Guns Must Microstamp in CA

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
What's the need for a suppressor?
I don't want to lose my hearing, and I prefer to be able to hear the woods when I am hunting. Using a suppressor will allow me to hunt without hearing protection, so I can still hear the woods but not lose my hearing.

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
In aus, the states go to some effort to have similar laws. The idea of states with differing laws seems old fashioned. Of course, 8 states/territories and 23 mill might have something to do with it.
Im not sure if I am being corrected here so I will ask the obvious question . Leaving aside the extremes, are there any firearms that your particular state puts up barriers to aquire?
Pennsylvania does does not have any restrictions beyond the federal ones, and the federal ones just create more cost and paperwork, but don't really restrict. They did close the registry for full auto though, so I guess the one restriction would be new machine guns, although you can still get a perfectly functioning older one.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
What's the need for a suppressor?
I don't want to lose my hearing, and I prefer to be able to hear the woods when I am hunting. Using a suppressor will allow me to hunt without hearing protection, so I can still hear the woods but not lose my hearing.
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
Untrue. I have only been hunting two years, killed 8 whitetails and 2 turkeys with a total of 10 shots, and I have tinnitus as a result of those 10 shots. I don't see any need to make it worse than it is or to risk actual hearing loss.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
Untrue. I have only been hunting two years, killed 8 whitetails and 2 turkeys with a total of 10 shots, and I have tinnitus as a result of those 10 shots. I don't see any need to make it worse than it is or to risk actual hearing loss.
How did you carry all them out? That's quite a lot.
 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
Untrue. I have only been hunting two years, killed 8 whitetails and 2 turkeys with a total of 10 shots, and I have tinnitus as a result of those 10 shots. I don't see any need to make it worse than it is or to risk actual hearing loss.
How did you carry all them out? That's quite a lot.
I did not shoot them all at the same time. The deer get dragged or quartered and carried out in pieces, and the turkeys only weigh 20 or 25lbs, so they are pretty easy to carry out. Any other questions? Or are you satisfied that there are good reasons to own a suppressor aside from being a hit man.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
An audiometric threshold shift will occur when frequent high decibel noise is experienced. In a deer hunting scenerio, you would only expect a single shot per hunter for entire expedition. OSHA would not recommend hearing protection for that in an industrial setting.

Your tenitis is probably due to abuse prior to your hunting and a suppressor now will not correct that nor would having one previously prevented it.

 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
20,411
2,371
In aus, the states go to some effort to have similar laws. The idea of states with differing laws seems old fashioned. Of course, 8 states/territories and 23 mill might have something to do with it.

Im not sure if I am being corrected here so I will ask the obvious question . Leaving aside the extremes, are there any firearms that your particular state puts up barriers to aquire?
Pennsylvania does does not have any restrictions beyond the federal ones, and the federal ones just create more cost and paperwork, but don't really restrict. They did close the registry for full auto though, so I guess the one restriction would be new machine guns, although you can still get a perfectly functioning older one.
Paper work and cost. I hear that.The cynic in me thinks that gun laws are less about guns and more about revenue raising.

 

Ease the sheet.

ignoring stupid people is easy
20,411
2,371
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
Untrue. I have only been hunting two years, killed 8 whitetails and 2 turkeys with a total of 10 shots, and I have tinnitus as a result of those 10 shots. I don't see any need to make it worse than it is or to risk actual hearing loss.
A day at the range is worse than any day in the bush.

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
An audiometric threshold shift will occur when frequent high decibel noise is experienced. In a deer hunting scenerio, you would only expect a single shot per hunter for entire expedition. OSHA would not recommend hearing protection for that in an industrial setting.

Your tenitis is probably due to abuse prior to your hunting and a suppressor now will not correct that nor would having one previously prevented it.
Untrue again. One shot from a .22 will not necessarily cause permanent hearing damage, but one shot from a .338 winmag can cause tinnitus, which is what I have. To put things in perspective, a .338 winmag can produce sounds in the 155-160db range, a screaming child is 110db, a jet taking off is 130db.

