Why the shooting in Virginia Beach sets an ominous precedent

"What ends lives? Gunfire.

"What saves lives? The sound of gunfire....

"Bystanders can run from the gunfire only if they know where it is coming from.....

"It is true that suppressors do not quiet guns; industry experts often cringe at the popular reference to 'silencers.' Instead, suppressors act like a car muffler — both devices were pioneered by the same inventor, Hiram Percy Maxim— by cooling and dissipating the gases that emanate from the chamber as the trigger is being pulled. That alters the sound enough that the gunshot’s normal sound — a suppressed gunshot can sound like a chair scraping on the floor — is difficult to identify.....

"One mass shooting with a suppressor does not make a trend, nor does it require us to alter how we train for or respond to them. But, it does mean we must continue to vigorously regulate and even eventually ban these devices as essential steps in adopting common-sense gun-control measures.

"Gun rights advocates are correct when they say that laws will not end all gun violence. But they never finish that thought. Our gun safety goal, and homeland security goal, must be to minimize the increasing likelihood that lots of people can be killed in a matter of minutes, with no capacity for escape or rescue.

"To protect life, time is of the essence. And sound adds precious seconds."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-an-ominous-precedent/?utm_term=.3cc8d64a1d3f

Deregulating suppressors is clearly a very bad idea.

 

You were against people being able to own them long before this took place so I call BS on your current claims. And guess what-this is the first time we have heard of a suppressor that was legally purchased, being used in a crime in decades. The gun banner mentality is that guns need to be banned, and you will find anything to support that. Look at the ban on automatics made after May 19, 1986: for 40 years there were no cases of legally owned machine guns being used to commit crimes. Didn't stop the spiteful democrats from banning them over a tantrum they threw about a pro gun bill

The Washington Compost is a reactionary moronic source of anti gun propaganda BTW

 

Are we supposed to take someone seriously on the subject of suppressors when they clearly don't even know how one works?

This is totally false "gases that emanate from the chamber as the trigger is being pulled."

Once again totally false, a gunshot is around 140 to 190 dB, a really good suppressor can reduce that by maybe 30 dB leaving enough noise to clearly identify the sound as a gunshot not a chair scraping in the floor.

More anti-gun propaganda from those who have no idea of what they are talking about.

Yea right and if true why is there an entire section of NFPA 101 The National Life Safety Code dedicated to how buildings must have easy access to egress. .

"To protect life, time is of the essence. And sound adds precious seconds."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-an-ominous-precedent/?utm_term=.3cc8d64a1d3f

Deregulating suppressors is clearly a very bad idea.[/QUOTE]

 

Suppressors take gunfire from 160 or so decibels to 130 or so decibels. They don't silence ****. They keep the report from being so loud it will burst your eardrums in a confined space.

Want to know what 130 decibels sounds like?

Here's a ****ing chart SPOILER ALERT!!! 130 decibels is as loud as a ****ing jet engine.




https://crimefictionbook.com/2015/04/28/how-loud-is-a-silencer/

And here's an article about it.

 

Obviously you've never been next to a suppressed .556.
Your conjecture is cute

 

And I will add, if the shooter failed to utilize sub-sonic ammo, just as soon as the bullet exited the barrel it would break the sound barrier producing a crack that is just about as loud as a muzzle report.

Based on the number of falsehoods in that story, it is quite clear the author Juliette Kayyem is either totally clueless about suppressors, or is flat out lying to make an anti-gun point.

But not surprising when one considers that most so called information, proffered by the anti-gunners, is based on false information combined with lies, as that is the only way they, the anti-gunners can advocate their position on guns.

 

Very true, the suppressor can somewhat suppress the muzzle report, but cannot do anything about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

 

The above is factually incorrect. The supposed "ominous precedent" set in the Virginia Beach shooting, is the fact that the process for legally acquiring an NFA-regulated item failed to either discourage the criminal act, or otherwise failed to prevent the individual from legally acquiring the device in the first place. The process for legally acquiring a sound suppressor is very involved, very extensive, and very expensive, far more than any background check for legally acquiring a firearm on the private market.

The supposed "ominous precedent" referred to by yourself, is the fact that this individual could have legally acquire a fully-automatic firearm with ease, and there would have been absolutely nothing in the acquisition process that would have prevented him from utilizing it in the commission of his murders.

The only true "ominous precedent" there is to be demonstrated, is the simple fact that there is no level of strictness that can be applied to legally acquiring a firearm, that will actually serve to prevent even a random individual from going on a killing spree with it. No amount of background checks, registration, or paperwork requirements, will do anything to prevent even one firearm-related death from occurring. So ultimately there is no point in even attempting such in the desperate hope that this time around it will work.

That matter aside, sound suppressors will not be prohibited from private ownership in light of this development. The united states government collects a tax each time one is manufactured or sold on the legal market, just as it does with all other NFA-related items. That tax is deemed of far greater importance by the government, than any number of lives that may be lost from the misuse of such an item.

 

Suppressors are not the problem. Too many disarmed victims is the problem.
Violent felons need to be shot down fast by armed citizens.

 

Suppressors were common in the old days because they did not scare game as much as an un-surppressed rifle. Again it is the ignorant that think suppressor regulation will stop nutcases from shooting anyone.

It's about time the holophobes realize this is not about inanimate objects but about the destruction of cultural norms, championed by progressives.

 

"But gun industry shills are now fanning out across the media, denying to every journalist they can pin down that the silencer made any difference. That claim is hard to square with the reports from shooting witnesses, however, many of whom seemed confused about what was happening or how close it was. One person reportedly mistook the sound for a nail gun. It's also hard to square with the fact that the shooter clearly believed that a silencer would give him an advantaged in terms of piling up the body count.

