We already know where Sen. Chris Murphy stands on the issue of gun suppressors; he opposes them, obviously, seeing as the loud bang a firearm makes when it’s fired is an inherent safety feature.

The effectiveness of that distinctive warning noise is so great, it can send people stampeding from a crowded mall suffering only minor injuries, even when police later determine that no shots were actually fired.

So where does the AP stand on the issue of suppressors? Why, obviously the news organization takes no position either way, though its latest report kicks things off by calling silencers “the stuff of legend, wielded by hit men and by James Bond.”

Note: James Bond isn’t real, nor is his silencer.

Not only does the gun industry want to make it even easier to buy a suppressor; people who manufacture and sell suppressors would like to make it easier for gun owners to buy them. Lindsay Nichols, senior attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, blows that conspiracy wide open, telling the AP that people can see “this is really about profits for the gun industry” and not protecting gun owners’ hearing.

But say a manufacturer sells to a receptive public a product that does both: protects hearing and makes a profit for the company. That’s bad … how?