52 replies to this topic

[Buckfarrack]

silence is goldenbutLOUD PIPES SAVES LIFESis still debatable.

[TFC]

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

[abolt243]

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

ANd when that person is caught abusing it, he/she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  That still doesn't justify not allowing me to use it in a lawful manner.

[TFC]

abolt243, on 19 February 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

ANd when that person is caught abusing it, he/she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  That still doesn't justify not allowing me to use it in a lawful manner.

Doesn't always work out that way. And the victim won't be any less dead wounded or maimed. In this firearms case, prevention WILL make a difference. At the very least a senior officer should issue them and sign off on their use. Unless the blue wall slams down. Then no one will ever know justice.

[abolt243]

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

abolt243, on 19 February 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

ANd when that person is caught abusing it, he/she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  That still doesn't justify not allowing me to use it in a lawful manner.

Doesn't always work out that way. And the victim won't be any less dead wounded or maimed. In this firearms case, prevention WILL make a difference. At the very least a senior officer should issue them and sign off on their use. Unless the blue wall slams down. Then no one will ever know justice.

Are you listening to yourself??  Those are the same arguments that the antis use when arguing against allowing "civilian" ownership of firearms.

[Bud]

Anyone that has ever used a silencer would know the value to anyone that shoots.

A silencer on a firearm is the exact same thing as a muffler on a car/truck/motorcycle/tractor/boat.

There is no misuse of a silencer possible.

What would a silencer do? not much unless someone pulls the trigger of the firearm where it is attached.

The silencer doesn't commit any crimes, it has no moving parts. The only thing that a silencer does is provide a mistaken belief by Hollywood trained gun experts that it is an assassin tool.

I bet not one, not single one, of the sixty odd people shot and killed in Chicagio since January 1, 2012 was killed with a silencer equipped firearm.

But I bet a whole heck of a lot of innocent people damaged their hearing by using a non-silencer equipped firearm since January 1, 2012.

[Buzzard]

BudMan5, on 19 February 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Anyone that has ever used a silencer would know the value to anyone that shoots.

A silencer on a firearm is the exact same thing as a muffler on a car/truck/motorcycle/tractor/boat.

There is no misuse of a silencer possible.

What would a silencer do? not much unless someone pulls the trigger of the firearm where it is attached.

The silencer doesn't commit any crimes, it has no moving parts. The only thing that a silencer does is provide a mistaken belief by Hollywood trained gun experts that it is an assassin tool.

I bet not one, not single one, of the sixty odd people shot and killed in Chicagio since January 1, 2012 was killed with a silencer equipped firearm.

But I bet a whole heck of a lot of innocent people damaged their hearing by using a non-silencer equipped firearm since January 1, 2012.

There you go!

The people that make suppressors (aka silencers) ILLEGAL ----

have only the word of Chicago anti-gun politicians ----

and old James Bond movies to go on.

Thanks for speaking up, Budman!!

[TFC]

It seems that the statements have been smeared somewhat.
If they're going to be legal for SWAT/IRT/HBT, then make them legal for everyone. Not just for select members of select societies.
These devices will be abused. Like anything else.

No, there should be no unlimited firearms acquisition. I've always wanted a B-40, but hey... they make people nervous.... even me.
I can't seem to get my hands on a Paris gun, though it would look really cool on my lawn.
Besides being incredibly dangerous, they're not exactly practical.

But if you feel you need an M-4 or a BAR or a Thompson (my fave, btw) to defend your home, then by all means, you should be able to get one.

But I still don't see the need for a suppressor/silencer the hands of non military personnel.

[papa]

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

It seems that the statements have been smeared somewhat.
If they're going to be legal for SWAT/IRT/HBT, then make them legal for everyone. Not just for select members of select societies.
These devices will be abused. Like anything else.

No, there should be no unlimited firearms acquisition. I've always wanted a B-40, but hey... they make people nervous.... even me.
I can't seem to get my hands on a Paris gun, though it would look really cool on my lawn.
Besides being incredibly dangerous, they're not exactly practical.

But if you feel you need an M-4 or a BAR or a Thompson (my fave, btw) to defend your home, then by all means, you should be able to get one.

But I still don't see the need for a suppressor/silencer the hands of non military personnel.

I guess you have data , from the ( 39 ) states where suppressors are legal , that shows the common citizen committing heinous crimes with their suppressors?

