To the editor:
On the subject of banning suppressors:
Recently President Donald Trump has talked about banning suppressors, which are unfortunately more commonly referred to as silencers. Across the political spectrum there is a wide misunderstanding of guns, how they work and how they’re regulated. In this case, some of the arguments have to do with something I am very familiar with as a certified safety professional: hearing protection. I would like to set straight a few arguments about this issue and give my opinion on how suppressors should be dealt with from our regulators.
Supporters of the ban often imagine suppressors as what they see in a movie. A hit man walks into a room and with a sound barely louder than what you would make blowing a dart through a tube they kill their target. This is not the reality of what a suppressor does. Depending on what weapon you’re using, the caliber and the type of ammunition, a suppressor might reduce the noise level by about 30 dB. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health sets the recommended exposure limit for noise at 85 dB for an eight-hour time weighted average with a 3dB exchange rate, meaning anything over 85dB for eight hours will cause permanent hearing damage and any noise level in multiples of three above that cut time where damage can occur in half.
A gunshot with a suppressor is still about 110 dB, loud enough to cause damage in anything more than about two minutes of continuous use. With the use of hearing protection the exposure can be reduced enough to prevent hearing loss.
People opposed to the ban often site hearing loss as a main reason for why suppressors are used, and while they can be used for that purpose, that is certainly not their main purpose. It is laughable to me that the politically conservative, who have often fought against OSHA, suddenly care deeply about hearing loss. Suppressors have benefits of reducing recoil, reducing muzzle flair, and changing the sound significantly. Unless you know what a shot from a gun with an attached suppressor sounds like, it is unlikely that you could identify it.
This means that criminals who use them often make a getaway before police are even notified about a shooting. Suppressors are important for the military because it makes it more difficult for an enemy combatant to locate which direction the shot came from. This same concern makes it easier for criminals because potential witnesses may not be able to tell which direction to point the police towards. Because of these concerns suppressors were placed under title II of the national firearms act, and that has largely been successful in keeping suppressors out of the hands of criminals.
The people opposed to the president’s actions by and large want to see the SHARE act passed, which will make suppressors available for anyone without the more rigorous title II restrictions. People in support of the president’s actions want to see them banned altogether. I believe the national firearms act has worked exactly as intended in this instance, and both sides are proposing solutions in search of a problem.
Matthew Smith
Greenwood
