In a time when so much medical “science” seems to be politically manipulated to make an argument against gun ownership and the Second Amendment in the United States, Stephen Gutowski of The Reload reports at least one medical group has looked at the science and come out with an endorsement that if allowed to influence the rationale of legislation, would improve the health and hearing of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS), representing over 13,000 ear, nose and throat specialists, issued a position statement this month supporting the use of suppressors, often called silencers, in reducing harmful noise levels from firearms. It is their official stance that firearm suppressors are an effective tool for preventing hearing loss.
In fact, the AAO-HNS highlighted multiple studies showing that suppressors help mitigate the risk of permanent, noise-induced hearing damage. According to the statement, “Sound suppressors are mechanical devices attached to the barrel of a firearm designed to reduce harmful impulse noise of firearms at its source.” The group also referenced research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicating that suppressors, which can reduce muzzle blast noise by up to 30 decibels, are the only effective method for controlling noise at its source for shooters.
Hearing Loss Prevention a Priority
The academy’s statement emphasized the importance of combining suppressors with traditional hearing protection measures, such as earplugs or earmuffs, to achieve the best results.
“Their benefit is additive when used with ear-level hearing protection devices such as circumaural muffs or ear plugs,” the statement noted.
Dr. Timothy Wheeler, a board-certified otolaryngologist and life fellow of AAO-HNS, was a key proponent of the position statement. Wheeler, who is also the founder of Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership, stressed that suppressors are a vital public health tool for preventing noise-induced hearing loss, which he described as untreatable and entirely preventable.
“Noise-induced hearing loss is permanent and untreatable,” Wheeler told The Reload. “Suppressors represent a classic public health tool for preventing inner ear hearing loss.”
Potential Implications for Policy
While the AAO-HNS statement is strictly scientific and does not advocate for specific policy changes, it could influence discussions around the regulation of firearm suppressors. Currently, suppressors are tightly controlled under the National Firearms Act, requiring an extensive application process, a $200 tax stamp and sometimes months of waiting for approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Recent efforts by the ATF to streamline the registration process have reduced wait times, but many gun-rights advocates continue to push for legislative reform. Supporters hope the AAO-HNS statement will lend credibility to measures such as the Hearing Protection Act, which seeks to deregulate suppressors.
“Suppressors dependably reduce the impact or impulse noise exposure of a gunshot by about 30 decibels,” Wheeler said. “If you oppose making this useful firearm accessory available to people who can benefit from it, then you are opposing protecting them from hearing loss. That’s the implication, and that’s the truth.”
Neutral But Significant
Wheeler underscored that the AAO-HNS statement is neutral and focused solely on the science.
“It’s purely a scientifically based observation,” he said. “They are saying nothing beyond what’s in the statement.”
The endorsement highlights the academy’s longstanding commitment to preventing hearing loss, which remains a significant public health concern. By recognizing suppressors as a practical solution, the AAO-HNS has sparked renewed conversations on the balance between public health measures and regulatory frameworks.
Somehow I don’t see the government approving something that actually is safe and effective without a bitch of a fight.
Let’s call the AR-15 a Modern Sporting Rifle to appease Gun Control. Let’s say a pistol brace is to help the disabled to appease Gun Control. Let’s say a can is for protecting against hearing loss to appease Gun Control. Let’s dare not say History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide.
Nope
It’s nigh impossible to get them to act on things that have been unsafe for decades. Now for a tall glass of atrazine, fluoride, industrial lubricant spruced up with some red number 5.
Way too late for me. Maybe something will come of this for y’all youngsters.
Sorry, gunny. All of my coauthors and I, as practicing ear specialists, saw many like you over the years–law enforcement, military vets, hunters, and sport shooters. We hope our position statement in support of suppressors, prudently adopted by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery this month, will help make shooting safer for the hearing of new generations of shooters.–Dr. Tim
None for me until I can plunk my cash down and walk out without having permission from a government to own one.
Silencers don’t shoot bullets, they are not a firearm , they are accessories. Forbidden accessories by way of government.
Xdduly,
I totally understand your mindset. I was in the same boat for the last several years. I finally decided to (proverbially speaking) “plug my nose and pull the lever” this summer and buy two suppressors.
See my response below to Docduracoat as to why it is valuable for all of us to buy at least one suppressor.
Waiting times for approval of a form 4 to transfer a suppressor were down to five days at one point.
That sparked a run on silencers, wait times are now back up to 5 months.
It’s still better than the 10 months to one year wait times in the past.
Docduracoat,
I just checked Silencer Shop and they are reporting that mean (similar to average) ATF processing time of Form 4s for individuals is 7 days and for trusts is 11 days.
If you want to buy a suppressor, do it now. The more suppressors we all buy, the closer we get to the fuzzy standard “in common use” where the U.S. Supreme Court will be compelled to deregulate them.
They are already “in common use”, have been for years.
The ‘in common use’ test (developed in Heller, further affirmed and used in Bruen) is not based upon numbers but rather a two factor ‘rule of decision’.
The in common use test developed in Heller:
1. the ‘arms’ must be “bearable.”
2. the ‘arms’ must not be ‘dangerous’ AND ‘unusual’
(h ttps://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/what-part-of-in-common-use-dont-you-understand-how-courts-have-defied-heller-in-arms-ban-cases-again-mark-w-smith/)
If both 1 & 2 apply, that the ‘arms’ are bearable and are not ‘dangerous’ AND ‘unusual’ – so, if any number of them exist in use in the hands of the public they are in ‘common use’.
The question though – is second amendment implicated here? Are suppressors actually ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) in reality or are they only ‘artificially’ ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) because the government says so in their regulation of them? If they are ‘artificially’ ‘arms’ because the government says so then the second amendment is implicated and ‘in common use’ would apply. If they are not actually ‘arms’ in reality then the second amendment is not implicated.
If the court upholds that second amendment is implicated, then the government can continue to regulate them as ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) because the second implication applies to ‘arms’.
If the court upholds that second amendment is not implicated, then they are not ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) and the government can not continue to regulate them as ‘arms’ (i.e. firearms) thus would not be under the NFA.
… and it goes on and on in the world of legal arguments
’40 cal Booger,
Millions of citizens own suppressors and only a handful of said citizens have ever used suppressors to advance a violent criminal attack. Those two facts satisfy the “common use” threshold and also establish that suppressors are neither “dangerous” nor “unusual”.
The only remaining question is whether one of the firearm rights organizations files a lawsuit and what legal basis they will use to challenge the current legal requirements to purchase/transfer.
I am not an attorney therefore I will not speculate on specific legal arguments in a lawsuit.
Well, after a fashion, the U.S. pre-defined them as arms when they regulated them as part of the National Firearms Act.
If they are arms, then Heller and Bruen apply, if they are not arms then their regulation must be via some vehicle other than the NFA. What vehicle that is, (commerce, consumer protection, etc.) is undefined. If they are not arms, and, therefore not the appropriate domain of the BATFE, well, then, they should be no more regulated than curtain rods or tennis shoes. (Although, given our bureaucracy, I’m probably unaware of some ridiculous rules applying to curtain rods and tennis shoes.)
“Well, after a fashion, the U.S. pre-defined them as arms when they regulated them as part of the National Firearms Act.”
Correct, in addition to, they are legitimate safety devices, as their use protects delicate hearing fibers in the inner ear.
If firearms were invented today, suppressors would be *required safety equipment*, and made illegal to remove from the firearm, the same as mufflers on gas-powered lawnmowers and snowmobiles.
Aren’t Leftist-Fascist Scum ™ supposed to be for safety devices ???
If both 1 & 2 apply, that the ‘arms’ are bearable and are not ‘dangerous’ AND ‘unusual’ – so, if any number of them exist in use in the hands of the public they are in ‘common use’.
Minor nit.
In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the court held that because there were approximately 200k stun guns held for lawful purposes, that they were “in common use”.
As a result, 200k represents the current “low water mark” for being “in common use”, and thus “cannot be both dangerous and unusual”. Anything over 200k and it cannot, by definition, be “unusual”.
Suppressors and SBRs are well over that threshold. MGs in civilian hands are real close. Not sure where SBSs fall.
Also, 2A applies not just to bearable arms, but SCOTUS has affirmed it applies to accessories (such as magazines, bump stocks). So even if something is not a firearm (which NFA says a suppressor is..), it can still be protected by 2A.
15
Growing Wave Of Support For Suppressors! Amazing Numbers.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyjCFwO8iow
NY Left wing loony senator blue states butt hurt – States Talking Secession Over New Policy!!
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp-ffEc5Jfg
Charges Dropped in Dallas Self Defense Case.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyguRxaygHg
Another left wing looney with severe mental illness TDS…Washington state left wing democrat Governor elect, Bob Ferguson’s Very Unhealthy Obsessions.
“Governor elect, Bob Ferguson, is hard at work with his transition team to start solving all of Washington’s problems. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses his first order of business, which is the creation of a crack subcommittee to battle the oncoming onslaught of policies from Project 2025. No, this is not an April Fools joke, your Governor-elect is most concerned, at the current time, with the Hereitage Foundation’s Project 2025. Not crime, not homelessness, not the drug epidemic, not housing costs, not fuel prices, or even affordability, instead, we must focus on Project 2025.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSLmz1tsUVw
Facebook Just Banned Smith & Wesson, Why Gun Owners Should Care?
(Colion) : “Facebook/Meta has done it again—this time indefinitely suspending Smith & Wesson’s account. One of the oldest and most iconic names in the firearms industry got hit with a cold, one-sentence banning notification.
But instead of backing down, Smith & Wesson clapped back on Elon Musk’s free speech platform, X, praising its support for the First and Second Amendments.
They stated:
“Despite our extensive efforts and resources spent on trying to adhere to Facebook’s ever-changing community guidelines on firearms, our account was suspended indefinitely on Friday, November 22nd, 15 years after its original creation.
In an era where free speech and the right to bear arms are under constant attack, we want to thank
@elonmusk and @X for supporting free speech and our constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd Amendments.”
Let’s dive into why Facebook’s censorship of the 2A community is a direct attack on the most American of rights—and why platforms like X are becoming the new battleground for free speech and gun culture.”
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFg1ZPlrKOU
Elderly Man Shoots Attacker In The Buttocks Who Was Viciously Beating A Woman.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjLwJbfwvdE
I do think suppressors should be as easy to buy as anything else. Seems the left would want to make them mandatory at shooting ranges to reduce noise and complaints from neighbors nearby. Butt I don’t want to give the left any ideas. As for me I already wear hearing aids, but I still wear hearing protection at the range after removing the aids.
“Medical Academy Backs Suppressors for Hearing Protection”
Well, it’s about damned time SOMEBODY did.
Simple fact is that people who oppose the de-regulation of suppressors just hate any and all things gun related and also hate the people who own and use them (some of them are monumentally uninformed as well, but they still hate you). They got the suppressors on the “no-no” list a long time ago and they are going to oppose any effort to get them off said list because they hate people that own guns. As far as many of the anti-gun zealots are concerned, if gun owners either have to pay a tax and register or go deaf, good. They think we are sub-human scum anyway so why should they care about our health?
There is always ear muffs.
Cheaper and without the registration.
Hmmm, they don’t care about my health, so sad because I do not care about theirs either.
MyName,
Exactly right!
Very well said sir or ma’am.