Results of Sep 12th SHARE Act Legislative Hearing (Included HPA)

[stanc]

Sorry Stan, both of those claims don't sit well with me.

What can I say. Sometimes the truth hurts.

There is no evidence to suggest that suppressors are used in crimes to a concerning degree in places where they are more readily available (e.g. Finland and New Zealand). The idea that suppressors can facilitate crime (to a concerning degree) is also questionable.

Aren't places like Finland much more restrictive/regulated in regards to gun ownership, requiring approval process for ordinary firearms similar to that for machine guns and other NFA items in the US?

My thinking is that if crimes committed with guns is low because firearm ownership is highly controlled, then allowing suppressors to be readily available (as in Finland) should not result in significant illegal use.

The US has tight controls on machine gun ownership, and there is negligible use of fully automatic weapons in crimes. OTOH, guns that are more readily available, are also used in crimes much more. It seems unlikely to be just coincidence.

But, I'm willing to admit that I may be wrong. It may be that the sheer bulk of suppressor-equipped guns would make them too undesirable or impractical for criminals to make significant use of them.

The whole idea of suppressors is to make the muzzle report quieter, not necessarily to the extent that hearing protection is not required.

Perhaps not always, but that usually is the purpose for using suppressors.

In High power centre-fire rifles that is physically impossible. High power rifles are in the order of 170+db. Suppressors can shave up to 35db off that. Sound above 85db will still damage your hearing if it is cumulative, and the higher it goes the length of time where it is damaging shortens. Sound at 130db will definitely damage your hearing. The problem here is that shooters expect a lot from a device that requires a lot of money, paperwork, waiting and effort. Hollywood is also to blame for portraying them as quieter and more useful than they really are. The bottom line is these things have limitations. We used suppressed weapons often in the military yet always wore 'double ears' in training (squeezies and muffs).

They can, to a degree confound others from pin-pointing the shooter. You can also use them to facilitate communication in a group situation. Also to appreciate more readily the good guys from the bad guys by the sound of their weapons. If also subsonic then you can be a closer distance to others than unsuppressed and not be heard, or more typically be of concern if heard (e.g. if talking about civilian crime,... poaching).

I certainly wouldn't advocate not wearing ear protection with suppressors, even when using subsonics.

I once helped demo a suppressed .45 Government Model at a law enforcement expo. It was so quiet, neither I nor the cops who shot it wore hearing protection.

At another time, while testing a suppressed .308 sniper rifle out in the desert, my friend fired the rifle in a near vertical position to demonstrate how quiet it was when there were no physical objects for the supersonic shock wave to impact. The only audible sound was that of the firing pin hitting the primer.

The Australian soldier in that video was using a suppressor so he could shoot without having to use hearing protection.

Hunters use suppressors so they don't have to wear hearing protection. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvFrSLdw5cY
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...suppressed

Shooting suppressed. Note the absence of hearing protection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr36MCm5dkk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_D9neCL2c8
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...essed+guns

Suppressed 9mm pistol fired indoors:

[video=youtube;QTY15uXE1-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTY15uXE1-o[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTY15uXE1-o