Saw this article in my newsfeed and thought it was an interesting subject. Had no idea the home market for suppressors was even a thing.
Full article available on The Verge
Full article available on The Verge
The Online Silencer Market is Booming—Just Don't Call it a Silencer
- Thread starter crienne
- Start date
This, coupled with death threats against progressive congresswomen lately, has me a bit worried about the future of things.
We already have mass shootings every couple of days in this country, I don't think it's ridiculous to think the same sentiments driving that behavior won't eventually be put toward elected officials. I hope I'm wrong though.
We already have mass shootings every couple of days in this country, I don't think it's ridiculous to think the same sentiments driving that behavior won't eventually be put toward elected officials. I hope I'm wrong though.
None of the dumbasses doing this shit are going to fucking Agent 47 a congresswoman, c'mon.
I've heard silencers are often used for emptying rounds downrange for long periods of time without ear damage, but still.
Also wasn't a congresswoman shot before?
I don't really want to test that in today's climate.
Also wasn't a congresswoman shot before?
You may be right. It's not like assassinations aren't part of American history, though. Especially when ground was being made in progressive movements.
Suppressors dont make guns silent....like, at all.
"Silencer" has always been a bogus term. Suppressor is a better word for them.
There is a difference between an idiot with a gun spraying at a congressperson in public and orchestrating some Hitman shit that would require a silencer.
There is actually no reason to own one of those. Those things are pointless and it's pretty much scamming the tacticool crowd.
You can look at it as a symptom of how broken the gun laws are in the US, and there is truth to that no doubt, but at the same time those things don't make guns more dangerous, they make them slightly worse.
Silencers don't work like in movies or games. They are still very loud gunshots but not loud enough to cause hearing damage.
Just makes it a bit harder for stuff like shot spotter to detect and for people in a busy City to hear. So it basically makes it easier to shoot and run away with less chance of getting immediately caught.
This is slightly off topic, but hearing damage starts at waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower levels than any of those things.
Like, we're talking hair dryer levels.
Yeah the only outrage here is ammosexuals getting scammed, and I'm not sure how worked up to get about that.
Hearing damage is about sustained volume levels hearing a hairdryer momentarily is not damaging your hearing in any appreciable way.
I was under the impression that although it's a loud noise, it can make people not realize "oh thats a gunshot" for a few more moments so to effect a getaway.
How do they make them worse, does it reduce velocity or accuracy?
If they're going after a congresswoman they're not going to bother with a silencer.
Suppressors with subsonic ammo are quiet enough when shot outdoors to not require hearing protection. This is fun/nice and all, but as others have said everything else is made worse, and it's hard to imagine a real justification for them. But that's basically why people apply for them, as far as I know. Well, that and because some people just think they look cool.
Both. And it causes gases to feed back inside the gun and gets everything filthy. Without using a specialized gun and/or low velocity subsonic ammo (which is worse in every way at doing the things bullets are supposed to do) it really just sounds like a slightly different gunshot.
It literally only reduces a gunshot by like 30dbs in most cases. People confuse fireworks for gunshots and vice versa all the time. Most people just dont know what gunshots actually sound like.
Hearing damage accumulates over time, so yeah, a short period of noise just at the threshold (like drying your hair) is unlikely to do much harm, but it's also really not true that hearing damage is about sustained levels.
Shooting one bullet is a very very short burst of sound, the opposite of sustained, and anyone who shot a gun without protection can tell you you can get real hearing damage from that.
In any case, the point I really want to stress is that it is very much not true to say the guns with those attachments cannot cause hearing damage.
No one has ever run around DC for weeks, shooting at people with a sniper rifle. Nope, that Hitman shit never happens...
So this is like the 'ole smoke shop rules where you can't call a bong a bong but a "water pipe for herbal blends" was fair game? Except way more nefarious.
Yep, random ass people on the street and a congresswoman, these are exactly the same, good point.
I think this is a distraction. People enterprising enough will find ways to build and modify shit. It's the ready made guns and ammunition that makes the real problem, not these DIY projects.
We've never had anyone attempt to assassinate a president either...
Ok well I guess really we are getting down to semantics. I didn't mean "LITERALLY no hearing damage". Moreso, to lessen the impact. Either way, I've had to study hearing loss because of my profession.
There is a lot of alarmism around it that's overblown. Yes its absolutely a thing but, I've seen some who evangelize about it so much that you'd think they suggest you should spend your life living in a perfectly silent box and avoiding anything enjoyable in your life.
I know plenty of musicians in their 50's and 60's that spent their lives around loud instruments. Is their hearing affected somewhat?
Yes.
Worth it?
Also yes.
You're the one arguing that no one would ever attempt to assassinate a congresswoman. Pointing out that it has been done is not a strawman.
Literally at no time did I make that point, good job completely buying into your own strawman.
They were meant to make guns silent, the selling point of the first silencer used to be "it won't scare animals".
The only problem is that this technology never ever worked as advertised.
Luckily, the a bunch of drunk English majors in the CIA were dumb enough to believe in that shit, and this why it's still a fucking thing today.
You made the claim that no one would ever try "some Hitman shit" and then argued that prior assassination attempts were just idiots "spraying" with a gun.
There have been professional assassination attempts against members of Congress and the President. This is fact.
To dismiss every attempt as random spraying with a gun is fantasy.
Attempting to claim that is a strawman is simply a failed attempt to avoid defending the original claim.
Why are they different? Congress reps appear in public all the time. At most they'll have an entourage with heavies to keep people getting in their personal space, not secret service setting up a perimeter.
We have shooters targeting congress reps. We have shooters doing what they can to mitigate being caught. These can't possibly overlap because...?
Exactly. Instead of hearing the shot a mile away, you'll hear it from 1/2 a mile away.
...sucks at everything but noise and still doesn't silence anything.
I mentioned this in other thread. The NRA is definitely shifting towards a more focused market rather than overall gun laws. Suppressor market was one area they focused their politics at to pass laws for
My one and only point in this thread is that someone trying to kill a congressswoman would not be aided by one of these shitty ass silencers. You reframing that as me suggesting no one would ever attempt to kill a congresswoman is the definition of a strawman.
The argument is "silencers" in general, and these specifically, aren't effective and make guns worse. They aren't a net positive at all for a person trying to hurt people.