I've bought two the way it is now.  If 7-11 had them, I'd have one for every gun.

Of course.  I'd probably be shooting at something right now, too.  

I currently own four sound suppressors also.  I disagree with the post "Sound Suppressors aren’t exactly covered under the 2nd Amendment" because in every case that I legally bought a sound suppressor I had to fill out a yellow firearm form.  If they are not defined as 'firearms' then why the yellow firearm form (4473)?  The BATFE can't have it's cake and eat it too...MadDog

p.s. why can't I post an image?

Got one. Love it. Need more.

Quoted: Who's the jackass that voted "no"?

Actually it's: Who are the 9 jackasses that voted "no"?

Quoted: No firearms safety instructor or manufacture would ever endorse a sound surppressor as a replacment to proper hearing protection

Why is that exactly? My Peltor President muffs have a db reduction rating of 31 iirc, my Sonic plugs have a db reduction rating of 29 (iirc), and my AAC M4-2000 has a db reduction rating of either 34 or 35, depending on whose test you read. So the suppressor:

- protects your hearing better than muffs or plugs,
- doesn’t get physically in the way like muffs,
- lets you hear range commands unhindered (unlike muffs or plugs)
- protects other bystanders’ hearing, in addition to the shooter’s (unlike muffs or plugs)
- lets me hear what’s happening in the woods when hunting (unlike muffs or plugs)
- lets me hear what’s happening in a building when clearing it (unlike muffs or plugs) [and I’m not “clandestine” by any means; just a rural deputy sheriff, but we still sometimes are put in that position]


Suppressors aren’t about silently killing communist spies. (At least not here in Arkansas…) They’re handy tools to reduce physically-damaging noise, while allowing the user to maintain all five of his senses active. Muffs & plugs undeniably handicap a user. (That’s their whole purpose; disabling one of the five senses.)

Teaching my kids to shoot has been much more instructive and two-way since I’ve been able to do it with a suppressed gun. You can talk calmly, and not yell at them; and that’s a big help with a new shooter who’s already nervous about holding a gun.

Picture the following scene: You’re on the shooting line with a dozen newbie shooters, taking their first firearms class, and getting direction from the rangemaster. Would you rather those dozen newbies be deaf, or a dozen newbies with five fully functioning senses and using suppressors…? I’d prefer the non-handicapped shooters, who can hear the safety instructions the rangemaster is giving them.

Handicaps can be overcome, but it makes no sense to impose an artificial handicap unnecessarily.

Gas Busters would be $900 + $200 tax

Quoted: Muffs & plugs undeniably handicap a user. (That’s their whole purpose; disabling one of the five senses.)

Actually they are designed to protect your sense of hearing, not disable it.

Based on your train of thought,  I suppose the purpose of sunglasses is to disable sight.  

Here's mine


Mark

I think it is plain rude to shoot people (eidited to add -or mammals) without a suppressor on your weapon...you could hurt their
ears...

I can also.. http://www.hunt101.com/img/248031.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/img/231732.jpg
http://www.hunt101.com/img/248028.jpg

Quoted: Quoted: Muffs & plugs undeniably handicap a user. (That’s their whole purpose; disabling one of the five senses.) Actually they are designed to protect your sense of hearing, not disable it. Based on your train of thought,  I suppose the purpose of sunglasses is to disable sight.

The purpose of sunglasses is to reduce visual input; just as the purpose of muffs & plugs is to reduce audible input. (Unless you're talking about electronic muffs; in that case, you'd be right)

If your goal is strictly to provide physical protection, clear glasses protect as well as sunglasses without reducing visual input. Dark glasses are for reducing visual input, to protect your vision (vs physically protecting your eyeballs from shrapnel). This is effectively what muffs & plugs do to protect your hearing (vs physically protecting your earlobes from shrapnel).

IMO, your sunglasses analogy actually supports my position.

Put it this way: Standard (non-electronic) muffs & plugs protect you (and only you) from the sudden sound pulse of your gunshot, but at the expense of reducing other, non-harmful, input. Dark glasses can protect you (and only you) from the sudden light pulse of your gunshot, but at the expense of reducing other, non-harmful, input. That is their whole function, as I said.

A suppressor protects you from the harmful pulses of both sound AND light, without reducing other, non-harmful input. Unlike muffs, plugs or glasses, it also provides those same protections for others on the shooting line, your partners in a building you’re searching, and the neighbors’ milk cows.

It sounds like you’ve decided that suppressors are bad, which is absolutely your right, and are looking for ways to convince others to agree with you.

They offer a measurable benefit; and at the same time, do no harm. Where’s the functional downside?