Because they could. Just like all regulations, good and bad. Why are we having this discussion? Because they were allowed.

It is a very simple analysis: On the one hand, sure, it does make it a little easier for a criminal, sniper, assassin, etc. to reduce the “aural presence” of their discharge, and even make it (slightly) harder to pinpoint. No argument, BUT . . . so what? Either you did what you needed with that first shot (in which case it doesn’t matter), or you need a second shot . . . but your first shot already alerted (even with a can) everyone in the vicinity that a gun was fired.

For the second half of the analysis: EVERY shooter is subjected to hearing damage EVERY time they fire a gun. On a range, I can (and always do) wear earpro . . . but what’s wrong with more? If I’m hunting? Hey, I NEED those ears hearing everything they can. I suppose it is theoretically possible to hunt with earpro on, but I already have enough handicaps. If I can install a suppressor on my hunting rifle, I can hear my environment and still protect my hearing.

The whole emphasis on “silencers” is absurd. Regulating them is absurd. Heck, I’d like to see (detachable) silencers be standard items on ALL firearms. Why are we even having this discussion??