• Welcome to RCCrawler Forums.

    It looks like you're enjoying RCCrawler's Forums but haven't created an account yet. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? As a member you get free access to all of our forums and posts plus the ability to post your own messages, communicate directly with other members, and much more. Register now!

    Already a member? Login at the top of this page to stop seeing this message.

Seriously, why are Libs against guns and their owners?

Yeah, not least because they are heavily regulated (but not banned) and relatively difficult for the average jerk to get ahold of. Here's a video of a dude using a silencer on a walther to give y'all a sense of the difference. I guess I don't get why we would need to make silencers more easily available when the legitimate problem they solve (guns are loud and hurt hearing) can be easily solved by cheap ass earplugs and silencers present a danger of harm to others by making it easier to get away with shooting someone.

I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds over a small issue when the big issue is about firearms more generally. If there's evidence that suggests easily available silencers do not have any impact on gun violence then I totally drop my objection, but what I've seen suggests otherwise.

One example I've seen for silencers was shooting their gun at their home(I envision a home with land and neighbors not terribly close, but still close enough) and not bothering or spooking them. That's something I found interesting & never heard before.


It's Florida...:ror:
 
I'm pretty far left and I didn't really give a crap about guns until I watched John Wick. Now I think they're a magical thing I A. Don't understand, and B. Will have more of when I win the lottery.
 
One example I've seen for silencers was shooting their gun at their home(I envision a home with land and neighbors not terribly close, but still close enough) and not bothering or spooking them. That's something I found interesting & never heard before.



It's Florida...:ror:
No doubt.
 
Watch and laugh...or cry.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LBtWosxIqJE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And dis fookin' guy thinking "stroking" a shotgun is a "bad ass gesture" :lmao:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j6Ex2rVOUWs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds over a small issue when the big issue is about firearms more generally. If there's evidence that suggests easily available silencers do not have any impact on gun violence then I totally drop my objection, but what I've seen suggests otherwise.


That's exactly what I said. Silencers make jack diddly squat of a difference in gun violence. Go find me some news stories involving commercially available silencers. Go ahead, I'll wait but be forewarned it'll be a while. "thumbsup"


Guns are not the issue, people are the issue. We'd be far better off banning fast food if the goal is to save lives. :lol:
 
Yeah, not least because they are heavily regulated (but not banned) and relatively difficult for the average jerk to get ahold of. Here's a video of a dude using a silencer on a walther to give y'all a sense of the difference. I guess I don't get why we would need to make silencers more easily available when the legitimate problem they solve (guns are loud and hurt hearing) can be easily solved by cheap ass earplugs and silencers present a danger of harm to others by making it easier to get away with shooting someone.

I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds over a small issue when the big issue is about firearms more generally. If there's evidence that suggests easily available silencers do not have any impact on gun violence then I totally drop my objection, but what I've seen suggests otherwise.

I've read every word of this thread, just so ya know; even your "book." And I do appreciate the civil conversation.

The previous comment about silencers being involved in a "handful" of crimes is probably an exaggeration. Last article I read mentioned that there had been very few, as they had problems finding real facts about more than one or two. Was probably a year or so ago that I read that.

I manufacture silencers, and have had the pleasure of testing one on my own rifle. As well as other rifles, and even competitor's silencers. Average sound level reduction is less than 30dB on most. A small rifle, like an AR-15, with a .223 round averages about 165dB. 135dB is still loud and definitely still sounds like a gun.

Then, there's the issue of size. They add a LOT to a weapon: weight, diameter and length. No way you're going to carry one, concealed. Even if they were as easily available as any other firearm accessory.... Well, you get what you pay for. Sure, there would be some for really cheap (probably around $200) but, they probably wouldn't reduce much sound, and might even adversely affect the weapon they're on. Or, like I am buying, you could have an all titanium design that will last forever, reduce sound as well or better than the number one product on the market, doesn't affect accuracy, and reduces the felt recoil (for about $1000). How many criminals are gonna spend that kinda dough, just so they don't need to wear ear-plugs when they do their drive-bys?

On another note:

The AR in AR-10, AR-15, AR-7, etc. started out as an abbreviation for Armalite Rifle. Assault rifles are capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. The only way that happens with an AR-XX is if it's been modified or, in my case, the trigger just broke. Even then, it tried to cycle so fast, it just jammed. I make these, also. If they get banned, again, I lose income. They look like military issue but, they do not function the same. And sometimes, they are the best choice for personal defense. Oklahoma Man Uses AR-15 to Kill Three Teen Home Intruders - NBC News
 
In 2016 there were over 300,000,000 (that's 300 million) guns in the US. According to the obviously biased Bray Campaign, there are an average of 114,994 people shot each year. That includes deaths, injuries, and suicides. Suicides shouldn't count. People set on killing themselves are going to find a different way, but that's beside the point. Sure 114,994 sounds like a lot of people, but that means only 0.038% of guns were used to kill people. 38 hundredths of a percent.

Let that sink into your dome piece.

Guns are not the problem.
 
Yeah, not least because they are heavily regulated (but not banned) and relatively difficult for the average jerk to get ahold of. Here's a video of a dude using a silencer on a walther to give y'all a sense of the difference. I guess I don't get why we would need to make silencers more easily available when the legitimate problem they solve (guns are loud and hurt hearing) can be easily solved by cheap ass earplugs and silencers present a danger of harm to others by making it easier to get away with shooting someone.

I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds over a small issue when the big issue is about firearms more generally. If there's evidence that suggests easily available silencers do not have any impact on gun violence then I totally drop my objection, but what I've seen suggests otherwise.

Suppressors are PPE (personal protective equipment) and they solve a lot of issues with excessive noise from target shooting. Along with protecting against hearing loss for shooting where hearing protection is not desirable.(hunting, home defense, etc) A LOT of ranges here the US have BIG problems with people complaining about noise from target shooting. Many from the moron whom buys a house near a shooting range then bitches and moans about the noise.(those people should have their breeding license taken away because they too stupid) A lot of ranges ended up closing because of this.

I can literally go into my shop and turn out an adapter to adapt an oil filter to a barrel of one of guns in 10 minutes. It will be as effective as a store bought suppressor.(especially if soaked in water) But if I make this adapter and screw an oil filter to my gun without going through the NFA process and pay my $200 I'm facing 10 years in the clink. The law is beyond stupid and prevents no crime.

People who don't know think suppressors make guns silent like in a movies. The reality is that isn't even remotely true.
 
Last edited:
It's Florida...:ror:

If y'all ever check out fark.com, they have a bunch of random news stuff with tags like "funny" or "weird" or "surprising." One of the tags they use is "Florida." Ha. Also where like every Cops episode is filmed. Oh, Florida. (It's also where I was born)
 
...
49098a77b997ac247d04a66aad547b60.jpg
 
I'm pretty far left and I didn't really give a crap about guns until I watched John Wick. Now I think they're a magical thing I A. Don't understand, and B. Will have more of when I win the lottery.

Why wait?

The market is saturated at the moment.

Prices are way down and it's a buyers market for sure.

Lots (and I mean LOTS) of great firearms are available for amazing prices (except AK of course😡) right this minute.
 
Meh. They weren't his, but he had full and unrestricted access to them. It's not like he took them from an unsuspecting stranger...

I have access to the guns from a lot of friends and family. I know where the keys are to the safe etc, know where guns out of the safe are, etc. But if I go in and take them with out asking it is theft by the definition.(especially if I kill them afterwords)

Might as well have been. His mom was blind and dumb to not see that her kid was full blown kray kray.

If memory serves me right she tried to get him committed but couldn't. She knew he wasn't right. She really should have made sure there was no way he could get access to the guns. But sometimes that can be difficult. Someone will always find the way to do harm if they put forth the effort.
 
Last edited:
But if I go in and take them with out asking it is theft by the definition.(especially if I kill them afterwords)

Yes, it was theft by definition, but the point was put forward like it was meant to shift the blame.

If memory serves me right she tried to get him committed but couldn't. She knew he wasn't right. She really should have made sure there was no way he could get access to the guns. But sometimes that can be difficult. Someone will always find the way to do harm if they put forth the effort.

Incorrect. His mom actually objected to the meds and treatment he was receiving, and stopped them. She was a gun enthusiast and taught him how to shoot, as well as kept multiple firearms in the house.

I put 100% of the blame on his mother.
 
They are and they aren't. They increase a persons ability to do harm, even though they are incapable of doing harm by themselves. They aren't the source of the problem, but they are certainly woven into it.

As are alcohol, drugs, knives, vehicles, baseball bats, brass knuckles, machetes, rebar, hammers, glass bottles, steroids, etc. All these increase a person's ability to do harm.
 
Yes, it was theft by definition, but the point was put forward like it was meant to shift the blame.



Incorrect. His mom actually objected to the meds and treatment he was receiving, and stopped them. She was a gun enthusiast and taught him how to shoot, as well as kept multiple firearms in the house.

I put 100% of the blame on his mother.

I'm not trying to shift blame, I'm putting it right where it belongs, the killer. Its obvious from your posts you would rather blame everything/everyone but the guy who did the killing. Typical leftist tactic that really has gotten old.

I think you need to go refresh your memory on the subject.

Adam Lanza Motive: Nancy Lanza Was Allegedly Trying To Have Her Son Committed
Mother's Plans to Commit Adam Lanza May Have Driven Massacre - Breitbart
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive-sandy-hook/1779475/
 
Back
Top