In the interest of brevity, they're not called silencers, they're called suppressors since they don't "silence" anything like in a Hollywood movie. Typically a suppressor will reduce the sound signature of a gunshot from something like 140dBA to 110dBA. Still enough to cause hearing damage and be heard a quarter mile away.

They're called suppressors among gun nerds. But silencer is the standard term in American English.

If you have complaints about how language has evolved, you may contact Richard Stallman and ask him for advice.

> you may contact Richard Stallman and ask him for advice

the guy who eats his toenails? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ&rco=1

I think gp was referencing his crusade that Linux should be called GNU/Linux

It's less about complaining, more about explaining that it's still very loud.

Off-topic, but the US is, oddly, a bit of an outlier compared to some of our cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, where buying one can be an over the counter transaction. It's weird to be in a situation where the US is more restrictive in anything related to firearms, but I assume the European attitude is that it reduces nuisance when gun ownership is more regulated at the front end.

There is an enormous amount of theater in US lawmaking. “I’m doing something about the <X> problem.” (or even just “I proposed legislation that would have done something about the <Y> problem…”)

Crafting of US legislation has absolutely no basis in efficacy or data, it's entirely driven by the news cycle. Something attention grabbing (like a Mandalay) happens, something extremely specific from the headlines but largely secondary to enabling the actual crime (like bump stocks) are banned, then the whole thing is forgotten about

They are called silencers. It's the number one definition for the word in my dictionary.

Gun owners don't call them silencers. Movies call them silencers and non gun owners watch movies so that word has entered the lexicon.

But it's extremely incorrect-- suppressors don't silence guns. Suppressed firearms are still loud.

> Gun owners don't call them silencers.

In the US where there are around 100 million gun owners, you can't say much about the group collectively other than they own at least one gun.

Lots of gun owners (including me) call them silencers.

This is nonsense. Even the companies that make them often call them silencers. And your information is wildly out of date on how quiet suppressed subsonic ammo can be.

https://www.silencercentral.com/shop/silencers/rifle

The original use case was hearing protection. The modern tactical use case is that it makes it somewhat harder to tell where a shot came from. In almost no scenario does it actually make a gunshot quiet (maybe a subsonic .22).

You can load subsonic rounds in many calibers, but tbf the best and most convenient options are all embargoed from the US because of Russian sanctions.

I mean .45 is already subsonic right?

In all seriousness: silencers are legally available in most states. It just takes a while for the paperwork to go through (8-10 months).

Though they are illegal in New York.

As are the guns themselves.

Nah, it's an onerous process but plenty of people have concealed carry permits in NYC.

Costly permit. Requires authorization by high-ranking NYPD. Only given out to people in certain jobs or with bribes. The only practice range is in Ridgeland. You're required to transport it in your own car, in the trunk, ammo separate from the gun, and only to and from the range.

That puts it well beyond the reach of the vast majority of NYC residents.

Supreme court got rid of may issue gun licenses. All gun permits in the US are now shall issue.

Yep - most of people's impressions of NYC's gun laws/rights are really outdated..

It was a year or two ago.

The NYC carry permit is useless and designed that way so the city can lie to the courts and tell them people have the right to carry.

You can't carry in like 90% of Manhattan even with the permit. Even carrying in your own apartment is prohibited without an additional permit.

Nah - there's a premise permit that's needed if you only have it in your apartment and carry to the range, but the concealed carry is sufficient to have it in your apartment. And the "90%" of Manhattan you can't carry in is basically Times Square, bars and restaurants, festivals, churches, schools and government buildings.

It was actually prohibited to carry on all forms of private property, until a recent court ruling struck it down. So if you can't carry on public transit, you can't carry it in government buildings, you can't carry it near schools and other public property, you can't use it on private property what is the permit for again?

It's no different than how states used "Poll Taxes" and "Tests" to circumvent the 15th Amendment before the Civil Rights Movement. NYC thinks they are above the law and does everything they can to circumvent it.

