Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
14 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Dove opener this weekend, for those of you that don’t know and around the rural parts of town.  In case you hear a bit of gunfire. 

Yeah dude, I'm a "sportsmen" too.  I like to fish and camp.  This isn't about your bird shooting prowess, it's about dead kids.  But I'm sure you'll hit your bag limit and talk caliber until we all pass out from boredom.  ;)  

Every fucking September 1st, everybody is suddenly John Muir in Texas.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
16 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

can anybody imagine what kind of person would object to "You shall not murder"?

Yes, I can.  They wear Trump gear and advocate for killing his transgessors.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Dove opener this weekend, for those of you that don’t know and around the rural parts of town.  In case you hear a bit of gunfire. 

I'll be sure to watch out.  In the rural parts of town.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah dude, I'm a "sportsmen" too.  I like to fish and camp.  This isn't about your bird shooting prowess, it's about dead kids.  But I'm sure you'll hit your bag limit and talk caliber until we all pass out from boredom.  ;)  

Every fucking September 1st, everybody is suddenly John Muir in Texas.  

John Muir didn't hunt.  He detested it.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

You seem like a smart guy, and very knowledgeable about insurance things, but you seem to be blinded by Dem party theology.  There has got to be more to that story.

I'll bite. Much of what you posted last night is disingenuous at best. My "slaves" comment was meant as a joke. I think. It is fatty so who can really say.

Look, I'm a gun owner. I like to bird hunt. I'm not to the point where I want to take everybody's guns. The idea that we can't 100% solve the problem today doesn't mean the answer is do nothing. You're not reading the room if you don't realize that more and more people are getting to that point as the GOP/GQP does not seem to have the slightest interest in putting in any fucking guardrails on the path to gun ownership in this country.

Let me say I'm 100% against AR-15s and weapons like this. Unless you're on the ground in Ukraine, there is just no reason that you need to be carrying an AR-15. There are reasons why it is the preferred weapon of choice for today's mass shooters. We should just not allow any new purchases on weapons like this.

Beyond that, we should have legitimate background checks and red flag laws. I don't think you should be able to walk into a store, pick out a gun and walk out with it in the same day. You want a gun? Give me all your info and we're going to do a deep dive into your history, mental health and otherwise. We're going to look at your social media. Come back in a week and you can have your gun if you pass the check. Make legitimate investment in diagnosing and treating mental illness in this country.

Yeah, I'm down with Dem theology. I was a fucking Republican until the orange ogre came on the scene and obliterated all norms in 2016. It's become completely clear that there is no shame in today's GOP. There are zero good ideas. Hell, there are barely any ideas at all other than keep their voter base riled up over non-existent stupid shit like Bud Fucking Light.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
So, just to be clear, you are asking me to give up my constitutional rights?
Yes the semi-drunk dudes who wrote the constitution with a feather by candlelight imagined a need for you to mow down 30 people in under a minute.
Letting the assault weapons ban lapse has really worked out well for our children.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
14 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

So, just to be clear, you are asking me to give up my constitutional rights?

Let's say we institute a ban on the AR-15 in its various incarnations.  How does that infringe on your constitutional rights?

Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'll bite. Much of what you posted last night is disingenuous at best. My "slaves" comment was meant as a joke. I think. It is fatty so who can really say.

Look, I'm a gun owner. I like to bird hunt. I'm not to the point where I want to take everybody's guns. The idea that we can't 100% solve the problem today doesn't mean the answer is do nothing. You're not reading the room if you don't realize that more and more people are getting to that point as the GOP/GQP does not seem to have the slightest interest in putting in any fucking guardrails on the path to gun ownership in this country.

Let me say I'm 100% against AR-15s and weapons like this. Unless you're on the ground in Ukraine, there is just no reason that you need to be carrying an AR-15. There are reasons why it is the preferred weapon of choice for today's mass shooters. We should just not allow any new purchases on weapons like this.

