Why are suppressors not legal in some countries?

Suppressors are good stuff to protect your hearing.

Attached: 89BD9F8A-68B0-4886-840B-7BE02D28BF38.jpg (1500x1125, 486K)

Was only added to NFA cause Forestry service didn’t like poachers.

To delay hearing damage for a second or two. Does anyone on this webshite know what they're talking about?

How come the 2nd doesn’t protect suppressors?

Because the ATF would have nothing to do if they were legal

It does the supreme court does not hear 2nd amendment cases.

Why would they deny claimants trying to move up the judicial ladder? Are they not the people’s court?

I think it was about someone showing off to some some president a long time ago that he's able to shoot a pillow behind his back in the oval office without him noticing using a neg gun used by some alphabet organization ...
President got scared, suppressors regulated.

Funny thing about the German law is that low power air-rifle (free to buy for anyone over 18) and rim-fire pistol suppressors (completely banned because terribly dangerous) are for the most part the same product sold with slightly different name.

Attached: H0579-L47479701.jpg (600x216, 31K)

The supreme court exist to expand the powers of the state not limit them

funnily enough, they are legal in the UK, and even encouraged.

Because some jackasses in Hollywood started calling them silencers in movies and everyone freaked out and thought they made guns silent

Because movies

People watch too many movies and believe they are used for assassinations

imagine if vegas shooter had suppressors. He could have killed many more people

The UK law is unnecessarily strict but for the most part logical, pistols are used most in crime so if people want to ban something this makes the most sense.

...While the US law is much more libertarian but based on a huge pile of nonsense, like AR-"pistols" being less regulated than SBRs because they fall into the category of firearms that is most used in crime.

Maxim called the thing "silencer" when it was sold for the first time, than it was semi-banned ($200 tax-stamp when you could buy a car for that money), and the name stuck and used for the Hollywood interpretation ...

>imagine if vegas shooter had suppressors. He could have killed many more people
Imagine one or more of these (with a brick on the pedal) moving trough the crowd.

Guns are great for eliminating a specific target with little collateral damage, but they are far from effective when it comes to killing as many people as possible.

Attached: hyundai-radlader-hl-serie-10-2015-01.jpg.edd199e11cc369628a3bb4e6ea6474a0.jpg (1920x1440, 344K)

They degrade and cost.
just get some hear muffs and finish.

No one needs a silencer. What are you, a 007?

Have fun putting muffs on your hunting dog.

ok, you raise a good point. but in general.

hows that? the ATF has suppresors...

the jews want you to pay

capitalism?

>delay for a second or two
Noguns confirmed

A suppressor wouldn't have helped much, in his case.
If he actually aimed he could have killed way more. Spraying is just retarded.

Stock hits muffs, muffs slip your hearing is permanently damaged.

We're not talking about "silencing" firearms, we're talking about making something as loud as a fighter jet taking off only 100 times as loud as a jackhammer.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 99K)

not a spy, but i do value my hearing

What did Hiram Maxim call them?

Not to mention annoying your neighbors

It was great marketing ...

Attached: maximsilpic.jpg (541x360, 67K)

So are earmuffs, jackass

Friendly reminder that you will still fuck your hearing with a suppressor, unless you use protection.

Attached: 1471785058973.png (396x385, 208K)

Because the term "shoulder thing that goes up" is considered by some lawmakers to be actual technical terminology and a mature way to discuss firearms

TOOK ME A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET APPROVED...TOTALLY WORTH IT .

PS THE FBI SUCKS AND ONLY WORKS ON COVERING UP THE CRIMES OF HILLARY CLINTON.

Attached: 1535251006807.jpg (750x381, 93K)

Subsonic 22lr can be more quiet than a pelletgun.

They were added to the NFA in 1934 because they were being used to poach cattle from ranches
Obviously this isn't an issue anymore & should be removed from the NFA

>We're not talking about "silencing" firearms, we're talking about making something as loud as a fighter jet taking off only 100 times as loud as a jackhammer.

This not entirely true. It depends on the cartridge size, the load, and the suppressor. I have a .308, when I fire a subsonic load it is about as loud as punching a pillow. It's so quite, I can fire it from inside my house.

If you fire store bought ammo or if you reload hot rounds, you gun will still be loud.

While quiet by gun standards, I suspect most "liberals" would be shocked by the huge noise level of a suppressed .22 pistol.

Attached: gemtechreviewnumbers.jpg (640x433, 100K)

>rim-fire pistol suppressors (completely banned because terribly dangerous)

No its not, they are regulated devices just as firearms. so you need a good reason to buy them. If you are a hunter in NRW or Bavaria for example you can buy them no questions asked.

Was basing on what it shown in the OP pic, which should be in the ballpark of 140dB
I'm aware of the sub/supersonic difference.
When it comes to ear-exposure one of the most overlooked problems is probably the action noise, a bolt action and a DI AR-10 will be worlds apart in noise reaching the shooter independent of using sub or supersonic ammo (as long as the load is able to cycle the action)

To my knowledge you'd be able to get one for a rifle, technically identical to the one for a pistol, but getting a permit directly for pistol suppressors still seems to be close to impossible.

A Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment would basically mean you either need to enforce or nullify the amendment.
If you enforce the 2nd Amendment, the government loses ALL AUTHORITY relating to firearms. Because what the 2nd Amendment actually says is that the government cannot impede the acquisition and ownership of arms of any scale or any reason.

Basically, the US government has bullshitted itself a ton of power it is specifically barred from having via the Constitution. A Supreme Court ruling on the basis of the Constitution would strip them of all of that immediately and with no room for appeal.

they are being suppressed

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 18K)