[Ranb]

I said engaging in an activity in one's personal time and capacities, the end result of which, is proliferating the production of and the craft of producing silencers, indeed to me is immoral.

So it's immoral only on your say so? There is no other reason other than silencers offend your sensibilities for some reason?.

Surely there has to be some reason why producing silencers offends you. What is it? That is what I've been asking for a while now. "Just because" is about the only answer I'm getting so far.

Are all guns bad? If not, then why are silencers?

[Crantag]

So it's immoral only on your say so? There is no other reason other than silencers offend your sensibilities for some reason?.

Surely there has to be some reason why producing silencers offends you. What is it? That is what I've been asking for a while now. "Just because" is about the only answer I'm getting so far.

Are all guns bad? If not, then why are silencers?

If you are incapable of parsing in argument, that is not my problem.

Go find some other way to be entertained, because merely that is all you are doing, playing a little childish game.

[Ranb]

If you are incapable of parsing in argument, that is not my problem.

Go find some other way to be entertained, because merely that is all you are doing, playing a little childish game.

Failing to explain why a person (a silencer maker) is immoral just makes yourself irrelevant in this conversation.

Like I said before, your style of arguing is the same as I see from racists.

[Drlee]

What I don't get is your attitude towards certain types of firearms. You think some are okay, but others are not. And for some reason you're gone from silencers simply being immoral for some reason to also being dangerous.

A 12 year old could understand my idea of the relative danger of different kinds of firearms. But for you I will simply say this. It is much easier to knock off a bank or a convenience store with a pistol than it is with a bold action rifle. It is a bit harder to conceal a long rifle. Even you could understand that.

Regarding the topic of this thread. It would have been impossible for the shooter to kill as many people if he did not have access to a semi-automatic rifle, large capacity magazines, unlimited ammunition. He could have killed more if the report of his weapon were less prominent. He may have been harder to localize. The argument against the "bump stock" is beyond obvious. It is dangerous and there is not a single justification for its private ownership. It was designed deliberately to achieve the effect of an illegal weapon. It is a ruse to circumvent the law. A law that we the people passed through our elected officials.

Perhaps these concepts are too difficult for you to understand. If not why don't you try to make a case for these kinds of weapons other than, because they are fun.

[Ranb]

It is much easier to knock off a bank or a convenience store with a pistol than it is with a bold action rifle. It is a bit harder to conceal a long rifle. Even you could understand that.

I don't recall disagreeing with you on this at all. Why are you going on and on about it then?

Regarding the topic of this thread. It would have been impossible for the shooter to kill as many people if he did not have access to a semi-automatic rifle, large capacity magazines, unlimited ammunition.

Okay, so what? Or maybe he could have used a bomb or vehicle. So much for your impossible claim.

He could have killed more if the report of his weapon were less prominent. He may have been harder to localize.

This is true why? How much less prominent do you think the usual sized silencer is going to make an AR-15 or AR-10 sound? From the viewpoint of the victims 1200 feet away from the shooter I doubt it would have made much difference. The bullet flight noise and impact noise are the same. 1200 feet is not too far away to hear muzzle blast noise that is 125-130 decibels.

The argument against the "bump stock" is beyond obvious. It is dangerous and there is not a single justification for its private ownership.

I don't recall arguing about the merits of a bump stock. Where are you going with this?

It was designed deliberately to achieve the effect of an illegal weapon. It is a ruse to circumvent the law. A law that we the people passed through our elected officials.

Most people were just fine with them a year ago; seems most are right now seeing as how they're still legal almost everywhere in the USA.

I think they're stupid; a waste of ammo. The hold is too loose to ensure accuracy at higher rates of fire. I've used one but will never waste money on one of my own. If I want to bump fire, I can do it without wasting money on a slide fire stock.

Perhaps these concepts are too difficult for you to understand. If not why don't you try to make a case for these kinds of weapons other than, because they are fun.

They're not at all. I was just wondering how long it would take you to explain exactly why you had a problem with silencers. Too bad you don't understand enough about the limitations of silencer use to know that if Paddock had used one that night it probably would not have made a difference. What else you got?

