Reporters and guns

[Ranb]

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_219222607.html

It seems the NYPD responded to a complaint made about a man threatening someone with a weapon. The above link contains a video of this story and a partial transcript.

In the video, reporter Brendan Keefe claimed that "silencers are illegal in all fifty states" and "they muffle the sound a gunshot and have no use other than killing someone without fear of detection." The transcript contains a clarification stating: "Silencers are illegal nation-wide, without a permit. Sixteen states ban them altogether."

So, knowing that there are no federal laws banning civilian silencer possession, and he has never read any such law, why would this reporter make up something just for his live report on the street? Is this any different than lying? Or is he just so prejudiced against gun owners that he needs to spice up his story for ratings?

The second comment, which remains uncorrected, is the "no other use than killing" comment. I guess he also never heard that silencers help prevent the most common injury associated with firearms use; hearing loss. Posturing morons like this gun make me cringe when watching the news, and not just about gun related topics.

Ranb

[corplinx]

The reporter, most likely made an assumption without fact checking it. I'm guessing that the average joe believes silencers are simply illegal to own as well.

[Garrette]

Without knowing anything about this reporter, I would ascribe it to the generally poor level of journalism in this country as opposed to any overt lying.

He probably asked someone if silencers are illegal and heard the first part of the answer (they are illegal) without hearing the second part (without a license).


When silencers are outlawed, then only reporters will have silencers.

Or sumpin like that

[Cleon]

So, knowing that there are no federal laws banning civilian silencer possession, and he has never read any such law, why would this reporter make up something just for his live report on the street? Is this any different than lying? Or is he just so prejudiced against gun owners that he needs to spice up his story for ratings?

More likely he was just on a roll, or misread/misremembered something he was handed. Or maybe he just yanked it out of his butt.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Jimbo07]

The second comment, which remains uncorrected, is the "no other use than killing" comment. I guess he also never heard that silencers help prevent the most common injury associated with firearms use; hearing loss. Posturing morons like this gun make me cringe when watching the news, and not just about gun related topics.


This is a really strange comment, whatever our respective positions on gun control. If you're a collector or sport shooter, why not just use hearing protection? It must be a failure of my limited imagination to conceive of silencers being realistically used in any scenario other than the killing of other humans...

[Ranb]

Assuming that the reporter is an American, he should know that anything not prohibited in the USA is legal. He either lied or his prejudice against gun owners is strong enough to over ride common sense, hence his "no other use than killing" statement. I doubt that he was coached on that one; it had to come out of his ass.

Jimbo, I find your comments to be rather strange. Do you even care enough to learn anything about silencers or firearms in general before posting? While most silencers will not reduce noise below 120 decibels, they do reduce noise pollution around shooting ranges and hunting areas where used. Not all hunters use hearing protection. Sometimes range spectators do not use hearing protection or fail to use it properly. What do you think the 60,000 plus legal owners of silencers use them for in the USA? Use your imagination.

If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing? I own a couple of rifles that are loud even when shot with single hearing protection. I would use silencers with them all the time if it was legal to do so in my home state.

I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England and New Zealand. If there is anyone here from these countries, please let me know if I am right or wrong.

Ranb

[sackett]

Finland and Norway don't impose many restrictions on suppressors (which is really what we're talking about), and they have their advocates for use in hunting. I can see how they'd be popular at a public range too.

Ranb, unlax and crack a brew with your old uncle sackett. It's been at least a third of a century since I stopped expecting reporters to get any technical subject right.

[Ranb]

Finland and Norway don't impose many restrictions on suppressors (which is really what we're talking about), and they have their advocates for use in hunting. I can see how they'd be popular at a public range too.

Ranb, unlax and crack a brew with your old uncle sackett. It's been at least a third of a century since I stopped expecting reporters to get any technical subject right.

I tend to use the word silencer because it is a legal term and if I was to use the words suppressor or moderator on the application for the $200 tax stamp required to make/own them, then the ATF would not approve the form.

I'm chilled out. :) I admit I have had to take some of what I hear and read on the news with a sack of salt in the last ten years, but it would be nice if they kept their own personal prejudice out of their reporting. I understand that much of what passes for news in this country is merely thinly disguised entertainment, but this guy was like a mouthpiece for the Brady Campaign crowd.

Ranb

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can I get a silencer for my beloved 50 BMG rifle? Sometimes, when we are in bed at night, it makes too much noise!

