Republicans push gun silencer bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
bnolsen said:
There's no such thing as silencers, only suppressors. If fox is advertising this as a silencer bill that could be serious trouble.
Click to expand...
The federal government defines them as "silencers", not "suppressors"
 
The legal phrase is "term of art." Which makes it easier to legally describe/define things under an "umbrella" terminology.
Hence "motor vehicle" is used to include terms like "car" "truck" "auto/automobile."
Which is technically incorrect, as most of those are "engine" vehicles, not "motor" vehicles. Which does not change the name of the DMV in the slightest.
 
I own an AUG, an old one, with the built-in 1.5 power attached scope. Puts the sight a couple of inches above the barrel. Ideal for mounting a silencer. Be great at the range, I do not hunt.
 
Over 50 dead in Vegas

@HillaryClinton
"The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get."

If the shooter thought a quieter noise helped, he could have made a series of smaller and smaller tires wired together to shoot through.

9:03 AM - 2 Oct 201
 
"When two mass shootings force you to delay a bill that would make those mass shootings harder to detect and stop, maybe that's a sign you ought to let go of the bill go, once and for all," Schumer said.
Click to expand...

And that right there is the reason you DON'T make a conciliatory move after a tragedy. Now your enemies pounce and make you look like you KNOW you're complicit in the deaths and show you up as feeling guilty for supporting that bill.

It sucks, but you push ahead, answer the criticism with "no, this doesn't have anything to do with that," and keep your head up.

But...ahhh, the Republicans... just handling things no better than usual.
 
I think that all new Representatives sent to Congress should attend a military show of force that includes a demonstration of suppressed weapons. They would be the opening act which then ends with the louder weapons.

Hollywood producers should attend so we are not subjected to Shaft's gunsmith wrapping his left hand around his newly suppressed revolver at the frame/cylinder gap, firing the now silent gun with flash as the gun discharges.

I wonder if any teenage fans of the movie later tried this stunt after they acquired a revolver.
 
The Las Vegas shooter didn't care if he was located through the sound of the gunfire. He was suicidal (something that was shown by his lack of planning an escape route). All he needed was half an hour in which to spray the crowd with automatic fire. His location on the 32nd floor ensured that.

The objections to the suppressor bill by Hillary & co. are wide of the mark. But, we have to expect that the antigunners will attempt to use any tragedy to further their agenda.
 
Any idea yet about what type of weapon was used? If it wasn't a legal weapon how can a law prevent any of this? It's a good diffusing argument. I mean if a non nfa legal (post 86) machine gun was used, any arguments about legal weapons is a mute point.
 
adcoch1 said:
Any idea yet about what type of weapon was used? If it wasn't a legal weapon how can a law prevent any of this? It's a good diffusing argument. I mean if a non nfa legal (post 86) machine gun was used, any arguments about legal weapons is a mute point.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it was a slide fire stock used, so not only is our hopes of easily accessible hearing protection muzzle devices being derailed, but I fully expect a run on the slide fire stock.
 
adcoch1 said:
Any idea yet about what type of weapon was used? If it wasn't a legal weapon how can a law prevent any of this? It's a good diffusing argument. I mean if a non nfa legal (post 86) machine gun was used, any arguments about legal weapons is a mute point.
Click to expand...
From what I'm reading, it appears that he was using AR's with bumpfire stocks. If true, there may be a coming hue and cry to add bumpfire stocks to the definition of machine guns for purposes of the NFA. Fine. Make a deal. Add bumpfire stocks to the NFA in exchange for opening the registry to new machine guns. But, sadly, such a deal (which would be a net gain for the gun community) won't happen because of stonewalling by both sides.
 
beeenbag said:
I'm afraid it was a slide fire stock used, so not only is our hopes of easily accessible hearing protection muzzle devices being derailed, but I fully expect a run on the slide fire stock.
Click to expand...
Ok I hadn't heard for sure yet. I hate to say it, but it looks like Paul Ryan made a good call to defer the argument till later instead of losing for sure. A lot of people don't like him, and I'm not a fan either, but this sounds like a good call for the moment.
It sounds to me like the tragedy could have been mitigated by some ccw action, but in a concert venue that's usually discouraged. If someone was shooting back I seriously doubt a guy with a slide fire would have killed and injured even 10% as many people.
 
AlexanderA said:
From what I'm reading, it appears that he was using AR's with bumpfire stocks. If true, there may be a coming hue and cry to add bumpfire stocks to the definition of machine guns for purposes of the NFA. Fine. Make a deal. Add bumpfire stocks to the NFA in exchange for opening the registry to new machine guns. But, sadly, such a deal (which would be a net gain for the gun community) won't happen because of stonewalling by both sides.
Click to expand...

That's along the lines of what I posted in the other thread about Ryan tabling consideration of SHARE that got closed:

"Maybe let it sit on the back burner for a couple months, it would get killed as a sacrifice to the anger and sadness surrounding the tragedy right now anyway... Seems like there might be an opportunity to trade the small amount of suppressor deregulation in the bill for adding bumpfire stocks to the registry or some such. Trade something useful that we want for something more or less useless that they want, that's what I (maybe not so much the frothing anti-gunners) would call a compromise. The bill as written still called for the NICS checks that the usual suspects are so committed to."

The antis are always taking about compromise, but real compromise is two sided.
 
adcoch1 said:
It sounds to me like the tragedy could have been mitigated by some ccw action, but in a concert venue that's usually discouraged. If someone was shooting back I seriously doubt a guy with a slide fire would have killed and injured even 10% as many people.
Click to expand...
I doubt that handguns could have been effective at a 400 yard distance, firing upwards, even if the shooter could have been located quickly.

