I support rational intelligent gun control that would save lives, stop huge numbers of people from getting killed and injured in mass shootings, and which would allow gun owners to make their firearms safer.
In the issue of suppressors you are the moving party. They are banned. Why are they banned? Is that something for you to think about? …Well, I tried.
I certainly don’t need to prove by anecdote that suppressors are a public danger. Corry El posted with not a lot of hot air and a lot of insight, that they are purposed to deceive the target, muffle, distort or hide the shot, and misdirect as to the location of the weapon. They always have been to one degree or another. They are not little chinese handcuffs that people like the look of on the end of their weapon. This is by definition a public danger, especially when the shooter has organized his activity from a remote window.
You don’t make laws based on anecdotes about someone dying or not dying because a suppressor was used who would not have otherwise. Some common sense comes into it.
Drad:
Yes, I saw that post.
What I haven’t seen is any evidence that what you or he say is true.
We know for a fact that that prolonged exposure to the sound of gunshots is causing suffering and long-term damage to the hearing of our military personnel as well as countless others.
A lot of this could be alleviated if people were allowed to make guns safer and quieter through the use of suppressors.
You think they could continue to suffer for the greater good.
Ok.
What is it? Can you find me any numbers or statistics to show me that outlawing suppressors saves lives? Can you show me examples of people who died or suffered as a result of suppressors who otherwise would not have?
If you want to those people to suffer for the greater you need to show that greater good.
If you can’t show me anything to back up what you are saying other than your impressions based on watching action movies, you know what we call that?
Bullshit.
Everything you are arguing is bullshit.
Put up or shut up.
This is all you got, calling BS while ignoring the issue? You haven’t answered any of my points at all. (Let me know which of yours I haven’t gotten to) You do seem to be on a crusade against having to wear earplugs, I see. That’s as thoughtful as you get on the topic of guns?
Instead of Ad hominem maybe use your noggin and speak back.
“Ad hominem”. Means attacking the man. I attacked your arguments. They are bullshit. That is the technical industry term for made up stuff that bears no resemblance to reality, which is what your argument is.
Lack of suppressors causes hearing damage.
If you wish to withhold the benefit of suppressors from society you need to show a greater benefit.
So I ask you again, for the third time, Who has died because of a suppressor? Who are they hurting?
Not to claim that we should allow suppressors, but isn’t it a little disingenuous to ask for examples of harm from something that is already banned and tightly controlled? That’s a little like saying that it’s perfectly okay for the citizenry to have nukes because there have been few incidents of privately owned nukes causing harm.
I’ve asked you about 4 or 5 questions here that are fundamental to any discussion, but instead you only want to say that you are in favor of ear health? And you ignore each one and pretend it hasn’t been said. Who is BSing who?
You won’t say why you think the suppressors are banned in the first place.
You said that all sounds in a shooting are heard by everyone in the area identically at a uniform volume. (I know this because you thought it ended the discussion just by saying it. Your expert opinion had been given. Why doesn’t everyone else shut up?)
You said that all shooting victims, and witnesses go into a fuguelike state which you think you have been in. So no one knows what it’s like except you. That’s pretty handy for arguments I suppose.
You won’t answer on what the audible stimuli are at different scenes in the crime area, or what the police may be hearing while approaching. Your answer is no answer.
In a shooting the gun owner is a criminal, and you are the target. His advantage is your disadvantage. His comfort is your danger.
i propose making the laws for everyone else not just you and other gun owners.
I guess you know this is not true. The law exists and you are the one trying to push back and want it changed.
To do that you need to show that suppressors do not advantage a shooter in a way that is a public danger. Not just in Vegas, but looking back at all our historical samples and forward to events yet unplanned. You need to demonstrate that it is as easy to locate a shooter with a suppressor as without. The purpose of it was evasion and deceit in the first place. You have an uphill battle.
He actually would need to show more than that, if he was pushing for the government to actually change the law. He would need to show an actual objective benefit to legalizing the suppressors that outweighed not only the downsides, but also justified the effort of them lifting the finger needed to bother to change things.
(Well, that or he’d have to bribe them. But let’s not get that realistic.)
And voila I give you Tronald Dump Junior just recently saying “It’s a health issue…” in his silencer promo video.
These strumps… always angling at something.
Oh. Sorry. Missed the question. For the same reason switchblades were outlawed. Switchblades were outlawed because legislators saw West Side Story. It made them sad, and they didn’t want that to happen to kids. That’s how that happened. In the movies the bad guy uses the magic silencer to kill innocents while no one hears a thing. He gets away clean. If you are a legislator, you know you can’t ban guns, but oh boy those silencers sure are scary, aren’t they. It’s politically easy and gratifying. You look like a hero. Never mind that what you are really doing is taking away people’s hearing protection.
