Everybody I've seen talk about suppressors who uses them on the internet cites those reasons. Their usage in criminal acts is low. There are about a million of them in circulation, the NIOSH and CDC suggest their use for hearing protection for those who are exposed to lots of gunfire (for instance regular attendees or workers at gun ranges).
But they are notorious for ruining the accuracy of your shot.
What they are notorious for is unimportant. The truth is more important. In truth, for most applications and contexts, they improve accuracy by reducing recoil.
quote:Modern suppressors allow the use of full-power ammunition, do not reduce the muzzle velocity, do not contact the bullet during flight, and often aid accuracy. On high-power rifles, a suppressor acts like a muzzle brake and reduces recoil, and of course, the “ka-BOOM” report of the shot is reduced 25-30 dB, yielding a sound not unlike high-pressure gas escaping from an air hose being disconnected.
quote:Unless improperly installed or attached, suppressors do make shooting more accurate. Velocity change is low to nonexistent and generally increases. Modern designs have no adverse affect on the bullet. Standard deviation decreases, as a rule, providing consistency, and significant recoil reduction allows you to be more accurate.
There are about a million of them in circulation....
So, a fraction of one per cent.
I'm not sure what that fraction is? Per gun in circulation? Yes.
The next question would be: In the states where silencers are illegal, why?
That was an earlier question. You asked it in Message 5062. My answer was
quote: I assume local politics is the reason, but I haven't taken the time to track down the arguments made in the legislature when the bills were being passed.
NoNukes gave details of:
quote:The Democrats in the US tend to cite law situations where enforcement cannot effectively find and track a shooting criminals because of the suppressor which lowers noise levels and the muzzle flash. Secondary arguments are that the suppressors are just one more gimmick to help gun manufacturers sell military weapons to the public. In other places, the primary objection seems to be that they are the tools of poachers.
If correct, 'local politics' seems about right. It seems reasonable to suppose it is correct.
My appraisal - A gun nut who collected a supply (of approximations) of weapons of war.
The next step is to cross the line and execute a little war.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
The calls for effective gun control will be raised again, and they will fall on the deaf ears of gun nuts again.
The most immediate calls will be to enforce the gun control laws already in the books. The shooter had been convicted of domestic abuse which should have prevented him from purchasing a fire arm to begin with. However, he was able to buy a gun from a local shop in 2016. His conviction occurred during his time in the Air Force and he did time in military prison, and it appears that the Air Force forget to enter his conviction into the correct database.