SilencerCo’s “Fight the Noise” Campaign

silencerco1

SilencerCo, the company known for its high-quality suppressor including the Salvo 12 for 12-gauge shotguns, which was a thrill to try out at SHOT Show last January, is launching a campaign to let the public know what our nation’s Second Amendment rights really are, specifically as they pertain to the NFA. While some may see this as a political issue, the reality is our Second Amendment right to bear arms and the NFA are topics in need of greater understanding, especially for the general public. Providing accurate information is an important – vital, even – part of gun ownership.

silencerco2

From SilencerCo:

SilencerCo’s Fight the Noise™ campaign (officially referred to as a movement) is an effort to educate the general populace about individual rights and how they can play a role in supporting the broadening of personal freedoms related to the legal ownership of NFA (National Firearms Act) items.

First usage of this slogan was seen at SHOT Show 2015, at which SilencerCo was given the award of Best Booth. This was also the first usage of the Fight the Noise tape covering participants’ mouths, which will continue to be iconic in the movement and symbolize The Suppressed™, as they will officially be referred to. The Suppressed are law-abiding, gun-owning citizens whose voices have been oppressed by unjust legislation.

“Our Voice” from SilencerCo:

Fight the Noise is a movement to regain our Voice. To exercise our right to protect our hearing and silence the sound. To be responsible gun owners and be treated as such. We want law­-abiding citizens to have the ability to purchase and own silencers without being subjected to excessive wait times, paperwork, and taxes. We are the silent majority, and it is our time to be heard. We are your Friends. We are your Coworkers. We are The Suppressed™.​

“Our Rights” from SilencerCo:

We Fight the Noise because “that’s just the way it is” doesn’t mean that’s the way it s​hould be.​ Because accepting hearing­-damaging gunfire as t​he norm ​isn’t right, it isn’t responsible, and with your support, it won’t continue. Silencers were first subjected to added taxes, paperwork, and processing time back in 1934 with the introduction of the National Firearms Act (​click here to learn more).​We want to bring the laws surrounding silencer ownership into the twenty­-first century and spread the word that yes, silencers are legal. The Suppressed are changing the perception of an industry and leading the revolution with a clear message: Guns don’t have to be loud.​

To learn more about SilencerCo’s movement, visit http://www.silencerco.com/fightthenoise



katie.ainsworth

Katie is an avid shooter, hunter, military journalist, and Southern girl. Firearms are her passion whether at the range or on a spot-and-stalk after a big buck. She’s a staff writer at The Firearm Blog and writes about guns, hunting, and the military for various publications both online and in print such as Outdoor Life, Handguns, and Shooting Illustrated. Shoot her a message at ainsworth.kat@usa.com


Advertisement

  • Don Ward

    If they want to be successful, show these with sporting guns like hunting rifles or over-under shotguns.

    I know there shouldn’t be a difference between “scary” black rifles and granddad’s lever gun in terms of perception.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Yea… Putting a Salvo12 on an over-under seems like a fantastic idea :

      Enough with the red haired hottie and SBR… I want to see my Grandma with a Mini14 because that somehow will be more appealing to people who aren’t buying silencers anyhow… ?

      • iksnilol

        Putting the Salvo12 on an O/U? Bad idea. Offering suppressors for double barrel shotguns? Good idea.
        They have been made, just look up Hushpower.

        EDIT: Redhead+SBR = scary for many non-gun People. Grandma+suppressed bolt action = not scary. Can’t get around that. Just ask People who aren’t into guns and you will see what I mean.

      • Don Ward

        If you want to affect change in the current political environment, showing silencers used for legitimate sporting purposes by folks wearing blaze orange and engaging in traditional shooting activities is the way to go. Arguing that you want a suppressor so you can look cool in your mall ninja outfit is a bad strategy.

        • Joe

          “Legitimate sporting purposes”. I didn’t know the ATF hung around here.

