Excellent Graphic for Suppressors

There is currently an effort in Minnesota to get suppressors legalized. Minnesota is one of only of eleven states where they are illegal, and Minnesota Gun Owners PAC is working to change that. I really like the fact sheet they made up on the issue. This is excellent:



This gets the message across in a very clear way. If you look at the growth in this issue, I think we may have a decent shot of getting suppressors out from under the National Firearms Act if we can keep the trend going.

28 Responses to “Excellent Graphic for Suppressors”

  1. DevsAdvocate says:

    Well done! I have a comment on one part: the comparison of dB makes it seem like suppressors don’t do much at all which would open up the argument: “if they don’t do much to reduce sound, why need them”. Stupid, I know, but maybe there might be a better way to make comparisons by adjusting the scales involved from a visual perspective.

    • HappyWarrior6 says:

      Okay. If antis are going to stand on a “sound” argument of suppressed fire not being that different from unsuppressed fire, then why do they protest the use of them to muffle a shot that must always be destined for an innocent child? Think of the children. I know, I know, logic and all. Elusive.

      • Rob Doar says:

        Fair point, but here, the argument that the anti’s are using is that suppressors are “designed to let people get away with murder” (Yes, actual quote from testimony) and that they are used to get around the shotspotter system in Minneapolis.

        Predicting our oppositions’s arguments ahead of time, we were able to deflate their positions before they started.

        Thanks Sebastian for the shout out!

        • Alpheus says:

          I have often thought that, if you were premeditating murder in Minneapolis, then one way to get around the shotspotter system would be to set up fireworks around the city, and have a remote prepared so that the would go off at around the same time.

          Even so, it’s my understanding that the shotspotter system is the type of system that fails at its own goal: too often, it picks up false positives, and too often, it doesn’t pick up legitimate shots.

          Not that such analysis would prevent antis from arguing against supressors, of course!

    • Sound pressure levels distribute on a logarithmic, rather than linear scale. Thus a 5 dB reduction in SPL is very significant in terms of exposure to damaging effects from noise.

      • Sigivald says:

        I’ve always liked the “but aren’t suppressors mandatory or strongly encouraged safety equipment in, like, Sweden?” tactic.

        Play off the Euro-inferiority complex and on the safety angle.

        • HSR47 says:

          Or just point out that mufflers for both vehicles and firearms are the same invention; Both devices were covered by a single patent granted to Hiram Percy Maxim.

          The government’s response was to mandate this single invention in one application, and all but ban it in another.

  2. Patrick H says:

    The more gun owners we get interested and owning suppressors, the better chance we have. It will take the right situation- a full GOP government AND the will to do it. But I think in the next ten years its possible.

  3. OSHA’s Occupational Noise Standard published at 21 CFR 1910.95 mandates that engineering noise controls must be used whenever technically feasible (not just economically feasible) rather than administrative controls or personal protective equipment (ear plugs or muffs). Thus any employees at firing ranges who are exposed to sound pressure levels about the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 90 dBA based on an 8-hour time-weighted-average or above the impact or impulse limits, MUST, by federal Department of Labor regulations use suppressors to reduce noise exposures. This should be one line of attack against the prohibition.

  4. aerodawg says:

    Suppressor interest in growing. I’ve even had coworkers talk to me about the “solvent trap” freeze plug suppressors you can turn out for little $.

  5. BTR says:

    I urge everyone to use suppressors to avoid getting hyperacusis like me.

    • Request says:

      And I urge everyone to use good infographics like this to avoid getting buried in TL;DR text!

  6. N.M says:

    What is the argument for suppressors?

    • Smelters says:

      To save your hearing and reduce noise pollution.

    • Matthew Carberry says:

      I see your problem, you come at life with a “that which is not expressly legal is forbidden” mindset, rather than an American mindset of “that which is not expressly illegal is of course permitted”.

      Liberty is the natural state of being, the “default setting” for our system of government and the limited government/natural rights philosophy which undergirds it.

      In our system it is only *restrictions* which must be justified, and justified with both reason and evidence as to their necessity, their potential ability to accomplish their stated limited goals, and, once in place, they must constantly defend their ability to achieve those goals in actual practice. Absence of evidence of effect is automatically evidence for repeal of said restriction, so that the default state of liberty can once again rule.

      So, “Why do you need/want ‘X’?”, is not a philosophically serious question for an American.

      Rather, the burden is on those who think others don’t need any given exercise of liberty to so overwhelmingly prove their case as to override the default toward liberty.

      • Archer says:

        Excellent re-statement of the issue.

        The Constitutionally-valid question is not “What is the argument for suppressors?”, but “Does the argument against suppressors hold any water?”

      • Sebastian says:

        Suppressors in the UK are regulated the same as pencils. To even the British are more enlightened on this topic than we are. That goes for a number of other European countries as well, where suppressor use is just considered being polite to your neighbors.

    • Sebastian says:

      Anyone who’s ever been part of running a shooting club that’s not in a far away rural area doesn’t need to ask that question. We spend enough time already dealing with noise complaints.

      • EPA Noise Control Act would be another potentially fruitful line of argument. The Liberals and attorney’s have made this regulatory labyrinth of hell and we should turn it against them. It is called “lawfare.”

        • HSR47 says:

          While that may seem like a good idea in the short term, it is likely to be more trouble than it’s worth.

          Imagine a requirement that ALL firearms use mufflers at all times…

  7. Alex says:

    The infographic makes it seem like supressors don’t do a hell of a lot. What’s the point of buying one?

  8. Mcarmel says:

    Or tinnitus (ringing of the ears) or permanent threshold shift (going deaf).

  9. Carl from Chicago says:

    So what would the community prefer…prohibition of suppressors or mandate for suppressors? Many of the arguments above for suppressors are also arguments to mandate their use.

    • Patrick H says:

      Neither. None of the arguments are for mandates of their use. Suppressors also can change the ballistics of rounds, and its not something you would want to have to use. They also extend the barrel by many inches, which is not something that is always desirable.

  10. Mcarmel says:

    OSHA regulations only apply within an employee-employer context. So mandatory use would only be indicated in a workplace environment. EPA Noise Control Act would apply to a more limited circumstance of ambient noise to which the general public is exposed due to a firing range. However, local noise control ordinances could also come into play. So there is little risk that all firearms would be required to be suppressed. But from the shooters perspective, suppression would help reduce noise exposure and make the sport more comfortable.