Results of Sep 12th SHARE Act Legislative Hearing (Included HPA)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stanc
    Banned
    • Apr 2011
    • 3430

    #31
    Originally posted by Klem View Post
    A very unlikely scenario I think we all agree.

    Using that logic, suppressors could become compulsory regardless of whether the gun lobby uses noise pollution to argue for greater access to suppressors or not. Mufflers on cars are compulsory so by the same token, why not make it the same for guns? Kind of like, 'Be careful what you wish for' as the government decides, OK, you want suppressors, then everyone has to have them from now on.

    A logical but extremely unlikely scenario.
    Why do you say it's extremely unlikely? Pollution controls imposed by government are not left to the people to decide whether or not to implement them.

    If you want to effectively control gun noise pollution, suppressor use will have to be mandatory for all firearms. This ploy can only backfire on gunowners.

    Comment

    • JASmith
      Chieftain
      • Sep 2014
      • 1620

      #32
      My main worry about the HPA has already been voiced by Klem and acouple of orhers -- they are all too likely to become mandatory at ranges near urban areas.

      While that moght be OK in the AR crowd where a huge fraction of rifles already have threaded mizzles, the guys shooting classic weapons, e. g., Springields, Enfields, Model 70s, Savage 99s, etc. would not be able to use them.
      shootersnotes.com

      "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
      -- Author Unknown

      "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

      Comment

      • montana
        Chieftain
        • Jun 2011
        • 3209

        #33
        This discussion is giving me a headache. The leftist, anti everything crowed could, will and do use any excuse to stop the use of firearms by citizens. There is no logic, reality or proven science to back up any of their claims to disarm the American people. Suppressors do cut down on noise from rifle ranges and protect hearing. I live in a mountain valley with two shooting ranges on opposite sides of the valley. Some days the air carries the sound quite efficiently and is very noticeable, "music to my ears". In my younger days people were happy because the ranges gave people a close place to sight in their rifles before hunting season other than their back yards. Since then a lot of newbies have moved in and started complaining. "Too bad", Montana passed a law preventing the closure of established shooting ranges resulting from residential growth and noise complaints. This law and many other pro gun laws were passed by the hard work of Gary Marbut's Montana Shooting Sports Association. I enjoy discussions about pro active firearm strategies but we don't need to over think this. No matter what leverage, strategy, logic that is used, you can bank on the left to create a new, exaggerated bold face lie about a much needed, common sense, prohibiting, anti gun law. Logic will only work with logical people, not the insane, dumb downed, emotional based, power hungry leftist drones. Getting pro gun representatives in office is the only cure for the cancerous, leftist destruction process of our Constitutional rights. It is because of dedicated people like Gary Marbut and his supporters that I live in a very pro gun state.

        Comment

        • stanc
          Banned
          • Apr 2011
          • 3430

          #34
          Originally posted by montana View Post
          This discussion is giving me a headache. The leftist, anti everything crowed could, will and do use any excuse to stop the use of firearms by citizens. There is no logic, reality or proven science to back up any of their claims to disarm the American people. Suppressors do cut down on noise from rifle ranges and protect hearing. I live in a mountain valley with two shooting ranges on opposite sides of the valley. Some days the air carries the sound quite efficiently and is very noticeable, "music to my ears". In my younger days people were happy because the ranges gave people a close place to sight in their rifles before hunting season other than their back yards. Since then a lot of newbies have moved in and started complaining. "Too bad", Montana passed a law preventing the closure of established shooting ranges resulting from residential growth and noise complaints.
          Yup. In the San Diego area there was a nice outdoor range that had been in operation for decades. Then about 40 years ago, population growth resulted in housing tracts being developed on the land surrounding the range. Soon afterwards, complaints from the people who moved in forced the range to be permanently shut down.

          Originally posted by montana View Post
          No matter what leverage, strategy, logic that is used, you can bank on the left to create a new, exaggerated bold face lie about a much needed, common sense, prohibiting, anti gun law.
          Granted, but why help them by providing a reason that we argue for now, but then would later have to defend against...and look like hypocrites or fools in the process.

          Originally posted by montana View Post
          Logic will only work with logical people, not the insane, dumb downed, emotional based, power hungry leftist drones.
          Well, there is some lack of logic among gun people, too. Consider this comment from the OP:
          The expert witnesses in support of the HPA had to clarify several times that it is still recommended that you wear hearing protection when using suppressors, and that they are not quiet like in the movies.
          IMO, that's illogical and counter-productive testimony. If they are so loud that you should wear ear plugs/muffs anyway, what's the point in wanting to use suppressors?

          Comment

          • montana
            Chieftain
            • Jun 2011
            • 3209

            #35
            I agree with you Stan, but comparing the left"s lack of logic to the poor explanation of suppressor use is not even in the same universe. It should have been explained better that hearing damage is decreased ten fold when using a suppressed firearm compared to non suppressed. A good comparison would be to running heavy equipment. Heavy equipment has mufflers but hearing protection is recommended for long term exposure. Running heavy equipment with just a straight pipe will damage hearing immediately not to mention any person near that piece of equipment. What the laws tell shooters today is they must run their firearms with a straight stack. Many suppressors are not hearing safe but are much better for long term exposure compared to non suppressed. Most hunters today never use suppressors because of laws and or exorbitant cost of licensing. Many do not use ear protection, "including myself" as they need to use their sense of hearing to acquire their game. Using a suppressed weapon for hunting will save hearing plain and simple as it will in all shooting. Having the option of going suppressed is a viable health issue, not a crime issue.

