Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership(A Project of the Second Amendment Foundation) has issued a position statement on the Hearing Protection Act and suppressors in support of the act. The contributors are all ENTs, which are the appropriate experts to comment on hearing and sound issues related to hearing protection.

The PDF can be viewed/downloaded here:
https://drgo.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DRGO-HPA-White-Paper-03-27-17.pdf

 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
Research that demonstrates the superiority of suppressors over earplugs or earmuffs has been published by Matthew P. Branch, MD. In Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-Level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use (Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery , 144(6) 950-953), he found that:
“All suppressors offered significantly greater noise reduction than ear-level protection, usually greater than 50% better. Noise reduction of all ear-level protectors is unable to reduce the impulse pressure below 140 dB for certain common firearms, an international standard for prevention of sensorineural hearing loss . . .Modern muzzle-level suppression is vastly superior to ear-level protection and the only available form of suppression capable of making certain sporting arms safe for hearing."



The Centers for Disease Control, in a September 2011 report titled Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Rangeâ€"California, documents the importance of hearing protection in shooting. It determined that noise levels above 160 decibels are routine at gun ranges and how even repeated exposure at lower decibel levels can be as damaging as fewer exposures at higher levels. It recommended “double protection†(i.e., earplugs and earmuffs used together) as the best currently available protection. But it noted that “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce students’ or instructors’ noise exposure from gunfire is through the use of noise suppressors that can be attached to the end of the gun barrel. However, some states do not permit civilians to use suppressors on firearms.â€12 [Emphases added.]
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,613 Posts
Good post. Thanks for the chart.

If we don't get the Hearing Protection Act passed, I hope that we can at least get a bill allowing for centerfire rifles in clearly supersonic calibers to have permanently-attached silencers without ANY regulation or restriction. As long as the silencer can't easily be removed from that one rifle's barrel and placed on some other weapon, it should be perfectly legal (under federal law) without any restriction, tax, or extra paperwork beyond what is required for just owning a rifle in the first place.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,289 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Good post. Thanks for the chart.

If we don't get the Hearing Protection Act passed, I hope that we can at least get a bill allowing for centerfire rifles in clearly supersonic calibers to have permanently-attached silencers without ANY regulation or restriction. As long as the silencer can't easily be removed from that one rifle's barrel and placed on some other weapon, it should be perfectly legal (under federal law) without any restriction, tax, or extra paperwork beyond what is required for just owning a rifle in the first place.
Nice idea, but I'd rather have unrestricted access to suppressors globally - like in anti-private gun ownership countries in Europe.


BTW, some have offered that just doubling up on ear protection will work better. Sorry, but many studies by audiologists and ENTs contradict that assertion as illustrated by the graph above.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top