Do not use personal attacks to argue your point. Several of your posts are bordering on sexual harrassment which breaches the Membership Agreement.

Sexual harassment: Defined as unwelcome sexual advances, sexual suggestions, or sexual content directed at another user, when reported.

[Jimbo07]

Do you even care enough to learn anything about silencers or firearms in general before posting?

...

If I can make my AR-15...

I apologize for dipping into this thread.

:boxedin:

[fuelair]

Assuming that the reporter is an American, he should know that anything not prohibited in the USA is legal. He either lied or his prejudice against gun owners is strong enough to over ride common sense, hence his "no other use than killing" statement. I doubt that he was coached on that one; it had to come out of his ass.

Jimbo, I find your comments to be rather strange. Do you even care enough to learn anything about silencers or firearms in general before posting? While most silencers will not reduce noise below 120 decibels, they do reduce noise pollution around shooting ranges and hunting areas where used. Not all hunters use hearing protection. Sometimes range spectators do not use hearing protection or fail to use it properly. What do you think the 60,000 plus legal owners of silencers use them for in the USA? Use your imagination.

If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing? I own a couple of rifles that are loud even when shot with single hearing protection. I would use silencers with them all the time if it was legal to do so in my home state.

I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England and New Zealand. If there is anyone here from these countries, please let me know if I am right or wrong.

Ranb
The problem is, I suspect, that most people THINK that silencers make guns SILENT and the law makes people feel good. The fact that it merely lowers the volume to a still quite detectable level and makes the weapon longer (less concealable) doesn't matter to the happy unknowing.

[Cain]

Ranb,

Though it's coming a little late, I want to agree that what Biden said to you was completely out of line.

[dudalb]

Hell 'making a big boom is half the fun of Target shooting.

[rtalman]

I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.

[Miss Anthrope]

I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.

Yes, no doubt. Completely unrealistic. Though, silencers on revolvers really crack me up.

[Ranb]

.....Though it's coming a little late, I want to agree that what Biden said to you was completely out of line.

Biden?

Ranb

[Ranb]

I suppose the reporter associates "silencer" (much like I did until reading this thread) with nearly all the made for TV movies, wherein the bad guy calmly screws a silencer to the front of his pistol, aims, and "PFFT" the intended victim is dead with nary a aural witness.

This link might interest you. http://silencertests.com/reviews/list.pl?sortby=suppressed It is important to know that impulse noise like a gun shot is nothing like the continuous noise coming from a jet engine. A bolt action rifle chambered in the common 22 rim fire cartridge and equipped with a good silencer will make a PFFT sound but it is still about 1120 decibels. The semi-auto Ruger 10/22 will make a clack-clack sound as the bolt moves back and forth, but is also less noisy than some air rifles. A bystander who is not paying attention will probably not recognize the noise as a gunshot.

Putting a can on an AR-15 will reduce noise by 100-1000 times, but the action noise is loud, and if you shoot it left handed without eye protection, the powder gas and residue flying out of the gas tube and into your face is likely to damage your eyes, or at least make little red marks on your cheek. The silencer keeps pressure in the barrel higher as the gas tube blows the bolt carrier back. When the Army tested suppressors for their 50 caliber rifles, they found that none of them suppressed well enough to prevent hearing loss.

Ranb

[Ranb]

I apologize for dipping into this thread.

:boxedin:

The thing is that silencers were invented over 100 years ago by a civilian for civilian use. They were made of mild steel and had rather flimsy attachments compared to today's silencers. They were not well suited for military use due the lack of high strength alloys, the tendency to overheat the weapon during use and baffle strikes when not mounted well.

Since 1934 civilians (non-dealer) have had to pay a $200 tax to buy, or make them as well as have a background check done by the BATFE and inform the local sheriff that they were trying to buy. In the last thirty years or so technology has enabled manufacturers to mass produce quality silencers and inflation has reduced the cost of the tax compared to the worth of the silencer. Back in 1934, the $200 would be the same as about $3000 today.

So an American decides to buy a silencer, he puts up with the paperwork and excessive tax and brings it home. Then he gets crap from gun owners or others about how he or she is breaking the law or that they are intending to kill someone. Can you not see that this is insulting? Would you accuse a person who buys condoms of plotting to rape without leaving evidence? I think not. Silencers reduce noise, they are mufflers for guns.

