Op-Ed ANTI stance on the Hearing Protection Act

[General Geoff]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...c9c_story.html

exerpt:

Gunfire — loud, sharp, rude, abrupt — is an important safety feature of any firearm. From potential victims who seek to escape a mass shooting to a hiker being alerted to the presence of a hunter in the woods, the sound warns bystanders of potentially lethal danger. Yet gun advocates insist there is a greater danger: hearing loss by gun owners.

The whole article is grasping at straws for any theoretical negative consequence of silencer legalization. I guess they don't realize that a $5 plumbing adapter and a $5 oil filter can already be made into a highly effective, illegal silencer for any criminal who wishes to do harm.

[ray h]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...c9c_story.html

exerpt:



The whole article is grasping at straws for any theoretical negative consequence of silencer legalization. I guess they don't realize that a $5 plumbing adapter and a $5 oil filter can already be made into a highly effective, illegal silencer for any criminal who wishes to do harm.

Sorry, I think the article does make a valid point. A firearm report is definitely a signal that someone is shooting. If I were in close proximity to a shooting I would hope the shooter did not have a suppressor. That's not to say I think they should be illegal or controlled, because I don't, although I do think they give the tactical advantage to the shooter, and I think the whole "hearing protection act" argument is BS. While it's true a person can buy the parts off the internet to make a suppressor, to do it right is fairly costly. The oil filter suppressor is just stupid.

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

Sorry, I think the article does make a valid point. A firearm report is definitely a signal that someone is shooting. If I were in close proximity to a shooting I would hope the shooter did not have a suppressor. That's not to say I think they should be illegal or controlled, because I don't, although I do think they give the tactical advantage to the shooter, and I think the whole "hearing protection act" argument is BS. While it's true a person can buy the parts off the internet to make a suppressor, to do it right is fairly costly. The oil filter suppressor is just stupid.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[cigarmanpa]

Sorry, I think the article does make a valid point. A firearm report is definitely a signal that someone is shooting. If I were in close proximity to a shooting I would hope the shooter did not have a suppressor. That's not to say I think they should be illegal or controlled, because I don't, although I do think they give the tactical advantage to the shooter, and I think the whole "hearing protection act" argument is BS. While it's true a person can buy the parts off the internet to make a suppressor, to do it right is fairly costly. The oil filter suppressor is just stupid.

except for the fact there's still a fairly loud bang even with a suppressor

[General Geoff]

Sorry, I think the article does make a valid point. A firearm report is definitely a signal that someone is shooting. If I were in close proximity to a shooting I would hope the shooter did not have a suppressor. That's not to say I think they should be illegal or controlled, because I don't, although I do think they give the tactical advantage to the shooter, and I think the whole "hearing protection act" argument is BS. While it's true a person can buy the parts off the internet to make a suppressor, to do it right is fairly costly. The oil filter suppressor is just stupid.

Oil filter silencer will get you within a few decibels of a $1000 commercial one, and there's no need to clean it, just throw it away when it clogs up. I don't see how that's stupid.

[GunLawyer001]

I guess this is why all butcher knives are required to have permanently-affixed bells, so that everybody nearby is alerted to a stabbing spree.

And why it's illegal to put a muffler on your car, to prevent people from being run over by silent vehicles.

Know what knives, baseball bats, rope, and suppressed weapons all have in common? They don't make much noise, and they have common lawful uses that are vastly more frequent than any unlawful uses.

[ray h]

except for the fact there's still a fairly loud bang even with a suppressor

I know there aren't "hollywood" suppressors.
I'll ask one question and leave it at that. You are in a movie theater and someone outside in the lobby or in an adjacent theater starts shooting people, or you are having dinner in a restaurant and someone comes in the back door and starts shooting in the kitchen as they progress through the building, or you are in a mall and they start shooting in the next store over. Would you prefer they have a suppressor or not?
You all know what the answer is.
I'm not saying I think it should be illegal or restricted to own one, I'm just saying the article makes a valid point. It's a cost of freedom I'm willing to accept but I can't ignore that there is that cost.

[ray h]

Oil filter silencer will get you within a few decibels of a $1000 commercial one, and there's no need to clean it, just throw it away when it clogs up. I don't see how that's stupid.

Because it's not practical to use.

[GunLawyer001]

I know there aren't "hollywood" suppressors.
I'll ask one question and leave it at that. You are in a movie theater and someone outside in the lobby or in an adjacent theater starts shooting people, or you are having dinner in a restaurant and someone comes in the back door and starts shooting in the kitchen as they progress through the building, or you are in a mall and they start shooting in the next store over. Would you prefer they have a suppressor or not?
You all know what the answer is.
I'm not saying I think it should be illegal or restricted to own one, I'm just saying the article makes a valid point. It's a cost of freedom I'm willing to accept but I can't ignore that there is that cost.

I would prefer that they not have a gun. I'd prefer that they be shackled, and locked in a room somewhere. I'd prefer that they be aborted prior to birth.

The thing is, we don't make societal policy based on what the looniest 0.0001% might do.

Sound abatement is a valid, OSHA-required concept, and it applies to anything that causes permanent hearing loss if the noise is unmitigated.

If you lived next to a shooting range, and you were hosting a picnic for your in-laws, would you prefer that the shooters be firing suppressed or unsuppressed, all day long?

[ray h]

I would prefer that they not have a gun. I'd prefer that they be shackled, and locked in a room somewhere. I'd prefer that they be aborted prior to birth.

The thing is, we don't make societal policy based on what the looniest 0.0001% might do.

Sound abatement is a valid, OSHA-required concept, and it applies to anything that causes permanent hearing loss if the noise is unmitigated.

If you lived next to a shooting range, and you were hosting a picnic for your in-laws, would you prefer that the shooters be firing suppressed or unsuppressed, all day long?

I agree with you. The only thing I said was the article has a point about the report of a firearm being a valid warning that something dangerous is happening somewhere nearby, I was very clear about that, but apparently not clear enough. You conveniently did not answer my question, but we already know the answer, right.
The NRA has to be careful with this "Hearing Protection Act" BS. It could easily turn bad. It's a small step from getting the governement to recognize a possible health issue to them requiring silencers at ranges.
I would prefer the range next door shoot suppressed, but I don't prefer they have to by law.