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

[JimDandy]

people here sure do tend to see the splinter in another's eye first... eh?

Yes, they do. For example you've been criticized for the tone of your posts, or the type of argument you make, not for the content of that argument. No one has said the point of your argument is silly, or fringe.

What is the risk benefit reward of allowing two seat sports cars, as an option to four door sedans with 8 airbags?

[Kochman]

It's one thing to say an argument is silly... (and I don't make fringe arguments... I'm a thoroughly "un-fringe" person. On the flip side... there are certainly fringe arguments being made here...)
Another to personally attack the person making it.

I'm surprised I'd have to outline that.

You guys want to relax now?
Or just keep beating the deadhorse?

All I asked is people tone down the PERSONAL attacks...
Feel free to hammer the opinions as needed or wanted.

[zukiphile]

Since the risk associated with hearing loss is a real and encountered commonly, ideally I would like to see suppressors removed from the NFA, not reclassified as A0W, and sold in hardware stores, Sears, Walmart, etc.

I believe that the competitive pressures would improve designs and reduce the price at which those designs are offered.

[Kochman]

I do wonder why the military doesn't use these more?
They refuse to pay for hearing loss now in soldiers... because they offer ear plugs.
Try wearing ear plugs on patrol in combat.

[JimDandy]

I'm not ready to stipulate you were personally attacked, and respectfully submit you opened the movie door with your Post #78 being the first to introduce the movie question with a James Bond reference. This reference prompted for Mr. Pfleuger to to reply In Post #86 with a reasonable inference that you get your knowledge of suppressors, in part or in whole, from the James Bond movie franchise. It was not a personal attack, but a reasonable inference from your own words.

Furhtermore, as to the Risk/Benefit question you have posed, I would like to direct you to your own words again, this time in Post #71 Where you state:

The historical risk of suppressors is:

Absolutely irrelevant, since they're pretty rare...
That's like asking how many people are killed by Walther PPKs made in 1934.

Thus, if the risk of suppressors is irrelevant because of their statistically rare illicit use, the benefit becomes the relevant part of the argument- leaving ANY benefit in and of itself justifiable for their possession.

[MLeake]

Kochman, since suppressors are used in far less crimes than guns in general, are you now suggesting all guns should be NFA? If not, please explain the discrepancy.

Since suppressors resulted in fewer deaths than did bee stings, should beekeepers require licensing akin to NFA, where they need CLEO approval?

Suppressors have an obvious use, which is to keep the noise down for third parties, which is the reason some European countries require their use. You counter that those countries have otherwise strict gun control. Does that negate the use?

You should say that YOU, personally have no use for silencers, and so you have no skin in the game. You are not willing to do that.

On the flip side, you are not willing to apply your zero-risk or risk-benefit logic to skateboards (lots of injuries and deaths, but what real use?) or Justin Bieber downloads (dumbing down of pre-teens, but what real use?) or recreational SCUBA gear (other than salvage or repair divers, who really needs it? and look at drowning deaths, or Bends related injuries...).

So you are logically inconsistent; you STILL have provided no pre-NFA data, but are finally conceding "very rare" instances; you provided an article which looked at 1995-2005 data, the author of which disagrees entirely with the conclusions you drew from the study.

Meanwhile, you have accused us of dissembling, shading arguments, ducking your questions... And you feel insulted.

[Al Norris]

Mr. Kochman,

Those who are "hammering" your opinions are doing so because you fail to back up those opinions with the facts necessary to sustain your opinion. You have consistently evaded any proof, showing that your opinion is anything more than biased thought.

When your opposition can show contrary proofs to an opinion that you hold, reasonable men would rethink their position. You don't rethink your stance. You consistently refuse to acknowledge the proofs against your position. Indeed, you act as if the proofs are of such inconsequential detail, that it would be neath you to answer.

I do not, as a rule, make a general call-out on members. But once in a great while, it is necessary.

Mr. Kochman, you are an internet troll. Begone.

[Spats McGee]

Kochman, early on this this conversation, you said:

The government has established why it is not worth the risk/benefit equation to allow things that really have very few legit uses.

Well, while I haven't read the linked article in-depth, but here's what I see:

• 136 federal prosecutions for suppressor possession over a 10-year period; and
• 4 cases in which a suppressed firearm was actually fired

That doesn't support very much risk on that side of a risk-reward analysis. So what is the public benefit of having them on the NFA list?

You're not being attacked for your views, Kochman. It's not a matter of having unpopular views.

You initially questioned:

What could you possibly need a suppressor for?

You were provided with a number of possible, perfectly legitimate uses for suppressors, including

• hearing protection for self
• hearing protection for others
• hunting
• training
• reducing noise levels in consideration of our neighbors

Then you quibbled over whether a person really "needed" a suppressor for those, or just "wanted" one. Nonetheless, those are legitimate, lawful activities in which one could engage, and made good use of a suppressor. Then you complained that there are other tools which would help (earplugs), stating that because earplugs are available, "no one needs a suppressor." . . . .

It may be that you, personally, don't think those things listed above are "legitimate purposes." A great many shooters, however, have recognized that we'd rather not spend our declining years asking "WHAT?" You summarily rejected all of those listed above, claiming that there is no other purpose for a suppressor than:

than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting

when pressed on this issue, you insulted the entire TFL community, proclaiming:

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.

Your tone has been condescending, evasive, and your claims are logically inconsistent. On the one hand, you state that "Mossad, for example, used .22 as it's assassination round for some time... suppressed even sometimes!", while on the other: "I never said, btw, they aren't rare... silencer crimes. I said, the risk/benefit analysis doesn't support their widespread use." If silencer crimes are rare, then the risk is low. If the risk is so low, then the public benefit must be HUGE to warrant keeping suppressors out of the hands of John Q. Public. What benefit does the public derive from doing so?

My fellow TFL members have not (by and large) criticized you for the content of your argument, Kochman. They have criticized you for utterly failing to back up your arguments with any sort of proof, and for then proclaiming that their arguments are silly and unfounded. They have criticized you for claiming that we make "ridiculous" arguments and that we would be "laughed out of most serious conversations in the country, all while proclaiming that only poachers and assassins have any use for suppressors. That notion (that only poachers and assassins use suppressors) really is what we see in the movies. I don't know many hunters would use a suppressor, but I suspect a great many, were it not for the additional $200 cost. I'll bet a great number of NRA youth trainers would.

Your opinions are yours, and you are welcome to them. If you choose to present them as fact, do not be surprised when other TFL members challenge you to support your arguments. That challenge is quite common around here, and it is how we weed out internet rumors and hokum.