On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:18:01 PM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Try again liar;

when was the lst time you went deer hunting?

when was the last time you went deer hunting with a suppressor?


If you think GUN DIGEST is lying, take it up with them.

Suppressor Hunting: The Sweet Silent Woods

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/supp...t-silent-woods

Joe Metzger and his hunting guide spotted the elk herd in a small canyon, just below a ridgeline, near Craig, Colo. There were about 15 bulls and cows milling around and feeding. Using boulders for cover, Metzger and his guide got to within 220 yards of the elk. Metzger had a cow tag. Selecting a yearling cow, he lined up the crosshairs on his custom .308 bolt-action rifle and squeezed off a shot.
Providing reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photoProviding reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photo

The young elk reared up on her back legs for a moment and then fell over backwards, sliding down the snow-covered slope. The other elk were momentarily startled, jumped a bit, looked around but within a minute went back to feeding.

€œIf thered been another hunter with me, he couldve filled his tag, too,€� says Metzger. "

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:18:01 PM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Try again liar;

when was the lst time you went deer hunting?

when was the last time you went deer hunting with a suppressor?


If you think GUN DIGEST is lying, take it up with them.

Suppressor Hunting: The Sweet Silent Woods

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/supp...t-silent-woods

Joe Metzger and his hunting guide spotted the elk herd in a small canyon, just below a ridgeline, near Craig, Colo. There were about 15 bulls and cows milling around and feeding. Using boulders for cover, Metzger and his guide got to within 220 yards of the elk. Metzger had a cow tag. Selecting a yearling cow, he lined up the
crosshairs on his custom .308 bolt-action rifle and squeezed off a shot.
Providing reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photoProviding reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photo

The young elk reared up on her back legs for a moment and then fell over backwards, sliding down the snow-covered slope. The other elk were momentarily startled, jumped a bit, looked around but within a minute went back to feeding.

€œIf thered been another hunter with me, he couldve filled his tag, too,€� says Metzger. "

Do you think the people bragging about how well their suppressor works
lie too? The 130dB comes right from their marketing literature.
If you can't hear 130 dB, you have been shooting without hearing
suppression too long.
Maybe the anti-gun community is just dumb enough to think that
knocking 20-30dB off of a muzzle blast of 160 dB is "silent" but it is
just not so. The fact that an elk is not alarmed by a 130dB report
from almost 700 feet away is not really that important.
It is interesting that if I said loud pipes save bikers, you would
take the other side and tell us straight pipe Harleys were a public
nuisance.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:18:01 PM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Try again liar;

when was the lst time you went deer hunting?

when was the last time you went deer hunting with a suppressor?


If you think GUN DIGEST is lying, take it up with them.

Suppressor Hunting: The Sweet Silent Woods

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/supp...t-silent-woods

Joe Metzger and his hunting guide spotted the elk herd in a small canyon, just below a ridgeline, near Craig, Colo. There were about 15 bulls and cows milling around and feeding. Using boulders for cover, Metzger and his guide got to within 220 yards of the elk. Metzger had a cow tag. Selecting a yearling cow, he lined up the
crosshairs on his custom .308 bolt-action rifle and squeezed off a shot.
Providing reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photoProviding reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photo

The young elk reared up on her back legs for a moment and then fell over backwards, sliding down the snow-covered slope. The other elk were momentarily startled, jumped a bit, looked around but within a minute went back to feeding.

€œIf thered been another hunter with me, he couldve filled his tag, too,€� says Metzger. "

Do you think the people bragging about how well their suppressor works
lie too? The 130dB comes right from their marketing literature.
If you can't hear 130 dB, you have been shooting without hearing
suppression too long.
Maybe the anti-gun community is just dumb enough to think that
knocking 20-30dB off of a muzzle blast of 160 dB is "silent" but it is
just not so. The fact that an elk is not alarmed by a 130dB report
from almost 700 feet away is not really that important.
It is interesting that if I said loud pipes save bikers, you would
take the other side and tell us straight pipe Harleys were a public
nuisance.

Actually we had that argument here a few months ago and I said that
I believe loud pipes can save lives. The issue, like with most things,
is striking a balance. Straight pipes are a public nuisance. But
there is a lot of room between the sound of stock pipes and the sound
of straight pipes. I also have to say again, that I don't see anyone
here claiming that a gun with a silencer, especially a high power
rifle, is silent, only that they will make substantially less noise.
I do think trying to make silencers more available and less expensive,
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

On 10/4/2017 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

[snip]
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

I don't expect what I say to change your mind so I'm not preaching to
you but merely pointing out my thoughts.

