Sound Suppressors: Addressing a Known Risk

[Bubbles]

Interesting. I'd really like to see suppressors removed from the NFA list, using the argument that they're safety devices.
Sound Suppressors: Addressing a Known Risk

...Suzie Methhead, who was proned out on the floor starts screaming. The team leader gives her commands but she doesn’t respond. The muzzles of both rifles were less than ten feet from her head when the shots were fired.

Fast forward six months and your City Attorney brings in a copy of the lawsuit brought by Suzie Methhead’s attorney claiming she now has permanent hearing damage from her close proximity to the gun shots. “Aha!” you exclaim, exigent circumstances, it could not have been helped. We were forced to shoot Johnny and had no other recourse so tough luck buddy.

Another six months passes and the City Treasurer is forced to write a very large check payable to Suzie’s attorney. You lost.

 

[wally]

This would be great and would open up a whole new era of designs with integrated suppressors. But I'd give it a snowball's chance in Hades.

OSHA declares employees having guns to be a "safety hazard" but being killed by a thug robbing the place is just your bad luck!

 

[JustinJ]

Umm, that is a poor arguement to remove them from the NFA list given that there is no obstruction to LE from acquiring them. Don't get me wrong, i'd love for them to be removed but that scenario ain't gona help.

Integrated suppressors are also currently available so there is no new designs to be opened up on.

 

[M-Cameron]

Interesting. I'd really like to see suppressors removed from the NFA list, using the argument that they're safety devices.

in just about every other part of the world....they are safety devices......and the use of one is considered "neighborly"

its when lawmakers pass laws because of they saw the "deadly assassin" use one on TV, that you get absurd restrictions like we have here

 

[Odd Job]

Interestingly enough it was health and safety benefits that allowed me to get a license for two suppressors here in the UK. A few years ago if you asked for a suppressor you got raised eyebrows, now they are practically promoting them (they are called sound moderators here).
When I applied for the two suppressors I got a call from the cops saying I have two .22 rifles and authority to purchase a third, don't I want three suppressors?

I said no because one rifle will remain unthreaded. I was pleasantly surprised by the ease with which I got that put on my license. Took eight days at a cost of £26. The rifle range is in a residential area, both the club and the police see benefits of keeping the noise down.

Now to buy the suppressors...

 

[ScottyPotty]

its when lawmakers pass laws because of they saw the "deadly assassin" use one on TV, that you get absurd restrictions like we have here

when the government passed this law there was no such thing as a tv. maybe they read some books?

 

[JustinJ]

"when the government passed this law there was no such thing as a tv. maybe the read some books?"

When was it passed? Just curious.

 

[ScottyPotty]

1934

 

[hirundo82]

its when lawmakers pass laws because of they saw the "deadly assassin" use one on TV, that you get absurd restrictions like we have here

As I've heard it, the suppressor restrictions were added on the behest of game wardens who worried that they could be used for poaching. I don't think they were being widely used for poaching at that time, but that was the rationale given.

Of course, now Hollywood has done such a good job convincing the public (and a significant portion of firearm owners too) that suppressors don't have honest uses that I don't think they're likely to be delisted any time soon.

 

[JustinJ]

Poaching would make sense as i'm sure it became all the more common during the depression. Of course gangsters were a problem at the time as well.

 

[Strykervet]

You can't call it poaching during the depression. That is called survival. The guys eating stuffed lobster and caviar called it poaching, but not folks like my grandmother's family. They called it eating, survival.

If it gets bad enough that I have to break laws to eat, then I will break them in earnest. When it comes down to survival, we are all just animals and we do what we have to do to wake up tomorrow.

Suppressors were made illegal around the same time as automatic weapons and drugs, after the failure of alcohol prohibition. The nazis were also big back then (and they were looked up to here that early on). It was also okay to spit on black folks, marginalize ethnic groups, and beat your wife. Banning things and restricting life was the norm back then, they thought they could legislate morality.

If you knew the truth about most of these laws, they'd make you sick. They were never intended to be used against "law abiding folk". They were to stop organized crime. Like clockwork, the government goes nuts with it and we get what we have today --a million agencies, all run-amok, and a government so large it can't NOT fail.

 

[JustinJ]

"You can't call it poaching during the depression. That is called survival. The guys eating stuffed lobster and caviar called it poaching, but not folks like my grandmother's family. They called it eating, survival."

Why do semantics get argued so much here? The definition of poaching is hunting in a manner that is a violation of law. I agree that there are times when it is justifiable to break a law, The American Revolution comes to mind, but that's another topic.

And I am aware that many laws are passed for improper reasons but i would not assign that judgement to the vast majority of hunting laws.

 

[ScottyPotty]

Do not kill the "kings" deer!