Ranb

[rtalman]

Ranb

I can see you are passionate about this issue. Have you sent a letter to the ombudsman at WCBS and asked them to make a further correction about the reporter's statement about the need and use of suppressors?

I think a polite letter outlining the history you have given and the reasons many enthusiasts buy and use suppressors might get a positive response and maybe even a further correction on their website.

[Ranb]

I did e-mail the reporter. My letter was polite, but I did tell him he needs to try to be more accurate instead of allowing his prejudice to get in the way of the truth. I am not expecting a reply. Reporters and news program producers are even less responsive than elected members of Congress it seems.

Ranb

[UnrepentantSinner]

...about 1120 decibels.

Isn't that louder than a "Disaster Area" concert?

[Ranb]

Ouch, that is loud. It should read 120 decibels. Thanks.

Ranb

[Cleon]

I did e-mail the reporter. My letter was polite, but I did tell him he needs to try to be more accurate instead of allowing his prejudice to get in the way of the truth. I am not expecting a reply. Reporters and news program producers are even less responsive than elected members of Congress it seems.


Maybe you'd have more luck getting a reply if you didn't accuse him of showing bias right off the bat. That's not really "polite."

I'm serious--I think this is simply a case of a reporter running off at the mouth. Stupidity, not malice.

[qayak]

If I can make my AR-15 only 130 decibels instead of 160, why is this a bad thing?

You have lulled yourself into a false sense of security.

http://www.cfah.org/factsoflife/vol6no5.cfm#recent_findings

Even more dangerous, fireworks produce bursts of noise as loud as 130 to 190 decibels, which can cause hearing loss in a matter of seconds. Handgun and rifle fire reaches 160 to 170 decibels which, if close to the ear, can cause hearing loss almost instantaneously.

So, even with a silencer, you are going to suffer hearing loss. Perhaps even worse because without a silencer you are likely to wear hearing protection but, believing that a silencer is enough, you could be shooting all day without protection. Indoor target shooting would be even worse.

Hearing loss can occur at as little as 82 dB.

[Wowbagger]

Isn't that louder than a "Disaster Area" concert?
Naw, "Disaster Area" is louder than that. You can hear the noise they make between planets, even if there are no particles to carry the sound through space! The sound just carries its own particles with it!

[Pope130]

I used to work for a Class 3 dealer. We built and sold suppressors (among other things). One of our most popular models was an integral suppressor for the Ruger 10-22. The biggest market for these was turkey farmers. They'd use them on vermin. Without the suppressor the bang would panic the turkeys, often resulting in the injury and death of a lot of them.

Robert

[Just thinking]

Basically, when it comes to guns (and many avenues of science) too few reporters know the facts or proper terms. I've seen the all too common misrepresentation of semi-automatics being called automatics, shotgun rounds called bullets and even semi-automatics (handguns) called revolvers. Is this nit-picking? ... perhaps. But what it leads to (IMHO) is a sense of knowing facts about one and then applying those facts erroneously to others due to mislabeling.

[Ranb]

You have lulled yourself into a false sense of security.

So, even with a silencer, you are going to suffer hearing loss. Perhaps even worse because without a silencer you are likely to wear hearing protection but, believing that a silencer is enough, you could be shooting all day without protection. Indoor target shooting would be even worse.

Hearing loss can occur at as little as 82 dB.

I partially disagree. The link does not differentiate between continuous noise and impulse noise. The ear is able to withstand higher levels of impulse noise.

My ear muffs are good for a maximum of 30 decibels if worn properly, this is why you sometimes see double (plugs and muffs) protection worn at ranges when shooting larger rifles equipped with muzzle brakes.

An ar-15 with a typical suppressor installed and shooting standard ammo is not going to be hearing safe when shot under a roof or inside of a room. The same set-up shot away from structures or with subsonic ammo will be much less noisy.

Here is a link that includes impulse noise. http://www.lowertheboom.org/trice/safedblevels.htm

The silencertests link I provided also shows that many suppressors are not hearing safe, but many of the tests that used subsonic ammo are less than 130 dB.

Ranb

[Gurdur]

Use a potato. No license needed.

[ponderingturtle]

Naw, "Disaster Area" is louder than that. You can hear the noise they make between planets, even if there are no particles to carry the sound through space! The sound just carries its own particles with it!

1120 decibells would be around a super nova. 300 is in the range of nuclear weapons.

