I once took a field trip to the FBI, probably late elementary school age. When the FBI agent talking to our tour group showed us his gun, one of the kids asked if he had a silencer. The FBI agent replied that there would be no need for a sworn law enforcement officer to try to silence his gun because even if he were in the rare situation…
I once took a field trip to the FBI, probably late elementary school age. When the FBI agent talking to our tour group showed us his gun, one of the kids asked if he had a silencer. The FBI agent replied that there would be no need for a sworn law enforcement officer to try to silence his gun because even if he were in the rare situation where using his firearm became an option, “why would we not want anyone to know what we were doing?”
Whenever I see these people denying to give reasoning for their decisions, I think about that moment. Forget whether it’s legal for a company like Youtube to deny to give reasoning. If they were on the side of the right, they would do it voluntarily. If they were trying to maintain an atmosphere by banning content, wouldn’t they want onlookers to know what content was banned and why? The means by which these decisions are handed down suggests a different motive.
It also bears keeping in mind that in pretty much any decision outside of a court of law, businesses or other entities have no obligation to disclose the reasoning for their decisions, so it becomes a question of norms. And the norm is increasingly tight-lipped. Whoever it is that makes these decisions in secret clearly believes they have something to hide.
I understand your point that we should demand transparency from government agencies, especially the FBI. However, suppressors/silencers on guns are valuable to protect hearing and reduce noise pollution.
It isn't my point; I'm not a gun person and I certainly wasn't at age 11 (ballpark figure). One might also argue that silencers don't actually silence guns and the noise is still likely to be audible in most cases.
It's the second part of the statement “why would we not want anyone to know what we were doing?”, which is pretty close to an exact quote of a uniformed FBI agent with a badge if I recall correctly, that's important.
...here, the idea of using a silencer never occurs to him. It never came up. If there is a noisy gunfight, the noise would be helpful. Other persons would know to stay away. If you use a silencer they might walk right up to you. It was simply totally inappropriate for the agent to have any silencers around, and the agent was just saying so (I believe) candidly.
As I said, I agree that we should expect more transparency about the FBI and it is not sufficiently transparent. I'm increasingly swayed by those who say that FBI is so corrupt that it can't be fixed and must be replaced.
Also, it is true that silencers do not make guns silent. They are called that because that was the brand under which such devices were originally sold. Silencers/supressors are useful in the same way that mufflers are useful on cars.
I once took a field trip to the FBI, probably late elementary school age. When the FBI agent talking to our tour group showed us his gun, one of the kids asked if he had a silencer. The FBI agent replied that there would be no need for a sworn law enforcement officer to try to silence his gun because even if he were in the rare situation where using his firearm became an option, “why would we not want anyone to know what we were doing?”
Whenever I see these people denying to give reasoning for their decisions, I think about that moment. Forget whether it’s legal for a company like Youtube to deny to give reasoning. If they were on the side of the right, they would do it voluntarily. If they were trying to maintain an atmosphere by banning content, wouldn’t they want onlookers to know what content was banned and why? The means by which these decisions are handed down suggests a different motive.
It also bears keeping in mind that in pretty much any decision outside of a court of law, businesses or other entities have no obligation to disclose the reasoning for their decisions, so it becomes a question of norms. And the norm is increasingly tight-lipped. Whoever it is that makes these decisions in secret clearly believes they have something to hide.
"suggests a different motive." Yeah, a bad one.
I understand your point that we should demand transparency from government agencies, especially the FBI. However, suppressors/silencers on guns are valuable to protect hearing and reduce noise pollution.
It isn't my point; I'm not a gun person and I certainly wasn't at age 11 (ballpark figure). One might also argue that silencers don't actually silence guns and the noise is still likely to be audible in most cases.
It's the second part of the statement “why would we not want anyone to know what we were doing?”, which is pretty close to an exact quote of a uniformed FBI agent with a badge if I recall correctly, that's important.
...here, the idea of using a silencer never occurs to him. It never came up. If there is a noisy gunfight, the noise would be helpful. Other persons would know to stay away. If you use a silencer they might walk right up to you. It was simply totally inappropriate for the agent to have any silencers around, and the agent was just saying so (I believe) candidly.
As I said, I agree that we should expect more transparency about the FBI and it is not sufficiently transparent. I'm increasingly swayed by those who say that FBI is so corrupt that it can't be fixed and must be replaced.
Also, it is true that silencers do not make guns silent. They are called that because that was the brand under which such devices were originally sold. Silencers/supressors are useful in the same way that mufflers are useful on cars.