WaPo:Tim Kaine's claim the Las Vegas shooter was only stopped because he lacked a silencer
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/04/tim-kaines-claim-the-las-vegas-shooter-was-only-stopped-because-he-lacked-a-silencer/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_factchecker-355am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.05236bbcb021 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), interview with The Washington Post, Oct. 2, 2017
...The Facts
First of all, there are relatively few reports of suppressors being used in crimes. In 2015, 125 suppressors were recovered from crime scenes where a trace was requested by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) when nearly 265,000 pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns were recovered. The Violence Policy Center, which opposes the proposed law, argues that this shows the success of current restrictions. The limited information available suggests that the current regulation of silencers under the NFA is working to keep criminal use of the devices rare, the group says.
...Hearing damage begins to occur at about 85 decibels, which is the sound of a hairdryer. Various reports have indicated that the Las Vegas shooter had AR-15-type rifles. A 30-decibel reduction means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer. A .22-caliber pistol would be 116 decibels, which is louder than a 100-watt car stereo. In all likelihood, the noise level is actually higher...
...But in any case, the evidence does not support Kaines claim that the shooter was only stopped because he did not have suppressors on his weapons. Thats exaggerated and could leave a misleading impression on people only familiar with silencers in the movies. The crowd under attack might have had trouble establishing the location of the shooter if he had silencers, but he fired from a hotel filled with guests who almost certainly would have heard 132 decibels from the floors above and below the attack.
They gave Kaine two Pinocchios- when will people learn that giving out inaccurate information about guns
only provides a means for the NRA, et al for dismissing any accurate information one does provide?
bearsfootball516
(6,377 posts)I read somewhere (Maybe LA times?) that the reason the police were able to locate him so fast was because the smoke from his gun set off the fire alarm in his room, which allowed them to track them directly to him.
Kleveland
(1,257 posts)There is no such thing as a silencer.
As indicated in the article, it is a suppressor.
You want a silent weapon?
Use a knife.
PJMcK
(22,052 posts)Use your hands. Last time I checked, there aren't any restrictions or regulations on one's digits.
lapfog_1
(29,226 posts)haven't heard that he had flash suppressors (and those aren't that effective anyway).
It was night time... he was shooting through broken windows on the 32nd floor... the muzzle flashes (and the sound) gave him away.
I have no idea why he stopped after 9 to 11 minutes.
The bump stocks allow for rapid fire, but the gun barrels are not made to function for a long period of bump stock (near auto) fire rates (again, there are various water cooling options but I haven't heard he was using them). Once the barrel overheats the rifle could be useless.
Probably that's why he had so many weapons and bump stocks.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)It is looking like the wounded security guard drew him off his plan. And it also looks like he did himself in soon after the police arrived in the hallway. He became occupied with being under siege.
Fortunately something seemed to cause him to sort. It took an hour to breach that room.
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)Stephonopolus spelling?
They pointed it out not good video but it can be seen.
Girard442
(6,085 posts)...and in the next breath tell us how they neeeeeeeed them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In Europe, whose gun laws are often lauded here, they are generally easier to obtain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Europe
Europe
In Norway, suppressors are not regulated and can be purchased by anyone for any firearm. No licence or permits are necessary.
In Denmark, the Danish Weapons And Explosives Law makes the unlicensed possession of a suppressor illegal. As of 7 May 2014 it is legal to own and use suppressors for hunting.
In Finland, a firearm suppressor is classified as a firearm part by law. Purchasing a suppressor requires a firearm ownership permit, which is to be shown to the vendor at the moment of purchase.
Suppressors for rimfire pistols are sold without government oversight in France.
In the Russian Federation, usage of firearm suppressors, legally defined as "devices for noiseless shooting", by civilians is prohibited, and the dealers are prohibited from selling them, but there is no penalty for purchasing or possession of such devices.
In Sweden, suppressors for specified calibers are legal for hunting purposes and a license is required.
In the United Kingdom, firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a "sound moderator" and also the firearm for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Applicants must show a "good reason" for needing the accessory.
In Germany, a suppressor is treated the same in the eyes of the law as the weapon it is designed for. Accordingly, suppressors for air guns, which can be purchased by anyone over 18 years of age, can as well be purchased by anyone over said age. Since, amongst other things "good cause" must be shown to be issued a license to own a firearm in Germany, the same "good cause" requirement exists for suppressors for these firearms. This requirement is handled very varyingly across the States of Germany. The State of Bavaria accepts the possession of a valid hunter's license as "good cause" to own an unlimited number of suppressors, while North Rhine-Westphalia does not accept hunting as a "good cause" at all. Baden-Württemberg accepts "active exercise of hunting" as "good cause", but only allows the purchase of one suppressor.
Girard442
(6,085 posts)Aside from reductions in volume, suppressors tend to alter the sound to something that is not identifiable as a gunshot. This reduces or eliminates attention drawn to the shooter.
Explain to me why I should want anybody to have this, because right now I sure as hell don't.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Girard442
(6,085 posts)Bottom line: if silencers/suppressors/Care Bears for muzzles don't work, then there's no reason you should want them.
If they do work, in any capacity, then there's every reason you shouldn't have them.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...during his demonic spree they would have quickly failed due to overheating.
Girard442
(6,085 posts)You respond with some barely relevant verbiage, keep the thread going ad nauseum, and declare victory when your correspondent remembers he has a life and stops.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If you chose to fold, however- it's entirely your decision.
Girard442
(6,085 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Girard442
(6,085 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Take for example the person shown here:
The observant viewer will note that they're using both spinning *and* casting reels.
What do you prefer?
If, on the other hand should you choose to accept a discussion of the items under discussion
in the OP, well...
You might start by explaining why they're a bad idea when they are readily available
and whose use is encouraged by countries whose gun laws and gun violence rates are much lauded
here.
England and France are the most prominent examples.
If you wanna keep with the "guns are sinful and gun owners are sinners" schtick,
that's fine by me.
sweetloukillbot
(11,071 posts)Just like mufflers are required on cars, because guns are noise pollution.
Sailor65x1
(554 posts)You're talking sound pressure, which behaves as an inverse square to distance. At the 400 yards to his targets, the sound pressure would only be about 70dB, and from his window to street level, not much more. And that's with no attenuation from structures.
If he were using a suppressor, even a 30dB drop would have made his shots almost undetectable at range, and only moderately detectable at street level below. Inside the building, the team tracking him definitely would have had a much harder time.
Remember, too, that structural attenuation also has the effect of impairing directional detection of sound.
I think that Kaine is making a decent point here.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Again from the WaPo piece:
ClarendonDem
(720 posts)https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.b987e683d64d
There's a lot of interesting information in the full article and worth a read.
genxlib
(5,542 posts)Not firing a fucking AR-15
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)weissmam
(905 posts)if you are worried about your hearing you have two options
Don't shoot
Wear ear protection
done
SCantiGOP
(13,874 posts)They have a forum here; they should post there.
The NRA and their supporters have blood on their hands. They are nothing more than the lobbying arm of the weapon and ammo industry. They will defend the right to bear arms with your life.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)They're too prone to:
That out of the way, do you care to elaborate on the subject of the OP?