• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reporters and guns

Ranb

Penultimate Amazing
Ranb
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
11,320
Location
WA USA
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_219222607.html

It seems the NYPD responded to a complaint made about a man threatening someone with a weapon. The above link contains a video of this story and a partial transcript.

In the video, reporter Brendan Keefe claimed that "silencers are illegal in all fifty states" and "they muffle the sound a gunshot and have no use other than killing someone without fear of detection." The transcript contains a clarification stating: "Silencers are illegal nation-wide, without a permit. Sixteen states ban them altogether."

So, knowing that there are no federal laws banning civilian silencer possession, and he has never read any such law, why would this reporter make up something just for his live report on the street? Is this any different than lying? Or is he just so prejudiced against gun owners that he needs to spice up his story for ratings?

The second comment, which remains uncorrected, is the "no other use than killing" comment. I guess he also never heard that silencers help prevent the most common injury associated with firearms use; hearing loss. Posturing morons like this gun make me cringe when watching the news, and not just about gun related topics.

Ranb
 
The reporter, most likely made an assumption without fact checking it. I'm guessing that the average joe believes silencers are simply illegal to own as well.
 
Without knowing anything about this reporter, I would ascribe it to the generally poor level of journalism in this country as opposed to any overt lying.

He probably asked someone if silencers are illegal and heard the first part of the answer (they are illegal) without hearing the second part (without a license).


When silencers are outlawed, then only reporters will have silencers.

Or sumpin like that
 
Ranb said:
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_219222607.html
So, knowing that there are no federal laws banning civilian silencer possession, and he has never read any such law, why would this reporter make up something just for his live report on the street? Is this any different than lying? Or is he just so prejudiced against gun owners that he needs to spice up his story for ratings?
Click to expand...

More likely he was just on a roll, or misread/misremembered something he was handed. Or maybe he just yanked it out of his butt.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
 
Ranb said:
The second comment, which remains uncorrected, is the "no other use than killing" comment. I guess he also never heard that silencers help prevent the most common injury associated with firearms use; hearing loss. Posturing morons like this gun make me cringe when watching the news, and not just about gun related topics.
Click to expand...

This is a really strange comment, whatever our respective positions on gun control. If you're a collector or sport shooter, why not just use hearing protection? It must be a failure of my limited imagination to conceive of silencers being realistically used in any scenario other than the killing of other humans...
 
Assuming that the reporter is an American, he should know that anything not prohibited in the USA is legal. He either lied or his prejudice against gun owners is strong enough to over ride common sense, hence his "no other use than killing" statement. I doubt that he was coached on that one; it had to come out of his ass.

Jimbo, I find your comments to be rather strange. Do you even care enough to learn anything about silencers or firearms in general before posting? While most silencers will not reduce noise below 120 decibels, they do reduce noise pollution around shooting ranges and hunting areas where used. Not all hunters use hearing protection. Sometimes range spectators do not use hearing protection or fail to use it properly. What do you think the 60,000 plus legal owners of silencers use them for in the USA? Use your imagination.

If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing? I own a couple of rifles that are loud even when shot with single hearing protection. I would use silencers with them all the time if it was legal to do so in my home state.

I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England and New Zealand. If there is anyone here from these countries, please let me know if I am right or wrong.

Ranb
 
Last edited:
Finland and Norway don't impose many restrictions on suppressors (which is really what we're talking about), and they have their advocates for use in hunting. I can see how they'd be popular at a public range too.

Ranb, unlax and crack a brew with your old uncle sackett. It's been at least a third of a century since I stopped expecting reporters to get any technical subject right.
 
sackett said:
Finland and Norway don't impose many restrictions on suppressors (which is really what we're talking about), and they have their advocates for use in hunting. I can see how they'd be popular at a public range too.

Ranb, unlax and crack a brew with your old uncle sackett. It's been at least a third of a century since I stopped expecting reporters to get any technical subject right.
Click to expand...

I tend to use the word silencer because it is a legal term and if I was to use the words suppressor or moderator on the application for the $200 tax stamp required to make/own them, then the ATF would not approve the form.

I'm chilled out. :) I admit I have had to take some of what I hear and read on the news with a sack of salt in the last ten years, but it would be nice if they kept their own personal prejudice out of their reporting. I understand that much of what passes for news in this country is merely thinly disguised entertainment, but this guy was like a mouthpiece for the Brady Campaign crowd.

