After all, at a time when we're just starting to make inroads on deregulating them to some degree, this comes and happens, which means there's a good chance some folks will try to outright ban them.

The shocking and tragic shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in midtown Manhattan with what appears to be a handgun with a silencer [unconfirmed] is making headlines.

While law enforcement works tirelessly to apprehend the perpetrator, it’s likely only a matter of time before anti-gun organizations and media outlets seize this incident to call for new bans—this time, on firearm suppressors.

Suppressors, also known as silencers, are already tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA), requiring extensive background checks, federal approval, and steep tax payments before purchase. Despite these regulations, anti-gun politicians and groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are likely to use this tragedy to push legislation like the HEAR Act, which seeks to ban suppressors entirely.

...

Before jumping on the bandwagon of trending bans, it’s essential to ask: will this legislation actually prevent crime, or is it just another symbolic attack on the Second Amendment? Suppressors are already tightly regulated, and criminals who intend harm won’t be deterred by additional restrictions. Banning suppressors will only harm the millions of Americans who responsibly own and use these tools.

Let’s not allow this tragedy to become a scapegoat for misguided policy proposals. Instead, focus on enforcing existing laws and addressing real solutions to violent crime. It’s time to stop punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals.

And right now, we don't know how or even if the killer got a suppressor in the first place. It's kind of hard to have a debate over the devices if we don't even know whether the bad guy got one. Granted, that's never stopped anti-gunners before--how many have called for an assault weapon ban as a mass murder was taking place, only to not even blink when it turned out the killer didn't have one?--but still, it's useful information to have.

As the New York Post reported on Thursday, law enforcement believes the gun used in the murder may actually have been a modern version of a British gun known as a B&T VP9, a five-round pistol with a built-in suppressor.

A recent purchase of the gun by the Connecticut-based gunmaker is an investigative lead in the manhunt for the killer, who used an apparently silenced pistol, sources said.

But the killer’s gun has not yet been recovered, so the link to the rare firearm is only a lead at this point, according to sources. 

The gun is described on B&T’s website as an “updated, integrally suppressed pistol [that] features a new grip and updated magazines, yet maintains its non-descript appearance, whisper-quiet sound signature and unique rotating bolt operation.”

As noted above, suppressors are heavily regulated, more so than most firearms are. People aren't just walking into a store and walking out with a suppressor just because they feel like it. The B&T VP9, for instance, is considered a Class 3 firearm that requires NFA registration and tax stamp.

If the gun used did have a suppressor--and I think it did--there are a few things we need to consider.

First, of course, is that the suppressor was stolen. Stuff gets taken all the time and suppressors are small enough and light enough that they can walk off easily enough with the right sort of help. No new laws are going to prevent theft.

Another option is that this was basically one of those "solvent traps" that used to be advertised on Facebook all the time. They're marketed as attachments that keep gun solvent from getting all over the place, but they're long, then, and have baffles inside. All the need is a hole on the end, more or less, and they're suppressors.

The solvent traps are apparently legal enough, but modifying them is a crime--I'm still not sold on these not being an ATF operation in the first place, though, because no one is that worried about solvent spilling somewhere--so again, why need more restrictions on what amounts to a safety device?

We can't rule out this being completely homemade. The truth is that suppressors have been around for long enough that the engineering behind them isn't necessarily cutting-edge. The new ones might have more current research and development involved in making them quieter, but someone with the right skillset and tooling could make a suppressor in their shop without too much hassle.

Finally, there's the potentiality that this was someone who followed all of the laws and purchased the gun and/or suppressor lawfully. 

That's not great, but let's also remember that despite this high-profile crime and one other, suppressors aren't used in crime all that often. There are nearly 5 million of them in private hands and I can remember exactly two being used in a crime--this one and the Virginia Beach Municipal Building shooting. They're not really a big concern.

Of course, if we get into this fight, none of that will matter to some people, only the feels.

The fact that most of them are celebrating Thompson's murder will make it downright hysterical to tear their arguments apart.