[Gurdur]

You would have to use a very large potato for a super-nova.

[Ranb]

Potatoes suck. :) Actually, only importers, dealers and manufacturers need the license and class 1, 2 or 3 SOT to have silencers. The rest of us only need the $200 tax stamp. In order for the potato to be legal, it also needs my name, city/state and serial number stamped on it at least three thousands of an inch deep. From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

Ranb

[rtalman]

Potatoes suck. :) Actually, only importers, dealers and manufacturers need the license and class 1, 2 or 3 SOT to have silencers. The rest of us only need the $200 tax stamp. In order for the potato to be legal, it also needs my name, city/state and serial number stamped on it at least three thousands of an inch deep. From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

RanbSo if I buy a gun in a private sale, what do I need to do to stay legal if a silencer comes with it?

[Ranb]

So if I buy a gun in a private sale, what do I need to do to stay legal if a silencer comes with it?

If the silencer is detachable, then pay for both and take the gun home. You will only be able to take home the silencer after the BATFE sends you the approved form 4 with the canceled tax stamp.

You need to live in one of the 36 states that allow civilians to own them; AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, ND, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY. I got this list from http://www.silencertests.com . You will need to check your own states laws to verify any additional requirements, such as the WA state ban on using them, or TX which requires proof they are registered.

Assuming you live in the same state as the seller, you need to obtain an ATF form 4, a certificate of compliance attesting to your citizenship, (both from BATFE or online at http://test.titleii.com/form4.html ), two fingerprint cards and two passport sized photos. If you live in a different state then you need to use a licensed dealer who will help you with the same forms. Fill out the form 4, then bring it to your local sheriff and ask him/her to sign the back. Some will not sign. There are others who are allowed to sign in some counties, such as DA's and judges. If you can not get a signature, then you can form a trust or a corp, then no photos fingerprints or sheriff's sig is required. However, the trust, not you own the silencer, but this can make it easier for your heirs to inherit if you wish.

Last I heard it is taking the BATFE about 1-2 months to approve the forms. After you get the form back approved, you can return to the dealer or owner and pick up the silencer. The ATF tax form is the only proof that you legally own the silencer. If you loose it, then the other copy held by the BATFE might not be available even if it is requested by yourself. It is a confidential tax form, only the BATFE can demand that you present it on demand. Some states (like TX) ban silencers except for those that are registered IAW the NFA of 1934. This means if the police demand that you prove it is registered, you need to show them the tax form. Most NFA weapons owners keep a copy of their ATF tax forms with them whenever taking their machine guns or silencers out of the house.

I am not entirely sure about buying directly from an unlicensed person as I made all of my own silencers using ATF from 1’s. You may need to use a dealer for all transfers. The people at www.subguns.com or www.silencertests.com will be happy to answer any questions. I hope this is what you wanted to know.

Ranb

[Gurdur]

Potatoes suck. :) ..... From what I have heard, they work poorly for the first shot, and not at all for all the rest.

Ranb

For heaven's sakes, show some self-sufficient pride & ability and use a bloody sackful of potatos.

You can cook and eat the remnants afterwards too. *

___________

* With a very mild risk of stomach cancer owing to the then-added nitrates, but hey.

[richardm]

I have read that silencer (moderator) use while hunting is encouraged in countries like England

It's not exactly encouraged, but it's not generally prohibited. You do have to note in your Firearms Certificate (FAC) application that you have one, and you need to show that you have good reason for having it. This isn't really very onerous, since "good reason" can be obvious things like not wanting to scare other quarry away or not bothering neighbours at a range.

Edit: For deer stalking a silencer is thought to be fairly pointless since the supersonic round makes its own noise that startles the deer.

[Ranb]

For heaven's sakes, show some self-sufficient pride & ability and use a bloody sackful of potatos.
You can cook and eat the remnants afterwards too. *
* With a very mild risk of stomach cancer owing to the then-added nitrates, but hey.

Yuck yuck yuck! Have you seen what is inside of a suppressor after lead ammo is shot through it? It is filthy disgusting. Double that when the suppressor is shot wet. Some of that black gunk is lead from the bullet heel and the primer. :) You try it first and tell me how that $200 potato tastes.

Ranb

[Ranb]

It's not exactly encouraged.....
Edit: For deer stalking a silencer is thought to be fairly pointless since the supersonic round makes its own noise that startles the deer.

