Sharpsdressed Man said:
But, for most, there IS a LEGAL way, and it isn't that hard. Quit saying it is. Just say you don't want to, for whatever reason you have at hand.
For some, depending on where they live, CLEO sign-off is a non-starter. That means they have to pay extra to go the trust route. Is it always hard? No, but it's not always easy either, and it can certainly cost more and be more trouble than your post implies.
Some of you just don't WANT to accept sound suppressors, facts be damned.
The fact is, some folks are actually quite interested in suppressors but have looked into purchasing them and found the hassle and cost to be excessive.
I realize that some people clearly believe that this is all about bias and that if folks knew the facts they would have a suppressor. That's certainly the case for some, but it's not the whole story. Some folks know the facts and have simply made a well-informed decision not to buy a suppressor. Is it really that hard to believe that different people might make different decisions based on the same facts?
Isn't it true that some of the new sound suppressors found on the precision sniper rifles help with accuracy?
I've heard arguments in both directions on this one. I think it's safe to say that a properly made and installed suppressor shouldn't hurt accuracy by virtue of being a suppressor. Because it effectively adds extra weight and probably extra length to the barrel, it will affect barrel harmonics which could have either a helpful or hurtful effect. However, that's a function of the added weight/length, not of anything directly related to the actual operation of the suppressor. In other words, hanging ANYTHING off the muzzle can help or hurt merely by changing the barrel harmonics so it's not fair to attribute that type of result to the suppressor.
I noticed that more attention is being paid to percentage of length claims than the assassin crap and special exemption claims. Why is this?
First of all, I would think you would be happy that no one is giving any credibility to the talk about assassins. It's inevitable that internet discussions generate some "noise". It's a good thing when the rest of the participants ignore it and focus on facts instead.
As far as the "special exemption" claims, while the terminology may not be spot-on, it's certainly true that the CLEO sign-off route requires that the purchaser get special permission before the purchase can proceed. In many areas that process is NOT accurately defined as a simple rubber-stamp process.
Ok, back to the percentage length/cost, etc. I think if you go back and re-read the thread it will all become clear. Someone tried to compare mufflers to handgun suppressors and I pointed out that from a practical standpoint, mufflers and suppressors were VERY different. I also pointed out some reasons why that was true--namely that mufflers didn't typically double the length or cost of a typical car, nor did they change its handling characteristics.
You responded with a post, apparently rebutting my assertions about the effects on length, handling & cost but using incorrect calculations in the process. Then when the glaring error was pointed out, you pretended that it didn't mean anything because the pictures showed the truth. It's sort of an odd situation because if you MEANT the pictures to show the truth then why did the figures attempt to tell a different story entirely? And if you meant the post to be a rebuttal to my comment, how does it make sense to essentially claim at this point that the pictures prove it wasn't really a rebuttal at all? I think you'll have to admit it's a somewhat odd and contradictory situation and one that's bound to draw some comments.
