To Silence or Not to Silence

[444]

This is a serious question:

"I would say the public in general does not know that Hollywood silent does not exist. I'm sure those same folks fantasize about gangs shooting up the streets and not making a sound."

What if they did ?
Again, seriously.........
Gangs shooting up the streets making noise, gangs shooting up the streets not making as much noise.
What changes beyond the sound ? How is this more dangerous, more of a threat to the public............................ What is the difference and why does it matter ?

To me, that statement implies that the noise part of the whole thing is somehow good, or it somehow makes it better...........it's not as bad if it's noisey.

This is just another aspect of the question I posted awhile back that nobody answered: What is the positive effect of the noise ? If gangs were shooting up the streets making noise, why is this better than gangs shooting up the streets not making as much noise ?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it still make noise ?
If someone gets shot and the gun doesn't make a loud noise, are they not still shot ?
How does the sound change anything about it ?

I am beating a dead horse here, but in all the arguments for or against firearm suppressors, I get a strong impression that it is assumed to be a given that firearms noise is somehow a good thing and by allowing suppressors, we are taking away this good thing. Everybody is making a major concession by taking away the noise. And I beg people to explain to me any instance where it is a good thing. The only thing I can come up with is, if you are lost in the woods and you fire three shots in the air to signal that you need help, less people would hear it. Beyond that, I am at a loss to come up with anything else.

 

[444]

I guess what I am trying to get across here is that normally when you have a discussion or a debate on a subject there are two sides: for and against. Each side makes their case.

But on this issue, it seems to be totally one sided:

I have heard the gun owners side of it. I have heard all kinds of different opinions on why suppressors should be deregulated.

But I don't ever recall anyone actually giving me a reason why we SHOULD regulate suppressors. What does it accomplish ? And like I have been saying, it seems to me like it is accepted as a given that there is something good about firearms noise and that is all the reason we need to regulate them. But what about it is good ?

Back to the original post in this thread: should hunters be allowed to use suppressors ? This question implies that there is some reason why we shouldn't allow it. What is that reason ? Why is making more noise a good thing and what good does it do for anybody ?
You shoot a deer and make a loud noise. You shoot a deer and you don't make a loud noise. Why is one better than another ? If you shoot the same deer with a bow or a crossbow which is quieter than a suppressed rifle, is that worse since you arn't making as much noise ?

 

[muzzleblast...]

I am in the market for a suppressor. But, my collecting days have reached the zero sum stage. An addition can be made only in response to a vacancy. It is taking a while to figure out which S&W N-frame goes to make room for an Osprey.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I am beating a dead horse here, but in all the arguments for or against firearm suppressors, I get a strong impression that it is assumed to be a given that firearms noise is somehow a good thing and by allowing suppressors, we are taking away this good thing.

In the public's mind: if you say suppressor, you get a blank stare.

If you say silencer, you get a raincoat-wearing; steely-eyed; heartless assassin about to kill someone callously in the middle of a dark alley or in the middle of a busy street and no one will be none the wiser.

Ergo people associate silencers with crime, illicit activity worthy of being hidden and the underworld.

They don't think more relaxing shooting, hearing protection and a more peaceful environment in hunting season.

So, yes, in the very real battle for public opinion where knowledge is thin on the ground and opinion is thick like snow in winter what the noise of a suppressed weapon being fired sounds like is an important factor.

This question implies that there is some reason why we shouldn't allow it.

It's not a question. It is a state. They are not allowed them.

 

[fredvon4]

I can think of ONE and ONLY ONE reason I do not appreciate the value of a suppressor

Local deer hunting in my rural county.

We live across a county road from a large acre ranch.
In my county is is normal to lease deer hunts to the rich city folks (mostly brain dead IMO)

We have lived here 23 years and to date have 3 bullet spall marks on the front Brick work.

Each hunting season, wife and I do NOT spend any time on the front patio...
We are usually reminded to go inside or to the back yard by the first morning shot

And Yes Virginia...when we first moved here -and had the first bullet strike---

I did call the Sheriff and he got the game warden on the issue...impossible to determine what hunter, of many, shot the across road bullet

I am retired army, range safety officer too many times, and as a large extended family we are all avid 2A and good safe ethical hunters, sportsmen, and target shooters

I advocate zero GUN LAWS

BUT!!! I do desire ALL of the population to be much better educated and trained
...everybody, and on everything..

BTW cuz I have done it...a sub sonic 22Cal and a easy to make suppressor can be made to be so quiet as you ONLY hear the trigger action and very cool Phzzzzt Holly wood sound

BUT in general, even suppressed (silenced; sic) with normal ammo....there is a lot of noise ......and Holly Wood has no real world clue....but hey! they invented the endless magazine Mac 10...grin