jshuberg wrote:Not necessarily. Ever notice that elderly hunters wear hearing aids in a much higher percentage than the rest of the population (other than ex-military of course)?
The reason is that protecting the hearing canal isn't enough to prevent hearing loss. It's very effective at eliminating instantaneous damage caused by dangerous sound levels, but isn't very effective at the cumulative effect over years and decades. The reason is that conventional hearing protection doesn't protect against bone conduction of low frequencies from the jawbone into the ear canal. This is the reason even very careful sportsmen suffer hearing loss significantly more than the general population.
The only way to guarantee that a person won't suffer permanent hearing loss is to reduce the sound at its origin to safe levels.
Also, in a home invasion scenario the donning of hearing protection isn't always possible. The idea that I'm allowed to defend myself and my family against a home invasion, but must suffer permanent hearing damage in doing so is offensive.
The concerns of the DNR are unfounded and demonstratively false. The concerns of sportsmen and home owners are very real, and is backed by hard science.
MaryB wrote:I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.
Grayskies wrote:Do make shift suppressors work like the potato or pop bottle ones, legality?
BigBlue wrote:MaryB wrote:I never said base it on a constitutional issue. There are clear health benefits to using them to protect your hearing and most other states have either recognized that or just given in and went with the flow. It could be argued from the standpoint that it is damaging the heath of Minnesotans and that other states have recognized that and legalized them.
Careful what you ask for... MN is a huge nanny state so if you succeed in the argument that suppressors are needed to prevent hearing damage from firearms then they will want to make them mandatory for all use. Instantly every gun will need a $300 add-on...
BB
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests