Can someone share the Special requirements for owning a Suppressor throughout Europe? Anything like our US registration and tax stamp process. Are you discouraged from owning a firearm suppressor to protect the hearing of the shooter & bystanders?

Is the hearing protection discouragement common on the other side of the pond or is this just a United states thing?

I can only speak to the UK. The UK equivalent to OSHA (Health and Safety Executive) essentially have a policy that reads if you are employed to use a firearm in your daily job (gamekeeper, ghillie etc) your employer must take steps to ensure your hearing is protected as far as is reasonably practicable. Ergo, using a suppressor. When I got my first firearms license in 1985, the cops virtually insisted I apply for a can for my .22. Suppressor use and ownership there is normal, expected and relatively simple. Its one of the few things about the UK I miss and that they got right.

My buddy has a suppressor manufacturing business in Germany and he's doing very well so I'm guessing its not that hard in mainland Europe either. Finland both makes and sells a ton of cans so probably not that difficult there. Only in the US could you get hammered on pricing for items that elsewhere are simply disposable, just like a rifle barrel so are much less expensive.

Hope to hear from others despite the thorough view of perceived expectations and use of supressors on the other side of the pond. May I ask what kind of taxes or disincentive is there for protecting the hearing with the use of a supressor?

For Germany, the last 15 years have brought positive change regarding suppressors for hunters. German gun laws now class them "like" the firearm it is meant to go with. If you can own and use the rifle, you can own and use the suppressor.

The disincentives really have been done away with and here is a toast to that.

I just began the process for my 4th today, $200 for the tax stamp and another $100 for the FFL transfer fee on top of the actual price for the can. Don't think I'll be buying anymore (maybe a .22) but I don't want to hunt with out one anymore, just makes the shooting process much more enjoyable and hardly disturbs game animals. The thing that mostly gets me is that it's a simply muffler on the end of your barrel, nothing more or less. It's not "silent", just not as loud as without. I think movies have given people the wrong idea about silencers. The fact that a simple muffler cost $1,000 more or less, all-in, is just ridiculous if you ask me but that's our gov't at work!

Picked up a gun rag to pass time while working in the U.K. in the 1990's. Was totally floored to see this ^^^^^ sentiment espoused in the various writings. Essentially, using a suppressor was described as the "polite thing to do..."

From memory, back in the 1980s and 1990s it was very difficult to get a full bore suppressor at all / legally on firearms licence. .22RF, yes but no full bore.

This started to change and rapidly in the 1990s due to health and safety at work legislation involving forestry commission type workers suing employers etc over hearing loss. Also big issue in the UK military upto that date.

I would really like those police tactical hearing aid size ear protection - one way Val e. You can bear asleep the normal sounds until the gun is discharged. On range I wear eye muffs cans.