474
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
474 points (100.0% liked)
Progressive Politics
3071 readers
59 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch. Ear plugs/muffs do the same thing and work beyond shooting.
It is stupid to tax something just because you can't ban it and only disadvantages those who can't afford it.
But what if, what if... you combined both, instead of an 'or' situation?
Good god Jameson, you're off the charts with the ideas this week!
I'm unclear where you think I said it had to be one or the other. Please don't misrepresent what I said.
Ear plugs/muffs are cheap, can be used when you mow, weed whip, use a jackhammer, are around loud machinery etc. and are required at most (if not all) ranges.
To claim that a suppressor, which I'm guessing costs $100-$200 minimum, is a ~~necessary~~ common sense piece of safety equipment is a stretch.
Desirable, useful, helpful, fun would all be good adjectives ~~but necessary implies need.~~
Edit: misremembered "common sense" as "necessary".
UK requires them. NZ requires them. They're only expensive here because they are an NFA item. Suppressors are not $100-200 minimum, try like $600-800 and up. The tax stamp was bullshit, but the reality is that they help with the noise, but you still need to wear earpro.
So for protection of your hearing and others, it absolutely is a necessary thing that should be off the shelf available for cheap, and not 6 months of waiting and $200 + having to set up a trust, so you don't become a felon by some random reason that's the NFA as a whole.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
Necessary is a stretch.
I'm not arguing against this. Claiming you need one is a flawed argument; but the argument against the tax is reasonable and it's a good thing it's being eliminated.
Which do not %100 effective, it helps a ton, but adding a suppressor makes it basically completely noiseless to the shooter. You're logic is, why do you need an airbag when a seatbelt works for 95% of accidents.
Again airbags.
This makes no sense though, as I stated before, NZ/UK require them. Not only for the hearing protection but also for the noise pollution side of it.
Properly used hearing protection eliminates any damage to your hearing. I'm not sure how hearing protection is not 100% effective when used correctly.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
The law/scenario in question is the US. It doesn't really matter what NZ/UK require; are you also arguing for their gun control laws?
People have been shooting firearms for centuries without suppressors, for decades without suppressors but with hearing protection. Saying you need them is flat out inaccurate but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be available to anybody who wants one.
No it is not
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frf1hxgq4sgbe1.png
Even doubling up on earpro, you're still only reducing the shot to around 100db, and over time that can cause hearing loss.
No it is not. The suppressor in this analogy is the airbag. You're suggesting we just use earpro, because it's good enough.
I'm pointing out that it's required in those countries with massive amounts of gun control, to show that even they are on board with suppressors and not looking at them like more dangerous devices, which is what the antigun crowd does.
This is just silly, we also used to cook over open fires, and ride in wagons and sail across the oceans. New tech shows up, you don't magically say "well fuck that, that's not how grandpappy did it".
^My only arguement was that calling suppressors "common sense safety devices" was a bit of a stretch^
Y'all are so hypersensitive you see attacks where they don't exist.
Do you or anyone else here know the definition of common sense?
In my decades of firearms use and training no trainers, no range rules, nobody brings up suppressors as a standard, universal safety device. No new shooters ask if they need a suppressor when going to the range, but they do ask about hearing protection.
Don't misrepresent suppressors as a need, that is bullshit.
You seem to continually think that suppressors are just a nice to have. They're literally a hearing protection device, so yes they are common sense. Just like ear pro is to shooting firearms. Why are you continuing to act as if suppressors are just another accessory. They literally are made for reducing the extreme noise that comes from firing a firearm. They are common sense. Period.
I don't think you understand the definition of common sense.
Common sense is to make firearms as safe as possible...which includes reduction of noise damage... we're done here.
Lol
"ear plugs do the same thing" implies either/or
In context, no it doesn't. Again, don't misrepresent what I said.
Repeating the same thing doesn't change anything, though... You made two arguments and left it at that. At no point did you suggest that they can be used simultaneously.
I dunno what to tell you my guy. Although, you suggesting that I claimed suppressors to be a common thing is all your doing, I just pointed out the humorous nature of your comment.
