Stop using guns to kill things!

Post Reply New Topic

It alters the sound of the shot though not necessarily make it sound like a smaller caliber, and it does in most cases make it quiet enough to be safe without hearing protection. Not all silencers are the same design internally so the results may vary, but you are correct that movie silencers are fake.

Well no s**t, it's illegal to pack a pistol unless you're issued a permit, which is pretty much impossible unless you're a security guard.

I've lived in places where people have been shot with snub nosed .38s more than anything else. They are already illegal due to their barrel size and yet crooks seem to prefer them over the legal options. My dad couldn't pack a gun to protect his business which made his store real easy to rob. Gun control has certainly done nothing to make us feel safe.

I'm already part of a society which allows fear to chump us into buying certain products or submitting our freedoms for a false sense of security. Fear is both an industry and a means of social control. We already live in constant fear, and all overprotectiveness does is reinforce this rather than cure it. Speed bumps have certainly done jack s**t to reduce speeding and have been a danger to ambulances. Kids can't even get dirty these days for God's sake! Banning "assault weapons" is like banning rice mods and VTECs for Civics. Let me introduce you to some of this logic:

Fart cans and big spoilers make Civics look too sporty, ZOMG let's ban them! VTECs are designed as the poor man's supercharger, let's ban those too! Hey, did you know that radiators are dangerous too? I don't know what the hell they are but you wouldn't be able to go fast without those damn shoulder things going up!

You wanna see how fitting this analogy really is? Replace "fart cans and big spoilers" with "flash suppressors and pistol grips" and "sporty" with "lethal". VTECs are analogous to banning Saturday night specials as they are both meant for economical purposes, and the part about radiators is a parody of Carolyn McCarthy's ignorant BS as well as a way of pointing out that banning barrel shrouds is as logical as banning radiators. Radiators keep your car engine from overheating and barrel shrouds keep the barrel from burning the hand you use to hold it.

I'd rather live in a society that accepts that everything has an inherent risk and that responsibility is the only reliable way to mitigate them than a pussified overprotective one that resorts to social control as a defense mechanism against neuroticism. I say this not out of macho bravado, but out of frustration over how people take the easy way over the hard way by giving up their sense of independence for a sense of security. If you can't control your own fear, someone else will.

More like "no bothersome noise". But you're right on the part about it not completely pussifying the sound. They're meant to make it harder for the enemy to recognize where the shots are coming from. The sound itself is also less recognizable than an unsuppressed gunshot.

AceOfSpades wrote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Benji Frankie didn't seem to be against the part of the amendment that said that the militia had to be well organized.

Transfer tax is $200, $600 might be the package price of the gun. I'm mostly being facetious though, even though you could legally carry an NFA weapon, it's not really advisable because if you do have to use the thing it's a virtual guarantee you'll get sued and possibly unjustly prosecuted. It's unfortunate, since as far as I'm concerned sound suppression is an ergonomics issue that shouldn't be subject to such legal difficulty, but back when they passed the NFA in 1934 people were concerned about poachers taking deer surreptitiously with suppressed rifles, and so they got tacked onto the same law that regulates machineguns. Now it's just inertia that they're still there, it's not considered a pressing issue in the firearms community and so goes largely unchallenged. It doesn't help that the ATF keeps their definitions deliberately vague so that they can retroactively declare nearly anything prohibited, under their definition *anything* that reduces the report of a firearm is technically a silencer, which could include such items as potatoes, feather pillows and soda bottles. It's really ridiculous.

All that aside, weren't you in the army?

I've actually shot the pictured weapon, an AWC Amphibian, and though it's not *silent*, it's certainly not loud either. The first round sounds like a capgun, and the second and subsequent rounds sound like a BB or paintball gun. The first round is louder because there is still air in the baffle chambers of the silencer, allowing the muzzle gases to continue combustion past the muzzle, after the first shot the chambers are full of gas that won't support further combustion, so the gun actually shoots quieter. It's called "first round 'pop'" among silencer cognoscenti.

does that mean that if anybody comes up with an organic [not an external device, but a quieter propellent] means of quieting gunfire, that the ATF could veto that as well?


unfortunately, yes. i was the typical "civilian in disguise." i had no business being in there. but due to the reagan recession, there i was.

Why would they be any less interested in killing if they were robbing or raping at knifepoint vs gunpoint? The situation is the same either way, maybe they don't want to leave a witness, and a knife is actually more conductive to that scenario in that it is quiet to employ. Does the gun magically make a common criminal more homicidally inclined?




So you're going to make my point for me? Rapists don't tend to use guns in the first place, and armed women would be far better at preventing rape than gun control? Thanks.



Pretty hard to mug someone while backing away from them, wouldn't you think? And you still haven't explained why criminals would want to use pepper spray in the first place, remember that it's readily available over the counter in the US, and you don't hear about much crime involving it.

Now, let me remind you that one of us is a gunsmith, martial artist and all around weapons expert, and it's clearly not you. Notice how often this pattern repeats itself throughout this argument; highly knowledgeable people arguing against gun control with people who don't know the first thing about guns and yet are completely sure of the rightness of their opinions. It's like being a biology professor at a creationist convention, and about as informative.