Beyond that, we should have legitimate background checks and red flag laws. I don't think you should be able to walk into a store, pick out a gun and walk out with it in the same day. You want a gun? Give me all your info and we're going to do a deep dive into your history, mental health and otherwise. We're going to look at your social media. Come back in a week and you can have your gun if you pass the check. Make legitimate investment in diagnosing and treating mental illness in this country.

Yeah, I'm down with Dem theology. I was a fucking Republican until the orange ogre came on the scene and obliterated all norms in 2016. It's become completely clear that there is no shame in today's GOP. There are zero good ideas. Hell, there are barely any ideas at all other than keep their voter base riled up over non-existent stupid shit like Bud Fucking Light.

 

I think that there are areas that we can find common ground.

Background check for all transfers. If you transfer a weapon without one, you got to jail for a long time. At the same time, the NICS system needs to be free and accessible for all individuals that wish to do a transfer. 

Raise age limit to 21 or even 25? I am open to it. 

Red flag laws. Conceptually not opposed to this, but the devil is in the details. This idea that we are going to deep dive and screen everyone's social media, medical history, etc. on an individual basis for every transfer is just not reality-based. Shit I have been waiting 11+ months on a form 4 under a trust, and they don't do any of that stuff, it is just simple paperwork to push. That said, I do think that there is a path for red flag laws that can thread the civil liberties needle. 

Ban ARs? Nah. But I would be open to, and have suggested here previously, a pathway to move 20+ rd capacity magazines to the NFA, in exchange for taking safety devices like suppressors off the NFA. 

 

The fundamental problem here is not what the vast majority of gun owners and those that want more gun control can agree on. There are plenty of areas of agreement. Its the dysfunction of our political system that prevents any rational movement on this or any variety of other topics. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Many thanks to all of the mass neggers.  It is useful to learn how many of you lack a basic understanding of legal firearms that American citizens have a right to own. 

Semi-automatic firearms -- the kind that send a single bullet for each trigger pull have been around for the last hundred years or so. 

The normal round for an AR-15 (who's name reflects the manufacturer --Armalite -- not Assualt Rifle) is a .223 which is generally appropriate only for small game and white-tailed deer at close range.

But carry on with your scare tactics.  All the best.

Negged for disingenuity. The suggestion that the AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic over the last hundred years is just a lie, and you know it. The calibre of the round is not what makes the rounds used in random mass shootings as deadly as they are; it's the velocity. You know that, too.

I wish I could neg you a second time for the smug definition of what a semi-automatic is. 

You willfully distort discourse about a very serious matter. You do so with lies and pitiful semantical tricks. And you know it.

You make yourself an opponent to me. An enemy. Still, of course, I don't wish that you forget to unload your basically harmless just-fer-shootin'-rabbits AR- (It's Armalite! If you don't know that, I have a lame excuse to ignore your reasoning!)-15 and you loose a few rounds accidentally in your house. Thank goodness it would only be a .223 bullet and would do virtually no damage to you as it passed through your gut. The other round that hits your dog in the pelvis would likely be deflected by the bone. You'd hate to lose ol' Vlad. Even so, I, of course, never ever want that to happen.

spacer.png

 

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, UnivTex34 said:

 

same-as-it-ever-was-david-byrne.gif

Why the big suit, Dave?

spacer.png

To accommodate the body armor, stupid.

 

Loving the Talking Heads references. David Byrne was like a man in a spell. What a band.

 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Just one more thing for this abortion of a thread.  @DalTxHornFan How do you not see how you just come off as a complete asshole when you say stuff like this?  Children are dying.  

because it's not his kids so he doesn't give a shit. gotta have his pew-pew toy

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Red flag laws. Conceptually not opposed to this, but the devil is in the details. This idea that we are going to deep dive and screen everyone's social media, medical history, etc. on an individual basis for every transfer is just not reality-based.

You are correct it isn't "reality based." This is the kind of moonbat fantasy scare-tactic bullshit that has never been included in a serious red flag proposal or passed law, ever. The guvmint is only going to let you have two beers a week! (Everybody drink!)

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Shit I have been waiting 11+ months on a form 4 under a trust, and they don't do any of that stuff, it is just simple paperwork to push.

