search
top

Own Worst Enemies

SayUncle notes the folks in the comments on NRA’s Facebook aren’t so hot on suppressors. My experience the comment section of NRA’s Facebook page is that it’s a great thing to read if you want your faith in humanity destroyed.

Generally speaking we’re limited in what we can accomplish by what our own people will demand. Many people online spend the vast majority of their time only talking to other people who agree with them, and don’t grasp that the main reason we’re not seeing a repeal of Hughes is that a vast majority of gun owners don’t support civilian machinegun ownership. Many feel the same way about suppressors. I’m not speaking of here of people who happen to own guns, I’m speaking here of people who culturally identify as gun owners (a big difference). We have a long way to go on these issues, but it’s familiarity that breeds comfort.

I’d be a hypocrite if I said everyone should buy a suppressor, and use it at their range, since I don’t yet own one myself. But I’m thinking of soon taking the plunge.

13 Responses to “Own Worst Enemies”

  1. DevsAdvocate says:

    Man, if I jumped the Delaware, the first thing I’d do after getting my license is apply for a tax stamp to buy a can. And get my CCW.

    Some people just don’t know how to appreciate freedom… (this being directed at the FB thread, not you Sebastian)

  2. Robb Allen says:

    I don’t own a suppressor because they cost too much. Not just the can itself (which is ridiculously overpriced to begin with), but the cost of the tax stamp and the time & effort it takes to beg permission to be allowed to own one.

    That’s the end goal of these kinds of laws. Don’t make it ‘illegal’, but make it so #$&* hard to obtain that people just give up.

    As you can see by the comments, it’s working quite splendidly.

  3. Dannytheman says:

    I am one of the people who do not have a Facebook page.
    If I want NRA info, I go to their website. What am I missing other than watching my fellow gun enthusiasts argue with one another? I am sure the gun grabbers are busy taking notes over there.

    Are you MikeB302000?

  4. Greg says:

    Picking up a can is the next thing I’ll buy that will piss off my wife. They are stupid expensive as Rob pointed out. The one I’ll probably end up buying for my 9mm Sig is $450 plus $200 for the tax stamp plus a big pain in the ass for the paperwork. Everybody should have them for at least their primary range gun. It is the most neighborly thing a regular shooter can do.

  5. Diomed says:

    I’m not sure where the “ridiculously overpriced” idea comes from, myself. We build silencers to last in this country (would you buy a $50 can? I wouldn’t – to be that cheap it would have to be Euro-grade junk, er, “disposable”) because that’s what the market demands. That kind of quality is not cheap – and when you factor in licensing/taxes, insurance, R&D, equipment costs (don’t get me started) and all the other bullshit that comes along with making a niche product with total aggregate annual private-sector sales in the low tens of thousands of widgets, if that, there’s just not much margin there. Even with the market expanding like crazy over the last five years, it’s still a hard business.

    Overpriced compared to overseas, sure. But that’s comparing apples to arugula.

  6. Robb Allen says:

    Diomed, I don’t care *why* it’s priced the way it is, it’s overpriced.

    If they were treated as just any other firearm accessory like they should be, you would see the total cost of a good can fall below $100. For those who want nothing but the best, you could spend as much as your heart desired. But for now, the sheer amount of BS you have to put up with plus the $200 begging fee puts suppressors way out of reach of most people I know. Cheaper to buy earplugs.

  7. DevsAdvocate says:

    I don’t think they’re overpriced at all. They are a low demand product with high expectations of quality.

    Seeing as one stamp is good to cover one suppressor forever, it makes sense to “buy once cry once”. Especially if you get one for an AR… which you can also use on your .22lr

  8. Ryan Anderson says:

    I’m with Rob on this one. It doesn’t really matter to me why it’s so expensive, it’s just more than I’m willing to pay, mainly on the tax stamp side. Yes, people that currently buy them want them to last forever because they have to pay an additional $200 for the stamp plus the paperwork PITA. If the process wasn’t so painful and the stamp was say a $5 AOW then people wouldn’t care as much if they paid $100 for a .22 can that would eventually wear out. Consider it a disposable item and just replace it every once in a while.

  9. Ryan (and Robb),

    Your complaints are noted – do as you like. If a suppressor and the associated costs are more than you are willing to pay, that’s cool. Wait until you either have a cash windfall or the law is changed.

    Speaking of the law changing, why could we not lobby our elected officials to add an amendment to HR 1093 to take suppressors off of the NFA list or at least reduce the tax, hmmm? Maybe with NRA support?

  10. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption.

    Just sayin’, yeah, I know I’ve been saying this for twenty years but I’m gonna keep saying it. So there.

  11. Gareth A says:

    Heh. Just spent a few minutes writing up asking what federal preemption meant, then figured it out.

    Kind of ironic. Your antis whine about the pro-gun side being against “common sense” laws. I bet if you were to suggest this law, being truly sensible, they’d start whining themselves.

  12. Weer'd Beard says:

    Supressors aren’t overpriced, but they are overbuilt because people don’t want their can to crap out after a few years because of all the work that went into acquiring it. Can you imagine if you needed a stamp on holsters or gun belts? My $100 Galco shoulder rig wouldn’t exist because I wouldn’t consider junking it when it starts to wear out.

    That being said I totally love suppressed firearms, but I also don’t know if I’d ever set aside all the money to stick a can on one (let alone several ) of my guns.

    And that’s the whole point of the NFA, not to ban or restrict these items, but to price people out of the game.

  13. Sigivald says:

    I’d be a hypocrite if I said everyone should buy a suppressor, and use it at their range, since I don’t yet own one myself. But I’m thinking of soon taking the plunge.

    Not at all – because you think you yourself also should own one.

    When you apply the same standard to yourself as to others, you’re not a hypocrite.

    (I don’t know that it’s a standard I myself share at the level of a universal mandate – not that I think you were really suggesting that.

    Suppressors are nice, and good, and once they’re more easily acquired and affordable (my county Sheriff hates things with tax stamps…) I’ll get some myself.

    Hell, I’d buy one tomorrow just on principle if the NFA restriction was removed.

    But on the other hand, at a public range everyone should have ear protection all the time, because even in an ideal world, not every gun will be suppressed.

    People still shoot revolvers, and lots of other guns don’t have and/or can’t reasonably take a threaded barrel, after all.

    And price is an issue; if we add in a replacement barrel, the suppressor itself, and a tax stamp, we can easily be talking more expense than the handgun and a few hundred rounds of ammunition!

    People who aren’t competitive shooters or highly-motivated amateurs are just not going to see that as a good value.)

top