Ive literally posted why at least 2x already and you keep asking
ATF Releases Latest Suppressor Figures
- Thread starter Longshot231
- Start date
I don’t think it is hard to argue that the surge in suppressor applications is going to fuel a growth in the size and scope of the ATF and their respective budget…..
You’re answering why people chose to use a small handy accessible item of convenience. That’s not what I’m asking.
I’m asking why you think the rate of cans used in crimes is suppose to be greater than their proportion to the total gun ownership would dictate.
I swear to god this is the oddest thread I’ve seen on this site in a long time. No one with a post count of 7 and a 2021 join date who is an obvious troll/glowy boi, just a bunch of upstanding members seemingly arguing in circles about some shit I thought was debunked years ago.
do you not see that your exact argument is the exact same one that the anti gun left uses? More guns=more crime
more suppressors=more crime
More ccl holders=more wild Wild West shootouts
just because their has been more of something does mean that it correlates to more crime with that item.
my guess to why suppressors are not used nor will they be
-most pistols do not come with threaded barrels. Criminals who commit gun crime are typically poor, they are not buying a $200 threaded barrel for their pistol that is disposable.
-once again they are poor and an off the shelf suppressor is $600 at least
-even if they did use an oil filter and an adapter, they still need a threaded barrel
-way less concealable
Next thing, the places gun crime is rampant, so the fuck what even if they do use a suppressor in the highly unlikely event? Exactly what difference did it make?
literally the only place I can see a suppressor being more effective for the criminal is a mass shooting type event, being it takes longer for people to figure out what is going on. And in that event, which are already rare, are we really, on this site, going to argue that regulation and bans are the acceptable solution?
Right, so just give me the numbers of actual gun crimes that occur that use suppressors…….That will make it fair.
I don’t know what you think I’m arguing.
I don’t think suppressors will be widely used in crimes if de-regulated. I’m simply saying the lack of evidence of crimes, while they are regulated, doesn’t mean they won’t be used in crimes if de-regulated.
Shanks are illegal to buy and highly regulated in prisons. They will even check your asshole for them! Prisons have gone to great lengths to make it hard to have a shank, and yet somehow a criminal fabbercobbles one together in a prison and shanks people.
if criminals wanted suppressors they would have them
They are not used in crimes because obviously the criminals give zero fucks about them. If they were going to be used in crimes we would already seeing if happen.
But it doesn't in the case of suppressors...
"The ATF confirms in effect that suppressors are rarely used in crime. They have recommended prosecution of suppressor-related crimes 44 times per year over the last decade (that means that only .003 percent of suppressors are used in crimes each year)." from here...
Firearms Expert Calls Arguments Against Gun Silencers "Flawed' - The Crime Report
Will the proposed Hearing Protection Act, which would make noise suppressors for firearms easier to obtain, contribute to more gun violence? In response to a recent TCR Viewpoint, a firearms expert dismisses the idea as “flawed.”
thecrimereport.org
ATF: 1.3 Million Silencers in U.S. Rarely Used in Crimes
The ATF released statistics to the Free Beacon on Wednesday showing that the nearly 1.3 million silencers in the United States are rarely used in crimes.
freebeacon.com
So 44/285027 in 2011 = 1.543713402589930076799741778849e-4 crimes committed with suppressors to suppressors owned...
In 2021? 44/2664775 = 1.6511712996406826092259196367423e-5 crimes committed with suppressors to suppressors owned...
These are the ATFs numbers and the curve does not follow your hypothesis. Why? Fuck if I know but math and stuff. I do "believe" and "feel" (my opinion and nothing more) that the simple fact that the ATF doesn't require a 5520.20 to take you cans on a trip means they don't really give a damn about them!
I wouldn’t go flaunting your math skills.But it doesn't in the case of suppressors...
"The ATF confirms in effect that suppressors are rarely used in crime. They have recommended prosecution of suppressor-related crimes 44 times per year over the last decade (that means that only .003 percent of suppressors are used in crimes each year)." from here...
and here...Firearms Expert Calls Arguments Against Gun Silencers "Flawed' - The Crime Report
Will the proposed Hearing Protection Act, which would make noise suppressors for firearms easier to obtain, contribute to more gun violence? In response to a recent TCR Viewpoint, a firearms expert dismisses the idea as “flawed.”
ATF: 1.3 Million Silencers in U.S. Rarely Used in Crimes
The ATF released statistics to the Free Beacon on Wednesday showing that the nearly 1.3 million silencers in the United States are rarely used in crimes.
So 44/285027 in 2011 = 1.543713402589930076799741778849e-4 crimes committed with suppressors to suppressors owned...
In 2021? 44/2664775 = 1.6511712996406826092259196367423e-5 crimes committed with suppressors to suppressors owned...
These are the ATFs numbers and the curve does not follow your hypothesis. Why? Fuck if I know but math and stuff. I do "believe" and "feel" (my opinion and nothing more) that the simple fact that the ATF doesn't require a 5520.20 to take you cans on a trip means they don't really give a damn about them!
44 suppressor related crimes per year will probably be 40 suppressors bought off WISH with no paperwork, and 4 stolen suppressors.
Spife you have asked a couple of time why a criminal wouldn't use a suppressor while committing a crime. Well this is my opinion with no long term study to back it up.
Criminal pulls up in front of the targeted store, goes in pulls his pistol complete with suppressor and demands money, shoots the clerk a couple of times and a shopper in the store a couple of times for good measure. All of this is with a silencer so no one knows there was a shooting in progress. As he is running to the car to make his final get away he shoves the pistol complete with suppressor down the front of his pants. Melts a hole in his brand new Nike shorts that his girlfriend just shoplifted yesterday. No hard working self respecting criminal is going to put up with that.
Criminal pulls up in front of the targeted store, goes in pulls his pistol complete with suppressor and demands money, shoots the clerk a couple of times and a shopper in the store a couple of times for good measure. All of this is with a silencer so no one knows there was a shooting in progress. As he is running to the car to make his final get away he shoves the pistol complete with suppressor down the front of his pants. Melts a hole in his brand new Nike shorts that his girlfriend just shoplifted yesterday. No hard working self respecting criminal is going to put up with that.
"Explain to me why cans aren’t used in crimes, other than lack of availability."
So I explained it to you. Sorry if you really wanted me to answer your other questions.
No? Please explain or if you have other data please present it as I would like to educate myself. I see suppressor ownership as a simple y=ax^1 per the pretty picture at the beginning of the thread and crimes committed with them as y=ax^0 (straight line) per what the ATF said.
Last edited:
Well I support the 2nd amendment, but....
Since when are we ok with making laws just to stop gun crime? Maybe if we had speed limits people would stop going so fast... What happened to dealing with the people problem and solving for that? We can all agree bad people will keep doing bad things regardless of the law.
Gun laws (and nearly all laws on our books today) are treating the symptom rather than the real problem.
Gun laws (and nearly all laws on our books today) are treating the symptom rather than the real problem.
If we put stringent limitations, background checks and additional taxes on who can purchase or own or drive a car - maybe there will be fewer people speeding? Can we apply that same logic to voting also please?
Yeah let's increase .gov's involvement in everything we do. That sounds like it will go well
If criminals need a suppressor or a FA conversion they only have to buy them from wish, eBay, or amazon.
If it was such an issue you would know about it.
Also, felons pass background checks all the time the system sucks, then they have to do a trace and investigate it. Granted it’s also an infringement. Hell even if felons could buy guns the violent one would be taken care of eventually.
Criminals are going to commit the same crimes regardless, regulations only hurt people who follow the laws.
If it was such an issue you would know about it.
Also, felons pass background checks all the time the system sucks, then they have to do a trace and investigate it. Granted it’s also an infringement. Hell even if felons could buy guns the violent one would be taken care of eventually.
Criminals are going to commit the same crimes regardless, regulations only hurt people who follow the laws.
Last edited:
Don't forget that Obama gave the Mexican drug cartels weapons then Biden gives billions of dollars of sophisticated weapons to the Taliban.
Neither of those groups needed to pass a background check.
I want a FA M-4 like those rag-headed-goat-fuckers have right now.
Criminals will straw buy, steal, or find a way to commit crime with guns no matter what is legal or not. Redneck is saying if you could go to Ruralking and walk out with one more criminals would use them, which is correct as they would be stolen just like firearms and used by criminals who don't give a shit about being caught. Crime is big business here and by virtue so is legislating the peons who dutifully comply.
