With more and more states legalizing the private ownership of firearm suppressors, a Los Angeles Times columnist Tuesday took a page from The Washington Post to launch his own little campaign of FUD—fear, uncertainty and doubt—demonizing the devices.
Although he didn’t stoop quite to the stupidity of the Washington Post reporter—who went so far as to refer to the .22 Long Rifle rimfire as a “high-powered rifle”—he did his best to link suppressors to everything from “machine guns and other instruments of mobster violence” to “hand grenades and land mines.” He pointed out that eight states ban ownership of suppressors—without mentioning that 40 states allow them—and he shrieked that legalizing suppressors “increases the dangers of firearm violence.”
Hogwash. Suppressors reduce noise complaints. They preserve hearing. They offer a variety of benefits to shooters and the public. And their use ought to be encouraged—as the Hearing Protection Act in Congress would do.Most Popular
