Year: 2013

A reader writes:

Do you want to know why silencers are used in few crimes?  Because they’re controlled very strictly and because they’re bulky and attract suspicion.  Most gun crime is committed by relatively poor people using disposable guns that have been stolen or straw-purchased, then kept concealed someone’s pants.  Silencers are hard to come by and specialized, and counterproductive when it comes to concealment.  If they were easy to get, however, I suspect you’d see an uptick in their use in assassination-type crimes and home invasions.

Another:

Just wanted to take a sec because this whole debate annoys the hell out of me. This is a case where a very small number of radical gun owners are making a bad name for the rest of gun owners by blatantly misrepresenting facts.

Silencers CAN make guns nearly silent. There’s a reason why every video sent around by pro-silencer groups features either weapons that shoot high velocity rounds or large caliber rounds. A 30-06, which is a very common deer rifle round, is much much larger and more powerful round than a .22, as you can see in this image. The problem is a .22 round can still easily kill a person. And a .22 pistol is not at all uncommon in violent crimes. [Above] is a video of a suppressed .22 caliber rifle. The only sound the rifle makes is from discharging and chambering a round. You could be 10 feet away and not notice the sound.

There’s no reason for people to own suppressors.

I’ve shot pests from the back yard before. My neighbors do it too. People act as though it’s a bad thing that neighbors know that they’re shooting behind their house. That’s insane! It’s a GOOD thing guns are loud. It’s a GOOD that the neighbors hear the shots. It’s terrifying to me that a neighbor could be firing weapons right next to me and I don’t know it. What if I walk over to say hi? I could walk into the line of fire without having any clue.

On the flip side, a few more readers defend suppressors:

I thought I would pass along this study (pdf), which compares the noise-reducing values of ear protection v. suppressors. As you can see, even if you wear ear protection on non-suppressed firearms, there is still a chance of hearing impairment. That danger is removed with the use of a suppressor.

Some argue that hunters do not need suppressors because they can wear ear protection. Are you kidding me? Hunters use all their senses in the field, especially hearing. How can we detect which direction the deer is coming from or how can we hear the approaching geese while wearing ear protection? How can I be aware of other concealed hunters who whistle to reveal their position for safety reasons if I’m wearing hearing protection? Those who base their opinions of suppressors or hunting off of movies or their imagination need to put a silencer on their muzzles (yes, terrible pun intended). Goldblog being one of them.

The other:

As an owner of several, I can tell you there is an important function to suppressors that’s been overlooked in the discussion so far: safety. I’m a responsible gun owner and take pride in introducing friends and family to how much fun recreational shooting can be. Many people who have gone shooting with me have taken their first shots on a suppressed weapon because it eliminates the overwhelming sound (and associated adrenaline rush) that comes with firing a gun. Shooting suppressed allows me to stress the fundamentals, make sure they hear any safety warnings without being muffled by hearing protection and don’t have to compete with the shaking hands and tunnel vision that happens when I let people start shooting unsuppressed.  On a roller coaster or some other controlled environment, adrenaline can be fun.  With a firearm in unfamiliar hands, not so much.

In fact, when my two young daughters are old enough, their first shots will be suppressed.  I’d much rather they know how to safely operate a gun than simply be afraid of the loud noise.  I’ll have them continue to shoot suppressed to protect their hearing and allow them to develop the muscle memory required to be an accurate, safe shooter.

I disagree with NRA on many issues.  But on this one, more access to suppressors is a no brainer.

Vanessa Grigoriadis explores the wild frontier of synthetic drugs and the “underground scene of hobbyists and tinkerers, hippie-meets-hipster drug geeks, who like to call themselves psychonauts” experimenting with them:

They’re most interested in the ability to custom-match a substance with a desire—even if, in some cases, the new drugs are substandard to known ones (making your heart race; shoving you through a fractal landscape with elves coming out of the gloaming; making you feel weird, and not good weird, but bad weird). “You can pinpoint what you want now: ‘I’d like something of four hours’ duration with mescaline effects, or twelve hours’ duration with alternating mushroom and LSD rushes,’ ” says a 37-year-old software engineer … .

The government is trying to crack down of course:

Morris calls the current situation an “infinite game of cat and mouse,” where the government schedules a drug, then chemists race to find a new legal compound.

“Three weeks ago, we had our first detection of new derivatives, PB-22 and 5F-PB-22,” says Kevin Shanks, a forensic toxicologist in the Midwest. “Quinoline derivatives are uncontrolled by the federal government, and I see them becoming prevalent very quickly.” Adds Lapoint, the toxicologist: “Until we can break the model of releasing a new chemical that retains the same affinity for the receptor of an illegal drug but is structurally dissimilar enough that you can avoid getting popped, this is the new normal. Brick-and-mortar quasi-legal head shops are hard enough to stop, but the Internet vendors are fully whack-a-mole … The new drug dealer is the mailman.”

Will the cat finally catch the mouse? Some psychonauts fear that the government, in desperation, might take a pharmacode dynamic password approach, looking at the receptor activated by the drug and scheduling backward from there, claiming that any organic molecule that binds to the CB1 receptor and makes you stoned is a schedule 1 drug. But then they’d have to schedule other drugs with CB1 affinity, including Tylenol.

Everything is chemistry, as Walter White has taught us. The rest is our often arbitrary moral judgments about varieties of human pleasure and experience.