Suggestion for compromise gun legislation

Firearm safety is learned before you learn to shoot. By the time a person steps up to actually shoot a firearm the safety should be second nature.

At a range it doesn't do any good for your firearm to have a suppressor while the other shooters at the range don't.

I've never claimed that suppressors should be on some kind of weapon of mass destruction control list. I'm looking for a reason why anyone seriously needs one to begin with. Arguing "I need one because I want one" isn't much of an argument. They can be used for nefarious purposes, although they typically aren't, but the "I need one because I want one" argument doesn't float.

 

One shot of a large magnum can hurt your ears, and some of us hunt more than once a year and in successive years where damage accumulates.

You're free to use one or not. I would like to have the same set up practicing that I'd use for shooting, as removing the can for hunting would chain point of impact.

There is no logical reason to have supressors restricted by NFA 1934.

 

Thanks for teaching me about firearm safety, what do I know.

If suppressors were easy to get, guess what most people would do. Guess what most ranges would rent. Guess how long it would take manufacturers to start selling more handguns with threaded barrels.

You clearly don't know much about suppressors based on your last paragraph.

 

Here's a compromise, gun grabbers shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up and government prosecute those who have actually perpetrated violence against others.

 

Or we could just pass more gun control

 

Anything "could". Have fun with that.

 

We just did in my state. Lol

 

that's nice

 

Thanks. I agree

 

And the sole reason for them being regulated in the first place is revenue generation.

Anyone wishing to legally own a sound suppressor must pay the federal government the sum of two hundred dollars for the paperwork to make the ownership and acquisition of a single sound suppressor legal. If someone wishes to own ten different sound suppressors for ten different firearms, that is two thousand dollars in fees, just for the paperwork that is involved in the legal acquisition.

It has nothing to do with public safety, or any other matter related to such. It is purely about revenue generation.

 

That is simply your opinion. Nothing more

 

true NOW-at the beginning it was designed to ban them from being owned by anyone but the favored elite. In the 30s those things cost a few dollars and the tax was more than an average skilled worker made in a month

 

Not true, the evidence is that people were not getting shot with suppressed firearms. You know it because you can't provide proof that it was a problem....... Fact, not opinion.

 

what a silly argument. His opinion is correct. Its a revenue function. See opinions' merit are based on the expertise of the poster. Xenamnes has proven he understands the topic. So his opinions are valued by those of us who actually understand this topic. Those who don't understand the topic but still utter opinions, certainly have the right to do so but we have the right to note their opinions are worthless

 

You have had many years to deregulate. Many politicians must be against it. I agree with them

 

And now that they got what they wanted, they will proceed to go after more, and more, and more......

 

I completely disagree

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it is the only way

 

They have bigger fish to fry.

 

Then you are willing to support ridiculousness, simply for the sake of supporting something?

Obviously you have been engaging in intellectual dishonesty with your claims as having twenty five years of experience in the field of psychological health. What you are describing is psychological illness.

 

It is the only way..... If your goal is banning firearms, not reducing gun violence stats.

 

The use of sound suppressors for hunting is for being courteous to those who are around, and within earshot of the round being discharged.

- - - Updated - - -

You are aware that a great many police officers engage in reckless and dangerous behavior with loaded firearms, correct?

 

One leads to the other. Compromise is not possible

 

Compromise is not wanted by anti gun politicians. They want an eventual gun ban. IF that wasn't the case, then compromise could be possible.

 

And what compromise would that be?

 

That is because the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives opposes the loss of two hundred dollars for allowing someone to legally purchase a sound suppressor.

How is public safety enhanced by requiring someone who already legally owns a sound suppressor, to pay another two hundred dollars for each subsequent sound suppressor they may wish to own?