[leot]

That seems like a fig leaf.

The tradeoff is between the relative costs and benefits of suppressors. Given that ear protection is cheap, plentiful, and doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot, it's hard to justify the legality of suppressors for purely "safety" reasons.

[CompanionCuuube]

Adding a piece of metal to the end of a barrel doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot. It doesn't increase the chances of the gun to fire accidentally.

[leot]

Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you.

If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and consequently increase the probability of the weapon's being used.

The same can't be said for ear protection.

[CompanionCuuube]

The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first, which you have not done here. A gun with a suppressor is still a very loud gun.

"A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post

[leot]

> "The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first"

What do you specifically mean by "proven to make a difference"? Suppressors are known for being used by intelligence services -- presumably they're not using them to protect their agents' hearing.

[CompanionCuuube]

I'll take your point into consideration that deregulating silencers will increase their usage by intelligence services.

[leot]

Huh? That wasn't my point.

It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention.

Are you claiming otherwise?

[scrub_tier]

I'm realizing I'm only partially familiar with some of our laws. Is there any data you or the poster can link to illustrate your claims?

[leot]

I don't have data. It would likely take a while get the data from the "experiment" that showed that the availability of a suppressor increased the probability of a gun's being used in the commission of a crime.

The point is that given the availability of effective ear protection, there is no legitimate argument for civilian use of suppressors. There is no plausible argument that their existence would decrease the risk of a gun's being used illegally, and there are great reasons to believe that in some instances it would increase this risk, and/or make it more difficult to catch those who have done so.

Long range flamethrowers are illegal, but could be said to have a "legitimate use" for clearing brush. When there is no good argument for a thing to exist, and there are good safety-based arguments for it to not exist, then in the name of safety we should not have said thing.

[leot]

What do you suppose the impact of a suppressor would have been in Las Vegas last fall?

[CompanionCuuube]

Realistically, not much.