D. Trump, Jr. wants silencers to be easier to buy-- it's a "health issue"

In My Humble Opinion
21

Most of the opposition is based on a non-realistic Hollywood image of how suppressors work. In the movies they instantly turn the shot to a thwip.

Crime - the majority of gun crime involves pistols, because they are easy to conceal. A suppressor removes this advantage, while conferring none of the advantages of rifles.

Most of the places where people are shot are probably neighborhoods less likely to care about a gunshot in the distance.

Hunting - the techniques used vary, but in my West coast experience it involves lugging tons of gear over mountains, and every ounce counts. I imagine a silencer weight 1-2 pounds? More weight that is better invested in something else. I cannot see how this helps poachers at all.

Hearing protection helps, but most people I know don’t hunt with it, as it is again heavy and you don’t want to be fumbling when you take a shot. Wisconsin tree stand hunters may have a different experience. Target shooting of course you wear them, but suppression would make things even easier on your ears.

And to reiterate: Trump has nothing to do with this, except to put his oily hands in the pie.

I don’t think that we have to pass laws in a certain order, and I doubt this would have much cost beyond the loss of $200 tax. They could still collect sales tax, but now make many more sales.

22

Poaching around here is more likely to involve driving down country roads with a spotlight, seeing a deer and shooting it from the truck. Throw it in back and move on.

I agree that neither Trump has much to do with this. It’s more a Congress with a bunch of reps trying to out-conservative and out-2nd Amendment each other.

23

Here’s how poaching often works in Indiana

Another example

24

Couldn’t the same argument be made about fully automatic weapons, though? There are about 240,000 of them, which is similar enough in scale to be comparable, but they’re heavily regulated too, and like silencers, almost never used in a crime. So is there an important distinction between the two, or should we deregulate fully automatic weapons as well?

25

We should eliminate the NFA all together, but there is a difference between full auto and suppressors. Suppressors can be a safety device. The same cannot be said about full auto - but they are certainly fun.

Give Congress, Trump, and SCOTUS some time though, can’t get your hopes up for everything at once! :smiley:

26

Here’s the website of Gemtech, one of the better known suppressor makers.

Here’s a .40 Glock pistol fired with a suppressor. I guess it’s a 9mm? maybe a .40.

Mythbusters does silencers.

27

A full auto weapon is terrible for home defense. If you don’t know how to handle it, you can spray 30 rounds in 3 seconds.

28

Short barreled rifle and shotguns fall in the same classification as full auto and suppressors. How about those?

29

:smack: Just realized the OP is about Trump Jr., and not the President-elect. Apples don’t usually fall far from the tree, but I trust his earnestness more than I do daddy.

Glock 19 = compact 9mm. The suppressor is meant for .40 S&W, but will work with the slightly smaller 9mm. According to the manufacturer, it is meant for both calibers, and has advantages over a 9mm-specific one.

That hunting guide guy was a dumbass. Even if 99% of your customers are unaware of the law, taking multiple people on trips increases the chances that one will report you.

Full auto and SBS/SBR are more of those things that seem very effective in movies, but really aren’t in real life (FA will do lots of damage to your wallet, though). But as Bone notes, the health argument is stronger for suppressors.

30

I’m torn. I can see those being the most likely used for criminal purposes but I can see the utility in a small or crowded home for home defense.

31

OK, but a silencer is pretty useless for home defense too. One more parallel.

32

Actually, a suppressor is more a training tool and, depending on the gun, can reduce recoil.
For home use, if you use subsonic ammo, it can preserve your hearing so the partner of the guy you just shot can’t sneak up on you.

33

The intended use for silencers (aka, sound suppressors) isn’t for home defense. They are for target shooting and hunting in areas where sound is a general nuance.

My father was a Federal Firearms Dealer when I was growing up and we had every firearm imaginable including a sound suppressed, fully automatic Mach 10 that could fire 18 .45 rounds a second and a sound-suppressed, fully automatic Uzi that could fire nine 9mm rounds a second. They are fun to shoot ONCE but they are the last thing I would want in a life and death situation. They are hard to shoot accurately (especially the Mach 10) and they burn through ammo at an alarming rate. A 50 round clip only lasts a little over 2 seconds for the Mach 10. You can’t really practice with them much either because it is literally $10’s of dollars every time you pull the trigger.

