4 ms·
Assuming you're talking about gun silencers/suppressors, the US has a very confusing history with them in general. The way in which they made it into Congress'
by flagrant_taco 3y ago
Assuming you're talking about gun silencers/suppressors, the US has a very confusing history with them in general.
The way in which they made it into Congress's list of heavily regulated weapons is an interesting story of inept politicians at work. I've also never understood why suppressors would be seen as anything other than a good thing, if we wanted to regulate them it'd make more sense to require them for carry guns rather than make them hard to get.
Shooting an unsuppressed handgun without hearing protection is really bad for your hearing, and carrying a surpressed pistols also much trickier if we're concerned with how many guns are legally carried in public.
- Nasrudith 3y agoYou know the abundance of Hollywood bullshit on AI going to kill us all? The same thing happened long ago with silencers as they forget about hearing damage from firearms because it isn't seen in movies but worry about "the dangers" of firearms being suppressed to non-hearing damaging levels by equating it with the classic "mouse-fart" level of volume. Hollywood has a lot to answer for in its damage to epistemology.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoAs far as I understand it these restrictions on suppressors predate any meaningful impact of Hollywood action films. Suppressors were included in restrictions from the prohibition era largely targeting the fear of the use of automatic weapons by organized crime (the mob). Feds pictured everyone in the mafia carrying military-grade Thompsons (Tommy guns) despite the fact that they were horribly expensive, produced in small quantities, and didn't sell well. There are actually congressional record of the hearings for the weapons law that make clear no justification was given for including suppressors, it just wasn't pressed by anyone involved.