Yes you have, and I have been waiting for 6 months on a form 4 for indivuals, because gun owners are too fucking stupid as a group to lobby for important things. We'd rather indulge paranoid nonsense like the above and spend our political capital defending the rights of domestic abusers and the mentally ill to have same-day access to high capacity centerfire weapons and problem products than make our lives more convenient. 
The libs are coming for your guns! Crazy bitches are coming for your guns!
Booga Booga!

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This is the kind of moonbat fantasy scare-tactic bullshit that has never been included in a serious red flag proposal or passed law, ever.

...

We'd rather indulge paranoid nonsense like the above

I was responding to C-Man's post where he proposed precisely what was described.  If you want to characterize his post in that way, that is your call, but I was trying to respond to that specific point and the broader post in good faith. 

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I was responding to C-Man's post where he proposed precisely what was described.  If you want to characterize his post in that way, that is your call, but I was trying to respond to that specific point and the broader post in good faith. 

Fair enough, I skimmed his post and didn't catch it. That said, I've heard that idea enough times (i.e. that property would be taken or purchases disallowed as the result lf a subjective evaluation of social media history without due process) as an argument against red flag laws that I think the point still stands.

Posted
2 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Yes the semi-drunk dudes who wrote the constitution with a feather by candlelight imagined a need for you to mow down 30 people in under a minute.
Letting the assault weapons ban lapse has really worked out well for our children.

Obligatory:

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

The suggestion that the AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic over the last hundred years is just a lie, and you know it. The calibre of the round is not what makes the rounds used in random mass shootings as deadly as they are; it's the velocity. You know that, too.

I don't think this is right. Let me tell you from person experience about this: I own an AR. It's the second least useful gun I own, thanks to a mistake I made last week. It's pretty versatile, easy to accessorize and build custom, and I guess OK in brush but really isn't the best platform for anything other than tinkering, hypothetical combat applications, blasting away for grins, and violent fantasy play, mainly because of the way it looks.
Yes, the 5.56mm has some unique attributes - it's small, it leaves nasty wounds because it tumbles, and it's *relatively* cheap. But there are lots of automatic options for 5.56 that mass shooters don't use, and to not reckon with the nature of the connection between the product and the behavior seems like me to be deliberately ignoring potential avenues for dealing with the problem in a targeted way. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
I was responding to C-Man's post where he proposed precisely what was described.  If you want to characterize his post in that way, that is your call, but I was trying to respond to that specific point and the broader post in good faith. 

So build a system that works efficiently — I know that’s uncharted territory for bureaucratic bullshit and red tape. I mean it shouldn’t take as long as it does to get a passport (renewed or otherwise) but they’ve made it overly difficult and inefficient for some reason. Create a new government entity to do the background investigatory work. A lot of these shooters are basically forecasting their plans online. These are the clowns that should NOT be able to easily acquire firearms.
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, C-Man said:

Give me all your info and we're going to do a deep dive into your history, mental health and otherwise. We're going to look at your social media. Come back in a week and you can have your gun if you pass the check.

Is this a good faith argument?  It currently takes a year to get hearing protection that requires a stamp.  Read: not something that fires a projectile, something that makes shooting safer.  
 

eta: you posted just before me answering.   

Edited by fattyflattie
Posted
9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Is this a good faith argument?  It currently takes a year to get hearing protection that requires a stamp.  Read: not something that fires a projectile, something that makes shooting safer.  
 

eta: you posted just before me answering.   

Are you referring to a suppressor as hearing protection? 

 

 

 

Posted
44 minutes ago, C-Man said:

So build a system that works efficiently — I know that’s uncharted territory for bureaucratic bullshit and red tape. I mean it shouldn’t take as long as it does to get a passport (renewed or otherwise) but they’ve made it overly difficult and inefficient for some reason.

Agree. All in favor of universal background checks as long as they are low/no cost, accessible, and efficient. I would find moving things like 30rd magazines to the NFA acceptable as well, as long as we address the 12m turn around times and $200 tax stamps. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
49 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't think this is right. Let me tell you from person experience about this: I own an AR. It's the second least useful gun I own, thanks to a mistake I made last week. It's pretty versatile, easy to accessorize and build custom, and I guess OK in brush but really isn't the best platform for anything other than tinkering, hypothetical combat applications, blasting away for grins, and violent fantasy play, mainly because of the way it looks.

