Welcome To The Club, Huskers

https://mygunculture.com/silencers-really-silence/


Yes I do since the decibel levels are comparable to a suppressed subsonic round (.45).

Answer my questions I initially posed rather than dodging them, and I'll answer yours. Deal?

 

Thanks. The posts I respond to more often than not are just templates used to educate third parties. I know such posters care nothing about reality. But I can demonstrate the very concerning fact that the most authoritarian are also the least informed. We really can’t let the ignorant make decisions on things they don’t understand. We don’t let toddlers decide their own diets. We don’t have plumbers out when we need electrical work done. These anti gun folk are surely intelligent and skilled at something. But not in the arena of firearms. They shouldn’t be taken seriously on policy concerning things they not only don’t know much about, but that so much they think they know is plain incorrect.

 

You realize a screw on oil filter is basically indistinguishable from a suppressor except that its cheap crap right?
You realize they sell those on wish .com?

 

You know how when a person sticks their head in the sand with their backside up in the air?

Makes them vulnerable.

 

A comparison to a subsonic round is only because a supersonic round makes it's own little sonic boom which the suppressor cannot suppress.

You also left off an unsilenced .45 subsonic, 141-146db and "rifle" which,gee can vary from that same 141 up to 165 db. So you're already starting out on a dishonest foot.

110 decibels is significantly less loud than 140 plus. In fact, 140 dbs is about 1,000 times louder than 110 db. That's because it's a logarithmic scale. 165 db is over 100,000 times louder. You're arguing that a chain saw or jack hammer is almost as loud as a jet engine. That's dumb. If you stand right outside a jet engine and start up your chain saw, you would barely hear the chainsaw.

Is 110 decibels silent? No. But it's far less quiet than an unsilenced gun. So yes, silencers do suppress the sound of gun fire. For what purpose depends on the user.

 

You realize you still have to complete the NFA form if you use as such, right? And if you're a criminal, well, guess what...

I presumed we were talking actual suppressors built, designed and sold for that task. Do you not see how that's a very reasonable assumption to make? If you want to include homemade devices or other devices that are pressed into the same service, then sure you reduce the cost. But you still are tacking a felony onto your criminal record if caught, so it's probably still no better than just going without the oil can filter.

 

Agreed. For the suppressor. Not the butter knife.

 

There’s some raccoons in my neighborhood, they’ve attacked my dog on more than one occasion. Long story but the dog has held her own fine with me as backup. It’s residential neighborhood, shooting them is out of the question. Do you provide a live trap service? Leave the shovel and other tools at home, just relocate them. Maybe to Martha’s Vineyard?

 

Wrapping a towel does NOTHING to suppress the sound. The sound doesn't come from the muzzle. It comes from the bullet and gasses leaving the barrel...which the towel does nothing to mitigate.

I didn't dispute that suppressors were not used in many crimes. That's nice reading, but you're preaching to the choir on that one.

I didn't hire you to kill anyone. Nor did I call you a thug. In fact, if I hired someone to shoot animals, I probably would appreciate them using a suppressor. I am merely tired of incomplete and dishonest arguments about firearms. They are not "deadly." They are deadly, no quotes. That's what they are for. Saying otherwise is stupid.

 

Neither.

 

Sorry but most people don't go around wondering if the people around them are armed.

 

Do you regard CCW privileges to be good or bad?

 

Neither.

 

Sure they do. But most of the people around them are not armed.

Still, it never hurts to treat everyone as though they are armed. Because, "An armed society is a polite society".

 

care to expound upon why you are so ambivalent? If you are indeed ambivalent?

 

No they don't and no its not.

 

Because its not something I think about.

 

If you've thought about it enough to conclude that open carry is preferable to concealed carry. Why is that?

 

People with any common Sense realize that anyone around them could possibly be armed.

Slightly over 20 employees where I work and two of them are armed on a daily basis and some of them could be on any given day.

That's almost 10% of a random sampling of the population

 

I went through this conversation with him a couple of months ago and what he's trying to get at but he won't say again..... He thinks that he has some right to know when someone is carrying a gun therefore he wants them to open carry because he thinks that it will somehow make him safer.

I have explained to him then and also yesterday that he has no right to know what someone may or may not have in their pockets

 

No the intended purpose of a suppressor is not to mask the location of a shooter any more than the intended purpose of a muffler is to mask the location of a vehicle.

I'm still waiting on you to tell me the last time someone was prosecuted for killing someone using a suppressor

 

Nope.

 

Why are you waiting for that? Read the source. It says they are rarely used in crimes. That's agreement that they aren't a common tool at all for criminals who use guns to commit crimes. You can stop waiting.

Yes, it sure can be used to mask the location of a shooter. It reduces the report of the shot and muzzle flash. Both of which are used to locate shooters.

 

Why the reluctance to explain your preference of open carry over concealed?

 

I've already stated I want to know so I can avoid you.