So after days of evasion and insults you're finally come up with a reason why you think silencers and their owners are immoral. Too bad it's a fact you made up; unless you were talking about something else besides a sniper with a suppressed high power rifle. Very convenient right?
I am sorry you are incapable of understanding my posts. You are the only one here so handicapped. More likely is that you simply can't imagine that you are failing to make your case. I am going to give you more than you deserve and tell you why you are.
You are fixated on my use of the word 'immoral'. I would like to think that you want to be a moral person. I have no evidence that you do it is simply my own hope for everyone I meet. Now pay attention. You asked me a question. Remember that? Your question was:
Do you believe there is anything illegal or immoral about making silencers in the USA?
To this I replied:
Highly immoral. That is why I would not hire you. And oh by the way it is just silly too.
I went on to say:
Why don't you try doing something that benefits mankind some day? You know. Instead of acting like a GI wannabee.
Remember that?
So where did you go wrong? Well first you tried to pick an argument where none was necessary. Or even smart. Did you ask me if there was evidence that.....? No you did not. You asked me to make a moral decision. I made it. You do not get to dictate my morality. God does and I do. If you do not believe in God then I will happily take the blame. You have no right to expect me to justify my morality to you. So strike one.
You went on to make some of what you might call fact based arguments about silencers. Some of your arguments were contested and proved untrue by Ingliz. Some were irrelevant. Some deliberately misleading. But no matter. That is not the subject of your argument. The subject of your argument is
my moral position on silencers. Your arguments did not address that at all. Strike two.
Finally you resorted to insults. Strike three.
But still I took a great deal of time to explain to you how I arrived at my moral decision that even the desire to possess certain kinds of weapons and there attendant accessories is, in my opinion, immoral. I went on in great detail to explain to you why silencers, as one of these accessories, simply is part of my moral decision that we should, on moral grounds, ban or severely restrict certain kinds of weapons and their accessories. These arguments were, it would appear, too complex or two difficult for you to understand and/or refute. You tried neither.
Now let me clarify. Ingliz collects firearms. I totally understand that. I support his government's decision to allow him to do that after careful consideration. Judging from his excellent posts here he is a mature and thoughtful person. No reason to prevent him from building his collection. I understand why he might like to collect them. Some are quite beautiful. Some are technological curiosities. Some are great fun to shoot. Some are of historical significance. I am glad there are people like him preserving our heritage in this way and I would like to see his collection. I am sure there are many of his weapons I would also like to fire. Shooting can be great fun and I particularly like shooting historically significant firearms.
I remember an opportunity I had with the German Army to participate in an event where I not only was afforded the opportunity to shoot and qualify with their G-3, the Walther P38 (P1) and the MG-3 (and earn the permanent award of the Schuetzenschnur) but also to share with them some of our weapons; the M-14, M16, M60 and M2. We brought along, for the fun and to add a historical perspective the Thompson sub machine gun and the M3 Grease Gun. (Fun fact. The old grease gun was still issued as late as the 1990s and is a real hoot to shoot. My unit in Germany had 10 of them.) So I understand the allure and fun of shooting sports and military firearms are among the most fun to shoot.
With me so far?
Now let's talk about the morality thing. Soldiers do not 'play' with their weapons. This is not to say they are not fun to shoot but it is to say that, for a soldier, particularly a combat arms soldier, there is an ever present knowledge of exactly what we are about. As solorcross alluded to earlier... Soldiers travel to far off lands, meet new and interesting people, and kill them. It is never lost on us that these weapons in our hands are not beautiful. They are ugly in purpose. They are the very living embodiment of a "
necessary evil". Sherman did not say, "war is hell". He said, "war is all hell". Until one has seen people broken by bullets it still remains a theory.
My first understanding of this:
I remember, during the Vietnam war, my training at a place that was called "tigerland" in those days. We went out on a patrol in the Louisiana swamp. We were to ambush whoever came down a particular trail. We carefully set our ambush. I had an M-16 rifle with an M203 grenade launcher on it. After a couple of hours, down the trail came a platoon of infantry. In those seconds before we lit them up I remember looking down the site of my M-16 and making a decision on which one of them I would kill first. I have in my mind's eye to this day exactly what this guy looked like. What a beautiful and healthy individual he was walking slowly up the road unaware that his next footstep would be his last. Then I slowly and dispassionately fired a three round burst at him. This haunts me to this day even more than far more intense and real things I experienced later. It was the very moment when I realized that I could simply (and far to easily) kill another human being. And that this was my job. There were no flags waving. He was not shooting at me. I could have simply disappeared into the swamp and let him grow old. And this was just training. But that training, that day, not all that came after as I pursued my career, changed the way I felt about guns but most particularly about myself.
So. When I see a civilian out on the range with his M16, his "go kit" and his fantasies , banging away at a human silhouette I do not see someone preparing to defend his home. I see immorality. To fantasize about killing other human beings is immoral in my opinion. And it is sick. People who do it are not well. There is something wrong with them that a dose of moral education could just possibly help. Not so the guy with his pistol, training to protect his home and learning how to do it properly and with the least danger to others.
When I grab my Colt commander and head for the range I know that I am going there to practice killing people. An act that could very well be immoral even when technically legal. On those rare occasions when I slip a firearm under my jacket to go out and about I like to pause and remind myself what exactly I am doing, when I might use it, and what I need to think about to protect others. It is a deadly serious thing. I literally try to frighten myself with what could go wrong. And I have been trained to do that stuff far far better than the average dude carrying a concealed weapon 'cause he can. I am not a felon. I would NEVER carry it while drinking or otherwise impaired. It is not a fashion accessory. It is not an extension of my penis. It does not make me potent or sexy. It is not fun and absolutely most important of all, I am not safer when I have it.
So now you know the morality side of it. I know you will try and present some facts about how silencers are safety items just there to save the shooter's ears. Please do not play us for fools. We do not believe you. You don't see people clamoring to put them on shotguns. On the range good, properly fitted head phones do the job quite well. Hunters do not need any more advantage.
But understand this. Silencers are just one more piece of a big puzzle. I do not like the gun laws as they are. I find people who arm themselves, harboring some fantasy that they are likely to be killed by a gunman if they don't have one to protect themselves, to be simpletons who are bad at math. I find the untrained person who buys an assault weapon so he can play big-penis at the range to be proceeding from an immoral fantasy. And any person who carries a handgun, or even has one in his/her home without careful training not only in how to shoot it but more importantly when and why to be little more than a dangerous idiot.
Finally. I do not buy the pea-brained argument that goes something like this: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. The very idea behind this is idiotic. Oh it sounds good but anyone who thinks this through realizes that absent the gun, people are much harder to kill either accidentally or on purpose. We are not all better off because some 25 year old grocery clerk has a Glock under his hoodie. Though not usually applied to guns it is most fitting that I insert this here: My prayer. 'God protect us from idiots with good intentions.'
I do not expect you to actually read and think about what I just posted. If you have never been a combat trained soldier you won't understand much of it anyway though I tried to keep it simple. The immorality of which I speak does not begin when someone picks up a firearm. It begins with the fantasy about killing another human being and doing it more efficiently. That is my belief. So if you feel compelled to talk about decibels and hearing protection save your breath. You are missing the point entirely.