hearing loss

Uncategorized

Time For Letters And Faxes To Congress

October 4, 2017 by 1 Comment

I wasn’t sure if I should post this to the blog or not. It is a copy of a letter that I wrote yesterday to Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) who is my congressman. McHenry is also the Chief Deputy Majority Whip so he is also part of the Republican leadership in the House.

My friend Rob Morse also wrote his congressman along with Paul Ryan and posted his letter on his SlowFacts blog. His is a little shorter and more to the point.

I am putting a link to my letter in Google Docs as well so that anyone can use it as the basis for their own letter or fax. McHenry has three offices in the district in addition to his one in DC. I faxed each and every one that had a published fax number.

Hon. Patrick McHenry
Member of Congress
By Fax

Dear Rep. McHenry:

I have written to you in the past urging passage of the Hearing Protection Act. It has now been incorporated into HR 3668 – the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017 – as Title XV of the SHARE Act.

Hearing is one sense that once lost can never be regained. I know as I suffer from both hearing loss and tinnitus. To those who say just use ear plugs or shooting muffs, neither deals adequately with the concussive wave of the exploding gases of the gun shot. I have attached the executive summary from a position paper in favor of suppressors by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. As they note, restricting suppressors is an obstacle to hearing safety.

A suppressor on a firearm is like a muffler on a lawn mower. It doesn’t make it silent; it merely reduces the noise level to a safer decibel level. To say as Hillary Clinton did the other day that it would have made the tragedy in Las Vegas even worse is to merely to show ignorance. Police, the average citizen, and “shot spotter” software could all have detected the gunfire by sound as well as its location.

HR 3668 has passed out of all committees and is now on the Union Calendar of the House as number 224. There are reports that Speaker Ryan is now determined to sit on the bill and not let it come up for a vote. As you are a member of House leadership in your role as Chief Deputy Majority Whip, let me make one thing perfectly clear to you and to the rest of the GOP.

THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

Republicans would not hold a majority of both houses of Congress, Donald Trump would not be President, and there would not be a Republican supermajority of the North Carolina General Assembly if it were not for us in the firearms community. We have been given too many promises over too many years that Republicans are our allies in the fight for gun rights. We have given our votes and we have been continually disappointed. It is always there are more important things to handle and we’ll get to it “next year”. We are treated like Lucy treats Charlie Brown.

No more! While I can’t speak for everyone in the gun rights community, my vote will not be forthcoming unless I see good bills like HR 3668 and Rep. Hudson’s HR 38 brought up for recorded votes and passed in the House.

I attended and spoke at the 2017 Gun Rights Policy Conference held this past weekend in Dallas, Texas. Both the SHARE Act and HR 38 were discussed. A resolution was adopted on Sunday that demanded a recorded vote on both of these bills. Collectively, we have made the decision to stop playing “Charlie Brown” to the GOP’s “Lucy”.

I remain,

Sincerely yours,

John P. Richardson

Attachment: Executive Summary: Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership Position Paper in Favor of Firearm Suppressors to Prevent Hearing Loss

You can get the executive summary of DRGO’s position paper here. I would suggest including it with your fax or letter.

Uncategorized

Can You Still Hear A Suppressed Rifle From 500 Yards Away?

October 3, 2017 by 3 Comments

The answer to the title question is yes.

Rebel Silencers made an ad hoc video on the level of sound suppression on a suppressed rifle. It was done quickly and the production values are not pristine. The microphone picks up wind like nobody’s business. That said, it does a good job of illustrating that a suppressor only lowers the db level and doesn’t eliminate it.

Here was their setup. One guy shot an AR, both unsuppressed and suppressed, from a ridge about 500 yards away from the person listening. The guy listening was a shop machinist who probably didn’t have the world’s best hearing. He stood in the bed of a pickup, closed his eyes, and turned around many times so he didn’t know if was facing or not facing the shooter. He was asked to in the direction of the heard shot. He did it both times with reasonable accuracy.

Is this a perfect test under controlled laboratory conditions? Absolutely not. Does it illustrate that you can both detect the sound and the direction of the suppressed gunfire? Absolutely yes.

Those who have an axe to grind against guns and/or the Hearing Protection Act will say this video proves nothing. I would disagree and say that it shows that the average untrained person can indeed detect suppressed gunfire and that any “shot detectors” would also be able to detect the direction of the gunfire.

You know your member of Congress is under pressure from the anti-gun, anti-suppressor forces to kill the SHARE Act in the wake the mass casualty event in Las Vegas. Now is the time to make your voice heard again and again in favor of passage of these bills.

Uncategorized

Ideologues Versus Science

March 31, 2017 by 2 Comments

There is currently a battle going on between anti-science ideologues and those committed to a health-related change in the laws based upon science. You have doctors, public health advocates, and civil rights advocates on one side and you have the New York Times and anti-health prohibitionists on the other side. I am talking about the battle between those for and opposed to the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

The New York Times weighed in the battle with an absurd editorial entitled “Echoes of Gunfire Hurt Tender N.R.A. Ears”. As per their usual, they conflated the number of deaths attributed to the use of a firearm to include intentional deaths (suicides), they misrepresented the intent of Congress for adding suppressors to the National Firearms Act, and they created a strawman by insisting the public would be at risk because “ShotSpotters” would not be able to hear gunfire.

The annual tally of 30,000-plus gun deaths accounts for just a tiny fraction of the total shots fired, most of which miss their targets but terrorize neighborhoods. Amid the lethal cacophony, the police in more than 90 cities here and abroad seek to reach the scene of the latest gun troubles more quickly by using an audio detection system called ShotSpotter, which triangulates the sound of gunfire onto computer maps. Police officers in major cities hail these precise early alarms of where the latest shooting is.

Yet despite these advances, the National Rifle Association argues, self-servingly, that noisy guns are a public health hazard. With the help of supporters like President Trump’s son Donald Jr., a gun hobbyist, it wants to roll back an 80-year-old federal law that tightly controls the sale of firearm silencers. Immune to irony, the N.R.A.’s congressional friends have introduced a measure called the Hearing Protection Act, which contends that the sound of gunfire is hard on the ears of gun owners.

“What about the rest of us?” the nation’s unarmed majority might well ask. When it comes to public health, the noisier a gun is, the better the chances for innocent bystanders to hit the ground and for police officers to apprehend the shooter.

I guess reading the Washington Post is beneath the editorial board of the New York Times. The Post reported only four days earlier that the CEO of ShotSpotter said their devices had detected suppressed gunfire in the past and would be able to detect it in the future with some fine-tuning.

Then there is Mark Kelly aka Mr. Gabby Giffords of Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) who has been leading the charge against suppressors.

From a fundraising email:

One of those bills would lift restrictions on the sale of firearm silencers.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that firearm silencers work like you see them in the movies — where someone fires a gun and it wouldn’t wake a person sleeping in the same room.

But silencers do suppress sound and light when a weapon is discharged, and that makes them attractive accessories for criminals who want to conceal their crimes.

Attractive accessories for criminals? Really? Actually, criminals want to scare the shit out of you with the noise of a firearm report because it tends to make victims more compliant.

You would think someone who had been around jet engines like Kelly would have an appreciation for the damage that loud noises do to hearing. I know I do because every day for me is like a hot summer night in Mississippi where the crickets, cicadas, and tree frogs keep up an incessant noise. That is what tinnitus sounds like to sufferers like me.

On the rational, scientific side of this debate are groups like Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. They have just released a position paper in favor of suppressors to prevent hearing loss. The four primary authors of the paper are all board-certified physicians specializing in otolaryngology or ear, nose, and throat issues. The following is from their executive summary of the paper:

Noise Induced Hearing Loss (NIHL) is a real public health problem:

The causal relationship between loud noise exposure and irreversible hearing loss has long been
recognized by medicine and the U.S. government.

NIHL is permanent and untreatable. Prevention is the only possible intervention.


Demonstrable need:

NIHL is the most prevalent service-connected disability among Veterans.

Per the CDC, 15% of adults aged 18 and over (or nearly 38 million American) have hearing problems.

Over 100 million Americans who own guns are at risk for gunshot-induced NIHL. Auditory injuries are
sustained by bystanders the same as by shooters.

Nearly all gunshots exceed the noise threshold for instant damage to the hearing cells of the inner ear.
And their explosive blast generates 1,000 times the force on the eardrum than the noise itself.


Benefit of suppressors:

Muzzle blast sound levels from most firearms range from 140 to over 170 decibels. 120 decibels is
considered the maximum safe level for short exposures (the intensity of a car horn 3 feet away). Ear
plugs and/or ear muffs only reduce noise by 20-30 decibels.

