|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 19, 2013, 09:21 AM | #26 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
What does need have to do with it?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||
April 19, 2013, 09:23 AM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
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? |
April 19, 2013, 09:24 AM | #28 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
No. Does that have some bearing on the decibel level when a shot is fired?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 19, 2013, 09:25 AM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
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. |
April 19, 2013, 09:29 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 19, 2013, 09:30 AM | #31 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
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.
|
April 19, 2013, 09:36 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Engaging in a round of personal assessments may not ultimately be to your benefit.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; April 19, 2013 at 09:46 AM. |
|
April 19, 2013, 09:38 AM | #33 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
When I posted my response, you had asked:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Not only are they not interchangeable concepts, lack of "need" is at best a questionable reason on which to base a law. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||
April 19, 2013, 09:53 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
April 19, 2013, 09:59 AM | #35 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
I'll elaborate, because my implication was missed...
Quote:
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! |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:11 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
April 19, 2013, 10:13 AM | #37 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
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?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 19, 2013, 10:15 AM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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?
|
||
April 19, 2013, 10:16 AM | #39 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
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.
|
April 19, 2013, 10:17 AM | #40 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
April 19, 2013, 10:19 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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. |
April 19, 2013, 10:19 AM | #42 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
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... |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:20 AM | #43 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:22 AM | #44 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:23 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
You are now free to respond to the pending question: Why do suppressors "need" to stay on the NFA list?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:25 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, you still place the burden on citizens, not on government. Why is that?
|
April 19, 2013, 10:27 AM | #47 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:30 AM | #48 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Quote:
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? |
|
April 19, 2013, 10:33 AM | #49 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
And as far as the .22 or the .32, those rounds are fairly limited in their hunting applications.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 19, 2013, 10:34 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,352
|
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!
__________________
Go Pokes! Go Rams! |
|
|