Recently the legislators in Kansas passed a law allowing the ownership of firearms suppressors by qualified civilians. Its refreshing to actually see legislators voting pro gun once in a while. Now, a lot of gun owners here in Massachusetts complain to me that they wish they could own suppressors here in Massachusetts. Well, maybe this will be motivation for all of you to try to change the law here as well. For those who are not familiar with suppressors or those who think they are merely an assassin’s tool, please read on. Firstly, sound suppressors are not "silencers" and they don’t "silence" a firearm as portrayed in Hollywood movies. Suppressors, like car mufflers, merely reduce the decibel level of gunfire to a more palatable level, preventing hearing damage to the shooter. In many countries in Europe, the use of suppressors is actually mandatory for all hunters, similar to our laws governing the use of mufflers on cars, boats, motorcycles and lawnmowers, in order to reduce noise pollution. Secondly, the reason for Massachusetts laws preventing ownership of sound suppressors by the civilian population, contrary to popular belief, was not because of gangsters. During the Great depression of the 1930's Massachusetts legislature decided to ban suppressors to reduce poaching of farm animals by individuals who could not afford to buy food for their families. Finally, I have noticed that some conservative gun owners, especially hunters, try to separate themselves from us the "gun nuts," thinking that class III enthusiasts give their "legitimate" gun ownership a bad name. We'll over the years being in the Class III business, I have noticed that people who hate guns because they don't understand or fear them are much more prone to change their mind if they experience shooting a suppressed weapon, rather than a regular firearm, since it doesn’t make as much noise and is much more "pleasant" to shoot for the first time. Anyway, thought I'd pit this up for discussion. If anyone cares to rebut, feel free.