America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

HAlifax: I have no problem with silencers since they suppress the decibels not silence them. When you shoot with one it is still loud.
armor piercing bullets: I don't even know what that means. Is that based on caliber or grains?  I am not versed in that area so I don't have an opinion. Armor piercing sounds like a buzz word simikiar to "hollow point".

Guess your neighborhood doesn't employ gun fire detection devices? Do some research on armor piercing. Body armor not uparmored humvees or vehicle armor. Go on YouTube and watch the California bank robbery shoot out to get a sense of the potential violence unleashed. You okay with that?

Something with metro California and Chicago...just cannot place my finger on it...Pretty sure all of the hunters in TX would have helped the cops in that robbery situation.  Police departments are now better equiped to deal with those situations now too, like Robocop, lol
No gunfire detection devices around here, but there are a lot of bird hunters here, so there is that.

You mean like they did at the biker shoot out? Or when that whack job went hunting for cops? Yea, police departments now need armored vehicles to respond to that because you know, a black president might get elected and come for your guns, LOL.

You've gone off the deep end.  I don't remember the incidents that you discussed involving body armor as we were talking about...and what does a black president getting elected and "coming for your guns" have anything to do with anything except you trying to squeeze racism into this discussion?  My comment was really about how hunters are able to use better bullets for large/dangerous game that would have dropped these armored thugs fairly quickly.  
Didn't the police have to go to a local gun store to get a gun to take down the robbers?  I remember the situation, just not all that well.

How have I gone off the deep end? Please explain. The legislation before congress, on hold since the congressional baseball shooting, legalizes armor piercing bullets. In the bank robbery case and the Texas cop killing frenzy, that capability would have made a horrific situation even worse. Yet you claim it's necessay to take out dangerous game animals? Sure. The pro gun proponents such as yourself constantly point to more guns being the solution, that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur as frequently. Someone on here posted how all the armed hunters would have taken out the bank robbers, the baseball field assailant and I pointed out that the mass shootings perpetrated by the biker gang and the cop killer were not stopped in such a manner. All we heard from the NRA is how Dems will take your guns away, especially Obama because well, he's special or black. I can only imagine if that biker shoot out had been perpetrated by BLM or Nation of Islam gatherers. The Dallas cop killer initially shot from a position that muffled the sound and made it extremely difficult for responding officers to determine the direction of gun fire. Imagine if he had a "silencer?" Sorry these points are lost on you.

Yeah, more assuming.  The silencer would have actually made it easier to have found the Dallas shooter as it still puts out a pretty auditable sound, just not a deafening one.  But without one, you have to deal with sound echoing and bouncing off all of the surrounding concrete buildings.
As for "armor piercing bullets", most rifle caliber standard hunting rounds will easily penetrate body armor, so limiting "armor piercing rounds" just sounds like a buzzword/dishonest way of trying to limit all ammo.  There are some pretty well educated hunters around here that know a hell of a lot more about ballistics, so you may want to leave some of these technicalities for them to explain.  You are simply wrong on so many fronts.  You are starting to sound like that Colorado "ghost gun guy" trying to push legislation on something that you don't know shit about.  You seem well versed and more interested in racism, so why not stick to the threads where that is actually actively being discussed instead of trolling here?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Wait a second. Congress is considering legalizing armour piercing bullets?

Seriously?

Holy Christ. If you didn't think the US was f**ked up before with their gun mentality... this should assist you making that determination.

Why the f**k would any country consider legalizing armour piercing bullets for the general public? I said it earlier... holy Christ.

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

HAlifax: I have no problem with silencers since they suppress the decibels not silence them. When you shoot with one it is still loud.
armor piercing bullets: I don't even know what that means. Is that based on caliber or grains?  I am not versed in that area so I don't have an opinion. Armor piercing sounds like a buzz word simikiar to "hollow point".

Guess your neighborhood doesn't employ gun fire detection devices? Do some research on armor piercing. Body armor not uparmored humvees or vehicle armor. Go on YouTube and watch the California bank robbery shoot out to get a sense of the potential violence unleashed. You okay with that?

Something with metro California and Chicago...just cannot place my finger on it...Pretty sure all of the hunters in TX would have helped the cops in that robbery situation.  Police departments are now better equiped to deal with those situations now too, like Robocop, lol
No gunfire detection devices around here, but there are a lot of bird hunters here, so there is that.

You mean like they did at the biker shoot out? Or when that whack job went hunting for cops? Yea, police departments now need armored vehicles to respond to that because you know, a black president might get elected and come for your guns, LOL.

You've gone off the deep end.  I don't remember the incidents that you discussed involving body armor as we were talking about...and what does a black president getting elected and "coming for your guns" have anything to do with anything except you trying to squeeze racism into this discussion?  My comment was really about how hunters are able to use better bullets for large/dangerous game that would have dropped these armored thugs fairly quickly.  
Didn't the police have to go to a local gun store to get a gun to take down the robbers?  I remember the situation, just not all that well.

