Suppressors aren't in the news often, even when they're used in crimes. While the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has spun up a lot of headlines about so-called ghost guns, most people ignore that the killer used a suppressor, likely one that was 3D printed as well.
However, two Missouri state senators want to legalize them because they're really safety devices.
EFFERSON CITY — Two Missouri lawmakers want to repeal a ban on firearm silencers like the one allegedly used in the hitman-style murder of a health insurance executive earlier this month in New York.
Rep.-elect Mike Costlow, R-Dardenne Prairie, and Sen. Nick Schroer, R-Defiance, introduced legislation that would stop the prosecution of the offense of possessing or selling a gun suppressor. The measure also would attempt to shield silencers made in Missouri from federal prosecution.
Costlow said the measure is designed to help prevent hearing loss among hunters and other gun enthusiasts.
“They are basically hearing protection,” Costlow said. “I have a lot of friends who have hearing troubles.”
The push to make silencers legal comes against the backdrop of alleged gunman Luigi Mangione apparently using the accessory when he killed UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a New York sidewalk.
Costlow said he hopes that event doesn’t torpedo his proposal.
“I can understand why optics would say it’s bad timing,” he said. “But it would have been the same outcome whether he used a suppressor or not.”
Unsurprisingly, anti-gunners are claiming that proper hearing protection is superior to suppressors and that they're not, in fact, safety devices.
Then again, they don't think of guns as life-saving devices, either, so I'm pretty sure we can just dismiss their perspective on the issue entirely because they're absolute morons when it comes to anything firearm related. After all, one of their leading voices actually freaked out over a bolt-action .22 rifle because it looked too scary.
Now, I think this is a great idea and I wish them well.
Yes, I'm concerned the Thompson murder might kill the effort, but Costlow isn't wrong about how nothing would have changed regarding Thompson's murder.
Perhaps more to the point, all the laws we have covering suppressors--they're in the same legal category as machine guns except that you can buy one made after 1984--didn't stop the alleged killer from obtaining one. If he did 3D print it, that's even more evidence that the laws aren't actually accomplishing anything.
So if the law isn't stopping criminals from getting something, then there's no reason to keep it illegal when there are actual benefits for law-abiding citizens.
Personally, I'd rather have a suppressor on my gun should I need it to deal with a home invasion than somehow make everyone in the family sleep with earplugs handy. That's just not realistic, but a suppressor dropping the decibels down enough to not cause permanent hearing damage would be nice.
Why do gun control advocates hate our families so much?
Trick question. They don't care about our families at all. If they did, they wouldn't keep trying to make it harder for us to protect them.
