Current Events > Reading about a police officer trying to get suppressors allowed in department.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It's a good idea just for the savings in workers comp, but it's sad to realize that it'll never happen because misinformation will make people scared :/

>Implying you know more than general public, but not stating facts, just offbeat opinions and smarmy emoticon

Hearing damage is no joke.
---

They already suppress news of their misdeeds, why allow them to suppress more?

Naysaspace posted...

>Implying you know more than general public, but not stating facts, just offbeat opinions and smarmy emoticon

Knowing more than the general public about something isn't a big deal, lots of things have misconceptions. In this case, a lot of people think they're meant to silence the shots, but in reality they just quiet then enough to remove the threat of hearing impairment.

Might as well dont want to wake the neighbors and expose them to police brutality
---

Sure that will go well for the public
---

how often does the average cop fire their weapon outside of the range though
---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

how often does the average cop fire their weapon outside of the range though

From what I understand, this would largely be used for special deployments like swat. It isn't practical for pistols usually because you aren't in enclosed spaces, and it increases the time it takes to draw the weapon.

josifrees posted...

Might as well dont want to wake the neighbors and expose them to police brutality

Case in point about misconceptions.

josifrees posted...

Might as well dont want to wake the neighbors and expose them to police brutality

Come on you are better than this man....

Okay you arent but still...
---

iamintents posted...

Sure that will go well for the public

I mean, it'd be better for the public if anything. Hearing loss hurts everyone.

OctilIery posted...

iamintents posted...

Sure that will go well for the public

I mean, it'd be better for the public if anything. Hearing loss hurts everyone.

If they don't fire any bullets, it'll be even better for their hearing than if they fire suppressed bullets

We have suppressors on our in-car rifles. Personally I think its a waste; whenever we go to the range we always have ear protection on anyway. And if it ever came to a real life scenario where you had to use the rifle, adrenaline would be pumping and you wouldnt be affected by the noise. Might do some damage long term, but the majority of cops never fire their weapon anyway.

It also adds unnecessary weight, and once youre holding a rifle for 15 minutes straight...it starts to feel like a ton. So the less the better when it comes to rifles...at least in my opinion.
---

police are too trigger-happy as it is. there should be explicit penalties for using the gun, and they should be severe. something along the lines of "if you fire a shot, you will be executed by the end of the week"
---

Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it.
---

What is the push back on this?
---

Kirby posted...

We have suppressors on our in-car rifles. Personally I think its a waste; whenever we go to the range we always have ear protection on anyway. And if it ever came to a real life scenario where you had to use the rifle, adrenaline would be pumping and you wouldnt be affected by the noise. Might do some damage long term, but the majority of cops never fire their weapon anyway.

It also adds unnecessary weight, and once youre holding a rifle for 15 minutes straight...it starts to feel like a ton. So the less the better when it comes to rifles...at least in my opinion.

This is false.

And if the weight of a rifle feels like a ton after 15 minutes you should probably workout more.

BalisticWarri0r posted...

Kirby posted...

We have suppressors on our in-car rifles. Personally I think its a waste; whenever we go to the range we always have ear protection on anyway. And if it ever came to a real life scenario where you had to use the rifle, adrenaline would be pumping and you wouldnt be affected by the noise. Might do some damage long term, but the majority of cops never fire their weapon anyway.

It also adds unnecessary weight, and once youre holding a rifle for 15 minutes straight...it starts to feel like a ton. So the less the better when it comes to rifles...at least in my opinion.

This is false.

And if the weight of a rifle feels like a ton after 15 minutes you should probably workout more.

Try holding and aiming a rifle at a specific spot ready to fire for 15 minutes straight and let me know how you feel.
---

BalisticWarri0r posted...

Kirby posted...

We have suppressors on our in-car rifles. Personally I think its a waste; whenever we go to the range we always have ear protection on anyway. And if it ever came to a real life scenario where you had to use the rifle, adrenaline would be pumping and you wouldnt be affected by the noise. Might do some damage long term, but the majority of cops never fire their weapon anyway.

It also adds unnecessary weight, and once youre holding a rifle for 15 minutes straight...it starts to feel like a ton. So the less the better when it comes to rifles...at least in my opinion.

This is false.

And if the weight of a rifle feels like a ton after 15 minutes you should probably workout more.

No that last point is a valid comment that others have made.

Nomadic View posted...

Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it.

Because even as rarely as they use rifles, this will save tons in workers comp from hearing damage.

OctilIery posted...

Because even as rarely as they use rifles, this will save tons in workers comp from hearing damage.

Not firing their weapon would save even more from hearing.

No gunshot sound > suppressed gunshot sound

you can definitely still hear the gunshots but it'll protect their ears

which is the point im assuming

the general public watches too many movies and they think this will turn every cop into Agent 47
---

anyways i feel like the guns of the future will have built in suppressors and make less ear damaging noise naturally.

assuming our engineering progresses.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Because even as rarely as they use rifles, this will save tons in workers comp from hearing damage.

Not firing their weapon would save even more from hearing.

No gunshot sound > suppressed gunshot sound

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

gna647 posted...

you can definitely still hear the gunshots but it'll protect their ears

which is the point im assuming

the general public watches too many movies and they think this will turn every cop into Agent 47

Yup. Specifically, it matters for when they go into enclosed spaces, the shots can be really damaging.

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

Nomadic View posted...

Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it.

This. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it's really not necessary. The overwhelming and vast majority of police officers will never fire their gun in the line of duty. From a statistical standpoint, the cost likely wouldn't outweigh the benefit. But if a department wants to spring for outfitting their employees with suppressors with their allotted funds, then more power to them.

Suppressors should already be legal in the US. The idea that people will start committing more crimes because a gun shot is reduced in sound, is quite frankly laughable.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

I will not rely on you if the moment arrives where there isn't.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

No, there is USUALLY another solution. Sometimes, firing a gun is the only thing that will keep the officer alive.

StucklnMyPants posted...

Nomadic View posted...

Law enforcement use firearms so rarely I dont see a viable reason for it.

This. I'm not opposed to it, per se, but it's really not necessary. The overwhelming and vast majority of police officers will never fire their gun in the line of duty. From a statistical standpoint, the cost likely wouldn't outweigh the benefit. But if a department wants to spring for outfitting their employees with suppressors with their allotted funds, then more power to them.

Suppressors should already be legal in the US. The idea that people will start committing more crimes because a gun shot is reduced in sound, is quite frankly laughable.

To clarify, this would be used largely for special deployment groups. It'd be primarily for rifles, since it wouldn't be feasible on their pistols, and those deployment groups use their weapons more frequently, and are frequently in closed quarters, the two things which make hearing damage a big risk.

Someone in the topic actually did do the math, and the savings more than made up for the cost.

That's good so no one can hear them shoot the neighbors dog when it wagged its tail in an aggressive manner.
---

OctilIery posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

No, there is USUALLY another solution. Sometimes, firing a gun is the only thing that will keep the officer alive.

If it gets that far, it means the officer has failed at properly deescalating the situation
---

OctilIery posted...

It's a good idea just for the savings in workers comp, but it's sad to realize that it'll never happen because misinformation will make people scared :/

Way to fight misinformation by posting something with absolutely no information
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

No, there is USUALLY another solution. Sometimes, firing a gun is the only thing that will keep the officer alive.

If it gets that far, it means the officer has failed at properly deescalating the situation

Watch as the officer here fails in descalation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkktppQnqQ
---

Kirby posted...

It also adds unnecessary weight, and once youre holding a rifle for 15 minutes straight...it starts to feel like a ton.

Lol.
---

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Darklit_Minuet posted...

OctilIery posted...

Yes, and sometimes firing the weapon is needed. Your point?

No it isn't. There's always another solution

No, there is USUALLY another solution. Sometimes, firing a gun is the only thing that will keep the officer alive.

If it gets that far, it means the officer has failed at properly deescalating the situation

Not every situation can be deescalated.