Yeah I'm not really interested in the debate around NYC carry laws and technically you're allowed to carry on buses but not trains, but it is certainly one of the most restrictive places in the country.

And so is murder.

Not anymore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pisto...

Guns are illegal in NY? I think not, in the sense of a law that could withstand challenge.

There was even a recent high-profile Supreme Court case that eliminated the historically-common (the majority opinion was simply wrong about the history, just, straight-up factually not correct) practice of sharply limiting carry of firearms in towns and cities, let alone ownership. So no, guns aren't meaningfully illegal in NYC, besides the fact that they're extremely not-illegal outside the city and it's not like they frisk anyone on the way in. Like, right now, guns are kinda the least illegal in the city that they've been in more than a century.

It's not like it would matter. You can buy a gun in a nearby state and carry it across state lines without much trouble. Most of the guns used in Chicago come from Indiana.

That depends on the type of gun and the state.

Handguns have to be transferred across state lines to a FFL in the state where the transferee resides.

I don’t think GP is commenting on the legality of it but rather on the possibility of it.

Well if you don’t care about legality you don’t need to buy a gun somewhere with less restrictions on guns…

it should be obvious that it is easier to do so

In practice it is not easier for an Illinois resident to buy a handgun in Indiana than in Illinois. Even an illegal one.

Only a handful of states require a permit to buy a firearm. A suppressor is equally easy to procure, and failing that, can be machined by anyone somewhat competent with a lathe. Won't link to it here, Youtube videos available with a quick web search.

https://brilliantmaps.com/buy-gun-map/

Suppressors are not equally easy to legally procure!

Suppressors/Silencers are federally regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and are treated similarly to machine guns and sawed-off shotguns (the import/manufacture of those are further regulated by later legislation).

From Wikipedia[1]: Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax.

And I think you may have understated the ease of manufacturing. Especially if someone only needs to use it once and don't care about the legality.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Registra...

Availability examples:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illegal-gun-silencers-c...

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/eoy/iceAnnualReportFY2021.pdf

https://www.recoilweb.com/man-makes-silencer-with-3d-printer...

https://youtu.be/ekDs60QxmNE

The key word here that doesn't apply to any of these links: legally

To be clear, and reiterate, I stated "easy" in my top comment, not legally. "Legally" is irrelevant if you’re a motivated threat actor. Laws are there to dissuade the lazy or unsophisticated, and to prosecute those caught. ~50% of murders go unsolved in the US [1]. Firearms are heavily regulated in NYC, and yet, there are hundreds of deaths per year from them. Therefore, I believe availability (regardless of legality) is an important data point to surface as part of the discussion.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

(these stats are grim, I admit, but important to contextualize my perspective and thesis about the risk)

Murder is also not legal. Obviously legality of actions is not a key factor in decision making here

That's basically propaganda and half-admits it on the site. There are almost no situations where you will not be buying your firearm from an FFL and you will have to fill out a background check form and have a waiting period.

The only private sales that happen are among criminals and within families. Regular people aren't going to risk the kind of charges that stem from misuse after a private sale. Certainly nobody with a legitimate business and livelihood to protect.

Florida resident, have bought one without filling out any paperwork. Concealed carry license was paperwork though. I guess we're haggling over the background check? Sure, I concede I had to give them a page of info with a copy of my FL driver's license.

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FPP/FAQs2.aspx ("Florida does not require a permit to purchase a firearm nor is there a permit that exempts any person from the background check requirement.")

Filling out the background check is still an application to own a gun, eg a "permit application". Just because the government wants to pretend that it isn't a permit (for second amendment reasons) doesn't mean it's not a permit.

permit would imply that it would be plausible for one person out of 8+ billion to be denied which you know… you can call it permit but I would call it piece of paper

> That's basically propaganda and half-admits it on the site

It is a simple page and I did not spot any inaccurate facts.