Yep, in fact it's already happened in the case of captive piston rounds, which are used in some underwater weapons and Russian covert weapons. The ATF requires each *individual round* to be registered as a silencer and be subject to the $200 transfer tax. It is literally illegal to invent a quiet bullet without a humongous amount of expense and legal hassle.



I just figured you would have been exposed to some gunfire then and not be too startled by the sound. It's also kinda like recoil, it might feel nasty on the range but when the chips are down you don't even feel/hear it. At least that's what the guys that carry the featherweight hand cannons into bear country tell me.

that is just so perverse, that guns MUST be noisy! that is one reason i am not such a fan of personally owning them. i have one [for "doomsday"] i inherited from my late father, but i haven't shot it since 1988, and it's only a popgun [.38 police special]. shooting a shotgun was purely a nasty affair in comparison to the .38 which was comparatively polite. i can't imagine the macho requirements of hand-held shooting something like a century arms .44-40 single action. if you saw my michelle obama arms you'd understand my misgivings.

i believe that is something i'll experience only upon doomsday. hopefully the sound and fury will outperformed by the bullet, IOW my brains will be on the pavement before i hear the boom and feel the recoil. anyways, in the military we had hearing protection which took the percussive edge off of the report [but not off the nasty language the drills used at us "goddamned goatsmelling privates"]. the .50 calibre machine guns were surprisingly quiet at the trigger end, just a bass-heavy BUMBUMBUM!! ! without a lot of treble component in the sound. the m-16s were not much noisier than a .22 [handgun].

Is a scalpel evil because it can also kill? I mean it's only designed to cut people, right?

I compare a first aid kit and a gun because they're both items carried for low probability high consequence events, not out of some fear like you seem to want to make out.

You're also missing a seemingly small but very important aspect of using a gun for self defense, namely that in the vast majority of cases it won't become necessary to take life or blood with it, the credible threat of violence is usually enough to end the encounter. You can't really do that with your fists unless you're pretty damn scary looking, and you might be able to do it with a knife and a menacing voice, but nothing really stops a violent crime before it can get started like drawn firearm.

Also, some violence is necessary, and if you're going to be forced to do violence you might as well do it efficiently. With a gun you don't have to spend years molding your body into a weapon in preparation for an unlikely event, you can simply devote a small amount of time and effort to practicing and carrying, and you don't have to worry about things like physically larger and stronger attackers. They don't call them equalizers for nothing you know.

You're making my argument for me, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to American gun culture or what it's like to live here, and yet you talk as if you do. Even the gun controllers are dropping the Wild West thing, as clearly it hasn't happened despite all their dire warnings, and you're not doing yourself any favors here by dropping such ignorant comments.

You compare a first aid kit and a gun fallaciously, one is designed to help the other is designed to harm. The primary purpose of weaponry is not to suture wounds but to open them. Why is it that a place like Montreal where people do not feel the need to carry has lower crime than so-called "safe, polite" places that have this mentality? Firearms don't prevent crime any more than banning them does, otherwise crime statistics would be a different story for your nation



I refer to my own nations gun culture, examples from my city, and that somehow leads you to conclude I know nothing about your nation's? wtf you are you talking about Dox. This is weak

Why do you keep going on about packing pistols here? It's illegal unless you have an ATC permit which is nearly impossible to obtain.

You mean the gun is only way to protect his shop?




Sad true. People are strange




Good question. Once again - if he wants to kill/smash you, he will no matter what he tools he uses. BUT.
The modi operandi changes significantly in different societies. Imagine quite peacefull/non violent society (mine). Why would he harm you there? Keep in mind he wants money only. It is ALSO against his interests to harm you! Because it takes more time, more effort, sound level raises, charges are harder and police effort climbs significantly after someone beying harmed or killed. If he thinks "this old lady is harmless, I don't need anything to rob her" - he will not carry then. Because gun is risk - even profi hitmans leave guns on the scene after and don't take them away (here).


Now something from your place


http://controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-con ... -Lives.pdf
And it is true for any crime. It simply changes the overall crime consequences.

So lets distingiush the types of perpetrators/crimes. If he wants money and to enjoy them after, he would not complicate it with too much violence.



Nice try. No. Attackers use force and surprise. Gun in the purse is weight, nothing else. Or you think women would carry holsters and sabotage their look?
During rape attempt the more struggle - the more serious consequences for woman. Attackers don't walk on the street with sign "going for rape" so she has chance to shoot. They mostly find out laying on the ground something is going on...

Chances to trick/disgust the attacker are much bigger than overcome him. So vomit, s**t herself or chat him up for blowjob (sickness, menstruation) and then bite of his cock and crush balls...



You are implicating he has to use it. Shoot you first and then mug. No, there is no need to pull the trigger most of the times.




Because you have firearms, no need to use spray.


And about my personal life - I am not a gunsmith, no. But I have done martial arts for years, I do shoot and I have a diploma in security field. But I see no point in mentioning it. Lets reasoning, not labeling.




So gas pistol would be enough in this cases too.



Yup. You have to worry about the wiser, faster and better prepared only.
Who is not (psychically and physically too) prepared to cut an attacker wide open with his pocket knife should look at gun stricktly in movies only! Or it would cause more harm than benefit one day for sure. Compare criminality in US and developed world for evidence.

In some neighborhoods, that is the case, unfortunately.

ruveyn