REBUTTAL: Washington Post On Suppressors

Washington Post

Robert J. Spitzer, author of Guns Across America, penned an opinion piece about silencers in the Washington Post this week. Like much of what we are accustomed to reading about firearms in today’s media, Spitzer is disingenuous in his arguments against the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) – a bill that proposes suppressors be removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. He begins:

Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. From potential victims who seek to escape a mass shooting to a hiker being alerted to the presence of a hunter in the woods, the sound warns bystanders of potentially lethal danger. Yet gun advocates insist there is a greater danger: hearing loss by gun owners.

I am sure Spitzer is not the first gun control advocate to suggest that the report of a firearm is actually an “important safety feature”, however it is the first time I’ve heard it used in this context. A common misconception about silencers that has been repeated numerous times, is that a suppressed weapon can be used as a “silent killer”. Just two weeks prior, the author’s same publication addressed the Hollywood perception of silencers, confirming they are anything but silent.

Proponents of the deregulation of silencers, such as myself, will repeat this one fact over and over: legally referred to as silencers, these devices do not silence a firearm. In the majority of cases, additional hearing protection, such as ear plugs, must be worn even when a suppressor is used while shooting. So the author’s argument that silencers remove a “safety feature” (loud noises) from a discharged firearm is already crumbling. Honestly, for a professor, I’d expect at least some research followed by fact-based arguments.

But don’t take my word for it, Knox Williams, President of the American Suppressor Association (ASA) introduced me to Dr. Micheal Stewart, Director of Audiology at the Department of Communication Disorders at Central Michigan University. I asked Dr. Stewart “Is it possible to damage a persons hearing when using muffs or plugs alone?” He writes:

Yes, it is possible, especially if individuals are shooting numerous rounds of large caliber firearms with hearing protection devices (HPDs) that are not properly applied. For instance, the famous yellow plug has a high noise reduction rating (NRR), but it must be inserted properly. Also, it is not well suited for small, curvy ear canals so there is not a good acoustic seal and thus individual do not achieve the tabled attenuation values. In fact, NIOSH has de-rated formable plugs 50%, muffs 25%, and most other plugs 70%. The real world attenuation values may be significantly lower than the attenuation values obtained in the laboratory. Additionally, our research at CMU has consistently found that most hunters do not wear HPDs during hunting activities and many target shooters do not wear HPDs on a consistent basis.

He continues:

As hearing conservationist, we are interested in the science regarding suppressors, not the politics. There is no doubt that suppressors (often incorrectly referred to as silencers) are effective in reducing auditory risk, however, HPDs should be used in conjunction with suppressors to further reduce risk. Depending on the type of firearm, caliber of firearm, and the acoustic environment, recreational firearm users may be able to wear HPDs with lower NRR values that still allow them to hear while protecting their hearing when shooting firearms equipped with suppressors.

Hearing Conservation, Not Politics’. Sounds familiar…

But there is a deeper concern with Spitzer’s Washington Post editorial, Spitzer makes claims regarding the HPA that need to be addressed. He writes:

The NRA is renewing with gusto its misbegotten push, begun in the last Congress, to make gun silencers easier to acquire by swiping a page from the public health community’s long-standing efforts to warn of the dangers of firearms. The Hearing Protection Act, which would remove federal registration and identification requirements for those seeking gun silencers…

First off, suppressors will only be “easier to acquire” because of the disappearance of abnormally long wait times to possess silencers which are fueled by bureaucracy and not due to a lack of background checks. The HPA proposes that the purchase of silencers be treated the same as long arms, which means that prospective buyers will still need to undergo a background check and follow all state and federal firearms laws. Let’s not forget that sound suppressors are nothing more than hollow tubes – they can’t fire any ammunition on their own.

Which leads me to another point: basic firearm silencers can be constructed from materials found in two aisles of a hardware store for less than $20. If would-be criminals were so inclined, in a few hours time they could fashion a firearm suppressor that performs on par with commercially manufactured suppressors. Of course, in the process they would be violating several federal laws, punishable with a minimum of ten years in prison. But everyone knows that criminals check to see which laws not to break, on their way to break several other laws.

Since silencers don’t actually silence firearms and add up to a foot of length to any weapon, an overwhelming majority of criminals give no thought to attaching a muffler to their instruments of criminality. We are talking about statistically insignificant percentages of suppressors being used to commit crimes.

Go on, Professor, you were saying:

Absent some kind of cataclysmic hearing-loss crisis by America’s tens of millions of gun owners, this political push should be recognized for what it is: an effort to provide an extremely small benefit to gun owners that willfully ignores what can happen to others once a bullet leaves a gun barrel. The lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate. Just ask anyone caught in the vicinity of a shooting.

Since when do shooters “willfully ignore” what happens when a bullet leaves a barrel? And yes, most suffer from some form of hearing loss; no it’s not an “extremely small benefit”. In a recent post by the ASA, they reference a 2011 report completed by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) after a noise and lead analysis at a range in California. On page five the authors conclude:

The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.

It’s journalism like this column in the Post, masked as news analysis, that makes much of America wary of what they read in papers today. The Washington Post touted your opinion piece as being written by an expert, and yet you willfully ignore facts, data and evidence to push an agenda.

For shame, Professor. A man with your educational background should understand that fact-based arguments outweigh emotional rhetoric. Almost every aspect of your opinion piece is invalid and rooted in common misconceptions.

The HPA removes unnecessary barriers to lawful suppressor ownership through deregulation. Sure, they will no longer be listed on the NFA registry (a glorified national list of tubes), but each buyer must still pass the same background check used for every other gun purchased in the United States. And remember, silencers cannot fire a single bullet on their own.

This is the part of the article where I am supposed to offer you the chance to come over and shoot a few suppressed firearms in an attempt to “win you over”. No thanks; after reading your borderline slanderous opinion piece, I’m certain there is no empirical evidence that will help you come to an informed decision.

Ironic that we are talking about silencers since it is pretty clear that you are stuck in your own echo chamber.


Join the American Suppressor Association TODAY!

Make the Hearing Protection Act the NEW law of the land.



Pete

LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Pete.M@staff.thefirearmblog.com
Twitter: @gunboxready
Instagram: @tfb_pete
https://www.instagram.com/tfb_pete/


Advertisement

  • Pseudo

    Good stuff, love it. I would like to point out (not in this guy’s defense) that this was a published opinion piece, not a news article. I don’t subscribe to a paper, but I remember opinion pieces in my hometown paper that withered under the slightest rational examination. Of course, WaPo agreed to publish it, so you can of course question that. Have you considered/tried to contact them to get them to publish your rebuttal?

    • MrBrassporkchop

      I think opinion pieces are woefully outdated in the age of the internet.

      It’s like paying for vhs porn from a brick and mortar store.

      • Amplified Heat

        Off-putting, but a very accurate way to say it; op-ed’s only exist at this point for the benefit of the editor’s ego (assuming they ever didn’t). It’s not like ‘important people’ have any trouble getting their outlook disseminated to the masses, as in times past.

        • Keiichi

          Well, I’m not so sure… op-ed’s, to me, are usually intended to convey some element or aspect of the topic that wasn’t already being discussed, or provide some other perspective.

          They still have some value in that respect – though Twitter seems to be the common outlet for such things these days.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      I wish they would also post Pete’s rebuttal. I highly doubt that will happen.

  • QuadGMoto

    The comments to that article seem to have two or three people that are continuously trying to push false information without paying any attention to the far more numerous gun owners who keep attempting the misinformation and deceptions, without being vulgar or hateful in the process.

    • valorius

      Just point out that a suppressed 9mm pistol is still louder than a police siren, and that a silenced 5.56mm is still louder than a professional dj system at maximum power output.

      The only holywood quiet weapons are subsonic .22s and a few very specifically designed small caliber weapons.

      • Major Tom

        Incorrect. While yes weapons firing supersonic cartridges (especially large-bore) can often have surprisingly loud reports even when fired with a suppressor, there are quite a few that do reduce the report of the round going off to significantly diminished levels. Some are subsonic, some not. Some reduce the report but not the ballistic crack of the shot. (Meaning you’ll hear the bullet crack by but not so much the actual rifle going bang.)

        For example the classic MP5SD suppressed submachinegun when combined with subsonic loads has a report so low the gun’s action rattling about during fire is louder than the actual gunfire.

        And mind you, this depends on the distance from the suppressor. You’re not going to hear a suppressed firearm going off over 100-200 meters away, at least not the report. You will hear it going off if it’s in your hands or you’re just a few meters away from someone with one.

        • Thank goodness we finally have a law that will protect us from the epidemic of criminals firing $4000 integrally-suppressed submachineguns at victims 100-200m away.

          • Major Tom

            And that right there deflates every talking point in existence on the side of gun control advocates concerning things like automatic weapons, explosives and yep suppressors. They cost too much to begin with to be used in crime.

          • Alexander Nguyen

            Yeah, ultimately in arguments with my lame peers I refer to the price of the ARs used in all of the shootings, only once was it a nice one (MCX). People with enough money and organizational capacity to spend on fancy ass suppressors and SBR paperwork in an effort to gain a 2″ length and a few decibel difference are significantly less likely to just throw their lives away in a shooting

          • demophilus

            WADR, one reason they cost so much is the NFA, tax stamps, BATF regulations, forms, etc., etc. In theory, all that goes away, the price point drops, and John Q. Felon finds them easier to source from straw buyers.

          • Kivaari

            Except in the real world does having an M16 instead of an AR15 make the murder any more likely? Silencer were used infrequently by the mob to do assassinations. Did they really aid the killing? Ruger MkI pistols fitted with a can and left at the scene were cheap enough.

