Opinion: There is no good reason for a civilian to own a gunshot sound suppressor

To the editor: I am a retired federal law enforcement agent and own three handguns for which I have a concealed weapon permit. I served in Iraq as a civilian law enforcement adviser, and during this time I experienced several uses of suppressors (also known as “silencers”). (“The gun lobby’s latest scheme: make it easier to commit crimes quietly,” Opinion, Sept. 27)

This tool indeed severely limits the sound of the weapon being fired; it is like a “tap, tap, tap” that might not alarm someone nearby. There is no valid reason why a civilian should have access to these devices.

I have read that those who advocate for greater access to suppressors cite the protection of a shooter’s hearing. We have ear protectors for that, and they are effective. Peter Ambler is correct when he asserts that criminals would benefit and the gun lobby would profit.

Just imagine walking down Wilshire Boulevard and seeing someone a few feet in front of you suddenly drop to the curb. Your likely reaction would be to get to try to help, not knowing that gunfire caused that person to drop. A law-abiding society does not need fuller access to sound suppressors.

John Everett, Agoura Hills

..

To the editor: This article is carefully worded anti-gun propaganda worthy of framing.

Notice the technique: Although the gun accessory is properly named “suppressor,” as designated in the SHARE Act (which the author opposes) and in firearm terminology, and although the article recognizes these devices do not “silence” a gunshot, Ambler nevertheless refers to them repeatedly as “silencers.”

This makes readers believe suppressors allow criminals to use their guns silently.

Nowhere in the article is there hard evidence that the prohibition of suppressors would reduce the deaths or injuries inflicted by a terrorist or deranged gunman. Nowhere is there mentioned the benefit of preventing hearing losses in millions of target shooters, hunters and bystanders, the prime purpose for the suppressor amendments to the SHARE Act.

William Vietinghoff, Thousand Oaks

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook