Next ArticleSt. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Suppressors (aka 'silencers') are for safety

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 27 May, 2009 | Kurt Hofmann

[Sir_Ed]

I had an MP5 SD that was so quiet it was like an airgun, but it got dirty so fast that its effectiveness was short-lived until it was cleaned.

Ed

[BCR #226]

Total bunk. Sound suppressors lower the sound of the muzzle blast, hence the term suppressor. They don’t make a gun totally silent. Poachers aren’t going to use them when they can use a more silent tool called a bow to poach.

Please stop using the anti’s rhetoric... It does nothing but hurt all gun rights.

Mike

[Technogeeb]

I'm an avid gun rights advocate. The idea that “suppressors” would be or should be widely available is just plain wrong.

You are not thinking clearly, or you have simply not thought about the issue sufficiently.

There is a safety factor with loud booming gunshots that alert others to the presence of active shooting,

Nearly all civilian shooting in the US occurs during hunting or at shooting ranges. In the case of the latter, any rational person would be aware of the activity. In the case of the former, shots would be so sparse that no noise would typically be generated prior to the shot.

In any case, there is no sane reason to restrict any device that reduces noise to levels below where hearing damage occurs, yet the law is currently written to prohibit just that. It would be trivial to pass a law allowing any device to reduce sound to below 70dB (where hearing damage would no longer occur, but any mythical benefit of the loud noise would still be present).

[MHGinTN]

My son had a line of 9mm subsonic when his CIII was still active. He has since gotten out of the business. But he went regularly to KNob Creek shoots to tout his wares.