          • demophilus

            IDK if automatic weapons make murder any more likely than semis, but they didn’t do Beirut, the Balkans, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan any good.

            Suppressors probably didn’t help the mob kill anyone, but they helped them get away with it. Doesn’t matter that their cans were improvised, if the weapons were cheap and common. That’s how they got straw bought and traded.

            Point is, laws function as control points or speed bumps — regulatory mechanisms. Take them out and traffic speeds up, for better AND worse.

            The thing about even the simplest of facts is, they are susceptible to different interpretations, and too frequently more than one is correct.

          • Cymond

            “traffic speeds up, for better AND worse.”
            Agreed, but in this case, the huge overwhelming majority of traffic is legitimate, and anyone who really wants to speed already can. I expect the benefits of HPA to far outweigh the downsides.

          • demophilus

            When you start a sentence “Agreed, but…” it means you don’t agree at all. Certainly not if you don’t say how.

            IDK about “the overwhelming majority” of anything. It’s beyond my ken. But if you’re saying that NFA-compliant transactions justify its repeal you’re going to have to show your work.

            And IDK that “anyone who really wants to speed” can. Seems to me that building a good can is a harder task for some folks than a straw purchase would be.

            But that’s JMO. YMMV.

            Peace out. VCD.

          • Cymond

            I agree with the entire 3rd paragraph, the one about speed bumps. I was adding commentary/opinion/perspective. I agree that we’ll see more suppressors used for legal and illegal purposes, but just as most guns in the US are used legally, so will most suppressors.

            Re “overwhelming majority”: The estimated number of guns in the US is in the hundreds of millions, yet homicides with firearms is in the ballpark of 10-15,000 a year. Ruger alone has sold over a million guns per year for the past few years. I think it’s fair to say that legal gun owners and legal uses far outnumber the illegal ones.

            Yes, a straw purchase may be easier than building a good can for some people, but straw purchases are not currently a practical option. Without straw purchases, we should see a significant number of homemade cans if there really was much criminal demand. It’s not hard to fill a Gatorade bottle with cotton balls, or to thread an oil filter onto a $20 adapter from eBay, or even drill holes through a $90 solvent trap from Amazon. Heck, there are tutorials on YouTube! Cocaine and heroine are available in every major city in the country, and meth & pot are in every small town. You can’t seriously claim that suppressors are more difficult or time consuming to manufacture than those drugs. The fact there isn’t a significant black market supply indicates there isn’t a significant black market demand.

          • Cymond

            tldr – If criminals really want suppressors, then why don’t we see guns with oil filter adapters dumped at crime scenes?

            I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s really rare.

          • TankGuy

            Bingo!! We have a winner! Since when did “the needs of the few, outweigh the needs of the many” become the standard by which our laws are measured? I was taught that “the greater good” was a bedrock principle of American law, dating back to Blackstone and even further. In my mind, common courtesy dictates that I should avoid noise pollution just as ardently as I avoid littering while hunting, or any other shooting related activity. Does this mean I should expect other hunters, neighbors and visitors to the range to be prepared to deal with the results of my home rolled super hot .44 Mag loads? Or does it mean I should be courteous, and not enjoy the fruits of my labor. Or maybe, just maybe, it means I should be a polite person and suppress my big boomers. That’s what I’d prefer, if only I could afford it. If real life follows previous experience, the suppressor market will be booming along for quite a while, at substantially reduced prices. As long as common sense prevails, and the HPA is signed into law. Lord willing!

          • Major Tom

            Only in theory. There are civilian AR’s in all their semi-auto lameness that cost more than a military M4A1. There are also civilian AR’s in all their semi-auto lameness that are much cheaper.

            The reason why automatic weapons wouldn’t have their price drop much if any is simple availability and demand. Most makers of full-auto firearms either don’t have the production capacity to go much beyond the LE and military circuit or are unwilling to produce more than that even if the laws were permissive.

            Plus a lot of gun stores wouldn’t carry em anyways. When a full-auto belt-fed M60E6 would retail for 6k or higher, that’s a 6k expense that has no guarantee of being sold quickly compared to 500 dollar pistols or 1k civilian AR’s. Especially since the kinds of people who could afford to just plonk down 6k on a whim and not have the funding of a government or large corporation are often few and far between.

            Most civilian shooters could not afford it, nor do most want it. Some are content with a simple pump action shotgun or bolt action rifle. Some are content with a pocket pistol. Meaning the market itself for full auto firearms is quite small in total outside the military and LE.

          • Kivaari

            A full-auto M4 carbine from Colt costs little more than an AR15 version.

          • L Cavendish

            but civilians can’t own those…non-transferable…

          • Kivaari

            We were talking about IF the NFA went away. IF it goes away, machineguns like the M4 shouldn’t cost much more than an AR15.

          • throwedoff

            Civilians can own full auto weapons if they were manufactured before 1986, are registered on the transfer list, and their home state allows the ownership of full auto weapons.

          • L Cavendish

            and they cost about $10-15,000
            yes…I know that
            he is talking about the “cheap” select-fire ones the cops get…brand new…NOT pre-1968…and NOT transferrable

          • tinacn

            Just the cost of a “half-day” at the range engaging in full-auto fire with a 5.56 is enough to destroy most shooter’s bank accounts. Been many a day I looked at the pile of spent brass that 2 or 3 full auto shooters left on the ground at the range and wished I could afford to spend that kind of money just on ammo.

          • Ben Pottinger

            The difference between an ar15 and an m16 is a couple of parts. Anyone with a drill and 50$ worth of parts can make an m16 out of an ar15. It’d the severe penalties of doing it stopping the hobbiests. Of course if your going to go out in a blaze of “glory” what do you care?

            I also want to point out that the in the main incident of criminals using illegally converted full autos they dumped a couple of hundred round drums *each* and still didn’t manage to kill anyone. I’m of the opinion that because most criminals are stupid we would see *less* fatalities with them using full autos then with semi autos. Just go take a non NFA shooter to the range and hand them a m16. Chances are that even at 10-20 feet they will only hit the target once or twice, the rest are going over the target. So give the criminal a full auto and they will be busy emptying the magazine into the ceiling and be out of ammo in 3 seconds.

            People who think FA makes guns more useful for criminals are getting their data from movies and TV.

            As for no manufacturers making full autos if they were suddenly legal for civilians (new ones) I think your way off. It wouldn’t matter anyway since a quick look at any nfa sales forums shows, most of the pre86 MGs in circulation are conversions from semiautomatic guns.

          • TankGuy

            For evidence, one needs only look to New Zealand. Suppressors are the rule there, not the exception as they are here in the states.

          • TankGuy

            The only problem there being that wonderful government programs like “Operation Fast & Furious” are nice enough to put those automatic weapons in criminals hands. For a fraction of the cost they would garner if sold on the legal market. That program will NEVER come back to bite us in the a$$….sarc.

          • Cory C

            Hahahahahahaha!

        • iksnilol

          Meh, even subsonic .22 out of a suppressed rifle sounds like a firecracker/nail gun.

          Subsonic 9mm isn’t going to be any quieter.

          • Major Tom

            It is however going to be a noticeably quieter and different sound. If you hear a suppressed firearm go off and you don’t see it, the first reaction often isn’t “Was that a gun?” it’s more like “Who’s running the compressor?” or “That engine sure needs fixed.”

          • valorius

            A suppressed 9mm sounds like a gun.

          • Kivaari

            I’ve shot .45s that don’t sound like a gun, even indoors.

          • valorius

            What suppressor were you using?

          • Kivaari

            I don’t remember the brands. A friend owns a gun store and sells them He had a Ruger 22 pistol and a SID P220 .45 rigged up and shot them into his trap. Amazing quality. The rimfire can was smaller than a hotdog. The .45 can was slab sided. He sells several brands Gem Tec, AAC etc. I’ll see him next Saturday and try to find out which ones I shot.

          • valorius

            Was it specialty suppressor ammo or a big box brand? I’m curious.

          • Kivaari

            Gem Tec .22 LR (sub sonic) and standard .45 ball.

          • valorius

            Not all ball is created equal. In those 9mm tests i posted Remington 9mm ball was as much as 5db quieter than some other brands. That’s why i was curious what brand it was.

          • Kivaari

            I also used IMI 9mm 158 gr. out of a Sionics can on an Uzi. That’s old school as well. I shot it in a confined space and it was about as loud as a standard velocity 22 LR from a rifle. Quite a bit less than un-suppressed.

          • Kivaari

            Thinking back, I believe the .45 was just Winchester USA “white box” ball.

          • Cymond

            A slab sided 45 suppressor that was impressively quiet?
            My guess is a SilencerCo Osprey.

            I fired one on a USP. Loud enough to make me jump, but sounded sorta like a pneumatic tool.

          • Kivaari

            There was no crack or bang. Pleasant.

          • Amplified Heat

            Nail-gun, maybe; it’s a bad idea to argue that silencers don’t make guns sound like something other than guns, because they most certainly do. What they don’t do is make them so quiet that no one who would otherwise have a need to be concerned will be unaware. Poaching is the one legitimate area they have a strategic advantage, but there’s already a ton of laws doling out additional sentences for poaching with cans, and it’s not like there is an epidemic now that we’re not in the Great Depression, and it’s not like there’s anything stopping a criminal from making one anyway.

          • valorius

            To me, in my opinion, a suppressed center-fire handgun approximates the sound level of a hypervelocity .22 LR rifle in general sound level. Anyone who knows what a gun sounds like will instantly recognize it as either A) some sort of firework, or B) a gun shot.

            A suppressed .22LR pistol can be very, very quiet.

          • Amplified Heat

            But a suppressed anything, no matter how loud, likely won’t sound like an unsuppressed 22, which is kind of my point. Suppressed super-sonic 22lr sounds like a rubber band being shot, for instance.

