Is allowing silencers a common sense gun law?

Edit - think how many more deaths there may have been if people didn't know as soon where the gunman was.

C&P

If only Stephen Paddock had been a Muslim … If only he had shouted “Allahu akbar” before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas … If only he were a member of ISIS … If only we had a picture of him posing with a Quran in one hand and his semiautomatic rifle in another …

If all of that had happened, no one would be telling us not to dishonor the victims and “politicize” Paddock’s mass murder by talking about preventive remedies.

No, no, no. Then we know what we’d be doing. We’d be scheduling immediate hearings in Congress about the worst domestic terrorism event since 9/11. Then Donald Trump would be tweeting every hour “I told you so,” as he does minutes after every terror attack in Europe, precisely to immediately politicize them. Then there would be immediate calls for a commission of inquiry to see what new laws we need to put in place to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Then we’d be “weighing all options” against the country of origin.

Nothing would have stopped it. But if was operating in semi mode (I am assuming it was more like full auto), there likely would be fewer dead/injured, no?

Just because we can't prevent them outright, why does that mean we do nothing? Zero dead would be great. But short of that, isn't fewer dead, better than more dead?

I would be more concerned with why he did it, and not how he did it. If it wasn't guns, it could easily have been explosives or a car /truck, anything to achieve the destruction and mayhem he wanted.

What were his motives? Was he mentally unstable? Was it the result of his losing at the casino? Did his "girlfriend" take all his cash when she went to Japan?

Too many unanswered questions that don't have to focus on the guns (yet).

His brother was saying that he was a "millionaire" and loved gambling and real estate....both which could drain your bank account quickly when you really take risks.

What they should do is allow his estate to be confiscated and used to pay for the survivors recovery and final disposition for those killed.

You can't. An improved moral compass likely won't effect a true sociopath.

But an improved collective moral compass, is exactly what the doctor ordered, to target "garden variety" street crime, like what we see in Chicago.

I blame the right for availability of weapons that I'd personally be happy to see disappear. I blame the left for the decay of the moral compass.

That's also true, if he were a Muslim, the right would have no trouble politicizing this to promote their agenda. 100% true.

No, I don't think that legalizing silencers is common sense, I think it's insane. Are people advocating for that?

I don't know what C&P means but I think we should wait to see what the experts find out about his motive before speculating and blaming GUN as usual. That is IF they let us know when they learn the real truth if they don't already know. Just because something is possible, is no reason to go ahead and do it just to prove that point. Evil is everywhere. If George Soros gets his way and we have globalization, you can forget about freedoms and liberties because then they will be in control and they WILL control us all.
People need to go to church or something.

Jim, you have laws about automatic fire already, criminals don't follow the law. If they find someone or learn how to, they will convert a semi auto themselves if they want to bad enough. Same with the tough gun laws in Chicago, criminals go out of state and bring them illegally.
Society is breaking down for some reason, and some people can't handle the technology advances.

:btu:

I believe that was going to be introduced this week (and remove a $200 tranfer tax on slencer) - also loosen regs on armour piercing bullets, allow gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in national parks.

C&P = cut and paste. I stole that from an editorial.

You said

"what bothers me is the never ending pigpile on within minutes of a gun related shooting where the left can't help using a tragedy for political purposes instead of coming up with actual solutions for stopping these madmen in their tracks or preventing mass casualties of large crowds of people."

and I was just pointing out that the right would also use that no differently for political purposes.

Slipknot, your arguments make a superb case as to why the things I posted, can never eliminate gun crime entirely. Never. But you cannot tell me that they won't help reduce it a bit. Maybe it' snot worth the liberty we'd have to give up, that might be a valid point. But many argue on the right that there is zero benefit to any gun laws, that we can't reduce crime by one zillionth of one percent. I don't buy that. Noting is that absolute.

The only way to shop a mass shooting is with another gun.
Everyone should be armed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That still wouldn't have stooped this one from happening. I doubt anybody with a handgun at the concert was going to hit this guy, who was 400 yards away, 32 stories up, in the dark, while people are bumping into you in a panic.

That's some Hollywood " Lethal Weapon" chit right there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about the people staying on the same floor as him? House keeping ? Seconds matter when a cop is 30 minutes away.

I don't carry but I see the logic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it still would bother me whether it's the left,right or Libertarians

They are already perfectly legal to own in 42 states. All that is required is a stamp from BATFE as they are on the NFA list. Send them $200 , get a stamp and get a SUPRESSOR. Thankfully the NFA also bans assault rifles.

Ok, but that is not what you said.

I don't argue the point, but making a bomb might require some online searches and research, which might have raised a red flag to law enforcement. I think everyone is more conscious of the dangers of truck attacks now and while I don't know if there were barriers set up to avoid it; again a truck isn't likely going to kill 58 and injure 500 more. I also don't think we would have seen the massive casualties we saw here, these pour victims were in a war zone and were sitting ducks.

People are going off the deep end more and more, or possibly we just are hearing it reported more, the media loves that payday. But it just seems there are more road rage incidents, domestic violence and it's sad that it seems to be every other week there is another mass murder but the flavor of the week nut job.

