Another thread got me thinking about suppressors and how I really want one, and can't afford it. Why are they restricted the way they are? I can only think of positives uses for suppressors... of course I am a law abiding tax paying American. I guess lawmakers have seen one too many James Bond movies and passed laws on that? It would be great for hunting, you can shoot without danger of hearing loss, you could shoot on your property without bothering the neighbors. Why can't we have em? Is this tax keeping them out of the hands of criminals? I would like to have one on my rifles, but I prolly never will.
Tell me why?
- Thread starter Grassman
- Start date
- Status
kwelz
Member
I am a peaceful law abiding person as well. However I can think of a number of situations where suppressors can be used to ill. I think you are lying to yourself if you say you cant' think of a single negative use.
Of course this doesn't mean I think they should be illegal or as restricted as they are.
Of course this doesn't mean I think they should be illegal or as restricted as they are.
Agreed, but any gun can be used for that. I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal past.....why should I have to pay so much to have one? It should be like all gun purchases, criminal past.........you no geta the suppressor.
CHAINGUNMASSACRE
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 68
Supressors have many beneficial things going for them. Unfortunately, they have gotten a bad rap from the media and movies. And truly, they could be used for very devious purposes if they were more readily avaliable.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
And then the $200 transfer tax stamp. Forms, fingerprints, photographs, etc. to make the application. Months of waiting for the approval to come through.
For what is basically a lawn mower muffler.
The price of suppressors would be much, much lower if they were not a restricted item.
As far as the 'negative use' goes...please document even one case where suppressors have been used to commit a crime. Outside of the movies, of course.
And, no, it wasn't because the politicians were watching James Bond movies. The National Firearms Act became law in 1934.
In the UK, they're not only readily availalble without any special license, waiting period, etc., but in some situations, it's considered rude not to use one.
That's right: in England, where you can't even have a handgun, if you have the clearance to get, say, a 10/22, you can get it with a suppressor, same as we might get it with fiberoptic sights.
Suppressors have been demonized in the US. They're not even considered a threat in one of the most anti-gun countries in the Western world.
Also, if you want a suppressor for a nefarious purpose, say, killing someone quietly in their bed, you can fabricate one good for a few close-range shots for literally a few cents.
Last edited by a moderator:
CHAINGUNMASSACRE
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 68
But the bad guys in England don't use supressed .22's...........they use sawed off 12guages. That the civilians there can't touch with a 10 foot pole.
DeathByCactus
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 245
No negative uses? For one how about walking into a house and killing off a family, robbing them, then leaving without anyone hearing a sound?
I am not sure what would happen if they were readily available though. Could go either way. The reason why they are banned is probably the "what if" as opposed to the actual cases.
I am not sure what would happen if they were readily available though. Could go either way. The reason why they are banned is probably the "what if" as opposed to the actual cases.
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
Member
Thank God knives are illegal.
Actually by your logic why not make guns illegal. If they are illegal then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for BG to use them therefore nobody would ever be murdered right?:banghead:
My understanding is the BATFE views homemade suppressor the same as a purchased suppressor.
If you have all the NFA paperwork filled out and approved and a tax stamp you are good, if not it is illegal.
JImbothefiveth
Member
In general yes. You might be able to make your own if you fill out the proper forms, but I'd ask the ATF and a lawyer first. Making homemade suppressors is what sent a major gun forum troll to club fed.
Phydeaux642
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,886
No, the reason they are restricted is because the government needed a new way to meddle back in '34. And, unfortunately, they are still looking for newer ways to meddle.
Quote:
If I was to make a homemade suppressor, would that put me in jail?
In general yes. You might be able to make your own if you fill out the proper forms, but I'd ask the ATF and a lawyer first. Making homemade suppressors is what sent a major gun forum troll to club fed.
__________________
Dang it......I found a good un on youtube.....LOL
If I was to make a homemade suppressor, would that put me in jail?
In general yes. You might be able to make your own if you fill out the proper forms, but I'd ask the ATF and a lawyer first. Making homemade suppressors is what sent a major gun forum troll to club fed.
__________________
Dang it......I found a good un on youtube.....LOL
Gunnerpalace
Member
Gunkid?
Sunray
Member
"...back in '34..." It was a response to organized crime using stolen FA. Suppressors were thrown in as a bonus. $200 was an enormous amount of money in 1934 too.
Nothing ever changes either. The Brady Bunch uses the same argument now. Take away firearms and crime will go away. Doesn't matter that thousands more people would be out of work.
"...they use sawed off 12 guages..." Plus SMG's and explosives.
Nothing ever changes either. The Brady Bunch uses the same argument now. Take away firearms and crime will go away. Doesn't matter that thousands more people would be out of work.
"...they use sawed off 12 guages..." Plus SMG's and explosives.
alelks
Member
DRZinn
Member
Hey, that's one good thing about hyper-inflation - that $200 tax stamp means less and less!
I was able to shoot two LE sniper rifles, custom made Remington .308 with 12" long suppressor. In order to compare the two I shot I have a .308 AR10B that does have a nice kick to it. When I fired the sniper rifles it was like shooting a .22. there was no kick, muzzle jump, or flash. I could shoot those things all day, every day, and at at 300yds you couldn't help but button hole the target.
Yes I would love to have a suppressor. I just can't afford one.
Yes I would love to have a suppressor. I just can't afford one.
XavierBreath
Member
Shhhhhhhhh! We don't speak that name here......
expvideo
Member
For $6 you can get a completely silent machete at Walmart. Bows are almost completely silent, yet you don't see a lot of dead bodies with arrows sticking out of them.
Punish the criminal, not the tool, and especially if it is only a "potential" tool. Too many people have a phobia of suppressors because they have seen too many movies and associate them with murder. Suppressors are almost never used in crimes, even though they are readily available. Just because something could be used in a crime does not mean that the item should be banned. The crime will take place either way, because the tool is not the problem. Suppressors are a safety device and they are almost never used in crime. Look at England for example. Suppressors are readily available and even encouraged, yet they don't have a lot of suppressor crime (if any).
There is a lot of mythology surrounding suppressors, too. Suppressors do not make a gunshot silent. A 9mm fired with a suppressor will still be rather loud, but it will be safer on the ears than without. A .223 rifle with a suppressor will sound like a .22 without a suppressor.
But that is not the point. The point is that just because something could be used in a crime does not mean that it should be banned. The same thing applies to guns, and the same arguements are used against them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll