• superweeniehutjrs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    6 days ago

    Oddly enough it works like this for silencers to my understanding. And concealed carry to an extent.

    But yeah people would riot without their guns

    • AreaKode@riskeratspizza.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      And people think sound suppressors are only for assassins. What if I just want to do some target shooting without blowing out my ear drums? It’s a valid reasoning.

        • EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          6 days ago

          No you do not, that’s the point. Especially if shooting subsonic ammo through a suppressor.

          • scops@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Depends on the caliber and shooting environment. Some suppressed rifles can still be 140dB or more, which is the burst threshold where hearing loss can occur

            • EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Wtf does that matter?

              They perform as suppressors, in some cases they act as a silencer by making them extremely quiet. In most cases they suppress the sound, so what’s the point of your semantics based reply?

              In almost all cases the firearm becomes “hearing safe” where one does not need earpro.

              I actually own and employ suppressors. Folks who call them silencers are hollywood informed and not particularly experienced.

              Either way the original claim is plain incorrect, no matter how many lems downvote.

              edit: y’all downvoters are some dum ass ill-informed lembs (see what I did there, lol!)

              • scops@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                You replied to a blanket statement with a blanket statement. “You still need hearing protection with a silencer,” and “No you don’t.”

                Now you’ve narrowed the scope.

                In almost all cases the firearm becomes “hearing safe” where one does not need earpro.

                That’s good. But don’t pretend you weren’t wrong to begin with.

                A suppressed .308 report is 147-151 dB. .308 Winchester is by no means an exotic cartridge.

                My “semantic” argument is that if you take a hunting rifle out on the range and run it with a suppressor and no ear protection, you are exceeding the threshold where hearing loss can occur.

                The answer to “You still need hearing protection with a silencer,” is not “No,” it is “It depends.”

                • EntheoNaut@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  5 days ago

                  yo scops, this is so fucking pedantic and truly pointless

                  Original ill-informed commenter made a blanket statement and I replied with experience and accuracy. please read it again as I clearly state “especially with subsonic ammo”

                  I shoot both my AR and .308 without earpro. While the bullet still go supersonic and there’s a crack, it’s entirely safe and I do not need earpro.

                  When I shoot 22lr and .38s it’s Hollywood quiet, when I shoot subsonic 9mm it’s quiet but not anything special.

                  Grow up scops. This one of the most pointless exchanges I’ve had on Lemmy.

                  • frongt@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 days ago

                    Have you ever had your hearing tested? You might just already have hearing damage.

          • edible_funk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            Maybe .22 but anything else is still gonna be loud enough you’ll want foam plugs at least.

              • Forester@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 days ago

                Well your patiently incorrect then, as anything over 85db will cause hearing damage from prolonged exposure.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 days ago

            Legally, there is no such thing as a “suppressor”. Legally, they are “firearm silencers” or “firearm mufflers”.

            And before you downvote me, actually look it up.. “Suppressor” is an industry term with no legal meaning.

      • SalamiDommie@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        I used to joke about putting a suppressor on a .22 untill my uncle did it when I was a teenager. I still love shooting small game at 75 yards with it. Probably my most used gun.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        Home defense without blowing my ears on the stairs, and my poor kitties don’t like vacuums you think they’re trying to hear that? In parts of FR and UK they’re required safety equipment!

    • DahGangalang@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Seems like its like this in most States. I know waiting periods are pretty common (pay today, but don’t get possession or the firearm for 1-4 weeks).

      It also seems like mail order of complete guns directly to a residential address is pretty locked down (I know 80% guns and such have loop holes). Its my understanding that you’ve got to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer, then you can collect it there where they’re can do any requisite ID / document checks. Bet this varies state by state though, as well as the bar for constituting a “licensed gun dealer”.

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Because an 80% is not a gun.

        The only entity allowed to mail a gun directly to your home is the federal government, through the CMP. No one else can legally do it as far as I know.

        Maybe C&R stuff is allowed, but I’ve never dealt with it.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        Bet this varies state by state though, as well as the bar for constituting a “licensed gun dealer”.

        Nah, that’s all federal as fuck.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      The only real difference is presenting original documents. NICS is already a bureaucratic process that can’t easily be fixed if you’re flagged.