r/canadaguns • u/picatdim • May 22 '26
News / Politics / Activism Suppressors in Canada: A Proposal
Firearm suppressors are currently illegal to own in Canada, but are legal and even encouraged in the US and many European countries. Suppressors alone do not make a gunshot silent; rather, they reduce its volume significantly. Suppressors can also be used in conjunction with subsonic ammunition, which does not produce a sonic boom when fired. This combination can render a gunshot almost completely silent and hearing-safe.
The legalization of suppressors is important for reducing the impact on the hearing health of the shooter and nearby people. It also lowers the gunshot noise generated by an active shooting range or a hunter out in the forest, resulting in fewer noise complaints by range neighbours and less environmental impact on the part of hunters.
If suppressors are legalized, I propose the implementation of a federal tax of $25 on the sale of each new suppressor. This special tax revenue would be partially allocated towards improved border security targeted at reducing the flow of illegal weapons smuggled into Canada from the United States. Smuggled weapons account for the vast majority of gun violence in this country. The second portion of the tax revenue would be allocated towards supporting the victims of gun violence, whether that be through mental health initiatives, enhanced medical care or direct financial support.
There are approximately 2 million licensed firearms owners in Canada. If each of them bought just one suppressor in a given year, the $25 tax per suppressor would result in an extra 50 million dollars the federal government could put towards eradicating firearms smuggling and assisting the victims of gun violence.
This suppressor initiative benefits everyone except for the criminals who smuggle and kill with illegal weapons. Firearms owners benefit from less hearing damage, range neighbours and the environment suffer less from noise pollution, the government benefits from increased funding to reduce the impact of gun smuggling and gun crime, and the victims of gun violence are granted increased support.
91
u/Redbulldildo May 22 '26
Supressors should absolutely be legal, and considered PPE, but convincing the rest of Canada of that is very unlikely.
19
u/fuckbitingflies May 22 '26
That’s the only angle that would ever even possibly work.
So many people have hearing loss later in life. Most people I know who have shot regularly for decades can’t hear shit.
26
u/picatdim May 22 '26
The reason I feel so strongly about suppressors being made legal is that I have been severely hearing impaired since birth. I don't have my PAL yet and have never fired a gun, but I know firsthand how miserable it can be living with hearing loss. I'm trying to raise a little bit of awareness in that respect.
11
u/fuckbitingflies May 22 '26
I hear you. No pun intended. I’m someone who wears an active headset when gun hunting and in every scenario where I expect to be close to gunshots, protective IEMs for music, ear plugs around tools and other loud household equipment, etc. I’ve always taken it seriously.
I think the suppressor issue will be a real challenge given how little the majority of people know about firearms, suppressors, subsonic rounds, etc. I really do think that the PPE angle is the only one with any hope of gaining any traction in Canada.
9
5
u/PhantomNomad al May 22 '26
WHAT????
As in I can't hear you. Because yes I do have significant hearing loss and not just from shooting.
4
71
u/Vast_Horizon47 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
I feel like with our current government we will not see suppressors legalized - something about keeping the community safe.
I think our major goal should be getting firearms unbanned and not divide our goals
28
u/HungryFollowing8909 May 22 '26
Yeah, an outright strike of the bans would be great.
I also don't like the idea of conceding to a 25$ tax per suppressor. Gov already steals enough, if they need more money maybe they should start being financially accountable.
6
u/escv_69420 May 22 '26
The GST on a can is going to be 5x that already so the $25 is kinda pointless.
1
u/NiagaraBTC May 22 '26
So if they said all guns prohibited since 2019 are back to their former status, but you have to pay $25 to keep them, you wouldn't take them up on it?
1
u/UnderstandingSoft165 May 22 '26
That’s completely irrelevant
8
u/NiagaraBTC May 22 '26
No, it isn't.
The point is you happily take the suppressors with the tax, then fight to get the tax removed.
Slow and steady, piece by piece, you get your rights back the same way they were denied by the government.
3
u/UnderstandingSoft165 May 22 '26
I think it’s not necessarily bad. Hit a stalemate, you gotta go flank an easier battle which might open up front for main one. And for the majority population of gun owners THIS would be huge, I hate ear pro hunting. I would say 50% probably don’t use it hunting on average. This goal swings in our favour logically. As a sport gun enthusiast, deep down you know points exist about semi auto restriction that make that debate closer to 50/50 than this. (I know someone will take this out of context)
54
u/arthor May 22 '26
you cant have shooting ranges to near where people live because ITS TOO LOUD!!!!!
you cant have silencers because WE CANT HEAR YOU SHOOTING!!!!!
