I'm not sure where this goes and I don't want to double post, so... What's the fuss over silencers? I know how other countries have mandate that they be used. I know that they don't "silence" a gun, especially anything shooting super sonic and I know they make shooting more pleasant and safer for your hearing. I'm told that there is a coalition of the hearing impaired [?] that are lobbying for public use. I don't know why they are made out to be for "bad" guys or they make good people into bad people? Where did silencers get a bad reputation? What law or laws were made and why to make silencers illegal? Is it true that to own or build one is a felony without government permission. last, Dear Moderator, if I have this in the wrong spot I ask that you move this and direct me to it's new home. And/or, if this is a much discussed thread, please show me the links. Thanks all.
Silencers, why the fuss?
- Thread starter CANNONMAN
- Start date
- Status
First off "Silencer" is a noun. The device doesnt need to silence anything. Hiram Maxim developed the device in 1912 and named them silencers . Thats good enough for me. In any case they were added to the NFA in 1934 because at the time the government under Roosevelt was trying to add pretty much everything gun related aside from hunting rifles and shotguns to the NFA. Handguns got pulled out at the last minute to get the legislation through congress but everything else got stuck so we have the laws we have today.
The hearing damaged really don't need to worry about gunshot induced hearing damage. Its the people who want to retain their hearing who would be more interested in silencers. They really do a remarkable job of reducing the sound of a gun shot. People are afraid of all sorts of silly things they don't understand including silencers so I don't see any sort of silencer legislation going through.
As far as bad guys getting silencers I dont know that bad guys really want to lug around a 1 1/2 foot long gun silencer combo to work with and the whole noise thing doesnt seem to be stopping very many of them now.
The hearing damaged really don't need to worry about gunshot induced hearing damage. Its the people who want to retain their hearing who would be more interested in silencers. They really do a remarkable job of reducing the sound of a gun shot. People are afraid of all sorts of silly things they don't understand including silencers so I don't see any sort of silencer legislation going through.
As far as bad guys getting silencers I dont know that bad guys really want to lug around a 1 1/2 foot long gun silencer combo to work with and the whole noise thing doesnt seem to be stopping very many of them now.
True, but the undersized examples used by the entertainment industry don't have to really work.
Within the general public what we call "suppressors," are more commonly known as silencers, again because of fiction and less then knowledge news media.
That's it, exactly. Many people have been taught that silencers are only used to assassinate/murder and are ignorant of/refuse to acknowledge their legitimate uses and benefits.
Well, the ATF calls them silencers...manufacturers call them silencer (who hasn't head of silencer shop?)...and my understanding is the inventor of the damn things called them silencers.
The term silencer is completely acceptable, even though they don't always actually silence the gun (though in the right setup, they can, especially a bolt action .22lr shooting standard velocity sub sonic ammo)
wild cat mccane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 977
You are legally allowed to own one.
However, it is a product that would make a murder easier.
I am perfectly fine with how they are regulated. The silencer lobby is the perfect example of a lobby group that does not align with the majority of America's opinion.
Sorry "constitutionalist" originalists, if you use the theory of originalism, the 9th Amendment kills your theory.
However, it is a product that would make a murder easier.
I am perfectly fine with how they are regulated. The silencer lobby is the perfect example of a lobby group that does not align with the majority of America's opinion.
Sorry "constitutionalist" originalists, if you use the theory of originalism, the 9th Amendment kills your theory.
Wireman
Member
Silencers I see at the range are used 99% by commandos who are impressed by the coolness factor. Its their money. They work well on blowback (i.e. .22's) guns because the barrel remains stationary. Silencer use on larger tipping barrel guns is meant to be occasional only and will quickly wear out the barrel lugs because of the extra cycling weight.
WM
WM
Pardon?
There are probably hundreds of thousands of items that could make a murder easier. Do we regulate all of them?
Silencer lobby? What the hell is the "silencer lobby"?
The majority of America is wildly ignorant to the subject, mislead, and deceived.
wild cat mccane
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2009
- Messages
- 977
"The" silencer lobby was started by or includes Silencer Co.
It is actually very vocal. You can youtube some of their stuff.
I am sorry you haven't heard of it before??? Thanks for swearing at me? http://bfy.tw/4qTA
IF you couldn't use the largest search engine on the WWW, perhaps you shouldn't be putting down the "majority" of people in this country?
It is actually very vocal. You can youtube some of their stuff.
I am sorry you haven't heard of it before??? Thanks for swearing at me? http://bfy.tw/4qTA
IF you couldn't use the largest search engine on the WWW, perhaps you shouldn't be putting down the "majority" of people in this country?
Last edited:
OilyPablo
Member
wild cat mccane said:
So you are just telling us all you are as ignorant as the general public and people who actually think we should try to live a bit closer to the US Constitution don't have a leg to stand on? Wow.
Here's the pop press:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-silencers-idUSKCN0WA19E
At least Reuters says they are rarely used in crimes.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/
Jlr2267
Member
As are firearms and kitchen knives. Want them included in the NFA?
ljnowell
Member
FL-NC
Member
They are demonoized thanks to the entertainment industry- that whole "assassin vibe". Oddly enough, they are required by law on your vehicle- if you don't have hem you will get fined. On our cars they are called mufflers, and do not require a tax stamp.
dragon813gt
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,137
Actually it's the firearm that makes the murder easy. A silencer can't murder someone unless you bludgeon them to death w/ one. The knives you have in your kitchen make murder easy. The gasoline you have stored in your garage makes murder easy. There is plethora of household chemicals that make murder easy. See a pattern yet? Ad regardless of the means it's the human being that commits the murder.
I will say thank you for identifying yourself as part of the problem and not the solution. Yet another firearm owner that just doesn't get it. Most American are willfully ignorant when it comes to silencers. It's amazing what a little education does to their opinion. Silencers are PPE and nothing more.
Some folks are idiots... like vegans and other immature folk that when they do not particularly like or want something they would just as soon keep everyone from using such things instead of just not owning/using such things themselves. I have little use for such folk and the majority in this country who are not ignorant drools not only feel and have felt that way for a long time but are getting more vocal of such.
I could do more damage with a gallon of gas and a match than most guns... and that is not a hard item to use. As another posted stated there are many items that can be and are used to make murder easy... and quiet. Hammers knives axes- rocks sticks etc.
I could do more damage with a gallon of gas and a match than most guns... and that is not a hard item to use. As another posted stated there are many items that can be and are used to make murder easy... and quiet. Hammers knives axes- rocks sticks etc.
BTW I own a couple registered suppressors and the ONLY thing regulation and heavy taxation has done is turn a relatively inexpensive item into an very expensive item. Improvised silences and such are easy to get for the criminals anyhow- Just as any other "feel good" dumb ass legislation it really does not do anything worthwhile not prevent the issues those that want or support such things wanted to begin with.
OK, thanks. I don't get the reason for them getting you into such hot water. If The history here is correct then why do they continue to be such a "bad" thing? I mean there are all sorts of examples of how original thoughts changed with knowledge of the item. The world is flat. We are the center of the universe. Tomatoes will kill you. Doing that will make you go blind. Who continues to make it so harsh to own or create? Why is there not an effort to take these out of the closet? Last, will the NRA support you if you get caught with one in a non-violent situation?
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
I love the silly arguments about how these devices make murdering people easier. My hunch is that the folks who perpetuate that silly idea have likely never used a suppressor. Regardless, suppressors aren't secret magical devices. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of muffler design could easily fashion an improvised suppressor with very little time and effort. Regulating these devices as we have has done NOTHING to make society safer. However, deregulating them would:
1) better protect shooters from hearing damage.
2) make shooting more pleasant and less fatiguing.
3) alleviate some noise complaints from residents who live near ranges.
