What's the deal with silencers?

[Justin]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Main Entry: 1tool
Pronunciation: 'tül
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English tOl; akin to Old English tawian to prepare for use -- more at TAW
Date: before 12th century
1 a :a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : MACHINE TOOL
2 a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools> b : a means to an end <a book's cover can be a marketing tool> c often vulgar : PENIS
3 : one that is used or manipulated by another
4 plural : natural ability <has all the tools>

Sorry brownie, but your attempt to split semantic hairs over what constitutes a tool doesn't fly. Given that a gun is "a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task" it falls under the definition of an implement that is a tool. What task that tool is designed to accomplish is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's designed to pound nails (hammer), write C# (computer) or defend one's life, liberty, and property (firearm). All are examples of tools. It just so happens that 'weapon' is a valid subset of 'tool.' (Oddly enough, I had a conversation along these lines with a cultural anthropologist once upon a time. He agreed with me.)

 

[Justin]

Of course I'm aware of the hypocrisy. It's a catch 22 where I don't have to agree with being restricted but understand that in the grander scheme of things certain objects should be restricted to some degree as it is prudent to do so. Don't have to like it but we do need to be objective in determining what may be prudent to reduce the risk to the general population.

And who makes that determination? You? That's mighty presumptuous. The problem with Social Utilitarians like yourself is that you can never pick a point at which you say "There, that's it. The perfect balance between individual civil rights and societal safety."

Never

Ever

Once a Social Utilitarian's goals are met, s/he keeps right on pushing ahead, ready to execute a whole laundry list of things to protect us from ourselves, with no forethought given to the individuals who are being trod under in their goal to make society all happy and shiny.

What I have a problem with is their attitude that it's their way only or it's somehow a wrong to them. Not being able to compromise where compromise is the order of the day leaves one beating their head against the wall unnecessarily when they don't get what they feel is 'their right".

I agree. More people should compromise.
Why don't you start by compromising with me? After all, you're such an open-minded, bi-partisan, working-together-for-a-better-world kind of guy. I'd think that you'd be more than happy to compromise on this topic. But you continually take such a hardline stance against anything that goes against what you want.

 

[Steve Smith]

The problem with Social Utilitarians like yourself is that you can never pick a point at which you say "There, that's it. The perfect balance between individual civil rights and societal safety. Never Ever"

That's because Liberty and Safety cannot coincide. I for one choose Liberty. I never asked anyone to protect me.

 

[KMKeller]

Last I checked the fed stats on crimes, the guns seem to be the big "killers" in society as a percentage of weapons used, particularly where police officers are concerned.

That's funny, I thought the people wielding them were killers. Guns are inanimate objects.

 

[Tamara]

brownie0486,

the guns seem to be the big "killers" in society as a percentage of weapons used, particularly where police officers are concerned.

Again, flat-out wrong. The most recent FBI UCR figures for weapons used to kill police officers in the line of duty shows 61 killed by firearms and 81 killed by "other". (Of course, that year includes "airliner"... )

Your employers, however, are vastly more often killed by knives/sharp objects, blunt-force-trauma, and bare hands than with firearms.

 

[brownie0486]

Where the law is concerned the gun is a weapon.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where you will be judged, by the law. Not the dictionary. Use that defense in court and see how far you guys get.

I don't have to split hairs with the definition, the states and feds have done that for us nicely thankyou. I have stated I don't agree with half the crap that the gov restricts, that I own some very nice "tools" [ recognize the compromise? ], that I don't like what my tax dollars go for all the time [ we all have our pet peeves on this one ],

but I also have determined, for me, that things are not about to change in my lifetime [ barring a major nuke dropped on us, which will wake up all the liberals hopefully ] so I will not waste the time fighting them where the odds are nill we will rescinded firearms laws. With determination, I went out and got some other weapons training so that the times I can't carry I have other options.

I don't see the gun as a crutch that I have to have or the world will cave in and the sun won't shine. And if the state decided they wanted to take them from me, well they'll just have to take them unless I want to have a criminal record, which I won't have at all costs.

You people see things differently in some areas of the discussion and the same in some others relative my take on the issues. I work some pretty nasty areas of the city at odd hours where the troubles are at every corner. Sometimes I am heeled and other times I run the risk of being frisked and don't carry one.

The world does not end because I'm not heeled that evening. It makes it more difficult to perform the tasks. Now the state did not deny me the carry option those particular nights, I did, and for other reasons tjhat do not need be expounded upon here.

I believe you have the right to carry, and do. When I don't have the heaters, I have other options at my disposal. I learned many years ago that you are best not relying on one "tool" for your defensive needs and have acted accordingly.

My guns are "tools" of the trade. They are also weapons with which I defend myself when necessary. I have many tools at my disposal but it is the tricks you can do with them that see you home that evening and not on some slab at the morgue.