I would much rather face someone with a sub-machine gun than a standard 12 gauge shotgun or hunting rifle because the former is gimmicky, unreliable and inaccurate while the latter is a well proven design to drop human sized animals or humans themselves.

The restriction on short barreled shotguns is completely arbitrary as well. You can buy “shotgun pistols” legally that fire the same shells but you will be in a heap of trouble if you have a full-sized shotgun with less than an 18" barrel. It makes no sense.

I don’t care that much personally about making true automatic weapons or short barreled shotguns more legal but I do care about silencers. It is a dumb restriction that should never have existed in the first place let alone allowed to stand since 1934.

34

There was another thread about Class III stuff recently and it was pointed out that you can own an AR15 rifle with 16" barrel and a stock, in 5.56, with only the normal background check. You also can own an AR15 pistol, with a short barrel and no stock, also 5.56 with the same background check. To own an AR15 with a short barrel and a stock you have to go the full Class III route. Hardly seems logical. I guess the difference would be that with the short barreled rifle you get increased conceal-ability with the advantage of the stock which allows easier accuracy. Still…wouldn’t mind seeing them deregulated along with suppressors.

35

Link to the other recent thread.

36

We should also ban prepaid cell phones because criminals use them all the time to avoid law enforcement. Anything that can be used in a crime should be banned to make life easier on law enforcement.

37

Suppressed 12ga. shotgun

38

Or for carrying, for legitimate purposes, in a vehicle.

39

Full Auto Suppressed M-16

40

Absolutely incorrect. Fire a rifle indoors without hearing protection, as will probably be the case if you’re using the rifle for home defense, and let me know later how your case of tinnitus is doing. Even a small caliber rifle is going to put out about 155 dB, and if it’s an short-barreled rifle (SBR) or AR/AK pistol, it’s only going to get a lot worse from there. Easily enough to permanently impair your hearing from one self-defense encounter.

“But GG, you shouldn’t use a rifle for home defense! You should be using a (shotgun/pistol/crossbow, etc…)”

Also no. We are responsible for every bullet we shoot from our firearms. Accordingly, it is imperative that we make sure that, should this horrible thing happen and we need to use a weapon to defend ourselves and our families, we use a weapon that we are much more likely to be able to: 1) hit the bad guy with every shot, and 2) use as few shots as possible to stop the bad guy from using deadly force against us.

Rifles with properly chosen sights, are better in both of those categories than either shotguns or pistols. Rifles are easier for everyone from novices to experts to use accurately than pistols. Probably shotguns too, given how long and unwieldy within a house the average hunting shotgun is compared to a rifle.

Rifles do far more damage to tissue per shot than pistols. Should the assailant not be stopped by the first shot, rifles are much easier to make follow up shots than shotguns. Given proper ammunition selection, small caliber (5.56, etc…) rifles will penetrate less in common building materials than either pistols or shotguns firing buckshot. Sounds incredibly counter-intuitive, but it’s true.

Small caliber rifles/carbines are lighter than shotguns, kick infinitely less than them, are more accurate than either shotguns or pistols, are easier for smaller statured people to use than shotguns, and are more likely to stop deadly threats with the same number of shots, than pistols. If you owned one, why wouldn’t you use a small caliber rifle, should you decide you need a firearm to defend your home?

They do have the significant disadvantage of being much louder than pistols, particularly if short-barrelled or muzzle braked. And silencers/suppressors help that tremendously.

Getting into hunting, while hearing protection should still be worn, suppressors make everything more pleasant for everyone around you, and provide a margin of safety should someone not have their hearing protection on. AIUI, you’re considered downright rude to not use a suppressor while hunting in places like Finland or other countries that have (wisely) not restricted their purchase more than purchases of firearms to begin with.

There’s simply no reason except cultural inertia to not allow the OTC purchase of silencers.