The Truth About Silencers is Being Suppressed

Suppressor buying a silencer

Jeremy S. for TTAG

By Robert B. Young, MD

The murderous attack May 31 in the Virginia Beach city government building has predictably elicited outrage and opportunism by masses of sensitive, easily triggered [all puns intended] anti-gun activists and legislators. A large fraction of them are of course Democrats running for their party’s Presidential nomination.

It’s seldom that something unifies so many Americans, though it’s too frequent that the unifying motive is so irrational. Business as usual in the nation’s politics.

John Lott covered the essentials in What Gun Control Advocates Fail to Grasp After Mass Shootings. “Gun-free” zones are dangerous places to be in once targeted by murders, like the city employee who readily (and illegally) entered the locked building with his handguns. Other Virginia municipalities that do not forbid employee carry have had no such problem.

The night before, one Virginia Beach shooting victim considered taking her gun to work because she knew that employee was dangerous. But she feared dismissal if discovered, and did not. Virginia Beach was complicit in her murder because of that policy, and in all 12 deaths because while forbidding effective self-defense it did not provide any other defense.

So it’s another field day for hoplophobic hysterics. Because the shooter had no Federal or state prohibiting factors, he obtained his handguns legally.

Because of the absence of other blame, the target of opportunity became his use of at least one “silencer”, the deadly, scary accessory that permits assassins to murder people with no audible report whatsoever, and enabled him to sneak around executing his intended victims at will—NOT. (And which he may also have obtained legally.)

DRGO has repeatedly called for unrestricted access to firearm suppressors (the proper term) for the sake of millions of Americans’ hearing preservation. Dr. Wheeler wrote about them as A Powerful Tool of Public Health in 2015. Dr. Vaughan in 2016 pointed out the true public health issue their expense and licensure creates.

tax stamp detail

Woody for TTAG

Because of our mounting concern, in 2017 we released the definitive paper on suppressors and hearing explaining the medical basis of the hearing damage that every single gunshot does to every shooter and bystander who are without protection. That paper is available here, with its executive summary here.

The best protection for everyone is a suppressor attached (or built in) to every suitable firearm (carry handguns excepted). This diminishes the impact of the blast on every ear within range without interfering with audible communication the way ear muffs and plugs do, which help only the shooter.

Noise Induced Hearing Loss is permanent and irreversible, is already present in 38 million Americans (from music and shooting), with over 100 million Americans are at risk just from using firearms. Stopping the damage at the muzzle is the most sensible intervention, as suppressors are much more effective than any ear-positioned device.

Suppressors decreased experienced noise levels from instantly damaging to tolerable—but NOT quiet. Suppressed gunshots still measure from 110 to 140 decibels, a range that includes the aural assault of jack hammers. No one can ignore reports at that level, but less than 140 decibel prevents instant, permanent hearing loss.

Suppressors somehow got added in to the 1934 National Firearms Act, whose primary purpose was to reduce the availability of automatic weapons (i.e., “Tommy Guns”) to criminal gangs. There is no record of hearings or the thinking behind including suppressors, a decision that has injured Americans ever since.

While over 900,000 are in use now across the nation, effective suppressors can also be made or repurposed from ordinary supplies. There have been virtually no crimes committed here with suppressors in 85 years, nor in countries like New Zealand and most of Europe where they are freely available.

Please read and publicize the truth about suppressors. The truth is that (firearms) being suppressed is an excellent thing—pro-health as well as pro-civil rights.

 

This post originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar D says:

    The “truth” has nothing to do with gun control or politicians

    1. avatar Freebird says:

      With ” friends ” like Trump & NRA …. who needs enemies.

      1. avatar Lugnut says:

        Oh yeah. If only Hillary, Bernie or Kamala were in there – all would be good.

        1. avatar Poggy says:

          LOL, sure…..

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          It would be the same. No new gun control because they wouldn’t have been able to breeze into the Congress (hey, remember when the GOP held all three branches of government and there was no movement on things like the hearing protection act?). So what would you be afraid of? Some executive order nonsense by Hillary to ban bump stocks? Well now you can be happy that it came from the guy you voted for instead of the woman you didn’t.