I can understand your perspective, but do not share it. The AR is a very versatile gun. My son took his first deer with one. The adjustable stock (one of those parts that make it an EBR under the old AWB) makes it very well suited to size appropriately. He's got a .243 now in the safe waiting for my lazy ass to put a scope on it for this season, but it was extremely hard to find a youth sized rifle a few years back when I was looking, and the AR was a well suited stand in. I know a good number of guys that use AR platform for hunting, both for them and their younger sons. 

In the context of this discussion of mass shootings, I do not think that the semi-auto platform is the real concern. It's the magazine capacity, which is why I am open to stricter controls on magazine access.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Is this a good faith argument?  It currently takes a year to get hearing protection that requires a stamp.  Read: not something that fires a projectile, something that makes shooting safer.  
 

eta: you posted just before me answering.   

IDGAF about your hearing.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wahhhh, my weapon of death is too loud! and the government makes me wait to make my loud ass thing less damaging to my sensitive ears. hoooooly shit

Government isn't making him wait at all. He's probably within a half hour of at least six different stores that sell hearing protection that don't require any governmental approval, or if he's got Prime he could get it shipped to his house today. He doesn't want hearing protection, he wants a cool looking accessory.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Agree. All in favor of universal background checks as long as they are low/no cost, accessible, and efficient. I would find moving things like 30rd magazines to the NFA acceptable as well, as long as we address the 12m turn around times and $200 tax stamps. 

agreed, I've said this in the past - dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so complete that I bet you could trade (legislatively) faster turnarounds and taking suppressors and SBRs off the list for:
1) A seven day waiting period on semi-automatic centerfires
2) Universal background checks
3) Adding 20+ round magazines to NFA
4) Red flag laws

But the gun lobby would never let that happen, because they exist to serve the status quo and fuck the gun owners if they want something else. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

In the context of this discussion of mass shootings, I do not think that the semi-auto platform is the real concern. It's the magazine capacity, which is why I am open to stricter controls on magazine access.  

I agree.  Whodathunkit?

Posted
46 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

 

43 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wahhhh, my weapon of death is too loud! and the government makes me wait to make my loud ass thing less damaging to my sensitive ears. hoooooly shit

This is how you know he's not serious about anything he says. There is no reason a civilian needs a noise suppressor for his gun. Framing it as hearing protection instead of the what it really is to him, a neat little gadget for his toy, shows you exactly what he's about. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

 

47 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

wahhhh, my weapon of death is too loud! and the government makes me wait to make my loud ass thing less damaging to my sensitive ears. hoooooly shit

 

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Government isn't making him wait at all. He's probably within a half hour of at least six different stores that sell hearing protection that don't require any governmental approval, or if he's got Prime he could get it shipped to his house today. He doesn't want hearing protection, he wants a cool looking accessory.

Well, typically we regulate things for a reason, and the reasons for regulating suppressors and SBRs are ... not good. 

The NFA was passed to deal with a range of concerns, famously including organized crime, but also more mundane problems, such the fact that during the depression  poaching was a real problem and they wanted to make it easy for game wardens and land owners to hear fire from far away. Thus the regulation of suppressors - to make quieter hunting impossibly expensive for starving people in rural areas. 
Likewise, the NFA was supported by robber barons who wanted to do as much as possible to ensure their strike breakers had superior firepower to that of striking workers and union organizers. In addition to fully automatic rifles, the act bans things like short barreled rifles and shotguns. The reason is that the original drafts also banned handguns, and the drafters wanted to close loopholes. But ultimately handguns were removed in the process of legislative compromise while SBRs and sawed off shotguns stayed in.
This is not 1934. We regulate SBRs, therefore, as the detritus of legislative construction - regulation that only has cost but no real benefit to anyone.  Most western nations, like England and France essentially require suppressors not to protect the shooters but to protect others. Simply put, it's a muffler for your gun. It doesn't "silence" guns, or even make more calibers quiet. It just makes the sound of shooting slightly less annoying.  I don't think we can say Europe needs to follow our lead on gun control. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I can understand your perspective, but do not share it. The AR is a very versatile gun. My son took his first deer with one. The adjustable stock (one of those parts that make it an EBR under the old AWB) makes it very well suited to size appropriately. He's got a .243 now in the safe waiting for my lazy ass to put a scope on it for this season, but it was extremely hard to find a youth sized rifle a few years back when I was looking, and the AR was a well suited stand in. I know a good number of guys that use AR platform for hunting, both for them and their younger sons. 

