Legal Silencers in Michigan

[mikeb302000]

http://youtu.be/Uf7sRf5MW9k">Video

Several times I've been challenged by the pro-gun crowd to name one gun control law that I do not support. These are the same guys who accuse me of wanting to ban all guns in civilian hands and other nonsense like that.

Well, here it is: the law which prohibits owning silencers. Sure, I suppose some bad guys would use them if they were more available, but I don't see that as a major issue. The only question I have about this is "why?" Why would anyone want one?

Frankly I don't buy all that talk about sound suppression. The gun shop owner in the video said it's useful for guys who shoot frequently without ear protection. That sounds a little weird to me.

I figure there are only a few reasons.

1. real gun enthusiasts love everything about guns and want every possibly accessory.
2. many gun owners want them simply because they were prohibited.
3. by far the biggest reason, as seen at 1:02 of the video, is to stimulate the James Bond fantasies which many gun owners secretly enjoy.

What's your opinion? Do you think that, given the flimsy reasons for wanting silencers, even a minor uptick in criminal use should outweigh? Am I being too soft and generous on our gun-owning friends again?

Nah, I'll stick with my opinion. Let them have silencers in Michigan and everywhere else, if they want.

Please leave a comment.

[S_B_Jackson]

1. Clearly you've never been in an indoor range when someone

starts shooting.........it's LOUD, and it can damage your hearing over time. To there is the fact that many indoor gun ranges are located in proximity to homes & or other businesses and the sound carries outside of the building...a silencer is useful to reduce that noise.

As for the rest, that's a mighty purty strawman you're building....

[Hoopla Phil]

2. You forgot option 4.

Consideration for your neighbors and/or wildlife.

[Glassunion]

3. You forgot number 4 & 5

4. Noise pollution. Places in Europe require them when hunting and target shooting as to not cause as much of a disturbance.
5. Recoil. A supressor will reduce the recoil experienced when shooting.

Don't believe the movies. Contrary to popular belief they do not make a .50 BMG sound like a mouse farting under a pillow. They are still quite loud; however they are at a much safer level and there is less change of damaging someone's hearing. IIRC a supressed gunshot(depending on caliber) is still around 80db. About the same level as a blender crushing ice.

[mikeb302000]

19. but what about accuracy?

how does a suppressor affect accuracy?

[jeepnstein]

25. A good one improves accuracy.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

28. "precision" is what it would improve. Accuracy is only determined by your point of aim/impact

I could buy a $3000 sniper rifle and it's not accurate until I zero the scope.
It'll be precise as hell, but very inacurate until I make it accurate. ;)

[PavePusher]

4. Suppressors are a safety device for protecting your hearing...

I thought you were here to promote safety?

Do you oppose mufflers on motor vehicles as well?

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

13. Are you really that ?

He was just listing another reason for having a suppressor.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. Yeah I have that problem

when I go to the gun store for hearing protection all they have are silencers. I ask them for ear muffs, ear plugs, damn once I asked for cotton. All they had was silencers.



You guys crack me up every day, thanks!!!!

[rl6214]

11. Ever tried carrying on a conversation with hearing protection on?

If you are out hunting prairie dogs or other varmints, many times you will not take a shot for quite some time then you will have a period of heavy action. You'll sit there and talk with whoever you are out with since you normally don't worry about spooking varmints like that.

[MyrnaLoy]

14. no, also

I don't have tea and cookies when I'm shooting.

[rl6214]

17. How about a coke and cookies?

I'll have the coke part, well a diet coke at least since I am diabetic and no cookies.

[MyrnaLoy]

18. I like the coke part

I've never been able to get used to the diet coke taste. As far as hearing goes, I remember ear plugs that allowed conversation but blocked the loader, booming noises. They don't make those anymore?

[PavePusher]

32. I've been in military aviation maintenance for over 20 years.

I almost religously use double hearing protection (plugs and muffs, preferably electronic noise-cancelling) on the job, at home when using power machinery and tools, and yes, when engaging in shooting of all types. I use plugs under a helmet when riding motorcyles and ATV's.

And I would buy suppressers for all my firearms if the damn government would allow them to be affordable, because even with all my precautions, I still have a slight, but permenent, hearing loss at lower frequencies.

So take your self-righteous, arrogant, intentionally-misconstrue-the-point, insinuating bullshit and put it back in your ass.

[mikeb302000]

20. I don't buy that argument

suppressors are not the answer to protecting your hearing. Ear protection does that. The one cannot replace the other.

[Atypical Liberal]

31. More is better.

I don't buy that argument suppressors are not the answer to protecting your hearing. Ear protection does that. The one cannot replace the other.

