Firearm Silencers and Morality

This article is sort of a sequal to one I published on the Catholic approach to firearms several years ago. You can find this article and many others on my Substack: https://substack.com/@rememberingtomorrow

On January 1st, 2026, the provisions included in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” became enforceable law. Exactly what is in the bill, I honestly couldn’t tell you. My impression is that it’s more of a what’s not in the bill kind of situation. From new tax laws on overtime/tips, to tariffs, to ending tax stamps on some NFA items, there certainly is a lot going on.

Now, I think tying too much up in one bill can cause all kinds of problems, especially when there is so much in a particular bill as to eclipse other things and make it impossible for the average Joe to really comprehend and understand what it happening. But that’s about as far as I’m going to say on that matter. I am not, after all, a political commentator, and I work hard to remain that way. Rather, when it comes to prescriptive controversies (such as ought a woman to be a CEO, or ought a Catholic buy firearms), I try to speak in a descriptive way which returns us to the root issue really being asked here - and which thus orients us towards a true prescription. 

* As an aside, if you haven’t yet, I encourage you to check out the articles I wrote on both  these prescriptive controversies here, https://open.substack.com/pub/rememberingtomorrow/p/erika-kirk?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web and here, https://open.substack.com/pub/rememberingtomorrow/p/firearms-and-catholics?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web respectively. *

There is one prescriptive provision in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” which interests me. In fact, it is in keeping with an article I published a couple years ago and recently re-published here. The provision which interests me, in short, the “BBB” eliminates very expensive and at times cost-prohibitive tax stamps on several NFA items. Specifically in mind is the elimination of the tax stamp to purchase a silencer for your firearm. The article in question which already lays the framework to deal with this is, of course, Firearms and Catholics, link above. Check it out if you haven’t already.

I’ve dealt with tacti-cool purchases in both Firearms and Catholics as well as Apocalypse Maybe. If you’ve read either (hopefully both), you know I’m not a fan of tacti-cool purchases for their own sake. You’re not turning your home into Fort Knox in the event of an apocalyptic event, especially if your proclaimed enemy is the government, and especially if you live anywhere that is even remotely populated. It’s just not happening. So, you must make purchases that align with the realistic purpose you have in mind. These things are tools, not salvific charms or amulets which render their owner safer or more capable by the simply owning the item in question. 

This is especially true of firearms: introducing a firearm in your home defaults in having introduced a new danger to your home rather than a safety measure. What if you don’t know how to use it? What if your kid gets into it? Worst of all, what if a burglar takes it from you? You know, that one time that you have that long tactical rifle that feels good in your hand, you go to turn a corner and didn’t see him standing there, waiting to grab the long barrel as soon as it shows up (which is a full 12-24 inches before you can turn the corner), and shoot you with your own weapon. You should have read my articles, man. You have to know how to use this particular piece in your particular home against the particular threat you are responding to without letting anyone else have access to your weapon. Training, training, training!

We also talked briefly about accessories: binary triggers, 30-60 round magazines, etc. My position at the time - which I still maintain - was that I was not going to create an exhaustive list of accessories and pretend like I could judge whether there was a valid use for them by anyone at any time or not. And that word “valid use” is itself up to interpretation a bit. Is your purpose tactical? Or just fun? I make no claim that having some of these accessories just for fun is somehow unjustifiable. And I will confess: I myself have some of these accessories, for my own purposes. They work for me and my emergency plans. So accessories are just like firearms: you must stand before God and answer for how you spent His money, and whether you had good justification for the tools you buy or were they just “toys.”

All this is well and good. But there’s a new accessory in town which is no longer subject to a $200 fee on top of the purchase price, making them a significant player in considering your tactical purchases: Silencers. These accessories (commonly - though inaccurately - called suppressors), essentially muffle the sound of a firearm discharge and make it noticeably softer. A firearm owner could effectively purchase one of these things for virtually any firearm they currently own and reduce or eliminate the need for ear protection while firing their weapon.

Opinions on Silencers and their justifiable application in the real world outside of “expensive toy” varies. For some, the only justification for anything is that we are in America; buy what you want! Others look at mass-shootings, public sentiment, and their own proximate factors in life to question the purchase of any extensive tactical gear: who needs 30 rounds to hit their target? Silencers sort of fit into this category. Some say buy American, which means buy it if you can afford it (or on credit), while others say the civilian application for something like a Silencer is so tenuous that it is hard to morally justify.

I personally disagree with both sides on Silencers specifically. Just in general, the policy “just because you can therefore you should be able to” is a bad policy. It is fraught with moral problems. That’s all I’m going to say about that so that I don’t devolve into unwarranted criticism of political thought. So much for justifying it simply because I can now afford it. As to the more restrictive approach, I can personally see more moral justification for buying a silencer than I can for something like a 30 round magazine. But again, it depends on what you are buying it for.

One factor people do not consider when buying firearms for safety is the hearing loss that is doomed to follow if they discharge their firearm within the bounds of their home and have not taken the time to don ear protection first. Firearms are loud when they are outside; have you ever heard the blast of a shotgun reverberate around the walls of a small room? If you had, that would be the last thing you heard for quite a while - in extreme cases, maybe ever. On the other hand, let’s say you did the responsible thing and did grab ear protection before you started defending your home. You’re not in an all-out firefight; you are most likely in a sneaky-sneak situation wherein you have to listen for minute sounds to disclose the position of the intruder. Or, if you use the pump of a shotgun as a deterrent, then how do you know when the intruder is not sneaking up on you? Worse yet, what if you cannot hear the terrified whispers of your child or spouse or friend who had a key to your home trying to identify themselves to you, while still remaining hidden from the intruder? 

Without a Silencer, firearm usage for home protection can present a damned if you do, dead if you don’t kind of situation. If I’m going to be readily aware of all my surroundings, then I might have to sacrifice my hearing and the hearing of my loved ones if I don’t want to die. On the other hand, if I want to preserve my own hearing, then I might not actually be proficient enough to protect my home - or worse yet, not be able to identify who I am protecting vs. who I am protecting from. 

Both of these problems can and have been solved by individuals for years with different tactical options. But they are very, very real problems. A Silencer is an efficient (and somewhat affordable, now) way to solve both of these problems: I don’t have to sacrifice my hearing because of your unlawful decisions, nor do I have to risk tactical disadvantage because I want to protect my own hearing. In my mind, that right there is case closed: if I can justify purchasing a firearm for home defense, I can immediately justify with ease the purchase of a Silencer as a necessary accessory.

The world of firearm accessories is virtually unlimited - kind of like the scope of the “BBB,” it turns out. I do not pretend to list every accessory, and I think there are some that I could find that I would have a hard time justifying - kind of like I suppose were I to have time to look at the “BBB” I could readily find some things that are simply not good. One aspect of the bill I do get behind, however, is the removal of cost-prohibitive tax stamps on certain NFA items like Silencers. Their justification is simple, their application is wide, and the downsides of them falling into the wrong hands is much less bad than a firearm in general falling into the wrong hands. If a firearm in Walmart goes off and it’s been equipped with a Silencer, you are still going to be able to identify it as a gunshot and run the other direction; the only difference is, you’ll still be able to hear your grandkid’s voices joyfully exclaim when they find out you’ve survived the incident.