          • Ben Pottinger

            Not really. We fired my SWR trident on a mp5 in a friends backyard with the women in the kitchen 20 feet away and none of them even noticed we were shooting. Add a little water and it’s even better.

            None of that is really relevant though. Like he said in the article they will be treated the same as purchasing a rifle. If you believe the process to purchase a rifle is already too easy and that allowing people to buy hollow tubes with the same process will result in a massive jump in crime and civilian fatalities then I’m not going to convince you of anything rational anyway. So no point in even arguing.

            Using the same arguments the antigunners are using here we should preemptively ban any future laser weapons because they will be silent. Without that loud bang crime will skyrocket and people will murder each other indiscriminately.

            If you want to see how unnecessary they are in most crimes just look at how many NDs have happened without the police being called on the home owner (ie, neighbors never notice the shot) and how many domestic murders happen and are not discovered until someone goes looking for the victim who didn’t show up to work/church/etc.

          • valorius

            My argument is to contradict the leftist argument that a suppressed weapon doesn’t sound like a gun. I posted the facts, a suppressed MP5 is 123-127db, a police siren is 120db.

          • Ben Pottinger

            And I agree with the sentiment just not “the facts” which are misleading here. Yes the gunshot is a higher dB number, but that doesn’t really make it “louder” to human ears which are also sensitive to sound duration. The siren, when listened to back to back, is perceived “louder” then the gunshot, due to duration.

            I own 5 suppressors and just got my 5th (an aac element 2) a couple days ago after a *10* month wait. It’s the last suppressor I’ll ever own unless the HPA passes. I’ve been fighting for the law ever since it was originally introduced. Sadly I’ve done about all I can do for it considering who my reps are (rand paul, Thomas Massie and mitch McConnell). Two of the three are pretty much automatic cosigners so I feel silly even sending them emails about it (which is kind of awesome) and mitch is well, mitch so who knows about that guy.

            A suppressor is *absolutely* a tactical advantage. But so is thermal vision and night vision and a gun in general. Those are not legitimate reasons to excessively control or ban those objects from civilian ownership. We need to stop with trying to appeal to the lefts logic and realize that they have no intention of using or applying logic and their only goal is for us to agree with everything the say and believe in, regardless if they have to use the violence of the state to accomplish it or not. No amount of appealing to their logic or compassion will *ever* work. It’s the sad truth, but at least it looks like more and more of America is waking up to that truth.

            The left knows that the *only* way to demonize guns and gun ownership is by reducing the number of owners and people invested in seeing them stay legally obtainable. That’s a war their losing on a grand scale right now and I believe it’s one they have also lost for suppressors. We will see this year I suspect.

          • valorius

            I’ve fired lots of suppressed weapons, while definitely quieter than unsuppressed, every centerfire suppressed weapon i’ve ever shot sounded exactly like a gun, and i would not call any of them quiet, especially in rapid fire. I guess it’s a matter of individual perception.

            I agree with your assessment of leftists.

          • Norm

            Is that comment from personal experience? When I fire subsonic .22 from my rifle with suppressor attached, the only noise you hear is the striker hitting the firing pin. If there is a report, it’s covered by the mechanism. Click.

          • iksnilol

            That’s what I heard. Though it was an indoor range.

            Was disappointed. Well, that’s life with above average hearing for you.

          • Norm

            Yeah, indoors would make a difference. I’ve only fired mine outside.

          • valorius

            Any chance the guy was firing supersonic ammo?

          • iksnilol

            Regular ‘ol CCI standard (that is subsonic).

          • Kivaari

            Click and the bullet htting the target. It’s quite fun to have a rifle that goes click and a target going thwack.

          • valorius

            My Browning BL-22 lever action firing .22 short CBs is that quiet, and holds 22 rounds. Fun. So. Much. Fun. 🙂

          • Kivaari

            I had a Marlin M1894C in .357 magnum. I would shoot .38 Special 130 gr.”GI” ball ammo through it. It was as quiet as many suppressed guns. Great fun.

          • Lyman Hall

            A suppressed .22 from 5 positions away at an indoor range sounds like Sister Mary Elephant’s yardstick slapping on a desk. It’s loud enough to make you jump and look around, but doesn’t sound like a gunshot.
            Of course, unsuppressed gunshots don’t sound like Hollywood gunshots, either.

          • Kivaari

            Crummy silencer. A good one has nothing like a ruler slapping a desk. I’ve used them where the noise is movie quality silent. Phfft.

          • L Cavendish

            you are using stuff civilians can’t legally buy or own

          • Kivaari

            No this stuff is readily available in stores across the country. I was shooting things that were available for sale in the store.

          • L Cavendish

            need to post some videos…give make and model numbers…and prices

          • Kivaari

            Not a good silencer. I’ve shot them indoors and they are pleasant to use. Some of the newer cans give the movie quality pffft.

        • valorius

          I posted facts. Look them up yourself.

          My source was Surefire, btw.

          • Amplified Heat

            There’s also the fact that guns are momentary impulses, and also at totally different frequencies (typically much higher) that together will tend to dampen out & blend in with ambient noise at even a short distance. I will agree that modern police sirens are loud as hell, though (and the new LED light bars brighter than an HK51k on full auto)

          • demophilus

            WADR, a suppressor test isn’t a credible source for the decibel level of a police siren. That’s mixing apples and oranges.

            Police sirens frequently exceed 120 dB, depending on the point of measurement. That matters greatly — in a free field, sound will decline by the inverse square of the distance. A siren might be 120 dB 100 feet away, but putting your ear up on it is another kettle of fish.

            Seems like your figures come from suppressors measured near the bang. 100 feet away they’d sound different.

          • valorius

            A police siren is 120 db @ 10 feet from the horn

          • demophilus

            According to who? Which manufacturer, and model? What does it sound like at 100 feet? Which center fire suppressors sound the same at 100 feet?

            The thing about sirens is, they are designed to be heard. Good suppressors are designed the other way around.

            If your suppressor sounds like a police siren 30 yards out, you maybe need to shop around, or make one yourself.

          • valorius

            According to the data on the site i already linked to.

        • valorius

          An MP5D is NOT “hollywood quiet.”

          • Amplified Heat

            Those captive-piston Russian assassination pistols were also pretty damn impressive. What’s hilarious about silencer laws preventing assassination…is that murder is still the endgame, and will always carry far greater punishment/deterrence for criminals. For some reason people think that someone willing to kill another person will simply give up if they make it difficult; it’s all part of the psychological projection (that everyone else has as low a value on human life as they do themselves)

          • Kivaari

            The MP5 is OLD technology. New stuff is much more efficient and doesn’t require the ported barrel that dumps 400 fps velocity.

          • valorius

            The quietest weapon im aware of is -really- old school, the WWII british Welford MkII .32 acp

          • Kivaari

            The only time I was around an MP5SD was during a police training session. Even though the MP5 shooters had cans the rest of us didn’t so we all had hearing protection on. With ear muffs on, the MP5SD was very quiet. But that isn’t a good way to judge them. That short ported barrel ensures subsonic performance even with regular ball ammo. BUT it dumps about 400 FPS. Dropping the 9mm by 400 fps certainly doesn’t make it a very effective weapon. Spitting out bullets like an Enfield No.2 isn’t really powerful. I’d rather shoot 158 gr. sub-sonic ammo from a longer barrel. That way you get full power that out performs .38 +P.

          • Kivaari

            When Robert Matthews of “The Order” (a neo-Nazi group) murdered talk show host Alan Berg, they used a Mac11-type SMG with a can (likely a Sionics). The audio witnesses said it sounded like the running of an electric drill.

          • valorius

            As an ex cop you certainly know how unreliable eyewitnesses are.

            Check out the video RPB MAC-10 Submachine gun video on you tube. It actually sounds quite a lot like a jackhammer when firing.

          • Kivaari

            I am not sure, but I think they used a M11 in .380.

          • Kivaari

            Looked it up, and it was a MAC 10 in an unknown caliber. I didn’t hear how far away the witnesses were from the gunfire. I know if it was a 9mm or 45 it would make a cracking noise. For some reason I remember it being a .380, but that’s from a 33 year old memory.

          • valorius

            .380 mac-10s are like chainsaws on full throttle.

        • DTC99

          Subsonic is going at less than 1100 or so at the muzzle . It’s not going to have much power or accuracy out past 100 m.

          • valorius

            A .380 full auto mac-10 is really designed for about 10 yds or less.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      It’s called “fake news”.

  • valorius

    WaPo is fake news.

  • Gary Kirk

    Washington post.. No more need be said

    • Pedro

      The Washington Compost – “If you get it, you don’t get it”

      • Gary Kirk

        Most of Washington is compost.. Some things shouldn’t be recycled..

        • AR-PRO

          Landfill fill..

    • Guns from scrap

      Washington Compost

      • Gary Kirk

        Guess you didn’t read my reply to said comment before..

        • GreatName

          Washington Compost

    • It’s important to read the Post. As outrageous as it is, it’s a very good gauge of what the left genuinely believes.

      • Gary Kirk

        K, just be sure to read it in the bathroom so when it makes you vomit it’s easier to clean up..

      • LStoll

        You provide the newspaper with money when you visit their site

        • Ben Pottinger

          Use an ad blocker. 🙂

  • Joseph Goins

    THE FIREARM BLOG: GUNS AND POLITICS.

    • Keiichi

      It’s an opinion article pointing out the lies and misconceptions promulgated by an editorial in a main-stream news publication, and expressing disapproval of the author’s behavior.

      Definitely appropriate for this site.

      Besides, their slogan isn’t possible – so the site and its contributors shouldn’t be held to it as some kind of dogma; human action is inherently political, and firearms are a currently heated political topic.

