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