"Silencers don't work like they do in the 'John Wick' movies; they can't completely muffle a firearm's loud, percussive report. Instead, they work by muffling and distorting the sound, making it softer and more diffuse. As gun safety advocates point out, that is enough to make silencers a danger, especially in a chaotic mass shooting such as this one.....

" 'Suppressors are about keeping people safe from hearing loss,' NRA TV host Grant Stinchfield declared on Twitter in 2018, arguing 'that a "suppressor" is anything but quiet.'

"When the topic is silencer sales, Stinchfield is quick to deny that murder is made easier by suppressing the sound of a gunshot. But he sang a much different tune last year, when a disgruntled video gamer murdered two people at a Florida tournament that was being live-streamed on Twitch. Stinchfield blamed one of the victims, pointing out that 22-year-old Eli Clayton was wearing headphones when he was murdered....

"So, according to the NRA, sound suppression in a situation where people have no reasonable expectation that someone will start shooting at them is too deadly a risk. But applying a sound-suppression device directly to the firearm is somehow not unsafe at all. This defies common sense. The same technology that the NRA lauds for silencing guns enough to keep one's neighbors from hearing them will also silence guns enough that people locked in large buildings with active shooters won't be able to figure out what's going on.....

"Fortunately for our national sanity, the NRA is now embroiled in an internal civil war, driven by the very same unchecked greed that leads the group to endanger American lives for profit."
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/03/nr...like-the-one-the-virginia-beach-shooter-used/

Why did someone mistake the sound of gunfire for the sound of a nail gun in the Virginia Beach shooting? Why has the NRA contradicted itself on the subject of sound suppression?

 

" 'This act is reckless,' says David Chipman, a senior policy adviser at Americans for Responsible Solutions and a retired 25-year veteran of the ATF. 'And it's a threat to public safety.'

"Chipman describes himself as a sportsman and gun owner. And he says that guns don't sound like guns when a suppressor is being used. They also reduce the flash at the end of a muzzle.

"In combination, he says, a silencer could confuse the police or the public during a shooting and allow 'an active shooter to not give away their location.' "
https://www.npr.org/2017/03/21/5209...rs-hearing-protection-or-public-safety-threat

 

That's only if you're within very close proximity to the gun being fired. In a mass shooting situation that's not likely to be the case for everyone. A reduction of 30 decibels means that the distance the sound travels would be reduced significantly. So fewer people would be warned of what is happening.

 

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose a shooter begins firing a handgun with a suppressor in a classroom. The gun shot is 125 dB in volume. Sound that passes through a classroom wall is reduced by 50 decibels (the recommended STC rating for classroom walls is about that). So to the students in the next classroom the suppressed gunshot would be 75 decibels at most- about as loud as a car travelling at 60 mph. The suppressed gunshot wouldn't be more than 25 decibels after passing through a second wall. The intensity of the sound signal would weaken over distance too. So a suppressed gun shot would likely not be louder than a whisper by that point in time and wouldn't be recognized as a gun shot. So how is it ethical for the NRA to propose this legislation which could put the lives of schoolchildren in more danger during mass shootings?

 

Virginia's governor wants to ban high capacity magazines, bump stocks, silencers and assault weapons. He also wants universal background checks, a red flag law, and a one gun a month law. He wants new safe storage requirements to protect children from guns.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virgin...-legislators-to-consider-new-gun-legislation/

Action should be taken. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.

 

A well known anti-gun shill, the same as the BATF agent you quoted in your tag line. .

Which he is not.

Which is BS.

Which would only count if the gun is fired in low light and in plain sight of someone, as such it is irrelevant.

Which is a lie.

 

Really where is that happening?

Gun safety advocates are the old anti-gunners giving themselves a new label and who can believe anything uttered by someone who doesn't even know the correct term for the device.

 

And what about the sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier?

That is something which is just as loud as a muzzle blast and cannot be suppressed.

 

I call BS on gun shills who claim they have a constitutional right to own a suppressor.

No citizen has such a right.

 

Have you ever actually heard the sound of a nailgun? Specifically in an enclosed location?

In the case of headphones, the ones on the current market are designed to achieve near-total sound deprivation to the outside world. Sound suppressors on firearms do not achieve such.

 

And those who were present for the Las Vegas incident thought they were hearing firecrackers when Steven Paddock was shooting at them, as even when they were being shot at they still did not know what was going on until those around them started dying.

 

Such is not working in the state of California. Why would it actually serve to work any better in the state of Virginia?

 

That is an almost universal observation of witnesses of shootings in an unexpected context. Most of those that decry the dangers of firearm suppression have never heard suppressed gun fire in real life, but are assuming the Hollywood depictions as reality, which is a far cry from the sound of a suppressed .45 cal pistol.
When I was in my early teens in The North of Ireland, I too believed Hollywood’s depictions. Having access to a machine shop, I made several prototypes using depictions from the Anarchist Cookbook in an attempt to ‘silence’ a .22cal pistol I had. Several attempts, both dry and wet, large cans and small... I kept trying because, even with a .22 cal, I couldn’t achieve the Hollywood magic, even with .22 short rounds. I was frustrated... how could Hollywood be wrong?
I have since, over the past 40 years, had the opportunity in the US to shoot several legally owned cans with weapons ranging from .22 to .45 to .308, and not one proved to be anywhere near Hollywood quiet. Strange.
Why is it people push Hollywood reality as a basis for developing law?

 

Another thread showing the amount of ignorance required to be anti-gun.