Until and unless we as a society decided to enforce the laws already on
the books, nothing will change. NOTHING! You can enact all the laws
you want or feel necessary, but if you don't enforce them, you're only
kidding yourself.

Would you agree with me that Chicago is one of the most violence prone
cities in the country. On their way to set another record year for
shootings and killings?

Would you also agree that Illinois in general and Chicago/Cook County in
particular have some of the toughest gun laws (common sense or
otherwise) in the country?

We have the laws, what we do not have is enforcement (meaning judicial
action taken against CONVICTED offenders).

Until just recently, residents of Illinois were not permitted Concealed
Carry.

Since ~ 1968, anyone purchasing a firearm or ammunition in this state
had to submit to a background check and possess a valid Firearm Owner's
Identification (this included law enforcement officers).

Since that same time, purchasers of handguns had to wait 72 hours from
time of purchase to when they could pick up the gun. Purchasers of long
guns had to wait 24 hours.

In Illinois ANY crime committed while in possession of a firearm will
bring enhanced penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, etc.

The courts and prosecutors routinely side step these sentencing
requirements by cutting deals to avoid conviction of the actual offense
which would require such sentencing.

Is there any reason to believe that MORE laws, MORE harsh sentencing
would change any of this?

Go back and reread my second paragraph, above.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 10/4/2017 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

[snip]
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

I don't expect what I say to change your mind so I'm not preaching to
you but merely pointing out my thoughts.

Until and unless we as a society decided to enforce the laws already on
the books, nothing will change. NOTHING! You can enact all the laws
you want or feel necessary, but if you don't enforce them, you're only
kidding yourself.

I agree, not all the gun laws are being enforced, but most of them are.
Must we have 100% enforcement in order to close glaring loopholes?
What exactly is the undue burden of requiring a federal background
check before the private sale of a gun?





Would you agree with me that Chicago is one of the most violence prone
cities in the country. On their way to set another record year for
shootings and killings?

Yes.




Would you also agree that Illinois in general and Chicago/Cook County in
particular have some of the toughest gun laws (common sense or
otherwise) in the country?

Yes, but a big part of the problem is that other states allow very
easy purchase of multiple firearms. There are people buying them
in those states and then they wind up used in Chicago. A uniform,
moderate gun law across all of the US would be better than tough
gun laws in just some states and cities.




We have the laws, what we do not have is enforcement (meaning judicial
action taken against CONVICTED offenders).

You do in some cities. NYC for example. I agree, that there should
be tougher enforcement, tougher penalties in Chicago and it's a disgrace
that Raum Emanuel and the police chief aren't cracking down.




Until just recently, residents of Illinois were not permitted Concealed
Carry.

Since ~ 1968, anyone purchasing a firearm or ammunition in this state
had to submit to a background check and possess a valid Firearm Owner's
Identification (this included law enforcement officers).

And yet in other states, if it's a private sale, no such check is
required. Are you opposed to closing that loophole?




Since that same time, purchasers of handguns had to wait 72 hours from
time of purchase to when they could pick up the gun. Purchasers of long
guns had to wait 24 hours.

In Illinois ANY crime committed while in possession of a firearm will
bring enhanced penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, etc.

The courts and prosecutors routinely side step these sentencing
requirements by cutting deals to avoid conviction of the actual offense
which would require such sentencing.

Is there any reason to believe that MORE laws, MORE harsh sentencing
would change any of this?

Go back and reread my second paragraph, above.

I didn't advocate changing anything in states that already require
a check against the federal database. I simply said it should be
applied to private sales. Right now, in many states, if you buy
a gun from a private seller, including guys who show up at gun
fests to sell a dozen of them, you don't get run against the fed
database. Yet if you bought a gun from a dealer, it's required.
Why is the NRA and similar opposed to that? One day soon there
will be a mass shooting like this one where it turns out the gun
was purchased by a felon from a private seller, with no background
check. Why does the NRA want to see that happen? It's such
an extreme burden to have the seller meet the buyer at a FFL and
have them run through the federal check? I sold a gun a few months
ago, and that's how I did it, through the local FFL. It's required
by law here in NJ, but even if it was not, I would not want it on
my conscience that I sold a gun to someone with no check, they
later went out and killed someone and it turned out they were on
the federal no-buy list.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:19:11 PM UTC-4, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
On 10/4/2017 11:03 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

[snip]
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

I don't expect what I say to change your mind so I'm not preaching to
you but merely pointing out my thoughts.