How is owning a suppressor any different than owning a 30 round magazine VS. a 10 rounder ....

I know several people who have hunted and or owned rifles and shotguns all their lives but they see no reason for anyone to own an AR or an AK semi auto. They use the same argument ...there's just no reason anyone needs one.

[Buzzard]

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

But if you feel you need an M-4 or a BAR or a Thompson (my fave, btw) to defend your home, then by all means, you should be able to get one.

Thanks, I'd love an authentic, funtioning Thompson MG with the case.

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

But I still don't see the need for a suppressor/silencer the hands of non military personnel.

So I can have a Thompson . . . but not a supressor?

[abolt243]

papa, on 19 February 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

It seems that the statements have been smeared somewhat.
If they're going to be legal for SWAT/IRT/HBT, then make them legal for everyone. Not just for select members of select societies.
These devices will be abused. Like anything else.

No, there should be no unlimited firearms acquisition. I've always wanted a B-40, but hey... they make people nervous.... even me.
I can't seem to get my hands on a Paris gun, though it would look really cool on my lawn.
Besides being incredibly dangerous, they're not exactly practical.

But if you feel you need an M-4 or a BAR or a Thompson (my fave, btw) to defend your home, then by all means, you should be able to get one.

But I still don't see the need for a suppressor/silencer the hands of non military personnel.

I guess you have data , from the ( 39 ) states where suppressors are legal , that shows the common citizen committing heinous crimes with their suppressors?

How is owning a suppressor any different than owning a 30 round magazine VS. a 10 rounder ....

I know several people who have hunted and or owned rifles and shotguns all their lives but they see no reason for anyone to own an AR or an AK semi auto. They use the same argument ...there's just no reason anyone needs one.

I think he's saying that the LEO's will abuse them.  So, I'm sure that he has data to prove that they have been abused in states where they are approved for LEO use.

The whole concept of an inanimate, THING being, as he says, "incredibly dangerous", escapes me.

[Indigo]

papa, on 19 February 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

I know several people who have hunted and or owned rifles and shotguns all their lives but they see no reason for anyone to own an AR or an AK semi auto. They use the same argument ...there's just no reason anyone needs one.

Yeah, there's no reason for anyone to have an "EVIL BLACK RIFLE", or the "GODLESS COMMUNIST" equivalent. NOT.

And those same people who hunt with Winchesters or Remingtons or Savages, etc.  have no idea that their favorite deer rifle is the direct lineal descendent of the "evil black rifle" equivalent of the 19th and 20th centuries.

[drdoom]

"But I still don't see the need for a suppressor/silencer the hands of non military personnel."


A suppressed firearm is better than ear-muffs and not to mention, there is no muzzle flash. Once I'm out of state next year, I guess I'll join the ranks of those 'evil' people who own suppressed firearms, I mean, I'm ONLY paying a $200 transfer tax to the ATF, dealing with a background check AND waiting 30 days to possess said AWC Amphibian Stainless MK II. There may not be a need for YOU to own, possess and use a suppressed firearm, but then again this is a free country right? I might balk at the prospect of my neighbor having a 46" plasma tv, with the proper sound systems, and say it's a bit overkill for what he needs to watch a movie, then again, everyone's definition of 'need' varies. Suppressed firearms are ideal if you're going to be shooting in doors (especially in self-defense, would YOU like to fire a .45 with NO hearing protection on, in your house?)

Edited by drdoom, 20 February 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[willxjcherokee]

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

Same can be said for ALL guns...

Do you think only the military should own "scary assault rifles"

[LPD5408]

I support the military, but it's not like they never do anything stupid. There is stupid in every profession.

[TFC]

willxjcherokee, on 20 February 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

TFC, on 19 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

A silencer is just a tool. And like so many tools, it's only a matter of time before some one is caught abusing it.
No I'm not a fan of silencers in the hands of a civilian...by civilian I mean non military.

Same can be said for ALL guns...

Do you think only the military should own "scary assault rifles"

Part of any deterrence is fear. If you think having the biggest, meanest ugliest battle rifle you can get your hands on will keep you safe, then go for it. I plan to get a new M-14 the first chance that I get.
The scarier and uglier the better.
Oh... and don't condescend. It doesn't help the discussion. Nor does pushing a discussion into a pointless argument. We're not in middle school. Lets not act like it.

