The way gun suppressors work in movies and TV is complete fiction, in real life suppressors can attenuate gun shots by maybe 15-35 dB SPL at best. 140 dB SPL is the threshold at which sound causes pain, 120 dB SPL is the threshold that risks instantaneous noise-induced hearing loss, and most rifles and handguns using standard ammunition are in the 140-170 dB SPL range. Even with a suppressor the volume a typical gun produces is enough to be painful and to cause permanent hearing loss if no additional hearing protection is used. In the typical best case scenario using an extremely underpowered subsonic .22LR round with a suppressor a gun shot will still be in the 120 dB SPL range, and for reference, hunting even small muntjac deer with a .22LR would be considered inhumane and in many parts of the world (including many American states) it is illegal to do so. It is a round intended to shoot rodents and birds.

I realise this comment is a nitpick but it's something that needs to be brought up any time suppressors are brought up. The only relevance suppressors have on the gun control argument is that their use and sale means that gun operators have less risk of suffering from hearing loss (especially when shooting indoors in a range) and people living near shooting ranges are less likely to complain about noise, i.e., there's no public safety argument here, it's purely ideological, and that's fine if it's what you're going for but it's not a compelling argument or one that holds up to scrutiny. As a point of comparison, there's very little controversy over suppressors in Europe and typically no additional regulations are placed on their ownership beyond the regulations necessary to own the guns that they're used with.