Ranb
 
Can I get a silencer for my beloved 50 BMG rifle? Sometimes, when we are in bed at night, it makes too much noise!

Do not use personal attacks to argue your point. Several of your posts are bordering on sexual harrassment which breaches the Membership Agreement.

Sexual harassment: Defined as unwelcome sexual advances, sexual suggestions, or sexual content directed at another user, when reported.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ranb said:
Assuming that the reporter is an American, he should know that anything not prohibited in the USA is legal. He either lied or his prejudice against gun owners is strong enough to over ride common sense, hence his "no other use than killing" statement. I doubt that he was coached on that one; it had to come out of his ass.

Jimbo, I find your comments to be rather strange. Do you even care enough to learn anything about silencers or firearms in general before posting? While most silencers will not reduce noise below 120 decibels, they do reduce noise pollution around shooting ranges and hunting areas where used. Not all hunters use hearing protection. Sometimes range spectators do not use hearing protection or fail to use it properly. What do you think the 60,000 plus legal owners of silencers use them for in the USA? Use your imagination.

If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing? I own a couple of rifles that are loud even when shot with single hearing protection. I would use silencers with them all the time if it was legal to do so in my home state.

I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England and New Zealand. If there is anyone here from these countries, please let me know if I am right or wrong.

Ranb
Click to expand...
The problem is, I suspect, that most people THINK that silencers make guns SILENT and the law makes people feel good. The fact that it merely lowers the volume to a still quite detectable level and makes the weapon longer (less concealable) doesn't matter to the happy unknowing.
 
Ranb,

Though it's coming a little late, I want to agree that what Biden said to you was completely out of line.
 
I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.
 
rtalman said:
I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.
Click to expand...

Yes, no doubt. Completely unrealistic. Though, silencers on revolvers really crack me up.
 
rtalman said:
I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.
Click to expand...

This link might interest you. http://silencertests.com/reviews/list.pl?sortby=suppressed It is important to know that impulse noise like a gun shot is nothing like the continuous noise coming from a jet engine. A bolt action rifle chambered in the common 22 rim fire cartridge and equipped with a good silencer will make a PFFT sound but it is still about 1120 decibels. The semi-auto Ruger 10/22 will make a clack-clack sound as the bolt moves back and forth, but is also less noisy than some air rifles. A bystander who is not paying attention will probably not recognize the noise as a gunshot.

Putting a can on an AR-15 will reduce noise by 100-1000 times, but the action noise is loud, and if you shoot it left handed without eye protection, the powder gas and residue flying out of the gas tube and into your face is likely to damage your eyes, or at least make little red marks on your cheek. The silencer keeps pressure in the barrel higher as the gas tube blows the bolt carrier back. When the Army tested suppressors for their 50 caliber rifles, they found that none of them suppressed well enough to prevent hearing loss.

Ranb
 
Jimbo07 said:
I apologize for dipping into this thread.

:boxedin:
Click to expand...

The thing is that silencers were invented over 100 years ago by a civilian for civilian use. They were made of mild steel and had rather flimsy attachments compared to today's silencers. They were not well suited for military use due the lack of high strength alloys, the tendency to overheat the weapon during use and baffle strikes when not mounted well.

Since 1934 civilians (non-dealer) have had to pay a $200 tax to buy, or make them as well as have a background check done by the BATFE and inform the local sheriff that they were trying to buy. In the last thirty years or so technology has enabled manufacturers to mass produce quality silencers and inflation has reduced the cost of the tax compared to the worth of the silencer. Back in 1934, the $200 would be the same as about $3000 today.

So an American decides to buy a silencer, he puts up with the paperwork and excessive tax and brings it home. Then he gets crap from gun owners or others about how he or she is breaking the law or that they are intending to kill someone. Can you not see that this is insulting? Would you accuse a person who buys condoms of plotting to rape without leaving evidence? I think not. Silencers reduce noise, they are mufflers for guns.

Ranb
 
Ranb

I can see you are passionate about this issue. Have you sent a letter to the ombudsman at WCBS and asked them to make a further correction about the reporter's statement about the need and use of suppressors?

I think a polite letter outlining the history you have given and the reasons many enthusiasts buy and use suppressors might get a positive response and maybe even a further correction on their website.
 
I did e-mail the reporter. My letter was polite, but I did tell him he needs to try to be more accurate instead of allowing his prejudice to get in the way of the truth. I am not expecting a reply. Reporters and news program producers are even less responsive than elected members of Congress it seems.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom