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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Leake appears to be one of those rare people you found silly. Tell us Mr. Leake, if you got a new neighbor who was vehemently opposed to firearms, and called the police claiming you were probably murdering your wife and children every time you went shooting, would you NEED a suppressor then? :eek:

Everybody needs to avoid harassment.
 
Kochman, some of us live where it is legal to shoot on our own property.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update. Also in the news... Tyrannasaurus Rex has gone extinct!

I can assure you that my wife, baby, and dogs would prefer it if I could use a suppressor.

My neighbors might appreciate it, too. Luckily, they are all hunters and shooters, so nobody complains, but if I could practice, quietly, I would do so out of courtesy.

Once again, you wish to side with the government on restricting my ability to do so. Please show some evidence that there was ever an epidemic of suppressors used in assassinations, since you allege such was and would be the case.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the figure regarding how many people have to have been assassinated for it to actually count, in your opinon...
Until then, I don't know the target I'm shooting at.
 
The target you are shooting at is the actual numbers of assassinations conducted in the US, using suppressors, prior to NFA. I know it is a challenging concept, but just provide actual data, such as number over time period.

You argue for restriction by government, so it is on you to prove the need - the US was founded on the concept of freedoms trumping regulation, unless the government could make a compelling case.

Otherwise, I would ask whether swimming pools should be NFA regulated; or household chemicals; or electrical appliances. I am pretty sure those kill a lot more people in one year, than suppressed firearms killed in all the years prior to NFA.
 
The target you are shooting at is the actual numbers of assassinations conducted in the US, using suppressors, prior to NFA.
Click to expand...
I need to know the number that you find acceptable for law to go into place.
The target is known... but I need to range. Be my spotter for a second.

Your numerical question is irrelevant... it's the propensity that is important.

Hence the nuclear briefcase line of questioning... How many died from that?
Or RPGs, in the USA... but they're illegal.
 
kochman said:
I'm still waiting for you to tell me the figure regarding how many people have to have been assassinated for it to actually count, in your opinon...
Until then, I don't know the target I'm shooting at.
Click to expand...

You sir, should get your information from somewhere besides Hollywood movies.

In most of the world, suppressors are cheap and legal and... wait for it... REQUIRED for use in some hunting scenarios.

They are not and never have been the tools of assassins. They do not and never have "silenced" gunshots. They were only added to the NFA because they "compromised" (sound like a current word?), knowing that what was on the proposed NFA (handguns!) would never allow the bill to pass, so they dropped handguns and added suppressors as a compromise.

Drop the Hollywood assassin bullcrap argument.
 
JimDandy, one of my neighbors was a longtime member of the state senate, and he is a shooter, so I doubt I will need to fear harassment of that sort anytime soon. We bought our current place because it had pastures, hay, and barn for the horses; plus natural berm, space, and zoning allowing shooting.

However, if we were to get a new neighbor who started harassing us over noise, and assuming the deputies didn't tell them they were out of luck as soon as they started harassing us, then yes I would probably think I needed a suppressor.
 
You sir, should get your information from somewhere besides Hollywood movies.
Click to expand...
Another "movie" bashing... I guess if you're staff it's ok to insult people here?
I'm done being disrespected. Thank you.
 
Kochman, you are tap dancing. The question is straightforward - how many such assassinations occurred.

Your responses imply that you know or suspect the numbers involved will be small, and will make your argument seem silly, so you keep bobbing and weaving.

If anybody else sees it differently, I am sure they will speak up for you, but I suspect we ALL see it as I see it.

So, you can find the numbers, and provide those and your sources for the numbers, or you can keep - wait for it - dissembling.
 
If a silent weapon is needed for a quiet assassination wouldn't a crossbow be more effective? The only suppressors Ive been around that are relatively quiet are those being used on .22's and even those are not silent by any means. Sure theyre quiet but so is a crossbow. Should we ban them as well?
 
Kochman said:
Another "movie" bashing... I guess if you're staff it's ok to insult people here?
I'm done being disrespected. Thank you.
Click to expand...


Your argument is based on nothing but what you see in movies.
You know nothing of the whys and wherefores of the real history and stubbornly refuse to be educated by those who do.

I am disrespectful of your argument because it deserves no respect at this point. Opinions are one thing. Opinions with no factual basis, that remain determinedly ignorant despite an avalanche of contradicting information that's based on real world past and present is another thing entirely.

