Do any members keep a dedicated suppressor on their primary home defense weapon?

[Old School]

"I know that personally I'd rather take a broadsword through my stomach than stand next to an unsuppressed gun being fired indoors without protection."

Yikes!
I have had a 357 make my ears ring loudly after just one shot and that was outdoors. However, I will pass on the broadsword trade.

 

[La Pistoletta]

I take it you haven't experienced hyperacusis. I wasn't born with it so I know the difference. Ordinary sounds are loud, loud sounds become unbelievable. Hard to explain...it's a physical shock that feels like it could have the power to stop one's heart.

Even a broken bone or trampling through a nail is still "just" pain. The other thing is pure physical horror. It may sound a bit melodramatic but as I said, it's hard to explain.

 

[Kind of Blued]

Greywolf's question piqued my curiousity. How would the PD know that you removed the silencer before they arrived? Would the wound ballistics on the BG be different by using a silencer? I would think barring a CSI sweep of your house (not likely), there would be no way to tell. Having a threaded barrel proves nothing, as obviously they would know you have a silencer but how would they prove it was on the gun at the time? Cops are not omniscient...

The question isn't "How would the police know", it is "How are you 100% sure that they won't find out about the suppressor?"

If it is decided that the gun will be taken as evidence, it is likely that they will ask "Is this the exact gun that was fired configured exactly like it is now?"

At this point you would have to "come out" and try to explain why you removed the suppressor, which a jury WILL find out about. A jury will also hear everything you say in this period of intense interogation in which I'd bet just about everything you say will be 'not what [you] meant'.

The other option is to lie about the suppressor and hope one of the dozen officers sniffing around your home doesn't come across a slightly warm suppressor tucked away somewhere.

Considering the number of avenues you could go down by removing the suppressor, I don't see an obvious way to, for lack of a better phrase, get away with it. 'No harm, no foul' doesn't apply in court.

 

[jrfoxx]

They have a team of professional forensic analysts with a well-funded research/investigation laboratory at their disposal, unlimited time to analyze the heck out of anything, and aggregate hundreds of years of experience in figuring out the nuances of what happend. They can make or break you on a single scratch or molecule.

The following is NOT at all me disputing anything about the whole deal of removing a suppressor after a SD shooting, or how a suppressor will look to a jury.My question is does anyone know if the the type of investigative techniques in the quote is typically done in most shootings, especially ones where the fact that it was a homeowner who shot someone in his house, at night, who was a person he clearly didnt know? Or is all that CSI type stuuf usually reserved for cases where there is no immediate suspect/shooter known, or the type of gun isnt known, or things look to be VERY different from what is being told, etc? Seems like GSR tests, trajectory tests, etc would be VERY expensive and time consuming to do as a standard practice for all or even most shootings, and would bog down the system so bad as to really screw the system up.

Maybe it's its faster, easier and cheaper than I think, and it is standard practice when there is even the tiniest doubt of what happened, or if there is to be a trial, I wouldnt know. I have no police, foresnsic, investigative, legal, etc background at all, so I'm just curious about how that type of thing works, if anyone here has legitimate knowledge of that kind of thing.

Like I said, not disputing ANYTHING about whether having a suppressor on a HD gun is a good or bad idea, or how it will affect things, or if removing it aftre a shooting is good or bad, or any of that. Just wondering if they really would even know, or try to find out, unless there was already something about the shooting that didnt seem to be right.

That said, I tend to lean towards the idea that if you have a can on a SD gun, and get involved in a shooting, it's likely best nt to remove it, as if they do somehow find out, it may be considered evidence tampering, or at least may have a negative effect on your credibility, etc.

 

[buzz_knox]

How far they will go will depend on how far they want to go. If the autopsy (routine in such cases) reveals an abnormal powder signature (due to a suppressor) when you claimed you fired when he was right on you, they'll expend the resources to resolve that "dilemma" (at this point, also known as a suspicious homicide). If the investigating officer thinks you lied at any point (such as when you hesitated when he asked if you are leaving anything out), he'll want to know what you are lying about.

 

[Conqueror]

I have actually tested this before, let me dig up the photo...

The following piece of paper was shot at the indicated ranges with a Ruger Mk3 .22 pistol, with a 4.5" threaded PacLite barrel. On the left is unsuppressed; on the right is with a Liberty Suppressors "Sparrowhawk" silencer which measures 6" long by 1" diameter.



A silencer will most definitely change GSR deposition patterns IF IF IF you are close enough for there to BE any GSR deposition. Even with an unsuppressed gun there is little GSR on the shootee beyond a few feet away. And I don't think they routinely test for GSR in self-defense shootings.