Saturday, June 17th, 2017
Stephan: For some time the NRA, a truly evil organization, in my view, has been seeking laws that would make it easier for individuals to have silencers for their weapons. You won't believe the argument they make: People need silencers to protect their hearing from gun noise. Really. They actually argue that. And of course the man sponsoring the legislation, Representative Jeff Duncan, is a Republican.
Now think about this little thought experiment for a minute: In the shooting on the baseball field in Alexandria imagine the shooter had a silencer on his rifle, so that he could shoot from a distance, and make very little noise. How many could he have killed before they even figured out where he was shooting from? I used to be a competitive shooter and thinking about it I figured that using a bolt action single shot 30-06 rifle and a good scope from a block away I could have killed about seven before anyone even figured out what was happening or where I was shooting from.
The shooter in this incident was a rare social progressive, and pretty inept as shooters go. Suppose he had been, as most such people are a White conservative, maybe a militia member who trained regularly. What do you think the outcome would have been with a silencer on the rifle?
South Carolina's 3rd District I have a question: Is this Republican zombie really the best you can elect?
Republican Representative Jeff Duncan of South Carolina
The House Committee on Natural Resources canceled a hearing after the shooting at a Congressional baseball practice on Wednesday for a bill that would make it easier for gun owners to purchase silencers. According to CNBC, however, the GOP still plans to follow through on its plans to ease gun restrictions.
The “Hearing Protection Act” introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan R-S.C., in January was rolled into a larger bill called the “SHARE Act” that’s been described as “broad and contains a variety of hunting, conservation and ‘recreational shooting’ measures,” according to CNBC. The subcommittee was scheduled to hold a hearing on the provision in the bill that would roll back restrictions on silencers by “eliminating a $200 transfer tax and pre-empting state or local laws that regulate the accessory,” according to Newsweek.
The measure has the support of President Donald Trump’s son, Don Jr., and is backed with the help of the National Rifle Association.
Newsweek reported:
Silencers are legal but regulated by an 83-year-old federal law, as well […]
First off, “silencer” is a popular but mistaken term. No firearm can be truly “silenced.” The correct term is “suppressor” because, effectively, what these devices do is lower the sound threshold of the weapon’s report. ht assume.And the larger the weapon and its ammunition, the less the sound is diminished. A .30-06 still makes a significant sound, even with a so-called “silencer.” An important sound component is the sonic “boom” created by the bullet traveling at supersonic speeds. With some firearms and most ammunition in rifle center-fire and some rim-fire configurations, this sonic boom is as loud or louder than the weapon itself. For this and other reasons, subsonic ammunition is usually used when a suppressor is involved. (cont…)
The problem here is that with the significantly lowered velocity, the accuracy and effective range of the projectile can be noticeably decreased. And in semi-authomatic weapons it can rendered them essentially single shot, because there is not enough energy to cycle the action. This obviously is a limiting factor in just how effective such devices are in criminal applications. (cont…)
(cont.) This is especially true when one realizes that, despite the media drama that results when rifles are used in a high-profile crime, rifles are rarely used in a criminal way. While I’m still on the fence with regard to the question whether it’s a good idea to limit or remove the restrictions on suppressors, they do have legitimate value, not the least of which is to reduce hearing loss. So I’m not sure it makes sense to regulate them at the same level one does a machine gun or an artillery cannon. I don’t think this measure is as wrong-headed as some might think.
Of course wise gun unser engages hearing protection. and safety glasses as well. But the “gun” issue is one of semantics. Pistols are what are used in most crimes and homicides and that is what silencers usually are applied to. In the city, “guns” (pistols) are a hazard, and often threaten safety. In the country rifles are used when there is a disturbance in the back forty. It could be raccoons, a bear, who knows what. Plus it is an hour wait if for the sheriff if it a human is causing problems. A rifle under the arm means likely no long shouting match. In the country “guns” (rifles) mean security.
The NRA gun merchants would further such wacko ideas as silencer sales, oops the Hearing Protection Act because they are interested in Sales. It is a trade group, and if you observe how much mayhem the gun runners of America make, AND how much money they make, you can see why they do as they do. If money is the object. Hmmm, What is the name of the Death Merchant Sales Society? … and how much do they spend in lobbying?