Move Sound Suppressors to Title I!
- Thread starter El Tejon
- Start date
- Status
Doing research on supressors led me to the conclusion that the majority of supressors (especialy those that last more than a few shots without required maintenence or replacement of parts) reduce the report to something still quite audible. The size requirement of those that silence more than a .22 size charge anywhere near that of hollywood is significant.
That supersonic rounds still break the sound barrier and regardless of the supressor the crack is still quite significant. So that sniper using a high powered rifle from a significant distance to silently assassinate a target seems to be just another widely circulated myth by the entertainment media.
It just goes to show that the laws people pass out of fear are more often based on media with its own agenda (political or entertainment profit) and not facts and logic.
That supersonic rounds still break the sound barrier and regardless of the supressor the crack is still quite significant. So that sniper using a high powered rifle from a significant distance to silently assassinate a target seems to be just another widely circulated myth by the entertainment media.
It just goes to show that the laws people pass out of fear are more often based on media with its own agenda (political or entertainment profit) and not facts and logic.
ctdonath
Member
Yes, "silencers" mostly aren't. With care, a "Hollywood quiet" sound can be created with a careful balance of silencer, ammo & gun.
Most aren't. Earplugs are still a good idea, just not an absolute requirement.
A few months ago there was a silencer-only shoot near here. All guns were "silenced", yet the noise was comparable to a loud rock concert.
I recently got a silencer for an AR15. After a few tries, I still use earplugs - it has just been reduced from ear-splitting to LOUD.
Most aren't. Earplugs are still a good idea, just not an absolute requirement.
A few months ago there was a silencer-only shoot near here. All guns were "silenced", yet the noise was comparable to a loud rock concert.
I recently got a silencer for an AR15. After a few tries, I still use earplugs - it has just been reduced from ear-splitting to LOUD.
Having to use underpowered low velocity sub standard ammo on a gun designed just for being silenced with a large addon making it much less concealable/portable to get the desired 'hollywood' effect seems....reminds me of the mp5sd which slows the velocity of the rounds with wipes essentialy reducing a 9mm to an even more inferior round while increasing the dimensions significantly. That is in a low powered weapon specificly designed just for that purpose and thus everythign integrated to be space effecient.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
LAR-15 - local and state.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Third_Rail, thank you for bringing this up with your legiscritters. Its not particularly surprising that their reaction would be reflexively derisive.
But we're going to encounter a lot of that before people start to change their minds.
But we're going to encounter a lot of that before people start to change their minds.
loki.fish
Member
I plan on bringing it up after elections. Figured it kind of pointless to discuss it with them now, since they might or might not be there after elections.
I'd like to go through with my idea of getting the Suppressor companies involved, but I have a small problem. I'm not good with words at all. I've only recently gotten into the political side of firearms. So, I'm kind of at a standstill on this part. I haven't the slightest idea how to write something to them. I've been contemplating just emailing a link to this thread to the people, then snail mailing the address with a small note as well. What do you guys think of having them read this thread as a small introduction to what we're aiming for?
I'd like to go through with my idea of getting the Suppressor companies involved, but I have a small problem. I'm not good with words at all. I've only recently gotten into the political side of firearms. So, I'm kind of at a standstill on this part. I haven't the slightest idea how to write something to them. I've been contemplating just emailing a link to this thread to the people, then snail mailing the address with a small note as well. What do you guys think of having them read this thread as a small introduction to what we're aiming for?
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
The way I figure it, it's never pointless to discuss any of this, regardless of the time. Who knows, maybe they'll push for something now and then if they're not re-elected it's no big deal to them?
El Tejon
Member
Gentlemen, while is it always good to lobby elected officials, I believe we are attempting to put the cart before the horse. If we lobby our Congresscritters now, we are merely individuals. We need the influence of a large organization.
Let us endeavor to lobby the NRA first. Make it known that it is something the membership wants first. Then THR can go to Washington.
Let us endeavor to lobby the NRA first. Make it known that it is something the membership wants first. Then THR can go to Washington.
I disagree.
If you know your rep has been solid on pro gun issues there is no reason you cannot take this down to the local constituent office and have them look at it or take it to a town hall meeting hosted by your senators or representative.
Fax it to their DC offices.
While we should also be joining and getting the NRA, GOA, suppressor companies involved, we should also do all we can individually and with our fellow shooting buddies.
If you know your rep has been solid on pro gun issues there is no reason you cannot take this down to the local constituent office and have them look at it or take it to a town hall meeting hosted by your senators or representative.
Fax it to their DC offices.
While we should also be joining and getting the NRA, GOA, suppressor companies involved, we should also do all we can individually and with our fellow shooting buddies.
Perhaps something that would help is a video. Surely we have some people that can go out and record themselves shooting supressed and unsupressed guns? Put together a movie that shows that silencers don't behave like the movies, but do provide advantages. Show readings with decibel meters, interviews with doctors, things like that. It should be too hard to do here, right? MO doesn't like silencers, but if there's something I can do to help with this...
We have movies. We can show the false portrayal, and then go on. Just get some clips.
Various people in various places can record shoots, and send the video to someone like Oleg(if he knows enough, or perhaps we have someone else on the forum that knows video editing?) to be arranged.
Some of our European brothers can document supressors over there, and show what kind of an impact they have.
We have doctors on here, right? Record an interview explaning long term hearing loss. Talk about how the extreme volume of gunfire can cause the damage, even through double ears.
The decibel meter would be used to show the reduced volume over distance, reducing noise pollution.
This is all arranged on a DVD for people to send to CongressCritters, and to be posted all over the place on the web.
We have movies. We can show the false portrayal, and then go on. Just get some clips.
Various people in various places can record shoots, and send the video to someone like Oleg(if he knows enough, or perhaps we have someone else on the forum that knows video editing?) to be arranged.
Some of our European brothers can document supressors over there, and show what kind of an impact they have.
We have doctors on here, right? Record an interview explaning long term hearing loss. Talk about how the extreme volume of gunfire can cause the damage, even through double ears.
The decibel meter would be used to show the reduced volume over distance, reducing noise pollution.
This is all arranged on a DVD for people to send to CongressCritters, and to be posted all over the place on the web.
New poster, new responce possibly..
First off im extreemly new to this site, but not new to firearms ownership. Im also in a small arms repairer feild in the military... With that simple introduction being stated...
We can go on all day long as to the benifits vs the political ramifications with any sort of ownership of any firearm part, add on items, so on and so forth. With that the biggest part of anything is education. In order to get things rolling you are not fighting so much the political spectrum as you are outright ignorance and the medias veiws of anything second ammendment. Before you can really get the ball rolling on anything you have to educate and train not so much the firearms owners, but the general public on what a firearm, add on assembly or anything is, its capabilitys are and what it does. That is going to be your biggest battle. You will never win against hard line core thoughts and values, your battle grounds are going to be those people that dont know anything, and do not engage on the second ammendment rights. IE shooting and hunting on a daily basis. Most people that are aware of a supressors actual use dont need that education, for example supressors are not only usefull in actual sound supression, but muzzle flash signature reduction, additoinal accuracy potential, ect. When you have general mainstream agreement that this is not such a dangerous item, or legislation against it isnot haveing the supposed effect that the brains that create laws like to propose. Most of us on forums such as this know the falicys of proposed gun laws. General non shooting public dosent, so supposed legislation that is reputed to be "reasonable" and more importantly DOES NOT DIRECTLY EFFECT THEM in their minds is not gonna make them stand up and say no. The key to this fight and most others is going to be education and more education.
Just the rambleings of a second ammendment and supporter of the constitution.
First off im extreemly new to this site, but not new to firearms ownership. Im also in a small arms repairer feild in the military... With that simple introduction being stated...
We can go on all day long as to the benifits vs the political ramifications with any sort of ownership of any firearm part, add on items, so on and so forth. With that the biggest part of anything is education. In order to get things rolling you are not fighting so much the political spectrum as you are outright ignorance and the medias veiws of anything second ammendment. Before you can really get the ball rolling on anything you have to educate and train not so much the firearms owners, but the general public on what a firearm, add on assembly or anything is, its capabilitys are and what it does. That is going to be your biggest battle. You will never win against hard line core thoughts and values, your battle grounds are going to be those people that dont know anything, and do not engage on the second ammendment rights. IE shooting and hunting on a daily basis. Most people that are aware of a supressors actual use dont need that education, for example supressors are not only usefull in actual sound supression, but muzzle flash signature reduction, additoinal accuracy potential, ect. When you have general mainstream agreement that this is not such a dangerous item, or legislation against it isnot haveing the supposed effect that the brains that create laws like to propose. Most of us on forums such as this know the falicys of proposed gun laws. General non shooting public dosent, so supposed legislation that is reputed to be "reasonable" and more importantly DOES NOT DIRECTLY EFFECT THEM in their minds is not gonna make them stand up and say no. The key to this fight and most others is going to be education and more education.
Just the rambleings of a second ammendment and supporter of the constitution.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
You can lead a horse to water, but...
How will you motivate them (or anybody who is disinterested) to watch it?
How do you motivate the people to read your letters? A big advantage to the video would be the fact that you can show what silencers really do, versus what the movies make people think they do-something text can't do. Getting them to watch is a good point, and I'm sure that there will be people that won't watch, but those will probably be people that wouldn't listen to the message anyway. This is just another way to send the message, and probably better in that things can be done that can't be done with letters.
Third_Rail
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,979
I do like the idea of the DVD. It seems to me that it would add a bit of appeal for those open to new ideas, but unwilling to do any research for themselves.
mindwip
Member
I think its more important to change your wording. Dont call them "silencers" as soon as you mention that they wont listen. They will be thinking of James Bond.
What you need is a new buzz word. Like mufflers. Sounds better. And when you first think of mufflers your more apt to think of cars and how mufflers are good, as they reduce the noise BUT you can still hear a car. When you say Silencers poeple think of only guns and a wisper quit gun. This starts off on the wrong track of thinking.
Also you want to make a differerence in there minds about mufflers and silencers. Let them think that silencers are bad and wisper quiet. Thats ok. But now tell them about this new product that are called mufflers. Mufflers are not wisper quiet infact there as loud as a rockconcert. Tell them the difference is that with a silencer you can shoot 10,000 rds and you wont get hearing damage but with a muffler you can only shoot 10 or so without hearing damage. And with a non muffler/silencer gun it only takes 1 shot to get hearing damage.
Tell them it would be great if we could pass a law that allowed something like 50% of noise reduction, without being illegal. Anything over that and its still illegal. I think the only way to beat this is to come up with a new product. Not try to have poeple rethink a product they think they already know. Its all baby steps. Plant the seed(just tell them about it). Let it grow (let then get used to the idea, without buging them 24/7). Take the fruit (try to pass a small law that helps you goal). Plant more seeds (pass laws that help you out more)
Yours Mindwip
What you need is a new buzz word. Like mufflers. Sounds better. And when you first think of mufflers your more apt to think of cars and how mufflers are good, as they reduce the noise BUT you can still hear a car. When you say Silencers poeple think of only guns and a wisper quit gun. This starts off on the wrong track of thinking.
Also you want to make a differerence in there minds about mufflers and silencers. Let them think that silencers are bad and wisper quiet. Thats ok. But now tell them about this new product that are called mufflers. Mufflers are not wisper quiet infact there as loud as a rockconcert. Tell them the difference is that with a silencer you can shoot 10,000 rds and you wont get hearing damage but with a muffler you can only shoot 10 or so without hearing damage. And with a non muffler/silencer gun it only takes 1 shot to get hearing damage.
Tell them it would be great if we could pass a law that allowed something like 50% of noise reduction, without being illegal. Anything over that and its still illegal. I think the only way to beat this is to come up with a new product. Not try to have poeple rethink a product they think they already know. Its all baby steps. Plant the seed(just tell them about it). Let it grow (let then get used to the idea, without buging them 24/7). Take the fruit (try to pass a small law that helps you goal). Plant more seeds (pass laws that help you out more)
Yours Mindwip
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Folks with suppressors oughta take a newsie out shooting. Do a "with and without" demonstration. Then make your arguments.
Take along a .22 rifle, and shoot some CB caps, to show that there are other ways than suppressors to cut down the noise if the newsie worries about "quiet assassins".
Art
Take along a .22 rifle, and shoot some CB caps, to show that there are other ways than suppressors to cut down the noise if the newsie worries about "quiet assassins".
Art
mindwip
Member
then they will ban CB Caps
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
I fear that the events of November 7, 2006 have adversly affected our chances of success for at least the next two years.
Zundfolge
Member
Might as well lock and unsticky this thread now ... maybe we'll have half a chance in two years if the Dems blow it bad enough to get out of power (unless we can get this passed before the end of next month).
But for now, forget about it.
But for now, forget about it.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
I would be a nice parting gift from a lame duck Congress. 
El Tejon
Member
No, one does not "give up". You need to build momentum inside the NRA for this before it goes to Congress. The notion that "well, the Dems have won" is putting the cart before the horse.
It took years to amend the NFA in the '50s. It was years and years before the FOPA was passed. It was years and years building momentum before CCW reforms gained ground. It was years and years ago when I proposed this idea to people such as Harlon Carter and others in the NRA.
We need to focus on lobbying our own side, THEN when we are ready go forward.
It took years to amend the NFA in the '50s. It was years and years before the FOPA was passed. It was years and years building momentum before CCW reforms gained ground. It was years and years ago when I proposed this idea to people such as Harlon Carter and others in the NRA.
We need to focus on lobbying our own side, THEN when we are ready go forward.
mindwip
Member
Sounds good to me. Spread word through out the gun community, let it build up and hopefully by then the Republicans are back in office.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked