= new reply since forum marked as read
class III weapon and a silencer at the same time, oh the humanities.
What don't you understand about the reasoning behind such restrictions? 
"The reasoning that some small number of criminals may hypothetically be emboldened to commit a surreptitious assassination" - If that's the only thing you can think of, the list of possible cases where the use of a silencer would enhance would take more time to list than the time I have ta the moment.
You're wrong. 
would take such a lengthy amount of time, surely you can document the actual crime wave of illegal use of silencers...can't you?
You're wrong.
Sorry, but it takes a bit more documentation than that! 
But of course you know I'm right, so what else can you do?
(Did my use of "assassination" confuse you, by the way? My comment clearly referred to the broad category of murder without alerting the neighborhood, so I'm not sure how long your imaginary list could really be.)
believe that current restrictions on suppressors provide a public safety benefit (that they deter secretive murders). If that were the case, there would need to be some subset of murders that either did not occur or were solved due to the non-availability of a suppressor. But there's nothing to really support that notion: in how many cases is the noise actually an issue? It does not appear that the original regulations were based on any measurable problem, and where suppressors are legal there doesn't appear to be any substantial criminal usage.
Murderers do try to be stealthy at times, making attempts to muffle noise, and they still get caught. I'm sure if suppressors were cheaper they might be used occasionally by premeditating murderers, but it in no way follows that more crimes would be attempted or fewer solved. It does not seem, from my casual observation, that many murderers are brought to justice solely because some bystander heard the gun go off.
Further, it's a mistake to think that suppressors erase gunshot noise - there's still a sound, and people nearby will hear it. So the idea that killers will be able to casually off someone on a street corner or in the mall and stroll away is fantasy. Some of the sentiment against suppressors seems based on Hollywood versions (that whisper-like "phhhtt!"
as well as assumptions that suppressors have no legitimate uses and an association with mobsters and hitmen.
Some minor ancillary points against the 'criminal use' argument are that suppressors make handguns less concealable (a detriment to criminals) and the reduced energy makes guns a bit less dangerous.
So all in all, I don't think there's a legitimate case that making suppressors as difficult or expensive to obtain as they are now is a reasonable policy position, particularly when weighed against the real benefits provided by their use. But I'm willing to compromise - there's no reason not to keep the sentencing enhancement, and maybe even add a requirement that it be stamped on the item, like cigarette warnings (E.g., "Use or possession of this device during a crime will result in an automatic 30 year sentence" . It also seems that the benefits of suppressors are reduced at the smaller calibers, so perhaps a phasing out of the restrictions starting with rifles and larger calibers would be appropriate, and see if problems arise...
Maybe we don't see them used in crimes more often because they are hard to get!
You only need a little bit of ingenuity, and access to a few unregulated tools and materials. That, or access to somebody who has those things. Now you've got me thinking of what kind of design I could make with the fewest tools.. 
Why do you want to undermine public safety even further than the gunnerhood already does?
Do you really think public safety would be served by having 10 million in public hands?
Nuts.
There are already a quarter million in public hands, and you haven't documented a single instance of a crime being committed with one, let alone showing that they're a public menace.
Nuts
How can I possibly refute such a brilliant, well-reasoned argument?
Nice.
, indeed.
One day PavePusher will claim the right to build and operate his own home nuclear reactor claiming "you're all just saying I'm guilty until proven innocent." for libertarian bullshit
Everything from silencers for pneumatic tools to "Dog Silencer Pro."
never ceases to amuse.....