> There are almost no situations where you will not be buying your firearm from an FFL and you will have to fill out a permit.

I own 14 firearms and only 3 went through an FFL. Used firearms retain their value more than almost any other consumer good.

Lol what? Neighbors and loose friends buy guns from each other all the time. In Michigan at least, you only even need a permit if it's a handgun -- rifles and shotguns don't require an iota of state involvement and as long as you're reasonably sure the buyer isn't a prohibited person, there's no real liability either.

Only if you're idiots.

Edit: Especially the kind that would post about it on the internet and snitch on themselves and attract undue attention from the ATF.

But yeah, some very small percentage of people are stupid and/or criminal. 99.99% of gun purchases in the US happen through an FFL with a background check and everything.

Why would the ATF give a shit? Tell me you aren't from a hunting state without telling me.. actual estimates of private sales range from 10% (NRA) to 22% (NPSOF)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28055050/

>Why would the ATF give a shit? Tell me you aren't from a hunting state without telling me..

This trope is so tired, but since you did it, tell me you don't keep up with gun regulatory news without telling me.. The ATF has been on a rogue rampage the last 4 years.

Considering that these are legal sales between law-abiding adults, the ATF doesn't care at all. There's the perennial "they're taking all our guns!" discourse that serves to misinform everyone, and then there are basic facts that mostly pierce all the nonsense.

https://trac.syr.edu/reports/733/include/figure1.png

"Rogue rampage" indeed.. almost 10% higher than pre-covid Trump convictions and about the same level as we saw under GWB! Then again, the average person convicted in 2023 had >2 prior convictions and over 7 prior arrests so maybe these are actually just criminals? Wish everyone would decide if we should enforce laws or not.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-fa...

The ATF changed the rules on private sales. If you make a penny on the private sale, you need an FFL.

https://www.gunowners.org/new-atf-rule-you-can-go-to-jail-fo...

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12679

https://myjrpaper.com/node/7745

They killed this guy over it.

https://saf.org/atf-swat-raid-that-killed-arkansas-man-raise...

All this was legal a few years ago. ATF decided to change the rules.

Also, they wanted to completely ban private sales, but a whistleblower blew the whistle and hopefully stopped them.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atf-whistleblowers-sound-al...

So there's all that.

I'm sorry you buy into all the misleading nonsense from the prepper gun lobby..

They did widen the definition of dealers, but it's still "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

So casually selling guns to friends and family is fine and doesn't require a license or a background check unless your state requires it.

> They killed this guy over it. https://saf.org/atf-swat-raid-that-killed-arkansas-man-raise...

He had bought over 150 guns in the past 3 years, signed forms for each of them that he was buying them for his own use, and then immediately turned around and sold them, several to undercover Feds. He'd post up at gun shows with a table full of guns and then sell them for cash without paperwork. 6 of the guns he sold were found at crime scenes.. the result of the raid was unfortunate but the dude was exactly who should be targeted by laws like this.

Seriously, read the search affidavit if you think it was somehow inappropriate to target him: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Vjer4Tr0SJhe6ZzkUDgkjaho4PH...

Ok I see the final rule does add definitions of "personal collection," so that would cover me. "Occasionally," is not defined, so that's vague. What if I sell 5 at once? What if I sell 1 a week for 5 weeks, is that still occasional? Up to the ATF to decide.

After reading the affidavit, it was written before the final rule. The affidavit was written 3/6/24 and the final rule didn't take effect until 30 days after 4/10/24. How do you square that?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-rule-definition-engaged-b...

From the affidavit:

"9. Your Affiant knows the term "dealer", as defined in Title i8 USC 921(a)(11) of the GCA, means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; or (B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearrns or ofmaking or fitting special ba:rels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker"

Change of the rule:

"Section 12002 of the BSCA broadened the definition of “engaged in the business” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) to all persons who intend to “predominantly earn a profit” from wholesale or retail dealing in firearms by eliminating the requirement that a person's “principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and profit.” The statute now provides that, as applied to a dealer in firearms, the term

“engaged in the business” means “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” However, the BSCA definition does not include “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C)."

