Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

Reactions
669 248 4
Silencers are treated so badly. There should be a tax credit for owning a fucking silencer.
I hate motorcyclists who tune their bikes to be extra loud.

There was an asshole riding through a residential section of Downtown Toronto last time I was there. So fucking inconsiderate. I'd put him in front of a firing squad for that. I'd hold it in a public square, too, but only if the rifles had silencers.
 
Reactions
1,135 235 5
Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
To quote Biggie, if you don't know, now you know. I'm honestly surprised @GasBandit didn't correct the nomenclature. It's almost as bad as calling a magazine a clip, or when someone says "I could care less."
 
Reactions
2,156 627 23
Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
Calling them “silencers” or continuing to call them “silencers” even when (especially when!) you are someone who knows better further reinforces the Hollywood-inspired myth that it is possible to reduce the decibel level of a firearm’s report to the point that it is effectively inaudible. As the article I linked explains, a suppressor can reduce the report by some 20-45dB which, while still impressive, only brings the noise level down to that of a jet engine or a jackhammer—hardly “silent” by any stretch of the imagination.

This myth that the noise of a firearm can be made undetectable has caused/is causing/is being used to cause people to view suppressors as tools used only by those who wish to clandestinely murder other people, which is why they are outlawed, taxed, registered, tracked, heavily restricted, and also why they are fantastically expensive. The truth is that adding a suppressor to, say, a 12ga shotgun will quiet it enough that instead of taking a little over a mile to finally bring the sound level down to that of a gas-powered lawn mower, it would instead only take about a fifth of that...again, hardly enough attenuation to consider it "unnoticeable." And that is why Gas suggested that anyone who uses a suppressor should be somehow rewarded for taking the time and consideration to make their giant boom-generating machine somewhat less annoying to the other people in the vicinity.

As for the "common moniker" thing, I have no doubt that some people (Gas, for example) ARE using the word "silencer" because it's the generally accepted term rather than to perpetuate the myth (whether deliberately or unwittingly), but I have no idea (and no real way of determining) how many of the other people actually understand the (vast) difference between the myth and the reality of the device absent any other context, the same way people call SSDs "hard drives" or LEDs "light bulbs." The big difference here is that misunderstanding consumer semiconductors isn't (currently, at least) being demonized and FUDded in order to push a particular agendum the way it is with silencers/suppressors.

Really, I think the reason most refer to them as "silencers" at all is that when you say "suppressor" most people automatically think you mean a flash suppressor, not a sound suppressor.

(Board had a bad hiccup during my post, took about 45min before I could get back in to edit, sorry if you read an older version)

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Reactions
692 290 12
I personally learned the distinction here, an earlier time we've had a similar discussion. Yes, I do think it's significant as a way of debunking a myth and keeping the conversation "clean".
Just like, say, "global warming" is technically correct but "climate change" is more precise and less open to some stupid "counterpoints" that aren't, really.
 
Reactions
2,272 320 4
The big difference here is that misunderstanding consumer semiconductors isn't (currently, at least) being demonized and FUDded in order to push a particular agendum the way it is with silencers/suppressors.
I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.
 
Reactions
692 290 12
I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.
LEDs are a government conspiracy to destroy our eyes and make optometrists rich; use bulbs if you're smart! Bulbs last thousands of hours if used properly! The government is lying to you!

It'd be funny/ad if it wasn't already a reality.
 
Reactions
270 42 1
Please explain to me the value of making that distinction in the current discussion. Also, please explain the reason for your assumption that the people on this board didn’t already know that, but we’re using the more common moniker anyway.
Plenty of international users on this board where guns are a lot less common than in the US who might not know the difference. Here in the UK I'd wager most people don't know the distinction.
 
Reactions
2,156 627 23
I really hope the "LEDs are destroying your eyes because they emit blue light, but not infra-red light" FUD never makes it to that level of public awareness.
Don't forget about UV.
Light produced at these wavelengths are not only harmful to micro-organisms, but are dangerous to humans and other forms of life that may come in contact with it. These LED lamps should always be shielded and never be viewable to the naked eye even though it may appear that little or no light is emanating from the device . Exposure to these wavelengths may cause skin cancer and temporary or permanent vision loss or impairment.
As a tech nut, I know you can get IR/UV illuminator arrays (or "dirty" conventional arrays) strong enough put out enough "invisible" light to cause eye/skin damage even though it may not be visible to the naked eye. Arrays like that are NOT toys.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Reactions
2,272 320 4
Don't forget about UV.
Do standard LED "light bulbs" produce UV? Because it seems like you misunderstood my statement. There are quack "doctors" pushing the pseudoscience idea that LED home lighting is damaging people's eyes, and that incandescent light bulbs are superior because they produce infra-red radiation that heals your eyes from all the blue light damage that happens.
 
Reactions
1,170 419 5

I almost thought this was Onion.

Man, being a boomer must be real kickass. 10 dollars a credit if you were born in the 40s-50s, lifetime of crippling debt if you were born in the 80s+
 
Also, I am happy they get to experiance more classes and social structures. Part of the problem is, a lot of older people are too insular and just kind of retreat into their own fantasies, often times filled with fear or hate. Getting them out among younger people and learning allows them better chances to get back into a critical thinking mindset and not fall into the same traps.
 
Reactions
1,170 419 5
Hey, some of us were born in the seventies. It's only debt until our late fifties, but still.
If you were born in the 70s and went to college right out of high school, you paid a fraction of those born 10 years later. Frrrraaaacccctiiion.

Still too much, but not a literal lifedebt that can never be repaid.
 
Reactions
2,156 627 23
Do standard LED "light bulbs" produce UV? Because it seems like you misunderstood my statement. There are quack "doctors" pushing the pseudoscience idea that LED home lighting is damaging people's eyes, and that incandescent light bulbs are superior because they produce infra-red radiation that heals your eyes from all the blue light damage that happens.
Mmmaybe? Though I assume if any is produced (by a non-UV LED, that is), it would be negligible. LED output is relatively narrow, so it would be difficult for an LED to “accidentally” emit UV unless it was a color already butting up against the V end of the spectrum.
I did not know about the IR quacks, that’s silly. I mean, the part about blue light being harmful has some science behind it (insomnia, chromatic aberrations, eyestrain) but apparently blocking all of it all the time can exacerbate SAD (TIL).
HOWEVER there are companies that sell purpose-built high-power LED IR/UV floodlights (presumably for night vision or forensic/sterilization applications?), but they come with warnings like, “even though you can’t see the light, you risk sunburn/cataracts (UV) or blindness (IR) with prolonged exposure.”

But that part about IR being the “antidote” to UV? Preeeetty sure that’s 100% BS.

—Patrick
 
Reactions
1,170 419 5
How is it that Jon Stewart is the biggest supporter of 9/11 first responders?


PS:



I know, I've been anti-police etc a lot lately, but fuck this. Fuck you American government. Fuck you for these 20 years. Fuck you. THIS IS SUCH A FUCKING MINOR GOD DAMN THING TO MAKE RIGHT YOU FUCKERS.
 
Reactions
692 290 12
How is it that Jon Stewart is the biggest supporter of 9/11 first responders?


PS:



I know, I've been anti-police etc a lot lately, but fuck this. Fuck you American government. Fuck you for these 20 years. Fuck you. THIS IS SUCH A FUCKING MINOR GOD DAMN THING TO MAKE RIGHT YOU FUCKERS.
It's this sort of thing why being "anti-police" is, in my mind, short-minded. Being against a whole lot of current-day police procedure, habits, system, etc etc is good and important; but like most other groups, policemen have a bunch of true real heroes, and a bunch of bad apples, and a whole bunch of in-between who get drawn one way or the other. Influencing those in the middle to be more heroic/good and less selfish/racist/bad is important. Paying too little, asking too much, pressure from on high, etc, all tend to push towards the wrong end of the scale.
 
Top