When anti-gun media try to attack gun owners and the Second Amendment, they usually end up proving our point. That’s exactly what happened with a recent New York Times article about indoor shooting ranges — and Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner was quick to catch it.
By Ammoland Editors & Staff for Ammoland
The NYT’s “Gun Range Danger” Backfire
The Times ran a story claiming that civilian shooters may risk concussions or brain injuries from pressure waves created when firing guns indoors. Reporters even went as far as to fire a .50 caliber rifle inside an enclosed range to measure the “blast pressure” on the shooter’s body and head.
Unsurprisingly, that experiment produced the most intense readings. The .50 BMG round exceeded the 4.0 PSI safety threshold set by the military. Every other firearm tested, from .45 ACP pistols to AR-15s, fell well below that level. In short, the story was built around an absurd premise. It was built to scare the uninformed readership of the Times, a classic tactic of anti-gun mainstream media.
In doing so, the Times accidentally delivered one of the best pro-gun arguments of the year.
The “Fix” They Accidentally Endorsed
Buried near the bottom of the article, the Times admitted there’s a simple way to make shooting safer:
“Attaching a suppressor or blast regulator to the muzzle to direct the blast forward and away from the shooter can also make a big difference.”
Their own data showed that the pressure from an AR-15 indoors dropped from 1.7 PSI to less than 0.5 PSI when a suppressor or blast regulator was attached. That’s a massive reduction — and a direct acknowledgment that suppressors protect shooters’ hearing and health.
In one sentence, the New York Times undercut decades of anti-gun fearmongering. Suppressors aren’t “assassin tools” — they’re safety equipment used by law enforcement, the military, and responsible civilians alike.
Mark Smith was right to call this a “gift.” Statements like these will end up in legal briefs, congressional debates, and future court cases defending suppressor rights under the Second Amendment. Even the anti-gun press has now admitted — in writing — that suppressors serve an important safety function.
It’s ironic that while gun control advocates push to keep suppressors on the National Firearms Act registry, their own allies in the media are publishing proof that these devices make shooting safer for everyone.
For decades, gun owners have argued that suppressors aren’t sinister gadgets — they’re safety gear: hearing protection, blast mitigation, recoil reduction, and general range-improvement tools. And despite the usual drumbeat from anti-gun media, the facts have always supported that.
Now, thanks to recent legislative changes, those arguments aren’t just rhetorical — they’ve got legislative backing. The $200 tax has been eliminated, but registration remains under the NFA. That alone dismantles one of the most significant economic hurdles to lawful suppressor ownership.
The National Firearms Act registry still exists, and that’s the real problem. The government has no constitutional authority to demand a list of who owns what. The Second Amendment doesn’t say “shall not be infringed, unless you fill out Form 4 and wait for approval.” It says shall not be infringed, period.
Suppressors are now recognized — even by the New York Times — as safety tools, not contraband. Yet the government still insists that ordinary Americans must register them like criminals. That’s not freedom. That’s control.
The next fight is clear: repeal the NFA. Restore the Second Amendment to what it was meant to be — an individual right that doesn’t require permission, taxes, or paperwork.
Find the original article in its entirety at Ammoland.
READ NEXT: The Explosive Move Ilhan Omar Dreads — Why Trump Needs To Pull The Trigger
Hilarious. I’m long thought that suppressors should be required as are mufflers on cars.