        3. avatar Barn Animal says:

          Hannibal, that is of course if the democrats don’t take all three branches. If that happens we’ll be looking at total ban/confiscate everything mode. But, while I’m at it, I’ll say this about suppressors. If you want one you better get one now. Get em before Trump does.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          So the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for the first two years of Obama’s first term and yet no one took our guns.

          Fascinating.

          How about a moment of perspective, a little story from Virginia Beach.

          “It was just the two of them now, so they needed to figure out their own evening routine.
          Pat Gallagher was speed-walking from room to room in his red-brick ranch home, chasing after his only child, Patrick, as the toddler’s 7 p.m. bedtime approached. The 22-month-old boy was ramming his toy lawn mower into walls, tables and television sets, giggling with each collision.
          In the kitchen, his auburn-haired son banged into a table with a funeral home bill lying on top of it. Then, a countertop with a hand-written note from a local reporter asking for an interview. Then, a living room wall, where exposed nails once held photos of his mother — pictures still at the church from her funeral mass two days earlier. Finally, after several laps, the boy arrived in the master bedroom, where he often slept with his parents.
          “What are you looking for buddy?” Gallagher asked. But the 48-year-old naval facilities architect already knew.”

          My, what a convincing hoax by crisis actors. ..

          Or, is it an American tragedy that we all need to examine and work together for a solution?

        5. avatar Barn Animal says:

          Pointing out that because the democrats once controlled all three branches and did nothing is the height of stupidity. The Democratic Party of today is light years different then the one of just 10 years ago. Radicalization and promotion of Stalinism will do that.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      the “timing” couldn’t have been more perfect…this was foreseeable….expect the status quo to remain…

      1. avatar NightFox says:

        Its has been an amazing consistency of mass shootings happening just before a political event that may result in their deregulation. The Republican ball game shooting happened when HPA was about to hit the floor. Vegas shooting happened when the Sportsman’s bill that contained HPA was about to hit the floor. The Va Beach shooting happens when the Courts are deliberating about grating cert to the case in Ks that could have granted cans the protections of being ‘in common use.’ Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

        1. avatar Poggy says:

          YUP, communist tactics.

  2. avatar barnbwt says:

    Have we found out what handguns & silencer he used, yet? Seems like a pertinent point of fact that should be known before any discussion attacking *or* defending his choice equipment (yeah, I know, both sides of the argument will argue the same things, regardless; the anti’s will find a geegaw to fret over, and the pro-gun folks will rightly call them out on their bullshit)

    1. avatar #43 says:

      This.

      Still haven’t seen a picture of the items that were used in the crime that the MSM is claiming to have been used.

      Remember when they would plaster pictures of the AR15 everywhere when an AR was used in such an event? Or when they claimed a certain item was used and then a picture revealed later it was another item (AR vs AK)? Why all the secrecy now regarding what weapons were used?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Since it was a .45 with extended mags, I am guessing it was not a 1911 but more likely a Glock for which large capacity mags are readily available.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          You give the antis too much credit for being honest.
          Eight round mags are available for 1911s. Since “normal” capacity is seven, eight rounds makes these mags “extended capacity.”
          The truth is, we simply don’t know what guns were used, yet.
          And the lies and distortions of the truth about suppressors in the wake of this crime is absolutely amazing.

    2. avatar joefoam says:

      Still waiting on the list of weapons used in Las Vegas. We’ll probably never see either.

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        Actually, they released a list of the entire inventory, it even included the serial numbers of each weapon. I didn’t save the official list, as it is irrelevant. For what is worth to you, this is a summary of what they found in his rooms:

        Guns found inside Mandalay Bay rooms 32-135 and 32-134:

        Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. Front sight only.
        Noveske N4 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 40 round magazine. EOTech optic.
        LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        POF USA P-308 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine
        Christensen Arms CA-15 AR-15 .223 Wylde with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        POF USA P-15 P AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        Colt Competition AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        Smith & Wesson 342 AirLite .38 caliber revolver with 4 cartridges, 1 expended cartridge case.
        LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
        FNH FM15 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
        Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
        FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
        POF USA P15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
        Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine.
        Daniel Defense M4A1 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
        LMT Def. 2000 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        Daniel Defense DDM4V11 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip. No magazine. EOTech optic.
        Sig Sauer SIG716 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, red dot optic and 25 round magazine.
        Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and scope. No magazine.
        FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
        Ruger American .308 caliber bolt action rifle with scope.
        LMT LM308MWS AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and red dot scope. No magazine.
        Ruger SR0762 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
        LMT LM308MWS AR-10 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          So the fact is bump stocks were used in mass shootings. I’m sure most will declare this is fake news and continue to polish their treasured fantasies as they accumulate weapons and ammo for the coming Civil War.

