I'm not ready to stipulate you were personally attacked, and respectfully submit you opened the movie door with your Post #78
being the first to introduce the movie question with a James Bond reference. This reference prompted for Mr. Pfleuger to to reply In Post #86
with a reasonable inference that you get your knowledge of suppressors, in part or in whole, from the James Bond movie franchise. It was not a personal attack, but a reasonable inference from your own words.
Furhtermore, as to the Risk/Benefit question you have posed, I would like to direct you to your own words again, this time in Post #71
Where you state:
The historical risk of suppressors is:
Absolutely irrelevant, since they're pretty rare...
That's like asking how many people are killed by Walther PPKs made in 1934.
Thus, if the risk of suppressors is irrelevant because of their statistically rare illicit use, the benefit becomes the relevant part of the argument- leaving ANY
benefit in and of itself justifiable for their possession.