I understand your point
I have common sense also


BTW that bill is about suppressors, not silencers. They suppress the noise a bit, not silence. That is Hollywood who use silencers not real life. Suppressors can aid in saving hearing and noise pollution, I'll wear ear protection and use the range in the hours allowed and I am fine with that. If you want a suppressor, go to a state that allows one I guess.

It is terrible what happened but I really feel a need for a high caliber rifle. I see them at the range and get jealous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

correct, I said Left because that is what Hillary is and that is relevant in this case ,no? . what is your point, that there are others that do the same thing? does not make it ok

Well, the guy did already have a trunk full of Ammonium Nitrate, and that didn't raise any flags.

What would Feb have made a difference on?

"Silencers" / noise suppression reduce sound mainly at the shooter by tens of decibels, so from levels that wreck your hearing to levels that merely play havoc with your hearing. They don't "silence" a gun so nobody can here it - unless you are in Hollywood (sarc).

I would prefer not needing to register with ATF and pay $200 to buy a suppressor and reduce the impact on my ears. But it is illegal for me to own one in RI and I do not own one.

So I am OK with autos being banned (they are) but would like to see silencers allowed - for my hearing.

I would enjoy an opportunity to fire full auto for grins and giggles - or a bump stock. I don't own a bump stock and have no desire to get one. I CANNOT LEGALLY purchase an auto without jumping through a lot of paperwork and have no desire to do so.

Lol.. I've wanted a high caliber rifle forever but I don't know what one is. Whatever it is it's going to have high capacity clips too. Because pew pew.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it does not make it right but I wasn't making that point you were. You are acting as if the right doesn't do that when there's numerous cases in the past they have. we can't hold someone to a higher standard than you hold yourself or you can't hold one party to a higher standard than you hold another party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it wouldn't have.

I was pointing out where you said that the left keeps trying to make legislation more restrictive by showing you an example of the right trying to weaken legislation. That's what both parties do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are a dumb ass....a high calibered rifel has lots of calibers and probably a silencer thingy so you can sneak up on people

This guy was a murderous nut job. He had the fiscal ability to acquire weapons and accessories legally. Marrying some of these accessories to the weapons is against the law, as it is currently written here in Mass. ie suppressor and bump stock. A bump stock will convert a semi automatic into a full fire automatic, and it is stupid easy to install and make operational in less than ten minutes. Again, the law states that in this configuration it is illegal. As for large capacity feeders and magazines, I will address what I know, which is about magazines. In Mass. It is illegal to possess magazines of over 10 rounds capacity. Pre-ban magazines manufactured before September 13, 1994 are exempt from this restriction.. So I cannot buy or acquire large capacity mags legally. These are some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
So what is the next step? To stop the production of accessories such as bump stocks and suppressors? Maybe. Turn in all accessories that "could" render a weapon illegal? (I have none) Require all pre ban magazines be turned in? That won't happen...(mine are pre ban). Unless it were to be mandated upon transfer or death of registered owner.
It is a slippery slope. Both sides of the debate need to find some room for negotiation in the best interest of the Union. But I also think our monies would be much better spent on mental health in this country and rebuilding our hurricane ravaged states, cities, and commonwealths as opposed to spending billions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other active theaters

Oh I am a dumbass...no argument there. If your multi high calipered riffle has a shoulder thing that goes up you are a felon. Nobody needs one of those.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ross by definition it does not make it a full auto, it doesn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Technicality and we both know it. It allows continuous gas cycling of the bolt and trigger override (re set). Consider the source of the definition and that another author could word it differently. Different means to reach the same end.

I've shot them and I've shot some of the new select fire binary triggers where squeezing the trigger fires a round and releasing it fires another.. practice with each of those can really cook rounds out but they aren't "automatic" .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not but thanks for assuming
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree. He had 12 semi-auto rifles with bump stocks. To argue if it's really fully auto or not at this point defies conscience. Listen to the #^&#^&#^&#^&ing audio.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know full well exactly what they sound like. Nobody is arguing , the definition of full auto is defined and regulated by BATFE not me. There's thousands of these plastic stocks out there..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because they're not illegal. At least not in Nevada.

You know I'm not anti gun. I've actually been looking at buying a hand gun because shooting is a lot of fun. Like a lot of fun.

That being said...I don't see how high velocity weapons are useful for sport shooting, hunting or even home defense.

So what's the point? The argument to defend against an oppressive government is really just a pile of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got that from what to you posted and I pointed it out.
You said the left politicizes the tragedy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right . . . right . . . just a pile of bull poop. History has shown that people never had to rebel or defend against various sorts of tyranny. Oh, that's right . . . we humans have evolved to a time where governments will forever be benevolent, peopled by humane, nice-guy rulers who have our best interests at heart. Who bend to our will rather than their own. With those minor exceptions, of course, when they know better than us what our best interests are. No doubt, after we are dis-armed, they will see the even greater need for them to protect us against . . . against . . . well, against ourselves, or even other bad nasty governments. And that bull poop piece of paper that limits their ability to protect and nourish us can be discarded.

Here's an interesting article showing how the strictest gun controls in Western society prevent mass killings:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...las-vegas.html

I know, I know, it is written by John Lott, so it must also be bull poop