      • Joseph Goins

        Publishing an opinion in favor of a proposed law is what makes it about politics. As Steve once wrote: “because The Firearm Blog is dedicated to only covering news related to firearms and because we sincerely want this site to appeal to a worldwide audience, we will be focusing on firearms and shooting rather than country specific politics. There are already many great websites defending your rights!”

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          Like it or not, the prospect of the HPA is an industry changing event. I don’t care who you vote for or what party you belong to, but legislation that will change shooting sports needs to be discussed. It’s not politics. It’s life.

          • Tinkerer

            You do realize that you’re just assuming that Joseph is a citizen of the U S of A, that he necessarily votes elephant or donkey. This is the interwebz, where nobody knows who you are.

          • Gary Kirk

            Nobody necessarily votes either way.. There is this thing called a write in.. Ya most likely won’t win, but it gives you the right to complain.. This past debacle of an “election” is a prime example of why this is a good idea..

        • Pedro

          As you keep up-voting yourself . . . Get a life!

          • Joseph Goins

            My humble protest against the stupidity of the down-vote button.

        • Keiichi

          Again, it’s stupid to hold anybody to that standard because it’s impossible to meet.

          The team writing for this site (Pete included) should be commended for maintaining the “not politics” stance as much as they have – not lambasted for addressing an important current issue related to firearms. Especially when the article is explicitly marked as the author’s opinion.

      • Bill

        Anytime your position includes something like “besides,” you are acknowledging that your position is weak.

        • Keiichi

          How so?

          “Besides” is synonymous with “as well”, “also”, or “in addition”. I’ll grant that it does carry a slightly dismissive connotation, as in “even though I addressed your specific points, this discussion isn’t even necessary because the premise supporting your position is false and I’ll explain why here”, but how is that the same as “acknowledging that your position is weak”?

        • Keiichi

          “besides” is synonymous with “also”, “as well as”, “in addition”, etc.

          In this case, “besides” is effectively the same as:
          “Even though I’ve addressed your point directly, the discussion isn’t necessary since the premise your position is based on is false; here’s why…”

          How is that the same as “acknowledging that your position is weak”?

    • ExMachina1

      Yeah, I hope this is not a trend. I come here because it’s NOT like some other popular gun blogs.

      • Joseph Goins

        The Truth About Douches?

        • Gun Fu Guru

          Nice.

        • Somebody should make a mirror site called The Truth About Gungans, which scrapes all the same code from TTAG but replaces “guns”/”firearms” with “Gungans”, and “America”/”The US” with “Naboo”. All the images could be replaced with images of Jar Jar Binks, and every reference to ATF or BATFE changed to “The Galactic Empire” or “The Trade Federation”.

          • Joseph Goins

            Or just register an unflattering domain name and link it to their site similar to
            www . itanimulli . com (“illuminati” in reverse) being redirected to the NSA.

        • Pedro

          You forgot to up-vote yourself on this one!

      • Bill

        Me too.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      They should be political if if directly relates to firearms as this does. They aren’t talking about the federal budget, religion, or immigration just firearms related subjects.

    • Pete – TFB Writer

      It’s not. But I’m not going to argue with you. Feel free not to click on my stuff if it bothers you.

      • Shaun Connery Oliver II

        Just ignore him. That was a magnificent rebuttal, even I wished that this be posted in news. But the Alt Radical Left MSM, like you said, is so stuck on stupid in their echo chamber that it is absolutely NOT funny! Like I said, great article. Keep up the great work.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          I do appreciate that. Thanks.

          • ExMachina1

            “But the Alt Radical Left MSM, like you said, is so stuck on stupid in their echo chamber that it is absolutely NOT funny! ”

            …and you “appreciate” this kind of a comment? Ad hominem, flagrant over-generalization, and use of politicizing jargon. I really can’t see how you think your post was not embarking down the ole political road.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            “But the Alt Radical Left MSM…”

            Don’t put words in my mouth. Here’s the quote:

            “Ironic that we are talking about silencers since it is pretty clear that you [the author] are stuck in your own echo chamber.”

          • Joseph Smith

            Yet completely accurate. The lines are being drawn and you can’t champion the Left AND support gun rights at the same time.

      • Spencer

        It annoys me slightly that your posting a rebuttal to a political story and claiming that your rebuttal is not political. Sure it is; it’s not as bad as WapPo posting blatant propaganda and calling it news, but you are still violating the claimed values of this site.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          Ok, your argument has merit. Thanks for pointing it out.

          My intent was not to be political, however. I merely wanted to contest the opinion of someone claiming to be an expert. I probably could have done a better job of steering clear of potential political issues.

          • Bradley

            Any discussion about law is, by definition, political. You are basically expected to write about political issues while claiming not to discuss politics. Unless the blog is comprised entirely of photographs and lists of specifications and features of products then there is going to be some level of political discussion. Not really your fault.

          • Bill

            Some of us might really, really like just photographs, features and specifications. There a zillions of firearms sites that are blatantly, if not specifically political, and every single one does every single thing possible to alienate liberals such as myself. (If there is a site that tolerates liberals I’d love to hear about it.)

          • crackedlenses

            Hey, you’re here, right? Compared to other sites I’ve seen this one is pretty welcoming.

          • Bill

            “Creeping incrementalism” is a phrase conservatives love to use, well, it cuts both ways. A staff writer on a blog that seemingly prides itself on being non-political selected and wrote a column that, by nature of it’s subject matter, couldn’t be anything other than political. There were plenty of other topics he could have chosen that have no political implications, but chose this one. I tend to agree with most of his points, but that doesn’t keep it in line with the self-proclaimed role and mission of the blog.

          • Keiichi

            No exceptions, no deviations, no special cases.

            It’s not a guiding principle, no… it’s dogma. As such, any article that could be at all considered political must be removed – no no, they can’t even be posted here in the first place.

            Come on, you can’t be that unreasonable.

            The issue of the HPA is something that several journalists in “main stream” news outlets have published lies about; pushed glaring misconceptions about. It’s important that a reputable site like this, even with its non-political mission, can provide a clear and truthful rebuttal. Calling them out like hypocrites is ridiculous.

          • crackedlenses

            Fair enough. This does read like an opinion piece and less like an expose or factual critique.

          • Bradley

            The majority of posts on this blog are simply showing products and features. The title clearly stated what the subject matter was, but you obviously still chose to read it. I have no way of knowing what views cause you to label yourself as “liberal”, but I’ve seen plenty of comments on this site supporting any number of specific types of gun control. I have yet to see anyone threaten them with death. You can’t expect some one to like it when people believe they should be prevented from owning the things they enjoy. This aspect of weaponry regulation just happens to be particularly absurd to a lot of people. The u.s. is one of only a few nations, that allow private ownership of firearms, that have strict regulations on things like suppressors an barrel lengths.

          • Keiichi

            This. But I think it goes further (so let’s get philosophical).

            All human action is inherently political (ref. Aristotle). As such, any attempt to remove politics from any human interaction will reduce such interaction to being pedestrian at best, meaningless at worst.

            The spirit of the site slogan (I believe) is to avoid heated, unreasonable fights in the comments – to stay focused on the firearms and build a community of firearm fans, and keep them informed. They have been very successful in that.

            Discussing, respectfully, firearms topics which dip into the realm of law and policy is perfectly reasonable, and does not violate the spirit of the slogan, so long as the content of the article doesn’t inflame or provoke conflict in the comments.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Please just ignore these “gun purists” who just want to talk about nothing but guns. They don’t seem to realize you can’t talk about bad GUN misinformation, bad GUN laws, and changes to more permissive GUN laws without talking about GUN politics. If we don’t talk about it, it is certain no one else will.

          • Cymond

            “If we don’t talk about it, it is certain no one else will.”

            Yeah, it’s really hard to find political discussions online, especially when it comes to guns.

          • TeaPartyPagan

            Well, I for one, am thankful for the article. It was NOT excessively political, it DID refute misinformation, and provided excellent citations for the rebuttal. It was not a “political rant”. Trust me, I know what those look like. I’ll be honest if I can’t talk about all facets of guns, and gun ownership, this is not the blog for me. Because… there are too many where I can.

          • Cymond

            I found it interesting and enjoyed it, too. I still think it doesn’t fit the mantra of the site.

            And yes, the are countless other places to discuss gun politics. You said that if we don’t talk about it, no one will. I was merely arguing that there are plenty of places where it is discussed. Not everywhere needs to be political. That’s why I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have one place to be a “purist” as you put it.

            If it really bothers people to not read politics, then yeah, maybe one of the hundreds of other gun blogs would be a better choice for those people. Heck, they ould just step over to All Outdoor, there’s a fair bit of politics over there. Or TTAG. Or ENDO. Or PAGunBlog. Or View From the Porch. Those are off the top of my head. If you know of any blogs more “pure” than TFB, please let me know.

      • Bill

        It is. Own it.

        • Pete – TFB Writer

          I like you Bill. But you are looking for a fight and I’m not going to give you one. Don’t worry, I don’t see any borderline politics in my posts for the next few weeks. Cheers.

          • Keiichi

            It gotta say, I’m really impressed by your ability step away from comments like those on this article.

            It speaks well to your character. You, sir, are an example the rest of us should strive to emulate.

          • Pete – TFB Writer

            In the end, nothing is that serious. And we should all be on the same team. Infighting helps no one.

            But thanks.

          • Bill

            Hey, it’s your platform, you can post anything you want. Just be upfront about it, and not disingenuous. Trying to keep politics out of the firearms world has to be incredibly difficult, but some of us really appreciate the effort, and the fact that TFB represents a little calm in a field wrought with over-heated rhetoric.

