Public Perception of Suppressors

[Speedo66]

Wonder what actual public perception of suppressors is? Has Hollywood done much damage in that almost every portrayal of suppressor is in the hands of a bad guy doing some evil deed?

While everyone here would love to have laws regarding them eased, is it possible, or would a groundswell of public opinion based on what they see in popular media kill any attempt?

From what I read from our foreign posters here, they are in wide use, and welcomed for keeping hunting and target shooting noise down. How can we go about changing public perception here?

 

[Ryanxia]

I'd say between most people only ever seeing one in a hitman movie and the fact that loosening any Federal law on guns is like pulling teeth, I don't see there being much to do. Of course the more they try to take away our Rights the more our ranks swell, so maybe one day there will be a tipping point and an actual push to deregulate them would be feasible.

 

[Ironman]

Public perception has actually gotten better. www.americansuppressorassociation.com has stats that show that.

I see more and more of them at the ranges etc. One can only hope they get deregulated one day.......

 

[AlexanderA]

The public's view of suppressors is based on a misconception, fostered by numerous Hollywood movies: that they are truly "silencers," and that they make a gun go "pfft!" no louder than an air rifle.

With increasing exposure of the public to real suppressors (more and more are being sold these days, despite the NFA red tape), opposition to them will diminish. On the other hand, gun people will see them as no big deal, and demand for them will diminish as well. I think that a large part of the appeal of suppressors is precisely because they are a sort of "forbidden fruit" and are an affordable alternative to machine guns, for those that want to get into the NFA game. (The same can be said about short-barrel rifles.)

 

[coloradokevin]

Public perception is still much like it has always been on this subject:

1) "Why do you need that, are you an assassin?"

2) "Only criminals need suppressors"

3) "It's not legal to own one of those"

4) "They have no lawful purpose"

5) "They make rifles inaccurate, and slow your bullet"

All myths, all except the last one being perpetuated by Hollywood, and all baseless opinions built around fantasy. Shooting suppressed is my favorite way to shoot: less recoil, less sound, less muzzle blast. It's more pleasant in every way, and also reduces the report of the rifle that normally annoys people on neighboring properties, etc. For hunting you're less likely to do hearing damage when you shoot suppressed. Win-win.

But, these devices hardly make a rifle silent, especially when shooting any round that exceeds the supersonic threshold. When I shoot my .260 Rem suppressed (as I most often do) I almost always still wear hearing protection, though the rifle is probably right on the line of being "hearing safe" when suppressed.

Even among LEO's people don't seem to understand the suppressor issue. I'm a career cop, and I've had to explain NFA laws to some of my coworkers who still seem to believe that suppressors are illegal under all circumstances (pretty pathetic when even the cops don't get it). One guy didn't believe that you could get a "tax stamp" until I actually showed him a copy of mine!

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Supressors are probably more acceptable than "assault rifles" and "high cap-clips." Even the most die hard anti, can't really say that hearing protection is unnecessary.

 

[boricua9mm]

I'd say coloradokevin nailed it. Here's my findings down in Florida...

[Type 1] Going by what I've overheard from bystanders as I shoot mine, most people's initial reaction is "I thought those were illegal!" Usually someone else will chime in that they are legal to own, with some form of Government permission, an explanation which is usually erroneous ("Class III License, gotta be a Cop, etc.) Nine times out of ten, those same people who initially asked if they were illegal usually end up saying "That's really cool!" Now, mind you, these are people who are warm or lukewarm to the concept of owning and shooting firearms. These are usually people whom someone else brought them out to go shooting. These newbies will usually ask their buddies why THEY don't own anything like this, and they'll usually grumble something about the Gov't and then saunter away (see "Type 3")

[Type 2] I have actually had a Range Officer at my gun club make a remark to someone else "Why would you want to own such a thing?" I don't usually answer questions that were not directed at me, but in this case I responded "Well, I certainly wouldn't buy something to make my gun LOUDER!" People laughed, and the R.O. made a comment about bringing the Gov't into his life (see "Type 3" below). These guys are the types of people that are Fudds to the core. Most of the time they are completely oblivious to the NFA regulations and requirements. They are seldom worth having a conversation with, but I like to have hope in Americans when it comes to the 2nd.

[Type 3] There is another group of people; these people are regular shooters, but through conversation you find out that they honestly and truly believe that by having registered NFA items, that you have subjected your house to unreasonable searches and seizures at any time, any day of the week. They believe that us NFA owners are on a special list, but that the 10 form 4473s that they filled out this year allow them to maintain their complete anonymity from the Government. I believe these are the people that have teetered on NFA ownership, but either were scared away by someone's BS, or they are using this as an excuse for not taking the time to get in the NFA game.

 

[HexHead]

How can we go about changing public perception here?

Well, for starters, "you can't fix stupid". Nothing's likely to change.

 

[Ironman]

I'd say coloradokevin nailed it. Here's my findings down in Florida...

