We all know "silencers" don't actually silence a firearm, but did she have a point in this specific case...

We all know "silencers" don't actually silence a firearm, but did she have a point in this specific case? Concerts are pretty loud, and silencers DO reduce the report to an extent. Isn't it possible it would've made the shots harder to hear over the music that was playing, and as a consequence taken longer for the band to stop playing and people to take notice?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/BczhT1ByrXA
instagram.com/p/BZw0IzWDAdS/?taken-by=garebearonline
twitter.com/AnonBabble

20db reduction means they would have still heard it since it would still be 130db. She just used silencers because of upcoming legislation. It was a canned response.

Everything is hard to hear over music as loud as that which you'd hear at a concert, you retard. And especially with noticing something as comparatively quiet as gunfire (even suppressed gunfire) in combination with many people, if not most, probably being drunk off their asses or on some sort of party drug besides alcohol like ecstasy or something

Press P to poop in OP's mouth and call him a faggot

also sage

the super sonic cracks give it away i think

It was mostly to force the issue with the upcoming legislation, but it's not crazy to think that with a 30db reduction it would have been harder to get the entire crowd aware of the situation - shit is loud out there and he was shooting from damn far away.

The most effective use of suppressors is with sub-sonic ammo that will have lower velocity over long distances. Also the amount of rounds the shooter was pushing would have overheated it.

Imagine if it had been a hiphop concert with gun samples mixed in the beats.

there would be zero hesitation in speculating it was a racist shooter.

I would acknowledge that loud gunshots would send a crowd into a panic much more quickly, however, are we to deduce that a person suddenly dropping dead, bleeding, wouldn't trigger the surrounding people into a frenzy? Gunshots or not, the very sight would send the people next to the victims into a panic that would domino effect throughout the stadium.

>but did she have a point in this specific case?

No.

He had something like 10 guns in his hotel room though, he could've easily switched between them to let them cool off between bursts.

People would be able to hear it clearly, but due to hollywood misinformation most people wouldn't recognize it very quickly as being gunfire.

as for whether or not the shooter would have gone unnoticed for longer, that's unlikely. the only reason he was found was because his weapons set off the smoke alarms.

>people think that shooting 5.56 out if a Suppressor is gnat fart quiet

I wish people would stop talking if they don't know what they're talking about

Wouldn't hat be nice?

but user, she has to sell her new book and that requires pretending to still be relevant

>did she have a point
no. She is a senile old woman who lost and is trying to stay relevant however she can.

Sure, that would happen, but wouldn't it take longer for people to notice? If you watch the videos, even after being alerted by the gunshots it took a while for people to get alarmed enough to start leaving.

With so many people around, it can be hard to tell exactly what's going on, and if someone suddenly drops to the ground right next to you, it may take a minute or two to even figure out what happened.

>as for whether or not the shooter would have gone unnoticed for longer, that's unlikely. the only reason he was found was because his weapons set off the smoke alarms.
The argument isn't that it would've taken longer for him to be found, once people knew that something was going on. The argument is that it would take longer for the people at the concert to realize they were being fired on and take action to get out of harm's way.

Well she was successful as Paul "King Cuck" Ryan shelved the suppressor bill indefinitely. Also
>Implying she writes her own tweets

Have you ever been to a concert? They are loud. Like, leave your ears ringing and partially deaf for a day or two loud. It's not a stretch to imagine a suppressed firearm being difficult to hear from several hundred meters during a concert.

This

>because screams are silent

Clintoon is a loon.

no, witnesses actually said you couldn't tell where the shots where originating from due to the echoing off buildings.

So is a regular firearm dillwad. As evident by them not even knowing where it came from.

>Subsonic rounds
I fired an old Ruskie gun on a business trip overseas that supposedly had subsonic rounds. Maybe 30% noise reduction but still loud af. I can see why they're not more common, the lose of muzzle velocity isn't a good thing when you go up against armored targets.

Clearly it was loud enough for the band to realize something was up and stop playing a few seconds after the shots started. The point is, would that have been the case had the shots been suppressed? How much longer would it have taken before they realized something was wrong?

No. She is an idiot. Has absolutely no idea what suppressors even do, nor has she ever heard one in real life......She makes horrible decisions repeatedly. So now you want to buy what she is selling? Your either stupid, or a shill....

Couldn't possibly be the screaming, crowd disruption, death, bleeding etc. now could it?

If you use an extremely rare event like this as justification to keep suppressors in the sorry state they are in now you're a pathetic boot licking faggot. It is doubtful that it even would've made a difference and you'd understand that if you realized the difference made to supersonic rounds like 5.56.

Pro tip. At the site in which you're getting shot the supersonic crack will be extremely evident. In this scenario depending on the distance from the window to the crowd it was almost certainly more evident than the muzzle report was.

