Critique my silencer proposal

[hqmhqm]

My daughter, age 9, hates the noise of loud guns. She won't go to the range if anyone else is there, and I don't blame her. Hearing protection for children is harder to fit on effectively, and hearing damage is a serious threat.

We must do it for the children.

 

[Caimlas]

The wax ear plugs work pretty well for kids. Other than that, the expanding foam ones are about as good as you can hope for.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Henry Bowman:

I can't agree with you here, Mr. Hairless.

Oh rats. Within a few minutes of developing a following, I've blown it. Happens every time.

My wife just walked in. I'll check to see if she still loves me. Sometimes she just wants me suppressed, other times she demands silencing. I never know if it's going to be one of the good days or the bad. But I've learned that neither time is appropriate for requesting a raise in my allowance.

So you're not in favor of the idea to interrupt the Democratic Party's anti-gun agenda by asking them to take a few minutes to make silencers (or suppressors) more readily accessible by the people they're trying to eradicate?

It would be a hoot, though, if they enacted this proposed bill into law just before they banned all gun ownership by individuals. I wonder if they have that kind of sense of humor. My guess is that they would respond to it by saying something like "If the noise hurts your ears, don't shoot." And then they might add "Causes hearing problems" to their lengthy list of reasons why people should not have firearms. That could be funny too, though.

 

[Zoogster]

A little too late. This is something that you should have done before the dems took over congress. Bringing it to the floor now would just get it crushed and make doing it later more difficult. Take an example from the dems, they made no new antigun policies while they were not in the position to pass them without bipartisan support.
Also I would include some wording about mufflers and such for automobiles just to add confusion and make it appear to be a pro automobile muffler bill as well. Take pointers from the antigun bills. Show a picture of car mufflers in advertisements. I mean they show pictures of full auto weapons to ban semi auto ones. So showing mufflers on a car when the bill legalizes them on a gun should not be much different.

I would recommend changing the bill short name to to something 'feely', like "Hearing Health and Noise Reduction Act", or "Hearing Health and Protection Act" (so it'd have the acronym HHPA, similar to HPPA, which relates to healthcare providers and information security).

See he has the right idea. Although anything related to health care is going to make people look extra hard as that is a hot button issue.

A bill not directly about silencers, but more along the lines of legalizing the option of sound muffling devices for all mechanical devices. Find a town that you can get to outlaw car mufflers(or some similar story of people wanting it legal to protect thier hearing from something besides firearms), use it in your propoganda and show pictures of car mufflers and tell the story of those upset residents without ever mentioning it is for automobiles in the bill. Make it appear you trying to protect the rights of people to choose to muffle the noise of thier car or other loud machinery. Which you will be incidentaly because it will legalize the option of muffling devices for all mechanical devices! So it is deceptive without ever lying.
A broad law legalizing and protecting the option for people to protect thier hearing from machinery at thier discreation would legalize suppressors. You could show factory workers that work in loud conditions, and stories of them going deaf because of it. Make the bill appear to be a legal protection for the option to protect hearing through the addition of mechanical noise mufflers on machinery.

I hate to advocate deception, but we are losing to deception:banghead:

 

[carnaby]

I'll sign on. Stupid NFA.

 

[LAR-15]

I have proposed we title it the 'Hearing Protection Act'

 

[Smurfslayer]

I like the "Hunters & Sportsmens hearing protection act"

 

[illspirit]

Maybe add something to the bill name about Noise Pollution? Oh, and the name should also add up to a fluffy, feel-good acronym. I suck at naming things though..

Might also be a good idea to throw some "whereas [insert 'legislative finding']" bits in the bill summary too. Stuff like:

'Whereas the report from rifles and pistols at shooting ranges can be heard from miles away, sound suppressors would positively impact the quality of life for neighbors in the immediate vicinity by reducing the level of noise pollution.'