Asking for stats is stupid and its already known silencer crimes are nearly non existent BECAUSE they are regulated and secured BECAUSE only the law abiding non criminals buy them FFS.............
The NFA is and always was about reducing the numbers through taxation and hoop jumping, nothing more. You think in 1934 people cared about buying silencers and Thompsons??
Consider yourself lucky you can own anything firearm related as the clock is ticking on that. Banging the drum on your "muh rights" is silly as you really don't have any unless the puppet masters say so, open your eyes and make a plan. Like the old cops theme song "whatcha gonna do when they come for you"
Flame on
Asking for stats is stupid and its already known silencer crimes are nearly non existent BECAUSE they are regulated and secured BECAUSE only the law abiding non criminals buy them FFS.............
The NFA is and always was about reducing the numbers through taxation and hoop jumping, nothing more. You think in 1934 people cared about buying silencers and Thompsons??
Consider yourself lucky you can own anything firearm related as the clock is ticking on that. Banging the drum on your "muh rights" is silly as you really don't have any unless the puppet masters say so, open your eyes and make a plan. Like the old cops theme song "whatcha gonna do when they come for you"
Flame on
The NFA is a bad law, but there are only three options to what would happen if suppressors became OTC. Crime with them would either go up, down or stay the same. The most reasonable answer would be that the crime rate of suppressors (crimes per can) would stay the same, so the total number would necessarily rise in line with the total number in circulation. This is math, it is your friend.
I just don't understand how people believe suppressors of all things should be regulated. It is just baffling at this point.
I see what u did there
And have the Gov miss ALL that tax money??? FAT CHANCE.It's an interesting read. It's also another reason why these things shouldn't be regulated.
ATF Releases Latest Suppressor Figures
On Thursday, September 9th, President Biden announced the nomination withdrawal of David Chipman to become the Director of ATF.americansuppressorassociation.com
That looks just about exactly like the BlackHound dog logo. Good scope for the money!!!We shouldn't have to pay or ask permission to use our rights. Someone not being against the nfa makes you not pro gun in my opinion. You are ok with our rights being restricted and being forced to ask the state permission to use a metal tube, a rifle with a barrel that is "too short", a firearm with select fire capability, etc.
People are calling you a fudd. Not a liberal. But fudds will often espouse lefty talking points.
McCameron put y
ou in your place.Appears I struck a nerve
You’re entitled to your opinions just as I’m entitled to mine and that doesn’t make either of us wrong.
But yes it is factual however that if suppressors were less regulated they would be easier to get, less cared for as far as storage goes, therefor easier for criminals to get their hands on whether through theft or purchase. If you can’t see that then you’re fucking stupid.
If pistols were NFA items since the 30’s as well, do you think there would be as many in the hands of criminals? No. Do I think pistols should be NFA? Also no.
I’m not really for or against NFA regulation of them (something that all of you retards missed), I couldn’t care less beyond how much longer the process takes than it could or should. I’m not poor so I can afford the $200 stamp, and I’m smart enough to realize that posting pics online like many of us do big brother knows what we have so that’s pretty moot. I’m also smart enough to see that yes the NFA regulations does keep this stuff out of the hands of bad guys much more so than firearms which are unregulated. Do I think that’s right? I don’t know, but I do know how society is and what shitty people there are in the world.
I find it kind of funny how you all quoted and focused on that one first sentence of my post though because that’s the only part that any of you have some smooth brained argument about. Your heads must have just completely exploded when you read it.
"Amazing growth in suppressor ownership but yet no real increase in crime involving a suppressor." When SHTF, this will change dramatically.
Having a gun in possession in Chicago is a walk off crime. A suppressor would be a federal crime. Makes a 'throw-away' pistol really expensive.
Plus understanding the relationship between a can and what ammo to use requires intelligence.
And they don't fit into a pocket
An interesting question to me (and the most important) - If cans became OTC, what would happen to the rate of crimes committed with a firearm?
We are arguing basic mathematics when there is much more involved.
Last edited:
I made a suppressor (with an approved F1) in 30 minutes in my garage. If you want me to believe that criminals aren't using cans because they're regulated you're an idiot.