          These aren’t “ninja outfits”, they’re people who actually live in this world. And they’re the people who will be responsible for continuing gun ownership into this next century. Not all – hell, probably the majority – gun owners hunt. And that’s okay. That doesn’t take anything away from hunters, and it shows the rest of world that being a gun owner isn’t some specific lifestyle. So to portray all gun owners as simple-hunting-folk-wearing-blaze-orange-in-November is not only the incorrect way to gain votes, but will also lead to gun ownership dying off in a big, big way.

          • Don Ward

            I’m fully aware of how most firearms are used today. I try not to cringe about it.

            As for the topic. Let’s see. There’s one guy wearing a dirt bike helmet. The gal looks like she walked through a Hot Topic with her dad’s credit card and no fashion sense. On the Instagram page there’s someone in an Optimus Prime mask. I’m gonna stand by my statement.

            To be fair there are a few old timers.

            But that’s not the point. All but the most rabid anti-gunners trot out the “We’re not banning hunting. Heck, I hunt myself” line to gain traction. So the smart tactic is to flip the script and point out how useful suppressors are in a legitimate sporting activity like hunting.

            Seriously, it’s like gun guys never interact with the public.

          • Llewellyn Franks

            Making the gun rights conversation into a circlejerk of fudds and DTOM types won’t help us. The media portrays your average gunowner as a white, card-carrying KKK member. By saying “well that’s not right, look at this” Silencerco not only ensures their financial success but also ensures that our rights will be supported by a wider range of the population.

            Personally I like the campaign and think that its a step in the right direction that the rest of the industry should follow. Statistics show that more women and non-white individuals are buying guns, why shouldn’t the advertising media reflect this?

          • Don Ward

            Why are you implying that only white males hunt? And who said anything about race? I’m talking about tactics to move the ball down the political field using the weapons our opponents have given us.

            What I don’t think is a good strategy for convincing folks undecided on the issue of suppressors is this. https://instagram.com/p/0VP1J7kfTu/

          • Llewellyn Franks

            Nice job reading my post there you sure did a great job ignoring what I actually said. Whats wrong with a non-white child holding a suppressed weapon? Are you implying that supervised children are unable to handle firearms?

          • Kurt Akemann

            I hear you, Joe, but I think Don ward has the right of it. The fact is that Bloomberg et. al. can present girl with pink hair, dirtbike and ‘scary assault weapon’ as wanting a suppressor in order to go on some sort of anarchist rampage, and that view will sell to middle-aged middle-class Americans who don’t know much about guns and they’re the ones we need to reach as well.

            Hence the need to present the suppressor in a setting such a person will not find scary. It is frustrating to have to jump through these hoops, but we’ve got to do the PR right if we want to win.

      • nobody

        From the article that you apparently didn’t read:

        >SilencerCo’s Fight the Noise™ campaign (officially referred to as a
        movement) is an effort to educate the general populace about individual
        rights and how they can play a role in supporting the broadening of
        personal freedoms related to the legal ownership of NFA (National
        Firearms Act) items.

        The goal is to educate the general populace, not market to people who are already considering purchasing a suppressor. If showing a picture of your grandma with a suppressed mini 14 attracts more interest from the general populace then it is a better choice for achieving this goal.

  • nova3930

    Part of it needs to point out all the things the gov’t mandates silencers on as a safety device from the factory. Cars, motorcycles, heavy equipment, airplanes, etc etc and yet makes it as hard as possible to put one on your firearm….

    • echelon

      That is what I was going to say. They need to, in a simple yet effective way, show the absurdity of NFA laws. This is what pisses me off about the NRA and other “pro-2A” groups. Rather than very logically and easily show people why most of these laws are stupid and asinine they spend their time just pissing and moaning and being on the defensive.

      However, I don’t want any of these things to be “government mandated”, in fact, I want the government out of mandating pretty much everything and get back to the simple few things that our government was supposed to do.

  • Cal.Bar

    Many of the points made herein are well taken. If “we” want silencers taken as a viable and “normal” part of the shooting sports, let’s see it. How many IDPA or IPSC matches involve the use of silencers? How many NRA, Winchester, Bianchi or other sanctioned, sponsored matches use ( or mandate) silencers? I have not seen any (at least none covered in any shooting sports television show or magazine if have ever seen). No police organizations arm their non-tactical officers with silencers (that I am aware of) . No army arms their front line troops (other than snipers) with silencers. If they are SOOOOO great, why isn’t ANYONE using them? Since I am in CA, the answer is moot as the country’s most populace state will NEVER allow them EVER.

