A bill to reduce gun silencer restrictions

[Ranb]

A bill referred to by some as the Hearing Protection Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/367?r=21

To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns

No text available yet. It will bring the USA more in line with those other countries which allow unlicensed civilians to use silencers.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/14/gun-silencer-law-introduced-blackwell-dnt.cnn

CNN's video initially emphasizes silencer use by movie assassins instead of showing use by real shooters. They repeat (un-named) gun control advocates claims that silencers are about militarizing guns and not about hearing. Too bad they let this claim go unchallenged instead of mentioning that silencers were originally developed by a civilian for civilians and only much later adopted for use by the military.

They also repeat the claim that silencers will allow mass shooters to kill stealthily. Seeing as how silencers (registered or not) have been readily available for a long time, the crack of a supersonic bullet is anything but stealthy and mass shooters have never afaik demonstrated any willingness to use them, I don't think it will be a problem.

It was nice of them to show how loud some guns are when suppressed. But most people will not understand just how poorly the noise of any firearm is reproduced by a video recorder and computer or TV speakers.

Ladd Everett the director of One Pulse for America has his own opinion (some of which are familiar to those here) about silencer use. He says that people should be able to hear hunters discharging their firearms so they can move away if needed; implying that silencers make gun noiseless. Yes, he sounds that stupid.

Ranb

 

[NoahFence]

I'm for the use of silencers.

Live with 90 decibel tinnitus and anything to reduce noise is welcome

 

[Reheat]

This issue (not the proposed bill itself) has already been discussed in the Trump thread. Don't worry, you'll get the pile on of naysayers shortly. It mimics "the river of blood in the streets" meme from the Brady Bunch regarding anything that makes the purchase or possession of anything gun related a little easier for legitimate users.

 

[Loss Leader]

I worry that making silences lawful might embolden some misguided (and misinformed) people to try their hands at murder.

But what I really dislike is that gun legislation actually moves through Congress while any sort of plan to increase mental health resources stagnates and dies. Or just allow the CDC to study gun violence as a public health issue.


ETA: We could pay for it with the tax on silencers.

 

[Reheat]

Or just allow the CDC to study gun violence as a public health issue.

I'd agree with you if I could be assured it would be unbiased. How do you propose ensuring that?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'd agree with you if I could be assured it would be unbiased. How do you propose ensuring that?



Are you proposing given them a bonus for doing their job? That's a good way to ensure it's unbiased, yea.

Is there.a significant risk of bias?

 

[Reheat]

Is there.a significant risk of bias?

Well, under the previous administration I think there certainly was, but that's just my opinion. I guess the real question is would they make recommendations for more stupid gun control laws or would they recommend ways to improve mental health.

If the intent for a CDC investigation is about the affect on hearing, I'd definitely support that, but that wasn't the point of the original proposal, was it?

BTW, this is off topic, so I will not participate further in this attempted derail.

 

[Bob001]

I worry that making silences lawful might embolden some misguided (and misinformed) people to try their hands at murder.

But what I really dislike is that gun legislation actually moves through Congress while any sort of plan to increase mental health resources stagnates and dies. Or just allow the CDC to study gun violence as a public health issue.


ETA: We could pay for it with the tax on silencers.

Silencers are lawful. You just have to comply with the law. There's no burning social need to make it easier for civilians to acquire another military tool.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

 

[BobTheCoward]

Silencers are lawful. You just have to comply with the law. There's no burning social need to make it easier for civilians to acquire another military tool.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

Screw social need. Most of the legal junk I do every day doesn't satisfy some social need.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, under the previous administration I think there certainly was, but that's just my opinion. I guess the real question is would they make recommendations for more stupid gun control laws or would they recommend ways to improve mental health.

If the intent for a CDC investigation is about the affect on hearing, I'd definitely support that, but that wasn't the point of the original proposal, was it?

BTW, this is off topic, so I will not participate further in this attempted derail.

It's an oft bandied idea to help us get a handle on what practical steps we could take in regards to gun, which would include all impacts of things like making mufflers easier to obtain. It's in no way off topic.

Furthermore, it sounds like you just don't want to hear what they might find. Even the chance of findings you might not like is enough to stop investigation and scream bias. This is the opposite of skepticism. Follow the data. Always.

Silencers are lawful. You just have to comply with the law. There's no burning social need to make it easier for civilians to acquire another military tool.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

That article is poorly written drivel. I stopped after three paragraphs because it's clear it was not going to get any better.

Mufflers wouldn't be that useful for mass shootings. There are reasons not even the military put them on every firearm. The idea that a 'fully automatic machine gun' or other weapon effective for mass killings would be much less detectable to the point of delaying the calling of the police by minutes is idiotic. They still sound like gun shots! They're still very loud!

Yes, hearing damage is a legitimate concern. The hand-wave doesn't even raise to the level of facile.

'Military equipment' is all stuff civilians shouldn't have? Military equipment like field glasses? Sorry birders, that's useful for assassinations and mass shootings somehow. Safety glasses? Shovels? Calling something 'military equipment' tells one next to nothing about it's suitability for the civilian market.

We don't need to abandon reason just to oppose everything out political opponents might like. That's conservative's bag. Mufflers are widely employed in other countries which otherwise have stricter gun control than the US. There are many, many things we can to do reduce the impact of gun violence that doesn't involve bans or going for the death of a thousand cuts restrictions.