This matters because his firearm sales weren't his livelihood and could be argued it was a hobby. He made, I believe, $250,000 working for the state of Arkansas as his livelihood.

Sure but many laws leave room for reasonable people to decide whether something rises to the level of crime.. I'm not sure it much matters because he was lying on the Federal background check forms which is a separate crime that the ATF was investigating and he was shipping / receiving them over state lines, another crime that's indifferent to whether his selling 150 guns was a hobby.

Yea I saw that, but in the affidavit, it claimed he broke the rule that wasn't in effect yet. "Well he did other stuff," true or not, is kinda hand wavy. They weren't wearing body cams which is required by law. They could have pulled him over, it was a sloppy raid by a sloppy agency who didn't even follow the law themselves.

Apparently the lie, was that he stated on the forms was he answered yes on the question regarding if the firearms were for himself.

Here's another botched incident, not sure what they were thinking here. This certainly seems extra-legal.

In a similar raid last year, more than a dozen ATF agents wearing tactical gear and armed with AR-15s stormed the rural Oklahoma home of Russell Fincher, a high school history teacher, a Baptist pastor and a parttime gun dealer. Fincher now believes their goal was to scare him into relinquishing his Federal Firearm License.

“It was like the Trump raid. They called me out onto my deck and handcuffed me. My son was there and saw the whole thing. He’s 13 years old,” Fincher told the Second Amendment Foundation last year. “They held me on the porch for about an hour. I was surrounded by agents. One by one, they yelled at me about what I was doing. In my mind, I decided if they were going to beat me up over every little thing, I’m done. As soon as I said, ‘If you want my FFL, you can have it,’ one of the agents pulled out a piece of paper and said, ‘Well then sign here.’ He had made three copies in case I screwed one up. It was exactly what they wanted. I was shocked.”

Bottom half of this article.

https://saf.org/atf-swat-raid-that-killed-arkansas-man-raise...

Either way, I'm glad you pointed out the "personal collection," part.

I have so much disdain for these organizations.. there's a really important debate to be had about the role of firearms and firearm laws and overzealous Federal agents, but the NRA/SAF aren't interested in honest debate, they're just fear-mongering ghouls pumping out bullshit to fundraise off of.

I looked into the Fincher case, and it's another case that SAF is basically just lying about. They can run these insane headlines and then don't follow up...

Fincher had a FFL but no store, so he'd sell primarily at gun shows. He'd buy guns from other dealers or from manufacturers with his FFL, and then sell them in "private" sales at gun shows with no background check. It looks like the Feds caught onto that and then had a CI do a controlled buy where Fincher was told the purchaser was a felon, and Fincher didn't give a shit and illegally sold him ammo anyways.

Call me crazy, but a FFL doing straw purchases for AR lowers so he can sell them under the table at gun shows is exactly the kind of thing that the ATF should be shutting down.

Fincher indictment: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oked.35...

Fincher guilty plea (he got probation with no jail time - and the FFL who was holding all of the guns Fincher had purchased but not yet sold was ordered to sell them and give the proceeds to Fincher): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oked.35...

>It looks like the Feds caught onto that and then had a CI do a controlled buy where Fincher was told the purchaser was a felon, and Fincher didn't give a shit and illegally sold him ammo anyways.

Looks like he sold him ammunition, not firearms. I'll look into it more.

I agree though, the propaganda machines are going full bore.

> 99.99% of gun purchases in the US happen through an FFL with a background check and everything

Alot of states have classified pages where you can buy/sell firearms. Many states don't require background checks for private sales. People aren't paying a gun shop a FFL transfer/background check fee to hand over the gun to the buyer. Source: have seen many of these transactions at rod and gun clubs.