14
4
May 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/LongjumpingChipmunk May 22 '26
We know, but reducing the noise at ranges would help perception, as that is a regular complaint from nearby many.
20
u/Lumindan May 22 '26
The problem is you're trying to approach this with logic.
Canadian firearms laws are built on vibes.
I appreciate how optimistic this is but we can barely even get semis in this country.
60
28
u/radkiller22 May 22 '26
That would require us to have politicians with a functioning brain. They hate firearms (and their owners) more than they love money
33
u/Hot_Cheesecake_905 May 22 '26
I think we should target the noise pollution angle.
Nathalie Provot, the Secretary of Nature, will surely understand the negative effects of noise pollution and perhaps loop in colleagues from Health Canada to help protect the hearing of Canadian shooters.
50
u/Whispersfine May 22 '26
She will tell you to stop using guns and solve the issue forever.
I’m not even joking.
14
u/4r4nd0mninj4 May 22 '26
Exactly. She has no interest in preserving the rights of hunters or sport shooters. She'd ban absolutely everything tomorrow if the AFN would let her get away with it.
29
u/GamesFranco2819 May 22 '26
They are not encouraged in the US. Legal yes, but plenty of people want to ban them and there are tons of hoops to jump through to get them, enough that it persuades some from owning them.
England would be a much better example of a country that encourages them, thats about the only positive that they have regarding firearms
3
u/LongRoadNorth May 23 '26
I was going to say, I think there's even states that outlaw suppressors or at least highly restrict them.
3
u/GamesFranco2819 May 23 '26
Yup. Most of us can get them, but its still far from "encouraged" and several states flat out banned them
12
u/SecureNarwhal May 22 '26
mentioning it's legal in the States is instantly a reason for it to be illegal in Canada
Canada identifies itself as not the US
4
u/UnderstandingSoft165 May 22 '26
we’re first to criticize and imitate at the same time. It’s such a toxic relationship lol
11
9
u/Whispersfine May 22 '26
It’s a bit too early to start drinking ma boi.
2
u/Ok_Competition6823 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
If I was as this blindsided, I would actually be happy in this country
10
7
u/LeeFrann May 22 '26
suppressors reduce the report of a firearm, our gov't logic is they want to be able to know whos shooting where.
6
u/Traditional_Bank2200 May 22 '26
Well written OP. This is the position I have had for a few years now as well. I have explained this ad nauseam to many Canadians who aren’t anti-gun, but who just don’t understand our rigorous gun laws and culture.
Is it ever going to happen? No - not under this government. I would argue than even $100 - $200 for a tax stamp is reasonable, but let’s focus on keeping our rifles out of tyrannical hands first.
1
u/picatdim May 22 '26
Thank you, I appreciate that. I worked hard on the post! :)
5
u/some_guy2024 May 22 '26
I just don’t get the tax stamp/money angle other than that’s how it works stateside. All Canadian gun laws are ideologically driven. If they cares about money more than ideology they wouldn’t be putting up such a concerted effort to run the whole Canadian firearms industry into the ground since the tax revenue from industry massively dwarfs what a $25/stamp tax would ever generate. I say this as a guy who would put a can on almost every gun I own and who frequently uses them stateside.
2
u/UnderstandingSoft165 May 22 '26
First off, commend OP for putting up effort! But yeah. I get it works in persuasion, it’s just dumb and as humans we should work past that apprehension. Two reasons why i think it’s dumb..
“do it this way, because that’s how THEY arbitrarily did it”:
And to be honest, I think at this point taking any cues from US legislation is detrimental to our cause. Since Euro model on this is better for once anyway, throw away terms tax and stamp. We currently use PAL and RPALSimilar to talking to an elder person when your bias knows they will be closed minded, you have to ease them into a new idea with something more familiar to them - even if that thing is a very objectively negative thing, it can be the difference between their approval and rejection. All feelings based lol I know it’s how it is, unfortunate etc but don’t want to accept our government feeling it’s decisions
I get that money makes things happen and tax was probably main factor in getting weed passed. I’m all for do whatever we can on this, but god damn we always get the short stick. My other thoughts are that in reality, they might look at $25 and be like that won’t even cover admin for it. So then we’re paying annual registration for each moderators lol iykyk, just don’t get idea in their head unless last resort.
