Op-Ed Gun silencers are useful, not scary
BELOW COPIED
"Bob Owens
More than 100 years ago, inventor Hiram Percy Maxim created two almost identical products to accomplish the same goal in two very different industries. The divergent ways we treat those products today reveals the irrationality driving our national firearms debate.
One of Maxim's inventions, a muffler for the internal combustion gasoline engine, was lauded for its ability to reduce ear-splitting noise. Now mufflers are mandatory for cars, trucks, buses, and industrial machinery to keep people from suffering permanent hearing loss.
Even "silenced," the most common rifles and pistols are as loud as a rock concert.
Maxim also invented a gun muffler. Popular among hunters and target shooters worldwide, even President Theodore Roosevelt was an avid supporter of the so-called Maxim Silencer. Silencers were in common use in the United States until the Great Depression, when impoverished Americans began using silenced rifles to poach deer, rabbit, and other animals — sometimes even livestock — to feed their families. This did not sit well with game wardens, ranchers or the federal government.
When Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 to regulate machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and short-barreled rifles favored by Prohibition-era gangsters, silencers were thrown in for good measure. If a person wanted to buy a silencer, he had to seek approval from the federal government and then buy a punitively expensive tax stamp. (That's still true today.) Gun mufflers have largely been associated with crime ever since, thanks to the Hollywood cliche of an assassin ominously screwing a silencer onto the barrel of a gun before a fight he almost always loses.
In the movies and on television, silencers reduce the sound of gunfire from a loud and distinct bark to a faint cough that can't even be heard from the next room. In the real world, the three sounds created when a gun fires — the supersonic crack of the bullet, the muzzle blast of gasses created by burning gunpowder, and the cycling of the weapon — simply cannot be completely eliminated.
Our global guns problem
Our global guns problem
The end result is that a “silenced” gun shot still sounds like a gun shot, but roughly 30 decibels lower. That's about as much of a noise reduction as you would expect from wearing earmuffs or sticking your fingers in your ears. Even “silenced,” the most common rifles and pistols are quite loud.
Gun silencers, to those with no actual firearms experience, seem scary — they seem criminal. Hoplophobes cannot conceive of why a law-abiding person would want to own one. But for the millions of Americans who understand that guns, like cars, are tools, silencer regulation is a nonsensical nuisance. We use mufflers on engines to spare drivers' ears on the road; why shouldn't we use mufflers on guns to spare shooters' ears at the firing range?
Even with good noise-canceling equipment, several hours of shooting still exposes the shooter to a racket that can cause a temporary ringing in the ears and long term hearing loss. By using both silencers and earplugs, frequent shooters can not only help their own hearing, but cut down on environmental noise as well.
Infrequent shooters also benefit from silencers. Firing a gun indoors in self-defense, for instance, can temporarily deafen a homeowner with a single shot, and any subsequent shots compound the problem. This could lead to a nightmare scenario in which a traumatized homeowner can't hear law enforcement officers responding to a 911 call, or orders to put their hands up.
There are now more than 800,000 silencers in the hands of citizens who are refining and defining their role in American society.
Get your free weekly take on the most pertinent, discussed topics of the day >>
Get your free weekly take on the most pertinent, discussed topics of the day >>
We now know that silencers make precision rifles more accurate, shotguns easier to swing on a consistent arc after clay pigeons and training guns much less intimidating for new shooters.
And at last there is a strong national push to remove silencers from the National Firearms Act via the Hearing Protection Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill has 50 co-sponsors, and would remove the $200 tax and six to nine month delays that typically accompany suppressor approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Under the revised law, anyone wishing to buy a silencer to protect their hearing would still be required to fill out an ATF form at their gun dealer, and would still undergo a background check.
Second Amendment restrictionists often say they want “common sense gun safety” measures, but more often than not their proposals are neither common sensical, nor about safety. Making silencers readily available to protect hearing, on the other hand, is a supremely logical way to defend shooters and bystanders from harm.
Bob Owens is the editor of BearingArms.com, a firearms educator and a frequent radio and television commentator about Second Amendment issues."
