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 necessarycommon 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?
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.
Why should I be legally obligated to “disturb the peace” for a mile around when using my range?
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.
Or am I supposed to get all my neighbors within a mile to wear ear plugs?
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?
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.
Suppressors are not $100-200 minimum, try like $600-800 and up.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
So for protection of your hearing and others, it absolutely is a necessary thing
Necessary is a stretch.
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
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.
And ear plugs/muffs start at a couple dollars. That was my point.
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.
Necessary is a stretch.
Again airbags.
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.
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.
Which do not %100 effective, it helps a ton, but adding a suppressor makes it basically completely noiseless to the shooter.
Properly used hearing protection eliminates any damage to your hearing. I’m not sure how hearing protection is not 100% effective when used correctly.
Your logic is, why do you need an airbag when a seatbelt works for 95% of accidents.
This is the definition of a straw man argument.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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”.
At no point did you suggest that they can be used simultaneously.
Ok, by that logic I didn’t suggest they couldn’t either. So it was your own bias at play?
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.
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 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.
The reason those numbers are so low is because of the hoops jumped through via NFA and the tax.
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”.
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.
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.
Ever use a set of bone conduction headphones? These sit on the temple, in front of the ear, and conduct sound waves directly through the bone of the skull. Wearing earplugs does not reduce the effectiveness of such headphones. Bone conveys sound waves exceedingly well. You can damage your hearing with bone conduction headphones, even while wearing earplugs.
The reality is that earplugs or earmuffs are not adequate for fully mitigating the harmful impulse noise of common firearms. Injury is lessened by ear protection, sure, but it is not eliminated. No amount of ear protection can prevent a sound pressure wave from being conducted to the cochlea by the skull bone. Earplugs and earmuffs limit sound passing through the auditory canal; not the skull itself.
Silencers reduce the harmful sound pressure wave before it can be conducted by bone. As such, they are much more effective at mitigating harm.
In March, 2017, the National Hearing Conservation Association’s Task Force on Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss from Firearm Noise stated that “using firearms equipped with suppressors” is one of “several strategies [that] can be employed to reduce the risk of acquiring NIHL and associated tinnitus from firearm noise exposure.
Suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by an average of 20 – 35 dB, which is roughly the same as earplugs or earmuffs.
This screen shot is from your own link:
Note that the “average gunshot unsuppressed” is 165 to 170 dB. Note that hearing damage starts at just 85dB.
We are wearing our ear protection, so let’s subtract 20-35dB, and we have 130 to 150dB. Definitely above the 85dB lower boundary for hearing damage. OSHA allows less than one second exposure per day at the lowest end of that range.
That’s why all three (plugs, over the ears, and a suppressor) should be used in conjunction for best results.
General industry standards that I’m used to are as follows:
-sustained noise over 84dB should use plugs/muffs
-sustained noise over 104dB should use both plugs and muffs
-peak noise over 140dB should use both plugs and muffs, regardless of average sustained noise dB. If sustained noise is over 84 then start using additional mitigation measures such as sound dampeners, barriers, distance from noise generating object, etc.
That being said, if a suppressor brings peak noise down to ~135dB you should STILL be using double ear protection. But it’s way better than bringing it down from 170dB.
I would note that 30dB muffs over 30dB plugs does not provide anything even remotely close to 60dB reduction. It’s more like 33dB, because both muffs and plugs block only noise propagated through the auditory canal. They do not block noise conducted to the cochlea by bone.
At noise levels above ~140dB, no amount of PPE is capable of reducing noise to “safe” levels.
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.
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
necessarycommon 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?
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.
“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 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.
I reject the premise of your argument.
Ever use a set of bone conduction headphones? These sit on the temple, in front of the ear, and conduct sound waves directly through the bone of the skull. Wearing earplugs does not reduce the effectiveness of such headphones. Bone conveys sound waves exceedingly well. You can damage your hearing with bone conduction headphones, even while wearing earplugs.
The reality is that earplugs or earmuffs are not adequate for fully mitigating the harmful impulse noise of common firearms. Injury is lessened by ear protection, sure, but it is not eliminated. No amount of ear protection can prevent a sound pressure wave from being conducted to the cochlea by the skull bone. Earplugs and earmuffs limit sound passing through the auditory canal; not the skull itself.
Silencers reduce the harmful sound pressure wave before it can be conducted by bone. As such, they are much more effective at mitigating harm.
Any sources to support this because I couldn’t find any. Even the ASA doesn’t make this claim.
Suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by an average of 20 – 35 dB, which is roughly the same as earplugs or earmuffs.
This screen shot is from your own link:
Note that the “average gunshot unsuppressed” is 165 to 170 dB. Note that hearing damage starts at just 85dB.
We are wearing our ear protection, so let’s subtract 20-35dB, and we have 130 to 150dB. Definitely above the 85dB lower boundary for hearing damage. OSHA allows less than one second exposure per day at the lowest end of that range.
That’s why all three (plugs, over the ears, and a suppressor) should be used in conjunction for best results.
General industry standards that I’m used to are as follows:
-sustained noise over 84dB should use plugs/muffs
-sustained noise over 104dB should use both plugs and muffs
-peak noise over 140dB should use both plugs and muffs, regardless of average sustained noise dB. If sustained noise is over 84 then start using additional mitigation measures such as sound dampeners, barriers, distance from noise generating object, etc.
That being said, if a suppressor brings peak noise down to ~135dB you should STILL be using double ear protection. But it’s way better than bringing it down from 170dB.
I would note that 30dB muffs over 30dB plugs does not provide anything even remotely close to 60dB reduction. It’s more like 33dB, because both muffs and plugs block only noise propagated through the auditory canal. They do not block noise conducted to the cochlea by bone.
At noise levels above ~140dB, no amount of PPE is capable of reducing noise to “safe” levels.
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.