I do think it’s only a matter of time we get them here as common sense eventually prevails but I’d like it to be while we’re still a first world country.
7
8
u/nschwart91 May 22 '26
You make a strong argument. Send a letter to your MP.
16
u/Lumindan May 22 '26
And it'll go straight into the shredder because the votes are whipped.
0
u/nschwart91 May 23 '26
Good, then make an appointment to go talk to your MP. There's always more we can do.
2
u/ItchYouCannotReach May 22 '26
This already went to an our Commons petition a few years back that was one of the most signed petitions in history at the time. The response from the government was a resounding no.
0
u/nschwart91 May 23 '26
Advocacy isn't about asking once and then giving up immediately when they say no. You have to keep it up until momentum builds.
3
u/saves313 May 22 '26
I love the optimism, but i think we havr a better chance of having the government implement a program to provide deer with hearing aids to offset the damage caused by gunshots
4
u/endchat May 22 '26
Buddy the government doesnt need your 50 million dollars, they print money with no end and send it to third world countries the dumbest things possible and the rest they launder through ukraine and the likes.
If the government can print money, why do they need your tax money?
Do you really think they care about border security?
They just brought in like 10 million people in just a few years...
3
3
u/Ov3rReadKn1ght0wl May 22 '26
I recall the government response towards a petition for suppressor legalization in years past that basically went something along the lines of "only a criminal needs a suppressor because they are solely for being covert, and this inhibits the ability of Canadians to respond quickly to gun violence incidents."
This isn't to dismiss the idea; I am very much in favour of it. But its clear that the current ruling party has their minds very much made up on the issue for polemical reasons and is unlikely to be swayed.
3
u/canada1913 May 22 '26
You must be new to gun ownership in this country. This has been tried many times, in many different ways, and many different arguments made. Not even the conservatives would give us suppressors. At this point I’d bet that if we got a conservative government next week they’d dilly dally on changing any gun laws and postpone it till after the next election, thinking/hoping/dreaming that enough Canadians would make that a pivotal voting point to help them in the election.
2
2
2
u/SecretUse2150 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
25$ is penny for them , more realisticly 100-200$ per silencer would be more enticing for them. But even if the pope would support that…. That just makes the guns look even more scary… would like/love to see this happen but… for now probably impossible… i think it could be done even before unbanning guns but they would likely use that to make us pick the fight ..or the ban or the silencer and i think its the reason no one is pushing hard on that because thats like the next fight. And dont want to mix things
2
u/Fredarius May 22 '26
Always shocking how guns and related gun items are basically legislated based on action movies. Makes it wonder about all the other legislation written.
2
u/slvrus May 22 '26
We need a psychological exam and IQ test for all MPs. This would get rid of a large amount of problems from the current circus we live in.
2
u/Jsav87 May 22 '26
They are banning guns on looks alone. That would need to be over turned and accepted before those talks could even start happening. So maybe in the next 50 years ?
1
1
1
1
1
u/MacintoshEddie May 22 '26
There's many legitimate reasons we should legalize them, but realistically the only way it would have a chance at happening is to trade repeaters for it.
1
u/Bambam4040 May 22 '26
50 mill to stop the guns being smuggled in from the US someone drank the koolaid
1
u/PhonedZero CCFR Member May 22 '26
If the RCMP sees value in them for their own hearing protection, then they should be available to all.
2
1
u/SandySpectre May 22 '26
This is a good idea. The problem is, you’re applying logic and reason to the issue whereas our opponents are running on emotions. Your proposal will fall on deaf ears because their position is coming from a fear response that can’t be reasoned with.
1
u/GabRB26DETT May 22 '26
Gary didn't even know what a fucking PAL was, counting on logic and common sense is out the window
1
1
u/Dill_Pickle_Tears May 22 '26
Is this a proposal you’re bringing to the Feds or your MP’s? I say it’s always worth a shot, but if you don’t plan to action this it’s just preaching to the choir.
Even NZ has legal suppressors, legal handguns, abd .22 semi auto AR’s. So would be nice if we could follow suit (though we should get ARs back fully ofc)
1
u/bigsxvhuj533 May 22 '26
50 million isn’t enough for any sort of consideration. It would have to be in the billions for the government to think about how to divide it up for their new cottages in the Muskokas.
