What Amendments would we like to see on the Toomey-Manchin Amendment?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Kochman

Aren't earplugs way cheaper, lighter, and more effective?

Cheaper? Yes, in part (but not primarily) due to the $200 tax stamp imposed by the NFA.
Lighter? Yes.
More effective? Not necessarily. Lots of variables here, like whether one uses a round specifically designed for suppressed use.

You didn't ask if there was a cheaper, lighter, more effective way to accomplish my alleged need. Besides, it's not like suppressors and ear plugs are mutually exclusive.

Again, what does need have to do with this? I want one. Isn't that enough?

Originally Posted by Kochman

The reason for a suppressor is so that OTHER people don't hear it. Let's not beat around the bush here.

I don't think you've got any basis for changing MY stated "need" for a suppressor, but I'll go with it for a minute. If your statement is true, then I "need" to protect the hearing of those with whom I hunt or go to the range. Responsbile gun owners ought to be considerate of those around them when shooting.

Originally Posted by Kochman

So, other than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting, why would one need that?

Range shooting, particularly indoors. They help protect my hearing and the hearing of those around me.

What does need have to do with it?

[Kochman]

Do you typically actively hunt around people who don't realize you're actively hunting?
Do you typically shoot at ranges where people don't realize they're at a shooting range? What about all the other shooters? Should we all use suppressors?

"Need" isn't enough, for a lot of things. "Want" isn't, either. Typically interchangeable.

I need a million dollars, should I do whatever to get it?

[Spats McGee]

No. Does that have some bearing on the decibel level when a shot is fired?

[Kochman]

That doesn't even make sense, Spats.

And, no, "want" isn't enough. If you want a nuclear briefcase, should you be able to get one? You've passed your background check.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Kochman

That doesn't even make sense, Spats.

And, no, "want" isn't enough.

Spats responses do make sense. Take a moment to examine them.


Whether other people realize you are shooting is not pertinent to the courtesy involved in limiting the amount of noise one makes.

Again, a suppressor is analogous to an automobile muffler. The people around whom I drive are generally aware that I am driving, but courtesy and prudence demand that they not have to hear me coming from four blocks away.

[Kochman]

You guys... I can't even take you seriously sometimes. I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm being totally honest. This is pretty fringe talk... which is fine, you're entitled to speak in such a manner, but you'd be laughed out of most serious conversations in the country with such silly defenses/rationalizations.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by kochman

You guys... I can't even take you seriously sometimes. I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm being totally honest. This is pretty fringe talk... which is fine, you're entitled to speak in such a manner, but you'd be laughed out of most serious conversations in the country with such silly defenses/rationalizations.

That is not a comment on the merits of the issue.

Engaging in a round of personal assessments may not ultimately be to your benefit.

[Spats McGee]

When I posted my response, you had asked:

Originally Posted by Kochman

Do you typically actively hunt around people who don't realize you're actively hunting?
Do you typically shoot at ranges where people don't realize they're at a shooting range?

To which you then added:

Originally Posted by Kochman

What about all the other shooters? Should we all use suppressors?

(Mind you, I'm not fussing about the later addition. I'm just pointing out that it wasn't there when I posted.)

What part about my response doesn't make sense. Suppressors are intended to reduce decibel levels. The extent of knowledge on the part of my hunting or shooting knowledge makes no difference in how loud a given gun is. Which part of that confuses you?

Perhaps we should all shoot with suppressors. If it weren't for the cost & paperwork involved, I'd be glad for suppressors to be standard gear.

Originally Posted by Kochman

"Need" isn't enough, for a lot of things. "Want" isn't, either. Typically interchangeable.

If you think that want and need are "typically interchangeable," I'll reccommend Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition. You can pick it up at Amazon.

Not only are they not interchangeable concepts, lack of "need" is at best a questionable reason on which to base a law.

Originally Posted by Kochman

You guys... I can't even take you seriously sometimes. I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm being totally honest. This is pretty fringe talk... which is fine, you're entitled to speak in such a manner, but you'd be laughed out of most serious conversations in the country with such silly defenses/rationalizations.

I sincerely doubt that we'd be laughed out of much of anywhere.

[carguychris]

Earplugs only protect the individual wearing them. A suppressor, like a car muffler, helps everyone within earshot.

Additionally, plugs or muffs impair the user's awareness of quiet sounds, an important consideration during some forms of hunting and particularly indoor self-defense.