Maybe if we had some study of the subject, we could focus more on those things. Too bad the right wing demonizes information.

 

[Ranb]

I worry that making silences lawful might embolden some misguided (and misinformed) people to try their hands at murder.

Silencers have never been illegal in the USA; although nine states require a license to possess them. The current trend over the last ten years has been to ease restrictions on them. Even Vermont, Iowa and Minnesota (they had the most draconian restrictions even on the police) saw the light and eased restrictions recently.

The Obama administration eased the regulations for individuals who needed to obtain their local sheriff's signature on the tax stamp application to register/obtain/make a silencer. It was changed to merely informing the sheriff. The sheriff merely has to tell the ATF if the applicant has a record not in NICS. Gone are the days when the police can refuse a signature for any reason including the applicant's race or refusal to "donate".

NSW Australia recently eased restrictions. Has any jurisdiction recently clamped down on silencer possession for civilians?

.... There's no burning social need to make it easier for civilians to acquire another military tool.

Opinions vary. What need is there to keep them restricted?

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

Just so you know, that link contains one of the stupidest articles I've read on silencers in the mainstream media in years. I exchanged letters and spoke on the phone with the author, Alexander Zaitchik. He doesn't really care that his article is inaccurate, nor did he seem to show the slightest interest in correcting his errors. It was obvious to me from our conversations that he is more interested in his opinion than his integrity.

ETA; Zaitchik would have us believe that a small metal tube somehow has the ability to eliminate sonic booms made by supersonic bullets or that shooting a suppressed AR-15 indoors is somehow not going to be very loud. He claims that silencers are somehow an advantage to the mass murderer. He must be making his own plans for mass murder as he would be the first to employ a silencer in the USA for such a use. The article is nearly 3000 words. I suppose with 1100 words devoted to his displeasure with the gun lobby and over 1000 words about the nearly irrelevant Mitch Bell left him with too little room to be truthful.

 

[Elind]

I'd agree with you if I could be assured it would be unbiased. How do you propose ensuring that?

How can anyone be assured that you are not biased regarding anything that isn't what you want it to be? (Assuming anyone cares about your biases).

 

[Elind]

Just curious; what do you want a silencer for? I believe it hinders accuracy for target shooting. It is cumbersome to have permanently attached and so is not useful for self defense, and so on. What's the point?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Please tell me any legislative action will be formally titled "Silent But Deadly".

 

[BobTheCoward]

Just curious; what do you want a silencer for? I believe it hinders accuracy for target shooting. It is cumbersome to have permanently attached and so is not useful for self defense, and so on. What's the point?

People are willing to give up some accuracy while target shooting to not have as much of the pure discomfort from gunfire sound.

 

[marplots]

Just curious; what do you want a silencer for? I believe it hinders accuracy for target shooting. It is cumbersome to have permanently attached and so is not useful for self defense, and so on. What's the point?

You get less bang for your buck. That's an essential element of the US consumer-based economy. Sell less for more.

 

[Ranb]

This issue (not the proposed bill itself) has already been discussed in the Trump thread. Don't worry, you'll get the pile on of naysayers shortly. It mimics "the river of blood in the streets" meme from the Brady Bunch regarding anything that makes the purchase or possession of anything gun related a little easier for legitimate users.

Well, just looked at that thread. Not about to comment there as the posts on the silencers/suppressors are days old and pages away from the latest.

It seems nothing has changed though. There is still the old worn out "no use for civilians" crap spouted off as it was one of those truths we cannot question. I just don't see how a person can't wrap their head around the fact that a gun benefits from a muffler the same way a car does. While some rifles with subsonic ammo might be less than 110 decibels with a silencer on the muzzle, most are far louder and very readily heard at a distance.

 

[Ranb]

Just curious; what do you want a silencer for?

To reduce noise at the muzzle.

I believe it hinders accuracy for target shooting.

What kind of silencers are you using that do this? Mine do not as far as I know most others do not either since the bullet doesn't touch the baffles. While the muzzle blast is contained in the tube which can potentially upset bullet flight further, the blast baffle strips the gases away from the front of the muzzle and slows them down enough so they can no longer interfere with bullet flight.

It is cumbersome to have permanently attached and so is not useful for self defense, and so on. What's the point?

Most silencers are not permanently attached but are screw on or use a quick disconnect. In what way do you think they are cumbersome? What do you mean by "and so on"?

My suppressed SBR AR-15 has an overall length shorter than many standard AR-15's. Is it more cumbersome due to the silencer being attached?

Please tell me any legislative action will be formally titled "Silent But Deadly".

Only if you think 100 decibels and up is silent.

 

[Reheat]

All suppressor do with regard to accuracy is that they can change the point of impact due to a change in barrel harmonics and perhaps a slight decrease in velocity. Guess what? All it takes to correct that is re-sighting the firearm. They do not inherently make the firearm less accurate.

If anything they can make a firearm more pleasant to shoot because of the reduced noise.

The objections are based on pure myth. We're already seeing that due to erroneous and BS comments in this thread as well as the other one in which it was briefly discussed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Silencers are just toy accessories that gun-enthusiasts want so they can think they are "cool."