Besides the specific laws, there are general negative assumptions by a lot of people with respects to suppressors:
1) Assumption that they are illegal
2) General assumption that if you have one that you are up to no good
3) They are so quite that you cannot even hear them being fired
4) I would even go so far to say as many of law enforcement officers (both conservation officers and police) have very little understanding of the actual laws pertaining to suppressors
After people have shot mine:
1) They want to know what it takes to own one (ie cost & legality)
2) They can’t believe the recoil reduction, increase in accuracy
3) They love the fact that most calibers can now be shot without hearing protection (personal choice)
4) They are impressed with the accuracy.
I have yet to take someone shooting or met someone at a range that shot one of my suppressed rifles that after shooting them said that there are no needs for a can, that they were unimpressed, or that they are a waste of money.
I will not turn this into an ethical debate; however, Scotsgun did bring up a very good point in the fact that it can lead to more follow-up shots... thus cleaner kills.