Until and unless we as a society decided to enforce the laws already on
the books, nothing will change. NOTHING! You can enact all the laws
you want or feel necessary, but if you don't enforce them, you're only
kidding yourself.

I agree, not all the gun laws are being enforced, but most of them are.
Must we have 100% enforcement in order to close glaring loopholes?
What exactly is the undue burden of requiring a federal background
check before the private sale of a gun?

As I said earlier, there is nothing preventing someone from going to
an FFL to do a background check now but if they don't want to, there
is no way to make them do it, law or not.



Would you also agree that Illinois in general and Chicago/Cook County in
particular have some of the toughest gun laws (common sense or
otherwise) in the country?

Yes, but a big part of the problem is that other states allow very
easy purchase of multiple firearms. There are people buying them
in those states and then they wind up used in Chicago. A uniform,
moderate gun law across all of the US would be better than tough
gun laws in just some states and cities.


Nobody has explained how that helps. If you are talking about
criminals, they break laws by definition. The underlying business in
most of these inner city murders is the drug trade and that is illegal
from top to bottom, involving a product that is regulated in every way
possible. Yet they still get all they need. How would you stop them
from getting guns?
If you are talking about otherwise law abiding people who just go nuts
like the guy in Vegas, he would pass all of the background checks, as
this guy did.


We have the laws, what we do not have is enforcement (meaning judicial
action taken against CONVICTED offenders).

You do in some cities. NYC for example. I agree, that there should
be tougher enforcement, tougher penalties in Chicago and it's a disgrace
that Raum Emanuel and the police chief aren't cracking down.

ATF has also been toothless. If these guns are coming from out of
state the whole transaction was illegal but we are not hearing about a
lot of federal prosecutions.


Until just recently, residents of Illinois were not permitted Concealed
Carry.

Since ~ 1968, anyone purchasing a firearm or ammunition in this state
had to submit to a background check and possess a valid Firearm Owner's
Identification (this included law enforcement officers).

And yet in other states, if it's a private sale, no such check is
required. Are you opposed to closing that loophole?


If the buyer is from out of state the whole transaction is already
illegal (handguns) as is the transport across a state line of that
illegally purchased gun.
Do you think one more count on a law they have already broken a couple
times will make the difference.

On 10/4/2017 12:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:


Until and unless we as a society decided to enforce the laws already on
the books, nothing will change.Â* NOTHING!Â* You can enact all the laws
you want or feel necessary, but if you don't enforce them, you're only
kidding yourself.



We have the laws, what we do not have is enforcement (meaning judicial
action taken against CONVICTED offenders).


The hotel had a sign posted forbidding firearms. That alone should have
stopped this from happening.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:03:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Do you think the people bragging about how well their suppressor works
lie too? The 130dB comes right from their marketing literature.
If you can't hear 130 dB, you have been shooting without hearing
suppression too long.
Maybe the anti-gun community is just dumb enough to think that
knocking 20-30dB off of a muzzle blast of 160 dB is "silent" but it is
just not so. The fact that an elk is not alarmed by a 130dB report
from almost 700 feet away is not really that important.
It is interesting that if I said loud pipes save bikers, you would
take the other side and tell us straight pipe Harleys were a public
nuisance.

Actually we had that argument here a few months ago and I said that
I believe loud pipes can save lives. The issue, like with most things,
is striking a balance. Straight pipes are a public nuisance. But
there is a lot of room between the sound of stock pipes and the sound
of straight pipes. I also have to say again, that I don't see anyone
here claiming that a gun with a silencer, especially a high power
rifle, is silent, only that they will make substantially less noise.
I do think trying to make silencers more available and less expensive,
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

Why is making something more expensive a good thing again? The only
long range shooting we have had since the Texas clock tower and JFK
was by a millionaire.
I have still not heard a real reason why making guns a little quieter
is a bad thing. We have already established that they are not
"silent".
The fact that they were included in NFA34 was silly and perpetuating
that is even sillier. As has been pointed out, in most countries with
far stricter gun laws than the US, suppressors are not regulated.
The background check is another argument but if you are talking about
private transactions, the law is somewhat unenforceable anyway. If I
want to do a background check on a prospective buyer, I can go to just
about any FFL and do it. If I am a criminal and I don't want to do it,
who can stop me? Felons owning the gun is illegal in the first place.