This factor can be mitigated with active noise-canceling muffs, but these are seldom practical for self-defense. Furthermore, the only active muffs I've ever used that IMHO were truly "invisible" in terms of allowing the user to hear very quiet sounds was a $1,000 Bose aviation headset- NOT a practical investment for most shooters, and not comparable to a "can" that would realistically cost ~$50 if it wasn't for the NFA nonsense.

[Kochman]

I'll elaborate, because my implication was missed...

If you think that want and need are "typically interchangeable," I'll reccommend Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition. You can pick it up at Amazon.

Not only are they not interchangeable concepts, lack of "need" is at best a questionable reason on which to base a law.

"Want" and "Need" are typically interchangeable... to people who argue ridiculous points like they are protecting people around them out of the goodness of their hearts while claiming to "need" a suppressor, when really it comes down to just wanting it.
People around you at a shooting environment are responsible for taking steps to help their own hearing... via earplugs, etc. You aren't suprised when you are in a sustained firing environment where the decibels are loud enough and near enough to damage you, you have to go there AND stay there consciously.

Now that we've established there is no genuine NEED for a suppressor, but it's actually just a want...
Again, if I want a nuclear briefcase, is that enough? Assuming I have the $$$ for it...

Since you guys are apparently free to make ridiculous arguments about "needing" suppressors, I will fight fire with fire and use gross exaggeration to examine the absurdity of how "wanting" something isn't enough to get it.
Just ask the Rolling Stones!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Kochman

"Want" and "Need" are typically interchangeable... to people who argue ridiculous points like they are protecting people around them out of the goodness of their hearts while claiming to "need" a suppressor, when really it comes down to just wanting it.

This is an impressive piece of writing. You have compounded your misidentification of the standard for consumer items with a conflation of two words with clearly different meanings.

In the balance of your statement, you engage in a strawman argument, misstating what others have asserted to you. Finally, you question the veracity of those with whom you are conversing.

Originally Posted by Kochman

Since you guys are apparently free to make ridiculous arguments ...

That you have decided to ridicule an explanation does not transform it into a ridiculous explanation.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Kochman

I'll elaborate, because my implication was missed...

If it was missed, it's because implications don't carry over all that well on internet posts.

Originally Posted by Kochman

"Want" and "Need" are typically interchangeable... to people who argue ridiculous points like they are protecting people around them out of the goodness of their hearts while claiming to "need" a suppressor, when really it comes down to just wanting it.

People around you at a shooting environment are responsible for taking steps to help their own hearing... via earplugs, etc. You aren't suprised when you are in a sustained firing environment where the decibels are loud enough and near enough to damage you, you have to go there AND stay there consciously.

Perhaps the most accurate statement would be "I need a way to protect my hearing and that of those around me. I want a suppressor to do it." So? What makes it anyone else's business if I do that with earplugs, muffs, a suppressor, or some combination of all of the above?

So what if others know that I'll be shooting? Should I not be considerate of them? Should I be required to impair my own hearing (such as with muffs or earplugs), when a suppressor would serve the same function without doing that?

Now, Kochman, I've asked this a few times, and you've just flat ignored it: What does need have to do with it? Why do suppressors "need" to stay on the NFA list?

[JimDandy]

JD brought up a rare, but still kind of silly reason... as there are generally noise ordnances based on time of day

I said it was rare, not silly. Noise ordinances are typically municipal, and would not apply to a neighborhood in vaguely rural vaguely urban unincorporated county land. Nor do they reduce the likelihood of a cranky and interfering neighbor abusing the local regulatory and law enforcement agencies from harassing disliked neighbors. Most of the time these "neighborhoods" comprise hobby farms, and do not have a full range of municipal services like waste removal, or sewer and water, either.

I further put it to you that words like "fringe" imply condescension and ostracization, taking an admonishment of disagreed upon behavior into the realm of bullying. I am not always right. But, neither are you.

"Need" isn't enough, for a lot of things. "Want" isn't, either.

• No one needs a PC to engage in free speech.
• No one needs an automobile to engage in the right/liberty of travel.
• No one needs a church to pray.
• No one needs to concealed carry because they can open carry.
• No single individual needs a 4 bedroom house.
• No one needs to see an action/horror/thriller movie.

I believe I've established there are a VAST number of things one does not NEED, yet are currently available to the masses.

What about the things that only SOME people NEED? Or only some people don't? And Equal Protection?

