Trump on Suppressors: “I don’t like them at all.”

[Leadeye]

Snorko is correct.

Supressors haven't been something that you could just buy at the LGS since 1934. How much more restricted could they be before reaching the point of absurdity? How many crimes are committed with supressors? How many crimes are successful because a supressor was used?

 

[HoughMade]

In this case, how did the presence of a suppressor make a difference in the outcome?

My guess- not at all.

 

[snorko]

From Glocktalk, ATF news conference confirms two pistols, no rifle, NO SUPPRESSOR,​ two more pistols found in killer's home.

 

[BugI02]

I still want to see a photo of the suppressor. Also, was it legally owned? The fact that he bought two guns ion the last few weeks makes me wonder.

Indeed. And I assume by 'legally owned' you're wondering (as I am) if it was home made. The two firearms used were originally described as one long gun and one handgun. I have not seen any photos, but a very long suppressor coupled with a very high cap mag could be mistaken for something like an MP5 by an unsophisticated reporter/observer

Has anyone heard what manufacturer? Odds are Glock I should think

 

[BugI02]

Snorko is correct.

Supressors haven't been something that you could just buy at the LGS since 1934. How much more restricted could they be before reaching the point of absurdity? How many crimes are committed with supressors? How many crimes are successful because a supressor was used?

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning has not worked out for arguing against attempts to knee-jerk restrict ARs, even though very few crimes are committed with those also. Couple that with the persistent and long record of hollywood associating them with assassins and various other nefarious types. I think the public at large will see them as just another manifestation of what they see as crazy gun culture and won't give two seconds consideration for any rationale


Edit: I'm not aware of any other crimes committed with a suppressor; have not researched it

 

[KG1]

Trump saying what he thinks people want to hear based upon the news of the day?

Have we lost sight of what a "populist" is?



Which leftist nut job from the Democrat Party will they support?

The answer is none. See my addendum in post #11.

Unfortunately there is no choice unless Trump gets primaried and even then strong 2A support from that candidate would be an uncertainty. That ain’t gonna happen.

The dice were rolled back in 2106. It’s leaning more and more toward craps as far as a solid 2A roll.

Hindsight would be an effort in futility at this point because of the available options.

Just need a very vocal opposition to any attempts at further infringement.

You may have gotten a pass on torpedoing bumpstocks but you need to back off otherwise you’ll risk getting support for any of your agenda.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Indeed. And I assume by 'legally owned' you're wondering (as I am) if it was home made. The two firearms used were originally described as one long gun and one handgun. I have not seen any photos, but a very long suppressor coupled with a very high cap mag could be mistaken for something like an MP5 by an unsophisticated reporter/observer

Has anyone heard what manufacturer? Odds are Glock I should think

The news this morning (NBC) reported that law enforcement was saying 2 45 cal handguns, one with suppressor. Didn't hear the ATF news conference mentioned. The one law enforcement officer I saw interviewed didn't mention the suppressor though. He just said that the shooter had multiple magazines and "plenty of ammo".

They're still harping on UBC's and then turn around and say that the shooter acquired his guns legally, so UBC wouldn't have done anything.

 

[d.kaufman]

From Glocktalk, ATF news conference confirms two pistols, no rifle, NO SUPPRESSOR,​ two more pistols found in killer's home.

Any link to the news conference.
Ive been thinking all along he used a Glock with a compensator on it, not a suppressor

 

[BugI02]

I have to say I agree with jeep hammer, though ()

Given what I know about him so far, gotta wonder what flipped that switch

 

[rvb]

Edit: I'm not aware of any other crimes committed with a suppressor; have not researched it

There have been a few. first one that comes to mind was the guy in CA that LE hunted for a few weeks, ended up burning him out of a cabin after shooting up the wrong make/color pickup thinking it was him. That led to the change in trusts as a "loophole" to get around fingerprints, etc.....

-rvb

ETA: Christopher Dorner was his name...

ETA2: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...dorner-face-opposition-silencer-deregulation/

From the article

Officer Dorner is the only example they can find of a bad guy using a silencer to shoot and kill innocent folk

also from the article:

they have been used only rarely in violent crimes, with one notable recent exception

which is it.... Dorner is the only example, or used "rarely" .... (and how does a "notable recent" example become an "exception" to "rarely"? that's some great writing).

-rvb

 

[KLB]

In this case, how did the presence of a suppressor make a difference in the outcome?

My guess- not at all.

Like bumpstocks in Vegas?

 

[BugI02]

The answer is none. See my addendum in post #11.

Unfortunately there is no choice unless Trump gets primaried and even then strong 2A support from that candidate would be an uncertainty. That ain’t gonna happen.

The dice were rolled back in 2106. It’s leaning more and more toward craps as far as a solid 2A roll.

Hindsight would be an effort in futility at this point because of the available options.

Just need a very vocal opposition to any attempts at further infringement.

You may have gotten a pass on torpedoing bumpstocks but you need to back off otherwise you’ll risk getting support for any of your agenda.

