Should silencers be unregulated by Feds?

Should be people who shoot big guns at the range or hunters be allowed to buy silencers to help their hearing\


OR


Are silencers too deadly for assination to be unregulated?

I think you need govt approval to own a silencer, even if you are a cop.

Silencers, to protect their hearing. Yeah, protect their hearing. That's why we want then legalized, to protect their hearing...

the decibles they cut arent that manny

That's not true now is it.

My friend's dad used to shoot his suppressed .22 rifle into his back garden from his bedroom window. If you were under the window, the only way you knew he was shooting was the plink from the bullet hitting the cans he was shooting at.

i could supress one with a tin can, larger cal. weapones arent at seasy to quiet, trust me, i have a de.50 AE7 and have tried all the tricks to lower the sound off it, you cant fit a bottle over it cause the barrell is so big, i rigged a tin can but that killed my accuracy, i wish i had the special silencer barrel and silencer for it

special ammunition too, if you wanted it properly silenced?

The SEAL's Hush-puppy.

9mm I believe, almost silent except for the noise that the action makes.

Basing your argument on your amateur attempts to supress a .50AE is just a daft way of debating, isn't it?

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

It's about movie physics, but this issue is addressed in depth about 2/3 of the way down.

Silencers don't make a THWIP. Nor is this why assault teams use them.

"Silencers don't make a THWIP. Nor is this why assault teams use them."

Where did I say they did?


I said that the SEALs have a suppressed weapon called a "hushpuppy" which is almost totally silent, except for the sound of the action.



I didn't mention the movies.

""Any silent round is going to have to be a special sub-sonic.""

I'd imagine that that would be a simple proposition for an experienced reloader.

First, the SEAL "hushpuppy" simply cannot be replicated aftermarket by anything. This would be a specially built firearm with ammunition that is not commercially available. If it COULD somehow be bought in its entirety, it would be well out of the price range of everyone except drug lords.

Criminals are not going to be spending multiple thousands of dollars on something like that.

As far as the "skilled reloader" - Downloading something so that its velocity is cut in half or more is, bluntly, incredibly dangerous and is far, far more work than I can see almost any sort of criminal going to.

And you are mentioning the movies, because that is the only experience you seem to have with silencers, based on what you are saying.

"And you are mentioning the movies, because that is the only experience you seem to have with silencers, based on what you are saying."

Except for having said that I had first hand experience of a supressed weapon. Look through this thread for my account of it.

Maybe instead of presuming to tell me where and when I've had experience of issues, you should stick to relating whatever experiences you yourself have had.


"This would be a specially built firearm with ammunition that is not commercially available."

The subsonic 9mm ammunition can be manufactured.. it is merely a reduced load. The gun is highly engineered (integral suppressor, single-action etc), but it's not impossible to replicate. No doub, upon legalisation, there would be a number of aftermarket kits available to reproduce it or weapons like it.

"Criminals are not going to be spending multiple thousands of dollars on something like that."

Who said anything about criminals?

I was talking about people basing their arguments on DIY attempts to suppress a .50AE IMI Desert Eagle using standard ammunition, tin cans and coke bottles.

"Downloading something so that its velocity is cut in half or more is, bluntly, incredibly dangerous and is far, far more work than I can see almost any sort of criminal going to."

I don't doubt it's dangerous, but I don't recall mentioning criminals anywhere in my post on suppressors.

and even a 10 decible drop would make me much happier, that thing is LOUD

I don't know what caliber the rifle was, but all I heard was the click of the machinery. Nothing else.

i think ted nugent just had an orgasm.

Hell, they should be encouraged. If anything, the US is unusual in its regulation of silencers.

But silencers are also banned in Australia and I think Canada too.

So we are not alone in restriction of silencers.

but there are plenty of countries that don't, or didn't at least. New Zealand and England come to mind, though things may have changed there. I believe they are unregulated in Finland and other parts of Europe, but I don't speak most of the languages, so I couldn't really say.

You understand that they aren't banned in the US, right? They're regulated under the National Firearms Act. $200 tax every time they change hands and all of that other sweet NFA goodness.

I thought they were largely banned in 1986 but that was machineguns.

I don't know them all. At the federal level, silencers have been regulated since 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The 1986 law you're referring to is the Firearms Owners' Protection Act which banned the future civilian production of machine guns. It didn't affect silencers.

People use them when they shoot rabbits and pigeons. Doesn't scare the rest away that way.

Well, maybe as compared to Congo, or Russia ...

And, as with that magazine-capacity question, we're also really needing an all other things being equal comparison. If silencers weren't prohibited in, say, the UK or Australia, would that be a basis for calling the US "unusual"? Brits and Australians could have the silencers ... *if* they could have the firearms. And, in most other places I'd consider comparable, *if* their firearms were registered, and they were licensed, etc.

The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits "any device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm".

I might consider the idea of allowing silencers to be kept at gun clubs for the use of patrons -- more in the interests of anyone else in the vicinity than of the patrons, who seem like the authors of their own misfortune. Under lock and key, registered with the government, inspected regularly to make sure they didn't go walkabout.

But if I were in the US, I might be less sanguine about the prospect ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=32906

Thomas Larry Watson, 51, a Firearms Training Center & Shooting Sports employee, was being held without bail at Falkenburg Road Jail Monday on a charge of felony aggravated battery with a firearm.

The controls on who works at / operates the places in question might need to be tightened up a bit first.

I did mention New Zealand, the UK, and Finland in a later post, though.


"The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits "any device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm"."

That's fabulous, but no one cares about Canada.


