Suppressor facts

Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation gives us the important facts in regards to firearm suppressors:

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) tweeted that the loud report of a firearm is a “safety feature.” He seems to think that the sound of gunfire was engineered as a means to ensure everyone around them knew there was gunfire nearby.

A 10-year study found 153 crimes committed with suppressors and in only 15 of those crimes was a suppressor actually used. Here’s more perspective. That same study showed criminals used suppressors in less than 0.1 percent of homicides, 0.00006 percent of felonies and 0.1 percent of armed robberies.

As a practical matter, suppressors add length to a firearm, making it harder to conceal.

Senator Murphy is evil and/or has crap for brains.


12 thoughts on “Suppressor facts

  1. Well, he’s a senator, so the odds are overwhelming that he’s both evil and has crap for brains.

  2. “Senator Murphy is evil and/or has crap for brains.”

    Joe, there’s been too much evidence to consider it as a possible binary. “And” works just fine for me.

  3. A 10-year study found…

    …with a link to a Breitbart news article that doesn’t say any of that.

    Where is the actual study? If it’s legit and defensible I would love to be able to cite it to nitwits making arguments like this.

  4. In the words of the old school-yard insult; If his brains were dynamite he wouldn’t have enough to blow his nose….

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  5. When suppresssors are rarely owned, they are rarely used in crime. Because they are rare. When they become more widely owned, they will, almost inevitably, become more often used in crime. Because they are more available to all, including criminals.

    The blood-in-the-streets antigunners will then take note of this predictable statistical event, and will denounce the vast increase of suppressor use in crime, and denounce the availability of suppressors to the public.

    This is notable NOT because of the circular innumeracy of the argument, which does not recognize that things happen more when more things are happening, but because the anti-gun premise that lawful ownership equates to criminal misuse will pass without comment, objection or refutation again, as it does every time the anti-gunners use this blood libel.

    • But while suppressors are rarely legally owned, a makeshift suppressor is very easy to make. Simple enough that even your average dimwit criminal can do it. So the crime statistics definitely have merit. If they were useful in crime, they would be made, and used.

      • See, you ignored the conflation of legal ownership and lawful use with criminal misconduct, just like the antigunners do.

        That there are hundreds of drunk drivers on the road on any Friday night does not mean that lawful drivers are to be punished every Friday night. That criminals exist is NO REASON to punish the law abiding.

        And the antigun premise, that lawful activity invariably leads to criminality, that legal ownership equates to criminal intent, should be refuted with ridicule every time it arises.

        • You missed my point. I was arguing against the claim that criminal use of suppressors is rare because suppressors are rare.
          If you meant to point out that criminal misuse of a Constitutional right is no justification for infringement on that right, yes, of course I agree with that, and my previous comment in no way argues otherwise.

  6. What about criminal use of suppressors in those nations that don’t regulate them like we do? Anyone have any data? In the past 30 years of paying attention to shooting stories worldwide, I don’t recall seeing/hearing of anything noteworthy enough to be mentioned.

Comments are closed.