Welcome To The Club, Huskers

Off the top of my head, here are some reasons I think that's a bad idea.

1. It gives criminals time. Best case scenario is a plan to leave you alone. Worst case scenario is the bad guy taking your gun and using it against you or others. Having your gun in an exposed holster is an invitation to have it stolen. There is no shortage of youtube videos documenting cops struggling with a bad guy trying to take his or her gun. The Boston marathon bombers murdered a cop for the sole purpose of adding his weapons to their arsenal.

2. Hardcore criminals (like the Tsarnaev boys) are not frightened by your gun. Your open carry pistol will not deter the most dangerous among us. Even with an extreme focus on retention, you're just giving the worst of the worst more time to plan their attack.

3. Concealed carry gives you a tactical advantage. The bad guy gets to choose the time and place of his attack. You're already one step behind. A concealed weapon the bad guy did not expect changes that dynamic, and puts him at a disadvantage. Just ask the bikers my dad confronted, or the crackheads I sent packing.

If you choose to open carry in a jurisdiction that allows it, more power to you. In the meantime, you will never know I am armed unless you come after me. Then all bets are off.

 

Multiple members have tried to engage you on those remarks. Instead of taking part in the discussion, you've chosen to copy and paste those same remarks again. Trolling. Reported.

 

I see you don't understand much about hunting either. From your post it's obvious you're one of those that thinks there should be a "sporting" chance..... The point of hunting for meat or to cull animals is to make a clean kill from as short of shot as possible so as to ensure you do not wound the animal.

Anytime someone says anything remotely similar to a sporting chance it's obvious they have no clue how you ethically hunt.

And furthermore did you know that people shoot pistols and rifles on their property all the time with the proper backstops?

Just please stop digging

 

A friendly suggestion: don't feed the trolls.

 

I know, I know, they just piss me off bragging about their ignorance.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

You don’t have to remain uninformed. If you listen and learn a bit about firearms and suppressors you could eventually engage in a factual and rational discussion about them without being frustrated and angry.

 

Why?

 

Maybe because millions of people own guns and quite a few of them carry them?

 

All of this proves my point people don't CC to deter criminals from attacking they do it so they have an advantage if attacked.

 

Why would that make me assume that someone has a gun?

 

Maybe because there's approximately 400 million guns in this nation and lots of people own them?

I know what you're trying to get at because we've already went through this once.... You don't have a single right to know that someone is carrying. What people may or may not be carrying on their person is none of your business

 

You see that as a problem?

 

ME??? Talk to those that would use one in a back yard while shooting varmits , that's a dead or injured neighbor in the works. Or the other that uses a silencer instead of the sanctioned and approved head gear. Misusing weapons that kill is why there even needs to be laws.

 

What a silly notion. Are you trying to make the silly argument that it's somehow less safe to shoot with a suppressor?

Do you think they somehow affect the accuracy? You think that not shooting the same exact gun without one would somehow make it safer?

 

I really haven't gotten that impression at all and I'm not sure how you did either.

 

He could not be more unserious or uninformed, he's just here to stir the pot.

 

I'll go even slower. "Legitamate" uses presented here have been hunting varmints in the yard and protecting the shooter's hearing. In the first case, if you are hunting varmints in your yard with a rifle or pistol you are using the wrong weapon. BB gun or shotgun much more appropriate, don't have silencers and unlikely to kill or wound a neighbor accidentally unlike pistols and rifles with or without silencers. As to your hearing. Head phones are a far more efficient means to protect your hearing, go to any gun range.
So I ask again, a legitimate reason for a legal gun owner to need a silencer is what? I have pointed out why bandits and other criminals could need one and of course there is the cool factor in movies but why should they be easily obtained when the bad uses are so much more prevalent? With a doctor's order in very rare hearing cases but other than that I'm at a.loss.

 

Do you not understand that if you have enough land it's perfectly legal to shoot in your yard but it's not legal for your bullets to leave your property?

Anyone that knows anything about guns knows that you're supposed to use an appropriate backstop to prevent that.

And now that's just a little more that you know

 

My apologies to you and @9royhobbs . I thought you were responding to StillBlue.

 

Yes, I've read such accounts.

The point is that the deterrence doesn't come from knowing the gun is there but by knowing that it might be there.

 

Yes. You.

I use a suppressor almost exclusively instead of “sanctioned and approved” headgear (whatever that is). A suppressor is every bit as “sanctioned and approved” as any “headgear”.