            No fighting intended.

      • Emperius

        It’s the people like him that we give away our freedoms, through ignorance.

    • Major Tom

      AS IT SHOULD BE! 😀

      Pete’s political articles are the best political articles!

      • Pete – TFB Writer

        Ha. Thank you?!? ?

    • At what point does refuting dishonest misrepresentation of the physical characteristics of a class of accessories trip over the line between politics and factual correction, though?

      • Joseph Goins

        Among others: “It’s journalism like this column in the Post, masked as news analysis, that makes much of America wary of what they read in papers today. The Washington Post touted your opinion piece as being written by an expert, and yet you willfully ignore facts, data and evidence to push an agenda.” It comes off as very snobbish and is the epitome of pushing an agenda he plans the other writer of doing.

    • Stan Darsh

      Wow! You really like up-voting yourself.

      • Joseph Goins

        My humble protest against the stupidity of the down-vote button on Disqus.

        • Keiichi

          I’ve honestly never seen the down vote used.

          I’m sure your protest is working.

          • Joseph Goins

            That’s because the down-vote button is essentially pointless.

          • Keiichi

            On this, at least, we agree.

          • Cymond

            If down votes are pointless, what does that say about your “protest”?

    • Mystick

      Commentary on commentary regarding a proposed piece of legislation is not necessarily politics.

      • Bill

        I got whiplash trying to sort THAT out.

  • ExMachina1

    The HPA will not pass because it is far too easy to argue against. That’s because, unless you’re already a shooter, you will probalby have no formed opinion on suppressors. However, even just a little rhetoric about how legalizing “silencers” might make criminals/terrorists more deadly is going to be hard to battle.

    • Major Tom

      The same “logic” is why folks did switchblade bans. It’s the same “logic” currently being argued in the Colorado statehouse over a bill that would repeal the ban on switchblades.

      And yet one by one the switchblade bans are being removed across the country.

      • ExMachina1

        The NFA is a national law. Bans on automatic knives are local. It’s easier to change state and loal laws.

        I’d be very happy if the HPA would pass but it won’t even make it to a full vote, at least not on it’s own.

        • Keiichi

          Since the HPA is a change to the tax code, it can be moved without worrying about a filibuster through budget reconciliation (I think that’s what it’s called).

          The biggest hurdle for the HPA will be moving it through committee.

        • Norm Glitz

          The state bans are being repealed because people are making the effort. No effort = no repeals.

    • TJbrena

      All it takes is one filibuster. The filibuster may have been nuked for appointments, but as far as laws go its still intact. We’re unlikely to see the HPA pass.

      • Keiichi

        Since the HPA is a change to the tax code, it can be moved without worrying about a filibuster through budget reconciliation (I think that’s what it’s called).

        The biggest hurdle for the HPA will be moving it through committee.

        • ExMachina1

          That’s actually an interesting point–being part of the Internal Revenue Code could make it easier to get slipped into a larger bill. Ok, I’m now dialing back my skepticism on the HPA a bit…maybe from a 1% chance to a 20% chance.

          • Keiichi

            Ooh, getting optimistic are we?

  • Harry’s Holsters

    We all need to write and call are butts off this next year to get this thing through. It won’t pass unless we do our part.

  • n0truscotsman

    I read that article and felt like I lost IQ points when I was finished. The commenters did their job and ripped it to pieces.

    That just goes to show Spitzer’s experience with firearms: minimal.

    An AR15 produces in the ballpark of 160-165 decibels of noise. If you have a good suppressor, that reduces the decibels to about 140. http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm

    …which doesn’t make the gun ‘quieter’ by any respectable degree that the author is trying to argue, when it comes to a ‘warning factor’. When it comes to long-term hearing loss among the operator, yes, 140 is a bit different than 160-165 decibels. Thats why suppressors/silencers are advantageous.

    People: “Silencer” is a name of the product as patented by Maxim. Its not a literal term.

  • In their rush to deregulate everything, the gun lobby has lost sight of the true and crucial reason for silencers being NFA items: To prevent poaching.

    In fact, heavily regulated silencers have been so effective at preventing poaching that nobody poaches anymore ever, and there definitely aren’t a bunch of people out there with empty 2 liter soda bottles with conspicuous bullet-shaped holes in the bottom of them.

    Not at all.

    • When I was a kid, I saw a booth at gun shows a couple of times featuring a display consisting of a 2 liter plastic soda bottle, a package of steel wool, and a roll of duct tape, with a sign reading “Please do not assemble these common household items into a $2.50 silencer”.

      If criminals were truly attempting to murder someone quietly with a firearm– instead of using a knife or ligature or manual strangulation, as statistics indicate they actually are doing– they would be making dump silencers like this, or just folding up a pillow or couch cushion for one or two shots. It just ain’t happenin’.

      • OldGringo

        Just saw your comment about the liter bottle and steel wool. I made the same comment, so we think a like and you sir are spot on.

      • oldman

        Great point and if they really wanted a suppressor for more then one use you can find instructions on the web and the parts at any hardware store or auto parts store in the country.

        • I keep hoping that one of the Youtube Personality™ gun channels will register an actual straight-through racing muffler as a silencer and build an adaptor to mount it to various guns.

          • AzureRaptor

            Hmm. I see a potential business opportunity.

            I personally would like it if I could get my car parts and gun parts all in one place. :}

          • The great grandfather of a friend ran a small town hardware store for a couple decades about a hundred years ago, and he sold car and tractor parts alongside rifles and shotguns. Supposedly the local sheriff was ordered by the War Department to confiscate and impound all the firearms he had for sale during WWI on account of he was a first generation German immigrant, but he was also a pillar of the community and ran the only hardware store in the county, so nobody was happy about it. He also had the only secure storage area in town, though, so the sheriff politely supervised while he put all of his guns in his own storeroom and locked it himself with his own keys. War is heck, man.

          • AzureRaptor

            Man, how the times change. I would’ve loved to have met that old fellow.

          • Wow!

            I’m pretty sure that exists somewhere.

    • ostiariusalpha

      Unlike those free-wheeling European countries that have lax suppressor regulations, creating a horrendous epidemic of legalized poaching. Several large game animals are threatened with a near approximation of what some might interpret as a metaphorical decimation of a potential fraction of their populations. Thankfully this travesty has been completely avoided by the wisdom & foresight of our 73rd Congress, as upheld by many of the same freedom-loving justices of the Supreme Court that decided the Korematsu vs US case.

    • Keiichi

      Comparing the poaching situation during the Great Depression to today is a just a bit ridiculous, especially as a rationale for keeping suppressors so heavily regulated.

      Also, the idea that a lack of easy access to legally manufactured and sold suppressors is what has kept poaching down in recent decades is ridiculous. By and large, poaching went away because there are far easier (and far less risky) ways of both hunting and procuring food. Any poaching that occurs nowadays is done by people who would likely flaunt the NFA anyway (as your second point seems to affirm).

      • Alexander Nguyen

        Bruh….he was being sarcastic

        • Keiichi

          Yeah, I missed the irony… my statement stands, regardless.

        • Charles McKAU

          Poaching today still exceeds the legal harvest of game animals where I live.

          • Lyman Hall

            Then the legal harvest is set too low.

    • krinkov545

      How? A old beater .22 bolt and mr deer is in the truck bed. Happens all the time all over the nation.

    • Jimbo

      Where do you live… If a audible report stops poaching, then the game wardens would be scrambling all over the country side. Our gun ranges are full of people hurting their hearing, 7 days a week, to keep proficient with a gun,

      I’m a machinist. I could make any silencer I want. But I don’t because I am law abiding, and don’t want to be arrested.

    • RICH

      30 years in Law Enforcement and I have never investigated a case in which a ‘silencer’ was used ! ! …. Just sayin’ !

  • The two most common ailments treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs are tinnitus and hearing loss, conditions which affect over 48 million Americans nationwide.

    Yes, Virginia– this really is about hearing protection.

    • Gary Kirk

      Huhhh??

      • …What?

        • Gary Kirk

          Rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee…. Forever..

          • Sometimes it switches over to “ba-WOOOOOOOOOOO” for a minute or so.

          • Gary Kirk

            You’ve played with 50s??
            Or explosives.. Haven’t you?

          • I can neither confirm nor CHIG CHIG CHIG CHIG CHIG CHIG that rumor.

          • Gary Kirk

            Rumor has it that could possibly be fun.. It could also be really bad for your hearing to maybe possibly discharge one of said caliber in a somewhat enclosed situation..

    • TankGuy

      Damn straight! As my screen name suggests, I spent the better part of two decades on the Abrams main battle tank. Tankers are known to almost unanimously have the same two health problems- hearing loss (in some cases, like mine, rather extreme), and bad knees. One of those is easy to prevent, and it ain’t hearing! The 120mm is the loudest gunshot I’ve ever heard, bar none, then tack on two M-240’s and a Ma Deuce. Our modern crew served vehicle communication headsets take care of a lot of the noise (they are made by Bose!), the machine guns are made very tolerable, but there’s not much you can do about the 120. Hell, just the shock wave is very uncomfortable if you’re standing up in the hatch, and that’s from behind the gun!!

  • Holdfast_II

    If safety is an issue, and I am willing to concede that it is for some people, how about a rule that before plinking on public lands (not hunting, just shooting at cans or targets), one has to give three blasts on an air-horn or similar device, and then wait 60 seconds before commencing shooting?

    • some other joe

      Three blasts of anything (whistle, gun shots, air horn) is a distress signal. So you blast your air horn three times and anyone who hears it should either be moving to investigate/help or calling it in to specialists who will….