Tactics and software will also beat hardware solutions. These things I have stated before as well.

Your viewpoints do not meet mine in many ways. I rebutt yours as a matter of opinion when they are opposing. I am not attempting to convince anyone here to change their mind as that would be futile in effort and a waste of energy solving nothing.
I see others who will not compromise their views here, staunch all the way to the end, uncompromising. Not all but certainly a good many of the posters.

I see the problem as it is an unpopular view [ mine ] here in this venue. No more or less. I don't agree with others views based on idealism, I stay in the real world, face the facts, deal with them the best I can and make as much money as I can to get out of the rat race sooner rather than later.

The sooner I can buy a big chunk of land where I can do what I want the better. I put my energy into being productive and beating them at their own game. In the meantime I help control the sh#theads on the streets making them safer than otherwise.

You may or may not appreciate that, it really doesn't matter. I get paid, paid well, and I'm that much closer to getting out everyday. I need to work harder just thinking about it so it happens sooner and not later.

Brownie

 

[KMKeller]

 

[brownie0486]

Tamara, wrong again

Take the 81 other and break them down to weapons specific.

You'll see there isn't one item listed out of the grouped 81 that surpasses the firearm, and by quite a large margin.

Lets see, it looks like 27 killed by the gun out of 65 so far this year [ and I gave the breakdown ] from this link:

http://www.odmp.org/yeardisp.php?year=2003

Statistics for 2003

Total Line of Duty Deaths: 65
Aircraft accident: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 12
Drowned: 1
Electrocuted: 1
Fall: 1
Gunfire: 27
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 1
Stabbed: 1
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicular assault: 5
Vehicle pursuit: 5

My calculator makes the 41.5% with a gun.
Who's wrong here?

Better restate your position. I can assure you that any year you care to take a look at, the gun is the big killer. Pick a year in the last 30 and look it up.

You are welcome

Brownie

 

[KMKeller]

And 58.5% non-gun. Who's wrong? You. You insinuate that more officers are killed with guns than anything else. But the anything else part seems to outweigh the guns part. I see what you're trying to say, but you're not being very clear.

Oh, and if you add up the vehicular accidents, you'll see a commensurate number to guns... shall we begin by banning bumpers? Or maybe gas pedals?

 

[Steve Smith]

I personally am not surprised that guns are used to kill more than hammers are. It is a more efficient tool for the job. Likewise, I would not choose a putty knife for battle. The gun does not do the killing, and if you can't see that there's no sense talking to you any more.

The law is WRONG. No free man could argue otherwise.

 

[brownie0486]

KMKeller :I stated,
"you'll see there isn't one item listed out of the grouped 81 that surpasses the firearm, and by quite a large margin."

Is that so hard to understand? , whats not clear about no one object surpassing the gun? on the list?

Out of the listed reasons for death I see 13 having to do with vehicles total. Care to enlighten me further as how that number is higher than 27?

Still not wrong, care to try again?

Brownie

 

[brownie0486]

Steve Smith:

That sounds like an opinion to me, and of course there are opposing views to that as well. Perception becoming reality again?

Brownie

 

[B9mmHP]

Brownie!
I will leave the dog alone, when it is DEAD. Yes I can call animal control, and they would be happy to come get the dog, and kill it for me. It will cost my neighbor $500.00 for allowing it to run loose. I wont bother to tell you how much money that is to an 80+ year old,retired military person is.

Sir. You did not read what I wrote! Sir. You accused me of premeditating a criminal act. [ hear on this forum ] You, sir need to get a grip reality, if you have accuse me of a criminal conspirecy you would be well advised to find yourself a lawyer, real damn quick.

Sir. Premeditatating a criminal act.[ hear on this forum as you call it a criminal act ] is not a criminal act, if the act is not elegal.

Sir. If I have a legal suppressor, it is not ilegal to use it.

Sir. The laws in Texas, Comal County, allowes for the killing of wild or domestic animals that kill livestock, by the owner of the livestock.

Sir. I don`t make your case on anything. This is real life, you need to get a grip on reality.

Sir. I understand you may have your panties in a pucker after trying to defend yourself for some 10 pages. And with that you "may" never hear from me again. A LONG APOLOGY MIGHT HELP. Can you say slander.

Thank You.

 

[KMKeller]

Aircraft accident: 1
Automobile accident: 12
Motorcycle accident: 1
Struck by vehicle: 3
Vehicular assault: 5
Vehicle pursuit: 5

Add them all up and tada! 27

Or are you now going to argue that all of the above are not vehicle related deaths? Hmmmmmmm?

Or maybe we need to break down the gun deaths according:

Shot with semi-auto
Shot with .45
Shot with revolver
Shot with own semi-auto
Shot with own revolver
etc.


You're still wrong.

