Kochman, early on this this conversation, you said:
The government has established why it is not worth the risk/benefit equation to allow things that really have very few legit uses.
Well, while I haven't read the linked article in-depth, but here's what I see:
- 136 federal prosecutions for suppressor possession over a 10-year period; and
- 4 cases in which a suppressed firearm was actually fired
That doesn't support very much risk on that side of a risk-reward analysis. So what is the public benefit of having them on the NFA list?
You're not being attacked for your views, Kochman. It's not a matter of having unpopular views.
You initially questioned:
What could you possibly need a suppressor for?
You were provided with a number of possible, perfectly legitimate uses for suppressors, including
- hearing protection for self
- hearing protection for others
- reducing noise levels in consideration of our neighbors
Then you quibbled over whether a person really "needed" a suppressor for those, or just "wanted" one. Nonetheless, those are legitimate, lawful activities in which one could engage, and made good use of a suppressor. Then you complained that there are other tools which would help (earplugs), stating that because earplugs are available, "no one needs a suppressor." . . . .
It may be that you, personally, don't think those things listed above are "legitimate purposes." A great many shooters, however, have recognized that we'd rather not spend our declining years asking "WHAT?" You summarily rejected all of those listed above, claiming that there is no other purpose for a suppressor than:
than assassination, and night time poaching/hunting
when pressed on this issue, you insulted the entire TFL community, proclaiming:
You guys... I can't even take you seriously sometimes. I'm not saying that to be rude, I'm being totally honest. This is pretty fringe talk... which is fine, you're entitled to speak in such a manner, but you'd be laughed out of most serious conversations in the country with such silly defenses/rationalizations.
Your tone has been condescending, evasive, and your claims are logically inconsistent. On the one hand, you state that "Mossad, for example, used .22 as it's assassination round for some time... suppressed even sometimes!", while on the other: "I never said, btw, they aren't rare... silencer crimes. I said, the risk/benefit analysis doesn't support their widespread use." If silencer crimes are rare, then the risk is low. If the risk is so low, then the public benefit must be HUGE to warrant keeping suppressors out of the hands of John Q. Public. What benefit does the public derive from doing so?
My fellow TFL members have not (by and large) criticized you for the content of your argument, Kochman. They have criticized you for utterly failing to back up your arguments with any sort of proof, and for then proclaiming that their
arguments are silly and unfounded. They have criticized you for claiming that we make "ridiculous" arguments and that we would be "laughed out of most serious conversations in the country, all while proclaiming that only poachers and assassins have any use for suppressors. That notion (that only poachers and assassins use suppressors) really is
what we see in the movies. I don't know many hunters would use a suppressor, but I suspect a great many, were it not for the additional $200 cost. I'll bet a great number of NRA youth trainers would.
Your opinions are yours, and you are welcome to them. If you choose to present them as fact, do not be surprised when other TFL members challenge you to support your arguments. That challenge is quite common around here, and it is how we weed out internet rumors and hokum.