[Yas]

Some valid points made for officers and repetitive hearing damage over the years, but The argument seems kind of moot when you discuss the matter of 12 gauge door breaching rounds.  Thats not going to be silenced like hollywood movies.   What are they going to do ?  Sneak in thru unlocked back doors all the time?  A lot of this silencer issue is just coolness toy factor for the teams.

  Lets see how tightly the SP control these items from walking off or fake letterhead purchase orders get generated.  There were a few officers that got automatic weapons on fake paper work a few years ago.

[citrix_guy]

Buzzard, on 19 February 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

BudMan5, on 19 February 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Anyone that has ever used a silencer would know the value to anyone that shoots.

A silencer on a firearm is the exact same thing as a muffler on a car/truck/motorcycle/tractor/boat.

There is no misuse of a silencer possible.

What would a silencer do? not much unless someone pulls the trigger of the firearm where it is attached.

The silencer doesn't commit any crimes, it has no moving parts. The only thing that a silencer does is provide a mistaken belief by Hollywood trained gun experts that it is an assassin tool.

I bet not one, not single one, of the sixty odd people shot and killed in Chicagio since January 1, 2012 was killed with a silencer equipped firearm.

But I bet a whole heck of a lot of innocent people damaged their hearing by using a non-silencer equipped firearm since January 1, 2012.

There you go!

The people that make suppressors (aka silencers) ILLEGAL ----

have only the word of Chicago anti-gun politicians ----

and old James Bond movies to go on.

Thanks for speaking up, Budman!!

Thank god you brought this up!

Suppressor is just a muffler. They get a bad name/image from the "bad guy" in a movie screwing it on for the silent hit.

After using one in the military I would LOVE to have them now for all my weapons. Even in European countries they are encouraged for hunters!  

Here is the thing. They will save your ears. I wear double protection every sunday when I shoot. If I had a good suppressor on my pistol I may not even go with single...

These laws are f'n stupid.

[citrix_guy]

Most people popping off their mouth about this topics have never used a suppressor.  

If you had, you would begin to understand its like having a motor with no mufflers or pipes reving in your garage vs a car with full mufflers just running.

they are great accessories that really help when you want to do a lot of shooting.

[chip]

citrix_guy, on 21 February 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

Most people popping off their mouth about this topics have never used a suppressor.  

If you had, you would begin to understand its like having a motor with no mufflers or pipes reving in your garage vs a car with full mufflers just running.

they are great accessories that really help when you want to do a lot of shooting.

Exactly...they're an accessory. A suppressor is no more evil or dangerous than an adjustable stock or a pistol grip on a rifle. They only have benefits, but are thought of by many as evil, because a bad guy in a Hollywood movie used one. Suppressors don't commit any more crimes than do firearms, cars, or baseball bats. CRIMINALS commit crimes...not inanimate objects. If you want to ban every inanimate object that has been used by a criminal, you'd find yourself sitting naked in a room with no furniture.

[Stavros31]

TFC, on 20 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Part of any deterrence is fear. If you think having the biggest, meanest ugliest battle rifle you can get your hands on will keep you safe, then go for it. I plan to get a new M-14 the first chance that I get.
The scarier and uglier the better.
Oh... and don't condescend. It doesn't help the discussion. Nor does pushing a discussion into a pointless argument. We're not in middle school. Lets not act like it.

m14 huh?

[TFC]

Stavros31, on 24 February 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

TFC, on 20 February 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Part of any deterrence is fear. If you think having the biggest, meanest ugliest battle rifle you can get your hands on will keep you safe, then go for it. I plan to get a new M-14 the first chance that I get.
The scarier and uglier the better.
Oh... and don't condescend. It doesn't help the discussion. Nor does pushing a discussion into a pointless argument. We're not in middle school. Lets not act like it.

m14 huh?

That's my baby...
She should shout when the trigger is pulled, not whisper.

[fubarud]

Joeyl, on 13 February 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

samy12386, on 13 February 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:

Joeyl, on 13 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I think it's a good idea. Shows a need to easily protect from the potential hearing damage of legally firing a firearm indoors.

Yeah great idea keep arming cops better than us.....

I don't see it as an arms race between leo's and law abiding citizens. I see it as a really really uptight state loosening up a little bit, even if it doesn't affect the average guy for now.

Unless Quinn and Rahm are going to personally come and confiscate our guns, then it is a arms race.