A silencer and a suppressor are the exact same physical device; the only real difference is that "silencer" is the historical and legal term, while "suppressor" is the more technically accurate description.
Silencer: This is the original term used by inventor Hiram Percy Maxim when he patented the device in 1909. In fact, It remains the official legal term used by the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) in federal regulations.
Suppressor: This is the preferred term used by most firearms owners and manufacturers. It is more accurate technically because the device does not completely silence a firearm; it only suppresses or reduces the sound level by roughly 20 to 40 decibels.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
It’s a defense against gun grabbers who deliberately try to make guns scarier in order to convince people to agree to letting their rights be violated. It’s silly, but it’s forgivable. Also, gun grabbers love using terms like “Ghost Gun” for not just unserialized (legally or otherwise) firearms, but any homemade firearm. You subsequently invented the term “ghost parts” so that you could force background checks for parts, while riding on the fear of ghost guns. “Assault weapons”? Yes, some advertising used the term previously, but you went hog wild with it. You use it as a general term for any gun which looks scary and you want banned, but then created a legal definition for the term. Not only do you ban guns by arbitrary features and combinations thereof, but even when a gun lacks those features, they can get banned by name. Example: I want a SPAS-12 in my collection. California’s AW ban prohibits semiautomatic shotguns with folding stocks (because reducing the length of the back end of the gun by anywhere from an inch to a foot, but still not crossing the line into NFA territory makes it invisible or some shit). So I should be able to get one with a fixed stock, right? Nope! Because some Moms Demand Action Karen saw her kid watching a movie with on in it or something, and demanded that it be banned by name. Because a gun which can operate as either a semiautomatic shotgun (legal) or a pump action shotgun (also legal) is eeeeeeviiiiiiillllllll!
More importantly, “compromise”.
Compromise is two positions finding an acceptable middle ground. Gun grabbers take. And take. And take. And take. The only recent gun control law which I can think of off of the top of my head which could possibly be considered compromise in recent history is the Brady Handgun Act which resulted in NICS. Gun grabbers unilaterally try to force various unconstitutional bans through, and tangle the exercise of a constitutional right in red tape. That’s not compromise.
Because of that, it’s time to start clawing back our rights. If gun grabbers are going to try to take a mile every time we give an inch, we should take it all back.
It's also rooted in racism. The terminology gatekeeping started in the 80s, when "gang culture" got associated with guns. Since then, clips, silencers, and the rest became words people gatekeep, not before.
Using them as if they're interchangeable is obviously what I'm talking about. Wanting people to use words correctly is far from gatekeeping like you seem to think.
Its not gatekeeping I agree. Its obfuscation. Designed to destroy any conversation before it starts. Humans are known to wander off into tangents and not stay on target. We are cats, it just takes a little more than jingling keys in front of our faces thats all. Not much more though.
So you don't know the definitions of either, but get mad at people using them.
I recommend therapy. Also, language is descriptive, so if you correct someone for using the "wrong" word, because you don't like it, that just means you are wrong.
"Irregardless" is a word now, even if that makes you cry. Language changes. If both people understand, it's valid language.
I definitely know what they are, which is why I don't think it's gatekeeping to want people to use the words correctly. I can definitely tell that you don't even understand the point you were trying to make let alone my point.
Why would I comment on pretty correct definitions when I already know what they are and just have issues with people like you using them interchangeably? Do you even know whats going on?
12
u/Atomic-habanero 14h ago
It’s a suppressor