The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Selling the Anti-Gun People on Silencer Deregulation

theshephard · April 4, 2014, 01:53 PM

I understand you to say that antis should support suppressors because it will open up a sales channel to firearms manufacturers that wouldn't involve proliferating more guns.

I think there are some unsafe assumptions behind this as follows:

1) creating a new profit center for the evil manufacturers is not going to be tasteful to antis. It gives the evil manufacturers more capital to build out production capacity, or spend on advertising for guns, lobbying to fight more regulation, etc.

2) I've got a hunch that most of you, like me, enjoy buying products in this space, and will live on top ramen for a couple days and drive 2mph slower to save gas money if it means not making a trade-off between buying a gun and a suppressor. It's the magic of 'and' vs. the tyranny of 'or'.

3) suppressors probably encourage gun sales for the manufacturers. Again, probably not a zero-sum, inelastic game.

I know you know all this, I just don't think the antis are dumb enough to not realize this. Wait, yes I do - I think a lot of the antis really pee their pants thinking a silencer, when attached to a high-capacity clip - OR A FOLDING STOCK - makes a shot whisper-quiet.

But I do think the more manipulative Napoleons (aminal farm reference) in the anti movement are smart enough to realize there's no benefit in taking away existing regulation, creating a new revenue stream for gun manufacturers, and making shooting more 'accessible' and less invasive for the public.

Deprecating use of the term 'silencer' through education, demonstrable science and experience is probably the best thing to do. "Assault rifle" and "silencer" are products of a war of words, trying to instill fear in the population and convince us that only statism keeps us safe at night.

April 4, 2014, 01:53 PM	#5
theshephard Member Join Date: October 1, 2010 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 26	More money is more money I understand you to say that antis should support suppressors because it will open up a sales channel to firearms manufacturers that wouldn't involve proliferating more guns. I think there are some unsafe assumptions behind this as follows: 1) creating a new profit center for the evil manufacturers is not going to be tasteful to antis. It gives the evil manufacturers more capital to build out production capacity, or spend on advertising for guns, lobbying to fight more regulation, etc. 2) I've got a hunch that most of you, like me, enjoy buying products in this space, and will live on top ramen for a couple days and drive 2mph slower to save gas money if it means not making a trade-off between buying a gun and a suppressor. It's the magic of 'and' vs. the tyranny of 'or'. 3) suppressors probably encourage gun sales for the manufacturers. Again, probably not a zero-sum, inelastic game. I know you know all this, I just don't think the antis are dumb enough to not realize this. Wait, yes I do - I think a lot of the antis really pee their pants thinking a silencer, when attached to a high-capacity clip - OR A FOLDING STOCK - makes a shot whisper-quiet. But I do think the more manipulative Napoleons (aminal farm reference) in the anti movement are smart enough to realize there's no benefit in taking away existing regulation, creating a new revenue stream for gun manufacturers, and making shooting more 'accessible' and less invasive for the public. Deprecating use of the term 'silencer' through education, demonstrable science and experience is probably the best thing to do. "Assault rifle" and "silencer" are products of a war of words, trying to instill fear in the population and convince us that only statism keeps us safe at night.