search
top

Big Uphill Battle

Michael Bane talks about a new ad campaign from Advanced Armament Corp.  As much as this will probably make some gun control advocates wet themselves, I think it’s something we ought to start pushing.  This is one of those areas where the anti-gun community is will have to rely on lies and deception, since the truth is that any round that moves faster than sound, which is most of them, will still make noise.  That’s why it’s a suppressor.  Silencers are what you see in movies.  I think we probably ought to ditch the term. How about slogans that show the reality of it:

“Muffle your car or get a fine.  Muffle your pistol and get a felony.”

“The most effective hearing protection is stopping the noise to begin with.”

You can see why I’m not in marketing.  Anyone else think up anything?

24 Responses to “Big Uphill Battle”

  1. Matt says:

    Suppressors make for good neighbors.

    Sound suppressors save hearing.

    Stop the sound, save your range.

    I’m not in marketing either.

  2. Mad Saint Jack says:

    “Can you hear me now?” Good.

    STOP HEARING DAMAGE.

    Or….

    “Can you hear me now?”
    “WHAT?”
    “Can you hear me now?”
    “WHAT?”

    AAC
    “Can you hear me now?”
    “Good”

  3. Jeff says:

    Sadly, suppressors are illegal in MA. If I move to a free state, the form 4 is going out the next day. In my opinion, suppressors are by far the most useful NFA regulated item.

  4. Robb Allen says:

    Open carry. With suppressors.

    I keeed. I keeed.

  5. steve says:

    Robb,

    Open carry WITH suppressors……….for real. Remember, our current goal is to establish a new reality on what is normal.

    Expand the envelope.

    sv, III

  6. Alan says:

    I shouldn’t have to pay a $200 tax for a muffler, and risk a felony charge for having spare parts for one.

    It’s nonsense.

  7. Mad Saint Jack says:

    Robb Allen
    “Open carry. With suppressors.”

    Guns should be seen but not heard.

    I think Oleg has something like that.

  8. MicroBalrog says:

    My name is MicroBalrog and I approve this message.

  9. Pete says:

    Here in Michigan silencers are legal via the Michigan Compiled Laws (our official laws) so long as “A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary’s delegate”. But they are de-facto illegal because the ATF will not approve a Form 4 because the Michigan attorney general has not issued a “opinion” saying that approval from the ATF counts as a license. Machine guns are covered by the exact same statute, one line above the silencer part in the law. Machine guns are legal in Michigan via an AG “opinion” saying that ATF approval fits the licensing requirements. The ATF is intentionally playing dumb to not allow silencers.

    The ultimate bureaucratic catch-22 is being played upon us.

    Oleg Volk has done a ton of those posters he makes on the topic of silencers.

    For example:
    http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/why1474.jpg.html

    http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/aac/rem600_UY9O8971.jpg.html

    http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/capabilities_1056.jpg.html

  10. D.W. Drang says:

    Alas, “Silencing IS a crime in WA.”

  11. Bob says:

    I found this link Silencers were originally marketed as the “Gentlemans way of target shooting.”
    http://guns.connect.fi/gow/silencer.html

  12. kaveman says:

    The antis don’t like gun ranges because they are loud.

    The antis don’t like suppressors because they are quiet.

  13. Jessup says:

    I think other posters have been subtle in alluding to it, but if you fear open carry in certain situations risks hurting our cause by inspiring negative publicity and negative public opinion, isn’t it equally risky to begin advocating the use of “silencers,” which we all know from the movies are only used by the baddest of the bad guys?

    Just to be clear, I totally support Sebastian’s proposal for a pro-suppressor campaign, but I felt a need to point out the apparent subjectivity of judging the extent our initiatives’ impact on public opinion as it helps or hurts The Cause.

  14. Market them to hunters. Seriously.

    People associate suppressors with what they see on TV, which is usually some sort of hitman, or some agent or bad guy with a suppressed SMG. The image of the American hunter, particularly that of an older hunter (grandpa with his trusty ol’ deer rifle) holds a strong sentimental value with the American public, which is why even a lot of antis will pay lip service to hunters.

  15. Jessup says:

    A fair amount of the reloading experimentation I did in my late teens involved development of subsonic, low-report loads for short range hunting, in what-nobody-knows-won’t-worry-them situations. I still like CB caps and other subsonic ammo in long-barrel .22s for some scenarios. So, I’m all for suppressors; it’s sort of in my blood.

  16. ExurbanKevin says:

    “Silence is golden”

    “Guns should be seen and not heard.”

    “Think of it as a mute button for your gun.”

  17. Ian Argent says:

    Actually – I like the “muffle your car or face a fine – muffle your gun and face a felony”.

  18. Gareth A says:

    I’m surprised there’s no mention of the UK. Over here, we have restrictions that make most states in the US look reasonable by comparison.

    However, over here suppressors for the few rifles we can get are considered good manners, not suspicious.

  19. Gareth A says:

    Whoopsy should have been “most of the harsher states in the US”.

    Arsebiscuits.

  20. Matt Carmel says:

    Formerly, I was an industrial hygiene and safety consultant and am very familiar with the OSHA Occupational Noise Exposure Standard 29 CFR 1910.95. There is a mandated heirarchy of workplace controls that employers must use to protect their employees. These are, in order of preference, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment. One approach would be to issue silencers to shooters at a range as an engineering noise control to protect range employees. This would be a very delicious twist.

  21. Sebastian says:

    I’m glad you’re on our side Matt. You’re always thinking about how to skewer the left with the system they created :)

  22. Matt Carmel says:

    Thanks Sebastian. I was an expert witness on over 50 cases during my IH career and would gladly voluteer my expertise to any law firm that would force OSHA to follow their own rules. This includes conducting techinical employee personal noise dosimetry exposure assessments and area sound pressure level measurements to document the noise reductions that no doubt would accrue by use of silencers. How about a press release entitled “Brady Campaign would rather you go deaf” or maybe “Gun control policy creates workplace health hazards.”

    As an aside, the issue of workplace carry could be argued along the same lines. Employers are are required under the OSH Act 5(a)(1) “General Duty Clause” to provide a workplace free from recognized hazards. Since the benefits of workplace carry, by providing a safer workplace by allowing employees to defend themselves and others, far outweighs the risks of accidental discharge or illegal misuse, one can argue failure of employers to require carry, is a violation of their duty under OSHA standards. Frankly, I don’t know why our side has no taken this approach

  23. Sebastian says:

    The thing I’d be wary about is OSHA using that excuse to close down ranges. I mean, there are ways to mitigate smoke too, but that didn’t stop states from outlawing smoking entirely.

  24. Matt Carmel says:

    OSHA only has authority to shut down a business temporarily if the compliance officer judges workplace conditions to be “imminently dangerous.” And conditons at a lead smelter, foundry or lead acid battery plant, as a small example, are far worse and these never get shut down.

    I am unaware of any benefits to smoking that could be argued as providing a protection to employees, unlike the workplace carry example I cited above.

top