Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday November 21 2016, @06:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the silence-is-golden dept.

A Republican trifecta in Washington next year will likely see action on a bill to remove firearm suppressors from National Firearms Act regulation after 82 years.
The Hearing Protection Act was introduced last October by U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., and currently has 78 bipartisan co-sponsors from 34 states. Since then, the HPA has been among the top 10 most-viewed bills on Congress.gov almost every week since it was introduced.

However, with a slim Republican majority in the Senate unable to override a near-certain veto from President Obama, the bill has been in doldrums.
Now, with the White House under new management next year, advocates for the measure feel signs are looking up and will likely return to the next Congress with a fresh mandate.

Why is this important? Safety has been increasing in nearly every aspect and product since the beginning of time, but allowing people to protect their hearing by adding silencers to their weapons has been a tough road for gun owners for a long while.

“Imagine for a second that we lived in a world where you had to pay a $200 tax to buy a pair of earplugs,” Knox Williams, president of the American Suppressor Association, the industry trade group for the devices, told Guns.com on Wednesday. “Now, imagine that even after paying that tax you still had to wait 8 months before you could bring your earplugs home with you. As silly as that sounds, it’s the world we live in with suppressors in the NFA.”


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by t-3 on Monday November 21 2016, @06:55AM

    by t-3 (4907) on Monday November 21 2016, @06:55AM (#430377)

    Silencers aren't of any use to anyone in a self-defense situation, where the ideal weapon is small and easily handled. They help to save the hearing of people who shoot on a regular basis and don't have much practical use outside of that. The extra length on the barrel and reduced noise is probably helpful for hunters but the whistle of a bullet will spook most game regardless.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @07:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @07:34AM (#430390)

    It seems like suppressor devices are much more popular with European hunters, maybe required, as the noise is somewhat of a public nuisance.

    Calling them "silencers" though is a bit of a misnomer. Any supersonic ammunition, most of it, will still produce a supersonic crack. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-OwODBSLkI [youtube.com] That supersonic crack follows the bullet the entire flight.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday November 21 2016, @03:10PM

      by butthurt (6141) on Monday November 21 2016, @03:10PM (#430542) Journal

      Even subsonic ammunition still makes noise, doesn't it?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Subsonic_ammunition [wikipedia.org]

      The mechanism of the gun also makes noise.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 21 2016, @04:50PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday November 21 2016, @04:50PM (#430635)

        The mechanism of the gun is nothing compared to the sound of the bullet itself. Guns with suppressors are still LOUD, they're just not as deafeningly loud as guns without them. You still need to wear ear protection with a suppressor. Blame Hollywood for inventing this fairy tale of magically silent guns; they do not exist. The closest you'll get is a pistol that fires tiny little .22LR ammunition and has a really good suppressor; this will still sound like loud hand claps when it's fired. Anything larger (which is anything large enough to actually be useful for purposes other that shooting at paper targets) is going to be very loud even with a suppressor.

        • (Score: 1) by butthurt on Monday November 21 2016, @05:24PM

          by butthurt (6141) on Monday November 21 2016, @05:24PM (#430676) Journal

          Thank you; I should have read all the comments before making my own.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @06:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @06:45PM (#430738)

          The closest you'll get is a pistol that fires tiny little .22LR ammunition and has a really good suppressor; this will still sound like loud hand claps when it's fired. Anything larger (which is anything large enough to actually be useful for purposes other that shooting at paper targets) is going to be very loud even with a suppressor.

          You're not wrong in general, but those bits I emphasized are bullshit. First, given the same cartridge, a rifle is no louder than a pistol, and usually quieter due to more expansion in the barrel; thus a rifle with that same ammo and suppressor is at least as quiet, and a lot more practical.

          I know different people mean different things by "practical", but I mean: Pistols have one virtue -- ease of carry. To obtain this, they compromise almost every other characteristic vs. a rifle or carbine equivalent, from ballistics to ease of muzzle discipline. That's great if you want to carry a just-in-case gun (in other words, one you probably won't be using) to defend against men, bears, or snakes, or if you're seeking a challenge by using deliberately compromised equipment for hunting or target shooting, but if you're picking up a gun with the intent to go somewhere and use it, a long gun will almost always be the right choice. That's "more practical" in my book.

          Second, subsonic .22 ammo, fired from rifle or pistol, is perfectly adequate for shooting cottontails, feral cats, and handles coons and possums with careful shot placement, especially if you modify the 60-grain SSS stuff to hollow-point or flat-point. And if this bill passes, I'm thinking to build my own integrally suppressed carbine shooting .32 ACP (lower pressure, but higher volume, than .22LR) based on a suppressor design intended for a 7.62 rifle -- I think, with care, I should be able to get it in the same "loud hand-clap" range, while making shot placement much less critical on ornery possums.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:33PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @04:33PM (#431311)

            To be honest, the idea of killing small animals didn't even occur to me, nor do I like the idea at all. Can't you just trap them and release them somewhere else? That's what I almost always do with anything I don't want around. For instance, I used to live in Arizona, and frequently found bark scorpions in my house. These are rather dangerous as their poison is very potent. Instead of killing them, I simply trapped them, and since I had a couple of next-door neighbors I didn't like (and who had annoying dogs that barked all the time), I just took the scorpions out at night and threw them over the wall into their yards. I only resorted to killing at that house when it got infested by a bee colony; it was sad, but I can't live in a place where I can't walk in my front yard without getting attacked by a swarm of bees.

            Don't you have someone nearby you don't like, perhaps someone who was a jerk in high school or something? Release all the pest animals on his land.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:23PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @06:23PM (#431386)

              Don't you have someone nearby you don't like, perhaps someone who was a jerk in high school or something? Release all the pest animals on his land.

              It's a nice idea, but alas I was homeschooled. (I think high school is much better than real life for creating such enmity, as I can only think of one example I'd like to do this to; fortunately, we now live in different states.) More to the point, though, I have stupid moral problems with that sort of thing. The guy I've got a beef with, fine, but since critters don't stay in one place, I'm also making life worse for his neighbors. And don't they already have it bad enough just living next door to that jerk?

              Anyway, feral cats need to die, it's that simple for me. I can't imagine a place to release them that is not either irresponsibly making my problem someone else's problem, or (for the Arctic, Sahara, etc.) more cruel than shooting them.

              Cottontails are hella destructive to an apple orchard -- the population grows ridiculously all summer, then come winter, when there's a hundred starving rabbits and no food above the snow, they'll strip the bark off the trees in a complete girdle at whatever height the snow is, which kills the trees. And because they breed so fast, and the area I live in is so depleted of natural predators, anywhere I could drop them off is most likely already at carrying capacity -- I'm hardly doing them a favor by dropping them into a starvation cycle.

              Possums are such ugly sons o' bitches it's hard to feel any sympathy for them, but logically I don't mind them, and I don't mind coons logically or emotionally -- both of these aren't anyone's problems if kept well away from domestic animals and poultry (and for possums, prime coon-hunting woods -- folks who hunt coons for sport hate 'em because they will drive out the coon population), so I'd be theoretically fine with trapping them and releasing them in cropland or forest, away from mine or anyone else's henhouse.

              So if all I faced was possums and coons, maybe I would trap them; haven't really thought about it much. But logistically, given I'm already walking the property with a rifle to bag cottontails and cats, I'm not gonna fool around with a live trap as well.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @05:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @05:52PM (#430699)

        Check out this graph [connect.fi]; subsonic bullets do make noise, but there's a huge difference. It also shows that, rather than a sudden change in sound at M=1.0, as too-commonly imagined, there's actually a smoothly increasing sound from about 90dB@M=0.9 to 137dB@M=1.2.

        FWIW, I use heavy subsonic .22 LR in a 27"-barreled rifle for coop, garden, and orchard patrol. The pressure as the bullet exits the muzzle, and thus the report, is dramatically lowered from such a long barrel, to the point where people expecting a normal .22 report say it sounds like an air rifle (whatever that's worth), but is still much louder than the bullet.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @08:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @08:13AM (#430398)

    Shooting even a relatively small caliber in a confined space is enough to make you go deaf, and the most successful rounds in home defense situations are 5.56 and .45 respectively (i.e.- loud). The ideal weapon in those situations is so dependent on context as to be a meaningless statement. Remember Biden's recommendation for shotguns? He was advocating for permanent hearing loss.