160db is definitely enough to cause immediate damage.

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
How many shots do you typically fire when hunting? I would think one. That would not harm your hearing.
Untrue. I have only been hunting two years, killed 8 whitetails and 2 turkeys with a total of 10 shots, and I have tinnitus as a result of those 10 shots. I don't see any need to make it worse than it is or to risk actual hearing loss.
A day at the range is worse than any day in the bush.
Absolutely, but at the range I always wear hearing protection. There is nothing there that I really want to hear. Since the onset of tinnitus I use the foam plugs with electronic muffs over the top.

In the woods, I want to hear all the noises so I can tell what is going on around me, if an animal is coming in, and just to enjoy the sounds of nature. So I much prefer to not have the hearing protection in. There will be times where I still need to, or risk further hearing damage. For instance, if I am hunting bear or turkey, I won't have a gun that could be suppressed to a safe level. But for hunting whitetails, which is most of what I do, I can use a .300 blackout round with a suppressor and the overall sound level from a shot is equivalent to an air rifle. My crossbow will probably be noisier than the .300 suppressed. So at least when I am whitetail hunting, I won't need to worry about the hearing protection. Well worth the $1200 it is costing me.

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
An audiometric threshold shift will occur when frequent high decibel noise is experienced. In a deer hunting scenerio, you would only expect a single shot per hunter for entire expedition. OSHA would not recommend hearing protection for that in an industrial setting.

Your tenitis is probably due to abuse prior to your hunting and a suppressor now will not correct that nor would having one previously prevented it.
Untrue again. One shot from a .22 will not necessarily cause permanent hearing damage, but one shot from a .338 winmag can cause tinnitus, which is what I have. To put things in perspective, a .338 winmag can produce sounds in the 155-160db range, a screaming child is 110db, a jet taking off is 130db.

160db is definitely enough to cause immediate damage.
Hearing damage is caused by endurance and level. If you have hearing damage from hunting, perhaps you should chose another sport. Millions of hunters without tinnitus will probably agree.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,399
325
near Seattle, Wa
You declared that unlimited confiscation would occur. That's a yawner?

You said mass shootings are "very rare", yet in three months of 2015, 243 have been injured in mass shootings, and 106 have been killed.

That's a rate of 424 deaths per year, and 1300 injuries. That's a yawner, eh?

You recently maintained that LE was against gun control, but in a quality study, 62% of them want most (11 of 14) proposed gun restrictions.

You are a model gunowner, you boast, yet basically you are not addressing the increasing mass murder problem?

That can become part of the problem pretty quickly, then others have to step in to manage guns in the USA. Yawn.

Frenchie's mass murder numbers are quite a bit higher than Mother Jones' numbers.

Quote

From Frenchie: Politifact found 79, just between 2007 & 2009. [SIZE=10.5pt]http://www.politifac...multiple-victi/[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]USA today found 270 mass killings, of which 204 were shootings, between 2006 & 2013: [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]http://www.usatoday....ta-map/2820423/[/SIZE]
Here's last year, Jeff, 2014. Loose gun laws contribute to this:

In a total of 336 known mass shootings, there were at least:

  • 530 Americans killed, and
  • 1,100 Americans injured
Again, that's just counting mass shootings (4 or more people shot in a single event), and only among the incidents we were able to track. Also, there's no telling how many of those in the "injured" category later slipped into the "dead" category after the news cycle.

Pasted from <http://www.reddit.co...ers_are_now_in/>
Yawn.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
Hearing damage is caused by endurance and level. If you have hearing damage from hunting, perhaps you should chose another sport. Millions of hunters without tinnitus will probably agree.
Good grief, I should know better than to expect anything more than trolling from you.

In any given year, only 10% of the hunters here in PA are successful. I am going to guess that those millions of hunters who never develop tinnitus and don't wear hearing protection are in the other 90%.

In any case, it is pretty clear there are some very valid reasons to want to suppress a rifle. If someone claimed the only reason you would want to put a muffler on a car is so you can steal it, they would be laughed at. Well the assertion that the only reason to put a muffler on a gun is to kill people is no less laughable.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,399
325
near Seattle, Wa
We discussed the opinions of police earlier. The gun culture is making their job difficult.

...

--Most police chiefs (62%) believed that the government should do everything it can to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, even if it makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase handguns.

...
The government should do everything it can?

Like throwing kids up against a wall to frisk them as noted gungrabber Bloomberg advocates?

How about simply banning all handguns?

The government should do everything it can to prevent fraudulent voting, even if it makes it more difficult for citizens to vote. Favre was the best.
These guys DO wear badges, Tom. Your philosophy breeds an arrogant detest of such authority, and the police bear the brunt of it.

Instead of nation-building, you are rotting the fabric of civic input. It's not a healthy or sustainable POV.

How Gun Rights Harm the Rule of Law

Second Amendment activists are redefining the public sphere, and with it, American democracy.

[SIZE=8.25pt]FIRMIN DEBRABANDER[/SIZE]

[SIZE=9.75pt]APR 1 2015, 8:00 AM ET[/SIZE]

Polls show that gun owners cite self-protection as the primary reason they are armed. Their intentions are generally good and admirable. The gun-rights movement has done a great job making the argument for individuals to be armed to protect themselves and their families in their own homes. What if you are faced with a menacing home intruder and police are far away? In that situation, it makes good sense to be armed.

But there is an unfortunate lesson playing out for those who have armed themselves to feel safer—and for all of us, too. The gun-rights movement has worked hard to push an increasingly radical agenda that undermines both our personal safety and our civic fabric. To that extent, there is something almost tragic occurring here: The well-meaning citizens who arm themselves in droves, perhaps even in public, are in that very process threatening the peace and order they seek to preserve, and claim to uphold.

Stand Your Ground laws are a prime example. These laws, which the NRA has championed in almost two-dozen states, are a logical extension of gun rights from the private home into the public sphere. What good is it to carry a gun in public if you are not also legally protected when using it in self-defense—or perceived self-defense? How are guns supposed to deter criminals if gun owners are legally hindered from wielding their weapons? Stand Your Ground removes these legal barriers so that people can better protect themselves.

But this also has social consequences. Thanks to Stand Your Ground, citizens must now fear their armed neighbors in addition to prospective criminals. What if someone who spies you walking down the street thinks you look suspicious? What if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans? Or what if the man you argue with, or potentially insult or offend, even unintentionally, is armed and irascible—and the argument escalates?

The gun-rights movement claims it is a staunch defender of the peace, contributing to and bolstering law and order. As gun rights are currently advanced, nothing could be further from the truth.

Increasingly, gun-rights advocates like National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre offer dystopian warnings to make their case. In November, LaPierre wrote a letter to NRA members—fittingly entitled “Is Chaos at our Door?”—outlining this vision.

“[T]he world that surrounds us is growing more dangerous all the time,” he warned. “Whether it’s enemy state actors, foreign terrorists, Mexican drug cartels or domestic criminals, the threats Americans face are massive—and growing.” He invoked massive terrorist attacks like those in Mumbai in 2008 or Kenya in 2013, hordes of armed and violent gangs that “are embedded coast to coast,” and an influx of illegal immigrants with criminal backgrounds. LaPierre complained that the government had detained and then “intentionally released 36,000 illegal aliens” with criminal records. “Where all these released criminals went,” he wrote, “no one knows. But you can bet on this: They’re among us, embedded throughout our society. For all you know, you pass them in your car on your way to work.”