Stop talking about things you have no clue about and don't understand, it's sad and pathetic.

The crowd fled at the sound of "Allahu ackbar".

Imagine the deaths if more Muslims had been let in, which the Democrats want to make happen.

>Couldn't possibly be the screaming, crowd disruption, death, bleeding etc. now could it?

But watch the videos, that didn't start to happen for several minutes after the band had stopped playing. The fact that people heard the gunshots and the band stopped playing alerted everyone to the fact that something was wrong.

>At the site in which you're getting shot the supersonic crack will be extremely evident

So in the immediate vicinity of where the shots are hitting, it was audible. But the shooter didn't target the stage area (AFAIK he didn't have a view of it), so not being in the immediate area would the band have stopped playing as early as they did?

Not really. Enough people would still hear it. Maybe a little fewer.

Plus a surpressor would reduce the muzzle velocity. So you'd likely end up reducing the body count if anything.

Why do you want me to baselessly speculate? I'll leave that up to you since you think said baseless speculation is justification enough for extreme infringements on peoples rights.

>A suppressor would reduce muzzle velocity

No it wouldn't... Stop.

Unless you're getting baffle strikes or something horrible like that it won't reduce velocity. At most it will slightly increase it depending on the design.

I see it as a reasonable line of inquiry.

Also, suppressors are not "arms," per se, so why should they be protected by the 2nd amendment?

REEEE WHY WOULD HE DO THAT

>Suppressors aren't arms

Yeah and ammunition isn't either right?

I can't believe people like you even exist on the internet. So much information at your disposal and instead of utilizing any of it you parrot politicians bullshit. It is actually unbelievable.

Feel free at any time to actually look up how much crime has actually been committed with suppressors, how ineffective gun control is etc. a monkey with a slight willingness to learn something could find out more than you know.

Retarded criminal opportunistic cunt had no point, this thread is shit.

The 2nd amendment protects the ownership of weapons up to the level owned by the government and military. iirc you can theoretically get a nuke, but the proper channels would never authorize nuclear weaponry permits.

What makes a suppressor an "arm," as protected by the 2nd amendment?

>The 2nd amendment protects the ownership of weapons up to the level owned by the government and military
Show me where it says that.

What makes ammunition? What makes a jamming rod? What makes a stock? What makes a compensator? What makes a flash hider? What makes a magazine?

They are parts of an "arm" if you want to be that anal and pedantic.

I love your smug arrogant responses in this thread. You actually think you're intelligent you poor retard.

Show me where it doesn't

Slings aren't "arms" per se
Trigger locks aren't "arms" per se
Shell loops for shotguns aren't "arms" per se
Fucking bullets aren't "arms" per se

Or you could do something like "it's now illegal to own a gun without a gun safe" and then ban gun safes because gun safes aren't "arms" per se

Suppressors have many legitimate uses. When hunting, they won't scare off as many animals when firing. They'll reduce noise pollution. They'll help protect your hearing. They'll even make the shot a little bit more accurate.

>What makes ammunition? What makes a jamming rod? What makes a stock? What makes a compensator? What makes a flash hider? What makes a magazine?
Of these I would say only ammunition is actually required for a functional firearm, and therefore the only part that constitutes an "arm." What would be the justification for the rest of them?

>You actually think you're intelligent you poor retard.
And yet you're the one resorting to petty insults instead of valid counter arguments.

>Silencers
>Supersonic round
Fuck off nogunz

>a few hypothetical lives are more important than the health of millions of americans ears

>t. woman with bodyguards who endure damage to their eardrums for her so she can be safe

Hillary is right. Silencers sound like *pewp* *pewp* just like in Hollywood.

What if they use a sub sonic round?

What is required for a functional firearm depends on the design of a firearm. Something I'm sure you're not educated in in the slightest.

If I make a gun with an integral suppressor, ported barrel and a magwell accepting ar 15 magazines then an AR 15 magazine is required for the function of the arm and the suppressor is a part of that arm.

The way you're speaking you just define a gun as some part in particular? Which fucking part? What arbitrary definition will you use for arm and which parts will you magically decide don't count?

So you're admitting it says nothing about it, then? Which means it's not explicitly protected by the 2nd amendment, which means it's open to the courts to decide.

>subsonic rounds
>targets over 200m

Pick one faggot.

>millions of americans own supressors
>the NRA even recommends even using supressors instead of the real, cheaper ear protection you SHOULD be using.
>Theres even a difference to user safety besides ear protection not being "as cool".

In the absence of definition of arm all arms logically are included and reading personal letters supports that since the ideas of those who wrote the constitution were expressed within.