      • Random Disabled Person

        Thank you for that reply. About the 3 shoots/signaling. There is one to think of which firearm to carry for the back country, how many warnings do you have in a loaded weapon? Assuming worse case of loosing your pack and spares, hence requiring rescue signalling by means of gun shots. 2 to 5 sets…

        Ironically we have the same anti- groups crying about “”gun pollution “” noise in the country and wilderness. In the end they just want to argue with whatever justification they can to ban guns. They argue the noise level is bad but making them safer for hearing by lowering that noise is bad too? Talk about a multiple personality logic issue.

        What bothers me is how many people still want suppressors registered. Look at what has been programmed into us since 1934…. We actually have a large group that want to let the government track them. Which sooner or later, such lists will be used in way that is bad for those that followed the law. We might as well have separate registration and background check for all muzzle devices. Because Suppressors can act as brakes and/or flash supressors also. Slippy slope. If they can put serial numbers on diamonds….

        The firearm is registered(all but in official name with today’s system and searches linking run/checked serial numbers) and been through background checks. So regulating and background checks for an add on device is just stupid, and yet people who consider themselves champions of freedom want registration still. Serial numbers are great for ownership but it should only be used to help in the cases of theft issues and/or quality control safety recalls.

        • Norm Glitz

          “Losing” your pack, not “loosing”. Unless you meant you wanted to keep them tight.

      • Holdfast_II

        Fine – that’s what we used to use for demolitions. Make it 2 long ones, or 4 – the point is pretty clear.

  • Goosey

    Did I somehow end up on TTAG?

  • Lee M Attinger

    Here’s a free lesson: You have finite time on this planet. Don’t waste it arguing with people that don’t care about anything you have to say in the comments section. You’re welcome

    • Keiichi

      *stares longingly at now empty wallet*

      Thanks bruh.

  • LGonDISQUS

    Cheapest suppressor for chicago is a potato and a plastic bag. Saw it on a movie on BET once. (20% snark)

  • Oldtrader3

    The Washington Post continues to prove how disingenuous, out of touch with reality and in love with their own great Liberal Lie everyday that they publish that rag?

  • Jamarcus Skylooter

    I hate dealing with straw purchases of firearms as a dealer. Now throw this into the mix? Idk.

    • iksnilol

      Are you really complaining about being able to sell suppressors more easily?

  • Anonymoose

    Maybe make it so we have universal background checks (through an FFL) for suppressor sales and other NFA sales, but that’s the only restriction I would place on them. Same deal with everything else in the NFA except machineguns (I think the registry should be opened, it should have to be registered, and the government should be notified if you take it across state lines, but you shouldn’t need to wait for approval).

    • Norm Glitz

      Just loving that government regulation, aren’t we?

      • Anonymoose

        One step at a time. I would get rid of the NFA and GCA and import bans entirely, but I have friends who are home-based FFLs.

  • iksnilol

    We should remove car mufflers because the sound is an important safety feature.

    • Cymond

      When the Prius first hit the market in like 2004, there was concern about how quiet they were.

  • Tassiebush

    Hearing loud gunshots is a safety feature?! In a hunting context you’d be unlikely to be shot but if you did you’d only hear it as or after you got shot. Impeding the hearing of a person who is shooting with forms of hearing protection like earplugs or earmuffs reduces safety.

  • Tma

    And you should point out to any anti-silencer people that in many places at europa silencers do not require any kind of permissions to have. And we have ultra strict regulations to guns compared to usa in here.

  • LetsTryLibertyAgain

    The “loud guns are a useful safety feature” argument is tantamount to the “loud pipes save lives” argument put forth by motorcycle enthusiasts who remove the baffles from their bike’s mufflers to make them louder. I never bought that argument. It is true that people are accustomed to cars making some noise and clueless people listening to MP3 players or playing Pokemon Go will walk out in front of silent electric cars, but this would be placing the blame in the wrong place, and as the rebuttal made perfectly clear, suppressor equipped firearms are far from silent.

    Furthermore, while I understand that rights are lost all at once but must be laboriously won back in an incremental process, requiring a NICS check to buy a suppressor would be similar to AutoZone requiring a driver’s license and calling the DMV to get permission before they sell someone a muffler.

    • Vet for Trump

      If they get treated the same as any other gun purchase, don’t buy one. Avoid the NICS check and build your own. Same as building your own AR from 80% lowers. Steel or Titanium tube, freeze plugs, end cap and a thread adapter. $100, give or take.

  • Some Rabbit

    Unable to ban gun ownership the anti-gun movement will settle for anything that at least inconveniences gun owners.

  • Nick L

    Remember guys: firearms, not politics. If it’s your motto you gotta stick to it (even though I’m sure everyone reading this article agrees).

  • SerArthurDayne

    I have recently started kicking around the idea of convincing my old man to become an advocate in this debate. My father is a retired, 34 year, high-ranking law enforcement officer from one of our nation’s state capitals. Certainly not the biggest department in the country, certainly not the most prominent, but a real city and “real police work” and actually since he retired a decade ago, the city has gone through a *major* downhill transformation (I am very thankful he retired when he did, even though I didn’t want him to at the time, because I knew he loved his job.) When he started at the police academy in the early ’70s, they did not use hearing protection. The two standard responses of the staff were, “How the heck are you gonna be able to listen to me tell you what to do – and remember, this is THE POLICE ACADEMY, We tell you each and every thing you do from the moment you wake up till the moment you go to sleep!! ” and two, “You gonna put your ear plugs in on the street before you get in a shootout? Gonna ask the bad guy to hold on a minute , lemme get my hearing protection set, before engaging him in a situation?? Hell no!” — and they shot every day. And he is increasing deaf. His hearing started going 10-15 years ago, it was never good growing up but got worse… and worse… and then he finally “admitted” he had a hearing problem. The last 5-7 years were particularly bad because he knew he had a hearing problem but hated it so he’d react with an angry “WHAT?! WHAT DID YOU SAY?” during conversations, as if it’s the speaker’s fault he can’t hear them. The biggest breakthrough I made was a few years back, getting him a set of Sony headphones for the television…. so he doesn’t have the volume maxed out. Which he would , every time he watched the television, from the news to “Blue Bloods” to a Hallmark movie. You’d hear the sound walking up to the front door. Now, much much better. …… He is fully supportive of suppressors for all forms of recreational shooting and civilian ownership because hearing loss *is a direct result of shooting*….. Hearing protection is great, but it’s not perfect. And EVERY TIME you fire your guns without hearing protection, you affect your ears …. it’s cumulative, and in the long run, that little bit adds up and adds up and adds up. The ringing in your ears you hear after shooting ? Savor it- it’s the last time you’ll hear that particular “frequency” again. So the liberals with their ridiculous notions that “silencers” are movie-like ultra-silent assassination devices and have no real civilian use, they will just have to be proven wrong to their faces, repeatedly, and eagerly, if we’re going to “win this thing”

  • Joseph Smith

    Haven’t read all the comments (so this may have been mentioned) but one thing stands out. If loud = safe, why do we have barrel length restrictions in the NFA? Shouldn’t the government be promoting the use/ownership of SBRs?

    Secondly, loud only improves safety when the person who hears the noise can effectively respond. These are the same people who create gun free zones nullifying any effective response to a threat.

  • The Heretic

    Isle is an island or peninsula
    Aisle is a walkway in a store

  • DDonnie

    the Professor must ride a Harley-Ferguson or Massey-Davidson and subscribe to the mantra “LOUD PIPES SAVES LIVES”

  • Amplified Heat

    “the NFA registry (a glorified national list of tubes)”
    The NFA = The Internet
    Mind. Blown.

  • Profiler

    The Washington post… If you get it, you don’t get it…

  • USMC03Vet

    It’s not a firearm and shouldn’t be regulated at all. It’s a metal cylinder and should be treated as such. You don’t have to register, ask permission, and pay taxes for any other firearm accessory you shouldn’t have to do it with something that increase the barrel length of a firearm.

    Can’t wait. We have far too many stupid restriction and it’s been a long time coming.

  • OldGringo

    I am 40% disabled from Army and air Force service. In my left ear I recognize 60% of spoken works and 40% in my right, so my wife in the passenger seat, seldom makes sense when she talks. I own 3 suppressors and recommend them to everyone. I am an NRA certified instructor, have expert ribbons with 7 military issued weapons, so I have shot a lot. I am also retired from both the military and a second career as an attorney and prosecutor. Bad guys do not use suppressors, and if they did, a liter bottle full of steel wool is far superior to most commercial devices in my view, a couple of shots then burn it and no evidence. As a prosecutor I never, ever saw a gang banger or robber or drug dealer or anyone use a suppressed gun. Nothing bigger that a Glock or full size duty gun is carried on the street. and they dont want that extra 8-9 inches on the end of the gun. Now, what i see as the real danger is the shotgun, a favorite of of home invaders and folks wanting to be sure of a kill, so it seems to me, they should focus on shotguns if the real goal is some sort of public safety. Did I mention that I have a master’s degree in criminal justice and have studied this stuff for decades, and I taught at a university for 5 years? . Just because this guy works at a college does not give him any more credibility in my view than any career cop who hears guns up close. Is there risk to cops form suppressed guns? Never been a case so far, if you get shot by a sniper you never hear that shot anyway. Just commenting that there are 30 million shooters whose ears are at risk and only 20,000 murders per year. There is zero evidence that regulating suppressors actually saves any lives. So here is my suggestion, do it like the 10 year assault rifle ban.. Make them legal for 10 years and if there is an epidemic of murders with suppressors, then bring back the regulation. There is simply no evidence that regulating suppressors prevents any crime. So, I have written all my Senators and Congressman demanding they vote for the hearing protection act. If you are not writing those letters then you are part of the problem. So take the time and write them and thanks.