In the context of this discussion of mass shootings, I do not think that the semi-auto platform is the real concern. It's the magazine capacity, which is why I am open to stricter controls on magazine access.  

Ana, first off, I appreciate you actually taking this discussion seriously -- unlike others on this thread (fatty calling a suppressor/silencer "ear protection" GTAFOOH). You get beat up quite a bit as a pusher (fair or otherwise) of both sides-ism. Whatever.

There are alternatives to kids using AR's as deer rifles. Period. I'm really sorry but the wackos of the world have ruined the fun for the rest of the AR community. They need to go IMO. Or, here's a thought. Maybe somebody can take that exact body/specs and make a rifle that functions like a bolt-action rifle. Three or four rounds max per magazine, or have it load like a traditional bolt-action rifle. What needs to happen is the rate of fire needs to dialed back, however you do it. You don't need something that can pop off 30 rounds in 30 seconds to take down whitetail deer. I eagerly await fatty and DalTx to come after this guns a-blazin' so to speak.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Covri said:

This is how you know he's not serious about anything he says. There is no reason a civilian needs a noise suppressor for his gun. Framing it as hearing protection instead of the what it really is to him, a neat little gadget for his toy, shows you exactly what he's about. 

disagree, see above. Would love to hear the case against supressors.  In fact, I'm even more curious about the non-civilian application for supressors. What would that even be? Training maybe? To protect people's ears?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted

By far, the most easily monetized component of the U.S. Constitution is the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  

A huge portion of the manufacturing base of both the weapons and the ammunition is privately held, and funded by Private Equity.  

We have convinced a huge portion of the population that the only way to truly demonstrate their patriotism is to buy more and more guns.

The NRA and the party they support look the other way during mass shootings because it allows for the narrative of "If we do anything about this, it's because they're coming for our patriotic guns next." 

So here's the kicker.  That panic, that drivel we feed you to make you purchase more shit out of paranoid impulse?  We amplify that because even though nobody is coming for your guns, we get you to buy more of them out of a sense of fear and government intrusion.  And in doing so, you're being even more patriotic to stave off the imposing regime.  And around and around and around we go.  

When you hold that assault rifle and feel like all that is man.  Remember, we put it there.  And we'll put the next one there.  And you'll do what we say.  And you'll buy what we command.  Because you're not an American gun owner.  You're a rounding error on our balance sheet.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
57 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The AR is a very versatile gun. My son took his first deer with one. The adjustable stock (one of those parts that make it an EBR under the old AWB) makes it very well suited to size appropriately. He's got a .243 now in the safe waiting for my lazy ass to put a scope on it for this season, but it was extremely hard to find a youth sized rifle a few years back when I was looking, and the AR was a well suited stand in.

Obviously it can do a lot of things adequately, but (and this probably isn't the place for this) - it seems like your own post indicates that an appropriate size bolt action .243 (that pappy gave to Daddy, and Daddy gave me) would have been better.  That was my point. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

disagree, see above. Would love to hear the case against supressors.  In fact, I'm even more curious about the non-civilian application for supressors. What would that even be? Training maybe? To protect people's ears?

