Hearing Protection Act: Is this U.S. Senator lying, ignorant or just grossly misinformed?

[larryh1108]

We can blame Hollywood for the education of millions of anti-gun people. After all, all evil-looking guns are full auto, each magazine can hold 200 rounds before running out and silencers make all guns sound like a "poot" when used. Hollywood has probably shaped more opinions on firearms than any other source of information and we all know how Hollywood feels about armed citizens and guns.

 

[DoubleMag]

''After all, all evil-looking guns are full auto, each magazine can hold...''

Yes all guns are either AK47s or GLocks, just ask reporters

 

[Speedo66]

The pols seem to be fixated on the "silencers are the common tool of assassins" so the proper response would be to ask them for one documented case of a suppressor being used in a homicide here in the US of A.

Why use actual facts when hyperbole works so well?

As usual, political decisions and exclamations are based on which response will generate the most votes in Nov. No need to let a silly thing like the truth get in the way.

 

[PabloJ]

Sen. Chris Murphy stated “Silencers are used to commit crimes. They are used to conceal the fact that you are firing a weapon. There will be more crimes committed– more people killed– if silencers are legalized.”

As far as I am aware, legal silencers have been used in virtually no crimes in the last 80 years, making his statement patently false. Is the Senator just straight up lying or is he just ignorant of facts and towing party lines? Here's a link to the story: http://www.guns.com/2017/03/08/senator-on-hearing-protection-act-lives-will-be-lost-video/

I'm not sure where he is getting this silencers and crime in present tense. I would say if silencers are made more readily available more will be used to commit crimes. Basically more out there means more can be stolen and used by criminal element in our society.
At one time I was interested in getting one for HD use which would be useful to have except chances that I will ever need to use firearm to defend myself at home are about as good as getting struck by lightning while not carrying long magnetized metal rod in an electrical storm.

 

[Captain33036]

Criminals use guns illegally, all the time. Legality is no bar for them. If suppressors really gave them an advantage, wouldn't they being using them more often?
You can make a suppressor, very difficult to make a gun.
We do not see many suppressors used in crimes (how often have you read about one being used).
So, the data are clear.
And as always, lawful people follow the law, criminals do not.

 

[jmorris]

Hmm, a politician talking about something he knows nothing about.

I don't feel that I am on top of every detail in politics but this is not news to me.

 

[ATLDave]

He's just making projections based on how he thinks the world works.

He's mistaken, of course, about how the world works.

 

[Jackal]

If criminals use silencers and subsonic ammo in order to be quiet, I'd argue that FEWER people would die, do to the less powerful ammunition being used.

 

[macgrumpy]

It didn't take me very long to find this little jewel of information

"As of 02-03-2017, there are 1,297,670 suppressors registered with ATF under the National Firearms Act," Justice Department spokesman Dillon McConnell told the Free Beacon.

That number is an increase of nearly 400,000 registered silencers since the same time last year, when ATF records indicated there were 902,805 silencers in the country.

The ATF confirmed that silencers are rarely used in crimes despite their explosion in popularity. The agency has only recommended prosecutions for 44 silencer-related crimes per year over the past decade. That means roughly .003 percent of silencers are used in crimes each year. Of those 44 crimes per year, only 6 involved defendants with prior felony convictions.

The article also states that a 2017 report from the Associate Deputy Director (COO) of the ATF recommended that suppressors not be a controlled item since they don't present any real danger to the public.

If I could find this information in a matter of a few minutes I'm sure that the Senator or his aids were capable of finding it so the only conclusion is that he is lying about the potential dangers. If you notice, at the 50 second mark in the video, the Senator demonstrates a lot of the signs/tells of a liar, shrugging, turning slightly away from the camera, shaking his head in the negative. The guy is a classic example of what an interviewer should look for when an interviewee is lying.

 

[Taroman]

Insanity. Comon among those of his persuasion.

 

[Ed Ames]

It didn't take me very long to find this little jewel of information



The article also states that a 2017 report from the Associate Deputy Director (COO) of the ATF recommended that suppressors not be a controlled item since they don't present any real danger to the public.

It barely matters in this particular case, but it should be pointed out: that article assumes that the ATF knows about every silencer and the 44 ATF silencer prosecution recommendations per year relate to silencers the ATF has on record. What if the most likely reason for the ATF to recommend prosecution is ownership of an unregistered silencer? What if there are people making unregistered silencers out of oil filters, flashlights, or whatever else? That seems likely to me, and would mean that the 0.003% number is inflated.

 

[macgrumpy]

"What if" scenarios go both ways, the anti-gun crowd can make their own assumption about under reporting and conclude that there were more suppressor related crimes than accounted for. I have my own questions about how the numbers are counted but since the facts support the idea that suppressors aren't a threat to society I'll stick with it.

