PDA

View Full Version : Suppressors, Pregnancy, and the NFA


7x57
05-15-2009, 5:39 PM
A comment in this paper (http://gemini.tntech.edu/%7Ecpardue/pregnant.html) gave me pause for thought:



Silencers/suppressors, although not readily available to the average woman, could be very beneficial to the pregnant officer who shoots a firearm, in that it can reduce the report of each shot by approximately 30 dB. Unlike what we see on television, that's still pretty darn loud though, and you still need to wear good hearing protection. It does not totally reduce the noise of the firearm, and would not stop the sound from reaching the fetus.



This makes me wonder if some son-of-Heller lawsuit against the suppressor portion of the NFA and it's kin would be viable with a pregnant woman as a plaintiff. Probably a woman who has both a professional and a personal reason to need to shoot.

Viable or not, it would certainly be fighting dirty. This is a concrete example of exactly the argument someone suggested for suppressors--"think of the children." :43:

7x57

kap
05-15-2009, 5:46 PM
Sounds great! Silencers save the children. Think of the children!!

bussda
05-15-2009, 5:47 PM
This makes me wonder if some son-of-Heller lawsuit against the suppressor portion of the NFA and it's kin would be viable with a pregnant woman as a plaintiff. Probably a woman who has both a professional and a personal reason to need to shoot.

Based on all the discussion of who can sue, she probably doesn't need to be pregnant. Just planning to get pregnant...

But you also may have to address the lead exposure issue, so it may be a nonstarter.

7x57
05-15-2009, 6:23 PM
Based on all the discussion of who can sue, she probably doesn't need to be pregnant. Just planning to get pregnant...

But you also may have to address the lead exposure issue, so it may be a nonstarter.

"Just planning" expands the list of potential plaintiffs. As for the lead, lead-free primers at outdoor ranges probably take care of that. I doubt it's necessary to have lead-free bullets, given that the bullet goes downrange.

7x57

Librarian
05-15-2009, 6:25 PM
But do need to think about it - see
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/57/1/87
"The Efficiency of Maternal Transfer of Lead and Its Influence on Plasma IgE and Splenic Cellularity of Mice "

I found that surprising...

pepsi2451
05-15-2009, 6:32 PM
But you also may have to address the lead exposure issue, so it may be a nonstarter.

She could use lead free ammo. That stuffs gotta be good for something.

Fate
05-15-2009, 6:35 PM
She could use lead free ammo. That stuffs gotta be good for something.
I hear it's good for shooting condors. :)

bussda
05-15-2009, 6:50 PM
...As for the lead, lead-free primers at outdoor ranges probably take care of that. I doubt it's necessary to have lead-free bullets, given that the bullet goes downrange.

If they really have to, an indoor would be better because you can control the air flow better. All air to the target. Otherwise shooting would be dependent on wind speed and direction. Yeah, its noisier, but the silencer would reduce that. I wonder about silencing shotguns for trap? Hmmm...

Another question, what other chemicals are in those lead free primers or rounds? And you need TMJ bullets, FMJ usually have an exposed lead bottom.

But were supposed to be talking about the law. Getting back on topic:

How many women in CalGuns do you think would be interested in a suit like this?

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 6:52 PM
I suppose the trick here is to address the imposition of the time issue of NFA processing and/or the cost and availability deterrence which is presented by suppressors being listed for there to be damages to be relieved. Current Form 4 processing times are 3-5 months for a can (plus wait times for transfer to the dealer), NFA transfer fees being around $50, and prices for anything centerfire no less than $300 and sometimes over $1000 before the $200 tax.

But then the bigger fear is getting the judge to say something other than "Well boo hoo. Pay or don't play, that's life." If you're in CA or some other less than free states, you've got a joint task of taking them off the NFA list AND squashing the state policy against them. That's something I'd love to see done, especially to watch it happen.

bussda
05-15-2009, 7:19 PM
I suppose the trick here is to address the imposition of the time issue of NFA processing and/or the cost and availability deterrence which is presented by suppressors being listed for there to be damages to be relieved. Current Form 4 processing times are 3-5 months for a can (plus wait times for transfer to the dealer), NFA transfer fees being around $50, and prices for anything centerfire no less than $300 and sometimes over $1000 before the $200 tax.

But then the bigger fear is getting the judge to say something other than "Well boo hoo. Pay or don't play, that's life." If you're in CA or some other less than free states, you've got a joint task of taking them off the NFA list AND squashing the state policy against them. That's something I'd love to see done, especially to watch it happen.

No, for California the issue to force the DOJ to issue permits for silencers to all women who ask. It is not talking about taking them off of NFA, just being able to purchase or use one. Time issue is not relevant, because she needs one because she plans to get pregnant, not because she is pregnant. Or maybe she bought one and then lets her female relatives use it.

The NFA is a much bigger issue. Will probably take legislative action.

Dont Tread on Me
05-15-2009, 7:43 PM
If attempting to get pregnant becomes enough to have a suppressor, I can see a jump in research into males carrying babies.

yellowfin
05-15-2009, 7:48 PM
Having DOJ permits being forced to issue is sort of nice BUT there are still obstacles. What does one of those cost? How long would it take to get one? Who has to approve it? Where do you find a Class 3 dealer in CA? What do their transfers cost when you're finally able to do so? At what markup?

None of those have answers we'll like.

bombadillo
05-15-2009, 8:06 PM
Yeah, they'll be thinking of the children right after they abort a late term "fetus" :rolleyes:

Never gonna happen.

bussda
05-15-2009, 8:07 PM
Having DOJ permits being forced to issue is sort of nice BUT there are still obstacles. What does one of those cost? How long would it take to get one? Who has to approve it? Where do you find a Class 3 dealer in CA? What do their transfers cost when you're finally able to do so? At what markup?

None of those have answers we'll like.

Until the DOJ starts the machinery to issue permits on an assembly line, any answer would be speculative. The starting point would be the current DOJ process for these items, and I don't know what it is, but the movie studios and prop departments know, so it already exists. But if DOJ does not get to issue with discretion, but is shall issue, the whole framework changes. As for Class 3 dealers, they are out there, and they will grow to feed the market. Dealer transfer cost and markup will be what the market will pay. Expect to start high, then go down later. And the market for this will be huge! Some people will want to purchase just because. Just like some people buy guns.

freakshow10mm
05-15-2009, 8:34 PM
Rimfire suppressors are in the 40dB range currently with technology. That's about a 110dB signature. Snap your fingers smartly; that's about 113-115dB.

The issue I see here with protection for the unborn child is, as we all know, water amplifies sound waves. If a gun shot is suppressed to 110dB measured approx 1 meter left and up from the gun, what is the net suppression inside the womb?

85dB is permanent damage. Even plugs and muffs at the same time will not suppress the SPL below that mark. The suppressor industry cites 140dB as being "hearing safe", which is the pain threshold (141dB in Europe). Luckily the human ear cannot actually detect a gun shot like microphones can, and that is a very good thing.

383green
05-15-2009, 9:39 PM
The issue I see here with protection for the unborn child is, as we all know, water amplifies sound waves.

No, water does not amplify sounds waves. That would imply a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Water simply attenuates the sound energy much less over a given distance due to being nearly incompressible.

If a gun shot is suppressed to 110dB measured approx 1 meter left and up from the gun, what is the net suppression inside the womb?

The sound power level inside the womb would be no louder than it is at Mom's body surface. If Mom was shooting while underwater, that would be a bad thing, as the shockwave from the gun would be much more efficiently transferred to both her and the fetus. Both she and the fetus would receive a lot more sound energy than they would from a 110 dB report at arm's length in air.

That being said, I don't have medical training, but I would speculate that even 110 dB from a suppressed .22 might be unhealthy for a fetus, particularly repeatedly. Perhaps our hypothetical Mom would have a good argument for needing a suppressor, but I'd speculate that she should also wear clothing which would further suppress the sound power level that reaches her body surface.

7x57
05-15-2009, 11:34 PM
No, water does not amplify sounds waves. That would imply a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Water simply attenuates the sound energy much less over a given distance due to being nearly incompressible.


No, but it might possibly couple better to the eardrums than air. That would be "amplification" in layman's terms even if it isn't anything of the kind technically.

7x57

383green
05-15-2009, 11:47 PM
No, but it might possibly couple better to the eardrums than air.

That might be applicable if the noise was generated underwater in the first place. But, try this: Wade in a swimming pool with your head just above the water, and have somebody nearby make a noise. Now, immerse yourself and have them make the same noise again. Does it seem louder or softer once you're underwater? It's been a while since I've been swimming, but I recall that I don't hear noises from outside the pool nearly as well when I'm immersed.

Sure, sound travels efficiently for great distances with minimal attenuation underwater, which is why (for example) whales can be heard from so far away.

Similarly, water can couple shockwaves much better than air. A non-fragmentary explosive charge might mess you up much worse when you and it are submerged in water than when you and it are out in the air.

However, water doesn't magically make things louder than they were in the first place. When source and receiver are both in the same mass of water, sound energy will generally couple between them much better than when they are both in the air. Putting just one or the other in water while leaving the other in the air doesn't make the receiver experience more sound energy, though. I think it would generally experience less due to the fraction of sound energy which will be reflected at the air/water boundary, just as electromagnetic energy (i.e., radio waves, light, etc.) are partially reflected at a boundary between materials with different dielectric constants or impedances (i.e., at the surface of a piece of glass in air).

nick
05-15-2009, 11:55 PM
:lurk5:

nick
05-15-2009, 11:59 PM
Moving from one environment to a dissimilar environment would distort sound waves. That being said, the sound of a gun would also be transmitted through the body, as it's in contact with the gun, not just through the air and into one's ears, which is what you're talking about.

383green
05-16-2009, 12:06 AM
That being said, the sound of a gun would also be transmitted through the body, as it's in contact with the gun, not just through the air and into one's ears, which is what you're talking about.

Ok, so in addition to the suppressor, sound-suppressing comfy jacket and lead-free ammo, Mom's gonna need some special sound-suppressing gloves. The firearms accessory dealers are gonna eat this all up with a spoon, and this idea will significantly revitalize our lagging economy.

:thumbsup:

freakshow10mm
05-16-2009, 6:44 AM
No, water does not amplify sounds waves. That would imply a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Water simply attenuates the sound energy much less over a given distance due to being nearly incompressible.
Why are some sounds that generate out of water louder (or seem louder) when I'm under water?

donstarr
05-16-2009, 7:18 AM
Why are some sounds that generate out of water louder (or seem louder) when I'm under water?

Because they're attenuated less than when you're in the air. That is, if the sound energy travels 10 feet through air, then 50 feet through water, you end up with more sound energy reaching you than if it was travelling through 60 feet of air. This presumes that the "decrease in attenuation" caused by going through water instead of air is greater than the attenuation at the air/water interface. For example (made-up numbers only for illustration): if the sound is attenuated by 10dB in 50 feet of air, but only 3dB in 50 feet of water, and the air/water interface causes a 3dB attenuation, it will "sound louder" under water, since the total attenuation is significantly less.

Also, as has been mentioned, it's possible that the water transfers that energy to your eardrums (as well as the rest of your head) better than the air does. Not only does more sound energy reach you, what does reach you is more efficiently moved into your skull.

Another possibility, though maybe remote... If you're in a swimming pool, the sound can reflect from the surfaces of the pool, "hitting you" from all sides. That could result in an apparent increase in volume (it could also result in an apparent decrease, if multiple paths cancelled each other out).

yellowfin
05-16-2009, 9:05 AM
If 10% of existing firearms got new suppressors that would amount to no less than $6 billion in sales. We're holding an industry that big back in the middle of a recession...why exactly?

phamkl
05-16-2009, 12:17 PM
Honestly folks, I don't think pregnant women should be shooting. There are way too many things that can go wrong in developmental bio for me to be comfortable with a pregnant woman to be shooting. Embryogenesis requires a hyper-delicate balance of chemicals and, coupled with a mother's increased sensitivity to pretty much all sensations (the smell of burning sulfur, the recoil, the sound signature, etc) would put undue stress on the child.

Now I don't claim to know that any of this will actually affect the developing baby, I would err on the side of caution. I support the deregulation of suppressors but I think the pregnant woman tactic is double edged, at best. IMO, if a professional woman needs to practice shooting it would be best advised to do it with a BB gun replica (like a Gamo PPK replica.)

I would personally like to find a different, equally strong, but less developmentally questionable argument for suppressors.

bussda
05-16-2009, 12:32 PM
Honestly folks, I don't think pregnant women should be shooting. There are way too many things that can go wrong in developmental bio for me to be comfortable with a pregnant woman to be shooting. Embryogenesis requires a hyper-delicate balance of chemicals and, coupled with a mother's increased sensitivity to pretty much all sensations (the smell of burning sulfur, the recoil, the sound signature, etc) would put undue stress on the child.

Now I don't claim to know that any of this will actually affect the developing baby, I would err on the side of caution. I support the deregulation of suppressors but I think the pregnant woman tactic is double edged, at best. IMO, if a professional woman needs to practice shooting it would be best advised to do it with a BB gun replica (like a Gamo PPK replica.)

I would personally like to find a different, equally strong, but less developmentally questionable argument for suppressors.

I agree with you that pregnant women should not be shooting. But even shooting a replica type (Airsoft, BB) is not the same as an actual firearm. The whole point of this intellectual exercise is if a pregnant woman has a need to shoot, the best thing is to use a suppressor. But there are currently legal roadblocks to that point. The point of this thread.

And remember, just because she is pregnant, she still needs to be able to protect herself.

Pregnant while shooting is in the Ladies forum.

phamkl
05-16-2009, 12:48 PM
Shooting a replica improves technique in the sense that it helps get rid of flinches and I'd say steel BB over airsoft... airsoft pistols are usually even less accurate.

Of course if I had my way pregnant women would never get attacks (or anyone else for that matter.) If a woman had to shoot someone I'd definitely give her a suppressor for her gun but since we're talking about using pregnant women for a reason to argue deregulating suppressors, I think there ought to be a different reason and for practicing, I still would rather have her practice with a BB replica.

To be clear, I don't want to leave our expecting mothers defenseless; I just don't think they should practice their defense at the cost of their kids' development. So... BB guns for practice... suppressors for self defense.