  • OldGringo

    Oh yes, I forgot to mention since the invention of crossbows, you don’t need a suppressed rifle to poach a deer. After careers in law, prosecution and criminal justice, I have never seen suppressors used in murders. I do recall one former Tulsa police officer in the 1980s, found guilty of a contract killing with a crossbow. My 2 crossbows will shoot 4-5 inch groups at 50 yards and the noise is about like a pellet gun. So preventing poaching is really a worthless argument in my view. I know some game wardens disagree, but also don’t ever know of a warden actually hearing a poachers gunshot. As a prosecutor in 2 rural counties I recall that all the poaching cases the probable cause for the warden to search the crooks was lights shining out in the woods, then all you need is a spotlight or flashlight shining randomly into the woods, a bow, black powder or gun and the crime of illegal spotlighting is complete. If they find the deer then the crime is actually poaching. If you are a farmer searching for a lost calf, then your gun and flashlight are OK. You just gotta have a reason for being out there in the dark shining lights. Yes, even on your own property..

    So game wardens just follow the light and wait for the guys to find their deer. If the deer is not recovered then they are only charged with spot lighting deer. Either way, if you do it at night, a light with a weapon in any area with deer known to be present the crime is complete…you get the drift…I am 40% military hearing disabled and recommend suppressors for everyone. Please write a letter to your senators and congressman. They count personal letters and if they don’t get letters they assume we don’t care, so please draft at least one to your 2 senators.

  • LilWolfy

    Washington Post…in the 21st Century?

    Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!

  • TeaPartyPagan

    Popularly known as “The Washington ComPost”. A shining example of why.

  • Ghost930

    The lefts hypocrisy just continues to astound. Firstly, the liberal left readily throws Europe’s gun laws in our faces. If they would bother to actually check, they would find that many European countries allow the purchase and ownership of suppressors as across the counter items, and have for years. Others merely require that they be registered as do guns. The reason most EU, and other countries allow this is………….yep, you got it, hearing safety, and to allow shooters to shoot without disturbing their neighbors. Gosh, those radical foreigners. Secondly, as to warning potential victims of mass shootings, when was the last time you saw a mass shooting not just in this country, but ANYWHERE in which a suppressor was used? Most mass shooters, or terrorist, are TRYING to cause…………………….Yep, you got it, TERROR AND PANIC. Not so easy when there is no loud gunfire. On top of that, it is quite easy as others have pointed out to make either crude, or fairly sophisticated sound suppressors from parts readily available at the local Ace Hardware or Home Depot. Once again, this is a case of people who really don’t know much about guns, crime, or the interaction of the two, trying to tell people who actually do know, how and what they should do. If you are going to argue a cause, at least have the smarts to go collect some facts, and knowledge on the issue, something Mr. Spitzer failed at abysmally. On a side note, I kind of find the fact that his name is Spitzer kind of funny and ironic. Something he probably doesn’t get, because again, he knows very little about firearms, or in this case bullets. lol

  • Emperius

    “The HPA proposes that the purchase of silencers be treated the same as
    long arms, which means that prospective buyers will still need to
    undergo a background check and follow all state and federal firearms
    laws.”

    What? So it doesn’t remove it from unconstitutional NFA laws? In other words, I STILL have to ask permission to acquire a tube with baffles? How about REMOVE ALL background checks to our given 2nd amendment rights?

  • Tierlieb

    Good points, but you forgot the other half of the argument: Gun noises are not a safety feature. People do not react to firearm noises in the way alleged by gun control advocates.

    This stems from both a lack of familiarity as well as from a chain of cognitive biases (normalcy bias to Semmelweis effect). As cases like the Paris shootings have shown, terrorists can start shooting in an enclosed building and most normal people will ascribe the noise to something else even if it happens right next to them.

  • Anthony “stalker6recon”

    Once again, par for the course. Actually gun haters almost always know very little about firearms in the first place, and use inflammatory language to deceive their readers, who are often in lock step with that point of view anyway, so no critical analysis is required.

    As it has been said in the rebuttal, there is no such thing as a “silencer”. Anyone that has been in the military, knows that there is a great need for suppressed weapons on our side of the fight. Wearing hearing protection while in combat, limits our ability to track that reports of those trying to kill us. Not wearing the protection, places our hearing at great risk. Anyone that has been on the firing line during qualifications, especially with a platoon using the 14.5in M4, knows full well how painful even that caliber is on their ears. Take that scenario, add a couple M240bravo gunners, and a couple mounted 50Cal M2 machine guns, insert insurgents ambushing, and the next thing you know, is it feels like your ears are bleeding and on fire at the same time.

    Worse, be a dismounted soldier/sailor/airman/marine, while on foot patrol with armored support, such as the M2A3 Bradley Fighting/Scout vehicle and it’s 25MM chain gun, while under fire. Listen, if you can, to the rapid reports coming from that beast. That makes your head feel like it is going to explode, as the air is seemingly ripped from your chest.

    That list goes on, from the M1A2 120mm, too the 155mm arty rounds that shake the ground you are walking on. Today, I hear sounds that aren’t there, and sounds I should hear, do not make it to my brain. The price of military service. I would gladly pay that price again.

    There is no such thing as “silenced”, the media, the left, and hellywood enjoy being ignorant of facts, this allows them to make arguments and scream down anyone that tried to give them facts as they revert to their old tricks, calling you racist or another “stop the conversation” line. There is absolutely no reason to make a suppressor, more difficult to acquire, than the process of buying any firearm. They do not in anyway, make the weapon more lethal, they do not cause the weapon to fire more rapidly, they do not allow the user to be a silent killer of innocent men, women and children. Any argument to the contrary, is based only on feelings, and not on facts. And it is not PC to talk honestly about firearms, especially in liberal company.

    When I get into the argument about whether firearms should be illegal, I always use the same argument. I ask the person that is against firearms, if they believe they would become criminal killers if they held a firearm. Then I ask the same about the siblings, parents, friends, colleges, and expand the circle. If at any point they get concerned about someone in their circle, then I tell them they should rethink who they pick as friends, and maybe if they have a genuine fear, they should be talking to that person and possibly the police based on what information they have.

    Then I ask another simple question, especially if it is someone I know well, “do they trust me with a firearm?”, or do they think that I will suddenly become a killer of innocents or start robbing banks, just because I own a firearm. Then I ask why in all the years that I have owned firearms, why I haven’t gone to the dark side already. They usually at this point are unable to respond with anything of value anymore, and I can smile and walk away.

    It won’t change them, I know, but at least they will have to try and rethink their argument before someone else takes them to task and embarrasses them in mixed company.

  • Mark S

    Dr Spitzer’s media appearances…

    Media appearances include: NBC’s “Today Show,” ABC’s “Good Morning America” and Network Nightly News, PBS’s “News Hour With Jim Lehrer,” CNN, CNBC, MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” the PBS documentary film “Guns and Mothers,” NPR’s “Fresh Air with Terry Gross,” media outlets in Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, Germany, Norway, Spain; interviewed by the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, among others. Regular contributor to the Huffington Post and panelist on the weekly public affairs program, “The Ivory Tower Half Hour,” broadcast on WCNY-TV, Syracuse, NY.

    Pretty much a go to guy for gun controllers.

  • Jones2112

    Lets just call it what it really is, more douchbaggedness from the internally stupid gun grabbing leftist lemmings…

  • Squrrily

    Attempting to support an argument in favor of suppresors with loss of hearing is ridiculous. Range shooters have access to a wide array of hearing protectors. This issue is simply a further push for private ownership of military style arms and devices. We have no need for suppresors in a society that has lost respect for human life. Privately owned weapons should fulfill two functions; hunting and self defense.

    • Jones2112

      Hmm, use your firearm in a self-defense situation inside your home without a suppressor and no hearing protection and let us know how your hearing is afterwards, because you’re not going to have the chance to don your hearing protection…

      Further, go hunting without hearing protection because you want to be able to hear the game you’re hunting and let us know how that works out for you as well, may I suggest a 12 gauge shotgun for your hunting expedition…

    • kcshooter

      Another blathering liberal imbecile who has no ability to look at a situation with any logical sense, just knee-jerk crybaby nonsense.
      Suppressors are already legal.

  • avlisk

    Difference of opinion is one thing. But the constant lies from the anti-American gun-grabber Corporation has reached the level of farce. The guy who called it the Washington Compost got it right.

  • AR-PRO

    Typical liberal bullshit, if it has anything to do with guns, they invent reasons to ban it. If it wasn’t suppressors, it would be the flash suppressors that “hide the flash from the police” (smh). Add to that the social idiots (aka state officials) that call for bans on “30 round magazine clips that can fire a bazillion rounds a second”. It’s childish how these alleged professionals lie to push their agenda, especially when they have zero knowledge of the subject at hand.

  • George Smythson

    One obvious flaw with their argument is that most bullets are supersonic–if they’re accurately aimed, you don’t hear the report before the round hits you… Not a very effective warning means–you would already know you’ve been hit before you hear the warning (or not at all). But then again, as many have stated, this is not about facts.

  • Snake-eater 1

    Sounds kind of like the argument bikers use to justify straight through/no mufflers on their bikes: it warns pedestrians that we are coming down the road. Doesn’t work there, either.

  • Patrick ONeil

    And remember, in much of Europe a suppressor is rather easy to come by. In some countries they are almost required if not simply strongly encouraged. Seeing as how Europe has such a problem with crimes involving suppressed firearms…oh wait, they have no such problem at all.

    I guess Europeans are a different species of human from those found in the US.