I didn’t say that. If you are going to say I said something, you should quote me.
Nope didn’t say that either.
[quoteYou won’t answer on what the audible stimuli are at different scenes in the crime area, or what the police may be hearing while approaching. Your answer is no answer. [/quote]
Well… That’s not a question. And the first part is unintelligible to the point where I have no idea what an appropriate would be like. The second part is easy.
The police who are approaching the crime scene of the mass shooting hear their siren. It’s really really loud so that everyone will know they are coming and pull over. Maybe they hear their police radio if they turn it up really loud. Maybe they hear each other if they yell.
That’s also true of cars. Once in a while someone uses a car as a weapon. They are the the criminal. Their advantage is you disadvantage. Their comfort is your danger.
Based on this comfy seats should be outlawed in cars? Air conditioning? Radios?
Your logic is that once in a while somebody commits a crime with a gun so guns should be difficult and uncomfortable for everybody all the time. Do we new really need to get into how bad an argument this is?
Serious question. Are you a native English? You have weird word choice and phrasing and the way you put words together is a little unusual and sometimes it doesn’t actually. If English is a second language that might be why we are taking past each other.
There. I responded to all your questions. So…
For the fourth time…
How many deaths are caused by suppressors?
That’s pretty easy. There are no statistics that suggest banning suppressors is saving lives. The benefit of suppressors is hearing protection. 10 million people suffering from hearing loss due to sound exposure and an epidemic in th military. Suppressors are hearing protection.
As I said, I’m not impressed by you touting suppressor fatality statistics when nobody’s using them. By that logic nukes are harmless, because how many americans have been killed by nuclear bombs?
I was also just reading a bit on how the military doesn’t use silencers. What I read was a little vague on why they’re not used, but I did find a statement on why people in the military want them: because in the trenches you can’t wear proper ear protection, and sitting unprotected next to an unsilenced machine gun is agony.
In private use there is literally no legitimate reason for a person to be repeatedly firing a firearm for any length of time without ear protection.
Silencers are unnecessary.
Suppressors are in use. Check YouTube. You can still get them, it’s just a real pain in the ass, plus people make them, because you know, hearing protection. So they are out there being used. I don’t even get what the scenario is that people are actually afraid of re: silencers.
Why should I have to. By what logic does my gin have to be loud enough to damage my hearing. By this same token there is no reason why you shouldn’t wear hearing protection while driving your car, so you don’t need a muffler.
So are mufflers on cars by your logic.
How many mass shootings have included them? Perhaps the stupid lunatic killer market isn’t the type to endure “the pain in the ass” or make them at home. This is not to say they won’t start buying them once they are legalized and hit the open market, and maybe when they do they’ll suddenly become 80% better at murder! Or not! We don’t have stats!
Again, you have to suggest there is a pressing need to legalize them. Which there isn’t, because rational gun owners are currently wearing ear protection.
Which is to say, you might as well be arguing that car cabins should be soundproofed because cars [without mufflers] are really loud.
No mass killers have used them. They are trying to be as scary as possible. They are making a statement no they want the world to notice. Why would they want a silencer?
What difference would make if one was? What’s the objection
[quote]
Again, you have to suggest there is a pressing need to legalize them. Which there isn’t, because rational gun owners are currently wearing ear protection.[\quote]
People don’t need to where red either. You don’t need red. You have blue. Laws need to be unjust. They can’t impinge on freedom without cause. It’s particularly eqregious in this case because of the utility of a suppressor in preserving hearing.
[quote=“Scylla, post:376, topic:797873”]
No mass killers have used them. They are trying to be as scary as possible. They are making a statement no they want the world to notice. Why would they want a silencer?
What difference would make if one was? What’s the objection
The rhetoric is very weak here. You have to admit.
You are filling in this syllogism:
No Mass killers have used them …
With (so no one ever will.)
So how do you get that?
When you might alternately say :
Mass killers are at a new phase of evolution with LV. They are using auto weapons and trying to make a world record before they die.
Also ; “And there are no other sorts of killers other than the ones I am saying prove my point.” That’s another one of yours.
I’m asking, Is a silencer a tool which may aid in a murderer’s pursuit of this? You can argue all you want about what happened in any city you want, but it’s an excuse, not common sense, which is where I’m trying to live here.
doesn’t actually? doesn’t actually what?
It does actually though. I can’t bat this around but, do you want to point out my non native word choices?
Drad:
Try that post again.
Do they not sell ear muffs / shooting muffs?
Seriously - if you’re not in the military but just like shootin’ things, take care of your own damn hearing protection.
Drad’s post read perfectly normal to me.