Evidence supporting the need for greater use of firearms suppressors comes from the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders, the
Centers for Disease Control, as well as academic and military research.

Muzzle-mounted suppressors are vastly superior to ear protectors, providing 50% greater noise reduction.
Only suppressors can make most modern firearms safe for hearing, as noise at gun ranges routinely
reaches 160 decibels.

I would urge readers to study the position paper issued by Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership. It provides great graphics and is extensively sourced. Moreover, unlike most doctor’s handwriting, it is both readable and understandable!

Our first suppressor arrived this week after a wait of over three-fourths of a year. As I said in that post, can you think of any other consumer product for the health and safety of both the purchaser and the general public for which you have to ask the government for permission to take possession of it on top of paying $200 for the privilege? It is time for Congress to act on the established science of hearing loss and pass the Hearing Protection Act.

Uncategorized

I’d Support This Bill – And So Does The NRA

October 23, 2015 by 10 Comments

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has introduced the Hearing Protection Act of 2015. The act would remove suppressors and silencers from the National Firearms Act. In other words, there would be no restrictions (other than state ones) and no $200 tax anymore. You’d only have to go through a NICS check.

As someone who has both tinnitus and moderate 4000 Hz notch hearing loss, I fully support this bill. My hearing impairment came as a result of shooting firearms at earlier period in my life without hearing protection. My audiologist told me last week when she checked my hearing that I would need hearing aids in the future.

The NRA supports this bill and released this statement today:

Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) announced its support today for the Hearing Protection Act. Sponsored by Congressman Matt Salmon (AZ-05), the legislation removes suppressors from regulations established under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

“Suppressors significantly reduce the chance of hearing loss for anyone who enjoys the shooting sports,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of the NRA and our 5 million members, I want to thank Rep. Salmon for his leadership on this important bill.”

Prevailing regulations requires buyers to send an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pay a $200 tax, and pass an arduously time consuming ATF background check. Under Salmon’s bill there will be no application, no tax, and buyers would be required to pass the same National Criminal Instant Background Check (NICS) as law-abiding guns owners.

As a leading voice in the industry, the American Suppressor Association has provided valuable insight to the creation of the Hearing Protection Act.

“Suppressors benefit all involved in hunting and the shooting sports. It’s time to bring the law in line with modern technology,” said Cox.

It is currently legal to hunt with a suppressor in 37 states. 41 states allow private ownership of suppressors.

The bill has not been assigned a number yet but I’ll update this post when it does.

Michael Bane related a conversation he had with someone in the suppressor industry in his most recent podcast. The gist of it was that if suppressors had been invented now instead of the early 20th century, we would be required to have them and we’d be able to pick them up at a corner store.

I believe that is correct. I do know that I’ll fight tooth and nail for this bill. I don’t want today’s younger shooters to have to deal with even moderate hearing loss.

UPDATE: The American Suppressor Association released a statement on the introduction of this bill. As you can imagine, they are very, very pleased with this bill.

It said, in part:

“The American Suppressor Association believes that citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing while exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the ASA. “The removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act has been our ultimate goal since day one. For months, we have worked alongside Rep. Salmon’s office and the National Rifle Association to craft this legislation. Although we recognize that introducing this bill is the first step in what will be a lengthy process to change federal law, we look forward to working with Rep. Salmon and the NRA to advance and ultimately enact this common-sense legislation.”

UPDATE II: The number of the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 is HR 3799. You can quickly send a letter to Congress showing your support by using this PopVox link.

Uncategorized

The “Big Money” Behind Silencers?

April 30, 2015 by 1 Comment

Chicago’s ABC 7 I-Team is going to let us know tonight about the “big money” who is behind a move to legalize suppressors in the state of Illinois.

Big money? Bwa-hah-hah. The suppressor industry – with perhaps the exceptions of Remington Outdoors and SigSauer – is made up of a number of small businesses. Some are mom and pop operations while others may have 2-300 employees.

Silencers are a safety item. They do not totally cut out the sound; they merely muffle it to a safer decibel level. Anyone who says differently is just restating myth and legend.

I just had my annual hearing checkup on Monday. I shot some in my younger days without hearing protection, attended some auto and boat races with no hearing protection, and, of course, a few rock concerts. I now suffer constant tinnitis (ringing in the ears) and some hearing loss.

About the only “big money” who would benefit from keeping suppressors banned are the hearing aid manufacturers and I doubt even they would want to build business that way.