Posted on 06/28/2019 8:49:23 AM PDT by Black_Rifle_Gunsmith
Sen. Bob Menendez introduced a bill four days ago which would ban the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of suppressors illegal in the U.S. Menendez's call comes on the heels of the Virginia Beach shooting, in which the shooter used a suppressed handgun to kill 12 people.
Menendez's call is certainly reactionary to a single case of gun violence. Menendez commented on his reasoning behind the ban, stating, "The sound of gunshots is what tells you that your life is in danger, and that it's time to run, hide, take cover, call the police and help others save themselves." The issue with Menendez's statement is his uninformed implication that suppressors somehow provide a distinct advantage to a shooter or criminal.
Suppressors do not reduce the sound of gunfire enough to eliminate the report of a shot being fired. In fact, most suppressors don't even reduce the volume of gunfire enough to mask what the sound is. The Virginia Beach shooter used a .45-caliber pistol, which produces a volume of around 157 decibels. That's louder than a jet engine at takeoff. Using a suppressor reduces the volume to 127 decibels -- that's still louder than a live rock concert.
The ATF also reported that approximately 1.3 million suppressors were registered to U.S. gun owners in 2017. Of those, just 44 suppressor-related crimes were reported the same year. That's a crime rate of just 0.003%. ATF Associate Deputy Director Ronald Turk even argued that suppressors should be deregulated, citing their incredibly low use in crime. Hunters and shooters use suppressors to reduce the risk of hearing loss. The process for legally purchasing a suppressor requires an in-depth background check, including fingerprinting and extensive paperwork that must be filed with your local law enforcement agency and the ATF. Given the data
Hey Bob, can you tell me how many people were killed by the actual suppressor?
Not sure about this argument.
If suppressors don’t reduce enough provide a stealth advantage, why would anyone want one? What’s the point?
Suppressors are among the most regulated of gun accessories, they must be registered with the ATF.
Everyone is fingerprinted and background checked.
It takes on average 10 months to get approval from the ATF.
Commies never saw a right they didn’t want to get rid of.
When combined with sub-sonic ammo then are very quiet...
As far as I have been able to discover, there is no proof that it was a real suppressor; I’ve read that it was one of the fakes that you can buy online easily, just a tube.
(Although why someone intent on mischief would want to double the size of what he was waving around for no sound reduction is beyond me)
And even if it WAS a real, I’ve yet to hear if it was a legal one, , the federal and local investigations done, and the tax/license fee paid, or one the guy made himself.
There are videos on youtube on how to build a suppressor but “do not attempt this!! For educational purposes only!!”
In general, on center fire handguns and rifles, a suppressor reduces the report enough to make it hearing safe without needing to wear ear protection. That's the point.
Really? You can’t think of why shooters, people who shoot alot, would want to reduce the sound level of gunshots? Other than “stealth?” Although, “stealth” is a perfectly reasonable purpose, when varmint hunting.
10 years in federal prison if they catch you with an unregistered suppressor
( if a citizen, fraudulently documented foreigners will be let go)
It’s legal to make a suppressor. Just need an approved Form 1.
Back in 2001 & 2002, it only took me 3mos to get my several caliber suppressors. Now, I’m hearing of 10-15mos. The ATF’s dragging their feet.
Thats exactly why I don’t run suppressors. They only really “work” on certain calibers, mainly .45 ACP and .22 among other subsonics. At $700+/- and audible shots from hundreds of yards away while suppressed, it just seems pointless to me. The guns that actually DO suppress effectively can still be heard when the actions cycle and pick up the next round in the mag.
As pointless as they may be, however, I don’t like the government telling us what we can and can’t own. Suppressors aren’t really my thing, but I like the freedom to purchase one should I choose to do so
That’s been the case since the Kenyan from Indonesia usurped the office, it hasn’t changed even after he left.
The problem with subsonic ammo is it doesnt cycle reliably due to low pressures. If you have an adjustable gas block, and a buffer spring tuned for it, and the correct weight BCG, awesome. If not, prepare for a bolt action AR. Carbine length gas tubes work a little bit better. Rifle length? Forget it.
[[Hey Bob, can you tell me how many people were killed by the actual suppressor?]]
well there was that time that the cable on a crane, lifting a box of suppressors off of a ship, snapped, and the box fell on a group of bystanders- 10-12 people were killed, 1000’s injured
j/k
What about underwear and nike tennis shoes? He had underwear and shoes. Think how much harder it would have been to move fast and kill people if he was barefoot. Ban Nike Assault shoes now!!!
“If suppressors don’t reduce enough provide a stealth advantage, why would anyone want one? What’s the point?”
2. To be courteous to those around you, including those living/working near a range.
3. Some firearms are made specifically to be used with a suppressor, and will not balance well without them. The German MP-5 is one - and civilian (i.e. semi-auto) versions function the same way.
Suppressors are NOT all about stealth in hunting humans or animals.
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.