Posted on 03/08/2017 12:39:11 PM PST by PROCON
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, argues in a recent video about potential suppressor deregulation that it would be a danger to public safety.
In a two-minute video short published by the Huffington Post this week, Murphy attacks the pending Hearing Protection Act as a piece of legislative charity to a flagging gun industry.
“It will be a boon to the industry, but it will be terrible for the country,” says Murphy. “Silencers are used to commit crimes. They are used to conceal the fact that you are firing a weapon. There will be more crimes committed– more people killed– if silencers are legalized.”
Murphy later closes the clip by saying, “The gun industry will do better, but lives will be lost.”
The thing is, suppressors are legal, and according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, there are 1,297,670 suppressors registered with ATF under the National Firearms Act. The pending legislation simply aims to remove them from NFA regulation, but they would still be treated as a firearm and could only be transferred after a successful federal background check. Further, individual states such as California and Illinois ban civilian ownership of the devices.
As for their use in crime, a recently released internal policy paper drafted by the ATF’s associate deputy director and chief operating officer Ronald B. Turk refutes that.
“Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings,” Turk writes. “Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety.”
Agreed. But I don’t think the objectors are thinking about rifles...
All very good points. Gotta protect the dogs - hadn’t thought of that one, but again - the objectors are talking about handguns. If they think of long guns, it’s only grudgingly.
Thank you all for your measured, polite comments. I’ve seen guys like me (on your side, but asking contrary questions) absolutely cut to pieces for just asking.
All of you gave good reasons, but you see my point, right? Opponents don’t care what our reason is, they just say “NO” to anything gun-related. So, the Senator’s bill title, which is viewed as a flimsy reason, almost makes it worse.
If he were talking only long guns, all our reasons you listed here would be fine, but hunting rarely applies to handguns, in the minds of most folks.
They should be legal because they should be legal. Period. That’s a tough sell.
If you have to use your firearm in self defense in your car, house, or other enclosed space it will help save your hearing and that of any nearby family. I don’t care about the hearing of the bad guys. If you are doing your job right, they will end up with no hearing anyhow.
Agreed!
“Democrats get their notion of firearms from Hollywood.”
Hey, Senator, did you ever consider that suppressors will save millions of people from hearing problems, problems that will cost billions of dollars, and may even get a few people killed (because they didn’t hear something that they needed to hear, like a car coming from behind them). Yet another statist moron.
The gun industry will do better, but lies will be tossed!
The gun industry will do better, but lies will be tossed!
That's the TRUTH - twice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.