What Amendments would we like to see on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kochman, your question was answered - there does not have to be a "need" on the part of the citizen.

OTOH, there does have to be a "need" on the part of government before it imposes restrictions.

Your line of questioning places the onus on the wrong side.
 
If suppressor usage is an irrational want, then why is their use mandated by law in several European countries that regulate firearms more strictly? Because they want to encourage assassination and poaching?

Short of stereos, I am not aware of any commercial product where the end user wants it to be louder than it has to be. Personally, I shoot my suppressed rifle with earplugs as well. You are still talking 110-100 decibels at the muzzle.

I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies Kochman.
Click to expand...
Ha!
Yeah, well, those using suppressors in Europe are so heavily restricted they can't even use their guns for self defense in their own homes... not a great example.

Movies? Wot?
Think what you want, that's up to you.
Assuming knowledge of someone without having any basis for it is generally a poor technique in life...
 
Kochman said:
When my question regarding the briefcase is answered... I'll reply further. It's as serious a question as the described "need" for a suppressor.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. You're seriously going to compare a suppressor, which has absolutely no independently-dangerous functions to a nuclear briefcase, and try to play "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?" :rolleyes:
 
No, it's not. You're seriously going to compare a suppressor, which has absolutely no independently-dangerous functions to a nuclear briefcase, and try to play "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?"
Click to expand...
So, you're now judging my "needs" versus "wants"... as has the government, and you side with them... interesting.
Right to bear arms...
How about an RPG, to tone down the absurdity of the question?

Personally, I find it absurd that people think they "need" a suppressor, just my opinion and all... but it's a pretty common opinion.
 
kochman said:
When my question regarding the briefcase is answered... A'll reply further. It's as serious a question as the described "need" for a suppressor.
Click to expand...

You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.

You are now free to respond to the pending question:

Why do suppressors "need" to stay on the NFA list?
 
Yeah, well, those using suppressors in Europe are so heavily restricted they can't even use their guns for self defense in their own homes... not a great example.
Click to expand...

Why is that relevant to your argument? You asserted that suppressors were only good for assassination and poaching; yet these countries chose to mandate their use. There are only two logical conclusions:
1. These countries wish to promote poaching and assassination
2. Your assertion is untrue and there is some desirable public benefit these governments are trying to achieve

And speaking of self-defense, that is a great place for suppressor usage. Firing a gun without hearing protection in an enclosed space while you try to communicate with family and 911? Sure would be nice to have a device that made your firearm hearing safe and could be left attached to the gun.
 
You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.
Click to expand...
I don't find it legit in the least... given the existence of earplugs.

Suppressors are used to make your position less clear, keep people from hearing your shot, etc.

Granted, a higher caliber gun with a suppressor is still pretty loud... but a .22? A .32 auto?
 
Kochman said:
Spats McGee said:
You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.
Click to expand...
I don't find it legit in the least... given the existence of earplugs.
Click to expand...
Do you not believe that suppressors work? Or do just think that everyone should have to take the alternative (earplugs)?

And as far as the .22 or the .32, those rounds are fairly limited in their hunting applications.
 
Just and addition to the conversation on suppressors.

I like hunting in New Zealand. They have very strict gun registration and permitting laws. Yet, a NZ resident can drive down to the local sporting goods store and select a suppressor from hundreds on display, pay his $100 NZ, and walk out the door.

I agree that suppressor's being an NFA item doesn't make much sense.

BTW, hunting possums at night with a suppressed 10/22 is great fun!
 
Just to clarify the sound levels involved:

An unsuppressed 16" .223 would be around 160 decibels.
Suppressed with a high quality suppressor that same .223 is about 130 decibels.

According to OSHA, that is about the same sound level as being 100m from a jet during takeoff.

At a sound level of 101 decibels (suppressor and earplugs), you are still 16 decibels above the threshold OSHA considers safe for exposure to intermittent sounds 8 hours a day.
 
Kochman said:
You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.
Click to expand...

I don't find it legit in the least... given the existence of earplugs.
Click to expand...


I do not believe you understand the statements to which you respond.

That earplugs exist categorically cannot bear on the legitimacy of the use to which a suppressor is put. This is not a subjective observation. This is not something you may find legitimate or not.

A use, legitimate on its face, has been described.

Kochman said:
Suppressors are used to make your position less clear, keep people from hearing your shot, etc.
Click to expand...

Here you refer to the motivation of a person for using a suppressor, not what a suppressor itself does. That you may describe malevolent applications for a suppressor does not make your descriptions comprehensive.

You have not addressed the facially legitimate uses for suppressors.

You indicated that you would respond to Spats' inquiry once you received an answer regarding the nuclear briefcase. You have received that answer

You are now free to respond to the pending question:

Why do suppressors "need" to stay on the NFA list?
 
I'd venture that almost all hunters would use suppressors if they were legal.

Hunters go to great lengths to reduce the ability of wildlife to detect them (see, smell, or hear) - we buy camo so we can't be seen and scent protection to prevent being smelled. You stay as quiet as you can while walking through the woods. There is a huge difference is how long it takes the woods to return to "normal" if I shoot my bow, .22, or 25-06.

Doesn't matter that suppressors aren't really silent - I'm sure I still stink some when wearing scent protection. Hunters will buy anything that gives them even the perception of an "edge".
 
I would add one more use for suppressors: training. While I am not a certified trainer (by any stretch of the imagination), I could easily see that suppressed rifles would be useful in training young shooters. The reduced noise would allow them to develop trigger control without developing the flinch that comes from the much louder (unsurpressed) bang.
 
Spats McGee said:
I would add one more use for suppressors: training. While I am not a certified trainer (by any stretch of the imagination), I could easily see that suppressed rifles would be useful in training young shooters. The reduced noise would allow them to develop trigger control without developing the flinch that comes from the much louder (unsurpressed) bang.
Click to expand...

Which is a great point. I start out novice shooters on my suppressed .223 because many of them are concerned about recoil and a suppressor acts as a super-effective muzzle brake while reducing blast. However, when we move to unsuppressed .223, almost all of them start to flinch until they get readjusted, even if the unsuppressed gun also has a brake.

Kochman said:
Doubtful... negative effects on accuracy/range that really provide zero benefit.
Click to expand...

There are no negative effects to range caused by a modern suppressor. Nobody uses wipes anymore. The only downside to accuracy is the issue of maintaining a steady position with an extra 20oz of weight at the far end of a long lever - so basically, only standing unsupported shots.
 
An unsuppressed 16" .223 would be around 160 decibels.
Suppressed with a high quality suppressor that same .223 is about 130 decibels.
Click to expand...
Ever heard a .22LR suppressed?
It's just like the "pffft" in the "movies".

Mix a .223 with subsonic ammo?
 
Kochman, suppressors may not be necessary for the shooter, due to plugs and muffs, but they certainly might be appreciated by the neighbors of the shooter.

Meanwhile, you still ignore my question about why you continually place the onus on citizens, rather than on the government. Why is that?
 
The government has established why it is not worth the risk/benefit equation to allow things that really have very few legit uses.
Therefore, to be an exception...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top