I’m the only gun owning liberal in my general friend/acquaintance group and the proposal to drop the $200 stamp for cans has some of them seriously worked up about how Republicans are making mass shootings easier this way, making quietly killing someone more affordable, etc. The usual.
It doesn’t seem to get through that they’re pretty much never used in crimes and that if that was your goal, you’d be far better off just 3D printing/garage building a cheap illegal one. Seriously. There are well over a million cans in this country and they’re involved in like 40+ crimes a year. And I’m not even sure that’s limited to legal ones.
There’s so much bad shit in this bill, but removing a tax on things that are seen as nothing more than safety devices in other countries is not one of them and the fixation on it is really frustrating.
I guess it just reminds me how effectively a huge number of left leaning voters have been lied to about guns and how they work (as well as gun owners, for that matter) and it’s hard to know how to start undoing that damage. How do I effectively explain that I just wanna giggle when my gun goes whump instead of boom sometimes when that thing is clearly built to spec for kid killing?
— akdude1987 in Explaining suppressors to other liberals is exhausting
[h/t Rob Romano]
I guess it just reminds me how effectively a huge number of left leaning voters have been lied to about [EVERYTHING]…
FIFY
…it’s hard to know how to start undoing that damage. How do I effectively explain…
That’s the million dollar question. Please tell me when you figure it out. They have no interest in the truth.
Another left-wing liberal expressing their confused life of self-induced angst and BS with at least one outright falsehood and some typical anti-gun propaganda thrown in.
What’s with the people always trying to rationalize, explain, justify or otherwise farm approval? How fucking insecure can ya get?
what? wait, why?
“because it’s quieter” maybe. sheesh, what a ding dong.
“sheesh, what a ding dong.”
Shama lama Ding Dong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rfnwsb-dg0
diddy wah diddy.
was thinking more jerry mccain, “i’m a ding dong daddy,” but it ain’t on utoob.
“How do I effectively explain that I just wanna giggle when my gun goes whump instead of boom sometimes when that thing is clearly built to spec for kid killing?”
Is that what this liberal is thinking about doing, killing kids and giggling about it because the ‘gun goes whump instead of boom ‘?
There are exactly zero suppressors or firearms manufactured “clearly built to spec for kid killing.”
I think he was speaking ironically.
” akdude1987 in Explaining suppressors to other liberals is exhausting”
More so a fool’s exercise.
My niece told me she is attending the two-day, no- repeat Metallica concert in Philadelphia. I asked her is she will be wearing earplugs. She answered “Why?”.
I saw them in NC a few years ago.
“I asked her is she will be wearing earplugs. She answered “Why?”.”
It only took me exactly *one* 1980s vintage rock concert to realize the benefits of foam earplugs at concert halls. You can hear the words the singer is screeching, the guitar riffs, and *feel* the bass thumping trough you.
It makes the experience much, MUCH more enjoyable and no ringing in your ears the next day…
“…the bass thumping trough you.”
Make that, “…the bass thumping through you.”…
Obviously this is a lie and bullshit. No real gunowner thinks this way. The author is more likely to be giggling while they diddle kids.
The lefties like Europe. Suppresors are popular there and relatively easy to get. The owner of a gun shop in Bavaria offered me a rifle can for 250€, no paperwork. Arghhh.
Liberal gun owners are supporting gun control. And they always have. I don’t care to help them.
Tell those acquaintants that the can makes it easier to put it where the sun doesn’t shine!
I lost my hearing due to artillery fire back in 1962. All my life I have had to “deal” with this problem of lost hearing. Now the government has to supply my hearing aid and surgeries to repair the damage done to my hearing on board the destroyer while blockading Cuba October 1962. Hundreds if not thousands of military personal have suffered the same problem due to load noises from jet engines, gunfire, and explosives. It never fails that the know it all has not served nor can relate to these problems we working people experience. Sometimes it is a blessing that I don’t and can’t hear the BS from these know-it-all bureaucrats.
My question would be why bother to even tell them? There aren’t many people I tell what or how many firearms I have anyway!
Why bother? Because they vote.
Here in Hawaii silencers are banned by state law, and that is highly unlikely to change because the voters are control freaks and have been told silencers are Evil. The only way to legalize silencers here is by the Supreme Court finally deciding the 2nd Amendment means what it says.
BREAKING: Department of Justice Changes Stance On Suppressors! (DOJ tells 5th circuit that suppressors are protected by the Seco0nd Amendment, and says their previous stance on suppressors was wrong.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5JC2NSGNMo
Truthfully, They are sound Suppressors, not Silencers.
Truth hurts. 🙂
Political considerations aside, they are ‘silencers’. Silencers were invented by Hiram Maxim Jr. Hiram Maxim Jr. called them silencers on his patent papers. Who are we to tell Hiram Maxim Jr. he didn’t know what he was talking about?
“Silencer” is a common term relative to the “reduction” of gunshot noise, it doesn’t imply complete silence. The device reduces the sound, but the gunshot sound is still present and easily heard.
Thus, Hiram Percy Maxim Jr using the word silencer was not inaccurate; however, the word suppressor may have been more descriptive for those unfamiliar with the intent Mr Maxim had which was the reduction of sound.
Hawaii law, which bans silencers, calls them both ‘silencers’ and ‘mufflers’ just like on cars.
If we want to improve the image in non-users’ minds for political purposes (which I think is a reasonable purpose since we are in a political struggle) we should try calling them mufflers.
“Kleenex” is a brand name, but they are actually “tissues”. Both terms may be correct, depending upon the context.
Mr. Maxim filed his patent with the marketing term “silencer”, though they suppress the decibel level of the muzzle report. If a design of a suppressor follows Mr. Maxim’s general design as filed with the USPTO, then it’s considered correct in polite society to refer to it as a silencer. But the general term for any item that attenuates the muzzle report of a gun is “suppressor”.
FIFY
The problem is Leftist don’t seem to understand rational thought!
It’s like a muffler on a car, we don’t wear ear protection in a car, it decreases situational awareness. We require all cars to have adequate sound suppression in order for the driver to be liable to focus on the road
…and to not drive the neighbors crazy with the racket.
I always just tell my liberal friends that I need a gun for that day when we will be fighting each other
A typical suppressor drops the report of a weapon by about 30 decibels or so. With a typical centerfire rifle that’s from about 150 db (hearing damaging loud) to just 120 db (still really freaking loud). A suppressor is courtesy to the people who live around you. If they were the norm, it’d be a lot more pleasant to live near a shooting range.
Tell them we should follow the European model, which is always so fashionable with liberals, and sell them in hardware stores next to the other hearing protection.
If they are your friends than no explanation should be needed. It is not their business in any case. If you feel you need to quench the question a simple one word answer will be plenty …”CHOICE”. There is unlikely any answer that will satisfy folks that are actually anti gun and trying to get understanding from them is usually a fools errand.