4 ms·

I'm in California so I can't suppress my firearms because that would put the rest of the population in grave danger. That being said, the most impressive thing

I'm in California so I can't suppress my firearms because that would put the rest of the population in grave danger. That being said, the most impressive thing of the sintered suppressors rather than the sound signature for me was the reduction in blowback. I heard them on pistols and semi-auto rifles though, I suppose to truly hear it I should have seen it on a bolt action.

ezekg 4y ago
SIG’s new DMLS suppressor line supposedly has less blowback than unsuppressed, which is incredible. Gas to the face sucks.
sbierwagen 4y ago
>I'm in California so I can't suppress my firearms because that would put the rest of the population in grave danger. ?
- zoltar 4y ago
  https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2018/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-10/chapter-9/section-33410/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2018/code-pen/part-6...
- giantrobot 4y ago
  Suppressors are just flat illegal in California. So much as possession of a suppressor is illegal.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Some places, cops will visit if they think you are buying too many oil filters because you might be making and, presumably, selling suppressors.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    - pvarangot 4y ago
      It's not a fetichism to want to add a safety device to an already dangerous hobby or work tool. To own a suppressor _in the United States of America_ you need to pass a BATFE background check that lasts a year or more. It's a registered item and has a 200 dollar tax stamp. And that's a federal law. What gains in "the safety of the public" are made by making it outright illegal when you already have to do that to have one is at least debatable. Also if they are so dangerous maybe they shouldn't be putting them in the AR-15s of SFPD SWAT like you can see here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands-worst-case-scenarios-on-many-14296996.php#photo-18061141 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands...
      - littlestymaar 4y ago
        > Also if they are so dangerous maybe they shouldn't be putting them in the AR-15s of SFPD SWAT like you can see here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands... What is that argument? Do you also want to be allowed to drive an M1 Abrams because the Army use them? Legalize depleted Uranium APFSDS, it will be OK, there is a background check.
    - louky 4y ago
      Suppressors are more widely legally available and even required in many European countries.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  He is making fun of California laws prohibiting suppressors being idiotic.
  - GordonS 4y ago
    As a non-American, this seems... fine? Are there legitimate uses of a suppressor I'm unaware of, or are they truly only useful for clandestine violence?
    - voakbasda 4y ago
      Guns are stupidly loud. A suppressor can literally save you from permanent hearing damage if you are forced to fire one inside a confined space.
    - collegeburner 4y ago
      They make guns quieter and reduce recoil. All around more pleasant to shoot and reduce hearing damage. Guns are loud enough that exposure to even a few rounds in close quarters can cause hearing damage so suppressors should be in regular use as safety devices. They don't make guns safe without earpro, they don't make them silent, they don't even make them that quiet. You will still know if one goes off nearby. This is one of the things about hollywood that pisses off everyone who knows squat about guns, and why we try to refer to them as suppressors rather than "silencers".
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      They are in fact basically never used for clandestine violence in places where they are legal (which is most of the US). On the other hand, there is a clear legitimate use of them: protection of hearing when you are shooting your own guns for fun, which is a legitimate activity that millions of Americans engage in every day. Banning suppressors is kinda like as if European countries today banned possession of English longbows. These very much can be effectively used for violence, as Agincourt has shown. However, nowadays, they emphatically are not used for that, and if modern European government loudly declared a war on longbows, and went after the owners, one would think that they went crazy: shooting longbows is a pastime of medieval reenacters, not criminals.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  California, a state known for regulations that ostensibly promote safety, has banned safety devices despite their already being extremely heavily regulated at the federal level.

ezekg 4y ago

SIG’s new DMLS suppressor line supposedly has less blowback than unsuppressed, which is incredible. Gas to the face sucks.

sbierwagen 4y ago

>I'm in California so I can't suppress my firearms because that would put the rest of the population in grave danger. ?

zoltar 4y ago
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2018/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-10/chapter-9/section-33410/ https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2018/code-pen/part-6...
giantrobot 4y ago
Suppressors are just flat illegal in California. So much as possession of a suppressor is illegal.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Some places, cops will visit if they think you are buying too many oil filters because you might be making and, presumably, selling suppressors.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  - pvarangot 4y ago
    It's not a fetichism to want to add a safety device to an already dangerous hobby or work tool. To own a suppressor _in the United States of America_ you need to pass a BATFE background check that lasts a year or more. It's a registered item and has a 200 dollar tax stamp. And that's a federal law. What gains in "the safety of the public" are made by making it outright illegal when you already have to do that to have one is at least debatable. Also if they are so dangerous maybe they shouldn't be putting them in the AR-15s of SFPD SWAT like you can see here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands-worst-case-scenarios-on-many-14296996.php#photo-18061141 https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands...
    - littlestymaar 4y ago
      > Also if they are so dangerous maybe they shouldn't be putting them in the AR-15s of SFPD SWAT like you can see here: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/At-Outside-Lands... What is that argument? Do you also want to be allowed to drive an M1 Abrams because the Army use them? Legalize depleted Uranium APFSDS, it will be OK, there is a background check.
  - louky 4y ago
    Suppressors are more widely legally available and even required in many European countries.
xyzzyz 4y ago
He is making fun of California laws prohibiting suppressors being idiotic.
- GordonS 4y ago
  As a non-American, this seems... fine? Are there legitimate uses of a suppressor I'm unaware of, or are they truly only useful for clandestine violence?
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    Guns are stupidly loud. A suppressor can literally save you from permanent hearing damage if you are forced to fire one inside a confined space.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    They make guns quieter and reduce recoil. All around more pleasant to shoot and reduce hearing damage. Guns are loud enough that exposure to even a few rounds in close quarters can cause hearing damage so suppressors should be in regular use as safety devices. They don't make guns safe without earpro, they don't make them silent, they don't even make them that quiet. You will still know if one goes off nearby. This is one of the things about hollywood that pisses off everyone who knows squat about guns, and why we try to refer to them as suppressors rather than "silencers".
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    They are in fact basically never used for clandestine violence in places where they are legal (which is most of the US). On the other hand, there is a clear legitimate use of them: protection of hearing when you are shooting your own guns for fun, which is a legitimate activity that millions of Americans engage in every day. Banning suppressors is kinda like as if European countries today banned possession of English longbows. These very much can be effectively used for violence, as Agincourt has shown. However, nowadays, they emphatically are not used for that, and if modern European government loudly declared a war on longbows, and went after the owners, one would think that they went crazy: shooting longbows is a pastime of medieval reenacters, not criminals.
collegeburner 4y ago
California, a state known for regulations that ostensibly promote safety, has banned safety devices despite their already being extremely heavily regulated at the federal level.