LaPierre’s argument for being armed boils down to this: Americans are on the verge of—or already sinking into—a state of anarchy, where it is each man for himself. In that state, “the government can’t—or won’t—protect you…Only you can protect you,” he warns.

Even if most gun owners don’t share LaPierre’s fears, the gun-rights movement may have helped make them seem more plausible. In addition to pushing Stand Your Ground laws, the NRA fought universal background checks. Their premise—that it will not stop hardened and determined criminals from accessing guns—ensured that criminals could have easy access to guns at gun shows or from unscrupulous arms dealers. What’s more, thanks to NRA pressure, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) is also greatly hindered from pursuing such dealers and stemming the flow of weapons to criminals. As Alan Berlow reported in Mother Jones, the agency is denied valuable information to track weapons purchases, since the FBI is required by law to destroy records of gun sales—the ones that do involve a background check—within 24 hours. Further, the ATF cannot follow up on missing or stolen guns from dealers, since the agency is prohibited from forcing dealers to conduct annual inventories of their merchandise. With NRA support, Congress has also imposed limits on ATF inspections and penalties of gun dealers, and “barred the use of ATF trace data in administrative proceedings such as those to revoke a dealer’s license.”

The cumulative effect of these efforts is a society where security must be upheld or enforced by individual gun owners, who could misperceive what justice demands in any given situation. Our police have a hard enough time with this task. Consider the controversies in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island last year, where unarmed black men, implicated in minor crimes, died because police used excessive force. Police chiefs are generally critical of the profusion of privately held arms and laws that embolden gun owners to wield their weapons in public. Gun-rights advocates like to argue that ordinary citizens should be armed in public on the premise that they can halt shootings or crimes in progress. This argument is often summed up by LaPierre’s claim that “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If only the “bad guys with a gun” advertised themselves as such, or the “good guys with a gun” acted that way in all circumstances.

LaPierre’s Manichean universe, neatly divided between forces of good and evil, bears little resemblance to our messy real world. Consider the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, where Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords in the head at a constituent meeting outside a Tucson shopping center. After attacking the congresswoman, who survived her grievous injury, Loughner shot eighteen people and killed six. It turns out there was an armed citizen present at the shooting—and he drew his gun, ready to shoot the attacker. However, he identified the wrong man and nearly pulled the trigger on an innocent bystander. Luckily, he did not.

(...)

In the NRA view, guns must be ever-present if society hopes to keep order. This logic implicitly undermines law enforcement’s role in society. The world is just too dangerous, it argues, and cops are outmanned and outgunned (again, thanks to the NRA’s efforts). Armed citizens are therefore needed to fill those gaps when cops are not present—no matter how small or short those gaps may be—in order to keep the peace.

In pushing this agenda, the gun-rights movement mistakenly urges supporters to think that public order rests upon overt shows of force. In a democracy, however, peace is founded on rule of law.

Rule of law is essential for maintaining the peace in civil society. It is also an act of faith: People presume and trust that everyone else around them will act lawfully and safely. For example, I must presume that the driver in front of me will obey the laws of the road; I must also presume that he will not, Mad Max-style, swerve around to aim a rifle at me and start firing. If people know others around them are armed, they may grow suspicious of each other, restrict their dealings with one another, or, in some circumstances, not deal with them at all. An over-armed society is a recipe for widespread mistrust and suspicion, with dire consequences for the vibrancy of civil society.

Gun-rights advocates typically consider themselves staunch conservatives. But it is worth reminding them that it is a bedrock principle of conservatism that a free society requires strong rule of law and that citizens must do all they can to ensure it and strengthen it. Milton Friedman argued that the duties and reach of government extend no further than articulating the law, making sure it is heeded, adjudicating differences between citizens, and prosecuting offenses against them. Beyond that, Friedman affirms, government should let the law and market do its work, with the compliance of free and rational citizens.

An over-armed society ensures that government will be anything but restrained.

