[Suppressed]

Originally Posted by bluesea112

All of the legalities behind suppressors is nothing but drama driven by ignorance. It is a muffler. That's all it is, and that's all it ever will be.

This is absolutely true. The irony is that mufflers are (generally) required by law on cars and people tend to get angry if you drive around with open headers or a blown muffler. Yet, put one on a firearm and suddenly people think you're some kind of law-breaking extremist, CIA assassin, elite LEO / SF military, or a Hollywood Ninja. All of the legal complexities for suppressors fuel further drama, like this thread, where people claim that suppressors aren't for the general public or are only for 1 out of 10,000 people. The fact is, acquiring a suppressor takes nothing more than 3 to 6 months, a $200 tax stamp, and essentially, being able to own a firearm lawfully. (That's really the extent of the background check.) There's no reason that every law-abiding gun-owner couldn't own one. (provided it was in accordance with state laws)

They're easy to get, the process is just so rarely used that it's misunderstood and the rarity of the usage gets turned into statements based on assumption that they're somehow hard to get.

Originally Posted by Mr. Nameless

Personaly if there is a need for a silencer then you're to close.

The soldiers in the US Army (ASI B4) and the USMC (MOS 0317) would disagree with you. Suppressors hide the sound of the muzzle blast even on supersonic projectiles shot from great distances. Suppressors are incredibly valuable to the folks serving in these fields. Suppressors are valuable even at 600 to 1,200+ yards, given the right weapon system. This is all from a tactical standpoint of the enemy hearing your shots. Of course, every soldier who's had a mag-dump over his head in a HMMWV probably wishes the trigger-happy yahoo doing the mag-dump had a can on the end of his bang-stick.

Suppressors are of great value to anyone, anywhere for the purposes of reducing hearing damage. I'm actually rather surprised that we don't have the attitude of the Finns. In Finland it's considered bad etiquette to be at the range or hunting without a suppressor. Keeping your firearm from damaging the hearing of everyone around you has an inherent value. (This is something I'm shocked OSHA hasn't jumped on.)

Originally Posted by GMFWoodchuck

Why would you even want one? The report is part of the fun.

It's far more fun when your .45 ACP sounds like a paintball gun and your 7.62x51 sounds like a .22 LR. Plus, there's nothing more fun than a controlled burst from an MP-5 SD without hearing protection. (All you hear is loud spurts of air and the action cycling like mad. It's amazing, not quite Hollywood quiet, but still pretty darned cool.)