Besides, who would you go with? Mcmullen? Romney ?

If any of the potential primary opponents swore on their mother's grave to continue Trump's agenda - just with more finesse; would you believe them? Do you think either of those two could stand up to 1/10 of the heat that Trump takes every day and do anything but wilt?

I still can't make the case to hope he is primaried, especially not given the alternatives and what we get if it costs us the election

 

[T.Lex]

Similar to how it did not matter whether the Las Vegas shooter actually used the bumpstocks or not, it likely doesn't matter whether the Virginia Beach shooter used the suppressor or not.

It is now the narrative.

The narrative is what is important.

ETA:
More specifically, it is part of Trump's narrative on firearms overall.

 

[BugI02]

There have been a few. first one that comes to mind was the guy in CA that LE hunted for a few weeks, ended up burning him out of a cabin after shooting up the wrong make/color pickup thinking it was him. That led to the change in trusts as a "loophole" to get around fingerprints, etc.....

-rvb

ETA: Christopher Dorner was his name...

Thank you

As you are better informed than I am can i ask you a question as an aside (though tangentially related)

I have seen ink stating that the Virginia Beach shootings bring the number of deaths by 'mass shootings' this year to 199. This seems patently ridiculous, so do you know what definition of a 'mass shooting' is being used?

 

[rvb]

Thank you

As you are better informed than I am can i ask you a question as an aside (though tangentially related)

I have seen ink stating that the Virginia Beach shootings bring the number of deaths by 'mass shootings' this year to 199. This seems patently ridiculous, so do you know what definition of a 'mass shooting' is being used?

Depends on who is using the term...
Feds I think say something like 3 or 4 or more killed. Research groups use whatever definition they want (sometimes just changing on a whim). There is no standard, and those statistics are nearly meaningless. It's like the term "school shooting" where various research groups include incidents on or near the school property, sometimes where not a single person involved goes to the school, is counted, or they include BB guns, etc...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...america/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92d58fb88673

-rvb

 

[cerebus85]

He s obviouslyl not educated on suppressors. Here's the thing though. he took that question and basically blew it off. In the grand scheme of things it's probably not even on his radar. there are much heavier things on his plate. My favorite was this repsonse:

Q Would you being willing to meet with Sadiq Khan in London -- the mayor?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I don't think much of him. I think that he's a -- he's the twin of de Blasio, except shorter.
Okay. Thank you everybody.

 

[BugI02]

Thank you

It's pretty much what I expected. 199 killed (or injured) with a requirement that each event include at least three - at least 66 qualifying events. About 22 weeks into the year, so around 3 per week

I'm (literally) not seeing it, so it makes sense every time a Crip or a Blood or a Latin King sprays a group with ammo it would count the same as San Bernadino or Las Vegas. It's a shame that the only time they care about gang crime is when the numbers are useful

 

[Trigger Time]

There have been a few. first one that comes to mind was the guy in CA that LE hunted for a few weeks, ended up burning him out of a cabin after shooting up the wrong make/color pickup thinking it was him. That led to the change in trusts as a "loophole" to get around fingerprints, etc.....

-rvb

ETA: Christopher Dorner was his name...

ETA2: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2...dorner-face-opposition-silencer-deregulation/

From the article

also from the article:

which is it.... Dorner is the only example, or used "rarely" .... (and how does a "notable recent" example become an "exception" to "rarely"? that's some great writing).

-rvb

And that guy was a cop or a former cop too right?
So clearly the answer is banning all cops and former cops from having firearms and suppressors.


That sounds as smart as the anti-gunners arguements.
Hell Trump probably didnt even know suppressors were legal when asked that question. Hopefully his son Don Jr corrects him on this issue

 

[rvb]

Silencers are becoming more and more common. Last time I was on our club rifle range 3 out of 4 of the people there were using silencers (my Dad the only exception). Bottom line is that means we will see them used in more and more crimes.... sometimes by the legit owner, sometimes by people who stole them, homemade, etc. We need to not get caught in the trap of saying how rarely they are used, unless it is under the context of [because they aren't Hollywood quiet / they can make your gun jam / they are hard to conceal / etc]. Simply saying they are rarely used implies to anti-gunners that NFA is working and should be expanded (remember, Feinstein's has proposed legislation a couple of times to put 'assault rifles' under NFA),

Just like with guns we have to focus on the criminal, and the legal ability of the victim to defend themselves, not focus on the tool. If the shooter is the legit owner of the silencer, then just like with guns and background checks we need to highlight the futility of the law. Now is the time to shape the discussion to prevent silencers from becoming the next bump stock.

My fear is the NRA response to Trump's statement. Trump may be just throwing out some populist rhetoric or making a naïve, uninformed statement, but if the NRA jumps on board like they did w/ bumpstocks, we are screwed. I am way more upset w/ NRA than Trump over the bumpstocks.... and I don't trust NRA to back anything related to positive NFA changes.

-rvb

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Just a quick update on this gem

Tread harder, daddy!

But yeah, hoping Junior can explain to him why going against suppressors would be unwise.