Suppressors and Politics March 14, 2018, was the one-month anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. I was, therefore, extremely disappointed to read “What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss” (March 2018). The article explained how suppressors can protect the hearing of “recreational firearm users,” and supported ... Inbox
Free
Inbox  |   May 01, 2018
Suppressors and Politics
Author Notes
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Regulatory, Legislative & Advocacy / ASHA News & Member Stories / Inbox
Inbox   |   May 01, 2018
Suppressors and Politics
The ASHA Leader, May 2018, Vol. 23, 4. doi:10.1044/leader.IN2.23052018.4
The ASHA Leader, May 2018, Vol. 23, 4. doi:10.1044/leader.IN2.23052018.4
March 14, 2018, was the one-month anniversary of the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. I was, therefore, extremely disappointed to read “What to Know About Firearm Suppressors and Hearing Loss” (March 2018).
The article explained how suppressors can protect the hearing of “recreational firearm users,” and supported the Hearing Protection Act. The Hearing Protection Act sounds like legislation that no ASHA member would oppose, but this article did not mention why policymakers and citizens have serious objections to it.
The American Suppressor Association and the NRA are the primary advocates of the act. The bill itself makes no reference to protecting firearm users’ hearing. Rather, it serves one purpose: to remove the “burdensome” tax and wait process for gun owners to buy suppressors.
Our country is plagued by mass shootings, and I was disappointed to see ASHA publish an article supporting the loosening of gun laws. The article correctly states that suppressors protect the hearing of firearm users. I, however, am among the millions of Americans who feel firearm users should pay the fees and undergo necessary background checks to obtain a weapon or related accessories, including suppressors. I am among the millions of Americans who want to protect children, not guns.
I hope that next time a Leader article highlights a potentially divisive congressional act, the authors will present both sides. I encourage readers and voters to recognize the underlying purpose of the Hearing Protection Act before they support it.
Julia McGuire, Washington, DC
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment
Name
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account ×
FROM THIS ISSUE
May 2018
Volume 23, Issue 5