          Perhaps some of the commenters claiming this information was suppressed will be a bit more diligent in researching the facts rather then their fantasy.

    3. avatar Poggy says:

      Probably more BS like the AR-15 that never left the car trunk in that school shooting in CT.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Fascinating.

        here is a quote from Bearingarms.com:

        “Ladies and Gentlemen, the weapon recovered in the trunk of the vehicle was an AKM variant. The only AKM-pattern firearm owned by the slain mother of the attacker was a Saiga 12-gauge shotgun.”

        So are the folks at bearingarms.com all part of the hoax as well?

        Hilarious but tragic.

        These conspiratorial persecution fantasies do nothing to help secure our rights, in fact, they give anti-gunners valid reasons to want to disarm those who ignore reality.

        These are the same fantasies that fueled Timothy McVeigh’s slaughter in Oklahoma City.

    4. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Since Trump said he would “consider” them the MSM has won and don’t need to show any “proof”.

  3. avatar CHLChris says:

    Yes, what if it was a faux suppressor for a more killy, scary sort of look?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      speculation will remain until the facts are revealed…curious why that is taking so long….

  4. avatar million says:

    if the NRA and GOP had any balls, then they’d hammer the Dems non-stop with the technical details. call them out for only “loving science” that supports their agenda. this is a strong argument but it’s not being used.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Your average GOP member doesn’t know the technical details and would trip over them.

      Even if they did know the details back to front the general public wouldn’t pay any attention because most of the public is binge watching some retarded TV show.

      People complain all the time about how the government does this or that in terms of money. When you say “OK, well we need to have a rational adult discussion about tax policy and how that affects things” people’s eyes glaze over instantly and 30 seconds in they’re pulling out their phones to check Instagram or Facebook. They’re ignorant and too lazy not to be ignorant.

      The TL:DR crowd is shocking large, much larger than just millennials and they are fucking toxic. But they are there and in huge numbers. They just want what they want and they don’t give a shit about advocating for what they want properly because that would require actual knowledge that they don’t care to seek.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        some truth there…just had a middle-aged woman literally walk into my car….thankfully I saw her first and was stopped before it happened…she didn’t look up from her phone in startled fashion until her knees touched my bumper…

      2. avatar SkyMan77 says:

        IMHO… You nailed it STRYCH9. Remember The Time Machine (by H. G. Wells’s). The Eloi are rising…

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Unfortunately true. The vast majority of legislators don’t bother to try learning about that which they are legislating. They say “I’m pro 2nd Amendment” because that’s how they get funding. OR they say “I’m pro gun control” for the same reason.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          They say “I’m pro 2nd Amendment” because that’s how they get funding, and don’t actually follow through. OR they say “I’m pro gun control” in an attempt to ensure only their chosen ones have guns and they stay in charge.
          FIFY

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      continuing the revenue stream seems to be at the top of the NRA’s agenda…

  5. avatar Tec's Dad says:

    From what I have read he had at least one Glock G21 with a Suppressor; the suppressor was legally owned as well. How does this fare with the Universal Background Checks will stop mass shootings…BS? If true he passed the most rigorous background check for the suppressor and the usual ones for the G21… UBC are for registration purposes…

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Where did you read that? I haven’t been able to find any reports of the actual firearms used.

  6. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Of course it is,between Hollyweird and the delusional Left,there isn’t a shred of truth in 99.5 % of what is by the Left considered main stream media the same holds true of firearms.

  7. avatar Texican says:

    The Ridiculousness of silencer laws can be shown by the simple fact that we require Mufflers on all Motor Vehicles on the road. And watch out for those supersilent Tesla’s. Those babies are so silent you’ll never hear them coming till you’re pancaked on the road.