[Type 1] Going by what I've overheard from bystanders as I shoot mine, most people's initial reaction is "I thought those were illegal!" Usually someone else will chime in that they are legal to own, with some form of Government permission, an explanation which is usually erroneous ("Class III License, gotta be a Cop, etc.) Nine times out of ten, those same people who initially asked if they were illegal usually end up saying "That's really cool!" Now, mind you, these are people who are warm or lukewarm to the concept of owning and shooting firearms. These are usually people whom someone else brought them out to go shooting. These newbies will usually ask their buddies why THEY don't own anything like this, and they'll usually grumble something about the Gov't and then saunter away (see "Type 3")

[Type 2] I have actually had a Range Officer at my gun club make a remark to someone else "Why would you want to own such a thing?" I don't usually answer questions that were not directed at me, but in this case I responded "Well, I certainly wouldn't buy something to make my gun LOUDER!" People laughed, and the R.O. made a comment about bringing the Gov't into his life (see "Type 3" below). These guys are the types of people that are Fudds to the core. Most of the time they are completely oblivious to the NFA regulations and requirements. They are seldom worth having a conversation with, but I like to have hope in Americans when it comes to the 2nd.

[Type 3] There is another group of people; these people are regular shooters, but through conversation you find out that they honestly and truly believe that by having registered NFA items, that you have subjected your house to unreasonable searches and seizures at any time, any day of the week. They believe that us NFA owners are on a special list, but that the 10 form 4473s that they filled out this year allow them to maintain their complete anonymity from the Government. I believe these are the people that have teetered on NFA ownership, but either were scared away by someone's BS, or they are using this as an excuse for not taking the time to get in the NFA game.

Brother you hit the nail on the head!

 

[guyfromohio]

Type 3 here. I'm learning though.

 

[HKGuns]

You're a bit harsh in your assessment of type 2. "Seldom worth having a conversation with?" I find most of the time it is usually worth the conversation.

Most of the shooters I hang out with don't own NFA because they are too lazy (or busy) and cheap to go through the process and spend the money on the stamp.

 

[LocoGringo]

I think boricua9mm missed an important group #4: The shooters who haven't been exposed to suppressors. These may be very experienced shooters who have been shooting for a long time, but never considered a suppressor because for so long in their shooting lives the $200 tax stamp was prohibitive and/or thought you had to have a license (something necessary to renew periodically). They've pretty much written suppressor ownership off because it's too much trouble. They may also have never actually heard one in person. Then there's the relatively new shooter who just doesn't know anything. They have the common view that suppressors are illegal or you need a license, etc. However, after hearing one, they're curious and open to ownership. When they approach me, I tell them the rather simple regulations involved and the wait time for applications and they walk away thinking about getting one.

I shot at my club range New Year's Eve with 2 suppressed rifles and there was an obviously experienced shooter that watched both me and a buddy shoot suppressed. While my buddy was shooting, I watched this guy and he was tickled watching us shoot suppressed. I knew this because he was actually grinning. While he never actually asked me anything, I actually heard him walk back over to his guys and say "I'm getting a suppressor next".

I was type 4 for a long time. I had never been exposed to a suppressor but when I found out it really isn't that difficult to own one and that there are A LOT of myths surrounding suppressor ownership, I decided to get one. I bought my first suppressor without even ever hearing one. I made a good purchase although I know there are better out there. Now, I'm converting others.

 

[nettlle]

My wife and I were discussing suppressors not too long ago. We know nothing about them so we might qualify as the uninformed public.

She and her friends trail ride horses a lot on public land that allows public hunting. When they hear gun shots during the hunting seasons they steer the horses away from the sound. With the availability of suppressors she and her friends are concerned about riding up too close to someone that is hunting.

The both of us are about as pro-gun as anyone can be as are most of our friends but do we know anything about suppressors? No we do not. And it is up to us to learn.

 

[jrdolall]

I was shooting suppressed on yesterday and also shooting an AR-15 with a slide stock so a sheriff came calling. Apparently a neighbor heard the "machine gun" and called the cops. Fortunately the cop was literate and saw what we were doing but he had to respond I guess.
Virtually everyone that sees me shooting with a suppressor thinks they are illegal. I think WE all assume that everyone knows what we know. Some people that have been hunting and shooting all their lives don't have any idea about suppressor laws, Class II, III, automatic or any of the other terms we throw around.

 

[jrdolall]

With the availability of suppressors she and her friends are concerned about riding up too close to someone that is hunting.

If you are on public land that allows hunting then you are very likely to ride up on a hunter with a 30-06 Remington sitting in a deer stand waiting for a deer to walk by. They don't normally advertise by firing their un-suppressed rifles randomly. I was sitting on my land in a deer stand a few years ago when movement caught my eye. Two people on horseback had decided to go riding during deer season without calling. I often allow people to ride my fire breaks but expect a call before they show up. I just let them ride on and they never knew I was there but my friend got an earful later that day. No danger to them since I wasn't after horse on this hunt but I wasn't real happy with them.

 

[hq]

Supressors are probably more acceptable than "assault rifles" and "high cap-clips." Even the most die hard anti, can't really say that hearing protection is unnecessary.

Considering that back in the 80's they were enthusiastically banning heat shields, ie. safety devices, I wouldn't be surprised. A perfect analogy would be that motor vehicles have mufflers so there's no real reason to shoot unsuppressed, but as we all know, hysteria and misinformation run wild among the so-called do-gooders. For example, at the club I hunt moose every now and then all guest rifles are suppressed and so far only american guests have been baffled or even impressed by that. And they've been experienced hunters who aren't new to firearms, only exposed to US suppressor legislation all their lives.

In reality cans are just cans; devices designed to reduce noise. There shouldn't be anything special about it.

 

[Midwest]

I would just tell people that they use suppressors in countries in Europe with strict gun control. There is no problem with them using suppressors there, in fact it is encouraged.
I would also tell people that silencers are legal in many states and most of them allow hunting with them. Besides a suppressor is not a firearm, but an add on device.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20111117/suppressors-good-for-our-hearing
.

 

[Speedo66]

Thanks for the interesting responses. Be nice to see some articles in mainstream magazines extolling their virtues. I think we may have a ways to go before the outdoor editor in the NY Times talks about using and enjoying one.

 

[BK]

Both my dad and my father-in-law were in the "uninformed but highly pro-gun group".

They are now both informed I guess. Dad still believes his guns are "registered in his name" because of the 4473's he has filled out. Anyway, he's frugal to a fault and is disappointed to see any of his kids spending their money on things he would never. So when we've been shooting with my suppressors, he will always comment on how non-silenced these silencers make the shots, implying that I got nothing for all that money spent.

He'd never own one nor recommend it because he doesn't see any benefit given the cost. A large portion of the pro-gun community is in that type of mind.

 

[txblackout]

here is a 2007 pro-gun liberal take on suppressors and the corresponding comments.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/...ors-silencers-should-be-made-easier-to-obtain

 

[Theohazard]

While most of the information in that article was correct, the author lost me when he wrote this,

This article refers to these devices by the correct "suppressors" instead of the more colloquial and inaccurate "silencers", as they do no such thing.

The term "silencer" is hardly incorrect or colloquial considering that's what the original inventor decided to call them. How did the author manage to do his research for that article without discovering that Hiram Percy Maxim patented his invention under the name "silencer", and that's what they've been referred to by federal law ever since 1934? Regardless of which term more accurately describes what they do, "silencer" is definitely more correct from a historical and legal standpoint.

And some of those comments by pro-silencer people are full of terrible information, like this one:

They do cut down accuracy and range quite a bit, but that's not a concern at firing ranges so much as it might be while hunting at long distances. And there is a real safety issue at stake - people who don't shoot have no idea how loud gunfire really is.

You did leave out one thing - getting that $200 Class 3 permit for a silencer also allows any interested government agency to search your home, anytime, for any reason, with no warrant.

That guy managed to fit four of the biggest BS silencer myths into one comment, which is actually kind of impressive.

 

[Ranb]

It's been a long time since anyone (including a person on this forum) has accused me of illegal activities associated with my silencer hobby. At the local rifle range I normally have a 9mm, 22lr, 223 and 308 can to attach to anyone's pistol or rifle if they are interested. I also have a standing offer to let anyone make silencer on my lathe (with my guidance) as long as they show me their approved ATF form 1, pay for material and give me $20 for tooling. I'm known as "that silencer guy" at the KRRC in Bremerton.

Attitudes have changed for the better over the years; still a long way to go though.

Ranb

 

[pjeski]

It's been a long time since anyone (including a person on this forum) has accused me of illegal activities associated with my silencer hobby. At the local rifle range I normally have a 9mm, 22lr, 223 and 308 can to attach to anyone's pistol or rifle if they are interested. I also have a standing offer to let anyone make silencer on my lathe (with my guidance) as long as they show me their approved ATF form 1, pay for material and give me $20 for tooling. I'm known as "that silencer guy" at the KRRC in Bremerton.

Attitudes have changed for the better over the years; still a long way to go though.

Ranb

Have you been following ATF 2015-1?
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=770086

 

[Ranb]

I have read it. I have also not allowed anyone to make one this year. I will not allow anyone to use my lathe to make a firearm until I get further clarification on the ruling. Right now I don't think it applies to unlicensed machine shops who do not make anything as a business and/or actually assist in the making of firearms other than providing the tools.

Ranb

 

[txblackout]

Here is one anti gunners take on it

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/30/silencers_the_nras_latest_big_lie/

Society did not form its lasting perceptions of the silencer in the decades of Percy’s .22 pistols and midnight pig poaching. The image the NRA must scrub is the one that formed early in what might be called the Second Silencer Age, when a new breed of steel “cans” emerged and became associated with rapid, discreet, controlled killing. The silencers the gun lobby is trying to mainstream can make ninjas of high-caliber handguns, long-barrel sniper rifles, and assault weapons, all commonly featured in military-themed silencer ads. The Second Age that produced these tools was commenced not by a charming dynastic American industrial engineer with wide interests like Percy Maxim. Rather, it was born in the rural Georgia kill-gadget lab of a notoriously cracked and ruthless CIA black ops contractor, known in gun circles as the Wizard of Whistling Death.