gun sales, are looking for new sources of revenue.


Suppressing the report from a semi-auto would cut down the decibels considerably, not to mention make the sound more diffuse, as well as greatly reduce muzzle-flash, thus making it more difficult to determine the direction of fire, particularly given the distance and elevation in this horrific example, all of which would have given the shooter even more time to inflict death and carnage before LEO's converged on him (we can leave the issue of integral silencers, which DO in fact reduce sound to an almost inaudible level, for another time). OTOH, suppressors also greatly reduce round velocity, so perhaps it would have resulted in fewer fatalities, even if there were far greater casualties overall. So, maybe only 20 or 30 dead, but perhaps 500 or 600 - or more - wounded, depending on how quickly this monster could squeeze the trigger - would you consider THAT a better outcome?
@9: Typically suppressors are used when the police or other agency is training people on firearm use because they reduce recoil and thus make the firearm more accurate and therefore safer. A quieter weapon also causes less psychological impact for the shooter, making it easier for them to learn and focus.

But other than that, arguments for civilian use of suppressors are very weak, in my opinion. All the above technical improvements (other than the startling noise of course) could be made with a weighted "training" barrel extension that did not suppress the weapon.
@4: why is it a priority?

because GOP pols must be seen proving their bona fides to their gun humping base and gun lobby donors by attacking gun regulation wherever it exists.
Hate to break it to you, silencers are not that hard to get, and already legal to own in many states. As for the argument of just wear hearing protection? Noise Pollution and being respectful to others.
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel just sick about all of this !@#$ing insanity.
When will it ever end?
Odd but in the UK moderators (their term) are encouraged.
Silencer use wouldn't have bought the Vegas attacker much if any additional time to fire freely into the crowd. His location was identified due to smoke from the rifles setting off the fire alarm.

Silencers have never killed a soul. It makes no sense to regulate them in the same way that we do machine guns.
"Silencers have never killed anyone," more specious wisdom brought to from the people who say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
FWIW, you can't silence a supersonic round. When a bullet whizzes past you, most of the report is from the sonic boom coming off the projectile rather than the muzzle report.

Aside from the notion that the only thing 99% of the people know about silencers is from the movies which (shocker) has nothing to do with reality, and are almost never used in the commission of crime is no reason to stop grandstanding about a non-issue.

It reminds me that switchblades are mostly illegal because a bunch of white-ass male politicians saw brown people wielding them in West Side Story too many years ago, and lost their minds over a problem that did not exist.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.