    1. avatar KenW says:

      Over in the EU they are working on requiring electric vehicles to make noise.
      I think the Jetsons flying car noise would be perfect.

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    Of course helping the “truth about silencers” come out is pretty difficult since most POTG know fuck-all about them and talk out their ass on the topic. It’s just an ignorant pro-silencer argument against an equally ignorant anti-silencer argument.

    The only difference is that the pro-silencer argument folks have some concept of the benefits of freedom while the antis do not. Just look at all the people right here on TTAG that say a silencer or suppressor “only” removes 28-30Db, in itself an ignorant argument because of the connotation of “only”. Take a physics class before you rant. Then on tom of that they never stop to consider actual situations.

    The nuanced and correct argument is lost on nearly everyone involved because they don’t really know shit about the topic.

    An argument like this requires a more likable (advertising, always) version of Ben Shapiro who can break the argument down to being understandable, explain it quickly and do so correctly. We lack that.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      they make the gun quieter…simple enough?….

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        And longer and heavier.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “they make the gun quieter…simple enough?”

        I would love to say yes, that’s the basic truth of the matter and leave it at that. However that plays right into the anti’s argument because they’ll say “Exactly! That’s the problem! You admitted it!” and insert a bunch of bullshit about how a mass shooting is deadlier because it’s quieter with a suppressor/silencer.

        OTOH, those people arguing “only X decibels” are doing us a disservice because the anti’s don’t argue in good faith. You can see how this went with bump stocks (I’m speaking of the anti’s argument not what Trump did here).

        If we say “Bump stocks are a reasonable range toy that [do what they do]” the antis come back at us with the “They’re too effective and therefore dangerous and we have to ban them!” argument.

        If we get lazy and go the other way and say “Look a bump stock [does what it does] but it’s not very tightly toleranced so it’s not really accurate and let’s be real, it’s kind of just a range toy NFA workaround” then they come back and say “Well, if it doesn’t work well why do you care if it’s banned?”.

        Always keep in mind that this is a debate in front of an audience that we’re trying to win over. An audience of people who are not well educated and don’t understand the topic. As such people who are dishonest have an easy time leading them down the garden path. Therefore our arguments have to be carefully constructed to 1) get across before people lose interest, and do so in a “soundbite world” 2) be correct 3) not be full of holes that lead to going down rabbit holes that we have to deal with because then we can’t do #1 and 4) be somewhat likable.

        You can use salesmanship for bullshit like the antis and the Left or you can use it for facts and truth like basically no one does because that shit is hard. The knowledgeable people tend to get stuck on arguments that don’t win people over or get distracted by nonsense (ad hominems, red herrings, other fallacies) and the dishonest people tend to make arguments that are likable but untrue.

        The people we’re up against are ruthless, intelligent, dishonest and pragmatic. We have to be ruthless, intelligent, honest and pragmatic. Right now, at best, we tend to be two of those things (honest and intelligent) but fail to get our message out properly because we are not ruthless and pragmatic.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          ‘Quieter’ is rather misleading in a way that is not helpful.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Yes and no. Leaving it at “quieter” is… open to interpretation.

          It’s also dependent on a lot of factors. Look, here’s a real example with numbers:

          Everyone who’s shot guns a bunch knows that how loud a gun is depends on where you are in relation to it when it discharges. If you’re behind the shooter you don’t perceive the shot as being as loud as you do if you’re to the side of the shooter or up near the muzzle or in front of it. Shooting a gun sounds different than having one shot at you too.

          So, the actual numbers are that the SiCo Osprey removes 31dB from the sound. Now, people perceive a doubling or halving of sound in about 9dB increments. So we hear 91dB as being half as loud as 100dB and 109dB as being twice as loud as 100. So a silencer that removes 28dB means that without the silencer the gun is 300% louder than it is with the silencer and with the muffler is 87.5% quieter. The SiCo is about 89.66% quieter than a regular gunshot in terms of how we perceive it.

