Medical Journal Issues Statement supporting
Suppressors as Effective Hearing Protection
By Dean Weingarten. Dec 24, 2024
Article Source
On November 18, 2024, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery issued a statement of support for the use of firearms suppressors as a means of reducing the risk of hearing loss. From entnet.org:
The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery endorses the use of firearm suppressors as an effective method of reducing the risk of hearing loss, especially when used in conjunction with conventional hearing protective measures.
The article contains a paragraph making clear the publication and organization are not making a legal or political statement. They are stating medical fact.
The references listed with the statement make clear suppressors are superior to hearing protection which is worn (such as head sets or earplugs). Using both firearms suppressors and worn hearing protection is even better at reducing risk to hearing from the noise of shooting firearms or being near to where they are being shot.
References:
- Chen L, Brueck SE. Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range – California, Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 2011-0069-3140:5:5.
- Branch M,"Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-Level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use", Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 144(6): 950-953.
- Heiman D, et al., ibid; Le Prell CG. Sound level suppressors for firearm noise reduction: Implications for hearing conservation. Hearing Review. 2017;24(12):26-30
Reference #1 measures the dangers of firearms blast for hearing loss.
Reference #2 measures reduction in sound levels using firearms suppressors compared to hearing protection devices which are worn on the person. Branch found this result:
Conclusion:
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 inadequacy of standard hearing protectors with certain common firearms is not recognized by most hearing professionals or their patients and should affect the way hearing professionals counsel patients and the public.
Reference #3 reaches these conclusions:
Sound level suppressors (also known as "silencers") on firearms reduce—but do not eliminate—hazardous noise exposure, especially for AR-15 or similar semiautomatic rifles. At this time, the best advice is dual use of both HPDs and suppressors—particularly for those shooting weapons that produce dangerously high sound levels. For shooters who are reluctant to use HPDs, electronic HPDs should be considered as an option.
Analysis:
The scientific evidence is clear. Silencers offer a significant way to reduce the risk of hearing loss. The commonly used term "suppressor" is more realistic if more recent. Silencers/suppressors do not make firearms silent. They reduce the noise from a firearms blast to levels which are less dangerous to the user. Those who desire a disarmed population put forward two contradictory reasons as to why silencer/suppressors should be tightly regulated.
First they argue silencer/suppressors make firearm noise "too quiet" so that crimes can be committed more easily. Second, they argue silencers/suppressors do not make firearm noise "quiet enough" as the noise can still damage the users hearing with some suppressors in some conditions.
This is a form of Goldilocks gun control. Silencer/suppressors are always either too quiet or too loud. In the eyes of those who want a disarmed population, they can never be "just right". When firearms suppressors were initially included in the controversial National Firearms Act in 1934, the science of hearing protection had not been developed. It wasn't until 1948 that the U.S. Air Force took hearing loss seriously.
The American Air Force instituted the first recommended noise exposure limits in 1948 and the first enforceable noise regulations in 1958. Soldiers who experienced hearing loss from service in WWII or Korea had a much different experience than their grandfathers who served in WWI.
The military realized what workers know today – loud noises can impair situational awareness and decrease safety even beyond hearing loss.
The $200 tax on a silencer in 1934 was equivalent to about $4,000 today. A laborer in 1934 would make $200 in six months. It was effectively a ban for most people.
The effective economic ban on the use of firearm suppressors or gun mufflers has been one of the greatest governmental medical disasters of modern times. Certainly millions, likely tens of millions of people have significant hearing loss because of this regulatory misstep. The inventor of the firearm gun muffler invented the automobile muffler at virtually the same time. One became mandatory, the other was banned. The difference was the overreach of government power by the FDR administration in 1934.
©2024 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
