Summations Only

Evidence?

What would you count as evidence?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).

Modulous writes: But they are notorious for ruining the accuracy of your shot. Why would you want to use one at the shooting range when you can use perfectly good headphones?

WHAT!?

Ear protection, like the kind you wear when you ride in the front beside the pilot of a helicopter. So you can hear the pilot talking over the blades.*shrug*Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

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.

---

Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied

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.

---

Suppressor Effects - Gun Digest a) A suppressor reduces the noise for everyone. So if someone has ear protection removed for some reason when a shot is fired, they are still protected.b) People who are living nearby will thank you. Traditionally watching television with ear protection on is couter productive.c) Shooters wearing ear protection are less likely to hear someone warning of a dangerous situation.d) In any event: . Many people recommend using both for best protection against long term damage.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

i stand corrected!

So, a fraction of one per cent.The next question would be: In the states where silencers are illegal, why?

I'm not sure what that fraction is? Per gun in circulation? Yes. 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.Moose

Because of the small number of silencers in actual use, it seems likely that banning and legalizing are both based on local politics.

"Because of the small number of silencers in actual use, it seems likely that banning and legalizing are both based on local politics."It appears that legalizing at least has arrived as a national political issue. The Republicans want to pass laws that will repeal state law in 16 states.

26 killed at Baptist church in TexasThe calls for effective gun control will be raised again, and they will fall on the deaf ears of gun nuts again.--Percy

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.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So ridiculous. Nothing will be done until the NRA gets fat and happy in OTHER ways, allowing them feel comfortable in loosening their grip on conservative lawmakers.But then again, it's not ever that simple. They give money to corporations who in turn give money to right wing politicians. Hard to vet.