Silencers

Wouldn't that let everyone sell more and increase competition?
Click to expand...

Keeping them AOW means that the price drops $195 for every silencer out there; but as it is still an NFA weapon, only Special Occupational Taxpayers get to enjoy the resulting sales.

If it gets moved out of NFA entirely, then they are competing against the entire firearms industry.
 
They are unregulated in the UK precisely because of the tight gun laws. Someone haveing a suppressor for his deer rifle really isn't much of an issue. In a densely packed nation it stops gun phobic residents getting stressed out, can reduce recoil, protects hearing etc all good, really no downside.

In a nation where one can buy a handgun as easily as you can in much of the US, it is a little different. The reality is a suppressed handgun is an extremely convenient weapon with which to commit crime. That is why nations with tight gun laws often have no regulation on suppressors, and ones with liberal laws have tight regulations on suppressors.
 
The reality is a suppressed handgun is an extremely convenient weapon with which to commit crime. That is why nations with tight gun laws often have no regulation on suppressors, and ones with liberal laws have tight regulations on suppressors.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's why there are soooo many crimes where suppressors are used...:rolleyes:
 
Good point. Given most economic gun crimes start with the gun presented and the victim complying, an expensive suppressor probably doesn't enter into the mind of the robber. They don't particularly care about such - any old gun would do.

Crimes of passion - having a silencer is a nonissue. They are driven by the intent and then go for the weapon. Having a silencer doesn't seem to fit into the interview studies of those who committed such crimes.

Deliberate assassinations or drive bys? Maybe in the extremely rare first case. Drive-bys probably want to make a statement by the pray and spray nature of the gun fire.
 
Not saying I agree with it lads, just giving what I would consider to be the reason for the difference in the laws between the UK and USA on the suppressor issue - as was mentioned in the original post.
 
Many countries with strict gun control laws have REQUIREMENTS for suppressors on guns that are legal, such as for hunting. They're not lax because they think the bad guys can't get guns so why bother restricting suppressors, they're lax because they realize they are useful and have little to no criminal downside.
 
That said, I do think it is a difficult issue.

As far as I am concerned the right to the means of effective self defence within common sense limits is one of natural law. It is something so fundamental that arguments based in social utility can have only limited weight. The same does not ring true for suppressors, for me.

Suppressor laws are like speed limits, they might not be popular, but arguments in favour of them have some strength. That said, not sure what I think the right approach - certainly think it is a worthwhile debate though.
 
Have there ever been studies done into criminality and suppressors?

My lack of certainty on it rather than just going for the less regulation option is based on an instinct - the instinct that making the most practically efficient method of inflicting murder much easier to hide for the crucial period of escape is a bad idea. If I am wrong I would be glad to be corrected.
 
Ok, my "strong arguments" remark was based entirely on the instincts I mentioned previously...to me this makes sense. Clearly people disagree, since my position is based on an instinct, I would be open to argument as stated.
 
Can't read the whole thing right now, but the abstract of that study looks like exactly what I was asking for. Will read it when get on computer.

Like I say, it just seems to make sense to me.
 
Like I say, it just seems to make sense to me.
Click to expand...
and
Ok, my "strong arguments" remark was based entirely on the instincts I mentioned previously...to me this makes sense. Clearly people disagree, since my position is based on an instinct, I would be open to argument as stated.
Click to expand...
"Instinct"? That's not much of a basis for supporting an argument.

In your earlier post, you stated:
The reality is a suppressed handgun is an extremely convenient weapon with which to commit crime.
Click to expand...
How so? A suppressor makes the handgun significantly larger, heavier and harder to conceal. That's not very convenient at all. It also doesn't make the handgun "silent."

These so called "common sense" opinions based on pre-conceived, but erroneous, notions are hurting us all in our effort to fully restore our rights.* The facts are that they are rarely used in crimes. (see above-referenced study) But even if they were, that is not enough to justify taking away the rights of the law-abiding.

The benefits of suppressors are good arguments for pursuading legislators to undo bad laws, but from a legal/Constutional standpoint, there doesn't have to be benefits (or need) to "justify" a right.

*I am handing a legal case right now in which these kinds of posts (on gun boards) were cited as evidence that public opinion is that silencers are the tools of assassins, gang-bangers and terrorists. It was argued that it mattered not that the opinions stated were incorrect or baseless, only that they reflected popular opinon. :mad:
 
Last edited:
I believe I have stated that my position is based on instinct rather than evidence, either personal or anecdotal. I have not at any point claimed I am offering evidence against free access to suppressors - just telling you what I instinctively feel about it and have actively invited people to change my mind.

I have only ever fired a suppressed firearm once, and agree it is nothing like Hollywood, at all.

My preconceived notions are honestly held - I am not trying to support an argument.
 
Also, I reject the idea that someone should be attacked for offering an honest opinion on the basis that some lawyers might mention them in court.

Further, I think an argument based in social utility for the outlawing of something which is not a fundamental right is fine. might not be correct, but it is not invalid. Most of the world is grey rather than black and white. Beyond the vital fundamentals, if it is best for society at least am argument can be made for it.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm of a different mindset regarding removing supressors from the NFA.

Depending on how the next election goes or even with a satisfactory out come.

All it would take is a few knowledgable legislators to get together and attach it to a bill that everybody thinks needs to be passed.

Kind of like adding the firearms in National Parks rider that was attached to a bill the other side thought was important.
 
There have been encouraging changes lately. Both Washington State and Texas have loosened their restrictions on the use of silencers in the last couple of years, and those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

As more people purchase and use silencers, there will be more impetus for more loosening of restrictions which will, it is likely, eventually reach the federal level.
 
Good point. Given most economic gun crimes start with the gun presented and the victim complying, an expensive suppressor probably doesn't enter into the mind of the robber. They don't particularly care about such - any old gun would do.

Crimes of passion - having a silencer is a nonissue. They are driven by the intent and then go for the weapon. Having a silencer doesn't seem to fit into the interview studies of those who committed such crimes.

Deliberate assassinations or drive bys? Maybe in the extremely rare first case. Drive-bys probably want to make a statement by the pray and spray nature of the gun fire.
Click to expand...
The biggest reason criminals don't use a suppressor is that they are cumbersome. Imagine your glock with a 12" barrel, it doesn't exactly fit in the old waist band or in the small of your back very well, does it?

In several European countries, suppressors are required for hunting with a high powered rifle.

The proper term is suppressor, the device does not completely silence the report of any firearm larger than a pellet gun. Using the word silencer simply feeds the ignorance and hysteria of the uneducated anti gun crowd.

Just like calling your favorite AR an assault weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top