 

[Captain33036]

"What if" scenario's are all the anti's have, but they use these to good effect. It is charitable to call these 'Straw men'.... they really are just fantasies.....really more lies... aimed at evoking an emotional reaction.
And that is the problem we face. How to counter an emotional argument.
Sure facts...but....the reality is that facts don't seem to matter to many people. Most people just cannot keep any facts in their heads, and many just will not believe them, no matter what.

 

[barnbwt]

They say that a suppressor cost $5 in 1934, that may sound like chump change and at first glance it sounds like every kid would have one on their squirrel gun but $5 back then is equivalent to a little over $91 today - how many people had that kind of buying power during the depression - not very many. People poached back then because they were poor and poor people could barely find the money to buy a handful of .22 caliber cartridges every month to two for hunting squirrels, they sure as heck couldn't afford to spend that kind of money on a suppressor.

They wouldn't be buying them from Hiram Maxim, if that's what you're getting at. Rudimentary silencers are incredibly simple, granted a little harder back then since there were no plastic bottles or duct tape, but crude pipe/tube cans were around. Maxim wasn't the only inventor, and not the first person to recognize a car muffler and silencer were doing the same things. Suffice to say family oral history is my 'source' on this one. The 'cost' argument is kind of like saying thieves would never pay for name brand name lock picks; they don't, and yet they sometimes use them and there are laws against "burglar's tools" as an add-on charge.

I'll have to do some more formal research with local wildlife management folks at some point; there's very, very little detailed info about poaching at all in easily accessible areas from what I've found, which makes simple sourced retorts harder. The focus is hugely overseas regarding endangered animals, and hugely directed toward international audiences without such a fascination with silencers. It seems like a very obscure facet of an already obscure issue, that is not formally tracked; it also sounds like it is extremely common for silencers to be simply confiscated & not prosecuted (mentioned in at least three anecdotes of about six I could find). The few prosecutions I found also involved more serious infractions like drugs, violence, or machine guns. It's painfully obvious that the only poachers getting caught are the ones not using silencers --or maybe they just plead guilty so the charge is dropped to avoid the paperwork. You know, I hear no one ever lies on the form 4473 either, since hardly anyone gets prosecuted for doing so, and Chicago has a strangely low rate of convicted criminal possession despite all the arrests involving felons with guns

That was the stated opinion of the intelligentsia of the day, with some concurrent blather by Dept of Interior folks looking for funding increases, but, no one can actually show that any such poaching actually occured. Certainly not in the quantity requiring federal regulation.

Well the same surely goes for machineguns as well, right? The few famous documented uses were almost all with stolen guns; more an argument for disarming the National Guard and police armories than the citizen, to be honest. And yet gangland shootings were clearly the motivation of the NFA machine gun prohibitions (it's a joke to call that tax anything but).

I'm fairly confident that "crazy things that happen in Africa" has never been a good foundation for law in the US.

You've never built your own Form 1 silencer before, have you? It is a laughably easy, and cheap process. Even easier than an open bolt burp gun (which I haven't dabbled in). There is plenty of documented evidence from lawful hunters that cans make hunting not only more enjoyable, but easier and more discreet. That wouldn't interest a poacher, would it, same as night vision or other niceties we enjoy in this country. I'm not arguing the anti-gun line that "there be no lawful use for these dastardly tools of villains" but that obviously they will show up with criminals more often as they proliferate & normalize, so we had better not be hanging our hats on the notion they will remain as obscure as ever in this country. I submit the only crime they have any practical use --and a fairly substantial use-- is in poaching. Just because snares/traps are the primary tools since the crooks is even less exposed to authorities doesn't mean things like silencers aren't also appealing.

 

[macgrumpy]

No, I'm simply saying that it's a real stretch to assume that suppressors were being used by a great number of people in 1934.

 

[jmorris]

Rudimentary silencers are incredibly simple,

The most difficult part of making a good one is waiting the better part of a year to get your form 1 back approved.

 

[JR24]

I know of two gun stores locally that sell suppressors. No criminals have robbed them for their ultra assassin tools yet.

Most street criminals probably wont have threaded barrels either, as thats a specilatu item not commonly available in the street market.

On the true crime shows (limited I know) like Live PD I mostly see S&W Sigmas and Hi Points, cause they are cheap and easy to get.

Also, for street "gun violence" most bangers don't care, loud probably means less normal folks hassle them while they are out amurderin'.

 

[stoky]

It didn't take me very long to find this little jewel of information
If I could find this information in a matter of a few minutes I'm sure that the Senator or his aids were capable of finding it so the only conclusion is that he is lying about the potential dangers. If you notice, at the 50 second mark in the video, the Senator demonstrates a lot of the signs/tells of a liar, shrugging, turning slightly away from the camera, shaking his head in the negative. The guy is a classic example of what an interviewer should look for when an interviewee is lying.