I figure military use inside buildings and tight spaces is about it’s only need. I read your above post and while it may be rooted I historical accuracy that is certainly not the reason people purchase them today in the US.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

This is probably pertinent to the "Mass Shootings" thread: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-12461821/Doctors-warn-barreling-fertility-crisis-Japan-one-10-men-30s-VIRGINS-women-childless.html

Study says one in 10 Japanese men in their 30's are virgins and US trending that direction as well. US birth rate is 1.6, which is the lowest since 1800. Maybe the GQP is on to something with repealing Roe-v-Wade. Gotta replace all those people killed in gun-related incidents.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Covri said:

I figure military use inside buildings and tight spaces is about it’s only need. I read your above post and while it may be rooted I historical accuracy that is certainly not the reason people purchase them today in the US.

I am a buyer and the reason I bought mine is for hearing protection for myself and courtesy to others. It's an expensive hassle to get them and among other things makes you need to clean your guns more often. AR guns in particular suffer from reliability problems when surpressed because most of them shit where they eat (another problem with ARs). 

Mass shooters don't ever use surpessors and neither do regular criminals. What other reasons are there, other than hearing protection and courtesy? Serious question. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

 

Well, typically we regulate things for a reason, and the reasons for regulating suppressors and SBRs are ... not good. 

The NFA was passed to deal with a range of concerns, famously including organized crime, but also more mundane problems, such the fact that during the depression  poaching was a real problem and they wanted to make it easy for game wardens and land owners to hear fire from far away. Thus the regulation of suppressors - to make quieter hunting impossibly expensive for starving people in rural areas. 
Likewise, the NFA was supported by robber barons who wanted to do as much as possible to ensure their strike breakers had superior firepower to that of striking workers and union organizers. In addition to fully automatic rifles, the act bans things like short barreled rifles and shotguns. The reason is that the original drafts also banned handguns, and the drafters wanted to close loopholes. But ultimately handguns were removed in the process of legislative compromise while SBRs and sawed off shotguns stayed in.
This is not 1934. We regulate SBRs, therefore, as the detritus of legislative construction - regulation that only has cost but no real benefit to anyone.  Most western nations, like England and France essentially require suppressors not to protect the shooters but to protect others. Simply put, it's a muffler for your gun. It doesn't "silence" guns, or even make more calibers quiet. It just makes the sound of shooting slightly less annoying.  I don't think we can say Europe needs to follow our lead on gun control. 

Sure, it's fairly pointless to regulate suppressors. My point was that they're not the only (or even best) form of hearing protection and nobody wants them for hearing protection.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, it's fairly pointless to regulate suppressors. My point was that they're not the only (or even best) form of hearing protection and nobody wants them for hearing protection.

it's a second layer of protection and not a substitue. Most ear muffs/plugs give you 30dbs, and supressors give you another 25 or so. That's significantly better and safer. You can't wear 2 sets of earmuffs. The second part is just not true - why else would somebody use a supressor?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

it's a second layer of protection and not a substitue. Most ear muffs/plugs give you 30dbs, and supressors give you another 25 or so. That's significantly better and safer. You can't wear 2 sets of earmuffs. The second part is just not true - why else would somebody use a supressor?

Bc they think it makes them look cool? Like 95% of all things gun culture?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

@wildcat09 - let me ground this in reality:

Anything over 85db is hazardous, and anything over 130 causes pain. 

a .22lr is about 140dbs. That's quiet. a large centerfire cartridge is in the 160's. an AR shoting 5.56/223 is 155db. So let's go with that. 

Upprotected: 155dbs (injury)
With earmuffs: 125dbs (harmful)
With earmuffs+plugs: 105dbs (hazardous and unpleasant)
Earmuffs+plugs+suppressor: (safe)

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Bc they think it makes them look cool? Like 95% of all things gun culture?

there may be some people who think they look cool and are willing to go through all the trouble to get one, but three things make me think otherwise:
1) Mass shooters don't use them
2) You don't see them at the range
3) You don't see them in those absurd public displays of mah-gun at political protests and so forth

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

there may be some people who think they look cool and are willing to go through all the trouble to get one, but three things make me think otherwise:
1) Mass shooters don't use them
2) You don't see them at the range
3) You don't see them in those absurd public displays of mah-gun at political protests and so forth

IDGAF about your hearing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...