I assume you thought I am the same person as the parent/root comment... Which kinda makes your snarkiness look a bit like a jackass. But ya know, it is what it is.
No, I made one argument. You might want to go back and read again, it was "I think common sense accessory is a bit of a stretch".
Ok, by that logic I didn't suggest they couldn't either. So it was your own bias at play?
I didn't confuse anything. I provided the context (both the person I was replying to and my own comment) that you left out.
Between straight up misrepresenting what I said and stooping to name calling it's time now to block you and move on.
Suppessors are a common shooting accessory in many European countries because they do limit the noise for shooters and bystanders. And they are used with ear PPE while shooting. European shooters are often amazed that supressors require a special tax stamp for each unit in the US for something that they consider a basic safety device.
They should be shocked about the tax stamp. It's a ridiculous requirement and it's good that it's finally going away.
As for them being common in Europe, that demonstrates the difference in culture and regulation vs. the US. I suppose if Europe had an NFA tax stamp equivalent that was being removed then the argument that they are a common sense safety accessory makes more sense but it doesn't in the US.
Hell, the same lobby and industry groups that have harped on the NFA would do the same if a suppressor was required to be able to shoot your firearm in the US.
The common problem so many gun enthusiasts in the US face is they try and argue need which just feeds the arguments from those who want to ban certain firearms or accessories.
The reality is need doesn't matter and is largely subjective these days. In the US it's been established that 2a gives the right to keep and bear arms and suppressors are considered "firearms" under the law. That means need isn't even a consideration. If you want one the you should be allowed to buy one because it's protected under 2a.
Edit: Common sense usually means a universally held, unspoken understanding and when it comes to the US, suppressors just don't meet that threshold. Enough time without the NFA tax requirement and that might change, but I'm guessing it won't.
I can't speak to other countries, but in the U.S., the greater part of our tax code is made up of tax credits and penalties meant to influence the behavior of individuals and companies. That's the result of our government not having other adaptable mechanisms for levying fines.
Yes, but firearms laws in the US, including the NFA, disproportionately affect minorities.
I fail to see how a suppressor only being useful as an accessory for shooting doesn't make it a common sense accessory (for shooting). They're common sense in the same way that wearing a mask when you're sick is common sense. A mask helps prevent you from getting other people sick, it doesn't protect you from getting sick. Wearing a mask isn't "not common sense" because it only works while you're sick and not all the time.
It's like scraping snow and ice off your car. Cleaning your windshield will let you see when you drive, but cleaning off your roof will prevent a sheet of ice from slamming into the car behind you on the highway when the wind catches an edge, or will save you from having it slide down onto your windshield the next time you slow down and blind you. Calling a snow scraper a common sense accessory isn't a stretch because a lot of the world never sees freezing temps or snow. Tools are made to be used in context, and within that context it can be common sense to use them for that purpose.
There are roughly 82 guns for every 1 suppressor in America. Four years ago that was closer to 150/1. Suppressors are not in common usage among firearms owners in the US, they are not included in any standard firearms safety training, they are not required or mandated at most shooting ranges.
The average American would not think about a suppressor before going and shooting which means it's not "universal" or "held more or less without reflection or argument".
You're conflating "common sense" and "cultural norms". It may be a cultural norm with a certain group in the American shooting community but it is not common sense.
The reason those numbers are so low is because of the hoops jumped through via NFA and the tax. If you had to fill out extra forms, go to the DMV a second time, and pay an additional fee for seatbelts, most people wouldn't have them in their car despite them being common sense safety equipment.
I'm sure there's some truth to this but they are still not in common usage among firearm owners and the average American would not think about a suppressor before going and shooting which means it’s not “universal” or “held more or less without reflection or argument”.
Maybe. Some people were very resistant in the US when seatbelts first became mandated in all vehicles in the US in 1968, however it wasn't;t until the 80s when most of the laws mandating their use began. Today, since they are both required in all new vehicles in the US (some exceptions apply) and their use is required by law they would now be “universal” or “held more or less without reflection or argument” in the US.
With the change at the end of the year to the NFA tax suppressors might follow the same trend but I doubt it. Just like with seatbelts, the majority of people will probably ignore them unless they are required to use them.