HAPPENING NOW.... Tune in

[JeffWard]

https://naturalresources.house.gov/cale ... tID=402754

[John A.]

I didn't watch the entire thing.

The end of it (1:40:'ish) was a bunch of anti-gun stupid drivel from people who are vastly unfamiliar with firearm silencers.

Can someone please let me know the jist of it?

[John A.]

I also saw a lot of the senators reading from a script when they were asking questions.

Meaning, they seemed to be intentionally going to the democrat anti gun playbook to paint suppressors in a negative light.

What little that I saw in the link you provided above, was very disturbing indeed.

[JeffWard]

A whole bunch of anti-silencer scripted questions from the senators leading the "experts".

I think the anti-silencer crowd came better prepared than the pro side...

Jeff

[doubloon]

bread and circus

[poikilotrm]

I liked the lead guy telling the ATF agent what really happened at the shooting. How does any ATF agent have any credibility anywhere?

The SHARE act will fail.

[a_canadian]

Yeah, the old guy setting the record straight on that baseball practice shooting was good, both for a laugh and a fine example of intelligence at work. Both are too rare among career politicians.

I found several of the pro-silencer voices to be competent and sensible, while most of the anti-silencer speakers were asshats more concerned about appearances than they were about even basic grammar, never mind common sense. What a bunch of fools.

But to be fair, and honest, aren't silencers mostly about fun? They're right about hearing protection tech being fairly advanced these days. I mean for about 1/3 the cost of a decent commercial silencer one can have custom moulded in-ear electronic active protection, noise cancelling sort of thing. No earmuff to get in the way of cheek weld. Heck, they even come in custom colours.

Then it seems to me the other attractive element is just a basic sense of freedom. Doing what we want, when we want to do it, how we want, etc. Using a silencer isn't just fun shooting, it's added flexibility in terms of hours (not bothering neighbours) we can shoot, locations (within reason, still using common sense about where it's safe to shoot and where it's not) where shooting might otherwise bother surrounding people, and just generally not being seen as the guy talking loudly in the theatre, so to speak. It's a bit hard to define, but simply put it's about freedom. And further access to that freedom would be a good thing.

While I don't buy the wholesale and oft-repeated argument in that video regarding easier access to silencers making criminal acts more likely, I do find it easy to imagine a small rise in silencer-enhanced criminality among a small number of low level crooks. The sort too unconnected to just get one from the mob supply chain, and too unskilled to make one for himself. Dorner's name came up a few times - ridiculous, as he was a skilled operator who was going to do those killings with or without a silencer, and besides, didn't he have legally obtained cans? So a change in the ATF access nonsense would have made zero difference there. And even if he rolled his own without a stamp, again, that's against the law as it stands and he did it anyway!

I'd be extremely surprised if the bill passed. It's been unlikely all along, and that hearing certainly isn't likely to change the mind of the average Hollywood-influenced citizen or lawmaker. It was a conversation at a trivial level. A circus, as you say. It'd take a much more subtle and mature government type to figure out a way to make this work. Right now things are just too binary and too much tied in to public appearances.

[John A.]

I found it laughable that the antigunners were referring to silencers as would diminish the sound of a gunshot. or disguise it.

I have a really good analogy for them.

They said that people could shoot at them and no one would know.

Have you ever heard a car without a muffler?

Loud isn't it?

Can you still hear cars that have mufflers driving a mile up the road?

Sure can.

If you walk out to the sidewalk, would you be able to tell which direction the car was traveling toward you from?

Sure can.

Firearms would be no different.

Just like you'd still be able to hear a rifle with a silencer from a mile away, which is well out of range of what even the best trained military snipers are usually capable of.

[T-Rex]

They said that people could shoot at them and no one would know.

Especially if they were hit

[John A.]

From NRA: It moved out of committee

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017091 ... -committee

Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) commends the House Committee on Natural Resources for markup and passage of H.R. 3668, the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act. Under the successful leadership of Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA), the SHARE Act now moves to the full U.S. House of Representatives.

“Today marks an important step in protecting the Second Amendment freedoms of America’s hunters and sportsmen and strengthening our outdoor heritage,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “The SHARE Act will cut burdensome red tape that restricts millions of hunters and sportsmen.”

The bill secures access to Federal public lands for hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting and includes the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). The HPA is an important safety-oriented aspect of the bill that will help protect the hearing of America’s hunters by eliminating expensive and excessive regulations on suppressors. Other key provisions include:
•Securing the future of hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting by increasing access to federal public lands.
•Reforming of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which protects the lawful, legal transport of unloaded firearms.
•Strengthening protections for carrying firearms on land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
•Removing the undefined and antiquated “sporting purposes test”, which opens the door to arbitrary ammunition bans.
•Returning wildlife management of the gray wolf back to states adversely affected by rising populations.

“I would like to thank Chairman Rob Bishop and Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock for their leadership and critical roles in ensuring committee passage of the SHARE Act. Thanks to their efforts, we are one step closer to the day that all Americans will have better access to our outdoor heritage and the tools that ensure the safety of hunters and sportsmen alike,” concluded Cox.

[Fulmen]

But to be fair, and honest, aren't silencers mostly about fun? They're right about hearing protection tech being fairly advanced these days. I mean for about 1/3 the cost of a decent commercial silencer one can have custom moulded in-ear electronic active protection, noise cancelling sort of thing. No earmuff to get in the way of cheek weld. Heck, they even come in custom colours.

You're forgetting that without the tax&red tape there's no need for unbreakable cans. Here in Norway they are free, and you can get a decent lightweight aluminum can for appr $150. Electronic ear muffs or plugs are nice, but they still have drawbacks. The sound is still "synthetic", and they tend to amplify stray noises from walking etc. Try walking in the bush for a day and you're gonna hate them.

[fishman]

When hunting, the more things with you that have batteries, the worse off you are. Plus, your sense of direction isn't as good with electronic earmuffs on.

Plus, silencers have benefits to hunting that hearing protection doesn't offer. Less noise pollution. Not scaring nearby animals ruining hunting for other hunters.