Story Here For those who haven't already heard this is a bill to remove sound suppressors (commonly called silencers) from the National Firearms Act. Right now to own a suppressor you have to fill out some government paperwork and pay a $200 registration fee. By removing it from the NFA you can just walk into a gun store, pay cash, and walk out. Contrary to popular belief a suppressor doesn't make a gun completely silent. It drastically lowers the noise which can help protect your hearing. It still makes noise though.
That's a movement that's been rising from the grass roots for years. If suppressors were not restricted then the cost and size would drop drastically and every military rifle would have one. One of the biggest problems with military personnel is hearing loss, in combat few wear ear protection and suffer the resulting hearing loss. A suppressor on every weapon would help. You are correct, suppressors are not silencers, its not like in the movies were all you hear is a little "pfft". There is no reason these should be restricted - its just the paranoia of the banners.
I doubt the NFA is the reason the military doesn't put suppressors on their rifles. The M4 carbine is full auto capable and qualifies as an SBR.
Its a factor. If suppressors were not restricted then the market would be huge, market forces would provide tremendous incentive to reduce the cost and size and increase the life of the device. Imagine a $20 suppressor the size of the typical muzzle brake / flash hider, it could (and should) be standard on every rifle.
If I'm not mistaken hasn't the military had contracts with a few different companies to manufacture the M4? A free market would be a big help, but if the military really wanted suppressors they would still contract someone to develop and manufacture one.
suppressors were part of the items the FDR turds tried to ban with prohibitive (200 dollars was more than a month's wages for skilled laborers in 1934). they were added because some game wardens claimed-without ANY proof-that POACHERS might use suppressors to poach deer during the Depression
I'm sure they could if they really wanted one, it doesn't seem to be very important to the bean counters (and if they did it might not be so low cost). If suppressors were not restricted then overnight millions of people would be interested, and companies would be free to pursue the market as they see fit.
If I recall if the $200 tax were adjusted for inflation it would now be over $3,000. I'm glad they never did that adjustment though someday I expect that to change. Part of the reason suppressors are so expensive is because not only the $200 tax stamp to buy/transfer one, but an additional $200 to actually manufacture each one. The military would be exempt from those taxes or they would pay them and the ATF gives that money back. Given government bureaucracy neither one would surprise me. I do agree that removing them from the NFA and opening the market will drastically decrease the price though which is a huge benefit for the average joe.
Many nations actually require suppressors be used, so as to prevent hearing injuries and noise pollution. It just makes sense. Suppressors aren't much use for crime anyway. They don't suppress the sound like gun grabbers think. Unless you use subsonic ammunition, you'll still require ear protection. It also makes a gun much less concealable. The trade off is almost never worth it for criminal purposes. Not to mention, using a suppressor is an almost guaranteed ticket to First Degree Murder, since it's fairly ironclad evidence of premeditation. The grabbers always go after guns which are never used criminally. They can't ban Glock 17's, so they go after suppressors, SBRs, MSRs, concealed carry, etc. It's as if they're targeting non-criminals.
They are targeting non-criminals. Most of these people are anti-gun for whatever reason. While they're arguing against the need for guns, or the dangers of guns, or of guns falling into "criminal" hands, in the same breath they are saying that criminals don't really want to hurt anyone, you should just hand over what you own to them, and they're just "misunderstood". What else could you call someone's twisted mind that thinks guns are bad but criminals are not that big a deal.
people who are angry that gun owners and the NRA were big reasons for Gore and Kerry losing and for Harry Reid not being senate majority leader
The gun prohibitionists focus on weapons that are used in less than 2% of crimes instead of handguns which are used in some 77% of crimes. They do not care about preventing crime.
Well, basically speaking, they are just exhibiting predator behavior. You don't attack the main part of the herd as a predator. You target the stragglers. The gun control folks know that they can't get a ban on typical hunting weapons and quality handguns. For a while, they went after Saturday night specials, then assault rifles, in the 30s, they went after machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and supressors. THey were just targeting the stragglers. And were succeeding for a while.
Do criminals get their hands on NFA weapons/items illegally? How many crimes are committed with suppressed firearms? None? Close to it? There you go.
Because some dude shooting another in a bar fight with a .380 Jimenez is of no national attention. Now take a supposed AR15 and kill a few people watching a movie. Well now you have something to squawk about.
That's because banning handguns violates the constitution - period. This forces them to go for the low-hanging fruit.
It has more to do with scare factor than anything else. If you want to get rid of guns, your poster boy for gun control regulations are going to be the scariest ones you can find. At one point they were parading .50 cal Barretts saying they could shoot incendiary ammo capable of both killing something and cooking it at the same time. Honest to God, that was the garbage spewing out of their mouths. As if roving gangs of Boy Scouts, Tea Party members and NRA staff are roaming the countryside with 30 pound weapons hoping to kill someone and cook them at the same time. Cause cannabalism n stuff.
They don't care about preventing crime or violent crime they are interested in GUN crime. If guns are removed and violent crime doubled they would call it a victory because gun crime was eliminated. It doesn't matter if stabbings more than make up for the decrease in shootings. Because they were stabbed instead of shot it's still a victory.
No they wouldn't. Think about it, if every rifle, machine gun, etc. were to have a suppressor on the battlefield. It's bad enough when you can't see the enemy but even worse if you can't hear the enemy. Read an old U.S. Army study or more as a debate conducted by the Army during WW ll. The conclusion was if "White Army" were to have their infantry equipped with "silencers," "Blue army" is very likely to do the same. As a soldier or even as a deer hunter, I like to know when someone is close to me if they are firing their weapon. I concur. What the U.S. military discovered that using cotton for ear protection doesn't work on the rifle range. And you can't use ear protection on the battlefield, you have to be able to hear what is happening around you. Just recently it was noticed that millions of veterans in their 50's and 60's who are showing up at doctors offices all across the nation complaining about a continuous ringing or buzzing in their years. It happened to me four of five years ago. One of the first things I was asked, did you serve in the military ? Did they have you use cotton as a ear protection while on the range ? I was diagnose with tinnitus. The cause, being around rifle fire, artillery, aircraft and not having ear protection. This isn't good news for the VA and the American tax payers. The damage was done back in 1969 - 1971 and it took over forty years before it hit me. 98% of the time I don't even notice the buzzing in my ears. Any civilian who does a lot of recreational shooting without proper ear protection could find it coming back to haunt them forty or fifty years in the future. Back too silencers: excerpt:
It would be quieter, not silent. And as always when changes are made there will be unexpected consequences - some good, some bad.
A lot of people want hunters required to use them. They don't silence firearms, but rather reduce the extreme sound and the distance it will travel. Unless a small caliber, long barrel and sub-sonic round a "silenced" firearm is still very loud.
