Kochman, since suppressors are used in far less crimes than guns in general, are you now suggesting all guns should be NFA? If not, please explain the discrepancy.
Since suppressors resulted in fewer deaths than did bee stings, should beekeepers require licensing akin to NFA, where they need CLEO approval?
Suppressors have an obvious use, which is to keep the noise down for third parties, which is the reason some European countries require their use. You counter that those countries have otherwise strict gun control. Does that negate the use?
You should say that YOU, personally have no use for silencers, and so you have no skin in the game. You are not willing to do that.
On the flip side, you are not willing to apply your zero-risk or risk-benefit logic to skateboards (lots of injuries and deaths, but what real use?) or Justin Bieber downloads (dumbing down of pre-teens, but what real use?) or recreational SCUBA gear (other than salvage or repair divers, who really needs it? and look at drowning deaths, or Bends related injuries...).
So you are logically inconsistent; you STILL have provided no pre-NFA data, but are finally conceding "very rare" instances; you provided an article which looked at 1995-2005 data, the author of which disagrees entirely with the conclusions you drew from the study.
Meanwhile, you have accused us of dissembling, shading arguments, ducking your questions... And you feel insulted.