New York Times Indeliberately Comes Out In Support of Suppressors

Attorney Mark W. Smith opened with a grin you could hear through the screen: “Never interrupt your enemies when they are making mistakes.”

On The Four Boxes Diner, Smith says The New York Times just handed suppressor advocates a gift.

Not a small one. A big one.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms agrees. He expected the Times’ piece – “Target Shooting Could Be Causing Brain Injuries” – to be standard anti-gun framing.

Instead, he found a conclusion that gun owners can actually use.

Both point to the same twist.

After pages of alarming data about concussive blast indoors, the Times recommends… suppressors and blast-forward devices to reduce exposure.

That’s right. The paper of record just endorsed the very gear gun-control groups often demonize.

What the Times Measured – And Why It Matters

Smith explains the basic setup. Times reporters used military-style sensors to record blast waves in pounds per square inch (PSI) at an indoor range.

The findings line up with common sense.

Indoor lanes can double or even triple blast compared to open air.

Edwards recaps the numbers that jumped off the page. Smaller-caliber firearms averaged about 1.3 PSI indoors – well under the U.S. military’s placeholder “safe” threshold of 4.0 PSI.

A .50-caliber rifle, however, reportedly averaged 7.6 PSI in a prone position indoors.

Smith thinks testing a .50 indoors is eyebrow-raising in itself.

Plenty of commercial ranges won’t allow it. He calls that choice “absurd,” and not representative of the average civilian range day.

But here’s the real pivot.

The Times then tested mitigation strategies – outdoor shooting, barrel forward of the booth, lighter loads – and crucially, muzzle devices that direct blast forward, including suppressors.

The result, says Edwards, was dramatic.

An AR-15 indoors measured up to 1.7 PSI. With a blast regulator attached, that dropped to less than 0.5 PSI. The Times reported the same – clear, measurable, and repeatable.

That is textbook “exposure reduction.”

And it undercuts the scare narrative by presenting a solution the firearms community has been proposing for years.

The Accidental Argument for Deregulation

Smith says the Times essentially buried the lede. After laying out indoor risks, it closes by admitting that suppressors and regulators “make a big difference.”

That line, Smith predicts, is going to show up in court filings, legislative testimony, and policy debates nationwide.

If you’re litigating NFA issues or range safety, it’s a ready-made citation – “even the New York Times acknowledges…” – and it’s powerful.

Edwards pushes the idea further.

He notes that suppressors are already recognized for hearing protection and range etiquette outdoors. If they also reduce concussion-like blast indoors, that’s a second major public-health benefit.

He points out the policy angle, too.

According to Bearing Arms, the $200 suppressor tax is slated to disappear on January 1 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – making suppressors more financially accessible, though the NFA process would still add friction.

That’s not fringe talk.

It’s a mainstream safety rationale that has long existed in Europe, where suppressors are treated like mufflers, not contraband. The Times’ data nudges U.S. discourse in that same practical direction.

My take: this is the rare overlap where health-and-safety arguments align with gun-rights positions. If policy is genuinely about mitigation, suppressors are low-hanging fruit.

The Numbers the Times Can’t Unring

Edwards dissects the Times’ chart the way shooters do.

Most commonly owned firearms measured comfortably below 2 PSI indoors. The outliers were the .50 BMG rifle and large .50-cal handguns like the Desert Eagle, with a .500 Mag revolver also higher than average.

Smith emphasizes another nuance from the article: the military’s 4.0 PSI “safe” limit is a placeholder built from older eardrum-injury science, and researchers are looking at cumulative “positive impulse” over a day of shooting.

Translation: repeated small blasts can add up.

That cumulative model is exactly where suppressors shine.

Reducing each shot’s blast footprint by two-thirds or more compounds quickly over long strings. If you’re a competitor, an instructor, or simply a frequent range-goer, the math favors suppression.

Smith also points out the article’s practical tips: shoot outdoors when possible, extend the barrel past the booth, choose smaller calibers, and use devices that push blast forward.

Again, this is the same advice serious shooters have given for years.

In my opinion, regardless of where future research settles on thresholds, the Times’ own measurements put suppressors squarely in the “effective risk reduction” column. That’s not ideology. That’s instrumentation.

Why This Undercuts Anti-Suppressor Talking Points

For years, gun-control messaging has cast suppressors as sinister.

Pop culture didn’t help – whispers and movie silencers misled people into thinking they magically erase sound and enable crime.

Edwards counters with reality.

Suppressors don’t make guns silent; they tame the sharp pressure wave and lower peak noise. Range neighbors appreciate it. So do your eardrums. And, per the Times’ test, so does your brain.

Smith underscores that suppressors are common tools for law enforcement and the military.

The Times says that too. If they’re good enough for professionals to protect hearing and reduce concussion in training, why are civilians forced through a months-long federal process and historically taxed to use the same safety tech?

The irony is rich. The Times presents a problem – indoor blast exposure – then validates the tool that activists often try to ban or stigmatize.

That contradiction will not be easy to walk back.

Every time someone claims suppressors are “only for criminals,” advocates can point to the Times’ own data-driven recommendation.

What Should Happen Next

Edwards lays out a sensible path.

Normalize suppressor ownership as a health and safety device. As barriers fall – costs, delays, stigma – more shooters will adopt them. That reduces blast and noise complaints, especially in dense areas.

Smith thinks lawyers should start saving screenshots now.

He expects that “attach a suppressor or blast regulator” sentence to live a very long life in footnotes and oral arguments, including in fights over removing suppressors from the NFA.

I’d add two more steps.

First, ranges can post clear signage and offer rental suppressors or blast-forward devices where lawful. Meeting shooters where they are – at the counter – moves the needle fastest.

Second, policymakers should align incentives with the data.

If your stated goal is reducing range-related injuries, you should support streamlining access to suppressors and encouraging their use. Anything else is politics dressed as safety.

The Bottom Line

Mark W. Smith says the Times “stepped on it.”

He’s not wrong. After sounding alarms about concussive blast, the paper endorses the very solution its own allies often oppose.

Cam Edwards says the report “gave more ammo to suppressor supporters.”

He’s right, too. The Times measured a real problem and confirmed a practical fix.

And now the evidence is out there.

Less blast. Fewer headaches. Better training days. More neighborly noise profiles. The case for mainstream, deregulated suppressor ownership just got a surprising new witness.

Let’s not forget – credit to The New York Times for doing the testing and publishing the results.

Sometimes the data leads where the narrative didn’t plan to go.

This time, it points straight at suppressors.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.