ATF Releases Latest Suppressor Figures

[TxWelder35]

I do agree that all regulations are infringements. You’re still to fucking stupid to acknowledge where I have said multiple times in this thread THAT I’M NOT FOR or against NFA. I simply pointed out what would be a consequence of removing them from registry which is not untrue and caused your very last brain cell to combust.

Now I’m done replying to you because you’re ignorant and have a one track mind and don’t listen to a damn thing anyone says unless they are in total agreement with you.

if you arent against the NFA, you are for the NFA.

no fence sitting like a little bitch.....either you believe in the constitution, or you dont.

Came here to say this ^ after reading this whole cluster fuck.

if you aren’t for or against, by default you are for it, because it is here and in place. Like pleaing no contest to a speeding ticket, you are still have to pay the fucking fine.

a suppressor is not that hard to get illegally. You entire argument about how more criminals would use them has zero basis in fact, and you have zero supporting evidence. The SBR example is perfect. Their GF, auntie, and grandmama can easily buy everything off the shelf to assemble an SBR and yet there are none. How many of these people are going to spend $200 on a threaded barrel and another $600 on a suppressor if it was an off the shelf item then go clap their buddy next door then go ditch it all? Exactly 0.

is this part of the GBPSE I can pay $200 for a tax nbd Hahahaha look at the poors who complain about it complex? Sure seems to be this is what it’s about.

 

[spife7980]

How some of you dumbasses don’t understand that “the more there is of something” would increase the instances of that something being used amazes me.

It’s just inferred logically, you don’t need “evidence” of basic fucking sense.

and then a real dumb ass hoping in with
“While from a pure statistical standpoint, odds say that might have a shred of validity, so what?” on a comment about statistics.

 

[Holliday]

I do agree that all regulations are infringements. You’re still to fucking stupid to acknowledge where I have said multiple times in this thread THAT I’M NOT FOR or against NFA. I simply pointed out what would be a consequence of removing them from registry which is not untrue and caused your very last brain cell to combust.

Dude I was starting to feel bad for picking on you because you are too damn easy. Then I looked at your post count and thought WTF?

It is shocking how people like you are with us every day. And yes my posts are not really directed at you but people like you. I have two brothers like you. I pretty much have to tolerate their ignorance and yet firm opinions on these subjects.

Quite frankly I could give a rat’s ass what you thing. Having said that people like you are why we are guaranteed never to get suppressors off the nfa. That is a HUGE negative for the people here criticizing your uninformed opinion.

When my brothers spout such nonsense, it is frustrating but also u informed. Niether own suppressors, nor are they members of the Hide. The plain fact of the matter is that without Hollywood you and my brothers would likely not have these opinions regarding suppressors. I mean why the hell would you? Would you get these ideas from the multude of reports on crimes using suppressors? No because there are none.

My frustration is not at you. Perhaps its an iq thing or some medical reason that you make shit up. The problem is that there are a lot of you. More than most gun owners realize.

I have skin in this fight. I have spent time at the legislature, given money etc. etc. My last can purchase was extended 3 months due to Congress not being able to prevent a shutdown. They are skirting another shutdown in Dec. I am 58 and time is burning like a match to a line of gunpowder. “A right delayed is a right denied” “registration is the first step to confiscation.”

People like you want to pretend people like me are just over dramatic. Yet we have the models for what “they” want. Australia, Britain, California, New Jersey et al. Only a blind man would purport that “reasonable gun control” is even on the table. This is a political and cultural war of attrition. It is ALL about moving the line at this point.

Many of us still believe this war can be fight peacefully,politically and culturally. I am one of those people. That said, our biggest threat is those within us, who foolishly tout the other side’s talking points .

 

[Holliday]

How some of you dumbasses don’t understand that the more there is of something the more of that something there is amazes me.

It’s just inferred logically, you don’t need “evidence” of basic fucking sense.

Et tu, brute’?

 

[kRcu]

You guys missed a hell of an opportunity to educate someone you feel needs it.

Conversation goes nowhere when your rebuttal starts with emotional insults. Literally just causes both parties to dig their heels in.

 

[AllenOne1]

How some of you dumbasses don’t understand that “the more there is of something” would increase the instances of that something being used amazes me.

It’s just inferred logically, you don’t need “evidence” of basic fucking sense.

and then a real dumb ass hoping in with
“While from a pure statistical standpoint, odds say that might have a shred of validity, so what?” on a comment about statistics.

Like the example of the more CC permits the higher the crime rate right? Oh wait..............

