this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
481 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3060 readers
1028 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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".
If we were talking about cars, motorcycles, or lawnmowers, would you be making the same argument?
Why should I be legally obligated to "disturb the peace" for a mile around when using my range?
Or am I supposed to get all my neighbors within a mile to wear ear plugs?
I don't understand your question. If someone said "a crash helmet is a common sense safety accessory when driving your car" then yes, I would because it's not a "common sense" safety accessory in that case. The reverse is true if talking about a motorcycle.
I don't know, this isn't my argument. My argument is that calling a suppressor a common sense safety accessory is a bit of a stretch.
Why a mile? Safe distance for hearing around gunfire is generally considered to be ~100 feet away or more. If your neighbors are closer than that then, yes, they should weathering protection.
My apologies. My question didnt call for your "crash helmet" analogy. We're talking about prevention of hearing damage, not injuries from a collision.
Each of the devices I mentioned has a component for suppressing the extraordinarily loud, literally deafening noise that would emit from its exhaust if this component were not fitted. If you've heard an unmuffled engine, you should know this.
If you haven't heard an engine without a muffler, I wouldn't be surprised: mufflers are ubiquitous "common sense safety accessories". It is somewhat rare to find an engine without one. Rather than prohibiting mufflers, regulations widely require their use.
My question is whether your arguments against silencers should also be applied against mufflers. If not, why should they be treated differently?