"Gun" guys are sometimes our worst enemies.

[Acera]

Jim Pruitt of Jim Pruitt's Guns and Ammo is a store here in the Houston area. There is a proposed rule change from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department where they would allow the use of sound suppressors while hunting game in Texas.

The story starts about 3:50 in the following clip, where this gun store owner agrees with a member of the coalition to stop gun violence, that it would be a threat.

http://www.ktrh.com/player/?mid=21880311

If you shop at this guys store, know him, or want to help change his mind, please contact him and explain to him your displeasure. He has advocated suppressors before, but I think he got hoodwinked in this story and does not know what he is saying.

email: [email protected]

Store Phone: 832-237-4867

 

[smkummer]

What the Heck! We all need to be united no matter if we have hunting shotguns or machine guns. There is never a BAD gun. The time is coming of age of removing suppressors from the "feel good act of 1934". All the 99.9999% of the people using them are just wanting to reduce noise. If your car made as much noise as a .357 handgun or 300 Win. mag. rifle, we would be fined for noise violations. Stupid had gone on far enough. For what its worth, Indiana is close to passing suppressor use for hunting, and that may encourage its use in close rual areas. Hunters are a dying breed and the states have tapped that resource too heavily to ever get some of them back.

 

[JustinJ]

While i very much believe silencers should be allowed for hunting game i also respect the right of each person to have their own opinion. Just because he is a "gun guy" doesnt mean he has to let other gun people think for him or tell him what to believe. Comments saying he should fall in line make me wonder just how open people are to seeing things as they are instead of how they want them to be.

 

[NOLAEMT]

He absolutely has the right to believe what he wants, But he should also realize that banning, or supporting the ban on any kind of weapon furthers an agenda that would have all personally owned weapons removed from the hands of Americans.

No one is forcing him to think one way or another, but just about anyone who is interested in guns should be aware that for the most part the media is interested in portraying firearms and firearm owners negatively, and that if interviewed about a firearm issue, chances are you as well as the issue may be portrayed in a negative light.

 

[Mot45acp]

His commercials are over the top and he generally paints a bad image for gunowners.

I remember when we were enjoying the company of all the Katrina evacuees he was running radio ads selling "looter shooters"

 

[GRAPE-DRANK]

What did I just hear? I have seen this guy Ladd Everett before. He once bought a nazi poster at a Richmond gun show and paraded around. He later questioned why no one challenged him for buying a nazi poster. I don't know Ladd, maybe cause your head was shaved and you looked like a skinhead.

Ladd Everett said "Its confusing why a civilian would advocate for such a device." Well Ladd Everett of the Brady Campaign (the group he used to be with) I'll tell you why a civilian would want to use such a device.

I have one, a big one: Health reasons

I guess you could say that the use of suppressors is being considerate for your fellow land owners, but if you are hunting with a suppressor chances are you are using hypersonic ammo and they are still going to hear the sonic crack even if they don't hear the obnoxious blast.

I'll bet those gun grabbers don't know the first thing about muzzle blast, hypersonic, and subsonic. That character even mentioned James Bond.

 

[GRAPE-DRANK]

This guy Ladd Everett either lives in Virginia or Maryland. I'm pretty sure it's Virginia. In Virginia suppressors are legal in a lot of jurisdictions for hunting. I know for a fact that coyote hunters can use them. Why is he poking his nose in Texas business? They're legal in Virginia and the sky hasn't fallen. You Texans need to step it up a bit. Virginia's gun rights are more secure than yall's.

 

[GRAPE-DRANK]

Ya'll say that he has the right to have his opinion and that's fine, BUT.

In Virginia Mayor Bloomberg sent his "detectives" into gun stores to make straw purchases. He sued the gun stores. Some cooperated and agreed to some kind of surveillance and record keeping to comply with whatever he wanted.

Keep in mind this is the Mayor of New York suing Virginia gun stores.

Other stores did not comply and did not roll over for his law suit. Virginia gun owners supported en mass the stores that fought Bloomberg and did not purchase anything from the ones that caved to Bloomberg. The stores that caved to Bloomberg went out of business. The ones that fought Bloomberg got help with their legal fees from the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League even held a raffle giving away guns. They called it the "Bloomberg Gun Giveaway." They even made a cake commemorating the occasion with Bloomberg's likeness on it.

My opinion is this, that Joker who runs that gun store needs to do some soul searching or ya'll need to shop somewhere else.

 

[Rob G]

that Joker who runs that gun store needs to do some soul searching or ya'll need to shop somewhere else.

Not hard to do really as his stock is usually overpriced compared to other local competition. I'm kind of surprised that he wouldn't support silencer hunting though. Any form of weapon restrictions doesn't sound like his style.

I'll agree that he's entitled to his opinions and I certainly wouldn't demand that he share mine. I have my opinion too though and in the future I'll give my money to people who share it.

 

[egg250]

It could be that he was interviewed with several questions, and the "reporter" picked the sound bite that fit the reporter's angle to the story. Yes, I know, journalists are supposed to be "uninterested, third parties" but the reality is they have an agenda to push.

I'd be interested in hearing the entire audio of the interview.

 

[GRAPE-DRANK]

I don't think that's likely Egg, I agree with the original poster. We can be our own worst enemy.

Some of the biggest nonsense I have ever heard is at gun counters and a so-called instructor.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

This doesn't surprise me at all. Everyone who has spent 10 minutes inside a generic "gun store" has heard a metric ton of tall tales and bad advice to new shooters. There are very few gun stores I enjoy perusing because I have to be inundated on why "9mm bounces off people", "women need .22 revolvers" and "I shot a prairie dog at 1200 yards with a .45-70".

 

[Rob G]

It could be that he was interviewed with several questions, and the "reporter" picked the sound bite that fit the reporter's angle to the story.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case. The gentleman in question is very media savy. He does a lot of interviews for local media when gun issues come up and even has (or had) a regular short segment he'd tape about once a week or so.

 

[zignal_zero]

"Looter Shooter" isn't a type of gun, its a job title. I know because it was mine, for awhile. Its a contract security officer that responds to hurricaine ravaged areas

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Paul A. Clark, "Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers", Western Criminology Review 8(2), 44–57 (2007)

Abstract: Both the public and sentencing judges regard silenced firearms as more dangerous than ordinary unsilenced firearms, and the federal penalty for possession of a silenced firearm during crime is a 30-year mandatory minimum. The assumption that silenced firearms are more dangerous than ordinary firearms has never been empirically researched. This study examines federal and state court data to compile statistics on who is being prosecuted for possession of silencers and what crimes they are used to commit. This data indicates that both on the federal and state level those prosecuted for crimes involving silencers are far less likely to have a criminal record, and are far less likely to actively use their weapon than those people convicted using ordinary unsilenced firearms. The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem. Moreover, the legislative history of silencer statutes indicates that these provisions were adopted with little or no debate. The silencer penalty has been justified by a need to crack down on “professional criminals” or to punish people using “dangerous weapons.” The evidence suggests that 30-year minimum sentences make no sense. Mandatory minimums should be repealed and sentencing judges permitted to treat each case on an individualized basis.

Bold added. Silencers are legal in Finland, France and UK that I know of, and are considered hearing protection.

 

[Gemlin]

I honestly have no problems with people using silencers for hunting.

HOWEVER, unless the ATF adds more examiners to the NFA process, I'd be against making the silencers legal. I might be petty on this, but currently the NFA Process is a 6-8 month wait. The ATF said if States make Silencers legal for hunting, that wait can jump to over ONE YEAR.

I **Personally** think that the ATF needs to remove Silencers from the NFA list. Silencers are not "Alcohol", "Tabacco", "Firearms", or "Explosives".

 

[Justin]

This guy Ladd Everett either lives in Virginia or Maryland. I'm pretty sure it's Virginia. In Virginia suppressors are legal in a lot of jurisdictions for hunting. I know for a fact that coyote hunters can use them. Why is he poking his nose in Texas business? They're legal in Virginia and the sky hasn't fallen. You Texans need to step it up a bit. Virginia's gun rights are more secure than yall's.

Ladd Everitt is the Communications Director and main spokesperson for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a Washington DC-based group that advocates for gun prohibition at every level.

 

[msrtex]

Jim Pruitt was a radio DJ in his former career, he knows how to talk in public. He had a morning show called Pruitt and Stevens. The sound bite in question was just a short bit of what he said but he is clear in stating his opposition. I would be interested in hearing all he had to say. His statement about silencers being an increased danger to law enforcement is confusing to me. Does the use of a silencer by a poacher increase the odds of them shooting a law enforcement officer? I don't see it.

 

[mgregg85]

Ladd posts all kinds of screwball stuff on the CAGV Facebook page, he also got into a nasty fight with the Wikipedia editors when he kept editing his group's Facebook page.

 

[taliv]

Guys lets try to keep this on topic for NFA forum. Actually I'd suggest opening a thread in activism with some more specific actions

 

[mortablunt]

Good grief, the guy is peaking the same kind of sentiment that led to the AWB.