Stan,
Once your hearing has gone that's it and once you get chronic tinnitus you'll regret it. I said we used double ears in training, while that old video is operational. Helmets help too as (sound) pressure is transmitted through the bones in the skull as well as the traditional route through the ear. That includes over-pressure from detonations. Centrefire suppressed, including handguns is 'loud'. Standing around with the cops and firing into the air is a nice touch of machismo but you need to have more respect for the fragile nature of hearing. It's all relative to cartridge, barrel length and type of suppressor. A little .22 rimfire is nice and quiet and no ears needed. Subsonic, suppressed Blackout from a 12" barrel is getting towards needing ears, especially when under roofs and in rooms. A few shots in the open is no big deal. Suppressed Grendel is definitely earmuff time. You might only shoot one or two rounds occasionally in the open and put up with accumulating damage that might not be noticed until you are old and grey.
As for countries that regulate firearms more the USA, perhaps that is the reason why suppressors don't feature to a concerning degree in their crime, or perhaps it's more related to cultural propensity to commit crime and to use firearms in crime. One example of a country that has ready access to military centre-fire rifles is Switzerland where crime with these guns, let alone with suppressors, is almost non-existent. Across the world it is also relatively easy to manufacture a DIY suppressor if you cannot get your hands on a legitimately manufactured one, yet their use in all countries to commit crime is rare. One argument opposing this fact by law-makers is that any amount of crime using a suppressor is unacceptable. The US has 370-million people so there's bound to be one person who is going to misuse a suppressor if they are more readily available,. This will be the argument of many opposing law makers and for that there is no counter-argument, other than to suggest it is unreasonable to prevent the vast majority from enjoying this freedom. Like driving a car...the only way you can prevent all accidents is to ban all cars. Cars are important to society and if you couch suppressors similarly, as more than just an indulgence (e.g. mitigating hearing loss and noise pollution) then suddenly there is a community benefit opposing their restriction. More importantly, this community benefit arguably justifies some misuse.
Once your hearing has gone that's it and once you get chronic tinnitus you'll regret it. I said we used double ears in training, while that old video is operational. Helmets help too as (sound) pressure is transmitted through the bones in the skull as well as the traditional route through the ear. That includes over-pressure from detonations. Centrefire suppressed, including handguns is 'loud'. Standing around with the cops and firing into the air is a nice touch of machismo but you need to have more respect for the fragile nature of hearing. It's all relative to cartridge, barrel length and type of suppressor. A little .22 rimfire is nice and quiet and no ears needed. Subsonic, suppressed Blackout from a 12" barrel is getting towards needing ears, especially when under roofs and in rooms. A few shots in the open is no big deal. Suppressed Grendel is definitely earmuff time. You might only shoot one or two rounds occasionally in the open and put up with accumulating damage that might not be noticed until you are old and grey.
As for countries that regulate firearms more the USA, perhaps that is the reason why suppressors don't feature to a concerning degree in their crime, or perhaps it's more related to cultural propensity to commit crime and to use firearms in crime. One example of a country that has ready access to military centre-fire rifles is Switzerland where crime with these guns, let alone with suppressors, is almost non-existent. Across the world it is also relatively easy to manufacture a DIY suppressor if you cannot get your hands on a legitimately manufactured one, yet their use in all countries to commit crime is rare. One argument opposing this fact by law-makers is that any amount of crime using a suppressor is unacceptable. The US has 370-million people so there's bound to be one person who is going to misuse a suppressor if they are more readily available,. This will be the argument of many opposing law makers and for that there is no counter-argument, other than to suggest it is unreasonable to prevent the vast majority from enjoying this freedom. Like driving a car...the only way you can prevent all accidents is to ban all cars. Cars are important to society and if you couch suppressors similarly, as more than just an indulgence (e.g. mitigating hearing loss and noise pollution) then suddenly there is a community benefit opposing their restriction. More importantly, this community benefit arguably justifies some misuse.