> The only private sales that happen are among criminals and within families

This varies from state-to-state. Some states allow private sale of individual firearms with no background check.

(... I wish I didn't have a reason to know this fact).

>There are almost no situations where you will not be buying your firearm from an FFL and you will have to fill out a background check form and have a waiting period.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

The people you see with tables full of firearms for sale at gun shows are literally all FFL dealers.

go to a gunshow and see what you need to walk home with guns from there…

A suppressor requires a federal tax stamp and (at least as of a few years ago) submission of fingerprints to the atf.

So is certainly not as easy as some states requirements for firearms.

There is what the law says, and what people are physically cable of. I am being realistic, but you are free to challenge that realism with paperwork that can be ignored by folks who would seek out the hardware mentioned. There are laws against murder, how did that go today?

I am making observations of an operating environment, and don't hold strong opinions on gun rights and similar. More, "What am I dealing with as someone who has to live here?"

Your argument started by talking about loose laws for firearm purchases. Not about being “physically capable” of. It then transitioned directly to talking about suppressor availability. I think it’s reasonable to point out that they are different legal regimes if only for other people confused by your abrupt and silent transition away from talking about laws.

Fair points, I simply don't (subjectively, imho, ymmv) believe it is that hard, legally or illegally, to acquire or possess firearms and accessories for them in most US jurisdictions. "The purpose of the system is what it does" sort of thing. Appreciate the discussion! "Don't break the law" PSA.

I spend _a lot_ of my life interacting with firearms, gun culture and accessories. I do so in Illinois where suppressors are illegal and I’ve never seen one here.

Indiana is a bike ride away and has some of the loosest gun laws in America. I shoot suppressed there all the time.

I believe that manufactured suppressors actually are hard to get in the US in a way that is untraceable to the original purchaser, which makes them hard to get in illegal jurisdictions.

Guns are much more broadly sold and less restricted so I agree that they tend to be very available.

Don’t even need a proper gun. 3D print a ghost gun or the firing mechanism (I forget what it’s called) and suppressor. No traceability.

You need a metal barrel and bolt to contain the explosion and that's it. FWIW, you can make a single shot shotgun with two metal tubes and a nail. Traceability only matters if you recover the firearm.

And had been waiting outside for him for at least 20 minutes... certainly targeted.

Are there scenarios where the police could fail to investigate, knowing the reputation of the shaddy insurance?

If true crime podcasts have taught us anything, it's that police don't really need an excuse to do a shoddy investigation.

And maybe silenced? seems like professional hit from details so far.

We can't know that. There are plenty of avenues for a citizen to get a silencer, long range rifle, and places to train.

It's at least a 5hr drive from NYC to get to anywhere remotely gun-friendly, like New Hampshire.

Suppressors are legal in CT. Regarding a range, you don't even have to leave the state.

And in PA

I kinda doubt that. Suppressors aren't that hard to come by.

It's still slightly impressive. The lobby of that hotel takes up half a city block and has many entrances and exits. There are lots of ways to get in that are not necessarily the front door.

If I were approaching this professionally I'd be waiting near the check-in desk or elevators.

Yes, a professional's getaway vehicle is always bicycle.

It has a lot of signs of a professional hit the more details come out.

The ebike was used to get into central park to somewhere without cameras and change clothing etc.

The video is somewhat consistent with a how a professional might appear, calm with reload/jam, back to camera then flee down alley.

> The suspect is described as using a firearm with a silencer, the person said.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/04/unitedhealth-cancels-investo...

Crazy, if true. Perpetrator knew many people in the area. Had to reduce the chance of raising suspicion. Although “silencers” (suppressors is the better term) are not very silent as depicted in films and tv, but do suppress the muzzle flash and suppress generated sound.

I guess in a crowded NYC, that’s just enough needed to escape the scene.

Suppressors don't just reduce the sound, but they reduce muzzle flash pretty dramatically. So it would help prevent someone from seeing the flash and knowing where the shot came from