470
Thank god the debt got blown up so that suppressors are tax free (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
309 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 133 points 1 year ago (94 children)

They're a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around. That said, having 27 is silly. I won't begrudge someone an odd collection, though. Some people collect Magic Cards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 94 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Common sense (from Latin sensus communis) is "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument".

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Plot twist: He doesn't own any guns. He just likes silencers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    Right, there is no valid argument that is based on reality, not Hollywood fantasy, for restricting suppressors or taxing suppressors, a literal safety device. It's like restricting and taxing airbags on a car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Yes, airbags are exempt items from the National Firearms Act. Your question genuinely doesn't make sense. What tax do you think applies to airbags? Property tax? Sales tax? No one is suggesting suppressors be "tax-exempt", especially because that term doesn't make any sense in this context.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The problem with your comment, yet again, is "tax-exempt" is a meaningless term in this context. What does that mean, exactly? Exempt from what tax?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Those systems were forced into city budgets even though they’re highly prone to mistakes and mostly useless. It was basically some sweetheart deal for the company that manufactures it, and placed almost entirely in lower income neighborhoods. Fuck that stupid ass bloatware—not to mention fuck the eavesdropping machines that they really are. Sensitive microphones and you think the cops are only using that access to listen for gunshots? Fuuuuck no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    I'm well aware of shotspotter systems.

    with great accuracy and provide rapid response

    This is provably false. Shotspotter is incredibly inaccurate, the false positive rate is EXTREME (84% false positive rate). Even when it does correctly detect a gunshot, this information is of almost no value to police. 0.9% of shotspotter detections led to seizure of a firearm and 0.7% of detections led to an arrest. This means that literally over 99% of shotspotter detections are wrong or unhelpful. It's a totally bunk system that does not work and provides no value to a community's safety.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/12/05/new-study-nypd-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-is-wildly-inaccurate/

    The most value shotspotter has to police has literally nothing to do with guns or suppressors. The shotspotter towers can be used as general surveillance of the public, because the microphone systems are able to record human voices, and these recordings have even been used as evidence in court to make convictions.

    https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection

    It is actually a major waste of police resources as they constantly respond to false positives and dead end leads with no useful information. Shotspotter is so ineffective and wasteful that many cities are canceling their contracts.

    https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-not-renewing-contract-with-shotspotter-program/PYYGLLNVRJGUHEAF4OSJJ7K4NA/

    Suppressors would have almost no impact on how effective shotspotter systems are, regardless of the fact they are only 0.9% effective anyway and can't really get any worse, but because the gunshots when using a suppressor are still loud enough to cause hearing loss and would still theoretically be detected by these microphone systems. From the company's own promotional material:

    https://www.soundthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FAQ-June-2019.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    These aren't my feelings, they are facts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    I'd say its more akin to restricting muffler use on cars. Instead, we usually place upper limits on how loud a car's exhaust can be. Hearing protection is important and muffler/suppressor use should be encouraged.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    what a fantastic distortion of reality.

    What is the reality, then? Tell me how I'm wrong (you cannot).

    god forbid you wore your actual ppe while using firearms.

    Hearing protection is still required when using a surpressor to prevent hearing damage

    poor baby, wants the boom boom but doesn't like the bang bang. take your tinnitus like the rest of us and stop fucking crying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Are you replying to the wrong comment? Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm. I'll wait.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    "I even quoted you: [empty space where a quote would be, if you had one]"

    Still waiting. 😴

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm.

    Strike 2! Is something wrong? I would think it easy to scroll up and find my words that make this claim, since you seem so convinced that's what I've said. Whatever could be the problem preventing you?? 😛

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    I don't think that's accurate, but I understand why you say that.

    The tax on suppressors (and automatic weapons) is often several hundred percent, because the legislature and regulatory agencies are not allowed (by the supreme court's opinions in the last few decades) to outright BAN them. The very high tax is pretty much the only way they have to restrict the sale of those items.

    I've never heard a gun enthusiast say they shouldn't have to pay sales taxes. (Well, that's not true because there's some overlap between gun fanatics and libertarian tax radicals.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Exempt from punitive taxes. Nobody is saying suppressors shouldn't be taxed like game consoles or dog food, they're saying suppressors shouldn't be taxed like gambling or tobacco

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I need 27 suppressors for my 27 guns. Ever thought of that? Didn't think so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I think if you put 27 suppressors in series, the bullet wouldn't even make it out. You'd have to point your 12 foot long handgun down and shake it!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And why do I need 27 guns? That's right, for my 27 hands. Betcha feel real silly now, huh buster?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    one for each pocket, and 1-2 strapped on the ankles, and 1 on the thighs, one for the belt,etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Which makes sense to do because drawing another flintlock pistol is much, much faster than trying to reload one.

    Modern bandoliers have shotgun shells , modern assault rigs carry spare magazines...pirates didn't have firearms with magazines that could take a new mag or stripper clip, so, their bandoliers just held more guns.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    I don't understand your question.

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (5 replies)
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (12 replies)