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              #36
              I fully agree, Tom. All I'm saying is, don't frame it as a public health issue (i.e., noise pollution), or else don't be surprised if you get laws mandating suppressor use "to protect public health."

              Comment

              • Kswhitetails
                Chieftain
                • Oct 2016
                • 1914

                #37
                Originally posted by stanc View Post
                Again with the "noise pollution" nonsense.

                I suppose that the person who came up with this idea, and all of the shooters who repeat it, probably think they are being very clever in employing an environmentalist argument.

                If I were a strategist for anti-gun groups, I would have them agree with removing restrictions on suppressors on the grounds it would benefit the public by reducing noise pollution.

                Then, as with noise pollution control devices on motor vehicles, I would have them lobby Congress to make it mandatory that all firearms have suppressors attached when in use.

                Imagine the effect on concealed (or even open) carry of handguns.
                Stanc,

                I am starting to think that your signature line is actually representative of your actual personality. I find the posts you write to be both thoughtful and infuriating at the same time. "Noise polution" may be the wrong term, but the effects are as real as you are in front of that keyboard. The fact is that a neighbor firing his 22-250, his AR, or his 9mm off his deck at his own targets do indeed make enough noise that for someone out on their deck wishing to enjoy a quiet sunset is indeed disturbed by their reports. Firing a suppressed firearm would indeed reduce the noise, period. Thus, argument validity becomes an aside. The very fact that we (and the legislation itself) identifies the desire to reduce the noise associated with firearm use makes the "noise pollution" argument valid as the legitimate purpose of the discussion. What is the purpose of a suppressor?

                Make suppressors mandatory? Seriously? Fine, I for one welcome the opening of the suppressor market to the general consumer, and the VAST and IMMEDIATE innovation that would come with it. SilencerCo has already been leading the way with an integrally suppressed 9mm. Bring on the new toys! The picture you post is of a suppressor that would very quickly wind up in the back of a safe, and would stay there indefinitely. Obviously, there are ways to make that better, and by opening the market to the American consumer, you'd see how quickly that thing and every other like it would become the very bottom of the list of suppressors to own.

                Every disadvantage you think of when making this argument -it's too big, it's too heavy, it's too loud, it's too (whatever); would become the very starting point of a new company, of a new product line, of a new and vastly improved suppressor system. Make suppressors mandatory and wait for the market to catch up. America was MADE for this kind of challenge.

                I understand the thought that making a logical argument at a time when feelings and emotions are the norm is starting from a point of weakness. I get that the task is going to take work, effort, maybe even blood, sweat, and tears. Our fore fathers, had they been of the school of thought that anything difficult isn't worth doing... Well, I hate to think of what we'd be like as a nation today. If even a nation at all...
                Nothing kills the incentive of men faster than a healthy sense of entitlement. Nothing kills entitlement faster than a healthy sense of achievement.

                Comment

                • Klem
                  Chieftain
                  • Aug 2013
                  • 3509

                  #38
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  Why do you say it's extremely unlikely? Pollution controls imposed by government are not left to the people to decide whether or not to implement them.

                  If you want to effectively control gun noise pollution, suppressor use will have to be mandatory for all firearms. This ploy can only backfire on gunowners.
                  I say it's extremely unlikely because it represents a complete 180-degree reversal of decades of suspicion and criminalisation of suppressors by the authorities. The authorities would resist it themselves as it makes them look like idiots. Entities like the Police would resist it because they believe suppressors have potential to facilitate crime. Plus the logistics of threading, manufacturing, cost, effort and imposition by the Government would see the NRA and other representative bodies vigorously oppose it. Thanks to Hollywood, the community ignorance of the actual efficiency of these things would see non-shooting legislators treating the initiative with suspicion - and such a wide, encompassing, complete reversal of the status quo would need all stake-holders to be enthusiastic about it. Even Blind Freddy can see that compulsory suppression on all guns will never happen so it's pointless even discussing such a fantasy.

                  But, given this is so obvious I suspect you are simply enjoying stirring people up in a good debate...

                  Comment

                  • stanc
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 3430

                    #39
                    Originally posted by Klem View Post
                    But, given this is so obvious I suspect you are simply enjoying stirring people up in a good debate...
                    a. It's not obvious to me.
                    b. In this thread are two (presumably) gun people who desire that their shooting neighbors use suppressors.
                    c. You yourself cited two examples of anti-gun people trying to do exactly as I hypothesized.

                    Comment

                    • stanc
                      Banned
                      • Apr 2011
                      • 3430

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                      Stanc, I am starting to think that your signature line is actually representative of your actual personality.
                      Almost right. My signature line is representative of my actual experience. Those things that I've done well, came easily to me.
                      Practicing "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" typically resulted only in wasting a lot of time producing repeated failure.

                      I prefer success.

                      Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                      Make suppressors mandatory? Seriously? Fine, I for one welcome [it]...
                      You may welcome it, and I'm certain the suppressor industry would absolutely love it, but I would really dislike being told by government that I must use suppressors.

                      Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                      "Noise polution" may be the wrong term, but the effects are as real as you are in front of that keyboard. The fact is that a neighbor firing his 22-250, his AR, or his 9mm off his deck at his own targets do indeed make enough noise that for someone out on their deck wishing to enjoy a quiet sunset is indeed disturbed by their reports.
                      Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
                      I am reminded of a line from Predator...

                      Comment

                      • Klem
                        Chieftain
                        • Aug 2013
                        • 3509

                        #41
                        Originally posted by stanc View Post
                        c. You yourself cited two examples of anti-gun people trying to do exactly as I hypothesized.
                        ... and both their efforts were defeated by those with more social leverage. Their intentions might be aligned with your hypothesis but the reality of what happened is more aligned with mine.

                        Comment

                        • montana
                          Chieftain
                          • Jun 2011
                          • 3209

                          #42
                          Originally posted by stanc View Post
                          Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
                          I am reminded of a line from Predator...



                          Comment

                          • Kswhitetails
                            Chieftain
                            • Oct 2016
                            • 1914

                            #43
                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            Almost right. My signature line is representative of my actual experience. Those things that I've done well, came easily to me.
                            Practicing "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" typically resulted only in wasting a lot of time producing repeated failure.

                            I prefer success.
                            Fair enough. Though, if legislation passed easily, we wouldn't be in the 2A forum... Unfortunately, passing any form of legislation regarding the repeal of long standing gun grabs is going to prove more difficult than your previous experience. What now, are you going to just let them slowly be taken or continue to be legislated out of your life? Send your guns my way, you can just roll over on it now and let your experience continue to guide you, I'll "keep trying".

                            Originally posted by stanc View Post


                            You may welcome it, and I'm certain the suppressor industry would absolutely love it, but I would really dislike being told by government that I must use suppressors.
                            Absolutely they would. So would the consumer. And let me ask you, if someone came up with a suppressor that fit reasonably within the frame dimensions of a 1911, would you pack and shoot it? If your new AR came equipped with an integral suppressor free floated inside the hand guard, would you shoot it? If you did, and it didn't bother the neighbor, isn't that win-win? Turn the free market loose on this, and you'll see innovation explode and prices plummet. Fairly Micro, but lawfully supported.

                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            Americans have become so delicate that they are disturbed by the sound of freedom???
                            I am reminded of a line from Predator...

                            OK - agreed. I admit I laughed here. And you're right. But I submit that if the "noise polllution" argument represents the "silliness" of the far left in this debate, then the above represents the far right. There is no doubt that suppressors depress noise emissions during firearm usage, and there used to be a time when we all thought of our neighbors before we went out to blast away. It was just a matter of the fact that the nearest neighbor was 5 miles away - so it didn't matter. And yes, yes. We have become too delicate. But that is for another forum.
                            Nothing kills the incentive of men faster than a healthy sense of entitlement. Nothing kills entitlement faster than a healthy sense of achievement.

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              Fair enough. Though, if legislation passed easily, we wouldn't be in the 2A forum... Unfortunately, passing any form of legislation regarding the repeal of long standing gun grabs is going to prove more difficult than your previous experience.
                              I've been on this planet almost 73 years. I've seen both California and Federal gun laws continue to grow in number, and become increasingly more restrictive.

                              I do not recall any major California or Federal gun laws ever being repealed. So, I guess you are saying that repeal will go from impossible to more impossible?

                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              What now, are you going to just let them slowly be taken or continue to be legislated out of your life?
                              It doesn't seem like it's a matter of choice. Judging by history -- not just in this country, but others (Australia, for instance) -- it's a matter of when, not if.

                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              Send your guns my way, you can just roll over on it now and let your experience continue to guide you, I'll "keep trying".
                              Ah, the idealism of youth. I wish you the best of luck.

                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              Absolutely they would. So would the consumer.
                              The consumer is going to love being forced by law to buy and use only suppressed guns, at what, double the price of non-suppressed guns? Seriously?

                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              And let me ask you, if someone came up with a suppressor that fit reasonably within the frame dimensions of a 1911, would you pack and shoot it? If your new AR came equipped with an integral suppressor free floated inside the hand guard, would you shoot it?
                              If I'm forced to, because those are the only legal options? Well, duh. Of course I would.

                              Originally posted by Kswhitetails View Post
                              If you did, and it didn't bother the neighbor, isn't that win-win? Turn the free market loose on this, and you'll see innovation explode and prices plummet. Fairly Micro, but lawfully supported.
                              There's a huge difference between being "supported" by law, and being required by law.
                              Last edited by stanc; 09-18-2017, 05:34 AM.

                              Comment

                              • Troutguide
                                Warrior
                                • Jan 2017
                                • 380

                                #45
                                When are they going to vote on this already?
                                "I rarely give a definite answer" - TG

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X