You didn't answer my question for a non-military function for them. I'm not going to answer your hypothetical.
Actually, you're the one with the hypothetical. For obvious reasons, you can't tell me how many mass shootings occurred at night. Neither can you give me an instance in which a mass shooter or murderer was more effective because of a flash suppressor. Neither can you reference a shooting, after which law enforcement made a complaint to the effect that there would have been less deaths if only the killer hadn't had a flash suppressor. So besides yourself and a few other "believers," no one can justify banning the flash suppressor.
I'm mostly on the fence. But since you can't name a valid non-military application for a flash suppressor, it just seems like you want a toy and are mistaking it for a civil liberty.
You are unable to offer me a justification for denying me the right to possess a flash suppressor. So in desperation you demand that I explain my choice to have one. Until you prove that they are a danger, I don't care to humor you and your hypothetical danger.
I'm bailing outta this thread fellas. Just a complete waste of my life lol. I'll continue to be mentally fucked with all my guns. Adios.
Where do you go from, I'm on the fence about the civilian nessecity of flash suppressors to I'm trying to take away your right to own one? You're such a drama queen Henderson.
Well yeah, you shouldn't shoot a gun right next to someones face. Middle brakes can fail, and create much more danger shooting right next to someone because they get hot as fuck.
who gives a shit about muzzle brakes, suppressors, bullet sizes , magazine capacity as long as it shoots when you need it , all the better. just cause you own a gun doesn't make you mentally ill.
It's just that when I asked you how a flash suppressor helps a murderer, you said, "Shooting at a crowd at night." So to show you how silly that was, I asked you how many mass shootings occurred at night, or to give me an instance in which a mass shooter or murderer was more effective because of a flash suppressor? The fact that you couldn't come up with anything kind of makes your "shooting at crowds at night" answer pretty drama queenish. But anyway, the important thing is that you've discovered that you're actually okay with flash suppressors. Cool.
No blind spots in the leopard's eyes can only help to jeopardize the lives of lambs, the shepherd cries.
Flash suppressors have no civilian value, no value to mass shooters, no value to a sniper, no military value, they will never be used in civilian shooting, a mass shooting will never occur at night or in low light situations, in fact they have no value at all, they do nothing to improve a weapon in anyway, they're completely worthless. Another waste of military spending. But I want one cause the name "flash suppressor" sounds cool. And BTW on October 1, 2017 at 10:15 pm, in the dark, 58 people were killed, 422 wounded, and a total of 851 people were injured in 10 minutes by a lone gunman. The shooter used multiple guns including 4 DDM4 rifles with flash suppressors. The above quote is from the manufacturer. 2 FN15 rifles with flash suppressors. An AK 47 and AR 15 . I don't know if his AK 47 and AR 15 had flash suppressors or not. (Also a hand gun)
None of your business why I want one. If it's just to be cool, you're going to have to accept that. You are of the mindset that if you can't come up with a reason why I should want one, then I don't get one. But fortunately, you are not the boss of anyone.
I think MeAgain was making the point that flash suppressors can be, and have been, useful to a mass shooter at night by making it more difficult to tell where the weapon is being fired from--and have been advertised as such. Which would be a threat of harm to society. Your comeback seems to be a Me Generation argument: "I want one, cuz it's cool", and that's good enough justification for having one, regardless of the danger to the rest of us in risking it getting into the hands of a mass shooter. I think MeAgain has the better of the argument.
Oh I think the sound would have given him away. In fact, six minutes before he started his shooting spree, he shot a security guard in the leg in the hall outside his room. That security guard immediately notified hotel security, and you know the rest of the story. You're using one instance in which a mass shooter happened to be using a flash suppressor. And you want to tell people that they can't have one because of one guy who happened to have one on some of his weapons. Your argument that the flash suppressor resulted in more deaths in that case is unfounded.
Sorry, I thought you asked for an example. So I only researched one, there may be others, I didn't check. Regardless, how many instances are okay in your view? One apparently isn't enough. Two? Six? Forty? How many would it take for you to change your mind, if that's possible? How many dead? 58 dead in ten minutes isn't enough. 422 wounded in ten minutes isn't enough. 48 people shot per minute, almost one a second. 851 injured in ten minutes isn't enough. How many have to die before you even that consider your views may be wrong?
I've been asking throughout this conversation "Can you give me an instance in which a mass shooter or murderer was more effective because of a flash suppressor?" You haven't offered anything. The real issue here is that some guy was somehow able to move over twenty guns into his hotel room unnoticed. And he used bump-stocks and 100-round magazines (which I am not against banning). And because of that, you want to make me into some kind of monster who doesn't care about human life because I'm okay with flash suppressors. Ridiculous. By the way, go ahead an find another instance of mass shooting or just plain murder in which you believe a flash suppressor made any difference--not that the Mandalay Bay shooting is one.
It is But you are also ignoring the corruption of the group and my right to lobby against it. OK then explain how. You and a few others on topics like this don't say anything but a simple "no" often. I guess you see the topic as not worth discussion but I am going to take this as me winning the debate unless you have something to add. You know that by your own morals I have shown an example of a gun owner killing someone and it upsets you. I have proven that people kill people with guns. I have proven the NRA slogan. It's up to you: admit defeat or think you are so smart I am not worth it. You don't need a Ar-15 or armor piercing rounds to hunt. A lot of gun laws people like me would would allow hunting. You need a Ar-15 for killing solders. Hunting is also for most Americans not needed anymore. It's a lifestyle choice not necessarily something we need in laws. We don't fight over hunting guns. We fight for the guns that one needs in a war. That's why we need the "hunting" lie. You either say I have a gun since I can or since I hunt.
In general a mass shooter is not seeking stealth when he shoots. He wants chaos and for people to know he is there. For that reason suppressors are nor something they want. The real issue is the clip size and bullet caliber which we can show increase the death count. Masking the sound or flash of a round is something useful in the military just as certain ammo types. In that way they are similar.