"I might consider the idea of allowing silencers to be kept at gun clubs for the use of patrons -- more in the interests of anyone else in the vicinity than of the patrons, who seem like the authors of their own misfortune. Under lock and key, registered with the government, inspected regularly to make sure they didn't go walkabout."

Why? What particular danger do silencers present?


"But if I were in the US, I might be less sanguine about the prospect ..."

Blah Blah Blah *insert irrelevant thread about someone misusing a gun with no mention of silencers*


Did you have a point with that useless latter half of your post?

I didn't mention Congo or Russia.

Gosh, no. My mistake. You didn't. I must have been hallucinating.

Well, either that or I thought that when you said "unusual", you must have been COMPARING the US to something else. "Unusual": not the usual. What's "the usual"? Hmm, I wonder if it would be something like what is commonly the case elsewhere, or, as Oxford says, "such as commonly occurs".

"Commonly occurs" where? -- I ask. Congo? Russia?

One could say that the US is "unusual" in that it is a place where human beings live permanently. One could say that, IF one were comparing the US to Antarctica.

The UK, for instance, is Antarctica when it comes to comparing restrictions on silencers -- because people in the UK are not permitted to own firearms on a whim. The US is only "unusual" in this respect when it is compared to countries that allow such free and easy access to firearms themselves. And a couple of those that come to mind are Congo and Russia. Not the UK, not New Zealand, not Finland, and not Canada, countries that might actually seem comparable to the US in other respects.

I did mention New Zealand, the UK, and Finland in a later post, though.

Yes, you did indeed.

And I had already mentioned the UK myself. By way of saying that it was not COMPARABLE. It is simply ludicrous to use the UK as an example of a place where silencers are not prohibited when the possession of firearms themselves is so severely restricted that no comparison with the US is remotely meaningful.

In New Zealand, anyone who possesses or uses a firearm is required to have a licence. On a quick search, NZ has certainly considered a universal firearms registry, although it appears that legislation to that effect did not proceed: http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/6.php

As in Canada, firearms ownership/use is declining in NZ -- which, like Canada, has a firearms per capita rate of about 1/3 the US's -- and the purpose of such ownership/use is overwhelmingly sporting. Not really comparable.

(Completely by the bye, an interesting comment from a NZ legislative committee summing up the difficulties in Canada's registration program: http://www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz/content/5/Armsamdt.pdf

We are aware that Canada has experienced significant difficulties in establishing a registration system. Canada has 400 separate police services, lacks a working, wide-area computer network, has a strong urban/rural split, a strong user-firearms lobby, as well as indigenous hunting rights. A major problem experienced by Canada is the inability to counter arms smuggling across the unguarded US/Canadian border.

(The conclusion that there was "widespread non-compliance" in the Canadian system has proved quite false, so it looks like that committee may have been predisposed to fall for a little propaganda That entire committee report implies strong politicization of the issue for reasons having little to do with the bill itself.)

Finnish firearms owners are required to have a permit for possession, and to register their firearms. An interesting review of Finnish firearms rules: http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Europe/Fin_MH03.html
Oops, not comparable.

That's fabulous, but no one cares about Canada.

My dear boy, he who asserts that "X" is true will be on the receiving end of proofs that "X" is false, whether he gives a shit or not.

He who doesn't understand that this is what has happened, well, he's more to be pitied than to be blamed, I suppose.

He who understands that this is what has happened and makes rude noises to bluster his way out of his predicament -- well, he can expect to have jeering fingers pointed at him.

Why? What particular danger do silencers present?

Well, I imagine that if you swallowed one, you might die of some kind of intestinal blockage.

I'll bet you could injure yourself seriously if someone left one lying around in the room and you slipped on it in the dark, too.

Blah Blah Blah *insert irrelevant thread about someone misusing a gun with no mention of silencers*
Did you have a point with that useless latter half of your post?

My my. Someone's getting testy.

Indeed. The point was what I stated it was: that it might not be unreasonable to permit the possession of silencers by gun clubs, in the interests of anyone subjected to the godawful racket they generate -- AS LONG AS there were tight controls on access to them so that they did not wander off the premises.

But as long as some of said gun clubs employ people of the uh, calibre, of the one described in that tale -- we might recall that he had a rather colourful criminal record, including firearms-related charges -- I, personally, would have little confidence that the permission they were given to have an otherwise prohibited device in their possession might prove to be wise.


Did you have any other questions I might be able to help you with?

I was concerned after your last post, where you had to use some random and unrelated DU thread to double its meager size.


I'll trim your post down to the useful stuff, if you don't mind.

"'Why? What particular danger do silencers present?'

"Well, I imagine that if you swallowed one, you might die of some kind of intestinal blockage.

I'll bet you could injure yourself seriously if someone left one lying around in the room and you slipped on it in the dark, too."

So you're saying that you can't come up with any particular danger presented by silencers. Don't feel bad, none of the other gun control supporters can either.



Did you have any other questions I might be able to help you with?

Just the standing question of danger posed by silencers that no one seems to be able to answer.

You can make your own very easily.

As if the militant gun rights movement isn't already regarded (justifiably) as a bunch of crackpots by much of the public. Legalizing silencers is almost as goofy a notion as the idea once floated in this forum that there ought to be a government subsidy program to enable poor people to acquire better quality pistols (Honestly. I couldn't make that up).

Swell idea, guys. Run with it. Please.....

</sarcasm off>

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't feel like getting shot!!

you are kidding right?

Duct tape and a 2 liter bottle.

Good for one or two shots. But thats all that a bad guys needs.

There was one vendor that made an adapter that had gun threads on one side and 2 liter bottle threads on the other...eliminating the need for duct tape. He got shut down though and the feds ruled that a "constructive silencer"

See post #66.

This simply does not work from a physics point of view. You aren't going to get a 100 db reduction.

Im pretty sure that its not a myth.

That simply will not work.

If you say, then it must be true.

...to the hardware needed for an assassination.

You guys never learn, do you?

Didn't think about that did ya?

because I'm not naive enough to think a terrorist is going to worry about laws regulating silencers assuming he even bothers to use one while killing innocent Americans which, I think, is almost as unlikely as a terrorist filling out the paperwork to legally buy a silencer in the first place.

Why make it as easy as $200 dollars over the counter, no questions asked?

Then people who care about the law will be able to get them as easily as people who don't. If anything, they'd be cheaper than $200 assuming you could just buy them over the counter. There's not much to them and they could be easily mass produced if there was a reason to mass produce them.

they could get all the silencers they want.

How nice

for a silencer.

See message #23.

Academy?

DO you accept the premise that by making them generally available you would increase the supply, and therefore make it easier for criminals and terrorists to purchase or obtain them?

more generally available would almost certainly increase the supply. As for making it easier for criminals and terrorists to purchase them, I don't consider it relevant. Is it easier to buy a pack of cigarettes or some crack? I'd tend to say the cigarettes since you walk into any gas station and buy them. That doesn't mean crack is hard to get. That's a long winded way of saying if a criminal or terrorist wants a silencer, they'll get one regardless of what the law says or how easy it is for everyone else to buy one. It's a goddamned piece of pipe with some washer shaped baffles not a space shuttle.

may well get them. But if you decrease the supply below the total demand, there will also be some criminals who will not be able to get them. That's the whole point of legislation - preventing some criminals from comitting some crimes.

Are you going to require a special license to buy lengths of pipe?

Supply without regulation > Supply with regulation, would you not agree?

"I'll accept that making them more generally available would almost certainly increase the supply.", you didn't mean it?

But what does that have to do with your two posts other than your apparent belief that it's the National Firearms Act that stops criminals from using silencers in more crimes?

Point 1: Making silencers more generally available would increase supply

Point 2: Increasing supply will mean one of two things. Either supply started below total demand, in which case clearly certain criminals who couldn't get a silencer before can now, or supply started above total demand and price will drop. In the latter case it follows that at the very least it will be easier, financially, for a criminal to get the silencer.

"Point 1: Making silencers more generally available would increase supply"

Well, more like making silencers more generally available would increase demand. Supply would follow.

"Point 2: Increasing supply will mean one of two things. Either supply started below total demand, in which case clearly certain criminals who couldn't get a silencer before can now, or supply started above total demand and price will drop. In the latter case it follows that at the very least it will be easier, financially, for a criminal to get the silencer."

It's not that simple. As it stands currently, there are two markets for silencers the legal market where you pay your $200 tax and fill out all of the paperwork and the illegal market where you don't worry about paperwork and taxes. We're talking about a situation where the illegal market would essentially cease to exist because there would be no need for it. Do you think people who plan to commit crimes fill out paperwork so they can get background checked and pay $200 taxes on serial numbered and registered items they plan to use while committing crimes?

or I misunderstood you. What I meant by making more generally available was that regulations would be loosened (i.e. you could buy them over the counter). I assumed that is what you meant too.

As for Point 1, if you make a product more generally available, you are directly increasing the supply (that is basically the definition of the term). Demand may or may not follow, but has no direct causal link to the now wider availability.

What I meant by making more generally available was that regulations would be loosened (i.e. you could buy them over the counter). I assumed that is what you meant too.

Yes, that's what I meant as well.


As for Point 1, if you make a product more generally available, you are directly increasing the supply (that is basically the definition of the term). Demand may or may not follow, but has no direct causal link to the now wider availability.

I disagree. Supply isn't going to increase automatically because anyone can suddenly buy them at the hardware store. Demand will be increased because they're no longer a pain in the ass to buy. People looking to profit from the increased demand will take care of increasing the supply after that. The supply might go up as quickly or more quickly than the demand since there are going to be some companies that will flood the market to meet the expected increase in demand, but they would only do that because they expect the demand to be increased. Any way you look at it it's increased demand for silencers that would drive a greater supply of silencers to be available.

While silencres are regulated, a criminal cannot (in theory) buy them from a shop because of background checks and the suchlike. Once they are made available over the counter, the criminal can walk into any shop and buy one. Hence the supply to the criminal has increased.

are prevented from buying silencers by the current laws?

Here's an even more important question: How does it matter if a criminal uses a silencer in the commission of a crime?

they are not prevented by the current laws. But as I hope to have shown, the current laws to decrease the supply of silencers to criminals, which will make these silencres more expensive for the criminal to obtain. Indeed if the current laws decrease the criminals' available supply of silencers below the total criminal demand for silencers, it does follow that some criminals will not be able to obtain a silencer. To give an analogy, if 1000 people want a Ferrari but only 900 are available, 100 people are going to miss out.

Now as for how it matters, it depends on the silencer and the weapon being silenced. But one can imagine that if a person wishes to committ murder with a gun, it would be to the killer's advantage that the crime be discovered as late as possible - because this gives the criminal more time to dispose of the weapon, make their getaway and so on. And I would say a gunshot is the easiest way to announce to the entire neighbourhood that something out of the ordinary is taking place.

But as I hope to have shown, the current laws to decrease the supply of silencers to criminals, which will make these silencers more expensive for the criminal to obtain. Indeed if the current laws decrease the criminals' available supply of silencers below the total criminal demand for silencers, it does follow that some criminals will not be able to obtain a silencer. To give an analogy, if 1000 people want a Ferrari but only 900 are available, 100 people are going to miss out.


It's a piece of pipe with some washer shaped baffles. Where have you shown that the current laws make silencers more expensive for criminals to obtain? Didn't we discuss this in the thread about the $300 Sten gun?



"Now as for how it matters, it depends on the silencer and the weapon being silenced. But one can imagine that if a person wishes to committ murder with a gun, it would be to the killer's advantage that the crime be discovered as late as possible - because this gives the criminal more time to dispose of the weapon, make their getaway and so on. And I would say a gunshot is the easiest way to announce to the entire neighbourhood that something out of the ordinary is taking place."

Too many movies.

that silencers are something you buy. Now if you wish to discuss how you can make them in every garage... even so the argument stands. If you take the total number of silencers available to a criminal by every means under the sun except by purchasing one in a shop, this total is less than if you add the number of silencers available in shops to it.

You have a vague claim that there aren't enough silencers to go around for anyone that wants one.

"If you take the total number of silencers available to a criminal by every means under the sun except by purchasing one in a shop, this total is less than if you add the number of silencers available in shops to it."

No kidding. What does that have to do with anything we've discussed?


I'm still waiting for proof to your claim that it costs more for a criminal to buy a silencer than someone who obeys the law.

and keep demand constant (one can assume, all things being equal, that the demand amongst criminals for silencers is reasonably constant over time), the price drops. That is why its important Feeb, because my entire point is that unreguating silencers will make it cheaper for criminals to buy them. As compared to the price the criminal would have paid before, not compared to the price a law abiding citizen will pay before or afterwards.

As for your point:

I'm still waiting for proof to your claim that it costs more for a criminal to buy a silencer than someone who obeys the law.

the cost of a purchase includes not only the monetary price, but also matters like risk taken, inconvinience faced, etc. For example, a criminal may pay less for a silencer than a law-abiding citizen, but runs the risk of being caught, his dealer ripping him off, etc. All these have to be factored in to the cost function, and of course it depends how you value jail sentences and suchlike in terms of cost...

is going to remain constant, then you might as well legalize them since it won't make a difference.


the cost of a purchase includes not only the monetary price, but also matters like risk taken, inconvinience faced, etc. For example, a criminal may pay less for a silencer than a law-abiding citizen, but runs the risk of being caught, his dealer ripping him off, etc. All these have to be factored in to the cost function, and of course it depends how you value jail sentences and suchlike in terms of cost...

Blah Blah Blah. Of course there are other risks involved when you take the criminal route. We went over this with the Sten gun. When criminals buy silencers do they buy them legally or illegally?

How often are silencers used in crime anyway?

By demand I mean the number of criminals wishing to purchase a silencer. This is not the same as the number of criminals who can afford (cost, not price) to purchase a silencer. The cost does matter, that is the premise of most of criminal law. Seriously, you should look up that Becker article, he practically invented the subject of the economic analysis of crime.

Criminals buy silencers illegaly now because of the regulation. If they removed the relgulation completely, I expect many would buy them from their local store. Why not? It would be less costly after all...

By demand I mean the number of criminals wishing to purchase a silencer. This is not the same as the number of criminals who can afford (cost, not price) to purchase a silencer. The cost does matter, that is the premise of most of criminal law. Seriously, you should look up that Becker article, he practically invented the subject of the economic analysis of crime.

You guys and your it doesn't really cost what it costs argument are hilarious. That criminal who's planning on gunning someone down is stopped dead in his tracks from buying that silencer he wants, lord knows he doesn't want to risk any jail time.

Criminals buy silencers illegaly now because of the regulation. If they removed the relgulation completely, I expect many would buy them from their local store. Why not? It would be less costly after all...

Hahahah. Right. Maybe criminals who don't have criminal records should buy silencers on the legal market then.


So, how often are silencers used in crime?

legally Feeb if it wasn't for the registration.

on edit: you can laugh at me all you like, but the guy got a Nobel Prize for his work. I, being stupid, am definitely not doing it justice, and I apologise for the fact that my failings are confusing you. But seriously, do read up on the subject for yourself...

whats to stop them now? They can file the serial number off or something if they don't want to get caught. Then they get the best of both worlds. Buy a silencer legally at that way lower cost and have the untraceability of a silencer bought on the streets. Sure if they get caught they'll face an additional penalty for removing the silencer, but hey, if they get caught they're screwed anyway for shooting someone with or without a silencer.

file as owning guns/silencers whether the serial number is sawed off or not...

I'm not going to waste my time trying to tell you why legalizing silencers is a bad idea. Hell, I really WANT you to promote it, publicly, on a national basis. Jeez, when you people are asked to give reasonable justifications for wanting assault weapons, you can't come up with answers that do credit to anybody more mature and intelligent than a bunch of 13-year old boys clustered around a "Playboy" magazine. I can't WAIT to see how you'd promote the free and easy availability of silencers. Don't you ever get tired of doing my side of this argument such huge favors? The day you guys start pulling your heads out of your asses and caring about the public's perception of you is the day I give up hope on this issue. Doesn't look like it'll be anytime soon......

"I can't WAIT to see how you'd promote the free and easy availability of silencers."

Maybe I'll just use one of the original Maxim ads: "Buy a Maxim silencer for your rifle or target pistol. One of the wonderful inventions of our time. Ask any hardware or sporting goods dealer to show you one, or send 6 cents in stamps for catalog and booklet of astonishing experiences of Silencer users"


"I'm not going to waste my time trying to tell you why legalizing silencers is a bad idea."

Well, they are legal already, of course. I'm sure you mean removing the regulations on them or something. Of course, you're not going to tell me why that's a bad idea either since you can't.

If making silencers more available is such a great idea,let's see you do something about it, and someplace where all your gun militant buddies won't give you aid and comfort. Feeling all smug, now that George W. Bush and Tom DeLay are terminating the AWB for you? Up for a challenge? Fine. Take your Silencers For Everybody campaign to General Discussion and see how it plays with your fellow Democrats. What the hell---we're in the midst of a vicious, hatefully partisan presidential race, "The Manchurian Candidate" is doing big box office, what better time to persuade people that, Goddammit, there just aren't enough silencers in circulation?

Do it. I dare you. Please.....

You're all over the place in that post. George Bush! Vicious! Manchurian Candidate! Gun militant buddies! Smug! Aid and comfort!

"Feeling all smug, now that George W. Bush and Tom DeLay are terminating the AWB for you?"

Actually, Clinton signed the AWB sunset and all. George W. Bush and Tom DeLay have nothing to do with terminating it or any other federal gun control. Funny, what with them being so pro-gun and all.


"Up for a challenge? Fine. Take your Silencers For Everybody campaign to General Discussion"

This is the greatest day of my life. I finally get to say "Been there. Done that" legitimately in reply to a post.

Ahem. Here we go.

Been there. Done that.

I've advocated removing the restrictions on silencers in a number of threads in GD and GD:C2004, but if you really want me to I'll start a thread on silencers. Do you want me to make a poll or something? Or just a random "Let's remove restrictions on silencers!" post advocating my position?


"Do it. I dare you. Please....."

I'll be happy to, but should it be a poll or not?


You still haven't mentioned what's so dangerous about silencers that they need to be so heavily regulated.

...when I see the militant RKBA movement drive itself into a ditch. Extra points, by the way, for putting the AWB termination back on Clinton and letting Bush and DeLay completely off the hook. Imagine my lack of surprise.

If you're going to GD with this, don't make it a poll. Let there be a full discussion of the matter.

And as for reasons for maintaining controls on silencers, that's easy. Removing controls and allowing easy access to silencing devices would cater to three groups in this country who don't deserve that kind of favor: 1)gun militants such as yourself, pedeling the goofy notion that pretty much everybody should have easy access to pretty much any kind of destructive device, and if people get hurt, we'll just deal with it after the blood is mopped up,'cause that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it; 2)the hordes of camoflage-clad mouth-breathers who seem to split their time between drooling over the Not An Assault Weapon tables at gun shows and re-reading their favorite passages of "The Turner Diaries," and 3) career criminals. You want a silencer? Fine. Fill out the forms, pay the money, get on all the government geek lists, and knock yourself out. But try to do it in a relaxed fashion, OK?

See you and DoNotRefill over in GD.......

"Extra points, by the way, for putting the AWB termination back on Clinton and letting Bush and DeLay completely off the hook. Imagine my lack of surprise."

Well he did sign it. If he didn't want it to sunset in 10 years, he should have vetoed it and told Congress to pass a version without a sunset. Bush and DeLay are completely off the hook over the sunset, they had nothing to do with it.


"If you're going to GD with this, don't make it a poll. Let there be a full discussion of the matter."

OK


"And as for reasons for maintaining controls on silencers, that's easy. Removing controls and allowing easy access to silencing devices would cater to three groups in this country who don't deserve that kind of favor: 1)gun militants such as yourself, pedeling the goofy notion that pretty much everybody should have easy access to pretty much any kind of destructive device, and if people get hurt, we'll just deal with it after the blood is mopped up,'cause that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it; 2)the hordes of camoflage-clad mouth-breathers who seem to split their time between drooling over the Not An Assault Weapon tables at gun shows and re-reading their favorite passages of "The Turner Diaries," and 3) career criminals. You want a silencer? Fine. Fill out the forms, pay the money, get on all the government geek lists, and knock yourself out. But try to do it in a relaxed fashion, OK?"

Hahah. You should go tell LibLabUK which category his friend's silencer owning father falls into.

How are people going to be hurt by making silencers more widely available? What blood would need to be mopped up due to wider access to silencers?




See you and DoNotRefill over in GD.......

Will do.

Here you go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2249911

On edit: added link.

That was fast.

Oh, shit, sorry, that doesn't count, since it was a Democratic governor who signed the law...

Paladin, someday you'll understand that just because a person is pro-repeal of gun control laws does NOT mean that the person MUST be a RWer....

Paladin, someday you'll understand that just because a person is pro-repeal of gun control laws does NOT mean that the person MUST be a RWer....

... just because a person is a Democrat does not mean that the person is not a right-winger.

Surely you've noticed.

As long as you guys keep dredging up right-wing periodicals and spokesmen in support of your positions, as long as right-wing politicos are doing your dirty work, as long as you aim ugly remarks at Democratic politicians (you know, like comparing Wesley Clark to Heinrich Himmler) and spare Republicans, and as long as cadres of newbies just happen to turn up at the same time in this forum (we've got a new crop right now)spouting the same right-wing talking points, I'm going to suspect that you're waddling just like a bunch of right-wing ducks, and that you should be viewed with appropriate suspicion.

How's the daughter, by the way? I figure you must have perfected your diaper-changing technique, given your turning up again....

as long as you jump through the loopholes to buy one.

At least in my state.

I've thought about getting one just for the "gee whiz" factor.

Just gotta do the paperwork, wait for it to clear and pay the $200 transfer tax.

....maintained by the various levels of government, as a result.

Gee whiz. Serves you right......

lol.

If such a list exists, Im sure Im already on it.

so they can purchase a quality firearm, thats a pretty good idea, I would definately support something like that.

But the US is unusual in this regard. This is at least one country that has heavy gun control and REQUIRES silencers for certain target situations.

Besides a silencers doesnt make gun "whisper" like you see in the movies. A .45 sounds more like a car door being slammed shut (hard), and any supersonic ammunition isnt silenced at all.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

Old news, but bad news still.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/david-bain/bain-report.pdf

In brief, the facts of the case are as follows. At 7.09 am on 20 June 1994 an emergency "111" telephone call was made by the petitioner. He reported to the Telecom operator and ambulance service operator that his family were "all dead", and gave the ambulance service operator his address at 65 Every Street, Dunedin. Upon arriving at the house, Police discovered the bodies of the petitioner's father, mother, two sisters and brother. All of the deceased had suffered one or more gunshot wounds to the head, fired from close or point-blank range.

With the exception of the petitioner's father, Robin Bain, all of the family members had been killed in their beds or near to them. Robin Bain was found in lounge of the house with a rifle lying next to him. He had suffered a single gunshot wound to the area between his left forehead and left temple. Later that day, a note was found on the screen of Robin Bain's computer, in an alcove a few feet from his body. The note read "Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay". There was evidence in Stephen Bain's room that there had been a violent struggle before Stephen was killed.

The petitioner was interviewed three times by the Police following the murders, on 20, 21 and 22 June 1994. He was arrested and charged with the murders of his family on 24 June 1994.

Trial and appeals

The trial of the petitioner commenced on 8 May 1995 and lasted three weeks. The Crown case at trial was that, in the early hours of the morning of 20 June 1994, the petitioner shot his mother, younger brother, and two sisters with his semi-automatic .22 calibre rifle fitted with a silencer. He then went about his paper round. On his return, according to the Crown, he hid behind a set of curtains in an alcove adjacent to the lounge, and waited for his father to enter the house and commence his morning prayers. His father had been sleeping in a caravan nearby. It was alleged that the petitioner shot his father shortly after he entered the lounge, and then placed the rifle beside his body. The Crown also contended that, either before or after this final murder, the petitioner typed the note that was found on the computer.

Handy device. Were it not for it, somebody ... like maybe the father asleep in the nearby trailer ... might actually have heard what was happening.

"Handy device. Were it not for it, somebody ... like maybe the father asleep in the nearby trailer ... might actually have heard what was happening."

Post of the day!

Exactly why young Bain thought it advisable to use a silencer.

"To protect his own delicate eardrums," I'm sure.

:eyes:

If the AWB crowd can be believed, I think all these "mass murderers" utilizing "bullet hoses" we hear about would probably be very noticeable whether anyone heard the shot(s) or not.

silencers were unregulated. Anyone could have them. Most used them for noise reduction. Are we to assume that assasinations dropped after 1934? Were they even a serious problem prior to 1934? Doubtful.

Besides, supersonic rounds will still "crack" in their small version of a sonic boom. The one exception I am aware of is a certain model of the H&K MP-5 designed to reduce the 9mm bullet's velocity on it's way down the barrel. The action of the weapon still makes noise, much as if you dropped the slide/bolt to load the chamber. They simply aren't as quiet as Hollywood makes them out to be.

it's a health issue. We should protect shooter's hearing.

Would you be able to drive a car without a muffler? How 'bout running a lawnmower? Noise pollution is noise pollution.

If a criminal wants to "silence" a gun, it's easy enough to do now. Simply put a pillow over the muzzle, or an empty 2-liter bottle.

Legal and illegal silencers are practically never used in criminal activity now.

http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

>>

Cutting sound intensity in half only reduces the relative loudness by merely 3 dB. This would be barely noticeable. A good set of ear plugs typically reduces noise by about 30 dB and so, would reduce a muzzle blast from 150 to 120 dB, still a very loud noise. We estimate that the innocuous "fut" sound made by a movie silencer is roughly 50 dB 7, a whopping noise reduction of 100 dB from the dB level of a muzzle blast! In other words, a silencer has to reduce sound intensity of a muzzle blast by a factor of 10^10 to give such a low relative loudness. This can be done with a very well designed and precision made silencer using subsonic ammunition. However, even commercially available silencers are more likely to give a reduction of 30 to 40 dB similar to ear plugs, than the incredible 100 dB reduction frequently portrayed in movies, especially when used on high-powered rifles.

We love the "highly effective" makeshift silencers which movie characters cobble together on the spur of the moment. These have been created with everything from pillows to potatoes. Our favorite is a scene from On Deadly Ground where Steven Seagal "effectively" silences a semi-automatic handgun by taping an empty 2 liter soft drink bottle to the end of the gun barrel and gets the usual "fut" sound. At best, jury rigged silencers can reduce noise levels only slightly. At worst, they can partially block the gun barrel causing it to overpressure and explode.<<

As shown in the movies, yes, those will have minimal affect. To understand HOW to build one, one must understand the Science behind a Silencer.

When Hiram Percy Maxim (Son of the Hiram Stevens Maxim who invented the Maxim Machine Gun of WWI Fame) invented his Silencer it worked off the concept of reducing the sound of the gas pushing the bullet out of a firearm. Most of the noise one hears from a firearm is the sound of the gunpowder igniting at a speed exceeding the speed of Sound, and that powder exiting the barrel. What Maxim did was realized you could quite this sound by leaving the gas expand in a chamber BEFORE it escaped from the weapon and than buffering those gases in the expansion chamber till there were below the speed of sound.

Maxim's invention was simple, At the end of the barrel he put an expansion chamber with a hole at the far end for the Bullet to exit the chamber. In the expansion chamber were a series of curved steel wall design to "catch" the expanding gases and slow the gas down by hitting the steel walls (and more and more of the walls before the gas left the expansion chamber).

Now some of Maxim's designs included addition chambers, thus as the gas went from one chamber to the next it would be buffered again. Another way to improve the affect of the Silencer would be to add materials that the gas would hit and slow down the gas (This was NOT part of his original design given the temperature of the gas as it exited the Barrel of the gun, later when more heat Resistance materials were invented these were added to buffer the gas better than the steel walls of the original design).

Now the down side of a Silencer is that as the gas decrease in speed it drops in temperature and with the drop in temperature water being carried by the gas is released and builds up in the silencer (This is the main reason Car's Mufflers go bad, please note except for size and design purpose a Car muffler IS a Silencer, and lawn mower mufflers and industrial mufflers have been used as illegal Firearm silencers).

Could you make a Silencer out of a plastic Soda Bottle? If first take a 16 oz bottle punch holes not only in its front but its sides. Cut open a Two Liter bottle. Put the 16 oz bottle in the 2 liter bottle (Making sure the MOUTH of both are taped together. Fill the two liter bottle with paper to buffer the gas (Unless you can find some more fire resistant cloth material). If you want further buffering, put holes in the Two liter and put a 3 liter bottle over it with paper inside BOTH bottles (i.e. both the 2 liter and 3 liter NOT the 16 oz bottle). Once you have the bottles ready make sure all of the mouths of the bottles are taped together with the smaller inside the larger bottle.

Once you have your improvised Silencer, just taped the month of the silencer to the Weapon and make sure it is a tight fit.

Will this work, yes, 2-3 rounds before either the paper catches on fire (I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE FOR MAKING SUCH A DEVICE AND PUTTING IT ON A WEAPON IS ILLEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW). The contraption will block your aim, but it will be quieter than no silencer.

Please note a silencer only works on the GAS not the Bullet. If the Bullet is supersonic out of the barrel you will still have sound. Thus the above would be most effective on a .22 for it is subsonic. IT will also work with a .45 ACP which (Depending on the temperature) is generally subsonic. 9mm tend to be supersonic out of the barrel. Except for Rim fires, ALL RIFLES TEND TO BE SUPERSONIC.

Thus the most of the ammunition a person uses will NOT be silenced by a Silencer, but that does not mean silencers do not work. Just listen to your car the next time the muffler goes bad.

http://www.beairdindustries.com/silencer.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Percy_Maxim
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/silencer.html

On the overall effectiveness of Silencers, I have seen Pictures of British WWII Special Forces with Bow and Arrows to be used as "Silenced Weapons". During WWII Silencers were legal in Britain, thus someone in Britain thought more highly of the Bow than the Silencer when it came to Silenced weapons. They were stories of the US Special Forces hiring Hmong Tribesmen WITH THEIR CROSSBOWS, for similar operations in Vietnam.

In most military operations, Silence, once combat has started is not a great value. Silence is needed in situations BEFORE combat is entered (Or when combat is being avoided if possible). Often there is enough other nosies to cover up a long distance rifle shot. Silenced 22 (The Hush puppies of Vietnam) had limited range, generally under 50 yards. Long distance sniper fire can take out things 400+ yards with out being detected if efforts are made to keep the sniper away from people.

Silenced weapons tend to fill in the gap, but these tend to be silenced not only with a silencer by sub-sonic ammunition. Some people question whether these are truly better than a cross bow given the ranges being used and the Cross Bow's bolt greater weight (and greater killing power) at the ranges most silenced weapons are intended for use.

In fact it seems that most silenced weapons just are NOT used (except for targets of less than 50 yards). The restrictions to keep the weapon silent are to great if you have to shoot at something over 50 yards away AND the life span of such silenced weapon is so short that many have NOT been found worth keeping.

What I mean by the above, is their are two ways to increase killing power with any projectile weapon. Increase the weight of the Projectile, or increase its speed. With Silenced weapon you have a pre-set speed limit that is while below almost all rifles (The speed limit being the speed of Sound). Thus the only way to increase kill power is to increase the weight of the projectile. The problem with increasing the weight of the projectile is that more force is needed to get it out of the Barrel and at the ranges over 50+ yards you are looking at trajectories that mimic an arrow or a bolt (Bows shoot "Arrows", Crossbows shoot "Bolts").

I keep hearing of such silenced weapons but rare do I hear them actually used (Other than in the Hush Puppy role). Marketed but not sold, for outside the 22 of limited value.

Calculator for the speed of Sound:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe.html
Please note:
at 72 Degrees the Speed of sound is 1131 ft/Sec while
at 32 Degrees the Speed of Sound is 1087 ft/Sec

.45 ACP is 835 ft/Sec but with its heavest bullet 230 grains
9mm is 1120-1250 ft/Sec (just at the Speed of Sound at 72 degree)
.22 long rifle is 1085 just below the speed of sound.
5.56mm NATO is 3550 ft/Sec

A you can see, pistol ammunition can be slienced but it is difficult with rifle rounds.

http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm
http://www.federalcartridge.com/default.asp?br=1

The dB cut to silence otherwise loud ammunition is simply not going to be a THWIP. It may drop it 30 or 40 dB, if it works really, really well and you're using something, as pointed out, that does not make a sonic boom as well.

I would hardly characterize this as effective, at least as far as what most people seem to think silencers can do (Played too much Rainbow 6 or have watched too many movies). You've also made the pistol so bulky and heavy that it's quite difficult to use as a pistol anymore. I doubt I could hit anything with this sort of weapon unless I was holding it against the target, and I'm a crack shot. Among other things, you've obstructed the sight rail of the weapon, so you can only POINT it.

The idea that commercially available or homemade silencers, if made legal, would allow criminals to run around and kill undetected is simply asinine.

Wow -- you really know your stuff, Happyslug! I've learned a lot by reading your posts, because you explain things very well.

:toast:


Mary

the sheeple and other know nothings have their Hollywood mis-perceptions.

My favorite is the snub-nosed revolver with a walnut sized "silencer" that screws inside the barrel and has the decibel range of of an ant fart.

"it's a health issue. We should protect shooter's hearing."

Surely "we" should protect cliff-jumpers' bones. Trampolines should be placed at the foot of all cliffs in the country so people don't get hurt when they jump off. At taxpayer expense, of course, just to make sure that poor people don't miss out on the opportunity to exercise their right to jump off cliffs ...

It's not the spring action or bounce back per-say... it's the landing or return from orbit that will get you.

(I believe this was covered in an episode of of "The Simpsons").

http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/bandicoots/simpsons.html





If Homer (and you), had thought about it more, those big bouncy air-bags at the cliff base would be safer and less prone to accidents (think of the children).

First off, silencers are not that effective in curbing gun noise,not nearly as effective as they're portrayed in the movies. Silencer fans admit as much.

Second, this issue of guns contributing to the noise pollution problem really only pertains to the one place where firearms are fired in considerable numbers at the same time, i.e., gun ranges. I can assure you that, when guys like FeebMaster and DoNotRefill go to get some boomboom practice at the range, they always carry state-of-the-art ear protection (it's a safe bet that each of these boys have several such devices to choose from, including pricey custom jobs, fitted to the contours of their dear little ears). If by some chance they leave the protection behind, they can spend a whole two dollars for some throw-away plugs---every shooting range in America sells them.

No, the reason they want silencers available is the same basic reason they want Not An Assault Weapons and machineguns available: they want to experience the perverse little thrill of having the same hardware that the bottom-feeding elements of this society are so fond of.

One final question for the Silencers For Everybody crowd: if this movement gets a little momentum (hold your breath), what politician is going to step forward to carry the ball for you? What politico do we have right now who's crazy enough to go on the Sunday talk shows and argue what a stellar idea de-regulating silencers is? And you think proposing a new military draft is risky.....

I know lets ban mufflers on cars that way we can hear when an asshole is bearing down on us. Yes mufflers are dangerous. Oh wait if you don't have a muffler you won't beable to hear an asshole bearing down on you. Damn, this whole thread has been a stupid argument.

N/T

:)

edit: "Why yes, I think everyone should have 40 acres, a mule, and as many silencers as they need." :shrug:

From your posts I understand that you don't want silencers for everybody because the gun nuts want them. Is that correct?

Yeah the government's really raking it in with the National Firearms Act.

I believe sound suppression is good for the shooter's hearing and for everyone else within "earshot".

Are silencers too deadly for assination to be unregulated?

Tough question. To actually make a shot nearly silent, in addition to the sound suppressor you need ammunition that fires at less than sonic velocity. Suppressed pistols are useful for committing quiet, close-up crime.

I can't guess what impact deregulation of sound suppressors might have on public safety, crime, etc. It's never been done AFAIK.

This is essentially a Hollyweird issue. Anyone can make a silencer out of simple home items. But what you dont see on movies is the fact that silencers do not make guns silent. There is still a pop, which gets increasingly louder the more it is fired.........There is no reason for a hunter or target shooter to have silencer to protect their hearing. Cobia, are you pulling these ideas out of the air?

Have you ever actually fired a gun?

and large ear covering pieces?

If you lived next to a rifle range would you rather they used silencers or not?

they should not be allowed to have these places anywhere near residential areas, just like you shouldnt be allowed to have prisons or strip clubs there, "pollution" in the form of crime, sound and sex.

(Google it)

"they should not be allowed to have these places anywhere near residential areas".

And what happens when the situation is reversed?

Unless I missed something; there hasn't been any sudden growth of ranges opened in residential areas for quite some time. What most often is the case is that asshats from urban areas move to a more rural setting and knowingly (or possibly mislead by realtors), move next door to a saw mill, pig farm, rifle range, etc then complain about the noise/smell.

If you don't want to live next door to a rifle range that's all fine and well and that should be your decision. I have no problem with that.

However.... (here comes the <rant>)

I do have a problem with the selfish, ignorant, assholes whom knowingly moves next door (or a mile down the road), to something they're upset or displeased with and complains about or trys to change the rules to their liking.

Don't like it? Too fucking bad. :nopity:

Move along... stop bitching... get a life... go back to where you came from... blah, blah, blah.

Anyhow. It looks like I've exceeded my allocated <rant> time for tonight.

</rant>

It has to do with "elongation"... if you get what I mean.

A gun-nuts idea of "enzyte".

Did you think it up all by yourself?