My doctor told me to wear both ear plugs AND ear muffs. He said the more protection the better for your hearing. Suppressors reduce the amount of noise the firearm makes. This is good for the shooter and those around him.

I agree with you, though - suppressors are not good enough that I would forgo the ear protection. Consequently, I'm not very eager to pay to have my guns permanently modified (thread the barrel) to use a suppressor, nor am I interested in paying a $200 tax just to have a somewhat quieter gun. It's cheaper, easier, and probably just as effective to wear good ear protection.

But none of this has any bearing of why suppressors should be legal or not. They don't make any kind of crime easier to commit.

[PavePusher]

33. And, as I relate above, more is better, and still sometimes not enough.

Multiple layers, belt and suspenders.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. And we don't buy any of the nonsense you peddle here

[ileus]

24. Could really come in handy on a SBR'd HD firearm.

[MyrnaLoy]

5. Mike

the first three responses were so stupid that they didn't even realize you ultimately support their choice to use a silencer. They just wanted to fight with you, that says so much about this forum.

On edit, make that 4. Crazy man.

[rl6214]

12. Not argueing with his support but

argueing with his reasoning.

[mikeb302000]

21. yeah, my reputation prededes me, nt

[Glassunion]

29. Myrna

Considering that I was one of the first three responses you just called out.

How was my post picking a fight?

[PavePusher]

34. Yeah, 'cause he wasn't insinuating anything..... n/t

[Common Sense Party]

7. Have you ever been hunting? n/t

[rl6214]

9. Another one of your ideas that is in no way backed up by any facts

"3. by far the biggest reason, as seen at 1:02 of the video, is to stimulate the James Bond fantasies which many gun owners secretly enjoy."

Of course you have some sort of verifiable proof of this that you just forgot to post, right?

So where is it, you've got the proof to back this up or are you just full of it? As usual.

Your other two reasons are pretty much bullshit as well:

"1. real gun enthusiasts love everything about guns and want every possibly accessory.
2. many gun owners want them simply because they were prohibited."

When you are at the range, you pretty much where hearing protection all the time because you know you are going to be going thru a lot of rounds. If you are shooting varmints, not quite so much. You may fire just a few rounds or you may get off quite a few shots in a very short period of time. You may be just chatting with a friend and don't want to put on your ears when you may not take a shot other than every 30 minutes. That's where suppressors come in handy. That's not at all weird.

[mikeb302000]

22. I had a survey, I swear I did

but the hard drive on my computer must have been destroyed.

The results showed that a full 81.7% of gun owners live in a fantasy world of one sort or another. Not all have the James Bond fantasy, many have your run-of-the-mill "low-life bad guy attacking for no reason" fantasy.

A relatively small percentage, 17,5% actually have the fantasy of being overwhelmed by superior forces and going down in a blaze of glory.

[rl6214]

35. "I had a survey, I swear I did"

Uh, sure ya did.

[gejohnston]

10. Missed an important detail or two.

In order to legally own a suppressor in the US, you must get the approval of the local police, four month federal background check, pay a tax, and it must be registered IAW National Firearms Act of 1934. Michigan law does not change that. I think that makes your rant kind of moot.

Well, here it is: the law which prohibits owning silencers. Sure, I suppose some bad guys would use them if they were more available, but I don't see that as a major issue. The only question I have about this is "why?" Why would anyone want one?
Why not? That is not a good reason to ban them. Are you lobbying the governments of Finland, Norway, France, and New Zealand? In those countries, I can walk in any gun store and buy one for less than a fifty bucks with no questions asked.

Frankly I don't buy all that talk about sound suppression. The gun shop owner in the video said it's useful for guys who shoot frequently without ear protection. That sounds a little weird to me.
Go to a shooting range in France sometime. In some hunting areas in Finland, they are mandatory.

What's your opinion? Do you think that, given the flimsy reasons for wanting silencers, even a minor uptick in criminal use should outweigh? Am I being too soft and generous on our gun-owning friends again?
There will be no uptick in criminal use, because they are already using them without jumping through the NFA hoops. They are easy to make. A two liter soda bottle and duct tape works just as well.

I figure there are only a few reasons.

1. real gun enthusiasts love everything about guns and want every possibly accessory.
2. many gun owners want them simply because they were prohibited.
3. by far the biggest reason, as seen at 1:02 of the video, is to stimulate the James Bond fantasies which many gun owners secretly enjoy.

1-so?
2-I don't picture a mad rush to local police dept with ATF paperwork in hand to get fingerprinted.
3-another so what if true. If you want to go to the local range with a Walther PPK dressed in a tux, who is it hurting?

