Media Notices Silencer Popularity

Silencing is Not a Crime

It looks like Time just noticed the recent popularity of silencers in this piece published today. They don’t really scream that the sky is falling in the article, but they make sure to mention Newtown with how gun owners “have gone crazy” buying up guns and accessories, along with a handy reminder for folks that thinking of silencers should evoke the image of a criminal shooting someone in a back alley. At least they are kind enough to mention that silencers are, in fact, legal.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Silencer Op-Ed From Someone Who Clearly Knows Nothing About Silencers
  2. What is a Suppressor?
  3. More on the Chore Boy Silencer

5 thoughts on “Media Notices Silencer Popularity”

  1. Well, it’s a crock, but on the other hand it is Time. Only people waiting for a dentist’s appointment will see it.

    Examples of the crock-ness:

    While purchasing a gun requires a photo ID and an electronic form submitted to the ATF, purchasing a silencer requires applicants to mail a photo and fingerprints to the ATF and pay a $200 tax. And they often cost more than guns, approaching prices over $1,000.

    Zug. Emphasis mine.

    Electronic form to the ATF? In Time’s dreams, maybe. (Hell, the ATF can’t even accept e-forms from Class 3 dealers and Trusts this week, but they say they’ll fix it Real Soon Nowâ„¢).

    Other things being equal, the suppressor’s usually less than the cost of a quality host. Sure you could drop big money on a Knight’s QD and attach it to some Hesse/Vulcan/Troy junker. But generally the guys buying $$$$ suppressors are hosting them on $$$$ firearms.

    advocates say they’re in demand because they allow hunters to fire multiple shots without frightening game.

    What the hell, does anybody actually say that? I mean, is that sentence there for any reason but to conjure images of belt-fed Fudds (belt-fudds?) blowing holy hell out of entire grid squares in their quest to nail the wabbit?

    The biggest reason I see is for hearing protection; next, for the sheer joy of it; and finally, and not a very serious motivator, for the same reason we had them in the service, for a comparative advantage on a defensive gun.

    But I’m just some schmo, and haven’t been anywhere near a J-School. What do I know?

    1. Yeah. The Tinnitus in my ears is bad enough. As far as I’m concerned suppressors should be a safety requirement.

    2. “And they often cost more than guns, approaching prices over $1,000.”

      Not sure why that bothers you so much, considering it’s actually accurate. What does a Glock cost? Now what does a suppressor you attach to that Glock cost? (Hint: if you avoid junk, the answer is “more”) Even rimfire suppressors can easily cost more than the host. Decent rifle suppressors quickly approach and surpass $1000, but even cheap ones aren’t all that cheap. I don’t think the author is off-base here at all.

      “advocates say they’re in demand because they allow hunters to fire multiple shots without frightening game.”

      I’ve seen people say precisely this as a good reason to suppress a gun – particularly when taking out things like rodents. I prefer them because I shoot an indoor ranges and would like to keep my hearing, tinnitus-free.

    3. I’m quite happy that purchasing firearm, at least in Texas, doesn’t require submitting an elect form to the ATF. That would be a registry. They may mean the NICS check is electronic. Suppressors and SBRs should require only a NICS check.

Comments are closed.