Rule of law can even help prevent government overreach. The conservative English political theorist Michael Oakeshott understood that rule of law is essential to realizing the conservative goal of small government.

“[Government] by rule of law … is itself the emblem of that diffusion of power which it exists to promote,” he claimed, “and is therefore peculiarly appropriate to a free society. It is a method of government most economical in the use of power; it … leaves no room for arbitrariness; it encourages a tradition of resistance to the growth of dangerous concentrations of power which is far more effective than any promiscuous onslaught however crushing; it controls effectively without breaking the grand affirmative flow of things; and it gives a practical definition of the kind of limited but necessary service a society may expect from its government, restraining us from vain and dangerous expectations.”

But this clashes with gun-rights advocates’ worldview. They imagine some kind of libertarian paradise where government retreats—where law remains widely acknowledged and respected—and individual gun owners are free to enforce the law if and when they deem it necessary. But Oakeshott understands that an armed and potentially violent public only goads the government into action and force. Law enforcement knows that gun owners may use their weapons recklessly, and prepares itself accordingly.

Oakeshott’s strongest point is that an over-armed society makes government bigger, more intrusive, and more aggressive in carrying out its vested duty of maintaining order. It goads government, and the law enforcement officials who work for it, towards arbitrary shows of power and force. In this way, too, the gun rights movement makes its wishes and warnings come true. The NRA says citizens must be armed to combat government tyranny. But an over-armed society ensures that government will be anything but restrained.

A common feature of the many police shootings perpetrated over the last year, and highlighted in the media during and after Ferguson, is that police now assume their suspects to be armed. Given the state of affairs the NRA has fostered, this may be a prudent and understandable assumption. But it also means police are instinctively cautious, hostile, and all too ready to use their weapons against ordinary citizens. In an over-armed society, we may also expect to see a steady uptick in the number of cases involving police brutality or excessive force. And then, as the NRA would have it, the government is most fully and clearly the people’s enemy, too.

Pasted from <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/how-gun-rights-harm-the-rule-of-law/389288/?utm_source=btn-twitter-ctrl1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
Hearing damage is caused by endurance and level. If you have hearing damage from hunting, perhaps you should chose another sport. Millions of hunters without tinnitus will probably agree.
Good grief, I should know better than to expect anything more than trolling from you.

In any given year, only 10% of the hunters here in PA are successful. I am going to guess that those millions of hunters who never develop tinnitus and don't wear hearing protection are in the other 90%.

In any case, it is pretty clear there are some very valid reasons to want to suppress a rifle. If someone claimed the only reason you would want to put a muffler on a car is so you can steal it, they would be laughed at. Well the assertion that the only reason to put a muffler on a gun is to kill people is no less laughable.
A suppressor on a gun is not to conceal yourself from the first shot, its the second. Me thinks your justification for a suppressor is more about wanting one than actually needing one. Millions of hunters will agree.

 

slatfatf

Super Anarchist
8,679
1,049
A suppressor on a gun is not to conceal yourself from the first shot, its the second. Me thinks your justification for a suppressor is more about wanting one than actually needing one. Millions of hunters will agree.
So just to make sure i understand what you are trying to say. With all other things being equal, it is better to have a gun that is so loud it can cause hearing damage than to have one that is quiet and can be safely used without risking hearing loss. That is your contention?

 

Spatial Ed

Super Anarchist
39,527
113
A suppressor on a gun is not to conceal yourself from the first shot, its the second. Me thinks your justification for a suppressor is more about wanting one than actually needing one. Millions of hunters will agree.
So just to make sure i understand what you are trying to say. With all other things being equal, it is better to have a gun that is so loud it can cause hearing damage than to have one that is quiet and can be safely used without risking hearing loss. That is your contention?
Suppressors are valuable if you want to kill multiple people. From the trunk of a car.

I don't buy your hearing loss argument. A single shot will not cause damage, unless you hold the muzzle close to your ear. You don't hunt like that do you?

 




Top