imkopaka wrote:Do you think laws affect criminals? Whether they can buy it or they have to steal it, those with criminal intent will get it. Having money just means less legwork and risk.TreyHouston wrote:He was a mulit millionaire. If he wanted it, he would have had it.srothstein wrote:When I had this discussion with a co-worker, he insisted it would have made a difference. I pointed out that no one realized it was gunshots at first, thinking it was pyrotechnics from the show instead. Another friend and I tried to explain how a suppressor worked and what difference it made. We got nowhere and the co-worker still opposes removing any restrictions on suppressors because it might have made a difference in Vegas if the shooter had used one.bblhd672 wrote:
Care to guess who my coworker voted for in the last presidential election?
No guns? He was a pilot and a multimillionaire, he would have flown a plane into the concert.
No guns or plane? He was a multimillionaire, he had explosives in the car, he would have made a bomb.
DO YOU THINK LAWS AFFECT THE RICH???
it's not hard with a little knowhow to make a suppressor or an autosear. Or explosives. Or train in knife combat. Or learn how to crash a car. OK, the last one probably doesn't need to be learned.
But here's how I see suppressors. No, they don't silent a firearm unless it's a subsonic .22LR, but you don't even need a threaded suppressor for that. What they do is make it quieter for hearing protection and change the report. For the latter, I argue it's for the BETTER. When I hear people in town shooting in their backyards, I really have to try hard to figure out if I'm hearing guns or fireworks or someone dropping a large object on concrete. But when I hear a suppressed weapon, I know exactly what it is. Nothing else sounds quite like it.
*sigh* Oh well. So much for the HPA.