 

[spife7980]

Et tu, brute’?

Yeah, when someone says that that aren’t talking about being for nor against it but are just pointing out that if silencers were more common then they would be used more commonly then yes, me too.

 

[TxWelder35]

How some of you dumbasses don’t understand that “the more there is of something” would increase the instances of that something being used amazes me.

It’s just inferred logically, you don’t need “evidence” of basic fucking sense.

and then a real dumb ass hoping in with
“While from a pure statistical standpoint, odds say that might have a shred of validity, so what?” on a comment about statistics.

It is easier than ever to buy an illegal suppressor for under $100. There are more suppressors than ever in circulation.

it is easier than ever to configure a SBR

I have yet to see any crime stats to reflect either of those 2 things.

now, if we start getting $200 full auto hi point pistols with an integral suppressor for sale at the ol academy with just a 4473, than yes those will start showing up everywhere.

 

[TxWelder35]

Yeah, when someone says that that aren’t talking about being for nor against it but are just pointing out that if silencers were more common then they would be used more commonly then yes, me too.

More ARs than ever being sold but I have yet to see an appreciable difference in the amount of rifles used in crimes.

 

[Holliday]

Yeah, when someone says that that aren’t talking about being for nor against it but are just pointing out that if silencers were more common then they would be used more commonly then yes, me too.

Spife, ok let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you’re right.

There has been an explosion silencer purchases. We have those number here at the start of this thread.

I will wait for your hard evidence of a significant statistical increase in the use of silencers in crime. A significant increase in news stories would suffice because you know as well as I do the left media would be all over it if that were happening.

 

[spife7980]

to welder- No but I bet that the more frequent an item becomes the higher the likely hood of that item being the one that’s used.

To max- Yeah, there’s been an “explosion” in popularity in that percentages of silencers are up; 2.6 million in the last year, that’s a 10x increase from a decade prior. Huge increase in that regard.
But they are still minuscule in number to what’s been and is out there for potential host firearms.

Personally I agree, get rid of the atf etc.

But as far as the numbers and why scarcity equals infrequency I don’t see how it’s an argument. Obviously cans used in crimes aren’t common, by the numbers basically no ones got them.

 

[kRcu]

Spife, ok let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you’re right.

There has been an explosion silencer purchases. We have those number here at the start of this thread.

I will wait for you hard evidence of a significant statistical increase in the use of silencers in crime. A significant increase in news stories would suffice because you know as well as I do the left media would be all over that if this was happening.

Silencers are still regulated though….

I would bet the crime stats linked with registered NFA items is very low, if not nearly nonexistent, despite sales increases.

 

[TxWelder35]

to welder- No but I bet that the more frequent an item becomes the higher the likely hood of that item being the one that’s used.

Yes and no.

under that logic we would be having an explosion of gun, silencer, and sbr, crime across the country but we aren’t.

that is the same argument the left uses to ban and restrict guns, I don’t understand why we are debating this. I pretty well figured we have debunked those myths long ago

 

[Holliday]

You guys missed a hell of an opportunity to educate someone you feel needs it.

Conversation goes nowhere when your rebuttal starts with emotional insults. Literally just causes both parties to dig their heels in.

You are missing the point. This guy is the last fucking guy that should need this “educated” on this topic.

Quite frankly, I’m starting to think there is something more nefarious going on. I am starting to think there are actually NFA item owners who support the NFA by default because it makes them feel like they are in a special club.

Whatever the reason gun owners are paying a dear price for turncoats within our ranks. And it is about to get a lot worse.......

 

[TxWelder35]

Silencers are still regulated though….

I would bet the crime stats linked with registered NFA items is very low, if not nearly nonexistent, despite sales increases.

And how many “fuel filters” and “mag lights” with “storage cups” inside have been sold in the past couple years. Hint it’s a lot. And also, how many of those have turned up at crime scenes?

 

[Holliday]

Silencers are still regulated though….

I would bet the crime stats linked with registered NFA items is very low, if not nearly nonexistent, despite sales increases.

That was not his statement.

 

[kRcu]

And how many “fuel filters” and “mag lights” with “storage cups” inside have been sold in the past couple years. Hint it’s a lot. And also, how many of those have turned up at crime scenes?

I’m just saying, the original argument was generated around a regulated item being more common once unregulated. Using a sales increase while the item is still regulated isn’t a direct comparison to the original point being made.

 

[Holliday]

to welder- No but I bet that the more frequent an item becomes the higher the likely hood of that item being the one that’s used.

