That “poofft” that accompanies a silenced gunshot in the movies?

Pure Hollywood, say gun advocates.

And the reality is, use of firearms silencers - or suppressors - is illegal for civilians in Massachusetts. Now, local legislators are hoping for a rewrite they say will better protect the ears of hunters, recreational

Now, local legislators are hoping for a rewrite they say will better protect the ears of hunters, recreational shooters and their neighbors.

“This is not a silencer from a James Bond film, this is not the movies,” said state Rep. Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn, who is sponsoring legislation to make silencers legal for civilian use. “This is something that is still going to make a significant amount of noise, but for sportsmen and hunters, it is something that will help protect their hearing.”

State Sen. Michael O. Moore, D-Millbury, who is filing a similar bill in the Senate, agreed.

“It’s more of a muffling, not a silencing,” Mr. Moore said. “Sportsmen and people living next to firing ranges and sportsmen’s clubs will benefit ... Nothing will silence the noise, but this will drastically reduce the noise that abutters of these two facilities will have to hear.”

Gun control advocates and some police chiefs have opposed the proposed legislation, saying that silencers are unsafe because they could enable gunshots to go undetected.

“Silencers both diminish and distort the sound of gunfire,” said Matthew Nugent, a leader of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. “The report of a rifle or from a handgun, if clear enough and loud enough, allows law enforcement to detect it and respond accordingly. It is imperative on the streets of Boston, Worcester, or Springfield that if you hear a gunshot you are able to respond accordingly.”

Suppressors, or silencers, are tubular-shaped mufflers attached to the ends of gun barrels to dampen the noise of gunshots. Gun supporters are careful to call the devices suppressors rather than silencers, the latter term which they feel is misleading. Gun control advocates generally call them silencers. Manufacturers refer to them as suppressors and as silencers on websites, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives refers to silencers in reports.

Whatever the term, the devices typically lower the sound of a gunshot by 20-35 decibels, which makes the noise of a .22-caliber shot roughly equivalent to a jackhammer on concrete, according to Chris Graham, co-owner of Yankee Hill Machine of Florence, which produces suppressors for sale out of state and to law enforcement.

Suppressors are currently legal for public sale in 42 states, including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Connecticut, according to the Gun Owners’ Action League. In Massachusetts, manufacturers and police are allowed to possess silencers. States besides Massachusetts in which the devices are not legal include California, New York, Rhode Island, and Illinois, according to GOAL.

Regulated under the National Firearms Act, silencers must be registered nationally, and there is currently a nine-month wait to process applications, according to ATF spokesman Matthew O’Shaughnessy.

Mr. Frost and Mr. Moore - along with Rep. Josh S. Cutler, D-Duxbury, and Sen. Donald F. Humason Jr., R-Westfield - have proposed legislation to legalize firearm suppressors for private sale in Massachusetts. The House version of the bill was before the Judiciary Committee Tuesday for a hearing.

The legislators and legislation supporters who testified offered several benefits of allowing silencers. They presented the silencers as a safety measure, saying that the use of them will reduce noise levels and protect the hearing of hunters and recreational shooters.

“This isn’t an assassin’s tool, this is a tool to help protect your hearing,” said Mr. Graham.

Jim Wallace, executive director of GOAL, agreed.

“Suppressors are the hearing protection of the 21st century for sportsmen and women across the United States, and Massachusetts needs to catch up,” Mr. Wallace said in a press release about the public hearing.

Mr. Graham also noted that it was easier to keep a gun range safe with less noise. Mr. Frost likewise said suppressors could lead to greater safety for hunters in the field.

“Hunters should have all their senses working for them, especially hearing and eyesight,” said Mr. Frost. “Having ear plugs in there, it certainly dull senses to some degree.”

Suppressors will also reduce noise heard by neighbors of hunters and neighbors of gun ranges, Mr. Moore said.

But Mr. Nugent said supporters’ public safety claims were disingenuous.

“There is a false equivalency between balancing a life and somebody’s hearing; we value people’s lives,” Mr. Nugent said.

Chelsea Chief of Police Brian Kyes and Arlington Chief of Police Fred Ryan also spoke against the bills in the public hearing, saying they put communities at risk.

Mr. Kyes said that the suppressors hamper the effectiveness of ShotSpotter, a technology designed to detect gunfire.

“They do a pretty good job, not a great job. There’s no way in the world it could pick up something with a suppressor,” Mr. Kyes said in testimony. “Suppressors would impede public safety.”

A spokeswoman for ShotSpotter said the company has detected suppressor gunfire and is working to develop sensors that can best detect it.

“We have successfully, if not inadvertently, detected confirmed suppressed gunfire within our existing deployments,” ShotSpotter spokeswoman Liz Einbinder said in a statement. “Although we have not formally tested the theoretical impact to our system we intend to do some targeted testing in the near future. We believe we will have various options ranging from increasing our sensor array density to developing software/firmware to address the detection of suppressed gunfire if it were to become a widespread issue.”

Worcester Police Spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said that the department will enforce the laws and ordinances on the books.

Gun supporters point to ATF statistics that show a low prevalence of suppressors in crimes to dispel fears that silencers will allow shooters to go undetected.

According to ATF statistics, there were 902,805 silencers registered nationally in February 2016, 792,282 silencers registered in 2015, and 571,750 registered in 2014. Police recovered and requested a trace on 125 silencers in 2015, according to ATF statistics. (The vast majority, although not all, of traces are for firearms used in a crime, according to an ATF spokesman.)

But gun control advocates say that the low prevalence of silencers in crime show only that control is working.

And the increasing demand for silencers suggests to gun-control advocates that the legalization effort is driven less by hearing concerns than profit motives.

“I think the reason we’re seeing this push by organizations that are essentially mouthpieces for the gun lobby is that they want to diversify their product line,” said Mr. Nugent.

As opposed to the days when many people had one or two guns in the home, today fewer owners have several guns, Mr. Nugent explained. But gun sales are down because the market has become saturated, and gun manufacturers are turning to accessories to boost sales, he said.

“They might claim that they really care about people’s hearing,” Mr. Nugent said. “But the bottom line is that if it is profitable then they’re going to do it.”

Legislators acknowledged, however, that they face an uphill battle changing public perception of the impact of silencers.

“The first reaction is it’s scary: Why would we do that?” said Mr. Frost. “No, we’re not legalizing people to run around like they were in a James Bond film, and shooting people without making any noise.”

To educate the public, GOAL has sponsored public demonstrations of suppressors, and both Mr. Moore and Mr. Frost said that public education was important for the legislation to move out of committee.

As for neighbors of gun ranges, Joyce and Donald Shank wondered if a compromise could be reached.

Neighbors of the Westminster Rod & Gun Club, the Shanks and some of their neighbors have been concerned with noise and safety risks from the facility. A recent zoning board of appeals decision in Westminster upheld the gun club’s ability to operate its range to the dismay of many neighbors.

“I think it would be great for gun clubs and firing ranges,” Donald Shank said Thursday of the use of silencers. “But I believe there will be a lot more people shooting without police being able to hear it and enforce against it, so there would be more crime...I think if there was a clause in there for gun ranges or sports clubs that would be good, but not for the general public.”