How have I gone off the deep end? Please explain. The legislation before congress, on hold since the congressional baseball shooting, legalizes armor piercing bullets. In the bank robbery case and the Texas cop killing frenzy, that capability would have made a horrific situation even worse. Yet you claim it's necessay to take out dangerous game animals? Sure. The pro gun proponents such as yourself constantly point to more guns being the solution, that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur as frequently. Someone on here posted how all the armed hunters would have taken out the bank robbers, the baseball field assailant and I pointed out that the mass shootings perpetrated by the biker gang and the cop killer were not stopped in such a manner. All we heard from the NRA is how Dems will take your guns away, especially Obama because well, he's special or black. I can only imagine if that biker shoot out had been perpetrated by BLM or Nation of Islam gatherers. The Dallas cop killer initially shot from a position that muffled the sound and made it extremely difficult for responding officers to determine the direction of gun fire. Imagine if he had a "silencer?" Sorry these points are lost on you.

Yeah, more assuming.  The silencer would have actually made it easier to have found the Dallas shooter as it still puts out a pretty auditable sound, just not a deafening one.  But without one, you have to deal with sound echoing and bouncing off all of the surrounding concrete buildings.
As for "armor piercing bullets", most rifle caliber standard hunting rounds will easily penetrate body armor, so limiting "armor piercing rounds" just sounds like a buzzword/dishonest way of trying to limit all ammo.  There are some pretty well educated hunters around here that know a hell of a lot more about ballistics, so you may want to leave some of these technicalities for them to explain.  You are simply wrong on so many fronts.  You are starting to sound like that Colorado "ghost gun guy" trying to push legislation on something that you don't know shit about.  You seem well versed and more interested in racism, so why not stick to the threads where that is actually actively being discussed instead of trolling here?

So why make armor piercing bullets legal? And what am I "assuming?" I guess Only hunters can possibly know anything about guns and associated hardware and legislation, potential or otherwise, or have an opinion? Ignorance is bliss I guess? What is actively being discussed in this thread? I thought it was America's Gun Violence. Sorry that I mistook it for the Only Hunters are Educated About Guns thread. Race factors into everything. Sorry I triggered you. What am I wrong about on so many fronts? Please correct me.

Others have pointed out why you are wrong on so many fronts.  Have you actually read the legislation having to do with "armor piercing rounds"?  Totally buzzword bullshit. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't assume that being pro-gun rights automatically makes someone racist, right leaning, or even republican for that matter.  Everything is not always due to the "oh, but we had a black president" bullshit.  That legislation would have been fought regardless of the skin color of the president.  Some of you are getting ridiculously predictable.  No offense to Godfather, but you have become the Godfather of the left.  This thread is about gun violence, but you may want to read the context of the comments before just jumping in and spewing nonsense...I really think that you are just pissed that people are allowed to hunt or shoot guns at all...sorry...must be frustrating...

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

HAlifax: I have no problem with silencers since they suppress the decibels not silence them. When you shoot with one it is still loud.
armor piercing bullets: I don't even know what that means. Is that based on caliber or grains?  I am not versed in that area so I don't have an opinion. Armor piercing sounds like a buzz word simikiar to "hollow point".

Guess your neighborhood doesn't employ gun fire detection devices? Do some research on armor piercing. Body armor not uparmored humvees or vehicle armor. Go on YouTube and watch the California bank robbery shoot out to get a sense of the potential violence unleashed. You okay with that?

Something with metro California and Chicago...just cannot place my finger on it...Pretty sure all of the hunters in TX would have helped the cops in that robbery situation.  Police departments are now better equiped to deal with those situations now too, like Robocop, lol
No gunfire detection devices around here, but there are a lot of bird hunters here, so there is that.

You mean like they did at the biker shoot out? Or when that whack job went hunting for cops? Yea, police departments now need armored vehicles to respond to that because you know, a black president might get elected and come for your guns, LOL.

You've gone off the deep end.  I don't remember the incidents that you discussed involving body armor as we were talking about...and what does a black president getting elected and "coming for your guns" have anything to do with anything except you trying to squeeze racism into this discussion?  My comment was really about how hunters are able to use better bullets for large/dangerous game that would have dropped these armored thugs fairly quickly.  
Didn't the police have to go to a local gun store to get a gun to take down the robbers?  I remember the situation, just not all that well.

How have I gone off the deep end? Please explain. The legislation before congress, on hold since the congressional baseball shooting, legalizes armor piercing bullets. In the bank robbery case and the Texas cop killing frenzy, that capability would have made a horrific situation even worse. Yet you claim it's necessay to take out dangerous game animals? Sure. The pro gun proponents such as yourself constantly point to more guns being the solution, that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur as frequently. Someone on here posted how all the armed hunters would have taken out the bank robbers, the baseball field assailant and I pointed out that the mass shootings perpetrated by the biker gang and the cop killer were not stopped in such a manner. All we heard from the NRA is how Dems will take your guns away, especially Obama because well, he's special or black. I can only imagine if that biker shoot out had been perpetrated by BLM or Nation of Islam gatherers. The Dallas cop killer initially shot from a position that muffled the sound and made it extremely difficult for responding officers to determine the direction of gun fire. Imagine if he had a "silencer?" Sorry these points are lost on you.