'Whereas it is a widely accepted myth that sound suppressors render a firearm completely inaudible and are thus only suitable for criminals, in reality, the decibel level is only reduced by 20 - 30%.' (note, just pulled that number from thin air, input form an expert would probably be good)

And to put the "global community" table on the antis other foot, as it were, maybe something like this:

'Whereas even foreign countries with strict firearm laws not only allow sound suppressors, but encourage their use for the sake of hearing safety, it is quixotic that such a safety device should continue to be restricted in the name of public safety by the United States based solely on popular myth and misconception.'


Seeing as the antis have tried to newspeak-itize "gun control" into "gun saftey," it would be fun to watch them squirm if they had to face a bill like this which actually promotes gun safety.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

The European Standard

I've heard somewhere -- oh, right, on THR as it happens -- that suppressors are much easier to obtain in Europe, for those people who actually have guns.

This might be just one or two countries, but I got the impression that it was most of Europe.

So it would seem that in most "civilized" countries, the value of hearing protection is already recognized.

I hate the idea of using the European Standard as a line of reasoning in US legislation, but is there some subtle way of making the point without pulling a SCOTUS trick (like actually stating that "because we need to be more like Europe")?

I mean, it's attractive, but I think it may also be the entrance to a mine field.

 

[illspirit]

You're right, ArfinGreebly, there's always the potential for backfire if we bring European law into the issue. However, there's also the potential for a double-reverse backfire if the antis try to turn it back around on us. Should they try to fight loosening restrictions on suppressors, then turn around and (continue to) try to legislate European-style gun bans, we then point out how they hypocritically rejected the one European-style law which actually contains a modicum of real-life gun safety.

Methinks this might be a good way to illustrate to the fence-sitters just how little the antis really care about safety.

 

[LAR-15]

Bump for anybody else who wants silencers treated like scopes

 

[BedPimp]

I live in the PRK. I can get busted for having a sound suppressor on my gun while getting nailed for not having a noise reduction device on my motorcycle...

 

[Owen]

Silencers are ineffective with supersonic loads

Some legends will never die...

 

[Outlaw Man]

One suggestion: Take all the spaces out so no one can squeeze anything into it about banning detachable magazines. We don't want another Firearm Owners "Protection" Act. :banghead:

I like it. I don't know how much good it will do, but I'll mail my Congresscritters at the appropriate time.

 

[Correia]

Silencers are ineffective with supersonic loads

I know. And it doesn't matter if some of us own suppresors, sell suppresors, build suppresors, no matter what we say about the "devestating supersonic crack" (only devestating on the internet) the words of somebody who has never shot a suppressed weapon will resonate through the internet for eternity.

 

[hrgrisso]

Air Brakes, Silencers and Air Brakes

Maybe this is a West Coast thing but many time towns will have enacted legislation about Air Brakes so just piling on more comparisons. If adding a part about mufflers in there, you can also use the air brake comparison as well.

I dig the idea. Suppresors are legal her in the Az. I haven't bought one yet as I haven't bought a threaded barrel for any of my Sig's. So run with this. Once you have this "finalized(yeah right) can you post this on a website anywhere so that we could get a printed version to present to our reps and senators? I'd be happy to send a copy to every senator and congressman in Az.

 

[LAR-15]

I believe that's the final copy there for me.

The more folks that send it in, the better.

At least it can counter balance McCarthy's lame attempt to ban any semi automatic firearm that can accept a suppressor.

 

[jlbraun]

Cool. Keep us updated.

 

[pete f]

I agree with someone getting it passed as a aural health issue, or OSHA. but at the same time, I fear them demanding that I use one.

My dad has one on his p22 down in florida and its leaked about his community that he has one and about once a week he gets a call, " bob. I got a possum eating garbage from the can', or "can you bring your gun over and shoot this darn ........ thats ripping up my flowers?" amazing how many lil old ladies from NY and NJ who hate guns change their mind when their rose bush gets ripped up.
(BTW, his local sheriff has given him the nod on this. in writing. Only things he cant pop are gators and certain protected animals and birds)

 

[Prince Yamato]

but at the same time, I fear them demanding that I use one.

This could also be a potential problem. IE a town passes a local ordinance saying all firearms must be suppressed, while simultaneously having a law on the books banning suppressors. OR they could ban silencers in "military calibers only" .