"you'll see there isn't one item listed out of the grouped 81 that surpasses the firearm, and by quite a large margin."

Gee, you made that statement AFTER Tamara posted her challenge to your original post. Whatsa matter, your watch not working? The sequence of your own posts got you confused?

Before that, you stated

Last I checked the fed stats on crimes, the guns seem to be the big "killers" in society as a percentage of weapons used, particularly where police officers are concerned.

That's what we were responding to.

 

[Steve Smith]

If that is the way you wish to see it, fine. You have obviously never studied human history and considered the mistakes of earlier societies. There is nothing new under the sun, and you are not the answer.

 

[brownie0486]

B9mmHP:

You did say the neighbors might cause quite the fuss over killing it if they heard it, no?

What does that suggest to you? When you need a suppressor or else be caught and face an irate neighborhood.

If you can kill it legally, you don't need the suppressor so no one hears it. You need a suppressor to be lawful in Texas?

BTW--It's libel when written, not slander. And if you are within your rights to kill the animal and I mistook the suppressor to mean something else I do apologize.

KMKeller: Nope, I'm going to say that all types of vehicles deaths add up to the one object [the gun]. Though the total is relevant and I conceded to that.

KMKeller: actually was writing it when she posted which of course I didn't see as they passed each other.

Brownie

 

[KMKeller]

Nope, I'm going to say that all types of vehicles deaths add up to the one object [the gun]. Though the total is relevant and I conceded to that.

The term gun concerns as many different types of weapons as the term vehicle does modes of transportation. It's a valid comparison and disproves your earlier contention that guns kill more cops than anything else.

Or is a rifle the same as a semi-auto, a revolver the same as a semi-auto, a carbine the same as a derringer?

It's pretty safe to say that ALL types of shooting deaths are categorized under guns, and that it is just as valid to lump all modes of transportation under vehicle. That the study doesn't is obvious and biased. Wonder why that is?

actually was writing it when she posted which of course I didn't see as they passed each other.

Try again, unless it takes you a half an hour to post a message. The two messages didn't possibly "pass" each other. Check your timestamps.

 

[KMKeller]

Frankly, I think this thread has far outlived it's usefulness. Anyone second the motion?

 

[mercedesrules]

If these are "brownie points", you can have them.

MR

 

[mattd]

Some of you folks really think military tactics will just appear on everyones door step and you'll all be in step with each other

You would be surprised by how much you can learn from video games.

 

[Scyvthe]

Whew...

Man ya'll certainly didn't waste time in posting replies.

Tamara: Ok, I think one of the reasons they regulate them is so they won't end up affecting other people. If we make silencers widely available to all people (where you can just walk into Walmart and buy one like buying candy) chances are criminals will obtain them and use them (at least in my opinion). Then your being able to acquire them so easily will affect other people.

As to the parts about the wives, personally I thought it was illegal in some states to have more than one wife, maybe I was wrong. But I hope you get the point, just because its your religion to do something illegal, does that mean its ok?

Ok Tamara, let me get this straight, do think that civilians should have whatever the government can have as far as weapons and weapon systems are concerned? If we want grenades we can have them? RPG's? Stingers?

Justin:

As far as equating owning NFA stuff with owning nukes and RPG's, I'll tell you what, why don't we debate the wisdom of such ideas after we've repealed the laws that will get you thrown in the federal klink for 5 years for owning a piece of stamped sheet metal that was made after a certain date.

Hmmm... To be honest with you I would like to debate it now. I think it holds relevance to this conversation and I want to hear from y'all on what you think the government or should I say the military should have and what civilians should have.

 

[Steve Smith]

Ok Tamara, let me get this straight, do think that civilians should have whatever the government can have as far as weapons and weapon systems are concerned? If we want grenades we can have them? RPG's? Stingers?

I don't know what Tamara will say (I'd bet on it though!) but I know my answer.

YES!!!

 

[Scyvthe]

KMKeller: I think I see your point. In the case of the First Amendment I would say the words are the tools as far as the amendment is concerned. Some permiatations (sp) of some words can be banned (such as something like threatning) just like some weapons are banned.
Hmmm, in some places certain words are banned such as cussing. I don't think this is as popular now as it used to be.

As far as this thread outliving its usefulness, I would have to concur.

 

[B9mmHP]

Brownie!

I`m not going to reply to your last question`s, other than to say I don`t care if it is liable when written or not, you slandered me or liabled me. Your choice, glad you admitted it. But your apology to me is not adequate either here in this thread or on my private e-mail you sent. I don`t appreciate arrogance in any way, and your arrogance in posting the drivel of an apology in this thread to save face won`t get it.

Not a threat Brownie, just a promise, you read every thing I wrote, make a proper apology to me on this thread.

 

[Scyvthe]

I'm now thinking it might be best if I went back to lurking.