You know the fight is brewing when over memorial day several outlets run stories. USA Today actually has a relatively positive piece on them. In fact, even our opponents at ARS are now helping make our point:
Chipman said silencers are not certified as hearing protection and he worries that the gun lobby argument and the bill title could dupe buyers into thinking silencers alone can save their hearing. Ear plugs and ear muffs are tested and used by law enforcement and the U.S. military for hearing protection.
â€œI would hate for anyone who is not as informed as a gun expert … to misunderstand that they can fire a gun with just a silencer and not use hearing protection,â€ said Chipman, a former ATF special agent.
All it takes is hearing a suppressed report once to know you still need hearing protection. But it’s just loud. You don’t need as much. My electronic muffs are rather thin, because I can’t get a good cheek weld on a rifle with thick muffs.Â What a suppressor does is make my thinner hearing protection options more effective. People who are opining about this have no idea how ear splittingly loud and disorienting unsuppressed gun fire really is.
The Dallas Morning News has a less charitable take on the issue, asking: “And what’s wrong with ear plugs?” Ear plugs are not remarkably effective. I’m happy to see that gun people in the comments are coming armed with facts and shooting down every argument opponents make. It strikes me that they don’t really have any good arguments against the Hearing Protection Act. First comment to the Dallas Morning News article is actually pretty well done: