My primary HD weapons are a Remington RP45 and a 10.5" 5.56 AR. The wife's is a Remington RP9. I have a 92FS in the shop as well. All are equipped with cans.
Yeah, yeah…but it’s a good shoot…nothing to worry about. Surprised that hasn’t been posted yet.
If it goes to court and I think it would JUST because the suppressor was involved, your chances of going to jail have just doubled if not more. Don’t believe me, search here for stuff you’ve heard in a gun store and report back…”this here 44 mag, you can kill a man by hitting him in his pinky toe”…”you don’t want that 9mm, you’d probably run out of bullets before you could kill the guy”…”this here 22mag will shoot through 15 layers of Kevlar, because the bullet is so small and flying at light speed it just passes through, but once it hit flesh it explodes like a grenade”. These comments generally come from the people that should know better. Remember also, you will be judged by 12 people that were not smart enough to get out of jury duty. I don’t know everything about guns, but I know a crap ton more the majority of the general population and I have NO DESIRE to have them judge me for a crime. Lastly and this amazes me, some here would never, never think about using reloaded ammo for self-defense for the obvious reasons, but for some reason will screw on a suppressor thinking it will be ok…the general public would never think “only an assassin would use a suppressor”
There's a really,
really big difference between self defense in public places and defending against a home invader.
For one, the legal threshold for use of force is much lower where a home invader is concerned; in most places, it's basically justifiable to use any amount of force against an invader simply on the grounds that they are an invader. An example is the applicable statute in my state:
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Self defense in public? There's a use of force continuum, and if you use more than you are justified in, you will face charges. Here again are the relevant statutes in my state as an example:
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
Now that we've established the very different circumstances which would determine if a person could even face any charges, let's talk about the practical side.
-The odds of ever needing to use deadly force to defend yourself are pretty low, low enough that most of us who do carry, carry something that is minimally obtrusive to our daily lives. Subcompact and micro pistols with very limited capacities that can be difficult to shoot well are extremely common for that reason. People who carry more substantial armament, especially multipe guns and magazines, could easily be painted as having been looking for a fight. Likewise, the mass and bulk of a suppressor far outweigh it's advantages for ordinary concealed carry, or even law enforcement officers who are not SWAT/HRT/etc.
-Home defense is a whole different ballgame where the odds of needing and practicality of carrying more substantial arms are completely irrelevant to what's used. I'm sure there are people who do use micro and subcompact pistols for HD, but the majority of us use full sized handguns if not rifles and shotguns, the latter two of which fall into the same category as suppressors for concealed carry purposes but make sense in home defense for reasons I needn't get into in this thread. Not only are suppressors not a hindrance on a weapon that needn't be carried on the body concealed, but they have a very legitimate & easily justified/explained purpose in protecting the hearing and preserving the night vision of the defender and other dwelling occupants.