[ness31]

If silencers are immoral then aren’t guns immoral too? You could have just said that Ranb..

[Ranb]

I could have said that, but I was more interested in just knowing why a person would label a muffler as immoral. After much teeth pulling it turns out that the person calling them immoral doesn't really know much about them and is just ignorant and unwilling to learn much about them.

On other forums I see lots of claims like "we didn't land on the moon", "Obama is an alien", "LBJ killed JFK", blah blah blah. This "mufflers are immoral because I say so" is more of the same ignorant tripe.

[Godstud]

@Ranb It's his opinion, and the opinion of a few people on this forum. If you don't like someone's opinion, then that's too bad. Instead of telling them their opinion is wrong, why don't you try to prove it wrong with evidence to the contrary.

I agree that accessories to civilian weapons that make them more dangerous(a silencer does do that), are immoral. Saying that silencers don't work effectively is a ridiculous argument. They use them because they DO work. You wouldn't make them if they did not work.

[ness31]

So, I guess bullets for guns makes them more dangerous This thread has become farcical..

I would imagine hunters would find silencers quite useful...

[Godstud]

No, you go straight to your logical fallacy as soon as everyone doesn't agree with you. Try again.

If you were to talk about armor piercing(cop killer) bullets and dum-dum bullets, well then you'd be closer.

[ness31]

Curse the day you people ever learned the term logical phallacy..

Lol....I’m not editing phallacy...I think it was meant to be.

[Godstud]

Fine. He's making an invalid comparison.

[ness31]

A silencer, a bullet, a gun or plastic knife for that matter cannot be immoral. They are inanimate objects. One might argue that the weapons industry and the figures behind it are immoral. One might argue that hunting for majestic large game animals is immoral (i hold that opinion, but I eat meat so I’m a hypocrite). But you cannot LOGICALLY argue inanimate objects are immoral.

Remember folks, guns don’t kill people, people do, ergo humans are immoral.

[Godstud]

Making devices used for immoral purposes is immoral.

eg. Weed isn't immoral. Selling it to children is.

[Drlee]

Most people were just fine with them a year ago; seems most are right now seeing as how they're still legal almost everywhere in the USA.

This is the kind of idiotic statement that makes arguing with gun freaks useless. Try harder sport. This is sixth grade stuff.

[Ranb]

@Ranb It's his opinion, and the opinion of a few people on this forum. If you don't like someone's opinion, then that's too bad.

Yes it is too bad. But I'm entitled to my opinion and I interested in knowing why a person thinks a silencer is immoral.

Instead of telling them their opinion is wrong, why don't you try to prove it wrong with evidence to the contrary.

So if I said that silencers can prevent hearing loss and don't make a gun silent, that they were invented and marketed by a civilian for civilians over 100 years ago and the military/police only recently took an interest in them would this change anyone's mind?

I agree that accessories to civilian weapons that make them more dangerous(a silencer does do that), are immoral.

How does reducing noise to 110-135 decibels make a gun more dangerous? I think they become less dangerous.

Saying that silencers don't work effectively is a ridiculous argument.

Who is making that claim? I make silencers as a hobby because they are so effective; but I'm well aware of what the limitations are.

They use them because they DO work. You wouldn't make them if they did not work.

I agree. So what are you getting at?

[Ranb]

This is the kind of idiotic statement that makes arguing with gun freaks useless. Try harder sport. This is sixth grade stuff.

Not idiotic. I hardly ever heard anything about them until the Las Vegas shooting. Now months later I hardly hear anything about them at all. It seems most people aren't really interested in banning them at all. Why do you think I'm wrong?

[Ranb]

I would imagine hunters would find silencers quite useful...

Some hunters find them to be useful. But very few hunters use them as silencers are still not a popular firearm for hunters to use.

[Ranb]

If you were to talk about armor piercing(cop killer) bullets and dum-dum bullets, well then you'd be closer.

Why do you call armor piercing bullets cop killers?

[Godstud]

Nice deflection, but I'll answer it for you. They are designed to defeat body armour often worn by police officers.

Now get back on topic.