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Explain why many ranges in Europe REQUIRE them, then.

In european countries with tighter gun control than we have.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. A good suppressor will increase the precision of a firearm.

The controlled expansion and consistent flow of gas at the muzzle a silencer privides can actually make a rifle shoot smaller groups. Also, a silencer greatly reduces recoil making shooting more enjoyable. Not to mention that it helps reduce noise pollution and reduce hearing damage. In europe, they are very minimally restricted and very affordable for this reason.

No criminal in their right mind would go trough the trouble of purchasing a legally available suppressor. There is literally a 2-3 months wait, $200 application fee, fingerprints, photographs, and a full background check performed by the ATF. As usual you spout off baseless opinions rooted in your own straw man reasoning.

[ileus]

23. I would like to have one (a suppressor) to coyote hunt with. question is 556 or 6.8

I looked at one earlier in the week at a local shop it was in the 650 range (223/5.56)....+200 for the tax stamp and I could be in business.

Suppressors make it nice when training little ones to shoot because they cut down on the harsh blast that scares kids into flinching. Plus when out hunting it would make the experience that much more pleasurable.

I haven't built a 6.8 yet but that's now back on my short list. I want one to deer/coyote hunt with here in VA.


But then I must consider I have two AR's I could switch between, and I could buy a few more (differently configured) AR uppers once I have a good muffler.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Many people shoot a 7.62mm suppressor on 6.8mm 6.5mm and 5.56mm with great results.

I recall seeing some test numbers about 2 years ago where an AAC 762-SD suppressor (fired on an AR-15) was only a dB or two louder than AAC's top of the line 5.56mm suppressor (M4-2000) but still about 2dB quieter than their budget 5.56mm suppressor (M4-1000). AAC make the best rifle cans in the business so it's not like this .30 cal can was being compared to crappy supressors.

You can probably get a good .30cal like a 762-SD cheaper than the best 5.56mm cans and it will still perform about the same (and better than most cheap ones) due to the extra volume. Plus you'll get blowback and larger bore means less chance of baffle strike. The only real downside is they're probably about 2" longer and few ounces heaver.

[ileus]

36. I've been checking on this, thanks for the tip. .

I'll have to do a lot more research but this would give the the ability to use it on the 223's my 7mm08 (get it threaded) and hopefully a 6.8 upper.

[Taitertots]

27. Because when I'm hunting, I don't want to be able to tell if I'm making noise

:sarcasm:

"Frankly I don't buy all that talk about sound suppression"
Do you think we are lying about wanting to preserve our hearing? Do you want to lose your hearing?

[Atypical Liberal]

30. "Silencers" are a complete non-issue.

First of all, kudos to no blog-spam.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

The whole issue of "silencers" is a complete non-issue. First of all, silencers, or, more properly, suppressors, do not work like you see them in the movies. They do not make guns that go "BOOM" into guns that go "Pffft". There are plenty of videos on youtube that will give you an idea of the amount of sound difference. About the only way you can even come close to what you see in the movies is with a very good suppressor used in conjunction with sub-sonic ammunition, which going to be useful only for close-range shooting. While this might be useful in assassinations, this is not going to have any effect on the vast majority of firearm crime. In the vast majority of firearm crimes you hear about, stealth is never a priority of the criminal.

Personally, I would rather wear ear plugs and ear muffs rather than have to hang an extra 6 inches of pipe off of the end of any of my firearms, and this is precisely what I do today.

1. real gun enthusiasts love everything about guns and want every possibly accessory.

There is nothing wrong with this. Lots of people collect lots of things they are interested in.

2. many gun owners want them simply because they were prohibited.

Very true, and not only is there nothing wrong with this, it is to be expected. I bought my first assault rifle in response to the Assault Weapons Ban. I figured if I wanted to own a valuable commodity I had best buy while I could. There is no doubt that making things taboo makes them more attractive.

3. by far the biggest reason, as seen at 1:02 of the video, is to stimulate the James Bond fantasies which many gun owners secretly enjoy.

I watched the video at 1:02, and all it shows is a man shooting a pistol with a suppressor. Not sure what this has to do with James Bond. But I'm not sure I understand why owing a "James Bond" item would be something that someone would have to enjoy secretly. There is an entire sport centered around "Cowboy Action Shooting". Are these people who secretly have Wild West cowboy fantasies? I shoot in the North-South Skirmish Association. Does this mean I have secret Civil War fantasies? I know a guy who collects bayonets. Does he have some kind of secret stabbing fantasy?

There is no doubt that owning firearms (or anything else, for that matter) of a particular era gives one an affinity and appreciation for the people of the era who used them "for real". There is nothing wrong with that.