• Vegans don't need meat. Should we all give up bacon?
• Most of America no longer needs the 13th amendment.
• Male college athletes around the country have very little need for Title IX
• Sara Brady has no need for the second amendment
• Homeless people have no need of the third amendment
• Mormons have no need for the 21st amendment

[Kochman]

When my question regarding the briefcase is answered... I'll reply further. It's as serious a question as the described "need" for a suppressor.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If suppressor usage is an irrational want, then why is their use mandated by law in several European countries that regulate firearms more strictly? Because they want to encourage assassination and poaching?

Short of stereos, I am not aware of any commercial product where the end user wants it to be louder than it has to be. Personally, I shoot my suppressed rifle with earplugs as well. You are still talking 110-100 decibels at the muzzle with suppressor and earplugs. With just suppressor or earplugs alone, you are barely under the OSHA standard for hearing safe.

I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies Kochman.

[MLeake]

Kochman, your question was answered - there does not have to be a "need" on the part of the citizen.

OTOH, there does have to be a "need" on the part of government before it imposes restrictions.

Your line of questioning places the onus on the wrong side.

[Kochman]

If suppressor usage is an irrational want, then why is their use mandated by law in several European countries that regulate firearms more strictly? Because they want to encourage assassination and poaching?

Short of stereos, I am not aware of any commercial product where the end user wants it to be louder than it has to be. Personally, I shoot my suppressed rifle with earplugs as well. You are still talking 110-100 decibels at the muzzle.

I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies Kochman.

Ha!
Yeah, well, those using suppressors in Europe are so heavily restricted they can't even use their guns for self defense in their own homes... not a great example.

Movies? Wot?
Think what you want, that's up to you.
Assuming knowledge of someone without having any basis for it is generally a poor technique in life...

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Kochman

When my question regarding the briefcase is answered... I'll reply further. It's as serious a question as the described "need" for a suppressor.

No, it's not. You're seriously going to compare a suppressor, which has absolutely no independently-dangerous functions to a nuclear briefcase, and try to play "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?"

[Kochman]

No, it's not. You're seriously going to compare a suppressor, which has absolutely no independently-dangerous functions to a nuclear briefcase, and try to play "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours?"

So, you're now judging my "needs" versus "wants"... as has the government, and you side with them... interesting.
Right to bear arms...
How about an RPG, to tone down the absurdity of the question?

Personally, I find it absurd that people think they "need" a suppressor, just my opinion and all... but it's a pretty common opinion.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by kochman

When my question regarding the briefcase is answered... A'll reply further. It's as serious a question as the described "need" for a suppressor.

You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.

You are now free to respond to the pending question:

Why do suppressors "need" to stay on the NFA list?

[MLeake]

Kochman, you still place the burden on citizens, not on government. Why is that?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah, well, those using suppressors in Europe are so heavily restricted they can't even use their guns for self defense in their own homes... not a great example.

Why is that relevant to your argument? You asserted that suppressors were only good for assassination and poaching; yet these countries chose to mandate their use. There are only two logical conclusions:
1. These countries wish to promote poaching and assassination
2. Your assertion is untrue and there is some desirable public benefit these governments are trying to achieve

And speaking of self-defense, that is a great place for suppressor usage. Firing a gun without hearing protection in an enclosed space while you try to communicate with family and 911? Sure would be nice to have a device that made your firearm hearing safe and could be left attached to the gun.

[Kochman]

You have described no legitimate use for a nuclear briefcase, yet the legitimate use for a suppressor has been described to you repetitively.

I don't find it legit in the least... given the existence of earplugs.

Suppressors are used to make your position less clear, keep people from hearing your shot, etc.

Granted, a higher caliber gun with a suppressor is still pretty loud... but a .22? A .32 auto?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Kochman

I don't find it legit in the least... given the existence of earplugs.

Do you not believe that suppressors work? Or do just think that everyone should have to take the alternative (earplugs)?

And as far as the .22 or the .32, those rounds are fairly limited in their hunting applications.

[Wyoredman]

Just and addition to the conversation on suppressors.

I like hunting in New Zealand. They have very strict gun registration and permitting laws. Yet, a NZ resident can drive down to the local sporting goods store and select a suppressor from hundreds on display, pay his $100 NZ, and walk out the door.

I agree that suppressor's being an NFA item doesn't make much sense.

BTW, hunting possums at night with a suppressed 10/22 is great fun!