For an example, let's look at the Whitman shooting at the University of Texas tower, in 1966 (I was there). Within a few minutes, all kinds of rifles came out of the woodwork, and students, other civilians, and police were shooting up at the shooter in the tower. He was being shot at even from a circling helicopter. Nobody hit him even though the masonry was peppered with hundreds of bullet holes. All that the return gunfire did was force him to keep his head below the parapet. He was finally taken down by a policeman and a deputized civilian who made their way up the tower, much like the police did in this latest Las Vegas incident. If rifles were so ineffective against a tower shooter, think how much more ineffective handguns would have been.

Handguns are short-range defensive weapons. Not appropriate in this situation.
 
adcoch1 said:
Ok I hadn't heard for sure yet. I hate to say it, but it looks like Paul Ryan made a good call to defer the argument till later instead of losing for sure. A lot of people don't like him, and I'm not a fan either, but this sounds like a good call for the moment.
It sounds to me like the tragedy could have been mitigated by some ccw action, but in a concert venue that's usually discouraged. If someone was shooting back I seriously doubt a guy with a slide fire would have killed and injured even 10% as many people.
Click to expand...
The hotel was a posted gun free zone. Had it not been, its doubtful the shooter would have has 70 minutes to fire away. The hotel knew within. 20 minutes which room he was in
 
AlexanderA said:
I doubt that handguns could have been effective at a 400 yard distance, firing upwards, even if the shooter could have been located quickly.

For an example, let's look at the Whitman shooting at the University of Texas tower, in 1966 (I was there). Within a few minutes, all kinds of rifles came out of the woodwork, and students, other civilians, and police were shooting up at the shooter in the tower. He was being shot at even from a circling helicopter. Nobody hit him even though the masonry was peppered with hundreds of bullet holes. All that the return gunfire did was force him to keep his head below the parapet. He was finally taken down by a policeman and a deputized civilian who made their way up the tower, much like the police did in this latest Las Vegas incident. If rifles were so ineffective against a tower shooter, think how much more ineffective handguns would have been.

Handguns are short-range defensive weapons. Not appropriate in this situation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you are correct. I didn't realize it was fully 400 yards away.
 
I agree w/ above post #39 re: compromise is two sided, give and take.

Is what P. Ryan did compromise? Where's the other sides reciprocation. If not compromise is the operative word surrender?
 
Last edited:
adcoch1 said:
I hate to say it, but it looks like Paul Ryan made a good call to defer the argument till later FOREVER
Click to expand...
Nope, he never liked the two gun bills in congress, he's a spineless tool. If the bill is wrong to keep alive now, it's wrong to ever bring back to life later. His act of surrender to Hillary's tweet is irreparable and the Democrats know this. But again, Ryan never wanted to relax a single gun law in this land. He's pathetic.
Sam1911 said:
"When two mass shootings force you to delay a bill that would make those mass shootings harder to detect and stop, maybe that's a sign you ought to let go of the bill, once and for all," Schumer said.
Click to expand...
And that right there is the reason you DON'T make a conciliatory move after a tragedy. Now your enemies pounce and make you look like you KNOW you're complicit in the deaths and show you up as feeling guilty for supporting that bill.

It sucks, but you push ahead, answer the criticism with "no, this doesn't have anything to do with that," and keep your head up.

But...ahhh, the Republicans... just handling things no better than usual.
Click to expand...
THIS!!!

My friends, the cowardice in elected office served up a defeat for our community this week. We were so close, so very close to expanding freedom, but the inner strength of those whom we sent to represent us was lacking when it was most needed.
 
There is and has been a lot of emotional reporting on this subject the past few days, but the reality is that Ryan did not PULL or TABLE the bill at all. Even before the events of Sunday, it was not on the schedule to come up for a debate and/or vote this week anyway.
 
Gun control is one issue that allows politician to fill their career with nothing, and get paid for it.
Conciliatory moves in the wake of a tragedy are not wise, but emotion many times get things done faster than logic or research, usually in a botched manner. It's all the rage to do everything Europe does...it's considered bad manners to hunt in some areas there, without a silencer. o_O
 
I have a muffler on the car, I have a muffler on my lawn mower, my motorcycle had a muffler and I find straight pipes annoying. I want to be able to go to the hard ware store and buy a muffler for my rifles and pistols. I think anti gun liberals demanding that shooters endure hearing loss is unacceptable. I don't care about their irrational fears and fantasies, I want to reduce the noise level of shooting.
 
dh1633pm said:
Ryan caved. The left acts as though silencers are like those in the movies.
Click to expand...

In their defense, that's all they know. It is our job to educate those who are capable of incorporating and applying new information. The devout anti gunners are a lost cause, but they're a small fraction of the electorate. The non gunners -who comprise most of the electorate- are those who can be swayed with proper techniques. That means taking the time to explain, and not using hyperbole. We help them understand the difference between quiet and hearing safe. We don't downplay the effectiveness of suppressors (some have been doing this, which is counter-productive). The facts about them are on our side, but we have to get that information where it's needed. So take the plunge, pay for the tax stamp(s), and in a few months, start taking your non-gunner friends and acquaintances to the range. Show them. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a personal experience has got to be closer to a million.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
NH: Silencers for Hunting Bill heads to the House
Replies
1
Views
1K
Ryanxia
Ryanxia
M
  • Locked
Oklahoma: Suppressor Bill Unanimously Passes Out of Committee
Replies
4
Views
1K
Midwest
M
M
  • Locked
Ohio: Suppressors While Hunting Passes Senate
Replies
5
Views
868
Hyrulejedi86
H
F
  • Locked
NPR Story on Hearing Protection Act
Replies
18
Views
2K
Speedo66
Speedo66
Swing
  • Locked
Hearing Protection Act (HPA)
Replies
1
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
Back
Top