• SupraMario@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            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.