Thanks. A supersonic round will not startle the deer it hits until after the bullet it going through it, unless you miss. :) I have read about various people who use subsonic ammo in suppressed rifles for hunting, mostly those outside of the USA. They use the heaviest bullet they can to help make up for the low energy of the subsonic round. In most states where hunting is allowed with silencers, it is only for non-game animals.

Ranb

[richardm]

Thanks. A supersonic round will not startle the deer it hits until after the bullet it going through it, unless you miss. :)

Well, yeah, one hopes that the deer you're shooting at will get the good news first anyway ;) I was thinking about the rest of the herd, I suppose. Although for a sporting stalk I'd think that shooting at more than one deer would be considered Bad Form on most estates.

Just for you interest Re: Subsonic rounds; the calibre and muzzle velocity of the rounds used for deer are set by law:

In England and Wales rifles must be at least .240 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,700 ft/lbs. In Scotland, for Roe deer rifles must be at least .222 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,000 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.
For other species of deer the rifle must be at least .243 inches in calibre. The bullet must be expanding/hollow nosed with a muzzle energy of at least 1,750 ft/lbs and a muzzle velocity of at least 2,450 ft/sec.



Hollow point rounds are illegal to possess unless you're shooting large animals or vermin (e.g. foxes, or if you want to humanely destroy an animal). You are required by law to use soft/hollow point rounds for deer.

[Ranb]

That's a lot of punch for a small deer. The laws in the USA vary much when allowing certain firearms for hunting. I have a small .510 caliber carbine that shoots subsonic 750 grain bullets and gives me about 1800 ft-lbs, but I guess I would be out of luck wanting to use it there. :) It would tip over a moose rather well I think.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Here is a picture of an original Maxim silencer, along with some commentary. The cut-away pic is a modern can.

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/8/22622444090.jpg (http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=6320467)

Ranb

[fuelair]

Yuck yuck yuck! Have you seen what is inside of a suppressor after lead ammo is shot through it? It is filthy disgusting. Double that when the suppressor is shot wet. Some of that black gunk is lead from the bullet heel and the primer. :) You try it first and tell me how that $200 potato tastes.

Ranb
Another reason for copper cladding!

[Ranb]

Here is a reporter that got it much better, but the bias is still there. This is about Blackwater's export of silencers to Iraq; allegedly without the proper permits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21565556/

"While silencers are rare in America because their possession is highly restricted, they are common props in movies and television programs, used by actors playing hit men or members of the special forces. The military uses them for covert action and nighttime tactical assaults where stealth and surprise are required, but experts say it is not clear why Blackwater guards would need them for missions such as personal protection of diplomats."

I guess the "experts" that the reporter talked to do not actually use silencers, or else they might have told the reporter that silencers prevent hearing loss during firefights, especially when used indoors.

The reporter could have also said that far more civilians own silencers than are used for movie and television program production.

Ranb

[Tokenconservative]

The reporter, most likely made an assumption without fact checking it. I'm guessing that the average joe believes silencers are simply illegal to own as well.

I've owned guns all my life, including the feared and hated "assault weapons!!!" and had always heard silencers were federally banned...

Um...nobody would use one of these to prevent hearing loss....lol. That's comical. They cost a lot, is my understanding, only work for a set number of rounds....ear protection is pretty cheap.

Tokie

[JoeEllison]

Isn't the gun-nut hysteria over yet? No?

Someone email me when it is, ok? :)

[Ranb]

I've owned guns all my life, including the feared and hated "assault weapons!!!" and had always heard silencers were federally banned...

Um...nobody would use one of these to prevent hearing loss....lol. That's comical. They cost a lot, is my understanding, only work for a set number of rounds....ear protection is pretty cheap.

Tokie
Where did you hear that any small arms were ever federally banned? Ever read the law for yourself? Please go to www.subguns.com or www.silencertests.com and enlighten them for me.

Is my irony meter broken or are you actually claiming that people do not use them to prevent hearing loss? If you could reduce your rifle noise level by a factor of 100 (20 decibels), you would not even consider it?

Silencers in the USA cost $150 and up (+$200 tax), cheaper if you make your own. A silencer that is poorly aligned to the bore will work once. Other silencers will work for thousands of rounds as long as they are not over heated. A silencer equipped with rubber wipes is probably the one you are thinking of, they last less than 100 rounds, sometimes as few as ten.

Ranb