Comments on: Legalizing Suppressors

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:18:24 +0000

It’s more reasonable than DC’s gun laws…

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:09:29 +0000

Ah, very interesting point Ian. However, due to the logistics involved (not every firearm can physically support a suppressor), I think that’d be quite unreasonable.

Not that that’s ever stopped an anti from pushing shitty legislation.

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:06:20 +0000

Say we require silencers, but don’t get tehm out from under GCA ‘34. That’s a $200 tax; potentially per weapon. I can see that happening.

By: Gregory Morris

Gregory Morris — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:22:23 +0000

I can see the Brady Campaign’s press release now:
“Gun Lobby Pushes Silent, But Deadly Killing Tools.”

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:40:56 +0000

Ian, I’m curious to know your view. I assume it’s that we don’t want to emulate their gun laws overall, but it’s OK to emulate what works while discarding that which doesn’t.

By: Ian Argent

Ian Argent — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:16:24 +0000

Push them as noise abatement devices, or as mufflers. There’s a problem with noting that they are required safety equipment in some countries - I leave it to the reader to figure out why.

May have to take baby steps in this as well.

By: gudis

gudis — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:33:58 +0000

I was thinking the exact same thing, though living in Illinois I’m not sure it would help anything.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 02:27:20 +0000

Robb is absolutely correct. The problem isn’t the tax, it’s the costs of complying with the regulations, and the lack of economies of scale that you would normally get if it were unregulated and there was more of a mass market.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:27:55 +0000

The easiest part is to remind them that “they’re required in Sweden”.

Sweden = automatically good to perhaps the majority of Leftists who are hardest to convince, so at very least you’ll get amusing cognitive dissonance.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:18:40 +0000

(that should read $100 of of $200)

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:15:55 +0000

I disagree with that Sam. The hurdle isn’t the tax. The cost of suppressors also includes the hassle for having to deal with an NFA item. Because they’re so hard to get (taxes, fingerprints, permission slips, etc) not enough people own them to get the costs down. The $200 extra has little to no effect on stopping people from buying them if they have the money to afford them in the first place.

The goal, though, is not to lower the cost (that will be a happy byproduct) but to allow us the ability to buy them when we want without government intervention. $100 or $200 for a tax isn’t going to help with that.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:08:15 +0000

I think it would be better to focus on getting the tax lowered first, rather than getting them completely removed from the NFA.

baby steps and all.

By: Robb Allen

Robb Allen — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:05:12 +0000

I’d also caution against calling them silencers. Muffler or suppressor is better. “Silencer” is a lie and unfortunately most people think what they see in movies is realistic with only a tiny “fweeeet” heard after the trigger has been pulled.

There is a stigma behind suppressors that only assassins would need them or that thugs would use them in crimes. We need to educate the masses that mufflers add weight and size to the firearm, making them less concealable and that the noise is still noticeable and not whisper quiet like in James Bond.

I would love to get one for my AR 6.8, but the cost is prohibitive due to the restrictions on them. Even the UK allows silencers without licensing!!!

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:07:35 +0000

With all the bitching from the beautiful people who are dumb enugh to buy land near a gun range when they don’t like the sound of guns, this could be an answer for them.

I’m not saying they’d like it….