A congress critter lyin'?
hard to imagine

 

[Sunray]

"...You guys didn't know poachers enjoy disguising/reducing their presence with..." You mean by using percussion locks?
$5 in 1934 was a lot more than it is today. The whole $200 tax thing was an astronomical amount of money in 1934. If you had a job at the height of the Great Depression, $5 was roughly a day's pay.
I wonder if anybody thought to ask Sen. Murphy to prove his statements. Nothing new about the assorted anti-firearm types making up stats, etc.

 

[hso]

Is the Senator just straight up lying ... and towing party lines?

This

 

[george d dennis]

Don't listen to that ja*cka**. This whole state is a mess. The state is in the red for a billion dollars. We don't even know where are tax dollars go. The governor is one of the worst in the country. You would think they would be doing things to bring companies and people back to Connecticut, Instead its always the same thing guns. Now they want us to pay 300 to renew are gun permits.

 

[CapnMac]

an argument for disarming the National Guard and police armories than the citizen, to be honest. And yet gangland shootings were clearly the motivation of the NFA machine gun prohibitions (it's a joke to call that tax anything but).

Exactly.
Here's the thing, though, the 'era' of the 'interstate robbers' was 1930 to 1932, so, once again, knee-jerk legislation was attempting to "correct" something that actual LE agencies had pretty much dealt with. The gangsters were being dealt with by the repeal of Volkstead. So, really, the brand-new FBI was coping with the lower criminal class created by Volkstead (the upper ranges would remain the 2% of that time).

All of which well illustrates the problem of our time, we are divided into high and low information groups; too many of our politicos only address the low-information groups, and they use histrionics and emoting to do so. Our logic, our facts, have no effect unless they reach those who can be swayed by logic and facts, which is not allowed to interfere in the political "process" lest we tip over the rice bowls of our "betters" and require them to seek actual employ with their wits and skills.

 

[barnbwt]

I would argue there is a small third group of amoral elitists that see criminals and honest citizens as merely equal organs composing their precious society. Both with concerns and motivations weighed in accordance with their political utility. You will often see fancy egghead-types adopt this persona openly, claiming their amorality is actually professional/scientific objectivity (close but not quite, lol) and claim to be capable of mediation between these groups.

They see law enforcement and legislation as more of a diplomatic task to be managed vs. the more black & white scheme of justice & morality.

 

[RPRNY]

With politicians, disregard the ideology and cherchez l'argent.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

As I recall, the murderer in the "Echos in the Darkness" murder case put a piece of garden hose over a .22 pistol barrel, screwed an oil filter on to it, fired a high vel .22 LR through it to make a hole in the end, then used it with .22 shorts. The federal restrictions did not stop him.

On the other hand, doing research for a James Bond novel, Geoffery Boothroyd checked into a hotel, set up a log in a fireplace, fired a .45 into it and waited for the police to show up and ask questions. No one called the police. Most well constructed rooms are in effect silencers to the outside world.

If you want to use fictional crime as a basis for law, in <i>The Godfather</i> the loudest concealable gun available was used for a gangland hit, because the noise of the gun in a public place would startle and confuse the witnesses.

Then there's Paul A. Clark (Alaska Public Defender Agency), "Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers", Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44–57 (2007)

Abstract: Both the public and sentencing judges regard silenced firearms as more dangerous than ordinary unsilenced firearms, and the federal penalty for possession of a silenced firearm during crime is a 30-year mandatory minimum. The assumption that silenced firearms are more dangerous than ordinary firearms has never been empirically researched. This study examines federal and state court data to compile statistics on who is being prosecuted for possession of silencers and what crimes they are used to commit. This data indicates that both on the federal and state level those prosecuted for crimes involving silencers are far less likely to have a criminal record, and are far less likely to actively use their weapon than those people convicted using ordinary unsilenced firearms. The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem. Moreover, the legislative history of silencer statutes indicates that these provisions were adopted with little or no debate. The silencer penalty has been justified by a need to crack down on “professional criminals” or to punish people using “dangerous weapons.” The evidence suggests that 30-year minimum sentences make no sense. Mandatory minimums should be repealed and sentencing judges permitted to treat each case on an individualized basis.

"Despite numerous laws on the books regarding both possession and use of silencers there has been virtually no attention focused on them by legal scholars. ... One court has blithely declared that “A silencer is used only for killing other human beings” People v. Pen 2004 WL 859311 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)).Other courts have found that there are legitimate sporting purposes for silencers (U.S. v. Stump, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 842 (4th Cir. 1997)). Actually, silencers are used for a number of lawful purposes. .... The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem."

"There are very few cases of the actual use of a silencer in a crime, that is, a firearm is discharged [during a crime] with a silencer attached. Of the federal court cases reported in the Lexis/Westlaw database between 1995 and 2005, there are only two cases of a silencer being used in a murder in the United States."