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".