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
3073 readers
119 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'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.