To max- Yeah, there’s been an “explosion” in popularity in that percentages of silencers are up; 2.6 million in the last year, that’s a 10x increase from a decade prior. Huge increase in that regard.
But they are still minuscule in number to what’s been and is out there for potential host firearms.

Personally I agree, get rid of the atf etc.

But as far as the numbers and why scarcity equals infrequency I don’t see how it’s an argument. Obviously cans used in crimes aren’t common, by the numbers basically no ones got them.

Spife I don’t disagree with you often but come on. You made a bold statement here.

There has been an explosion of suppressor ownership. So your statistic probablity model should be able to give us SOME insight.

I’m not saying that your a statistical probability model does not sound good on paper. But the results CLEARLY say otherwise.

I think the real question is: why AREN’T suppressors being used more in crime?

 

[Holliday]

Silencers are still regulated though….

I would bet the crime stats linked with registered NFA items is very low, if not nearly nonexistent, despite sales increases.

So it is your assertion that the registration is key and not the number purchased /owned?

So looking at the graphic at the start of this thread and the numbers out there, what is it about “registration” that is keeping suppressors from being used more frequently in crime?

 

[Holliday]

I’m just saying, the original argument was generated around a regulated item being more common once unregulated. Using a sales increase while the item is still regulated isn’t a direct comparison to the original point being made.

But they already are “more common”. By a huge amount. Registration has not thwarted that.

 

[kRcu]

Spife I don’t disagree with you often but come on. You made a bold statement here.

There has been an explosion of suppressor ownership. So your statistic probablity model should be able to give us SOME insight.

I’m not saying that your a statistical probability model does not sound good on paper. But the results CLEARLY say otherwise.

I think the real question is: why AREN’T suppressors being used more in crime?

They are regulated.

 

[Snuby642]

Because when everyone focuses on that part and attacks me like I’m an anti gun commie, that does make you stupid. In both of my posts I stated that I’m not for or against it but I doubt anyone even made it that far because full retard had already engaged after reading the first sentence THAT EVERY QUOTE FOCUSED ON.

When you can’t respect someone having a difference of opinion than yours, then you’re no different that the “tolerant left”. Let that sink in for a moment.

No damn fence sitting.

Just like a double talking politician.

Anyone legally owning firearms should be able to use suppressors for any legal purposes.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

You guys missed a hell of an opportunity to educate someone you feel needs it.

Conversation goes nowhere when your rebuttal starts with emotional insults. Literally just causes both parties to dig their heels in.

Even with kind words you cannot force your thoughts and views onto an intelligent person who thinks for themself. Regardless, they couldn’t even correctly read what the fuck I was saying, I highly doubt they possess the required hardware to “educate” anyone.

 

[spife7980]

The same reason why people aren’t using a blunderbuss. They don’t have em.
Drunk driving traffic accidents weren’t common before the automobile became available either.

Cans comprised 10% of the gun sales for one year. Those 10% are all people that would subject themselves to a background check. Criminals don’t have em because basically no one has em.

Spife I don’t disagree with you often but come on. You made a bold statement here.

There has been an explosion of suppressor ownership. So your statistic probablity model should be able to give us SOME insight.

I’m not saying that your a statistical probability model does not sound good on paper. But the results CLEARLY say otherwise.

I think the real question is: why AREN’T suppressors being used more in crime?

 

[redneckbmxer24]

No damn fence sitting.

Just like a double talking politician.

Believe it or not, you can just not give a flying fuck. Why join the fight on either side when I don’t care and I can just sit atop that fence with my popcorn and watch both sides lose their fucking minds for not getting their way? I simply just didn’t agree with being AGAINST the NFA and these idiots are acting like a bunch of lefties the day Trump got elected.

 

[kRcu]

Even with kind words you cannot force your thoughts and views onto an intelligent person who thinks for themself. Regardless, they couldn’t even correctly read what the fuck I was saying, I highly doubt they possess the required hardware to “educate” anyone.

I’m not saying one way or another about your expressed views, just stating a fact that if you want to change someone’s mind, insults aren’t where it should start.

 

[Holliday]

The same reason why people aren’t using a blunderbuss. They don’t have em. They comprised 10% of the gun sales for one year. Those 10% are all people that would subject themselves to a background check. Criminals don’t have em because basically no one has em.

Blunderbuss??? Judas priest

So nothing. No numbers to back up your claim. Not even a few news stories.
Well Spife, I really thought you would have more than speculation and hyperbole.

 

[Holliday]

They are regulated.

So it is your assertion that the registration is key and not the number purchased /owned?

