To be perfectly frank, you haven't done a very good job of it. In fact, it wasn't until the above, most-recent post of yours (the one I'm responding to now) where you actually addressed the specific home defense scenario that I've been focused on from the beginning. Most of your counters have been "there are other ways to muffle sound", but those aren't nearly as effective in the specific scenario I've provided for the reasons that I've provided.

I fully admitted that there is some merit to the home defence argument. My counterpoint is that it is such a rare event and the effect of a suppressor so minimal that it doesn't seem like a strong argument - asking to legalize this because of an event that only a few people will experience once in a lifetime isn't very compelling.

What is it that makes you an opponent of loosening regulations on suppressors?

As I keep saying - I AM NOT AN OPPONENT OF LOOSENING SUPPRESSOR LAWS. I am very much for it. My only point is that this one particular argument is extremely weak as in nearly every case there is a mitigation strategy that is more effective and is already legal.