this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
481 points (96.9% liked)

Progressive Politics

3081 readers
1008 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
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
481
Thank god the debt got blown up so that suppressors are tax free (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by MarriedCavelady50@lemmy.ml to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
319 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Properly used hearing protection eliminates any damage to your hearing. I'm not sure how hearing protection is not 100% effective when used correctly.

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.

This is the definition of a straw man argument.

No it is not. The suppressor in this analogy is the airbag. You're suggesting we just use earpro, because it's good enough.

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?

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.

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.

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".

[–] LilB0kChoy@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

^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?

knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument

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.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] YouShouldSeeMyAlt@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think you understand the definition of common sense.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Common sense is to make firearms as safe as possible...which includes reduction of noise damage... we're done here.