    • nobody

      >How many IDPA or IPSC matches involve the use of silencers? How many NRA, Winchester, Bianchi or other sanctioned, sponsored matches use ( or mandate) silencers?

      The extra weight at the end of the gun would give people using suppressors an advantage. They don’t allow lights on guns in IDPA for the same reason, both also require your gun to fit inside certain size restrictions.

      >No police organizations arm their non-tactical officers with silencers

      Because almost 100% of their gun use is just carrying it around, which would make the additional weight/bulk annoying. People aren’t going to start concealed carrying suppressed pistols if they are legal either.

      >If they are SOOOOO great, why isn’t ANYONE using them?

      Because the current laws have artificially inflated the prices, they are much more common in European countries where there are almost no laws about them.

      • G0rdon_Fr33man

        My country, Norway, are among the countries without any sort of legislation on suppressors. They are commonly used for hunting, but you don´t see them much on pistols or ARs which are used for competition. I guess you could run a suppressor for IPSC Rifle Open division, but a brake is better and the timer might have issues picking up the shots.

        • iksnilol

          I am in Norway too, if you use a suppressor you also should get your own timer. Timers for airsoft work well in picking up the quieter shots.

      • Cal.Bar

        The fact is that the IDPA and IPSC rules can be changed! Don’t quote regs and say the guns have to be a certain size etc. If suppressors are so vital to shooting sports CHANGE THE RULES!. Start a suppressed division. As for those to keep claiming suppressors are so great and wondering why everyone doesn’t use them, you just made my point.
        They are large (in many cases for pistols as long as the pistol is itself
        They can be heavy (making actually carrying pistol every day impractical
        They are not as good as brakes for follow up shots
        They can be very expensive (costing more than the gun you are affixing them to)
        The list can go on.

        • nobody

          > If suppressors are so vital to shooting sports CHANGE THE RULES!. Start a suppressed division

          You might run into some problems with the shot timers not working unless they can be recalibrate for the quieter guns.

          >They are large (in many cases for pistols as long as the pistol is itself
          >They can be heavy (making actually carrying pistol every day impractical

          Yes, and? Very few people who consider purchasing one are considering them for their concealability. As for weight, they are still more convenient than carrying around earpro in most cases.

          >They are not as good as brakes for follow up shots

          First of all, who gets a suppressor so they can shoot faster? Second of all, how many people put muzzle brakes on their pistols? Most people outside of those trying to get their times as low as possible in competitions don’t like them because they make the gun even louder than it already is for the person shooting it (due to them redirecting the muzzle blast backwards). For the people who also use that handgun for self defense there is the problem of the larger muzzle flash (from the point of view of the user) that can destroy your night vision. It’s almost like you don’t even own guns.

          >They can be very expensive (costing more than the gun you are affixing them to)

          Again, the prices are artificially high due to excessive regulation and prices are a lot lower in European countries where they aren’t regulated. It’s almost like you’re to stupid to read my post all the way through. If suppressors in the US had the same regulations and were the same price as they were in most European countries they would be extremely popular for range use and hunters who cared about their ears.

    • Cymond

      I met a Kansas state police officer during a road trip. The pistol in his holster wasn’t suppressed (that would be awkward to carry & draw), but the carbine in his patrol car had a suppressor. I have no idea if he was a ‘tactical’ officer or not.

      But I do agree that there should be a suppressed division of competitive shooting. I was especially disappointed to learn that the Ruger rimfire challenge disallows suppressors.

  • DiBs

    SilencerCo might gain some traction on this by sanctioning an all-suppressed competition circuit of some sort. This might have an added advantage of being more spectator friendly, just like having pre race sound checks in motocross. It would also allow competitions closer to town.

  • highhammer

    if my state ever allows cans i will buy a silencer co. just because they are always ou there fighting the good fight.