Sadly, this thread is further proof that gun owners are their own worst enemy... Even in this discussion we have members of our community perpetuating the same false (but widely held) beliefs about suppressors that we have seen in movies and the news.
1) better protect shooters from hearing damage.
2) make shooting more pleasant and less fatiguing.
3) alleviate some noise complaints from residents who live near ranges.
Sadly, this thread is further proof that gun owners are their own worst enemy... Even in this discussion we have members of our community perpetuating the same false (but widely held) beliefs about suppressors that we have seen in movies and the news.
BSA1
member
Actually knives are the ultimate killing silencer. They have been used to murder millions , billions, of people throughout history and in countless wars. Knives are the weapon of choice by the military when they want to quietly take out a enemy soldier. Knives are so dangerous the England has restricted them.
There are knives, short swords, machettes, axes, bowie knives, tantos readily available that serve no use in modern society. Yet the knife lobby keeps these deadly silent weapons of death largely unregulated.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Silencers, why the fuss?
Yes, indeed, the fuss.
That's the cliche from dime novels and noire movies that evidently fueled the 1934 National Firearms Act restriction on silencers.
Looking at murder: it is a product that would make a concealable weapon less concealable.
I could regurgitate local murders: knife, hammer and knife, baseball bat, unsilenced pistol, gang with a rock, etc. All done without silencers.
Or to cite a noir movie: a hit in a restaurant was done in "The Godfather" choosing the loudest gun possible in order to startle witnesses and scramble their ability to recall details (Flash-bang = duck-and-cover versus Pffft = everyone looking what-was-that?).
Or to cite a dime novel: in research for a James Bond book, Ian Fleming's gun expert Geoffery Boothroyd checked into a hotel, set up a log in a fireplace, and fired an unsilenced .45 into the log, and waited and waited. Nobody complained about hearing a gunshot.
Silencers make murder easier in dime novels and noire movies. France, England, Finland, et al, do not see it that way.
ADDED:
Prohibition of alcohol, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, the MD and NY ballistic fingerprint databases, the Canadian long gun registry, sometimes the majority opinion is wrong, and laws based on the majority opinion are later seen as embarassments, and get repealed because the minority lobby group was right after all. "Majority opinion" is often a sacred cow or mass hysteria.
Yes, indeed, the fuss.
That's the cliche from dime novels and noire movies that evidently fueled the 1934 National Firearms Act restriction on silencers.
Looking at murder: it is a product that would make a concealable weapon less concealable.
I could regurgitate local murders: knife, hammer and knife, baseball bat, unsilenced pistol, gang with a rock, etc. All done without silencers.
Or to cite a noir movie: a hit in a restaurant was done in "The Godfather" choosing the loudest gun possible in order to startle witnesses and scramble their ability to recall details (Flash-bang = duck-and-cover versus Pffft = everyone looking what-was-that?).
Or to cite a dime novel: in research for a James Bond book, Ian Fleming's gun expert Geoffery Boothroyd checked into a hotel, set up a log in a fireplace, and fired an unsilenced .45 into the log, and waited and waited. Nobody complained about hearing a gunshot.
Silencers make murder easier in dime novels and noire movies. France, England, Finland, et al, do not see it that way.
ADDED:
Prohibition of alcohol, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act, the MD and NY ballistic fingerprint databases, the Canadian long gun registry, sometimes the majority opinion is wrong, and laws based on the majority opinion are later seen as embarassments, and get repealed because the minority lobby group was right after all. "Majority opinion" is often a sacred cow or mass hysteria.
Last edited:
Nope. That isn't it at all.
It reduces the number of people who get them by making it time consuming and relatively expensive/difficult, particularly for a firearm casual or layman.
In the long run if the government can make something expensive, time consuming, and difficult enough they can reduce the user base enough there won't be any noticeably pushback when they just outright ban.
I it was just about money the $200 would have gone way up over the years, eh?
(the expensive part comes from preventing economy of scale due to the NFA regulations)
- Status