Protonex Technology Corp

CDC Study: Use Suppressors To Reduce Noise Exposure

The American Suppressor Association shared this press release with us. Anti-2A organizers have long wanted to use the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as source material to curtail gun rights. However, this report doesn’t follow their expected narrative.

The question of increased access to firearms Suppressors is indeed a public health question. Their implementation as a standard, over-the-counter device would not only help preserve the hearing of gun owners, but also their dogs used for hunting as well as nearby livestock and wildlife. Additionally, the use of suppressors would lower the profile of firearms ranges and lead to a decrease in spurious nuisance complaints.

Finally, with an increased market size, prices will come down and technological innovation will increase. Military and law enforcement will benefit from this boon, better protecting those serving, as well as the public.

With the reintroduction of the Duncan-Carter Hearing Protection Act, suppressors have been thrust to the forefront of the national political debate. According to many traditional gun control advocates, firearms are not loud enough to cause hearing damage. They make definitive statements, like this one from a recent LA Times article, that, “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.”

To this end, they could not be more wrong.

In a study from 2011 entitled Noise and Lead Exposures at an Outdoor Firing Range – California, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found the following (see page 5):

“THE ONLY POTENTIALLY EFFECTIVE NOISE CONTROL METHOD TO REDUCE STUDENTS’ OR INSTRUCTORS’ NOISE EXPOSURE FROM GUNFIRE IS THROUGH THE USE OF NOISE SUPPRESSORS THAT CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE END OF THE GUN BARREL. HOWEVER, SOME STATES DO NOT PERMIT CIVILIANS TO USE SUPPRESSORS ON FIREARMS.”

If you still don’t believe that hearing loss is a public health issue associated with gunfire, and that suppressors help hunters and recreational shooters reduce their exposure to dangerous noise levels, there is likely nothing that we can say that will change your mind. Just know that the correct term for your opinion is willful ignorance.

Full CDC Study: CDC Study – California Firing Ranges

Tags:

20 Responses to “CDC Study: Use Suppressors To Reduce Noise Exposure”

  1. Ed says:

    What do rational people like us expect from leftist-moon bats? Their whole premise is based on delusional self fulfillment of “feel-good” politics.

    I really hope this Safe Hearing Act makes it.

    Keep up the good work y’all!

  2. Mick says:

    Leftist moon bat here.
    With exception to LA Times quote above, I haven’t heard much discussion of this bill outside this blog. Of course that could change if it gets up for vote.
    I think those who fear suppresses do so out of the Hollywood-inspired connection between suppressors and killers/assassins. It falls into the “why do you need/want military grade weaponry?” Line of argument. It doesn’t take much critical thought to get past that, but as stated, guns can be emotional issue.
    I’m wondering though how many purchasers will be ridiculous mall ninja types trying to look like a movie navy seal.
    So when is this bill coming forward? R’s have pres/house/senate, if they can’t get it done now, don’t when they could… but we are only 4 days into administration so we will see…

    • SSD says:

      It’s been extensively discussed on pro gun platforms. Even mentioned in MSM. Once this legislation is law, there will be suppressors everywhere, for every type of gun.

      • Gerard says:

        Suppressors are mandatory and are commomly used in Europe. We put mufflers on cars and 18 wheel trucks why not guns?

    • SamHill says:

      What does it matter if some people buy silencers because they are “ridiculous mall ninja types trying to look like a movie navy seal”? That can be said for many products on the market from tactical gear to other areas like fancy jewelry, clothes, cars, etc. Some people will always buy things because they are fashionable and that is OK too.

      The facts are, despite what we all learned from Hollywood, silencers don’t make the gun any more deadly or concealable and are not silent. Their benefit to military and recreational shooters is a fact. I have had hearing loss and ringing ear since about 2004 (active duty military) and it’s something I can never get back.

      As far as why we need/want what “military grade weaponry” that is something that our founding fathers built into the constitution. I don’t consider a silencer to fall under the umbrella of military grade weaponry. It is a very costly, heavily taxed and regulated hearing protection accessory.

      In my opinion, it is past time for us to take leftist nonsensical theory out of our lawmaking.

      • Ed says:

        Glad you two commented. I don’t think he was being so much of a troll as more of a devils advocate. Either way he did seem very uninformed of recent media exposure and the truth behind suppressors being an NFA item vs “military grade weaponry”. From what I gathered through personal research, reading and watching videos, suppressors were only put on the National Firearms Act of 1934 out of fear that poachers and destitute people in the mid-West were going to hunt many game animals out of existence since it was the middle of the Great Depression. Even though prior to suppressors being “regulated” they were fairly expensive when purchased. $5 back in 1906 was equivalent of $700 back then. They also could be made by individuals back then since it wasn’t a regulated item.

        The main issue of the 1934 NFA was to get REAL automatic out of criminal hands since they were available to anyone with the means prior to 1934. The cost of a Thompson SMG could only be afforded by criminals that had the funds to own superior firepower vs the local LEO at that time. Putting the suppressors in that category back then was a move in the vein of “feel-good” legislation as well as today. No substance and no rational reason.

        The biggest made up load of crap is calling a suppressor a piece of “weaponry”. It is not a weapon, it doesn’t necessarily “enhance” a rifle or pistol once its’ attached. It is nothing more then a hollow cylinder with baffles to bring down the decibels created by the gases escaping the muzzle only by 20-25, really not a lot.

        As for “mall-ninjas” and the people who buy to “look cool”, so what?? If not for many of them some companies would have lower sales. Isn’t that what Capitalism is about???

        Extreme Right-winger, OUT.

        • Baldwin says:

          “”As for “mall-ninjas” and the people who buy to “look cool”, so what??”” Do you mean we should be able to do things just because we want to? Like as in a free country?

          • SamHill says:

            Right on man. Free country. Free to have diamond ear rings, rims that spin, big houses and neat gadgets from TV.

            Also, less regulation and more people buying these items makes them better and cheaper for everybody.

          • Ed says:

            Fuck Yeah! Murica!!!!

          • Mick says:

            Not trying to troll, yes trying to be (apparently ineffective) devil’s advocate.
            I was just trying to predict/extrapolate the arguments of hardcore gun control advocates. I get that a can is not a weapon, but it’s clearly associated with a weapon and will be associated with a weapon and will be associated with what hollywood shows suppressors for (anyone ever see anyone hunting with a suppressor in a mainstream movie or tv show?) in the eyes of those who have not had real-world exposure to firearms.
            And as far as the mall ninjas… yeah, absolutely, free to do it, that one is more amusement. And I don’t exclude myself from that, either, I’ve bought some high speed tactical stuff that i have no practical use for myself; I can recognize the tendency in others, too.

            • SSD says:

              You can always make an argument that something is scary and should be banned. But then your argument gets turned on you.

        • Another Chuck says:

          The problem is the “media exposure” has almost all been within the gun culture- some in the MSM, but very little. It needs to get out so the general populace is WELL INFORMED.

  3. Chuck says:

    The LA Times article goes right along with the Brady Group’s narrative that the noise from gunfire is a “safety feature” to alert people to a mass shooting. As if a suppressor negates all noise.

    • Chuck says:

      To be clear, the left’s schemes to regulate and control firearms are so frustrating due to their complete inability to conceptualize basic facts and separate those facts from emotional nonsense.

      • Ed says:

        Yup, they are completely Phucking delusional.

        Out.

      • Captain Merica says:

        Their idiocy is far less frustrating than the effectiveness with which they peddle and perpetuate it. It is even more confounding that the left condemns the new POTUS for pushing “alternative facts”, apparently a tactic reserved exclusively for them.

        Emotions cloud judgement; it seems the world has gone mad following their hearts instead of their brains.

  4. Brando says:

    It’s quite a shift in attitudes about suppressors when you live in a zero-State, and NFA-state, then a country without limits on suppressors. Growing up in CA, they were unobtainium. Then getting exposure to them in the Army removed some of the mistique and even living in an NFA-friendly state meant that they were still kind of tricky to get a hold of (lots of paperwork and waiting). The folks I knew or saw at local ranges who had cans were pretty serious about shooting and tended to be older with “adult money” as opposed to E-3 pay. After I ETSd I moved to New Zealand where suppressors are completely unregulated. No permission required to buy or build a can. Everyone who’s got a long gun pretty much has them and the attitude is less “oh man, this is so cool” and more “it’s good manners, bru.”

  5. DAN III says:

    ALCON,

    Tne anti-gun/anti-2A/anti-Freedom/anti-gun owner’s health scoundrels do not care about you protecting your hearing. “You wouldn’t have the need to suppress noise from evil guns if you didn’t have guns in the first place.” I can hear them saying/thinking.

    They don’t want firearms in Amerika. Period ! So, why would they support or endorse a device that accents, in a positive way for firearms users, the usage of the evil gun ?

    So far so good with President Trump. He is doing things I had hoped would have been done and/or corrected, 20 years ago. Let’s hope he acts sooner than later on putting some “common sense” (the left’s favorite anti-gun phrase) into play at the executive level. That he has a “pen and a phone” and eradicates suppressors and SBRs from the NFA. Then execute the coup de grace….terminate with prejudice the BATFE !

    • Ed says:

      You are 100% absolutely effing right about how the demented left thinks/feels acts in regards to our 2A Rights. The goal I hope is to get those “gray” citizens out there that are not necessarily one side or the other but easily swayed by whoever is shouting the loudest. The ultimate goal is to get their attention w/ facts and reality and possibly “awaken” their critical thinking common sense. It hinges on the silent unaware masses.

      Godspeed

    • Steak TarTar says:

      Terminating the BATFE will never happen. Firing 4,770 people is not a smart move