ATF Releases Latest Suppressor Figures

[long range sponge]

I'm having problems understanding what's wrong with this particular stance (other than the fact that my budgetary constraints are more along the lines of supercharged pushrod V8s instead of quad-turbo W16s). Trust me, my wife has pointed out the irony of my desire to build quiet guns and loud cars, while my sons are more supportive of both endeavours (must be a Y chromosome thing).

This dumpster fire of a thread is really quite impressive, even by the standards established by the Bear Pit. One person (a long-standing contributor to this site, and seemingly no softie when it comes to Constitutional rights) postulated that "more cans" might equal "more cans used in crime". This presumably follows the same logic demonstrated by lists of most-popular crime guns, which tend to be dominated by pistols like S&W J-/K-frames and the Glock 17/19 which are super-common, and so it doesn't seem like an inherently controversial hypothesis. It's pretty much along the lines of suggesting that if Ford sells more F-150s, then there will be more drunk-driving accidents in pickup trucks.

The logical counterargument to this could have been something along the lines of pointing out that guns like the Ruger 10/22 and Remington 700 are also extremely prolific but dramatically underrepresented in crime use, or simply pointing out that violent crime dropped sharply in the past 20 years despite a massive increase in total civilian firearm ownership over the same period, and thus demonstrating the lack of correlation between "firearms in wide circulation" and "firearms widely used in crime".

That is not what happened, though

Would deregulation of suppressors increase their usage in crime simply due to increased prevalence? It seems that it might, but it took over three decades for the Glock 17 to knock off the S&W medium-frame revolvers as the thug gun of choice, and long guns such as the AR-15 are still rarely used in crime despite their popularity and utility.

As far as illegally-manufactured suppressors go, maybe gangbangers never got to take metal shop due to the lack of vocation education in today's schools

If my post made it seem like I took issue with the concept that more availability could possibly lead to more crime with suppressors, my apologies. I don't have a problem with that thinking. Hell, going from 44 crimes per year (as stated earlier) to 45 per year is an increase.

What caught me was what appeared to be lack of concern, one way or the other, about suppressors staying on the NFA. Then to follow that up with statements seeming to advocate for deregulation or at least fewer restrictions on fully automatic weapons. Believe me, I'm in the camp that wants to do away with the NFA all together. I don't feel, as many have clambered, that redneckmbxer is a commie. I'm just not in line with the "meh" attitude. I have 2 cans. Both old SAS cans that I got on clearance. I'm looking to get more but life keeps throwing shit in the way.

I do also understand that loud/tuned cars are cooler than soft stock sounds. As for budgetary restraints, I'm not even in the supercharged V8 realm. Stock 2016 V6 Explorer XLT. Not even the turbo charged Sport. Lol.

 

[Choid]

An interesting question to me (and the most important) - If cans became OTC, what would happen to the rate of crimes committed with a firearm?

We are arguing basic mathematics when there is much more involved.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that 1) cans function better on rifles than on pistols, 2) firearm function is literally very important when committing a dangerous act. So probably criminals would try cans early on on pistols, and realize that they put their criminal lives in a bit more danger, and then they would stop. Also, they would have to be willing to get threaded pistols to do it in the first place.

So probably you'd see a minor increase in overall crimes committed with firearms, and what you would see would be more typical rifle crime where a can might be helpful, like poaching crimes and doing stupid shit like shooting car tires to flatten them. But as far as violent crime with guns you would see a small spike then not overall change.

But that is just a guess.

 

[jbonnie]

I just don't understand how people believe suppressors of all things should be regulated. It is just baffling at this point.

Baffling LOL

 

[jim kellogg]

Right on! Let's keep suppressors regulated like they do firearms in places like California, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. Strict regulation of firearms has really kept crime low in those places.

Oh My G-d, The more gun laws has shown just the opposite. Much more firearm crime (MURDER) in areas where it is difficult for the law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm!

 

[spife7980]

Oh My G-d, The more gun laws has shown just the opposite. Much more firearm crime (MURDER) in areas where it is difficult for the law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm!

 

[Longshot231]

Oh My G-d, The more gun laws has shown just the opposite. Much more firearm crime (MURDER) in areas where it is difficult for the law-abiding citizen to purchase a firearm!

I'm not sure if you understood my sarcasm or not. Regardless, I was making your point with my sarcastic statement.

My apologies, as well, if I misunderstood your posting.

 

[Dragonclaws]

Some countries require you to hunt with a supperser like the UK

 

[Farsight]

Appears I struck a nerve

You’re entitled to your opinions just as I’m entitled to mine and that doesn’t make either of us wrong.

But yes it is factual however that if suppressors were less regulated they would be easier to get, less cared for as far as storage goes, therefor easier for criminals to get their hands on whether through theft or purchase. If you can’t see that then you’re fucking stupid.

If pistols were NFA items since the 30’s as well, do you think there would be as many in the hands of criminals? No. Do I think pistols should be NFA? Also no.

I’m not really for or against NFA regulation of them (something that all of you retards missed), I couldn’t care less beyond how much longer the process takes than it could or should. I’m not poor so I can afford the $200 stamp, and I’m smart enough to realize that posting pics online like many of us do big brother knows what we have so that’s pretty moot. I’m also smart enough to see that yes the NFA regulations does keep this stuff out of the hands of bad guys much more so than firearms which are unregulated. Do I think that’s right? I don’t know, but I do know how society is and what shitty people there are in the world.

I find it kind of funny how you all quoted and focused on that one first sentence of my post though because that’s the only part that any of you have some smooth brained argument about. Your heads must have just completely exploded when you read

You did strike a nerve and you should be very proud, congratulations on having enough money not to care. Being a citizen includes managing, take a position or you will be a subject.

 

[SoundFx]

Here my lowly opinion on this:

The prevalence of criminal suppressor use is low because of the *types* of crimes typically committed. Of course that sounds obvious, but let’s think about it.
Most crimes with perps using firearms are robberies, gang drug related shootings, domestic crimes of passion, and suicides (I personally don’t think suicide should be a crime but that’s another thread).
Ok, given that it’s pretty intuitive why suppressors don’t factor prominently in these statistics.
They’re difficult to conceal for gangbangers, not generally on the radar for low iq ghetto individuals, they cost money. All important factors when you consider most of the crimes stats are young black guys shooting each other with stolen (stolen often from other people who don’t have a lot of money, which is why we see the same types of guns so often) pistols and mixed steel case fmj for ammo. For their most typical crimes there is no benefit to a suppressor nor is the easy availability there because the people they steal from to get the pistols also don’t own cans. Ok.

Not many people are going to kill themselves with a suppressed gun, even if they own a suppressor.

So what crimes would a reasonable person EXPECT to see suppressors in use? Well, political crimes where the perps are intelligent and would prefer to not be caught. Or perhaps serious nutcases who have means and who wish to inflict targeted death on someone (think serial killer level premeditation).

We don’t see much of the latter crime, because in general those acts are extremely rare. However, the politicians and media WANT us to believe that these crimes are in fact NOT rare. That’s why so many people associate suppressor ownership with nefarious intent. Hollywood has long pushed this idea too.

If the country falls apart and Balkanizes leaving many groups struggling to fill regional and local power voids, there could be a sharp increase in suppressors being used in murders. It’s true.

The vast majority of crimes involving guns are being committed by low intelligence people with a minimum of premeditation, and whose goals are not political or for organized criminal groups. Because those types of crimes are far more rare than DC or Hollywood wants us to believe.