BTW you would still need to do a background check to buy a suppressor
from a dealer with the proposed legislation.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:03:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 11:15:14 AM UTC-4, wrote:

Do you think the people bragging about how well their suppressor works
lie too? The 130dB comes right from their marketing literature.
If you can't hear 130 dB, you have been shooting without hearing
suppression too long.
Maybe the anti-gun community is just dumb enough to think that
knocking 20-30dB off of a muzzle blast of 160 dB is "silent" but it is
just not so. The fact that an elk is not alarmed by a 130dB report
from almost 700 feet away is not really that important.
It is interesting that if I said loud pipes save bikers, you would
take the other side and tell us straight pipe Harleys were a public
nuisance.

Actually we had that argument here a few months ago and I said that
I believe loud pipes can save lives. The issue, like with most things,
is striking a balance. Straight pipes are a public nuisance. But
there is a lot of room between the sound of stock pipes and the sound
of straight pipes. I also have to say again, that I don't see anyone
here claiming that a gun with a silencer, especially a high power
rifle, is silent, only that they will make substantially less noise.
I do think trying to make silencers more available and less expensive,
in an environment where there are mass shootings every year, is
incredibly tone deaf. And the same forces also refuse to close the
private sale loophole, which seems a very reasonable step to me.
They believe they should have the right to sell their gun over the
internet, to someone they just meet in a parking lot, or at a gun
show, no background check at all. That doesn't equate to responsible
gun ownership to me.

Why is making something more expensive a good thing again?

I didn't say making them more expensive was a good thing. Only that
making them cheaper and easier to obtain, particularly in the
environment we've seen in the last few years, seems incredibly tone
deaf and absurd. I guess this is on the NRA wishlist, it's probably
been sitting around waiting for the arrival of the GOP and Trump.

Speaking of Trump, I would not at all be surprised to see him flip
on gun control too, cut another deal with Pelosi and Schumer.
Would it surprise you?



The only
long range shooting we have had since the Texas clock tower and JFK
was by a millionaire.
I have still not heard a real reason why making guns a little quieter
is a bad thing. We have already established that they are not
"silent".
The fact that they were included in NFA34 was silly and perpetuating
that is even sillier. As has been pointed out, in most countries with
far stricter gun laws than the US, suppressors are not regulated.
The background check is another argument but if you are talking about
private transactions, the law is somewhat unenforceable anyway. If I
want to do a background check on a prospective buyer, I can go to just
about any FFL and do it. If I am a criminal and I don't want to do it,
who can stop me?

Who can stop you? The legal gun owner selling the weapon, who obeys
the law and does the sale only with a fed check. Right now you have
people selling guns "privately", which includes people who show up
a gun flea markets selling a dozen of them, who don't run a check
because there is no law requiring it. If there was a law and they
are those good, legal gun owners, then they would run the check.
And if they were at shows doing it and did not, they likely would
get busted.




Felons owning the gun is illegal in the first place.

Of course, but no one will know unless the fed background check
is run. Seems obvious to me.





BTW you would still need to do a background check to buy a suppressor
from a dealer with the proposed legislation.

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:06:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 12:31:46 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Why is making something more expensive a good thing again?

I didn't say making them more expensive was a good thing. Only that
making them cheaper and easier to obtain, particularly in the
environment we've seen in the last few years, seems incredibly tone
deaf and absurd. I guess this is on the NRA wishlist, it's probably
been sitting around waiting for the arrival of the GOP and Trump.

Isn't that the same thing? You are arguing about cost.
This idea has actually been around for decades.

Speaking of Trump, I would not at all be surprised to see him flip
on gun control too, cut another deal with Pelosi and Schumer.
Would it surprise you?

Nothing would surprise me from him. I think he is really a democrat
anyway


The only
long range shooting we have had since the Texas clock tower and JFK
was by a millionaire.
I have still not heard a real reason why making guns a little quieter
is a bad thing. We have already established that they are not
"silent".
The fact that they were included in NFA34 was silly and perpetuating
that is even sillier. As has been pointed out, in most countries with
far stricter gun laws than the US, suppressors are not regulated.
The background check is another argument but if you are talking about
private transactions, the law is somewhat unenforceable anyway. If I
want to do a background check on a prospective buyer, I can go to just
about any FFL and do it. If I am a criminal and I don't want to do it,
who can stop me?