I own “headgear”. I use it when using chainsaws, grain vacs, or when cutting sheet metal. They get damaged. They fall apart. They get replaced. On the other hand, my suppressors will last my lifetime. They would last me multiple lifetimes. The exact opposite of what you’ve claimed.

When shooting I use suppressors. When I shoot, a good share of the time there isn’t time to find ear protection. There is often barely time to deploy the firearm before a predator is gone or moves into a position where it is unsafe to shoot. I’ve already explained to you why “headgear” would be irresponsible in my case. Because it would be abusive to animals whereas suppressors are not.

I shoot in my “back yard” a lot. The fact it’s a “back yard” isn’t what makes it safe or unsafe. It’s knowing your target and what’s behind it. And using correct ammunition and firearm type. But you have not seen my back yard. Yet I’m sure you are happy to make judgements about the safety of shooting there.

One poster commented about shooting a snake in the backyard with a pistol. You said he should use a shotgun. But he used .410 shot shells in a pistol. This means any shot is LESS likely to leave his property than if the same .410 shell was employed in a long barreled shotgun with likely a full choke. But apparently you don’t know that. Or even that .410 is shot shell. You heard “derringer” and made a false assumption because you don’t understand firearms and ammunition types.

It’s fine for people to be uninformed about guns. Or any subject. But such folks don’t have any business telling educated and professional people what to do. It’s like someone who thinks viruses aren’t real giving medical advice.

As I said. You can learn a bit about the subject or not learn and keep making statements about firearms and suppressors that are verifiably factually incorrect. But your statements based on false premises not only lead other uninformed people astray, they make people who ARE informed stop listening to anti gunners altogether because you destroy any credibility that demographic may have. If you really care about reducing crime or firearm deaths in general and plan to do anything about it you will need some credibility…..

 

I'm sorry but I just had to laugh. You'll be glad to know I didn't have any coffee to spew. I'm just trying to picture you running around yelling at ground squirrels "Go stand over there in front of the safety backstop. Hurry on now."

 

I'll use your post to clear up what I meant.
Let's start with "If you have enough land". Sure, you're right, but in my experience it's illegal to shoot within city limits and that's what it sounds like when you shooting in your "garden" and you don't want to upset the neighbors. If it's not illegal it's certainly irresponsible and to justify the actions with a suppressor is laughable.

 

More false premise and lack of knowledge from you.

First, in the US, suppressors are NOT easily obtained. It took me over a year to get each of my suppressors. Two of them took almost 2 years to get. You are fingerprinted. You supply passport quality photos. You get a thorough background check by the ATF. You are vetted by your local law enforcement. You pay a $200 tax for a stamp. The suppressor is permanently registered with the ATF. Nobody but the fingerprinted person can possess the suppressor. Etc., etc.

On the other hand, some places in Europe mandate suppressors for hunting in certain areas and suppressors are unregulated.

Suppressors are simple to make if a criminal wanted to use one. Pop bottles. Oil filters. Pipe and a $200 welder from Harbor Freight. The options are endless. A criminal can have a suppressor almost immediately if one is desired. A law abiding citizen must go through a long arduous process and pay for a product up front they may not have access to for years.

Yes, there are suppressors for shotguns. If I used a shotgun more I would own one. Why would you think there are not suppressors for shotguns?

Now efficiency of earmuffs vs. suppressors. Both typically reduce by about 30dB. Enough to protect hearing. But the problem with both in ear and over the ear protection is fit. If the protection is not fit properly or there is head or facial hair that interferes with seal the advertised noise reduction will not be realized. In contrast, a suppressor is not subject to those problems.

Also, not all shooting is done at a range. I’ve shot on a range once in my entire life. When I shoot it’s VERY inefficient to try and keep earmuffs handy when a suppressor is always ready on the firearm no matter the circumstances. And my suppressors protect my animals from harm as well as my hearing. If I wear earmuffs that doesn’t help my animals at al. Same would apply to home defense weapons. The hearing of the entire family is protected by a suppressor whereas it’s ridiculous to assume all family members are going to don hearing protection prior to using a weapon in self defense.

Suppressors are overall far more efficient than worn hearing protection. Your argument is equivalent to saying we shouldn’t have mufflers on cars, it would be more efficient for us all to wear earmuffs to protect our hearing or to have “quiet” to sleep.

As almost everything you believe about suppressors is false, you really need to educate yourself before attempting to criticize others in circumstances you know nothing about. You need to realize the movies are not reality. Reality is what I’m educating you on. Watch your movies for fun. But don’t think they portray reality. They don’t.