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
3053 readers
122 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
As a card carrying member of the Socialist Rifle Association, and someone in their 50's I can tell you that they serve a legitimate purpose. While suppressors don't actually make firearms 'silent', they do reduce the sound by a significant amount. Traditional Ear Protection helps, but doesn't eliminate the noise entirely. It also does nothing if you happen to take your earpro out for any reason and someone else shoots.
If you do a lot of target practice they can really help save your hearing.
They do nothing to make the weapons deadlier, though you could argue that in very specific and unusual circumstance it could make it easier for a killer to kill someone without getting caught.
I understand they don’t make a gun silent, I’m not falling for any Hollywood myths here. But I also know that hearing protection isn’t the reason why militaries and gun nuts are buying them. I know a gun with a suppressor is still loud as shit, but from where I’m sitting, anything that prolongs catching/stopping a shooter is something that makes the shooter more deadly. And for that reason, it absolutely should be regulated.
Alright, so, no one here seems to be prior military. Yes, actually, that’s exactly why militaries use them. So, for the practical, it’s really fucking hard to communicate during a firefight and I promise you any sort of assistance is nice. Being able to communicate is a major factor to being an effective force.
Second, it costs the government a lot of money in disability. A lot. Pretty sure tinnitus is the most common issue paid out.
Source: former infantryman.
I don’t want to give people in firefights assistance. If you’re willing to use a gun in a firefight, you deserve hearing damage.
If you're in the vicinity, you're in the firefight whether you have a gun or not. You want the shooters to have suppressors.
No, I want no shooters.
I also want no shooters, and yet there are shooters. Given that there are shooters, if you don't want them to have suppressors, then you do want them to cause hearing damage to bystanders.
I don’t really believe in the concept of a considerate shooter that wants to protect my ears by using a suppressor. Maybe at a gun range, but not elsewhere.
I don't care what you do or don't believe in. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
Yes
They buy them because the "operators" they're cosplaying as use them.
The police and the military use them because guns are loud as fuck and produce muzzle flash -- which are even worse in a poorly lit building. With a suppressor they're not being blinded and can actually hear what's going on.
Yeah, you’re not going to convince me that something that helps police and militaries shoot innocent people in poorly lit buildings is a good thing. Ban em.
You don't think soldiers or gun nuts value their hearing? I don't hang around either group but from experience most people don't particularly like to go deaf.
And how would 'regulating' them stop that from happening exactly?
All it really would do is make it harder for people who use them to help protect their hearing.
If they value their hearing, they should stop playing with guns.
Nobody's playing with them.
I can assure you that the man with 27 suppressors is playing with guns.
You don't know that, and further you don't care. You've made up your mind that "Guns Bad" and you won't consider anything that disagrees with you. You are a zealot.
You do you, but it's useless to discuss the issue with people like you. You ain't going to hear it no matter what people say.
You call me a zealot, I call you a cultist. I see no reason why all guns and gun accessories shouldn’t be regulated. Fewer guns really does translate to fewer gun deaths, and making it a pain in the ass to shop for your murder stick accessories would further discourage people from participating in the “hobby”.
The difference is you call me a cultist because you are a zealot. I am willing to listen to reasonable arguments, you are not.
You know nothing at all about me, my reasons for gun ownership or what my stance actually is, and you don't care to ask or make any distinction between me and a member of the MAGAt militia.
You see no reason.... You could have just stopped there. How could you possibly see reason if you are immune to it?
You call me a zealot because you are a cultist. You are not willing to listen to reasonable arguments, and I am. You know nothing about me, my reason for hating gun owners, and you don’t care to ask or make any distinction between me and a clueless freshman.
I’m happy throwing baseless characterizations of each other all day. If you really want a discussion, you are going about it the wrong way.
Lmfao, how did I know you were going to respond exactly like that? Oh yeah, because you are a child and that is the perfect comeback for someone with your mentality.
Nowhere in this entire conversation have you even hinted at the possibility that this might be true.
You say "Suppressors are designed to make weapons deadlier"
I say "They are actually designed to make the weapons quieter and they are useful for saving peoples hearing"
You say "Gun Nuts and the Military aren't buying them to save their ears.
Military guy says "Ear protection is precisely why we use them."
You say "YOU DESERVE HEARING DAMAGE!"
Someone else said "They are designed to protect peoples hearing"
You say "I DON'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLES HEARING!"
I say "You aren't reducing gun violence by 'regulating' them, you are just making it more difficult on non-violent people who shoot guns to protect their hearing.
You say "iF tHeY wAnT tO pRoTeCt ThEiR hEaRiNg, ThEy ShOuLdNt ShOoT gUnS."
And you think that is being reasonable? Son, who do you think you are fooling with that mess?
Just imagine if people like you were in charge! The first time you come across a fire you reach out and touch it, giving yourself 3rd degree burns. Since you are in charge you codify it into law "FIRE BAD!" Someone else notices that the plants and animals burned by the fire taste a lot better. They broke the law FIRE BAD! So you have them stoned to death (Hey at least they weren't murdered by FIRE, so it's ok). Someone else notices there is shiny metal in the coals, says "Hey this stuff could be useful for making tools, maybe we should try to replicate these conditions?" FIRE BAD! Kill him!
We would still be eating everything raw and sleeping in the trees because people like you cant see past their overly simplified, black and white, I'm right and you are wrong style of thinking.
Yikes 😬