          However, the real thing here is where the sound is generated and how it moves. At most ranges if you’re shooting an Osprey by yourself you’ll find that because you’re behind the gun modern electronic earpro will amplify the noise of the shot. Now that means something significant because it works on every set of earpro I have and most of that earpro kicks in at 89dB.

          This means that because of the way acoustics works to the shooter the reduction is actually something like -70dB because the sound wave isn’t really spherical coming off the muzzle, that means we’re getting a massive savings to your hearing over time. Yes, that shot is louder to other people in the area who are not behind you, but it’s still reduced by -28-30dB by most higher end silencers. That’s huge because the both the perceived loudness and the energy of the sound wave drop off as the square of the distance (1/r²). Sound pressure doesn’t drop this way, but in a lot of ways we don’t much care about the absolute pressure of the spike because everyone should be wearing some sort of earpro anyway to mitigate that and we’ve reduced both the amplitude and the speed of the pressure spike the shot creates. So, without getting into all the math, what we really care about is the fact that every time we double the distance we drop about another 6dB from the sound we hear.

          So for the guy in the stall next to use we cut off -28dB, a 87.5% reduction in the sound. As we move down the line we cut another 6dB each time we double the distance so four stalls away the shot is actually pretty quiet if that person is using earpro.

          Now, that doesn’t make it whisper quiet, but it means a lot of things in terms of hearing safety if people are shooting a lot. It also means that a silencer, in theory, could be an aid to a mass killer but ONLY in very specific circumstances which are rare and would require a lot more skill than most mass shooters demonstrate.

          Charles Whitman might have benefited from a silencer. The DC Snipers did because they used a car. But does it really up the death toll? Not really because few mass killers have the kind of skill Whitman had and because at the kind of range the D.C. snipers were shooting. Once you start shooting people at 300m or more the sound wave from an non-suppressed rifle is far enough behind the bullet (the bullet leaving the muzzle at nearly 3x the speed of sound) that the argument is really academic for most people in terms of determining where the shot came from.

          Adam Lanza or this asshole in VA or James Holmes would derive nearly zero benefit from a silencer. If they were to get any tactical advantage, really, it would come from wearing electronic earpro far more than it would come a silencer and electronic earpro is sold OTC to anyone in hardware stores across America.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Some would say bump stocks are much more than a range toy. As a matter of fact, one old white guy used them to kill many innocent people, it seems bump stocks were part of the murderous equation.

          Guns found inside Mandalay Bay rooms 32-135 and 32-134:

          Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. Front sight only.
          Noveske N4 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 40 round magazine. EOTech optic.
          LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          POF USA P-308 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine
          Christensen Arms CA-15 AR-15 .223 Wylde with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          POF USA P-15 P AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          Colt Competition AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          Smith & Wesson 342 AirLite .38 caliber revolver with 4 cartridges, 1 expended cartridge case.
          LWRC M61C AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
          FNH FM15 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
          Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
          FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
          POF USA P15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
          Colt M4 Carbine AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine.
          Daniel Defense M4A1 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. EOTech optic.
          LMT Def. 2000 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          Daniel Defense DDM4V11 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip. No magazine. EOTech optic.
          Sig Sauer SIG716 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, red dot optic and 25 round magazine.
          Daniel Defense DD5V1 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and scope. No magazine.
          FNH FN15 AR-15 .223/5.56 with a bump stock, vertical fore grip and 100 round magazine. No sights or optics.
          Ruger American .308 caliber bolt action rifle with scope.
          LMT LM308MWS AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod and red dot scope. No magazine.
          Ruger SR0762 AR-10 .308/7.62 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.
          LMT LM308MWS AR-10 with a bipod, scope and 25 round magazine.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          One guy used a bump stock in one specific situation. Unless you can provide information that indicates that the stock is particularly useful for mass murder in other situations you’re the same as a Flat Earther.

    2. avatar Ed Rogers says:

      You are basically correct. Most people (gun owners or not don’t CARE about suppressors. I reckon most gun owners simply are too timid/worried that they’ll be put on some watch list.

      I thought I’d get a ton of interest, when I posted my suppressor video but…crickets:

    3. avatar Broke_It says:

      “The nuanced and correct argument is lost on nearly everyone involved because they don’t really know shit about the topic.”

      Having been thru the process and made to feel the crushing weight of federal bureaucracy multiple times as well as paying the asshole tax each time what more is there to know? The worst part is the people at the LGS that “know better” when they don’t. Far better to do your own paper and legwork, because I do know better.

  9. avatar anarchyst says:

    How to purchase a silencer in the USA:

    1. Pick out the silencer desired from a FFL 03 dealer.

    2. Pay for the silencer.

    3. Fill out ATF “form 4” tax paid transfer of NFA item.

    4. Obtain two passport-size photgraphs.

    5. Obtain two fingerprint cards from local police agency.

    6. Submit “form 4” paperwork to ATF with $200.00 check.

    7. Wait 6 to 9 months for approval from ATF.

    8. After approval, pick up silencer from dealer.

    How to purchase a silencer in Europe:

    1. Pick out silencer desired.

    2. Pay for the silencer.

    3. Take possession of silencer.

    Now tell me how “easy” it is to purchase a silencer in the USA…

    1. avatar Alan says:

      Well said sir, very well said.

    2. avatar Scott D. says:

      6-9 months? Oh how I would long for so short of a wait. At 11 months now. The shutdown didn’t help any. Nor did Silencerco’s BOGO deal.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Realistically it’s not that hard other than the waiting, unless you have trust with a bunch of people on it and have to get pictures and prints for all of them. Use a microtrust and it’s more than it should be but it’s not really that bad.

      Further, the argument isn’t “ease” or “lack of ease”. That plays right into the antis hands because their whole point is that “it should be harder than it is” regardless of the current difficultly level. That’s a dumb argument to have because it’s entirely subjective.

      The argument should be based on efficacy and expense of the system. Currently we pay a lot for something that doesn’t work. That’s objectively demonstrable to even the most ignorant and uncaring people out there. That’s the strong ground for this argument IMHO because once you have that as your base you can start throwing around words like “wasteful” which plays right into “waste, fraud and abuse” which is something even hardcore Leftists cannot and do not support publicly.

      Don’t let them choose the ground for the battle. Pick ground where they are weak, draw them to it and attack them there. Make them defend waste, fraud and abuse of money and other public resources rather than arguing subjectives because generally people will gravitate to the “more safe” option when that’s how this is presented.

      1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

        How about, It’s a Civil Right to own firearms, and it is Civil to not be obnoxiously loud. A Civil Right delayed is a Civil Right denied (MLK).

        If you are for gun-control, you are against civil rights. The rights of the law abiding should not be negotiable when those rights are abused.

  10. avatar Chuck says:

    In no small part, thanks to Hollywood, the overall general public is ignorant of what a suppressed handgun or rifle sounds like. Yet this misrepresentation continues with every spy, war and “pick a genre” movie made, just out or in the works.

    1. avatar joefoam says:

      Exactly, the public perception of ‘silencers’ is what they hear on a movie soundtrack. And they are only used by assassins to murder their enemies. Don’t expect the public to educate themselves on the subject, the pinheads enacting the laws don’t even educate themselves prior to trampling all over our rights.

  11. avatar Alan says:

    Given the long existing federal restrictions on “silencers”, more properly “suppressors” see National Firearms Act of 1934, enacted 85 years ago, then we have state law too, where, pray tell, did the shooter obtain the “silencer” he is said to have used strikes me as an INTERESTING question. Anyone have equally interesting answers?

  12. avatar Helms Deep says:

    Prior to Las Vegas , Sheriff Joe Lombardo called for magazine bans.

    Last year, he joined the editorial board of the Las Vegas Sun in advocating for gun control legislation — specifically, a high-capacity magazine ban for Nevada. “I’m a very avid hunter, I was in the military myself, and there’s no need to have a high-capacity magazine for any practical reason,” he said in an interview with the Sun. ( Patch )

    Does Va. Beach police brass hold similar views I wonder ?

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Perhaps he should equip his deputies with 10 round magazines if there is “no practical reason” for having larger ones.

  13. avatar Poggy says:

    Maybe the barrel could be ventilated and give the same effect as a suppressor?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Silencers are more than just holes in the barrel.

  14. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Silencers or suppressors are not going to be banned. They will be restricted to Hollywood prop movie businesses, rich people, and the military and the police. Police officers like Christopher Dorner will have them.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/christopher-dorner-face-opposition-silencer-deregulation/

  15. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    The Hearing Protection Act fooled no one. Even the Republicans knew they had a political grenade in their hand if they would have been dumb enough to even bring it to the floor for a vote let alone pass such an insane bill. Wisely they played politics for their own survival and shit canned the bill permanently.

    The current episode of a maniac with a silencer was just what the Republicans knew would have destroyed them in the next election if they had passed such a nonsensical bill. The Republicans knew that selling silencers over the counter would have put them in the hands of every nut case and criminal out there. They would have been for sale at every gun show and every flee market. A new market of “Silencer Runners” would emerge buying up dozens of unvetted second hand silencers at a time and then peddling them on the streets of Chicago and New York paper work free to the highest bidder and the biggest of wide eyed, drooling lunatics and criminals.

    As a matter of fact due to the fact that silencers have become so popular even with the long wait and expense that with so many out there now as compared to years past we probably will see more and more of even the vetted ones used by maniacs which of course will result in a recall for destruction and you can be damn sure no Republican or even the NRA will say much to save silencers. They are not a firearm and there is no legitimate use for them either. If you refuse to use ear protection than going deaf is your own ignorant fault.

    If one of my nut case neighbors goes berserk I want to know exactly where the incoming hail of bullets is coming from. And I do not want them shooting in their back yard next to my house because they think there is no danger of accidentally shooting some one. Yes they are that stupid and that is proved by them when they spend on average $1,000 or even more for something that they never had a need for except “its tacticool” and the “in thing” to buy. There is a Moron born every minute except those that have a nefarious reason to buy one because they think they can kill their old lady and have a better chance of getting away with it. I have heard more than once silencer owner tell me “I bought it in case I ever needed it”. Now if that does not make your blood run cold then your as nuts as they are.

    Yes screaming for more silencers panics the public (which even includes a lot of sane gun owners) and makes them believe the minority of people who own guns have now started acting so bizarre that just maybe its time to ban all guns and be done with it. Who could really blame a non gun owner for thinking this way.

    With all the calls by the majority of Americans calling for more gun control because of weekly mass killings throwing in silencers too is just all we need so people think America has gotten so completely out of control that no civilized person feels safe even living here any more. Its like handing someone a box of nails to nail shut the Second Amendment in its own coffin.

    1. avatar Gunner2090 says:

      Lighten. Up. Francis.

    2. avatar possum destroyerm of arachnids says:

      Golly gee , I like my nut case neighbors, gives me someone to hang out with,. , , , , ***KAPOW***, , ,ZING, Splat , wow shoot it again that one hit by my foot, you guys are cool

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      100% auto bot profile.

    4. avatar Someone says:

      Suppressor is a tube with some baffles in it. They are so easy to make that if criminals wanted them, they would have them.

  16. avatar T says:

    I’ve heard they were added to the NFA because people were poaching livestock because of the depression.

  17. avatar Pete says:

    That settles it, I’m removing my vehicle muffler so people can hear me coming

    1. avatar possum destroyerm of arachnids says:

      That’s Against The Law dontcha know, can’t have that

      1. avatar possum destroyer of arachnids says:

        Thinking about that., If you drive a car without a muffler your breaking the law, to loud noise pollution. A gunm firing a projectilet is at least as loud as most demufflered carz. So, the way I see it is all gunms should have mufflers., , , , “NO Wee” will just ban gunms.” , , , Ban carz, , , , “N0 “

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      But “Loud Pipes Save Lives” according to some bikers. If course they ignore the fact that most of that noise is projected behind them, cars and trucks are insulated for sound, and someone cranking tunes isn’t going to hear them. They will blow out the ears of pedestrians they pass, which will prove how badass they are.

  18. avatar Political gristle says:

    Serious Q……. How many mass shooter use ear pro, I.e. earplugs or earmuffs?
    Is the number of people shot reduced BECAUSE of the loud muzzle report?
    I’ve shot an M4 (5.56) and .357 magnum
    Without ear pro. One round each.
    It was so excruciatingly painful I could not shoot another shot.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Long term hearing damage isn’t a concern when your life expectancy is around the police response time. For decades, police carried .357 without ear pro except when doing quals at the range.