Yeah, more assuming.  The silencer would have actually made it easier to have found the Dallas shooter as it still puts out a pretty auditable sound, just not a deafening one.  But without one, you have to deal with sound echoing and bouncing off all of the surrounding concrete buildings.
As for "armor piercing bullets", most rifle caliber standard hunting rounds will easily penetrate body armor, so limiting "armor piercing rounds" just sounds like a buzzword/dishonest way of trying to limit all ammo.  There are some pretty well educated hunters around here that know a hell of a lot more about ballistics, so you may want to leave some of these technicalities for them to explain.  You are simply wrong on so many fronts.  You are starting to sound like that Colorado "ghost gun guy" trying to push legislation on something that you don't know shit about.  You seem well versed and more interested in racism, so why not stick to the threads where that is actually actively being discussed instead of trolling here?

So why make armor piercing bullets legal? And what am I "assuming?" I guess Only hunters can possibly know anything about guns and associated hardware and legislation, potential or otherwise, or have an opinion? Ignorance is bliss I guess? What is actively being discussed in this thread? I thought it was America's Gun Violence. Sorry that I mistook it for the Only Hunters are Educated About Guns thread. Race factors into everything. Sorry I triggered you. What am I wrong about on so many fronts? Please correct me.

Others have pointed out why you are wrong on so many fronts.  Have you actually read the legislation having to do with "armor piercing rounds"?  Totally buzzword bullshit. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't assume that being pro-gun rights automatically makes someone racist, right leaning, or even republican for that matter.  Everything is not always due to the "oh, but we had a black president" bullshit.  That legislation would have been fought regardless of the skin color of the president.  Some of you are getting ridiculously predictable.  No offense to Godfather, but you have become the Godfather of the left.  This thread is about gun violence, but you may want to read the context of the comments before just jumping in and spewing nonsense...I really think that you are just pissed that people are allowed to hunt or shoot guns at all...sorry...must be frustrating...

Clearly you haven't kept up. The legislation I'm referring to lifts restrictions on guns and ammo. The other article I posted speaks to NRA opposition to legislation preventing mentally ill and domestic abusers from legally buying or possessing firearms, both characteristics common among mass shooters. But then again, you projected onto me what you think I am. Guess you have a guilty conscience?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY

I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection.  Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening.  I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those.  I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.

Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell.  A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.  

I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).

Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY

I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection.  Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening.  I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those.  I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.

Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell.  A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.  

I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).

Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well.  
Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).  

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY

I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection.  Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening.  I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those.  I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.

Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell.  A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.  

I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).

Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well.  
Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).  

Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.

 I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening

mcgruff10 said:

tbergs said:

mcgruff10 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

There is no reason for a silencer. I don't understand any need for it. I shot and used guns for many years. Use hearing protection. The difference is significant enough to impact being able to clearly tell where shots are being fired from. If a gun is being fired somewhere, it should be clear as day to anyone near it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VITZ6-CcY

I can see useful applications in hunting where you want to be able to hear your surroundings without having to use hearing protection.  Still going to be plenty loud, but not deafening.  I haven't been around anyone using them on pistols like your pic above, so I cannot contest to the decibel difference it would make on one of those.  I would guess they are still fairly noisy though.

Yes firing a 30.06 without hearing protection is loud as hell.  A silencer would definitely be practical in that situation.  

I actually suffer from hearing loss in my right ear from shooting rifles without hearing protection. My father and I hunted regularly and I guess he wasn't aware of the damage the guns could do (I certainly wasn't as a young dude).

Don't judge him... everyone else we hunted with never used protection either. It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

I've hunted for 30 years and have never worn ear protection; I'm sure my hearing has been damaged as well.  
Unfortunately you can't wear hearing protection as you hunt (which I'm sure you know Del).  

Agreed, never worn it while hunting, but I also never needed to fire off more than a few shots at a time, so the impact is minimal to your hearing. I didn't do any bird hunting though, so I could see that being a little more damaging if you're maxing out your limits throughout the season. Deer hunting, unlikely. I'm also trying to figure out how effective or well these hunting rifles will perform with a suppresor.

 I'd be more concerned about my loud music listening

Yeah I would say bird hunting definitely messed up my hearing.  When a few pheasant or a covey of quail flushed there's a lot of shooting going on in a very small area.  Growing up, I hunted with my dad and grandfather; I carried a 20 gauge and they both used a 12 gauge,  it was loud!
On a good day we could go through a box of shells but I would say the average was anywhere from 3-7 shots.

Like yourself I don't think I have every fired more than two bullets when hunting for deer.  Does a suppressor impact the accuracy of a rifle or shotgun?