I think they get them from Indianayeah....thank god the cartels cant get their hands on suppressors....
EXCLUSIVE -- PHOTOS: Mexican Cartel Improves Weapons Manufacturing Capabilities
Intelligence reports indicate that one of Mexico’s most dangerous cartels continues to increase their capabilities by manufacturing weapons.www.breitbart.com
pro tip: cartels are not buying the bulk of their weapons from the US.
You’re mixing up factual with the words “my opinion”.Appears I struck a nerve
You’re entitled to your opinions just as I’m entitled to mine and that doesn’t make either of us wrong.
But yes it is factual however that if suppressors were less regulated they would be easier to get, less cared for as far as storage goes, therefor easier for criminals to get their hands on whether through theft or purchase. If you can’t see that then you’re fucking stupid.
If you think suppressors must be purchased, you’re the one that is “fucking stupid”. If criminals wanted one, they sure as fuck aren’t going to be purchasing them through a shop, just like with their typical stolen guns.
It’s just my opinion, but suppressed weapons are less concealable which is why they aren’t used frequently in crimes. If someone is willing to commit murder, and risk that prison sentence, I highly doubt they are worried about making their own unregistered can and facing a NFA violation.
I generally dont get into any of the discussions on here due to the fact that i wish we were all on the same page as one another, but here goes
I think that it is your right to sit on the fence and eat your popcorn and watch minds on both sides explode and not give a flyin fuck. What i think that some of the folks that jumped on your initial post may have intended to say ( maybe not) is that sooner or later you are gonna have to come down off that fence and actually start to give a fuck. The way it sounded and yes i did read the whole post is that you may come down on the wrong side of the fence. Ya may not give a fuck about that rotten ass limb hanging over your bedroom until it is in bed with ya. Then ya may wish you had given a fuck a bit sooner.
not bashing you at all for your opinion you have that right.
This is the part of your comment I agree with. People are more careful because of the added restrictions and bureaucratic bullshit.
The part I take particular issue with is your apathy and lack of conviction, one way or another. Then you make comments which lead me to believe that you are in favor of fewer restrictions and more lax regulation of fully automatic weapons. Please correct me if I misunderstood.
It gives off the vibe that you'd argue against decreased automotive exhaust noise while lobbying for more thousand horsepower Bugattis with speed limits increased to 150 mph.
Ideally Suppressors should be cash and carry. In this world I would settle for a 4473 but just cause I would settle for that don’t make it right.
I'm having problems understanding what's wrong with this particular stance (other than the fact that my budgetary constraints are more along the lines of supercharged pushrod V8s instead of quad-turbo W16s). Trust me, my wife has pointed out the irony of my desire to build quiet guns and loud cars, while my sons are more supportive of both endeavours (must be a Y chromosome thing).
This dumpster fire of a thread is really quite impressive, even by the standards established by the Bear Pit. One person (a long-standing contributor to this site, and seemingly no softie when it comes to Constitutional rights) postulated that "more cans" might equal "more cans used in crime". This presumably follows the same logic demonstrated by lists of most-popular crime guns, which tend to be dominated by pistols like S&W J-/K-frames and the Glock 17/19 which are super-common, and so it doesn't seem like an inherently controversial hypothesis. It's pretty much along the lines of suggesting that if Ford sells more F-150s, then there will be more drunk-driving accidents in pickup trucks.
The logical counterargument to this could have been something along the lines of pointing out that guns like the Ruger 10/22 and Remington 700 are also extremely prolific but dramatically underrepresented in crime use, or simply pointing out that violent crime dropped sharply in the past 20 years despite a massive increase in total civilian firearm ownership over the same period, and thus demonstrating the lack of correlation between "firearms in wide circulation" and "firearms widely used in crime".
That is not what happened, though
Would deregulation of suppressors increase their usage in crime simply due to increased prevalence? It seems that it might, but it took over three decades for the Glock 17 to knock off the S&W medium-frame revolvers as the thug gun of choice, and long guns such as the AR-15 are still rarely used in crime despite their popularity and utility.
As far as illegally-manufactured suppressors go, maybe gangbangers never got to take metal shop due to the lack of vocation education in today's schools
Similar threads