So looking at the graphic at the start of this thread and the numbers out there, what is it about “registration” that is keeping suppressors from being used more frequently in crime?

 

[spife7980]

Blunderbuss??? Judas priest

So nothing. No numbers to back up your claim. Not even a few news stories.
Well Spife, I really thought you would have more than speculation and hyperbole.

Ok, where are your numbers showing an inverse relationship between availability and frequency?

 

[...]

It’s just inferred logically, you don’t need “evidence” of basic fucking sense.

Lol, you talk like fucking every anti gunner ever.

"We don't need evidence that our claims are true.....it's just 'common sense' "

Much like the claim that "it'll be like the wild west, and people would shoot each other over car accidents if you have constitutional carry"

...but that doesn't happen....

Of it's "common sense", finding fucking proof to back up your claims wouldn't be hard.

....So STFU....

Millions of ARs on the market, yet not a statistical change in ARs used in crime.....

Easier than ever to build a solvent trap, yet no stastical change in suppressors used in crime....

"Ease of access" doesn't automatically mean its going to contribute to being used in crime...

 

[kRcu]

So it is your assertion that the registration is key and not the number purchased /owned?

So looking at the graphic at the start of this thread and the numbers out there, what is it about “registration” that is keeping suppressors from being used more frequently in crime?

My opinion…..

People who get NFA items tend to be more invested in gun ownership. These people tend to be more responsible, tend to own multiple firearms/items, train, etc. I don’t feel these types of people tend to be criminals.

Also, I don’t feel the number increase correlates alone, as most people with an NFA item, own several. So an increase in items doesn’t equal a 1:1 increase in individuals acquiring the items.

 

[spife7980]

Lol, you talk like fucking every anti gunner ever.

"We don't need evidence that our claims are true.....it's just 'common sense' "

Much like the claim that "it'll be like the wild west, and people would shoot each other over car accidents if you have constitutional carry"

...but that doesn't happen....

Of it's "common sense", finding fucking proof to back up your claims wouldn't be hard.

....So STFU....

Millions of ARs on the market, yet not a statistical change in ARs used in crime.....

Easier than ever to build a solvent trap, yet no stastical change in suppressors used in crime....

"Ease of access" doesn't automatically mean its going to contribute to being used in crime...

So explain to me how I am supposed to be able to use something that I don’t have? Where’s the stats on that?

 

[...]

Believe it or not, you can just not give a flying fuck. Why join the fight on either side when I don’t care and I can just sit atop that fence with my popcorn and watch both sides lose their fucking minds for not getting their way? I simply just didn’t agree with being AGAINST the NFA and these idiots are acting like a bunch of lefties the day Trump got elected.

Hey listen, if you want to go through life without a backbone, be our guest.

Being the little bitch who sidelines, then acts victorious regardless of who wins is appealing to some I'm sure.

 

[...]

So explain to me how I am supposed to be able to use something that I don’t have? Where’s the stats on that?

When the only thing preventing you from having that is a law that you don't care about.....it's actually pretty easy.

Absolutely nothing is preventing you from buying an oil filter and a thread adapter from eBay...absolutely nothing at all.

You'll get punished if you get caught with it.....but you already have a cache of illegal guns anyways, so what's another charge?

 

[spife7980]

Oh, so no numbers or evidence.

Explain to me why cans aren’t used in crimes, other than lack of availability.

Don’t explain to me that someone will still smack em in the head with a rock or something if they are going to murder em, we all know that. We aren’t arguing that criminals do crimes.

 

[...]

Oh, so no numbers or evidence.

Explain to me why cans aren’t used in crimes, other than lack of availability.

Don’t explain to me that someone will still smack em in the head with a rock or something if they are going to murder em, we all know that. We aren’t arguing that criminals do crimes.

Yeah, why don't you post the numbers showing a rise in AR crimes then.....I'll wait jackass.....

 

[kRcu]

This thread has me feeling like I may actually support the NFA, as I’ve paid the taxes and followed the process several times. I didn’t protest, so I must support it I guess? I don’t know what to do now.

 

[Holliday]

My opinion…..

People who get NFA items tend to be more invested in gun ownership. These people tend to be more responsible, tend to own multiple firearms/items, train, etc. I don’t feel these types of people tend to be criminals.

Also, I don’t feel the number increase correlates alone, as most people with an NFA item, own several. So an increase in items doesn’t equal a 1:1 increase in individuals acquiring the items.