Who can stop you? The legal gun owner selling the weapon, who obeys
the law and does the sale only with a fed check. Right now you have
people selling guns "privately", which includes people who show up
a gun flea markets selling a dozen of them, who don't run a check
because there is no law requiring it. If there was a law and they
are those good, legal gun owners, then they would run the check.
And if they were at shows doing it and did not, they likely would
get busted.

If the owner wants a background check, he can always get one.

Felons owning the gun is illegal in the first place.

Of course, but no one will know unless the fed background check
is run. Seems obvious to me.


see above

On 10/4/2017 11:15 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 07:07:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 4:18:01 PM UTC-4, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Try again liar;

when was the lst time you went deer hunting?

when was the last time you went deer hunting with a suppressor?


If you think GUN DIGEST is lying, take it up with them.

Suppressor Hunting: The Sweet Silent Woods

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/supp...t-silent-woods

Joe Metzger and his hunting guide spotted the elk herd in a small canyon, just below a ridgeline, near Craig, Colo. There were about 15 bulls and cows milling around and feeding. Using boulders for cover, Metzger and his guide got to within 220 yards of the elk. Metzger had a cow tag. Selecting a yearling cow, he lined up the
crosshairs on his custom .308 bolt-action rifle and squeezed off a shot.
Providing reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photoProviding reduced recoil and a muffled report, suppressors are excellent on rifles for younger shooters. Author photo

The young elk reared up on her back legs for a moment and then fell over backwards, sliding down the snow-covered slope. The other elk were momentarily startled, jumped a bit, looked around but within a minute went back to feeding.

€œIf thered been another hunter with me, he couldve filled his tag, too,€� says Metzger. "

Do you think the people bragging about how well their suppressor works
lie too? The 130dB comes right from their marketing literature.
If you can't hear 130 dB, you have been shooting without hearing
suppression too long.
Maybe the anti-gun community is just dumb enough to think that
knocking 20-30dB off of a muzzle blast of 160 dB is "silent" but it is
just not so. The fact that an elk is not alarmed by a 130dB report
from almost 700 feet away is not really that important.
It is interesting that if I said loud pipes save bikers, you would
take the other side and tell us straight pipe Harleys were a public
nuisance.


Perhaps the name should be changed from silencer to muffler or sound
reduction. It would have a better chance of being accepted. Meantime,
choose your side.

https://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sil...atest_big_lie/

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09/...-to-help-them/

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:04:12 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Perhaps the name should be changed from silencer to muffler or sound
reduction. It would have a better chance of being accepted. Meantime,
choose your side.

https://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sil...atest_big_lie/

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09/...-to-help-them/


This may be the first time in history where people came out to defend
ear damaging noise
We seem to go out of our way to try to make things quieter. (air
conditioners, generators, leaf blowers, motor cycles and trucks)

On 10/4/2017 7:39 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 14:04:12 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Perhaps the name should be changed from silencer to muffler or sound
reduction. It would have a better chance of being accepted. Meantime,
choose your side.

https://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/sil...atest_big_lie/

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/09/...-to-help-them/


This may be the first time in history where people came out to defend
ear damaging noise
We seem to go out of our way to try to make things quieter. (air
conditioners, generators, leaf blowers, motor cycles and trucks)



It is a strange situation. It is going to take some education and
demonstrations to get the general public to support this. At first
glance I too was opposed, but now with additional information, I'm not
so sure. Most of us have only seen silencers in the movies or TV.
Click, you're dead.

On 10/04/2017 05:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It is a strange situation. It is going to take some education and
demonstrations to get the general public to support this. At first
glance I too was opposed, but now with additional information, I'm not
so sure. Most of us have only seen silencers in the movies or TV.
Click, you're dead.

A suppressor on a Mosin-Nagant would be good. Everybody on the firing
line wouldn't say 'What the hell was that?' even though they're wearing
muffs or other hearing protection.

On 10/04/2017 12:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Perhaps the name should be changed from silencer to muffler or sound
reduction. It would have a better chance of being accepted. Meantime,
choose your side.

The DOJ likes 'silencer'; suppressor is more accurate but doesn't have
that 1930's gangster vibe.