Let’s ‘Follow the Science’ on Suppressors

Many of the anti-gun lawmakers in Congress crowing about how dangerous the Hearing Protection Act is are also people who have used some variation of “following the science” on issues ranging from COVID-19 to climate change. They’re really big on following science and everything.

They are also screaming about how suppressors make it impossible for people to hear gunshots, and it will be super popular with mass shooters.

So, how about we look at what the science actually says, shall we?

Reason’s J.D. Tuccille included some of that in a recent piece about suppressors.

But even after decades of continuing technological development, suppressors still don’t deliver the silent mobland rub-outs that Hollywood fantasized then and truth-impaired politicians still scaremonger about.

“Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can’t hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don’t flee when the shooting begins,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Conn.) bullshitted last week.

Except that suppressors have never lived up to their reputation. In a 2017 article for The Hearing Review, Colleen G. Le Prell, a professor of hearing science at the University of Texas-Dallas, wrote that research on suppressors found “overall suppression ranged from 7-32 dB” and that “with the exception of a subset of conditions in which subsonic ammunition was used, discharge levels routinely exceeded 140 dB SPL despite the use of a suppressor.” She recommended that suppressors should be used with traditional hearing protection for best results.

All of this is just added justification for making it easier to buy suppressors on top of people’s inherent right to own and use what they please and the Second Amendment’s protection of that right in the context of weapons and self-defense. Second Amendment-protected rights have better advocates now than they did in the 1930s. And more politicians now than then understand that suppressors are both expressions of personal liberty and safeguards for health.

“But doesn’t that make the case that it doesn’t protect anyone’s hearing?”

Not necessarily.

The study looked at the shooter’s hearing. Other people at a gun range may or may not have hearing protection on at any given time. While the suppressed firearm is still loud, it’s still far quieter than an unsuppressed gunshot might be. While the average noted above by Prell is still enough to cause hearing damage with a single shot, it’s less likely to do as much.

Plus, the farther away from the shot, the quieter it will be.

It’s not just the shooter’s hearing we’re talking about, but everyone else. 

The reason I want a suppressor isn’t so much for me, but to keep my family from having tinnitus should I be forced to fire a weapon at someone like a home invader inside the house. I’m willing to jack my hearing up if that’s what it takes, since it’s kind of already garbage, but if I can spare them that, I will.

Perhaps more importantly, though, if it doesn’t make a gun whisper quiet, then why are we restricting them in the first place? The whole argument about them is that they’re super scary because no one will hear anything until someone is dead, but that’s simply not true outside of a Hollywood film set.

Banning them was dumb.

Continuing to ban them is even dumber.