Mileage Psycho Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, f7ben said: A suppressor does nothing to mute a round that is supersonic. It will suppress the sound of a subsonic round somewhat. Vince has watched a few too many movies. A suppressor would have changed nothing here Yuh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 The shooter could have used a silencer/suppressor if he wanted to.....legal/not legal does it even matter in this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snopro31 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 this is due to mental illness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: Yuh You know you can get subsonic rounds for a rifle right??? The loud report generated by hi pow rifles is from the rd going super sonic and a suppressor does zero for that. Had this shooter been using sub sonic rds gis effectiveness would have been limited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, SnowRider said: I actually agree with the Mouthbreather See your buddies post 👍 You can buy a flash hider or muzzle brake that does the same thing retard. God do you know nothing??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Just now, f7ben said: You can buy a flash hider or muzzle brake that does the same thing retard. God do you know nothing??? You need to ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Zambroski said: #1-Stop fucking calling them "silencers". They are suppressors. And, Dear Diary...today I agreed with Vince. A SUPRESSOR would have done an excellent job of hiding the muzzle flash and kept everyone wondering where it was coming from for some time. It also would have kept carbon and smoke down. It's why I commented way early in this thread that he probably didn't have "true" auto weapons. If he did, he'd also have easy legal access to suppressors. Or illegal for that matter. At some point common sense has to kick in, while we know you can legally buy a suppression device it's a pain in the ass with an extensive background check. Going with the idea that we need full autos in case we need to uprise against the gubment why not be able to purchase a fully armed A-10 Warthog because you never know when you might have to sneak up on the man with a 30mm GAU-8...... and if some Warthog owner snaps someday and lights up a football stadium because someone stood on their head during the anthem well so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, f7ben said: You can buy a flash hider or muzzle brake that does the same thing retard. God do you know nothing??? You can use a milk jug you meathead, but I will tell you it fucks with the sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Danger Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: At some point common sense has to kick in, while we know you can legally buy a suppression device it's a pain in the ass with an extensive background check. Going with the idea that we need full autos in case we need to uprise against the gubment why not be able to purchase a fully armed A-10 Warthog because you never know when you might have to sneak up on the man with a 30mm GAU-8...... and if some Warthog owner snaps someday and lights up a football stadium because someone stood on their head during the anthem well so be it. Civilians cannot own a armed ex military plane. tons of military planes for sale and out there flying but none with guns. FAA is a little touchy about things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: You can use a milk jug you meathead, but I will tell you it fucks with the sight. Yeah , that'll work a long time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 25 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: You can use a milk jug you meathead, but I will tell you it fucks with the sight. Flash hiders and muzzle brakes are legal and would do the same thing as a suppressor in this case. Are you arguing that they should all be illegal??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revkevsdi Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 53 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said: Civilians cannot own a armed ex military plane. tons of military planes for sale and out there flying but none with guns. FAA is a little touchy about things like that. Why not? Wouldn't you need that in case you need to keep a tyrannical government in check? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 12 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said: One hour and 12 minutes, with silencers it's possible that time could have been much longer. Suppressors don't hold back muzzle flash or smoke. Its my understanding the smoke alarms pinpointed him as quickly as anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Hey how about that silencer law they are voting on next week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 14 hours ago, Carlos Danger said: Just for arguments sake what kind of law would have prevented the current tragedy or Sandy Hook for that matter? Besides of course the complete elimination of the second amendment. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 14 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Perhaps a common sense interpretation of the second amendment. You know something what was written when the weapons available were muzzle loading weapons, might not have been intended to arm people so that they could kill their fellow citizens. Why do you think the second amendment was drafted? Same could be said about the 4th amendment and electronics. You think the founders intended for illegal search and seizures to go on thru history and only cover someone's home or "person" meaning what they had directly on them or were forward thinking enough to realize their wording needed protections eventually that went beyond that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 14 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Ok, so your argument is that a well armed citizenry will stop the state from inflicting its' will on the people. You live in a country where the politicians have been stealing from you for years. Have you ever seen how rich Senators are? How much wealth they amass that can't be explained by their salary? The politicians pretty much do as they please and the most heavily armed citizens in the world aren't stopping it. But let's assume that you are all as heavily armed as that white asshole who just murdered 58 people and wounded 400. Would that be enough to stop the government? It wouldn't. A tyrannical government could take out the most heavily armed civilians. If you really wanted to be on an equal footing, you should be arguing for the right to own nuclear weapons, gunships etc. Your assumption is everyone in govt, the military and the police would turn on its fellow citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, revkevsdi said: Why not? Wouldn't you need that in case you need to keep a tyrannical government in check? Is a tyrannical government going to convince all the military to go and use military equipment against it's own people? 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Your assumption is everyone in govt, the military and the police would turn on its fellow citizens. You beat me to it. Edited October 3, 2017 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, f7ben said: You know you can get subsonic rounds for a rifle right??? The loud report generated by hi pow rifles is from the rd going super sonic and a suppressor does zero for that. Had this shooter been using sub sonic rds gis effectiveness would have been limited They would become far less effective at the range the Vegas shooter was at. FAR LESS. You are talking about going from Muzzle velocities of over 3000 fps to under 1200 fps. The heavier bullet would help by having more initial energy but downrange that far that low of velocity would be pretty low. http://ebrammo.com/556-x-45mm-nato-ultra-stealth-match-subsonic Edited October 3, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted October 3, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said: One hour and 12 minutes, with silencers it's possible that time could have been much longer. He could have had buckets of water cooling the barrels when switching between 2 guns. Wouldn't be all that difficult with how he was set up in there. Again its my understanding muzzle flash and the smoke detector gave away his position. People falling from gunshot wounds to the head and the crack of the round would have given a pretty quick indication a shooter was present. I really don't think it could have been that much worse with suppressors. I did see last night security guards breached the room first and one was shot. Then swat who backed out however that don't match with having to use explosives for the door unless that wasn't true and it was a flash/bang grenade they were using to disorient the guy. Edited October 3, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 suppressors would have done absolutely nothing to benefit this shooters mission. Zero .....only retarded citiots cant understand that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 11 hours ago, Mileage Psycho said: At some point common sense has to kick in, while we know you can legally buy a suppression device it's a pain in the ass with an extensive background check. Going with the idea that we need full autos in case we need to uprise against the gubment why not be able to purchase a fully armed A-10 Warthog because you never know when you might have to sneak up on the man with a 30mm GAU-8...... and if some Warthog owner snaps someday and lights up a football stadium because someone stood on their head during the anthem well so be it. I would like to be able to toss a few grenades or have some mines just in case you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainecat Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 The fed needs to step up and require federal licencing of gun owners superseding state laws. Just fuckin do it and require safety classroom training as well as range training before a decent test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted October 3, 2017 Share Posted October 3, 2017 Just now, Mainecat said: The fed needs to step up and require federal licencing of gun owners superseding state laws. Just fuckin do it and require safety classroom training as well as range training before a decent test. How would that have prevented this or any attack at all????? and go fuck yourself pawn faggot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gold Member BOHICA Posted October 3, 2017 Gold Member Share Posted October 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Mainecat said: The fed needs to step up and require federal licencing of gun owners superseding state laws. Just fuckin do it and require safety classroom training as well as range training before a decent test. Would this guy been able to get a gun under your licensing and classroom activity???? He had like a speed ticket is all in his 64 years of life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.