  • luvsgunsandamerica

    WP the best cat box liner printed,as well as bird cage liner.Cats and birds love to sheet on the Washington Post

  • John p

    The Post answered their own question, first they say that the sound of a weapon is a safety feature, then they say a “silencer” would take that away then they say a “silencer” does not work… OK then that means it keeps its safety feature, whats the problem. It is only a sound moderator and reduces the sound at the muzzle.

  • JRT6

    No hearing protection can protect you from the impact of the acoustics (muzzle blast). They even travel up your jaw bone and into your ear and it is thought that wearing a helmet can attenuate that. A suppresor makes nothing but good sense especially on an indoor range.

  • MortyTheDestroyer

    WaPo – Horribly full of crap editorial. Good response.

    They’ve really gone off the deep end.

  • john396

    Ear damaging noise is regulated by LAW everywhere, except when firearms are involved.
    And I agree even WITH suppressors some calibers will still need ear protection, (or if your indoors instead of outdoors.) Many commercial lawn mower employees wear ear protection even though their mowers have mufflers on them…which hardly makes them silent!
    But then this is why you can’t take a anti-gunner’s statements seriously, they either distort facts or lie outright, to try to defend their position.

  • Colonel K

    Screw our hearing; if it saves even one life, I say get rid of car mufflers so we can hear them coming! Will somebody think of the children?!!!

  • Kill Hill: Volume 1

    Washington Post – not even fit to use as toilet paper.

    And, remember:

    The WaPo is owned by one of our favorite Lefties and Obama’s buddy, Jeff Bezos.

    Remember that every time you order from Amazon . com, and put more money in this semi-communist billionaire’s pocket.

  • Yourwearingmeout

    I agree silencers should not require NFA stamp but what I disagree with are the cheese dicks who feel the need to criticize the Washington post or any news source because they do not agree with an article. God forbid you have to put thought into your opinions as I read the Washington Post among others and I do not agree with everything they say but I give it thought. I suppose you have never actually read the newspaper and given an article consideration and said to yourself “hmm I guess I can understand where the writer is coming from but I may not agree” but still. Oh that is right if it does not come from Alex Jones or that pockmarked faced fat man Obannon then it must not be true. Suppose you believed Trump is for common man or any of the other racist nonsense that man had to say. Umm, look up Frontal Lobe Dementia and tell me that it is not president little hands!

    So tired of and disappointed by the lack of basic reasoning skills on the part of people because that is what got that man elected (trump not Putin that is – umm yea just so you know Putin is the Russian).

  • BDUB

    “The HPA proposes that the purchase of silencers be treated the same as
    long arms, which means that prospective buyers will still need to
    undergo a background check and follow all state and federal firearms
    laws. Let’s not forget that sound suppressors are nothing more than
    hollow tubes – they can’t fire any ammunition on their own.”

    A crappy consession, that prevents me from mailing or having a silencer mailed, as i could any other item that “can’t fire any ammunition” on its own, wouldn’t you say?

  • Ronald Wright

    Liberal “professor” taught by other “liberal” professors. No wonder they can’t think for themselves. For someone that is supposed to be educated, he is dumber than a rock!

    Shame on this slime for even publishing this garbage. It should be printed in the EDITORIAL SECTION, not as any type of “news”.. How can people like this even call themselves “educated” when they are this stupid?

  • FUBO

    We should just do what liberals do with Federal Laws that they don’t agree with. Ignore them!

  • kazetsukai

    Rebuttal? When are we going to wake up and realize that they simply don’t care? This guy at WaPo decided he wanted to write an anti-gun article aimed at the HPA and then he came up with the rhetoric to support it. We do not face an honorable adversary, nor an adversary that cares about facts. These people care about teh feelz, not reality.
    Don’t appeal to them, crush them like the maggots they are. No mercy, no quarter. Do not seek compromise or understanding with people who do not understand either.

  • Jimbo

    This asswipe lives in my neck of the woods, and works at Cortland State, and writes frequent opinion pieces in the local leftist rag, the Cortland “Sub” Standard. He is one of the key pissants advancing the wacky theory that Trump accepted “emoluments” from foreign nations, and should therefore be impeached.

    One of his more “brilliant” opinions is that the 2nd amendment only allows the government to decide who may possess a gun. Of course, he is one of those who “deserves it”. The rest of us shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, because we are not college professors.

    What a drip!

  • Jimbo

    Of course, my home state, NY, in it’s “infinite” wisdom also bans flash suppressors.

  • “Honestly, for a professor, I’d expect at least some research followed by fact-based arguments.”

    Lol…I feel like you haven’t been to a college lately. These days they are little more than overpriced liberal drone factories, and the professors are running the presses.

    Source: I’m a political conservative who recently graduated from UCLA. Talk about being behind enemy lines.

  • Capn Jack

    I have nothing against using a suppressor on a rifle, or pistol, other than I feel their use on a handgun makes it awkward and unwieldy. Most people are unaware of the fact that to properly utilize a suppressor, The round must be loaded so the bullet is traveling subsonic, thus reducing it’s effective range.

  • Seriously: is it silencer or suppressor? This is almost as hotly debated as their regulation is. (Cite source please)

  • Tommy Roff

    Actually it is “SILENCER”.

    The original patents (and I believe all subsequent patents) are listed as “SILENCER”.
    Google it.

    Case Closed.

  • Tommy Roff

    Also the largest seller of Silencers to the public in the world is a company called SILENCERCO.

  • Nunya Bidniz

    Aisles ≠ “isles.” Spelling is especially important in a rebuttal, since you’re trying to make the original author appear the fool, not yourself! 🙁

  • Wow!

    Pick up “Homemade Military Grade suppressors” (a $20 book, and probably one of the best buys you can make). With just an angle grinder a welder (the book teaches you how to SMAW (stick) weld too, and using a fence tube and a flash hider anyone can make a 10″ silencer for $15 that rivals even the current designs on the market.

  • ciscokid3750

    Quote————–Which leads me to another point: basic firearm silencers can be constructed from materials found in two isles of a hardware store for less than $20.——————–Quote

    Criminals have not been using silencers because most are to ignorant to construct them and to lazy to do so. If the new law goes into effect second hand sales will not require a background check which will funnel tens of thousands of them right into the hands of street punks and crazies.

    The Post told of a Cop who went crazy and killed a number of people and Law Enforcement stated they could have and would have stopped him far sooner if he had not been using a silencer.

    The lie that Silencers are not silent is a total falsehood as it depends on the ammo used, and the caliber. Many years ago I had the opportunity to shoot a full auto M16 with a very short barrel, if I remember correctly the barrel was only 11 inches long and could have been concealed under a long coat. The gun was in 22 long rifle caliber and was so silent all I could hear was the bolt racking back and forth. A nut case could easily have wipe out an entire crowd of people with such a weapon. I have also fired 9mm and .380 and .45 acp weapons with silencers and with back ground noises such as heavy traffic or large gatherings of crowds on holidays with all the noises the crowd and various performing acts make again a nut case with one of these calibers could kill many people before they associated or even heard the low level noise from the weapon going off.

    Many irresponsible people have all ready told me that they plan on using silencers in their back yards which would put entire neighborhoods in extreme danger from stray bullets. The discharge of firearms should be outlawed except on approved ranges which also negates the argument that they are needed for noise reduction because any good modern hearing protection will protect you from the gunfire. The name of the bill “the hearing protection act” is an insult to the intelligence of the average gun owner. Do the silencer companies really think we are all nothing more than a bunch of Morons that will believe their propaganda so they can boost silencer sales which will result in tens of thousands of them going second hand right into the hands of the street punks and criminals.

    Lets face facts, the expense, the time consuming paperwork and the registration of silencers every time they were sold new or second hand all worked very well in keeping the silencer out of the hands of both the street punks and the casual or spur of the moment sale or the irresponsible people who would have caused a lot of needless deaths if the silencers would have been available “over the counter” at any gun store. Again the background check would be good only for the sale of the new silencer to the original owner not its resale to anyone who wanted one.

    Another problem is wholesale poaching. Poaching gangs used them in the past and when they were outlawed the gangs went over to using 22 magnum rifles and 22 l.r. weapons, again for the low noise level. Still there were places even the .22 l.r. was too loud such as suburban areas where often many deer are living largely un-hunted but with the silencer the wholesale slaughter of wild game will become rampant and in suburban areas put the public at risk from again stray bullets.

    This is not the first time this law has been attempted to be passed. It was rejected several years ago and I think even the Republicans do not what the political fall out that would come if they were dumb enough to sponsor this law just to boost sales to the silencer manufactures as in reality their is no legitimate need for them.

    • Doom

      Dude, A retarded monkey with a drill, pipe with caps, tap set, and something to use as baffles can make a suppressor. There are multiple videos on YouTube. The components are dirt cheap. There are literally hundreds of thousands of them in civilian hands and yet they aren’t flowing into criminals hands now, I think with so many being available that they would be readily used. Thing is, Adding an extra foot to the end of your hand gun makes it quite a bit harder to conceal, and adding a suppressor to a rifle not shooting sub sonic rounds is pointless because it is still extremely loud. Sure, Suppressed sub sonic .22lr is very quiet, but people getting shot by .22 arent quiet unless they are magically getting 100% headshots every time and no one is noticing.

      go do your chicken little impression elsewhere.

  • John

    No rebuttal required, since you’re dealing with people who will never be convinced that firearms and capitalism aren’t the greatest evils to plague all of mankind since the dawn of civilization. No matter what you say, you’re either speaking to a brick wall, or preaching to the choir.

  • Jarhead0369

    Obviously this jackass has never had a round zip past his ass. Suppressed muzzle noise or not, the supersonic crack of almost all ammo is NOT a noise to be ignored.

    • Realist

      This…the splitting headaches I used to get pulling targets in the “butts” would last for hours afterwards.

      Semper Fi Mac 84 – 04