    Beyond defense, I have to qualify with weapons every year. The inability to hear speech clearly on the range is a huge safety risk due to the hearing protection worn. Suppressors would ameliorate that, and most likely help combat the epidemic of hearing loss around people who use weapons regularly as a part of their jobs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:14AM (#431696)

      Yeah, that is what I worry about, too. Hearing loss from repeated home invasions! If you have to defend your bedroom more than, say, three times a month, there is a potential for permanent hearing loss! Not to mention the effect on the nice people who have come to visit in the middle of the night. So yeah, Congress really needs to pass this bill! Go, Trump! What did you say?

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @08:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @08:35AM (#430402)

    Unless you do not want to let your human target realize what is happening right away, to maintain the element of surprise. Also, makes it harder for game wardens to find poachers. Crossbows are often banned for the same reason. I don't know what happened to America. NRA used to be a nice organization teaching firearms safety and marksmanship. Anyone hiding their piece was probably up to no good, a thief and maybe an assassin. Silencers were the tools of assassins, exclusively. So the NRA is now run by thieves, armed robbers, and would be assassins? Concealed carving is for turkeys.

    • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Monday November 21 2016, @09:56AM

      by t-3 (4907) on Monday November 21 2016, @09:56AM (#430417)

      I've never heard of crossbows being banned in the US, in fact I know a lot of hunters who use cross and regular bows for hunting because they have felony records. Probably varies by state though, I've heard in some of new england even rifles have to be registered?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 21 2016, @04:21PM (#430596)

        I checked up on it a few weeks back (California now requires background checks and paperwork just to buy ammo, in addition to all other restrictions on firearms purchases.) Crossbows are legal basically across the board (I imagine 18 can't purchase, but other than that no background checks or other roadblocks to purchase.) Bows and crossbows also have the benefit of plenty of utilitarian uses that firearms do not, such as firing lines across ravines (forest service actually does this professionally, I had an archery class with a woman who did this during the summer for utility lines across a river. A good compound bow could make it across with plenty of excess range and then have the cables pulled taut on one or both ends for whatever they were using them for.)

        Sadly modern cross/compound bow ammunition is only slightly less involved tool and material-wise than reloading firearm ammunition (although probably easier than stamping your own casings) and the firing tension of modern bows is likely to shatter any 'traditionally' made wooden arrows you attempted to fire without the ability to significantly decrease the tension on your bow.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:54AM

          by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday November 22 2016, @05:54AM (#431083)

          As someone who only dabbled with archery as a child, I would imagine the arrow shattering issues are largely a matter of tradeoff - all that extra power obviously lets you shoot further and flatter, and hit your target harder, but puts a lot more demand on the arrow. If you're content instead with the limited range and power that our ancestors used to hunt and wage war with for thousands of years, then you can probably find a featherweight modern bow that will fire traditional wood arrows with an ease and accuracy to make your ancestors green with envy.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:18AM (#431698)

            Crossbows do not shoot arrows, you dolt, they loose bolts. Shorter, stouter, usually only duofletched, and a heavier head. Best ones use Klingon cloaking technology, so you never see them coming.

      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Monday November 21 2016, @08:58PM

        by Francis (5544) on Monday November 21 2016, @08:58PM (#430831)

        It depends where you live, around here they're only legal for people with certain disabilities. And with good cause, they're deadly quiet and quite powerful. They're not as powerful as a gun, but they're substantially more powerful than a typical bow and arrow.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:23AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:23AM (#431700)

          Are you sure about this, Francis? Can you cite any information other than your own assertion? Silent but deadly? Please!

          • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:37AM

            by Francis (5544) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:37AM (#431711)

            You're an ass aristarchus, there's no point in providing a citation here as it's not broadly applicable to people in other parts of the world. They should do their own research for the laws in their area.

            Also, you're a fucking moron, if you aren't aware that loud guns scare away the game. You miss with a rifle and you've probably scared most of the game away from you. Miss with a cross bow and the game might not even notice that you shot at them.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Chrontius on Monday November 21 2016, @10:18AM

      by Chrontius (5246) on Monday November 21 2016, @10:18AM (#430424)

      Silencers were the tools of assassins, exclusively.

