First time a Suppressor / Silencer was used in a mass shooting?

[Aim1]

Sadly this is the first time I think a suppressor has been used in a mass shooting in recent memory. I believe that the Vegas shooter did not use them.

The interview that this pic is from was actually decent. First the anchor called it a silencer and then a sound suppressor and the interview, former police DC chief Charles Ramsey states that unlike many peoples beliefs sound suppressors only lesson the sound not completely silence it and that people would still hear it.

Also sadly this won’t help the The Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act making suppressors easier to obtain.

 

[Rob Starline]

Time will tell, I don’t rely on news stories as they first come out, too many falsehoods in the past. In all the news that I had read, all reports indicated that survivors could easily hear the gun fire, so I’m a little skeptical about silencer/suppressor usage.

 

[P5 Guy]

Two important questions that never seem to be addressed when this happens. What was the perpetrator's past history (full of violent encounters?) and was the perpetrator prohibited from owning firearms?

 

[JONWILL]

Was it legal or a homemade one.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Too early to tell. Legal as asked above as well as, was he using it? Could have been homemade, failed or created a malfunction and so he took it off. Hard to say and harder given the "news" we have to listen to these days.

Could be swept away quickly though as it may not fit the narrative people want to hear these days of white Trump supporters going wild. The young transgender shooters in CO have fallen out of the news quickly.

It is very sad and wrong no matter what he was using. Horrible for the victims and their families and friends. Many lives destroyed.

 

[kimberkid]

Two important questions that never seem to be addressed when this happens. What was the perpetrator's past history (full of violent encounters) and was the perpetrator prohibited from owning firearms?

Was it legal or a homemade one.

Two important questions that never seem to be addressed when this happens. What was the perpetrator's past history (full of violent encounters) and was the perpetrator prohibited from owning firearms?

Also, it could be a legal home made suppressor via Form 1(I've got 3) But both are excellent questions that it used to be (back in the old days) an reporter or journalist would find out and give that info ... still, I'm surprised that a CNN reporter brought up that suppressor don't "silence" the weapon ... that's not the typical hyper-sensationalism anti-gun rhetoric we've come to expect from them.

 

[Rembrandt]

News reports say he made firearm purchases recently.....if the suppressors were legit, he would have had to wait for months to get a tax stamp. If it was a legit suppressor, he's been in possession of firearms for some time.

 

[psyopspec]

Prediction: the administration will order a review of the process for obtaining and owning sound suppressors. BATFE will conduct that review, and may tighten regulations up to a full ban. The NRA will be a tacit supporter through their silence, but will send out mailers talking about how they need more money to fight the regulations they’re tacitly supporting. Many on this forum will place the blame on Democrats.

Same as it ever was.

 

[Gtscotty]

Prediction: the administration will order a review of the process for obtaining and owning sound suppressors. BATFE will conduct that review, and may tighten regulations up to a full ban. The NRA will be a tacit supporter through their silence, but will send out mailers talking about how they need more money to fight the regulations they’re tacitly supporting. Many on this forum will place the blame on Democrats.

Same as it ever was.

I don't think so, the legal status of suppressors in general is very well defined, and has been for a long time, not the same situation as bump stocks. The fact that suppressors are registered and highly regulated (the same process some antis have pushed for for all semi-automatics), yet this one was still used in a shooting doesn't fit any convenient narratives. I don't see any new bills changing the NFA coming from this. There could be some rule making that affects the sale of Form 1 kits, if that's what this was.

 

[AlexanderA]

This was a testimony to the ineffectiveness of suppressors, since the witnesses evidently had no trouble hearing the gunshots, or identifying them for what they were.

The question is, why did the shooter bother with a suppressor, since it was apparently of no use to him under those circumstances?

I predict that this will have no impact on the gun debate in general. The public will become slightly more aware of suppressors, and then promptly forget about them.

 

[MEHavey]

The reports are now that Craddock was clean as the driven snow (no comments please), a college grad/professional engineer (PE), the public of a number of visitor interfaces . . .

Fat Lady's neither sung yet, nor even apparently chosen her music.

 

[Robert]

As always, speculation and conjecture do us no good. If and when something concrete in the form of regulation, law or restriction comes down the line we can work on that.