Stupid Democraps always trying to limit our rights, while allowing felons, who don't follow the law, to do anything they want.

What idiots.

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

Firearms are inherently loud. Why not promote the use of an accessory that limits potential damage to yourself and others in addition to making shooting more enjoyable? Do you like stuffing ear buds in your ears and wearing muffs? I sure don't.

Your wife ever tell you your going deaf?

Aggietaco said:

---

Firearms are inherently loud. Why not promote the use of an accessory that limits potential damage to yourself and others in addition to making shooting more enjoyable? Do you like stuffing ear buds in your ears and wearing muffs? I sure don't.

---

TRUTH.

Tons of other places see suppressor use as the norm, and hunting without one is considered rude. I sure wish suppressors had been used when hog hunting last year. 2 ARs in close proximity was not good for the ears, luckily I had one surefire ear plug already in.

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

maverick2076 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

---

ear protection technology already exists though. You can literally go to the store and purchase devices that cover your ears and muffle the sound to almost nothing. It is really quite amazing.

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

I will freely admit that the best argument we have for legalizing suppressors (hearing protection) is weak as all get out as an actual debating point.

What I feel very strongly about is not hearing but the fact of WHY suppressors are regulated. The reasons for that are even more contrived and weak than the opposing point of hearing protection. There is simply no good reason of why they are regulated and I choose to not accept the standard, it has always been this way, cop out. At It's heart I don't see this as simply a suppressor battle but a battle of the War on Guns. Every inch of regulation we can repeal involving firearms I am 100% for.

I am absolutely convinced that there will be no single sweeping gun ban in the foreseeable future. This is a long term war of give and take. The HPA is but a part of that.

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

The main points regarding suppressors and the flaw in your opinion regarding the stated arguments in favor of their use have already been made.

I just had to comment on the bolded line. You can call it whatever you want, but the manufacturers, military, LEOs, and most enthusiasts refer to them as suppressors...correctly. This is the equivalent of me saying "I have a 30-round clip (sorry, magazines will always be for the coffee table as far as I'm concerned) for my AR.

When hunting, it's best to be able to hear as much as possible. Having hearing protection on certainly goes against that, doesn't it?

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Many European countries require suppressors just for this.

It also helps if you are not shooting, but someone a half mile away is blasting away. It makes the quiet time on the back patio a little more enjoyable.

Ragoo said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

---

ear protection technology already exists though. You can literally go to the store and purchase devices that cover your ears and muffle the sound to almost nothing. It is really quite amazing.

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

---

1. A suppressor on a firearm protects everyone's hearing that is in proximity. Hearing protection only protects those wearing it.

2. When something goes bump in the night, I grab a suppressed weapon. I'd like to protect the hearing of myself and my family when we don't have time to don ear pro.

3. The effectiveness of hearing protection is highly dependent on fit and quality of materials. Suppressor, not so much.

4. Suppressors reduce sound more effectively than hearing protection.

5. Suppressors allow you to protect your hearing while still easily and effectively communicating between shots. Hearing protection, not so much. The Marines are even testing out using suppressors on every weapon in a BN because of this.

6. Suppressors at public ranges protect the hearing of neighbors and people in the area not using the range

Those are reasons only relating to hearing protection, and not even getting into reducing recoil, ease of teaching new shooters, hunting advantages, etc. Would you like me to continue?.

OP, in a Federal Republic such as ours, a compelling argument of the overwhelming public good to be derived should be made before banning anything...particularly something related to an incorporated natural right.

Now the federal bureaucracy is clearly out of control...but I choose to start here!

So, unless the argument can be made why they should be restricted...your point is mute. You are looking at this as a slave looks at his chains and wonders what he did to deserve being a slave.

Tell me why we can't be trusted with suppressor, or remove the restriction. Simple.

Ragoo said:

---

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

---

Freedom.

As someone with tinnitus, I'm all for this. There are several benefits to reducing the sound.

And those opposed have watched too many movies.

Ragoo said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

---

ear protection technology already exists though. You can literally go to the store and purchase devices that cover your ears and muffle the sound to almost nothing. It is really quite amazing.

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

---

Why do we allow mufflers on cars, much less actively require them? I mean hearing protection is widely available and there is really no need to keep cars that quiet. Do you have any idea how many children are killed every year by cars they never heard coming? All of that just to not have abusively loud cars.

Why won't you think of the children?!?

maverick2076 said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

---

ear protection technology already exists though. You can literally go to the store and purchase devices that cover your ears and muffle the sound to almost nothing. It is really quite amazing.

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

---

1. A suppressor on a firearm protects everyone's hearing that is in proximity. Hearing protection only protects those wearing it.

2. When something goes bump in the night, I grab a suppressed weapon. I'd like to protect the hearing of myself and my family when we don't have time to don ear pro.

3. The effectiveness of hearing protection is highly dependent on fit and quality of materials. Suppressor, not so much.

4. Suppressors reduce sound more effectively than hearing protection.

5. Suppressors allow you to protect your hearing while still easily and effectively communicating between shots. Hearing protection, not so much. The Marines are even testing out using suppressors on every weapon in a BN because of this.

6. Suppressors at public ranges protect the hearing of neighbors and people in the area not using the range

Those are reasons only relating to hearing protection, and not even getting into reducing recoil, ease of teaching new shooters, hunting advantages, etc. Would you like me to continue?.

---

Well done.

Ragoo said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

Gota De Limon said:

---

I haven't considered this subject longer than the time it took me to read that article so I really don't have a dog in this fight. I've been a lifelong shooter, hunter, gun enthusiast, 2nd Amendment defender, etc, etc. I spent so many of my high school weekends sitting behind a table at gun shows working for my old man that I lost count of the days.
All that stated, it seems to me the "let's do this for hearing protection" angle is about the most contrived and transparent argument you could have conceived as a means of arguing for the legalizing of silencers (sorry, suppressors will always be for "flashes" as far as I'm concerned). Pretty weak argument and the examples provided in the story are squarely at odds with the logic used in just about every other pro gun argument.

---

Hearing protection for the shooter and others around them is LITERALLY the single biggest benefit of suppressor use. There is nothing contrived about that.

---

ear protection technology already exists though. You can literally go to the store and purchase devices that cover your ears and muffle the sound to almost nothing. It is really quite amazing.

So now what is the argument for a silencer?

---

This is just not true. Repeated exposure to gun shots, even with hearing protection, will absolutely impair your hearing.

maverick2076 said:

---

1. A suppressor on a firearm protects everyone's hearing that is in proximity. Hearing protection only protects those wearing it.

2. When something goes bump in the night, I grab a suppressed weapon. I'd like to protect the hearing of myself and my family when we don't have time to don ear pro.

3. The effectiveness of hearing protection is highly dependent on fit and quality of materials. Suppressor, not so much.

4. Suppressors reduce sound more effectively than hearing protection.

5. Suppressors allow you to protect your hearing while still easily and effectively communicating between shots. Hearing protection, not so much. The Marines are even testing out using suppressors on every weapon in a BN because of this.

6. Suppressors at public ranges protect the hearing of neighbors and people in the area not using the range

Those are reasons only relating to hearing protection, and not even getting into reducing recoil, ease of teaching new shooters, hunting advantages, etc. Would you like me to continue?.

---

Much of this is spot on. As an ENT physician, I see multiple patients every week who have high-frequency hearing loss, very often with bothersome tinnitus. Whenever I see a right-handed male with a hearing pattern showing worse hearing in the left ear, I pretty much know the cause. I know, we all need to practice personal responsibility, etc., but I see suppressors as just one more way in which people who hunt and shoot CAN practice personal responsibility. The government should make it easier for people to protect their hearing, not more difficult. It appears that our Academy is going to be strongly behind this bill and I hope it passes for many reasons. One word of caution, though, is that the responsible thing to do would be to use a suppressor and hearing protection, especially if firing multiple rounds. 30 db of suppression isn't great, but it's very good, and at this point we don't have a magic wand to make that hearing come back to normal once it is damaged.

Kool said:

---

It appears that our Academy is going to be strongly behind this bill and I hope it passes for many reasons. One word of caution, though, is that the responsible thing to do would be to use a suppressor and hearing protection, especially if firing multiple rounds. 30 db of suppression isn't great, but it's very good, and at this point we don't have a magic wand to make that hearing come back to normal once it is damaged.

---

Woah! That's good news.

Quote:

---

the responsible thing to do would be to use a suppressor and hearing protection, especially if firing multiple rounds.

---

THIS!!! Something our liberal friends can't understand

Know what those also allow? Hearing loss.

Ragoo said:

---

DatTallArchitect said:

---

When hunting, it's best to be able to hear as much as possible. Having hearing protection on certainly goes against that, doesn't it?

---

what? they make ear plugs that allow you to hear just fine until you fire a gun.

---

Yes, but they are very expensive.

Ragoo said:

---

'03ag said:

---

Know what those also allow? Hearing loss.

---

and? what do you wear to mow your yard? use a chain saw? or hedge trimmer?

---

Pivot, pivot, pivot . . .

I think one should justify the need to ban suppressors, not justify the need to have them.