      Yeah, that's a Hollywood stereotype. Suppressed gunshots are fucking LOUD! but not get-a-cochlear-implant loud. They *will* hear you after the first shot, but if you survive the home invasion, you might not need to go on permanent disability the next day.

  • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 21 2016, @11:01AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 21 2016, @11:01AM (#430436) Journal

    They help to save the hearing of people who shoot on a regular basis

    I'll admit that it's now over a decade since I used to shoot regularly, but we always wore ear defenders in the range whenever anyone was shooting. Is that not normal in the USA? How much noise do suppressers actually cut down? Is it enough that the sound of half a dozen or more people firing at once won't be loud enough for you to need ear defenders?

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thesis on Monday November 21 2016, @01:42PM

      by Thesis (524) on Monday November 21 2016, @01:42PM (#430496)

      Depending on the caliber of gun and ammunition used, the sound can be reduced greatly, but not completely eliminated, such as is depicted in movies and television. Many suppressed guns are still quite loud, but not as loud as a gun without one. There are a group of hobbyists in the US using some quite expensive testing equipment who test suppressors, and post the results for free.

      Here is a link to the test results to date, as posted and maintained by http://nfatalk.org/ [nfatalk.org].

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AFlex2az36BuHJ3ArAxcC2peryDgeUxGdMxPEj1NhEU/edit#gid=2144705000 [google.com]

      In full disclosure, I own multiple suppressors, and have been to their testing events. Several of the folks on NFA Talk would happily meet someone at a range in the US, and let them experience what suppressors are like first hand.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 21 2016, @04:57PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Monday November 21 2016, @04:57PM (#430645) Journal
        Assuming the units on those numbers are dB, it sounds as if you'd still want ear defenders for anything other than very occasional use if you didn't want to damage your ears.
        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 22 2016, @03:05AM (#431000)

          Assuming the units on those numbers are dB, it sounds as if you'd still want ear defenders for anything other than very occasional use if you didn't want to damage your ears.

          You may not realize it, however, you've inadvertently made a powerful argument in favor of silencers being safety devices. Even with the best hearing protection available (muffs over ear plugs), firearms are still damaging to hearing.

          Dangerous levels are defined as any exposure over 85dB, since noise induced hearing loss is cumulative. Let's say the average gun shot is a 9mm Luger, at 159dB. Keep in mind that carbines, magnum rifles, any gun with a muzzle break tend to be quite a bit louder. The highest rated commonly available ear muffs (Pro Ears Ultra 33) dampen sound by 33dB. Plugs on their own dampen 25dB. Together they dampen approx 35dB. So, our 'average' gunshot is now effectively 124dB, using the best passive protection! If you regularly visit an indoor range for an hour with ten lanes of people constantly putting a measly 100 rounds each down range, you're still at risk for hearing loss, as if you were working in a noisy environment all day, and you used the best protection available.

          Now, imagine the risk faced by the range officers who have to be in that sound all day, every day. But that's not the worst of it. Supposing we totally eliminated sound from entering the ear canal, the jaw bone / skull still conducts sound to the inner ear. So, clearly, being able to take a big whack of sound from the source is a lot more effective than trying to dampen the sound after the fact. If a suppressed, subsonic 9mm is 130dB, we're much closer to the safe zone with just plugs, and solidly in the safe zone with muffs.

          You've also dispelled the idea that silencers are stealth assassins devices. A suppressed 9mm is 130dB. It's still pretty damn loud. The difference is, even though it's still damaging loud, it's no longer disorientingly loud, supposing one had to use the firearm indoors without hearing protection, as in a home defense scenario.

  • (Score: 2) by Thesis on Monday November 21 2016, @01:48PM

    by Thesis (524) on Monday November 21 2016, @01:48PM (#430500)

    For concealed carry of a handgun yes, a suppressed weapon would be a hindrance (too bulky, slower to draw). However, I keep a suppressed .45 in my nightstand at home. If you have ever shot a gun in an enclosed space, you would know why... So, your statement is partially correct, IMHO.