In the United States, obtaining permission to own a firearm accessory like a suppressor involves navigating federal and often state-specific regulations:

1. Federal Requirements:
2. Eligibility: You must be at least 21 years old to purchase a suppressor from a licensed dealer.
3. Background Check: You must undergo a thorough background check conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This includes fingerprinting and submitting passport-sized photos along with your application.
4. Payment: Pay a one-time $200 federal tax stamp fee for each suppressor you wish to purchase. This fee hasn't changed since the National Firearms Act (NFA) was enacted in 1934.

5. Paperwork: Complete ATF Form 4 or Form 1, depending on whether you are purchasing a pre-manufactured suppressor (Form 4) or making your own (Form 1). These forms require detailed information about the firearm, including its serial number and characteristics.

6. State Requirements:

7. Check your state's specific laws regarding suppressors. Some states have additional restrictions or outright bans on them, while others allow their use without much regulation.

8. Purchase Process:

9. Find a licensed dealer authorized to sell NFA items, such as suppressors.

10. Purchase the suppressor through the dealer. They will assist with the necessary paperwork and submit your application to the ATF.

11. Wait for Approval:

12. ATF processing times can vary, but it often takes several months for your application to be approved.

13. Transfer:

14. Once approved, you can take possession of your suppressor from the dealer.

15. Storage and Use:

16. Comply with federal and state laws regarding the storage and use of suppressors. Transport them following regulations, and be aware of any restrictions on where you can use them, such as hunting or shooting ranges.

And here, once again, a few arguments against it:

There are several arguments that can be made for why firearm suppressor laws in the United States are perceived by some as too lenient or why some argue that private individuals should not possess them:

1. Public Safety Concerns: Critics argue that suppressors can potentially hinder the early detection of gunfire in public places, making it more challenging for law enforcement and the public to respond to active shooter situations swiftly. This delay in response time can have severe consequences in terms of casualties.

2. Increased Criminal Activity: Some argue that suppressors could be more appealing to criminals, as they can muffle the sound of gunfire and potentially aid in committing crimes discreetly. This concern revolves around the idea that easier access to suppressors might facilitate illegal activities.

3. Accident Risks: Opponents of private suppressor ownership argue that accidents involving firearms become more dangerous when suppressors are involved. Reduced noise can make it harder for bystanders or individuals nearby to recognize and react to accidental discharges.

4. Erosion of Gun Control: Critics contend that relaxing regulations on suppressors might set a precedent for the erosion of gun control measures in the future. They worry that making suppressors more accessible could be part of a broader trend toward loosening gun laws, potentially leading to unintended consequences.

5. Impact on Hunting Ethics: In the context of hunting, some argue that the use of suppressors might disrupt traditional hunting ethics, as the sound of gunfire serves as a safety mechanism, alerting other hunters and wildlife to the presence of firearms in the area.

6. Law Enforcement Concerns: Law enforcement agencies may express concerns about the increased prevalence of suppressors, as they could make their job more challenging by hindering situational awareness during incidents involving firearms.

It's important to note that the debate over suppressor ownership involves varying perspectives, with proponents arguing that suppressors can protect hearing and reduce noise pollution in shooting sports. However, opponents emphasize the potential safety and security risks associated with their widespread use. Ultimately, the balance between individual rights and public safety remains a central issue in this debate.