Member since Mar 1, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Rep. Jeff Duncan's "Hearing Protection Act" is tone-deaf

Edgar, your statement of 'No crime has ever been committed with one' is incorrect. About 40 crimes with a suppressor are committed per year, however, most are home built.

0 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Jshicke on October 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM

Re: “Rep. Jeff Duncan's "Hearing Protection Act" is tone-deaf

From the ShotSpotter website:
"We have successfully, if not inadvertently, detected confirmed suppressed gunfire within our existing deployments."

However, they have not 'officially' tested the system with suppressed firearms. I am glad you mentioned it though as it was something I had not thought about until now, and had to go look.

Posted by Jshicke on October 13, 2017 at 1:09 PM

Re: “Boeing employee arrested after allegedly using company equipment to transfer child porn

Got nothing but contempt for people who do this.

9 of 10 people like this.
Posted by Jshicke on October 13, 2017 at 1:04 PM

Re: “Rep. Jeff Duncan's "Hearing Protection Act" is tone-deaf

Ron, you have a point, however, most rock concerts are already at ear damaging noise levels. I would bet you could fire a gun and still not hear it, suppressor or not. Most of the people in the Las Vegas concert were not aware they were being fired on until bodies started falling and people started running. These guns shots were from 400 yards distant, and so the noise level, while still audible, was severely reduced, and was mistaken for firecrackers.

3 of 6 people like this.
Posted by Jshicke on October 12, 2017 at 7:15 AM

Re: “Rep. Jeff Duncan's "Hearing Protection Act" is tone-deaf

To the author: Thanks for getting the descriptions and vernacular correct. While I can disagree with some of your points, you at least sound like you researched before writing. However, I hope this is an opinion piece because you leave the realm of good journalism and head off onto a gun control rant with no basis of fact or sources.

Suppressors were banned in the 1930's in an attempt to thwart poaching during the depression, not due to widespread use by criminals. In fact, suppressors are rarely ever used in a crime. The one's that do, are usually homemade things. The act of committing a crime with a firearm equipped with a suppressor is a healthy term in prison. The mandatory sentence is 30 years; if the silencer was unlicensed, another 10 years can be added. Facing a potential 40 years IN ADDITION to the penalty for the actual crime committed, most criminals do not use them.

Shooting, even with suppressors, can damage your hearing. Shooting without them, even with hearing protection can damage your hearing. The claim that a suppressors will help save our hearing is not a jest, they can. Does that justify deregulating them? I will let the politicians decide that.

The proposed change is to eliminate the tax requirement and reduce the red tape required to purchase a suppressor. It does not make them legal (as you point out) because they are already legal. It does not expose the public to a more dangerous weapon. It makes them easier to obtain. The penalty for illegal use remains.

6 of 9 people like this.
Posted by Jshicke on October 11, 2017 at 3:26 PM

All Comments »

Classified Listings

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2017, Charleston City Paper   RSS