Pro-gun physician group releases paper supporting suppressor use

[Aim1]

This is good.

I've heard some odd support reasons for the HPA. One was that it'd be better for law enforcement when they use suppressors, odd because I didn't know any law enforcement besides SWAT and police snipers that would use suppressors. Also, this would be a minute percentage of suppressor users overall.

One of the arguments that the anti-suppressor crowd uses is that hunterrs can just use earmuffs/plugs. Pro-suppressor advocates need to come out strongly and say that the reason suppressors are good for hunters is so that they don't need to wear earplugs and can hear their surroundings and hear things like deer walking in the woods or ducks calling. That's why suppressors are so good for hunters because they are not used in conjunction with ear muffs/plugs and need to be used alone so that the hunter has all of his senses at full capabilities.




http://www.guns.com/2017/03/29/pro-gun-physician-group-releases-paper-supporting-suppressor-use/

Pro-gun physician group releases paper supporting suppressor use

3/29/17| by Chris Eger

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership this week distributed a white paper advocating access to suppressors in support of the Hearing Protection Act.

While making the case that suppressors offer significantly greater noise reduction than earplugs, the paper also counters the argument made by gun control advocates that increased use of silencers will prove dangerous in active shooter scenarios by pointing out that even muffled gunshots typically register around 120dB, or midway between the comparative sound level of a jackhammer and firecracker.

 

[FL-NC]

Wearing earplugs or similar devices compromises normal hearing. This could result in a hunter or recreational shooter failing to hear normal sounds, such as a group of Boy Scouts hiking in the area, or some people gathering berries. Other individuals could "push" an animal between themselves and a hunter- placing that animal between both parties. The hunter could decide to shoot at the animal, and that shot could easily end up being oriented towards those other individuals- obviously an unsafe scenario which could have been avoided had the hunter not been using earplugs. I say its worth it if it prevents just 1 tragic accident. Knowledge of other people being in the area makes everything safer for everyone involved. Besides, we are already REQUIRED by law to own suppressors. You can find them underneath your car or on the side of your motorcycle. They are called mufflers in the automotive industry. If you don't have them, you will be fined and your car will fail inspection, so you can't even get a plate for it. These are mandated to prevent noise pollution and so we don't bother people with annoying excessive noise.

 

[Tirod]

Silencer owners already know they have to wear earplugs or muffs for extended shooting sessions. Silencer reduce the noise level but do not make a gun silent.

The mandated use of noise suppressors by the State for motor vehicles is a better angle but the reality is that haters are going to hate regardless. Making common sense arguments about protecting our hearing means nothing to the anti gun crowd, they want them gone regardless.

We have to sell it on it's own merits - loud noise damages hearing and in the military it would save millions of dollars in post service health care costs if the Armed Forces would get out of the politics and just issue them wholesale. Korea DID - buying AMERICAN silencers - and it was all carefully arranged for their benefit. It was as if somebody needed a test or experiment to see what would happen. I'm thinking some people in Command are afraid that thousands would be stolen, which is stupid as they would be issued and signed for, the user responsible for their financial loss just like every pair of socks or a compass. Joe Soldier isn't going to want to pay $600 out of his check having one go missing - and they would only be issued when he draws his weapon anyway. They would be serial numbered as it is. The reality is that cops and agents lose more full auto weapons from cruisers than the Army does on manuevers or at a range. Silencers would be no different.

The HPA might be too soon for political acceptance, what DOES need to happen is military acceptance here now. Once that is done then it becomes part of the "normal" and the GI spec becomes the entry level price.

 

[FL-NC]

Tirod- FWIW, I was in a unit where suppressors were issued for individual weapons and sniper rifles. Hearing protection was still required for most training we did since suppressors were not issued/used for most handguns, crew served weapons, etc.- not to mention explosives and grenades.

 

[bassjam]

My wife had to stop shooting when she was pregnant, every time she fired a gun our unborn child would jump and kick in her! While my wife could wear hearing protection, it was clear the baby in her stomach couldn't!!

 

[Odd Job]

One other benefit of a suppressor is less pollutants at the range (because some residues are retained in the can). As an example I have a .22 can with 16000 rounds through it and it has picked up 60g in residues, most of which I reckon is lead. Those residues would have been left at the range if I fired those rounds unsuppressed.

Note there is a downside: you get more blowback of residues into the action and also more risk of inhaling these residues. Also, the residues have to be disposed of carefully. I haven't cleaned this particular can yet, I am looking to see how much fouling the suppressor can take first.

 

[Jim Watson]

I am glad of any move towards less government regulation, but...
I am not in the silencer market either way. The competitive events I enter do not allow them and I would find one difficult to manage for concealed carry.
I guess you could make a case for one on a home defense weapon if deregulated to the point that you would not be officially harassed for shooting a home invader with a silencer mounted.

 

[reddog81]

I picked up my first suppressor yesterday and the logic behind the current system is totally dysfunctional. I could go into any store in the state and walk out with as many guns as I can carry, but it takes a $200 tax stamp and a 10 month wait to buy a metal tube that reduces the noise by 20 to 30 decibels.

Any criminal with half a brain and the desire to create a suppressor can do so with nothing more than a thread adapter and an oil filter. Do criminal ever use suppressors today? They're bulky and hard to conceal.

The opposition doesn't care if the benefits would outway the harm 10 to 1. Anything they can do do make firearm ownership more burdensome is their goal. Hopefully more neutral parties (like the link in the OP) will come on board and the HPA will gain enough momentum to come up for debate and a vote.

 

[FL-NC]

It would be nice if these could be prescribed by a doctor. Then the ATF could explain why people have to wait forever, deal with a pile of red tape, and pay a $200 tax on their MEDICAL DEVICE which would enable them to safely exercise their 2A rights. As a combat veteran, I suffer from hearing loss already.

 

[bassjam]

It would be nice if these could be prescribed by a doctor. Then the ATF could explain why people have to wait forever, deal with a pile of red tape, and pay a $200 tax on their MEDICAL DEVICE which would enable them to safely exercise their 2A rights. As a combat veteran, I suffer from hearing loss already.

NOOO!!! If you think these are expensive now, just wait until your insurance company gets involved. Next thing you know suppressors would be going for $8,000!!! Although it would be nice to buy one using my pre-tax HSA account....

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Not to mention it is not your doctor's business or your health insurance provider's business if you own firearms or not.

 

[Aim1]

I picked up my first suppressor yesterday and the logic behind the current system is totally dysfunctional. I could go into any store in the state and walk out with as many guns as I can carry, but it takes a $200 tax stamp and a 10 month wait to buy a metal tube that reduces the noise by 20 to 30 decibels.

Any criminal with half a brain and the desire to create a suppressor can do so with nothing more than a thread adapter and an oil filter. Do criminal ever use suppressors today? They're bulky and hard to conceal.

The opposition doesn't care if the benefits would outway the harm 10 to 1. Anything they can do do make firearm ownership more burdensome is their goal. Hopefully more neutral parties (like the link in the OP) will come on board and the HPA will gain enough momentum to come up for debate and a vote.

These are the same people who said a folding stock and bayonet lugs make weapons more deadly.


What did we expect.