69
submitted 10 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/usa@lemmy.ml

TL;DR; it's likely a result of guns

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Uh oh, looks like you're lying again, this time by omission. I did read the article and I know the what the sentence you surgically removed said.

However, in all but the most extreme environments, this will be sufficient protection. For all but the most susceptible ears and all but the most extreme amounts of gunfire, noise reduction that equals the attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction limits should be quite sufficient.

Your other quotes are simply the explanation of what the bone conduction limits are, which you're carefully presenting to make it sound like he is talking about "when firing your cool guns with your cool gun friends".

You're a real slimy motherfucker. Somewhere, deep down inside yourself, surely you know that.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. You've undermined your positions so thoroughly that there's nothing more I need to say. Best of luck psychologically abusing your friends and family.

[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 10 months ago

None of that "surgically removed" comment changes the fact that a shooting range is the exact kind of "extreme environment" where hearing protection is insufficient to prevent hearing damage. The numbers don't lie.

The only way to reduce the noise to protectable levels is at the gun. There is no level of hearing protection that can reduce the noise of most firearms below damaging levels.

this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
69 points (94.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7333 readers
354 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS