I don't know of anyone that advocates the "public" wants or needs it. It has little to do with the public other than reducing noise, which is a good thing.
President Trump
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
- Status
I don't know of anyone that advocates the "public" wants or needs it. It has little to do with the public other than reducing noise, which is a good thing.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
So they serve no purpose. Right....
You said that, I didn't. So you have no argument. Just as I thought. Bye
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
You made no argument. All you did is claim "nuh uh." I guess if you have no answer to what the purpose gun silencers are, that's all you can do. You are dismissed.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Why would you assume they don't?
Anyway, in Army AIT we were taught how to identify the direction a rifle shot came from, because it's something that people almost always get completely wrong if they're depending strictly on the sound (e.g. the grassy knoll). Do you know what I'm talking about, and what it has to do with silencers?
I know exactly what they do. A good one will reduce decibels by about 30 Db.
Don't project here. You have made no valid argument because your initial reasoning was wrong. Don't try to project your failure toward me.
Also, I asked a question that you avoided for obvious reasons. When was one ever used in the commission of a crime. You're welcome to go back over 150 years if you desire....
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
This this change to a gun argument thread? 
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
They are not. But they make it harder for detection system to pinpoint location, and same for other people.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Yes, yes why they do. I will take the information on a wiki on gunshot locator over your "expertise".
Is this an examination? While I was intelligent enough to avoid ever being a grunt I do know that visual cue and the supersonic crack of most rifle projectiles are better clues than muzzle blast sounds.
A suppressors does absolutely nothing to conceal the supersonic crack of a rifle or pistol bullet going supersonic.
That simply supports my argument that suppressors are not all that effective at concealing a shooting position.
Provide a link that proves a gunshot detector might be fooled by a firearm with a suppressor. The only time it might be deceived is a subsonic projectile from a suppressed .22 cal rifle. When was the last time or any time for that matter when something like that was used in the commission of a crime?
This this change to a gun argument thread?
If you had read prior to spouting, someone brought up one of Trump's sons advocating for deregulating firearm suppressors. Another excuse to criticize anything to do with the President Elect.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Which is exactly why most people get it wrong: That supersonic crack always sounds like it's coming from a direction perpendicular to the bullet path, not from the direction of the rifle. We were taught to ignore that and listen for the "thump" of the muzzle blast, which is what silencers suppress.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Why don't you look yourself in the wiki ? gunfire locator.
And yes the way it works, by having the gas (and thus wave) initially move transversely, will make it harder to pinpoint if only because rather than having something which can be seen as a point source, is instead a 8 form big bulb, part of it likely making interference with itself, the same way a photon with two slit with make interference.
ETA: for the model which let escape the gas forward, they chamber it first (in the suppressor) so that the speed is actually lower thus the sound muffled and lower,m which also lower the chance of detection, and AFAIK the flash is nigh to be seen or muffled.
At very long distance makes no difference (ETA: it slightly lower distance detection), but at shorter one ? Definitively.
Last edited:
That might work great in the edge of a jungle clearing or a clear mountain environment where one can see, but I have heard dozens of shots on my property, which is wooded and hilly. I've yet to hear the 'thump' of a rifle anyway. Criminals are generally poor short range shooters anyway, let along shooting at long range. That takes a lot of practice and knowledge to be accurate, something that criminals don't do and are not...
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,896
All that is irrelevant.
The only question is: what is the possible legitimate civilian purpose of a silencer?
I can think of none.
The only question is: what is the possible legitimate civilian purpose of a silencer?
I can think of none.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I disagree there is at least one purpose I see : they lower the complaint of the neighbors of gun club range. Suppressor can lower the dB enough that good noise isolation can handle the rest.
I would still advise having hearing protection while training though, I learned that the quick way.
I read that article previously and this is the most important point I see in it...
The risk with someone crazy using a firearm for a nefarious purpose is NEVER going to be zero. The justification for making suppressors subject to the NFA was not justified and it isn't now either.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
That's because most people have never shot with suppressor. I am half deaf so for me I can't really make a difference between the two.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
I never said anything to the contrary, after all we DO have gunfire crime even in EU. I was simply answering to your claim that suppressor did not change the detection ability of gunfire detector. They do.
- Status