The United Kingdom Government has formally moved to deregulate firearm sound moderators, tabling amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill that would remove them from firearms licensing requirements in England and Wales.
The move follows years of advocacy from shooting and rural organisations, with the UK Government acknowledging what hunters, farmers, wildlife managers and shooting organisations have argued for decades; that silencers are not a public safety threat and should instead be viewed as practical safety equipment.
In announcing the reforms, the UK Government noted that suppressors are commonly used to reduce hearing damage, minimise disturbance to livestock and neighbouring properties, and improve the safe and humane use of firearms in the field.
While the political timing may not be perfect for this discussion in Victoria given the ongoing review of the state’s firearms laws, the reality is that silencers remain one of the most misunderstood pieces of firearms equipment in public debate.
The image of “silencers” presented in Hollywood bears little resemblance to reality.
In practice, silencers do not render firearms silent. Rather, they reduce muzzle blast to safer and more manageable levels; particularly important for hunters, pest controllers and primary producers operating around livestock, rural homes and other land users.
They are widely accepted and commonly used across much of Europe and Scandinavia, where they are regarded as sensible occupational health and safety equipment. In New Zealand they are freely available. Even in jurisdictions with otherwise strict firearms regulation, silencers are often encouraged because of their clear hearing protection and public amenity benefits.
There is also growing recognition internationally that silencers can improve shooting outcomes in the field.
By reducing recoil and muzzle blast, silencers can improve shooter comfort and reduce flinching, particularly for younger or less experienced shooters. They can also aid communication between hunters and guides, reduce disturbance to surrounding wildlife and livestock, and contribute to cleaner, calmer shot placement; outcomes that directly improve animal welfare.
For neighbouring landholders and other public land users, reduced firearm noise can also significantly lessen conflict and perceived disturbance.
Critically, there is no credible evidence internationally that lawful civilian access to silencers creates meaningful public safety risks.
Criminal misuse of legally held silencers is exceptionally rare in jurisdictions where they are lawfully available, and the notion that they somehow enable undetectable criminal activity is overwhelmingly driven by fiction rather than evidence.
The issue has already attracted attention locally.
Last year, Eastern Victoria MP Jeff Bourman raised questions in the Victorian Parliament regarding the status of silencers and their potential benefits, including hearing protection and reduced noise impacts. In response, the Police Minister indicated that the issue would be referred to the Victorian Firearms Consultative Committee for advice and consideration.
That process, however, has effectively been overtaken by the broader national firearms debate and the accelerated policy environment that followed the Bondi Junction tragedy interstate.
That is understandable.
But it also highlights the challenge of having nuanced policy discussions around firearms in periods dominated by heightened emotion and national media attention.
Because whatever terminology is used, silencers are demonstrably not the public safety threat they are often portrayed as being.
They are hearing protection devices. They are tools that can reduce noise complaints and improve relationships between hunters, farmers and neighbouring landholders. They can improve shooter comfort and confidence, particularly for junior or recoil-sensitive shooters. And they can contribute to calmer, more effective and more humane shot placement in the field.
None of this means reform in Victoria would be simple, or that it is likely in the immediate term.
But difficult conversations are sometimes the ones worth having.
SSAA Victoria has consistently argued that firearms policy should be grounded in evidence, not fear campaigns or movie mythology. That means being willing to engage with issues that may not always be politically fashionable, but which nonetheless represent sensible and proportionate reform.
Silencers are one of those issues.
At a time when governments increasingly speak about evidence-based policy, occupational health and safety, reducing conflict between land uses, and improving animal welfare outcomes, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether Victoria’s current settings around silencers remain fit for purpose.
The UK Government’s decision will not end the debate internationally, but it does demonstrate that governments in comparable jurisdictions are increasingly prepared to approach the issue pragmatically rather than emotionally.
And that conversation, sooner or later, will need to occur here too.
