The New York Times published a high-profile piece testing blast pressures (measured in PSI) from various firearms fired at indoor ranges — and while the story warned about risks to shooters’ brains and bodies, it quietly highlighted the clearest solution: suppressors. The paper’s own tests showed that adding a suppressor or blast regulator can dramatically reduce blast pressure (an AR-15 example fell from 1.7 PSI to under 0.5 PSI with a regulator), and the article recommends outdoor shooting, smaller calibers, or suppressors to reduce exposure.

That buried endorsement is a strategic boon for advocates and litigators: a mainstream outlet describing how suppressors lower dangerous blast levels gives a strong, science-based talking point for lawmakers and courts weighing Second Amendment and safety issues. Whether you care about hearing, health, or policy, the takeaway is simple — the New York Times accidentally handed suppressor supporters a powerful public-safety argument.