Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Boomsticks: Why ban health and safety gear?


Another gem from Oleg Volk.


You'd be surprised how many people don't see suppressors from this angle. When they give you the "Silencers should be illegal!" jazz, fire back with:

"If I don't put a silencer on my car, my motorcycle, or my chainsaw, they can throw me in jail, but if I do put one on my gun they can throw me in jail. I don't get it. Is my hearing important, or isn't it?"

8 comments:

Blackwing1 said...

It's my understanding that silencers (or "moderators" as they're called in the UK, where they're legal) are completely banned here in the Soviet Socialist State of Minnesnowta. That being said, I've never had the opportunity to shoot a .22 with one on.

How do they affect accuracy? How well do they suppress the noise? Can you shoot a high-velocity .22 with them, or are you restricted for some reason to using only sub-sonic loads?

Tam said...

They will reduce a .22 to the point where no hearing protection is required. Even high vel loads from a .22 rifle sound like a powerful air rifle. Accuracy and velocity are often improved by a quality suppressor.

CGHill said...

And of course they're mandatory should you plan to shoot a mime.

Anonymous said...

But the Children must know when you're shooting!

Is that $200 per, or a one time thing if you want to buy multiples?

Matt G said...

I've been asking this question for years.

IMHO, we should take that argument straight to Kalifornia, the state that tries to sue gun manufacturers for making "unsafe products" while at the same time banning safety equipment.

How many people each year are harmed from bullets in this country? Now, compare that to how many people in this country pemanently lose some of their hearing or get some tinitis from the sound made by the expanding gases pushing bullets out of the barrels of guns? What a bizarre concept: You have to make a huge noise that makes it unsafe for anyone to approach within 100 feet, and makes it so that everyone around must wear mufflers on their heads (which interfere with the ability to communicate-- kind of important when on a firing line), rather than put a dampening device on the firearm.

Again, when we apply the concept to the car, it's ludicrous.

"But guns are dangerous!" So are cars. Making it so that we can communicate around them ("Look out! Watch your step! He's swerving! Take cover!") is smart.

"Well, if you have to put on muffs to go near the gun, that will make it safer, because people won't get close enough to get shot." Really? A bullet can kill a man further away than he can hear the shot. We still have to be responsible for where we shoot. It would just be nice to hear someone walking up after we took a shot.

"Silencers are the tools of assassins! Criminals use silencers!" So if I use one, I'm a criminal, too? And, if it's against the law to possess a supressor, a self-aware murderer or would-be murderer will say "darn!" and do without one when he wanted one? A 2 liter plastic bottle and some duct tape makes a pretty decent suppressor (for one or two shots), but I don't seem to recall that being the M.O. for any murders, lately.

I actually can't recall the last time I heard of a silencer being used in a crime.


Now, can we move to another issue that irritates me (and which I discussed with a neophyte rider yesterday), which is the stupid "Loud pipes save lives" myth? Motorcyclists-- you're gonna have to let this one go.

Tam said...

"Is that $200 per, or a one time thing if you want to buy multiples?"

There is a $200 tax on every transfer of a machine-gun, suppressor, short-barreled rifle/shotgun, or destructive device. There is a $5 tax on the transfer of an "Any Other Weapon".

Cybrludite said...

"They will reduce a .22 to the point where no hearing protection is required."

Hell, my tinnitus does that already. Does this meaan I gotta pay a $200 tax on my ears? ;-)

jeff said...

That tinnitus sucks. Don't know where I got it, but I can hear it dang near most of the time.