  19. avatar possum destroyer of worldsm says:

    I see no reason to own a suppressor, I see no reason why not to own a suppressor. The suppressors we don’t want are the ones suppressing Us.

  20. avatar Pg2 says:

    Still waiting for knute(ken), aka auto bot profile, to restate that hearing protection Is for “sheeple”.

    1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      I never said that and you know it. What I did say was that after decades of abuse( NOTE MY USE OF THE WORD ABUSE, DUMMY!!!), I can still hear. Kinda.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Laughing, for real, you said that exactly. And you also threw in “doomsayers”, referring to people who really do shoot and have real hearing loss issues….unlike yourself, since you’re a troll bot profile.

    2. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      In fact, since your reading comprehension is so poor, allow me to assist you:
      “Abuse: 1. To use improperly or excessively; misuse” -https://www.thefreedictionary.com/abuse
      I never suggested muffs or silencers shouldn’t be used. I said when I grew up they were unknown. That’s two different things, don’t ya know?
      And in the ’60 silencers WERE known, and I would’ve had one too, had they been legal. But thanks to sheeple like you, now I’m half deaf. Thanks a big fat bunch.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Think your programmers forgot….in your earlier posts you had minimal hearing loss, if any, now you’re half deaf…glitch in the program.

        1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          So you think 11,000 Hz isn’t about half of 20,000 Hz? Congratulations. Now you have proven to be innumerate as well as illiterate. What’s next up in your future? Diapers?
          I’ll blow your mind: I’m exactly 45 percent, or 9/20ths deaf. (20K – 11K)/20K. Try and figure that shit out.
          🙂

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Troll bots don’t lose hearing .

        3. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          Reason and logic, like math and physics, are not exclusively for robots. We humans can make use of them also. Pg2’s… not so much.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        “And in the ’60 silencers WERE known, and I would’ve had one too, had they been legal. But thanks to sheeple like you, now I’m half deaf. Thanks a big fat bunch.”

        I do not have to make a fool of you I can just sit back and watch you destroy yourself. This one was a real laugh.

        Anyone who was a firearms enthusiast knew as far back as at least the 50’s and 60’s that you needed ear plugs or muffs and some people to be safe wore both. If you had bothered to join the NRA they even warned people that the absolute worse hearing loss came not from magnum center rifles but from the .22 l.r. rim fire. I will not go into the reason because the explanation is long and complicated but to be brief the sound gets further into your ear than an extremely loud noise does.

        In Short only the ignorant Out House denizens were dumb enough not to wear hearing protections and you just admitted you are their star poster boy. You really fell into this one and did not emerge from your out house wearing a suit. As the out house boys would say “your a real hoot”.

        1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

          Vlad! Bubbie! So good to hear from you!
          I thought you had split for greener pastures. Did you manage to look up that 6 letter word for the dangerous end yet? Or did you just mess up which sock puppet you’re using at the moment? Maybe Pg2 doesn’t know what the front end of a gun is called either?
          🙂 You trolls slay me. I haven’t had this much fun in years.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          “Bubbie”….at least your programmers show some ethnic humor…….

  21. avatar George from Alaska says:

    The terms suppressor and silencer are interchangeable but you should not say that “Suppressor” is the correct term. “Silencer” was used in Hiram Maxims patent description, the NFA act, the ’68 GCA and other legislation including every Form 3 or 4 I have (over 80) where dealers and manufacturers use the term “silencer” in the description box. I know suppressor is more PC but it’s Not the “correct term”…

    1. avatar G. W. says:

      George from Alaska – Horseless carriage was the original name for automobiles, does that make it the correct name for them now?

  22. avatar Porky says:

    I still don’t believe for a second the Virginia murderer used a real suppressor. The reports say he bought the guns “weeks ago.” There is no fucking way he got a Form 4 approval that fast. It was probably a Masterpiece arms Mac 10 clone with a barrel shroud.

    If we had journalism in this country that actually did its fucking job, we would know that answer, but obviously the communists in charge only care about stripping our rights away, not actually investigating.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email