1
u/westleysnipes604 May 22 '26
50 miillion to send to the Ukraine so they can launder it to god knows where.
The movie and television industry has naxe it impossible for us to ever get supressors IMO.
They taught the public a supressor is what a hit man uses to stay under the radar.
1
u/BrotherLefthand May 22 '26
I would add info about how subsonic ammo is less powerful. I would remove anything about the USA- focus only on our more sane EU allies. I would not suggest a suppressor could make gunshots completely silent. I would add info about how decibels are logarithmic and how community safety improves with even a small reduction in firearm decibels. Etc etc
1
u/jimmythemortician May 22 '26
I like the idea of legal suppressors, but fuck giving the Government more money.
1
1
u/PsychologyTrick7306 May 22 '26
They don't want the guns to put them on, let alone suppressors. Let's try to get our guns back first.
1
1
u/escv_69420 May 22 '26
Bud, they're on a crusade against "Assault Style" firearms. They ain't never going to legalize "Assassin Silencers".
It sucks because never mind hearing, suppressors are actually a lot safer for your brain. After multiple concussions, I really feel it in a bad way when my self or someone else puts out a ton of rounds on a bigger rifle with a nasty brake on it.
1
1
u/Aggravating_Button99 May 22 '26
" can render a firearm almost silent". SMDH This bit of misinformation is why they will never allow them. Our argument is that they are still loud enough that it wont greatly benefit criminals .
1
u/This_Hedgehog_3246 May 22 '26
Dual citizen living in the US.
I wish you the best of luck, and for the record they're hardly encouraged down here. They're (unconstitutionally) regulated the same as machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, etc.
That said, I shot with mine this morning.
1
1
u/Financial-Brother-93 May 23 '26
I support this 100%. Although the libs would never let this happen no matter the benefits. They would take all firearms from legal owners first if they could. A sad reality, unfortunately. Awesome idea though bud. 🍻
1
u/chillyrabbit May 23 '26
I don't like the implementation or idea of a tax, that is a very American-centric way of implementing a fee as a means of acquiring a suppressor
Additionally I'm not sure you can use a tax or fee like that with our government to fund things like that. I also don't like the idea that border security or gun violence funding has to come from users of guns specifically. It just seems like a way to offload responsibility of the government to do these things to us.
is the fee for each new suppressor sold? or a fee when a suppressor transfers hands?
The long gun registry was originally a pay to play system with registration fees that were constantly waived to get people to register. Why would this be different? Because its a novel product?
How would enforcement of the fee work? Would it still be illegal to manufacture a suppressor? How would the government track if it was a suppressor that had the fee paid or not? Would it have to be registered?
1
u/tmsa_prez May 23 '26
You are preaching to the choir. Except no tax. I’m already paying 2 sales taxes at the store.
To understand our firearms laws you need to divorce yourself from any logic. It’s feels not reals baby!
1
u/ThirdEchelonDesign May 23 '26
You are doing it wrong. When healthcare was nationalized, it only took a few years for provinces to make seatbelts mandatory. Not for safety, but to reduce costs. You should pursue making hearing care covered from birth. The costs will nudge the debate in the direction you want. Otherwise it will never happen.
1
u/Ilikefightsbecause May 23 '26
There literally is no justification to ban suppressors at all. Not one reason why to.
1
u/AurelianINVICTVS May 23 '26
The government would rather you not even have a firearm. Let’s win that fight before we start fighting for suppressors
1
u/wolfgang94 May 23 '26
They already ran a petition when Jody Wilson-Raybould was justice Minister, liberals bounces it b.c. of crime concerns.
1
u/Jesse8990 May 23 '26
Let's get rid of the current ban list and bring back pistol purchases. Then we can talk silencers imo
1
1
u/Zealousideal-Hat5814 May 24 '26
Just legalise it. Screw the tax. We are taxed enough and I want my hearing to not suffer at cottage bbqs
1
u/fartsNdoom May 24 '26
I imagine if fending off a home invader wasn't frowned upon by the government as much as guns are, we'd be able to have them for our home defense weapons at the very least.
2
u/69___Nice May 25 '26
"If Canada legalizes supressors all the hitmen are gonna be impossible to find and assassinations will skyrocket."
Gary or Poly (probably)
229
u/cawnz1456 May 22 '26
With the state of legal firearm ownership in this country at the moment , this would never happen . I like the optimism though