Silencer ban would not reduce gun violence

I would like to offer a counterpoint on Erica Nelson's letter on "silencers," also known as suppressors. Erica is a great person and fine public servant, but I disagree with her assertion that those people most likely already banned from owning a firearm would buy a suppressor and that would lead to dangerous and harmful activity.

I am not a gun expert, but I do know a few. In order for a suppressor to work, one must have a firearm. If they purchased the gun illegally, the chances of them following any other laws are unlikely. It needs to be stated that "suppressors" are illegal in Illinois, so anyone in possession is most likely criminal to start.

Suppressors are used to lessen the risk of damage to a person's hearing. Suppressors do not make the gun "silent."

A quick internet search finds: Independent studies showed .22-gauge long rifle guns produce shots over 160 decibels. Most testing showed suppressors lower the noise to 130 to 145 dB. OSHA has safety cut off for impulsive noise for protection at 140dB. Which in this case one should still wear hearing protection when shooting. The noise from a chain saw, fire siren, pneumatic equipment (think car mechanic) and firecrackers are rated at 100 to 140 dB.

So, I would like to offer the counter that a ban on suppressors nationwide would not lower any gun violence and that by encouraging gun owners to use them helps reduce the risk of hearing loss of not only themselves but bystanders.

With a child already having a profound loss of hearing caused by cancer medications received as a child, this is a much bigger concern for me over the hearing loss from everyday events and that happen from unprotected for hearing.

Tony Atkins

Wheaton