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?

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.

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.