Why Are Suppressors Widely Available In The UK and New Zealand, But Heavily Regulated And Expensive In The US?

(2021-01-25) Firearms suppressors go by many names. For instance in the UK, they are called “moderators”. However, here in the US, they are often falsely called “silencers” - an advertising term from the early 1900s. This false idea that firearms suppressors make guns so quiet that they can barely be heard has been reinforced by decades of movies and TV shows. So, before we can begin to talk about suppressors, we need to talk about what they are and what they actually do.

Silencers Do Not Silence!

Essentially, suppressors are mufflers for guns. In fact, the technology is basically identical. We all know that mufflers do not make cars silent – in fact they can still be very loud. The same is true with firearms. Suppressors reduce firearms noise, they do not eliminate it.

Furthermore, firearms face a challenge that cars do not. While controlling the noise made by escaping gas is common to cars and guns – most guns create noise in another way that suppressors can do nothing about: Sonic “booms”. Most firearms launch bullets at speeds well above the speed of sound. Hence, even if a suppressor could eliminate all noise from escaping gas (an impossibility), the sonic boom is still very loud.

What about the classic movie scene in which a pistol with a silencer is fired and it is so quiet that you can not hear it in the next room? Well, that has been put to the test. A YouTube channel tested several suppressors on a 9mm handgun – using subsonic ammo (no sonic boom). The result? The sound of the shots was reduced from 160db to about 130db. While this is a significant reduction, 130db is the same sound level as a car horn or jackhammer at 10 feet. Not exactly silent!

Criminals frequently use “silencers” in the movies and TV, but quite infrequently in real life. Why is this? Well, quite simply, they do not offer an advantage – and in fact make the firearm larger and harder to conceal. Consider the recent Virginia Beach shooting – which gun control groups have used to oppose suppressor deregulation. In that horrible incident, police officers in the next office building heard and immediately recognized the gun shots in spite of the fact that the murderer was using a suppressor and subsonic ammo. In short, the argument that criminals would be able to kill people using suppressors without making significant noise is simply false.

Besides, if they really want to kill without making any noise they could use one of these:

Suppressors Not Only Protect Hearing – They Also Can Enable Firing Ranges To Remain Open

In the past, the debate over suppressor reform has centered over the health benefits they provide – with gun rights advocates arguing that they protect shooter’s hearing and the gun control advocates arguing that shooters can just use earplugs. In my opinion, this misses the real reason gun control groups are opposed to making suppressors widely available: If suppressors were widely available, many more firing ranges could remain open, because suppressors greatly reduce the distance sound travels. This is why suppressors are commonly required at ranges in the UK.

Gun control groups love to close firing ranges – and a weapon that they often use is noise. Many ranges in America were built decades ago, and many now have neighbors. Noise complaints by these neighbors are often used to close these ranges. They are also used to reduce the hours that ranges can operate. Indoor ranges can solve this problem (although gun control groups oppose these as well), but they are expensive and really only suitable for pistols.

As a result of range closures, in many urban areas of California going to practice with a rifle can require a trip of an hour or more. For instance, for SF Bay Area residents, the closest “full featured” range where practice with high powered rifles (i.e. hunting rifles) can be done at ranges past 100 yards is located in rural Sacramento County – over a 2 hour drive away. Long trips to firing ranges make it more difficult to take part in the shooting sports and thus reduce the number of shooters. Fewer shooters will reduce opposition to more gun restrictions. This is the real reason why suppressor deregulation is opposed by gun control groups.


How Suppressors Are Currently Regulated – And What Changes Gun Rights Activists Want

It is a common misconception that suppressors are illegal under federal law. While many states do outlaw them, federally they are legal, but heavily regulated. Under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), suppressors actually fall into the same category as machine guns. Obtaining one requires an extensive background check that can take longer than a year, and the payment of a $200.00 tax. Obviously, this greatly reduces demand, which causes prices to rise. A typical suppressor costs about $400.00-600.00, plus that $200.00 tax.

Gun rights advocates support bills that would remove suppressors from the NFA and simply regulate them as firearms. They would continue to be subject to background check requirements through the normal NICS system used for firearm purchases – but the checks would be rapid (typically 30 minutes or less), and not subject to the current $200.00 tax. This would increase demand and eventually lower prices. Suppressors are not complicated devices and are not expensive to manufacture. The only thing keeping the price high is the extensive regulation.

Opposition to suppressor regulation is rooted in falsehoods perpetuated by the entertainment industry. It’s time to look past those falsehoods and deregulate them.