Suggestion for compromise gun legislation

Here is all the data you need! Its in a movie. Most crimes go down just....like....this.
[video=youtube;06OIi2jUPsg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06OIi2jUPsg[/video]

 

Why compromise?

 

And he won't change a thing to do with this

 

You seem to be watching too much TV. I've been in law enforcement for almost 25 years in a very large city (600,000) and we have never made an arrest on someone with a suppressor. A suppressor on a rifle is like a muffler on a car and it makes target shooting easier on the shooters ears and every one else at the range. FWIW......in most European countries suppressors aren't regulated and your viewed at being a tool if your shooting your firearm without one.

PS
OP...........never compromise.

 

You made a False claim, Silencers have never been commonly used by Criminals in any way, and ATF prosecutes illegal Silencers vigorously.

 

It has already been changed.
Silencers will be deregulated as The hearing protection act.

 

They ate regulated. I guess regulation works

 

I'm happy yet sad in a selfish way I guess. I went through a one year wait to get my Form 4 approved on my AAC 7.62 SDN 6, paid my $200 to the US Treasury and $100 to the Class III dealer. If the HPA goes through which it most likely will I'll either hang the Form 4 on the wall or sell the stamp to a stamp collector.

 

You could make that argument. However your average and even above average criminal will have no idea on how to use them. First, suppressors aren't cheap and decent ones usually start around $800. The barrel on the host gun then has to be threaded on the end by a competent gunsmith or a new barrel purchased completely which can be around $200. If the threads aren't right the suppressor won't be concentric with the barrel and there will be a baffle strike which will blow up the suppressor. Barrel threading can range between $50 to $100 depending if the barrel needs to be removed from the rifle. The knuckle head criminal will then have to take the time to figure out which type of ammunition will make the weapon cycle properly (if it's semi auto) and will have to spend time at a range sighting it in because the point of impact will change once the suppressor is put on the barrel. So.........we are talking about at least a $2,000 investment to get up and running and then spend more money on ammo and range time. You still want to make the argument? The average criminal I work with thinks shooting a gun sideways is "the best way" and is generally concentrating on just walking upright like normal Home Sapiens.

 

Yes I still want to make the argument. How much is a fully auto weapon? They are expensive because they are regulated. Tegulation works

 

No, it us like arguing with a Parrot.

He keeps repeating the same tired old tripe.

- - - Updated - - -

 

Something we have in common

 

Doesn't matter for the HPA will pass. How much is a full auto weapon? Expensive to say the least but hopefully not for long. We are then going after the full repeal of GCA 34 or at least open the registry for the new manufacture of select fire weapons.

 

And we will go after bans of "scary" looking guns and magazine restrictions, and UBC and a thousand other things. Regulation works

 

Just wondering......why would you want to ban anything firearm related? The whole point of the 2nd is to give the people an effective means for fighting a tyrannical gov't. As I stated earlier, I've been in LE for almost 25 years and have no issues with "normal folks" having these items. If the military/LE can have select fire and high cap mags........so should regular citizens. You don't take a knife to a gun fight and you don't take a neutered, semi auto rifle with a 5 round mag against someone with a select fire rifle holding 30 cartridges in a magazine. We obviously aren't going to agree but if nothing passed after Newtown nothing will get passed and gun bans really don't work out too well for Dems. Look at the back lash to the dems after the 94 AWB.

 

Not to mention, the 1994 AWB accomplished absolutely nothing.

 

I used to be reasonable. Open to debate. I believed in the right to bear arms. I only wanted some reasonable restrictions that made common sense. But I Iearned. There is no compromise. You have to fight for everything in order to get something. So now I will support gun bans and magazine restrictions (even though they are ridiculous) because it is the only way to get anything and maybe we can get some REAL gun control in the mix.

 

Nothing you've ever been for was either "reasonable" or "common sense".

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

So what is it your actually looking for when it comes to gun "control"? Be realistic as well please.

 

And for each piece of legislation, explain its goal, how effectiveness will be measured against that goal, how it will be enforced, how it is Constitutional and why it is necessary. All of these are required for "reasonable".

 

Did all that many times. It does not matter. No gun will ever be accepted. Imagine if we said that about other things. No traffic control will ever be accepted. It is laughable. So we need to just go for everything....even the stupid stuff. It is the only way to get anything

 

Firearm safety? Absolutely. Many times because only an idiot would teach firearm safety to someone with a loaded weapon.

I don't tolerate being around anyone that does dangerous things with a loaded firearm. People like Dick Cheney are people that shouldn't have firearms and I refuse to be around them, period.

Now if you hang around with people that are careless and don't handle a firearm safely at all times that's your business but no one should ever handle a firearm unless they know the proper and safe handing of firearms at all times and they never fail to follow those requirements at any time, not even for one moment! That's how people get accidently shot and killed. It just take one moment of not being safe and you can kill someone.

If you don't believe firearm safety is that important then I question whether you should have firearms because you represent a careless and dangerous person with a firearm. Hopefully you do take firearm safety that seriously.

 

Look, everyone has to learn to shoot. You can sit there all day and show a new shooter dry firing, reloading, sight alignment, sight picture, grip, blah blah blah.....but as soon as they step up to the line and put live ammunition in a magazine a lot of people forget everything they've learned.

When you're around other people at a range who are firing, it's harder to communicate with loud noises. This is why ranges that have designated safety personel use a sound system that's loud as ****.

New shooters are nervous, and when you're nervous you do stupid things. The loud noises exacerbate their fear sometimes.

There is no valid argument for suppressors to be on some kind of weapon of mass destruction control list.

 

While I gave up hunting years ago we didn't need noise suppressors when hunting. It was either sight hunting for birds like duck that you call or pheasant that you flush and you don't need to "listen" for them or it was hunting for deer or elk where you only fire one shot and the sound of one shot doesn't harm your hearing.

The only time I could see ever using a noise suppressor is at the shooting range where you go through a lot of ammunition and for that you can use ear plug or the "headphone" type hearing protection and at the range it doesn't work because there are typically other shooters anyway.