Even barring the personal letters they still would all be included. Exceptions were never made at the time of writing, none whatsoever. Exceptions came later with spineless arrogant fags like yourself.

What makes any digital medium, opinion, or opposition to the borg a "speech" or "pressed" as protected by the 1st amendment?

No, at the rate he was firing a silencer would have melted off the gun

>In the absence of definition of arm all arms logically are included
If arms are not defined, how can we know what is an arm to include?

the fucking shilling is getting too obvious

What I meant was no exceptions were included. Arm is written and no mention of prohibited arms included.

If you take anything else from that besides what I just said then you're just making shit up and being delusional.

>Arm is written and no mention of prohibited arms included
But how are we supposed to know what is and is not an arm? Is it completely subjective? Is anything that could conceivably be used as a weapon an "arm?" And you're claiming things that themselves cannot be used as weapons, but only as accessories to weapons, count as arms, which seems highly arbitrary.

Asking the wrong question user. You should be asking why does she want us to "imagine" it.

Answer to play into a culture of fear. Besides. Only hillary assassins would get suppressors in that alt future. Imagine the emotional pathos response if she was POTUS vs a logical ethos driven policy.

Yes? How are parts of a firearm not an arm?

I don't think the founders took into account the mental gymnastics gungrabbers like yourself would go through that's one area I fault them at least.

It's shown through precedence.
>privately owned ships and cannons
>militias with privately owned firearms
>privately owned tanks and artillery in the modern age

youtu.be/BczhT1ByrXA

A suppressor can't take a whole lot at a cyclic rate before it catastrophically fails.
>inb4 different guns
Same bullet except this gun shoots it much faster. Had he a suppressor, he would have needed a bolt gun with a much smaller bullet to be totally undetected but that's not saying people wouldn't notice motherfuckers next to them dropping dead.

>How are parts of a firearm not an arm?
Well, there are parts that are necessary to the function of a firearm - like a firing pin, barrel, and ammunition - and parts that aren't. A suppressor certainly isn't. I think that's where i would draw the distinction over what constitutes an "arm:" that which is necessary to the defining function of a weapon as a weapon.

IT'S A FUCKING SUPPRESSOR. IT SUPPRESSES (holds back) THE MUZZLE FLASH SO YOUR LOCATION CANNOT BE SO EASILY DETERMINED WITH SIGHT.

FUCKING HELL I HATE RATS WHO WAIT FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO PEDDLE THEIR BULLSHIT!

YES, I'M MAD

Where does it say in the constitution that only parts that are deemed functional by an arbitrary body are allowed?

Must've missed it. Maybe it's under the part where it says all free speech is allowed except fire in a theater and child porn?

That was by far the weirdest /o/ thread I’ve ever been in

That might have saved more people. Panic caused more harm than good.

Hi nogunz. Please kys. Thanks. Now your question. A suppressor would have muffled the report of the rifle. This would indeed be to the shooter's advantage...since it would have made his location much harder to pinpoint.

The LOUD cracks in the videos are from the supersonic bullet creating a sonic boom as it flies through the air. Using a suppressor does not significantly change bullet velocity...so it would still be loud as fuck if you're close the where bullets are hitting.

You can use subsonic ammunition to reduce this noise aswell. Had the shooter done this, he could have spent quite a lot of time taking well aimed shots before the crowd noticed. However, at that range, most subsonic ammo does not expand on impact...meaning greatly reduced trauma to the target.

There are two parts to the sound a firearm makes. One is the explosion of gunpowder, which a silencer can help lower somewhat. It will never be whisper-quiet, but the silencer helps reduce this noise to safe levels.

The second is the bullet breaking the sound barrier, which makes the iconic snap. This is generally what you hear at longer ranges, and a silencer does nothing to affect this noise. The only way to mitigate it is by using subsonic ammo, which by definition has a lower velocity and thus does not travel as far or hit as hard.

The Constitution is as arbitrary as the Supreme Court. You can accept one over the other, but you must acknowledge that your acceptance is arbitrary.

So to be consistent, Mrs. Clinton might also want to address subsonic ammunition, is what you're saying?

Which would be as unpoliceable as Cali's new ghost gun registration law.

Crack open a bullet, pour out some powder. Bam, subsonic round.

>The constitution is arbitrary

The constitution is literal plain fucking English and is the basis for the nation not like the kike infested SCOTUS.

The arbitrary part takes form as regulations. While we might have the right to bear nukes, the regulations of that ownership are as arbitrary as the nature of man.

Now...had the shooter selected say, an AR-15 rifle, chambered in .300 AAC, with a suppressor, firing 194 grain Lehigh Defense subsonic ammunition, and properly DOPEd his target, he could have made very accurate shots with devestating effect....probably 50% or higher fatality rate for each hit...and fired for quite a long time before being discovered.

Once people panicked, he could then switch to a noisy and more powerful platform like the 7.62x51mm AR-10 he had.

Since murdering people is already against the law, you're fucking delusional thinking there is any other law that would have stopped him from trying.

But, as you can see, if he knew shit about guns and tactics, like a lot of law-abiding gun owners, he could have killed a lot more people. The more you keep trying to oppress the law abiding and innocent for the crimes of the insane, the more likely you are to learn what a difference a healthy knowledge of weapons and tactics can make.

>magazines are not required for a functional firearm but ammo is
You're a fucking retard.

He explains that in the very post you're quoting you dumb shit.

That would be a lot of work for several hundred rounds though, no? And therefore decrease the likelihood of someone doing it in situation like this.

It's worth saying that regulations aren't necessarily intended to totally eliminate a specific danger, but may instead serve only to reduce it. Just because something isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it's not useful as a mitigation tool.

instagram.com/p/BZw0IzWDAdS/?taken-by=garebearonline

Ignore the first picture, but the video on the next screen shows a gun being fired with a suppressor.

No, it wouldn't be. The point of the law isn't to stop them. If they're determined, they'll do it anyway, and in the meantime you're making thousands of innocent people into criminals because your laws are overbroad and you, ultimately, are an evil person.

It was an example. In the real world, a lot of people just load their own ammo. Making subsonic round would mean just putting less powder in each casing.

And you're not going to kill home loading. You might get the fudds to join you on an anti-silencer campaign, but you will never ever have enough support to kill home loading.

Nice way to misquote me. I said, "The Constitution is as arbitrary as the Supreme Court." They both use reason to arrive at their conclusions. Whether you agree with them or not is up to you, and I won't say you're wrong for agreeing with the Supreme Court OR the Constitution. But I might make an argument one way or another.

Free hat!!

Sure Hillary, blame the NRA for everything. Always playing the blame game. Heck, blame them for the reason why you lost the election.
>inb4 she had popular votes

>did she have a point in this specific case?
Nope.

The dumb cunt doesn't know that super-sonic rounds are loud as fuck when they fly by you because they're making little sonic booms that sound like the crack of a whip. Suppressors don't change that.

...

Yes she does have a point. You could hear it but it would be much harder to discern because it would only be the "crack" sound of the bullet breaking the sound barrier. Much harder to pinpoint where it's coming from especially if there are other loud noises (like concert noise). At a distance of +500 yards it would sound like a distant firecracker.

KEK

silencers only silence the gas explosion, and not that much depending on ammo. to really get an impact you need to use subsonic ammo which has significantly reduced range and a dramatically higher level of skill to use a long distances.

>That would be a lot of work for several hundred rounds though, no?
No. It takes about an hour to hand load 1000 rounds of ammunition on a multi-stage press.

And no, there is no legislation that has any affect whatsoever on stopping active shooters. Properly trained security forces, a proper site threat assessment, and proper mitigation techniques.

This event shouldn't have been held in that location. But if it MUST, the there are 2 primary threats...active shooter and VBIED

VBIED mitigated by a security perimeter with physical barriers so no vehicles can drive up to the crowd....back a little further, vehicles get searched and sniffed by dogs in they have legitimate business to go close.

Active shooter mitigated by having armed security (including snipers) covering the event...with Guard Dogs set up temporarily to quickly triangulate shots if they occur.

Just like with Equifax...when security failures happen, the thing that's most at fault is inadequate investment in preventing them. Criminals are going to break the law and some people are fucking evil. Wake up. A law can't stop that.

Nope. A suppressor only really works for a few shots anyway, and that nigger was firing fully automatic. She just knew that the gun lobby was working on an end to the unjust suppressor ban, and felt like being the first politician to tie the deaths to something recent.

>Imagine if he had a Mk.19
>Imagine if he had an RPG
>Imagine if he had a suitcase nuke

Nope at the range he was shooting even if he missed or hit something the bullet trail noise would still be loud enough to be heard. Silencer wouldn't do shit in this situation except give him like 2 or 3 more seconds.

If those were easily acquirable at a local gun shop, maybe he would've. He could have upped his kill count by an order of magnitude, at least.

>silencing a supersonic round

ahahahahhaha

This

No.

Bullets are supersonic, you would hear the ***EXTREMELY NOTICEABLE*** sonic crack as the bullets pass.

In order for him to be "full stealth" he would have to fire sub-sonic rounds - which have terrible ballistic properties and would about as dangerous as a BB pellet at anything other than close distance

if gun go pew pew fast silence melt

Always fire on the snare. That's live music sniper 101, fampiles.

Also this.