That’s your argument? In spite of a clear explosion of ownership “you feel” and “you think”. So basically no stats to the contrary, just speculation and confirmation bias.

You have absolutely no data to support the claim that gun owners who buy suppressors “are more responsible” that is merely conjecture. An assumption. The plural of anecdote is not data.

FACT: We have had an exponential growth of suppressor ownership.

FACT: We have had no appreciable increase in crime using suppressors. Not so much is a few news stories can be produced by this crew.

 

[spife7980]

Yeah, why don't you post the numbers showing a rise in AR crimes then.....I'll wait jackass.....

I don’t have them just like you don’t have them.
Why do you think it is that criminals aren’t using cans and that cans aren’t being used in crimes.

 

[MadDuner]

We just enjoy paying “voluntary” taxes....

 

[Holliday]

Oh, so no numbers or evidence.

Explain to me why cans aren’t used in crimes, other than lack of availability.

Don’t explain to me that someone will still smack em in the head with a rock or something if they are going to murder em, we all know that. We aren’t arguing that criminals do crimes.

Ok you must have numbers for their use of crimes in unregulated countries, Europe, NZ etc.

let’s have those stats.

 

[...]

I don’t have them just like you don’t have them.
Why do you think it is that criminals aren’t using cans and that cans aren’t being used in crimes.

...because evidence does not support those claims....that's kind of how it works.

If there were a perceived benefit, we would see them popping up in crimes...improvised or otherwise.

Criminals value compact firearms, look at most guns recovered from crime scenes, they are cheap, and small.

Being discrete doe not seem to be a concern, as evidence by, well, damn near everything criminals do.

They aren't fucking assassin's, they are chimps with handguns.

 

[kRcu]

That’s your argument? In spite of a clear explosion of ownership “you feel” and “you think”. So basically no stats to the contrary, just speculation and confirmation bias.

You have absolutely no data to support the claim that gun owners who buy suppressors “are more responsible” that is merely conjecture. An assumption. The plural of anecdote is not data.

FACT: We have had an exponential growth of suppressor ownership.

FACT: We have had no appreciable increase in crime using suppressors. Not so much is a few news stories can be produced by the crew.

I said it was my opinion, not an argument.

You asked, “what is it about “registration” that is keeping suppressors from being used more frequently in crime?”

 

[spife7980]

Ok you must have numbers for their use of crimes in unregulated countries, Europe, NZ etc.

let’s have those stats.

Ive already said I don’t have them just like y’all don’t have em.

 

[spife7980]

...because evidence does not support those claims....that's kind of how it works.

If there were a perceived benefit, we would see them popping up in crimes...improvised or otherwise.

Criminals value compact firearms, look at most guns recovered from crime scenes, they are cheap, and small.

Being discrete doe not seem to be a concern, as evidence by, well, damn near everything criminals do.

They aren't fucking assassin's, they are chimps with handguns.

Ok, so the fact that they don’t have them has nothing to do with it?

 

[Holliday]

I said it was my opinion, not an argument.

You asked, “what is it about “registration” that is keeping suppressors from being used more frequently in crime?”

What is your stats on their use in gun crimes in countries where they are sold with no registration in a bubble pack over the counter like a pack of gum?

 

[...]

Ok, so the fact that they don’t have them has nothing to do with it?

They don't have them just like drug dealers don't have crack because you can't buy it legally.


...Oh wait....

 

[spife7980]

They don't have them just like drug dealers don't have crack because you can't buy it legally.


...Oh wait....

So if it’s as easy to get a can illegally as it is to get crack then why aren’t all these crackheads using them in their crimes? What’s keeping their use arbitrarily lower than when compared to the normal ratio of cans to guns total?

 

[kRcu]

That’s your argument? In spite of a clear explosion of ownership “you feel” and “you think”. So basically no stats to the contrary, just speculation and confirmation bias.

You have absolutely no data to support the claim that gun owners who buy suppressors “are more responsible” that is merely conjecture. An assumption. The plural of anecdote is not data.

FACT: We have had an exponential growth of suppressor ownership.

FACT: We have had no appreciable increase in crime using suppressors. Not so much is a few news stories can be produced by this crew.

Would you not assume the same?

“FACT: We have had no appreciable increase in crime using suppressors. Not so much is a few news stories can be produced by this crew.”

Almost like the group of people who paid the taxes and went through the NFA process are more…..like…..responsible as a whole.

 

[...]

So if it’s as easy to get a can illegally as it is to get crack then why aren’t all these crackheads using them in their crimes?

Ive literally posted why at least 2x already and you keep asking