Morning funny - liberal analysis on the HPA

[Sam1]

LOL

" Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-nra-wants-to-suppress-one-of-guns-most-important-safety-features/2017/01/22/5a7140fc-dcd7-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

 

[DaveTN]

For those of you in the know; has there ever been a vote on Federal legislation specific to suppressors?

If so, what was the outcome?

[monkeylizard]

I can't say that I necessarily disagree with the author's two main points.

1. The report of the firearm does alert others in the area to the firearm being used, and that's good for avoiding hunters, criminals, and terrorists.
2. The scarcity of suppressors has likely been a key factor in their limited use in crimes.

I know that cans are relatively simple to make. I don't know why we don't have more illegal suppressors out there being used by criminals. If we did, it would be a slam-dunk case to remove them from the NFA because it would be clear it isn't working. The author is assuming that the scarcity comes directly because of the NFA. As it stands now, it's hard to say if that's true or if it's because criminals are too stupid to make them.

Edited January 23, 2017 by monkeylizard

[Omega]

5 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

I can't say that I necessarily disagree with the author's two main points.

1. The report of the firearm does alert others in the area to the firearm being used, and that's good for avoiding hunters, criminals, and terrorists.
2. The scarcity of suppressors has likely been a key factor in their limited use in crimes, and that the scarcity comes directly because of the NFA.

I know that cans are relatively simple to make. I don't know why we don't have more illegal suppressors out there being used by criminals. If we did, it would be a slam-dunk case to remove them from the NFA because it would be clear it isn't working. As it stands now, it's hard to say if suppressors are rarely used in crimes because the NFA works, or because criminals are too stupid to make them.

You don't see more suppressors being used because they are not "silent".  Most killings are not professional hit jobs, so while some have used pillows and the like to muffle the sound of gunfire most don't bother.  Also, who here will be using a suppressor on their CCW EDC?  I am sure some will try, but most do not want the extra length on an EDC.

[monkeylizard]

True. A can does make it harder to shove that High Point down a pair of jeans that are already around the knees.

[Randall53]

34 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

I can't say that I necessarily disagree with the author's two main points.

1. The report of the firearm does alert others in the area to the firearm being used, and that's good for avoiding hunters, criminals, and terrorists.
2. The scarcity of suppressors has likely been a key factor in their limited use in crimes.

I know that cans are relatively simple to make. I don't know why we don't have more illegal suppressors out there being used by criminals. If we did, it would be a slam-dunk case to remove them from the NFA because it would be clear it isn't working. The author is assuming that the scarcity comes directly because of the NFA. As it stands now, it's hard to say if that's true or if it's because criminals are too stupid to make them.

If they could make one that would double as a crack or meth pipe most all of them would own one.....

Edited January 23, 2017 by Randall53