Gear, Parts and Accessories

Video: NSSF Hosts Media for Suppressor Demonstration

Suppressor mounted on the end of a rifle barrel

Perhaps not on the forefront of some gun owners’ minds these days, but the fight for the Second Amendment is a daily struggle. The challenge is not to convince gun owners—at least not in most situations. Instead, the challenge is to educate the non gun owner. Two of the major obstacles to our success are the movies (Hollywood) and the media. Both have a huge influence on the general populace. Neither typically portrays guns factually. National Shooting Sports Foundation Logo In Hollywood’s case, I get it. Who wants the hero to empty three magazines at a static target and not get a hit? On the other hand, if the stack of bad guys with full autos ever hit anything, well, Hollywood would need a lot more action heroes. Bad guys who shoot accurately would mean feature-length movies would be reduced to $20 two-minute affairs. Movies are fantasy, art, and a representation of the story—not reality.

However, the same cannot—strike that—should not be a representation of the story. The media should deal in facts. Sadly, there are too few facts when the media writes the story. Likewise, fact checking seems to be a low priority, if it happens at all when a politician speaks about firearms. One of the most maligned firearm accessories of late has been suppressors, or what some would refer to as a silencer.

Part of the medias problem is bias; facts would be inconvenient to the story they want to tell. Bias exists and there is little that we are going to do about it. Ignorance, on the other hand, is something we can combat with knowledge. This is exactly what the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) set out to do last week by hosting a suppressor demonstration for the media. It gave media members a firsthand opportunity to hear and feel the difference a suppressor can make. It also gave the media the opportunity to hear and feel what a suppressor was not—a silencer.

On hand with product for the demonstration were representatives from Daniel Defense and SIG Sauer. Winchester (Olin Corp.) was also on hand and supplied the ammunition. Are you likely to a shift in coverage the next time you turn on the news? Of course not, but by laying one brick at a time, we can pave a road.

Here is a piece of video the NSSF released covering the event.

What is your take? How can the gun community better educate lawmakers and members of the media, with the eventual goal of educating the general public, of the benefits of suppressors while dispelling the Hollywood myths?

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (13)

  1. The only way anything is going to change is if we can convince govt that they’ll make more $ if the NFA requirement on suppressors is removed.
    How do we do that considering the govt currently rakes in $200 for every suppressor?? Well…it’s easy, actually. We get a few right lobbyists to propose that suppressors be removed from the NFA classification IF all the manufacturers pay a $200 tax for each one they make.
    What’s the difference, you ask? If you ask most people that want a suppressor why they don’t have one it’s usually because of the paperwork, filing, and grueling wait period. If we have the tax paid at the manufacturer, sure, they’ll pass on the extra cost to the consumers, BUT, more people will buy suppressors once they’re available for sale under the same terms as a Non-NFA firearm. In turn, sales volumes will increase for the manufacturers, Uncle Sam will get his cut (and then some, because with the net sale price being higher, it’ll also result in more sales tax), and those of us who are currently disparaging because of the wait will be vindicated.
    The bottom line is that IMO, it’s not just the lefties and gun control nuts keeping the suppressor situation the way it is. Like everything else, once the bs is scraped away, it all comes down to money. And you’ll never get suppressors off the NFA list unless you can maintain (or bolster) the tax revenue it creates.

    1. If there are increased sales shouldn’t there be less cost for the tax if they really wanted to generate money? OSHA recommends and in some cases requires people to wear hearing protection. I don’t see a difference between earplugs or earmuffs and a sound suppressor. They are very effective for the user and bystander.

  2. I have not yet been to Elite but I will. This is the intelligent way to open conversation. Educating someone does not imply shoving your views done their throats. Educating is supplying information and allowing discussion. Good Job!

  3. The movies portray shooting a gun in a closet 16 times will still allow you to hear perfectly when we know that is not true…

  4. Seemed to be a very informative video for those who lack experience or find themselves biased by the media/movies about firearm suppression. I believe every step no matter how minuet is progress simply fueled by an age old exspression “If your not part of the solution your not only part of the problem, you are the problem!” God forbid anyone have to experience the defending sound of a shot up close without ppe, but until everysingle neisayer does….insanity via educatings all we have.

  5. I don’t think the news media are, at all, interested in providing the truth about firearms, or self defense. They deliberately want to lie, misinform, and confuse the general public in the hope of getting more gun control laws enacted.

  6. How about a new twist, Muffler you would not drive a car without a muffler silencer is the term the english use for cars as well so we spin them to you would not drive a car without a muffler

    1. Let’s get he environmentalists behind suppressors as otherwise innocent animals will suffer hearing loss.

    2. That’s a good point and idea, but considering how the left thinks, that’d only give them the idea to keep suppressors/silencers/mufflers NFA regulated, then REQUIRE one to dischage any firearm. It’d be a way for them to strangle gun sales.

  7. The same problem exists in that only the journalists interested in firearms would be the ones to take the time or have enough interest to go and find out how suppressors work.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.