Ms. Clark,
I am writing to you, as a constituent in your district, regarding the proposed legislation to remove the prohibition on the private ownership of firearms suppressors, commonly known as "silencers" (SD.66, SD.1133). I would like you to support this legislation.
I am a life-long Massachusetts resident, save for my time in the U.S. Army; I am a nationally-certified firearms safety instructor, an avid sport shooter, and a responsible citizen. The common ownership of suppressors in private hands has long been lauded by gun control activists as an exigent threat to public safety, however, most of those people have had their opinions surrounding the efficacy of suppressors informed by Hollywood movies. In reality, suppressors reduce the average sound from a discharging firearm from ~160 db range (jet engine) to the ~120 db range (a rock concert) (source: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/). The reduction in sound would not only help to make the experience of target shooting and sport shooting more enjoyable, but it would dramatically reduce the risk of hearing damage. Having spent much time at shooting ranges, even with two layers of ear protection (foam ear plugs and ear muffs), the discharge is still quite loud. From a public health perspective, allowing citizens access to a tool which will help them protect a vital sensory organ seems like a no-brainer.
I am, however, quite troubled by the response a friend of mine received from a colleague of yours, state senator Will Brownsberger. Mr. Brownsberger indicated he would NOT support the legislation because:
“Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.”
This is troubling to me because, according the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in the past decade only 44 crimes committed with suppressed firearms were recommended for prosecution. 44 out of 1,300,000 suppressors is a ~0.003% crime utilization rate (source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/atf-de...n-silencers-united-states-rarely-used-crimes/). Add to that the fact that suppressors are expensive, long, heavy, and hard to conceal, and the reason for the non-use in crime becomes apparent: they are not functionally utilitarian enough for inner-city gang members to acquire and employ.
I recognize that the city of Boston is facing escalating levels of gang violence, and that city and state leadership are working diligently to help ameliorate the situation. However, claiming that suppressors should not be available to citizens in Massachusetts because of the possibility that they may be used by a criminal element is a red herring, especially given that suppressors are already readily available and owned by private citizens in 39 out of 50 states.
In closing, as your constituent, I urge you to support the repeal of the prohibition on privately owned firearms suppressors. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Regards,
[NAME]
I am writing to you, as a constituent in your district, regarding the proposed legislation to remove the prohibition on the private ownership of firearms suppressors, commonly known as "silencers" (SD.66, SD.1133). I would like you to support this legislation.
I am a life-long Massachusetts resident, save for my time in the U.S. Army; I am a nationally-certified firearms safety instructor, an avid sport shooter, and a responsible citizen. The common ownership of suppressors in private hands has long been lauded by gun control activists as an exigent threat to public safety, however, most of those people have had their opinions surrounding the efficacy of suppressors informed by Hollywood movies. In reality, suppressors reduce the average sound from a discharging firearm from ~160 db range (jet engine) to the ~120 db range (a rock concert) (source: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/11/gun-silencers-dont-make-them-anywhere-near-silent/). The reduction in sound would not only help to make the experience of target shooting and sport shooting more enjoyable, but it would dramatically reduce the risk of hearing damage. Having spent much time at shooting ranges, even with two layers of ear protection (foam ear plugs and ear muffs), the discharge is still quite loud. From a public health perspective, allowing citizens access to a tool which will help them protect a vital sensory organ seems like a no-brainer.
I am, however, quite troubled by the response a friend of mine received from a colleague of yours, state senator Will Brownsberger. Mr. Brownsberger indicated he would NOT support the legislation because:
“Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.”
This is troubling to me because, according the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, in the past decade only 44 crimes committed with suppressed firearms were recommended for prosecution. 44 out of 1,300,000 suppressors is a ~0.003% crime utilization rate (source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/atf-de...n-silencers-united-states-rarely-used-crimes/). Add to that the fact that suppressors are expensive, long, heavy, and hard to conceal, and the reason for the non-use in crime becomes apparent: they are not functionally utilitarian enough for inner-city gang members to acquire and employ.
I recognize that the city of Boston is facing escalating levels of gang violence, and that city and state leadership are working diligently to help ameliorate the situation. However, claiming that suppressors should not be available to citizens in Massachusetts because of the possibility that they may be used by a criminal element is a red herring, especially given that suppressors are already readily available and owned by private citizens in 39 out of 50 states.
In closing, as your constituent, I urge you to support the repeal of the prohibition on privately owned firearms suppressors. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.
Regards,
[NAME]