Many of us have been incredibly patient with you throughout these discussions. There comes a time when we will no longer be patient with spinning our tires on the same old, debunked, factless arguments.

If you feel disrespected at that point, you should probably stop making that same tired, debunked, factless arguments.
 
They were only added to the NFA because they "compromised" (sound like a current word?), knowing that what was on the proposed NFA (handguns!) would never allow the bill to pass, so they dropped handguns and added suppressors as a compromise.
Click to expand...
Actually, they were added because they were a new and relatively expensive product at the time. Maxim called it the "silencer" as a marketing term, but they were never silent. The idea was that, if I could afford one of those, I could afford to pay a tax.

While the NFA conveniently functioned as a ban, it was proposed as a way for FDR to collect taxes to fund New Deal programs.

Aside from poachers (who make their own illegal ones), I can't recall a single crime of violence committed with one.
 
Well, there was that one time, on Matlock....

But in all seriousness, if ever there was a time that using one in a criminal enterprise would have been a good idea, don't you think John Hinckley Jr. would have done so on March 30, 1980?
 
Yeah, that would make a lot of sense in a close range, public shooting...

This article points out crimes.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...INDwRFyO1BLXenA&bvm=bv.45373924,d.dmQ&cad=rja
I never said, btw, they aren't rare... silencer crimes. I said, the risk/benefit analysis doesn't support their widespread use.
I also said, feel free to spend the extra $$$ to get one.


Now I'll wait for a moderator to immoderately bash me again.
I understand that some of my views, as a gun owner, are not going to be popular here.
I don't think I deserve to be personally attacked, by a moderator no less, for holding them.
 
Last edited:
There are very few cases of the actual use of a silencer in a crime, that is, a firearm is discharged with a
silencer attached. Of the federal court cases reported in
the Lexis/Westlaw database between 1995 and 2005, there
are only two cases of a silencer being used in a murder in
the United States. One was a case of an armed robbery
of a postal truck in which the driver was shot (U.S. v.
Gallego, 191 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 1999)). In the other case,
best described as a gang style “hit,” one of the partners in
the gang was murdered with a silenced firearm in 2000
(U. S. v. Williams, 372 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004)).
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: What kind of risk-benefit analysis concludes that statistical zero risk, is too much?
 
Kochman said:
Now I'll wait for a moderator to immoderately bash me again.
I understand that some of my views, as a gun owner, are not going to be popular here.
I don't think I deserve to be personally attacked, by a moderator no less, for holding them.
Click to expand...

I am not a moderator or staff here, but I have criticized your writing, so my comment here may be appropriate.

It is not a lack of popularity in your conclusions by which you have garnered scrutiny you may not appreciate.

Instead, your writing has at times displayed an evasive and lead footed belligerence a reader may force himself to tolerate, but will rarely enjoy. A person who argues a point with you is not your enemy; very much the opposite. Partners in argument permits you to refine and develop your position. However, to do that you need to be willing to read an opponent's argument for what it is rather than for your immediate convenience.

Internet forum discussion is a very specific genre that can encourage an unduly rapid response. It helps to remember that at the end of it, each of us will log off and return to matters that affect us more directly.

My two cents.
 
What kind of risk-benefit analysis concludes that statistical zero risk, is too much?
Click to expand...
I'll let you answer that for yourself... pretty simple.

@Z, no, you aren't a moderator... people here sure do tend to see the splinter in another's eye first... eh?
End of my remarks.
 
Kochman, did you read the article you cited?

It would appear silencer related murders are more rare than deaths by lightning strike or bee sting... Significantly more rare, in fact.

But you STILL have not cited any assassinations or rates pre-NFA...

So you are not being "attacked" for your opinion, you are being attacked for your absolute refusal to support it with any facts, or to acknowledge that the facts do not support your argument unless you argue that the government should be able to regulate anything, at will, on the basis that it could in theory, if rarely ever in practice, be used in furtherance of crime.
 
MLeake,
The article has examples of that.

I did read it, AND just say, I grant it is rare.

However... for the umpteenth time...
The RISK/BENEFIT ratio doesn't warrant it.

In other words... there's no reason to have it... we have hearing protection that doesn't have insidious uses, so why allow those with insidious purposes?

And, so, your point of why it is OK to attack me, which at least you admit there is attacking going on here... it's not only ridiculous to suggest that's ok... but it's also incorrect, because I did back up what I said.

I'm also still waiting for your magic number of how many crimes it takes before it matters? Or did you give up that ludicrous line of questioning?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top