Monday, July 4, 2016
Saturday, January 25, 2014
MAIG
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
ok this is sensationalist crap but it has more info than i wish to go find
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/
Basically
a) a number of the mayors on the list withdrew or never joined so numbers are inflated
b) they have a very high number of illegal activity amongst them, maybe criminals shouldn't be making rules?
c) illegal guns by their very nature already are illegal ...
d) most of the stuff they are proposing is anti-gun not gun control IMO
ok this is sensationalist crap but it has more info than i wish to go find
http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/
Basically
a) a number of the mayors on the list withdrew or never joined so numbers are inflated
b) they have a very high number of illegal activity amongst them, maybe criminals shouldn't be making rules?
c) illegal guns by their very nature already are illegal ...
d) most of the stuff they are proposing is anti-gun not gun control IMO
1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show
1,000 knife crime victims in London each month, shocking new figures show
Murder rate increasing amid epidemic of knife and gun crime
Murder rate increasing amid epidemic of knife and gun crime
The murder rate has risen in England and Wales in the past year, crime figures are expected to show next week.
8:38PM BST 11 Jul 2008
FBI Uniforn Crime reports Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 2001
FBI Uniforn Crime reports Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 2001
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Murder mysteries
Murder mysteries
Official figures showing a sharp drop in China’s murder rate are misleading
Apr 6th 2013http://www.economist.com/news/china/21575767-official-figures-showing-sharp-drop-chinas-murder-rate-are-misleading-murder-mysteries
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
Table of Contents
- MYTH 1 -- Public opinion polls
- MYTH 2 -- The purpose of a handgun
- MYTH 3 -- Armed citizens don't deter crime
- MYTH 4 -- Licensing and registration
- MYTH 5 -- Foreign gun control works
- MYTH 6 -- Crimes of passion and guns
- MYTH 7 -- Semi-autos should be banned
- MYTH 8 -- No `right' to own a gun
- MYTH 9 -- Concealed carry laws are dangerous
- MYTH 10 -- Gun control reduces crime
New Interactive Map Shows the Number of Times Guns Have Saved Americans
New Interactive Map Shows the Number of Times Guns Have Saved Americans
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/15/new-interactive-gun-map-shows-the-number-of-times-that-a-gun-has-saved-someone/
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
My thoughts on starbucks blog post
http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268
QUOTE
An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer
Dear Fellow Americans,
Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.
From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.
We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.
Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.
Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.
I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.
Sincerely,
Howard Schultz
END QUOTE
"a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." makes me feel that he wants all gun owners out, not just open carry
"a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life" I am safer when I carry
"we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted" again i feel unwelcome even as a concealer
"First, this is a request and not an outright ban" lazy - don't ask baristas to enforce, but comply with local laws about notices. reasoning: if in TX i do not see a sign on the door, the required one, i would not even think my gun was unwelcome, and if the baristas also say nothing i will have NO IDEA this blog post existed and i am against the companies wishes. Either go through the work of putting up signs - and the cops can enforce if desired not the baristas, or continue to comply with local laws like most businesses do day to day. you are doing nothing different than most stores do day to day. until this blog post.
"For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable." See above points about lack of legally required signs means most people will have no idea that the store is anti-carry and too lazy to do the legal work.
"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers." personal aside this annoys me, how many people see cops carrying all the time? guns are not scary and time we brought gun education back into schools.
http://www.starbucks.com/blog/an-open-letter-from-howard-schultz/1268
QUOTE
An Open Letter from Howard Schultz, ceo of Starbucks Coffee Company
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer
Dear Fellow Americans,
Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.
From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.
We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.
Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.
Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.
I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.
I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.
Sincerely,
Howard Schultz
END QUOTE
"a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas." makes me feel that he wants all gun owners out, not just open carry
"a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life" I am safer when I carry
"we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted" again i feel unwelcome even as a concealer
"First, this is a request and not an outright ban" lazy - don't ask baristas to enforce, but comply with local laws about notices. reasoning: if in TX i do not see a sign on the door, the required one, i would not even think my gun was unwelcome, and if the baristas also say nothing i will have NO IDEA this blog post existed and i am against the companies wishes. Either go through the work of putting up signs - and the cops can enforce if desired not the baristas, or continue to comply with local laws like most businesses do day to day. you are doing nothing different than most stores do day to day. until this blog post.
"For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable." See above points about lack of legally required signs means most people will have no idea that the store is anti-carry and too lazy to do the legal work.
"The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers." personal aside this annoys me, how many people see cops carrying all the time? guns are not scary and time we brought gun education back into schools.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Colorado Democratic gun bills move to Senate, testimony in March
Colorado Democratic gun bills move to Senate, testimony in March
we like litigation too much
while we're at it let's sue car manufactures when people kill one another with cars
we like litigation too much
while we're at it let's sue car manufactures when people kill one another with cars
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)