United States | News & Politics
I work with a few pro 2nd people and also a few ammosexuals. Guns in general, perhaps, but more so IMHO, it's an unwillingness to use basic safety and protection. Idiots probably think tinnitus is manly.
I used to sell guns as part of my retail job, and because of the kind of store it was we got plenty of people from all over the political spectrum, and most of them I knew well enough know the majority had no moral qualms with firearms.
It was always a certain political view that were the ones most vocal about their gun ownership, and how earpro was for pussies.
Well I guess I'm soft and smooth, because I will happily use everything in my PPE arsenal to make sure everyone around me is as safe as possible at all times. As everyone should when firearms are involved.
Plugs, muffs, I like to use a rubber pad just because the impulse of the shots aren't great for your joints and I'm getting to the age where my joints are starting to feel ways about stuff. Legally acquired sound suppression.
Shooting glasses that cover the sides too. I had a 22lr casing bounce off the range wall and hit me in the side of the eyelid because the glasses I had on didn't wrap around the sides.
Safety is about more than the "basic rules of gun safety" that every person who touches a gun should know.
The fact that some people genuinely think that wearing something to keep themselves from going deaf makes them "weak" just makes me wonder how such people can figure out how to breathe and walk at the same time, let alone vote.
2x on the plugs and muffs. Depends on my glasses the muffs don’t get a perfect seal. And I swapped a limb saver buttstock on my skeet 1301 and my god did it make a difference in comfort.
To be fair, the most effective form of hearing protection is strictly regulated at the federal level.
Ear protection helps, but it is not completely effective. Earplugs and earmuffs together help, but too much of the noise reaches the cochlea via bone conduction. The only way to mitigate this is with what the law calls a "silencer" or "firearm muffler" and the gun community refers to as a "suppressor".
Well next time you're thinking "gun regulations are a failure and force me to risk my health for someone's ideology", just remember that's exactly how every gun-control advocate feels (only they're not worried about hearing loss, they're worried about being maimed and murdered in property crimes and school shootings).
Really, any demands to legalize suppressors are asking the general public to give up just a little bit more safety so that gun owners can be even more insulated from the consequences of widespread gun ownership.
The deafening report from unmuffled firearms is a consequence of the prohibition from implementing a simple, technological solution. It is not a consequence of widespread gun ownership.
This report should be the basis of a lawsuit against the National Firearms Act. The government should be forced to weigh actual, tangible, measured harm from unsilenced guns against imagined, hypothetical forms of harm from quieter guns.
I'm told that Europe requires silencers.
EU countries do not require silencers. On the other hand, AFAIK, the silencers themselves are not regulated in most/all EU countries. That makes them quite easy to get, and so many people that do recreational shooting or hunting choose to get them.
The deafening report from unmuffled firearms is a consequence of the prohibition from implementing a simple, technological solution. It is not a consequence of widespread gun ownership.
Not what I claimed, just bits of my sentences glued together like a ransom note.
It's also bullshit anyway. If Republicians are too insecure in their masculinity to use safety equipment this is widely available, the only reason they'd use supressors is because they make their hero fantasies look more like an action movie.
This report should be the basis of a lawsuit against the National Firearms Act. The government should be forced to weigh actual, tangible, measured harm from unsilenced guns against imagined, hypothetical forms of harm from quieter guns.
So the pro-gun community is going to hold the government to a standard they blatantly don't hold themselves to? Sounds like a sleazy bit of manipulation to get suppressors and full-auto weapons to me.
I'm told that Europe requires silencers.
Which has outed you as someone who will believe any old bullshit if it gets them what they want, repeating it to others without 5 seconds of fact checking.
Republicians are too insecure in their masculinity to use safety equipment
You misunderstood or ignored my initial comment, so I will reiterate:
Ear protection only reduces sound passing through the ear canal. The noise from a gunshot is loud enough to cause damage to the cochlea by transmitting sound via bone conduction, through the skull and jaw bones, rendering ear protection largely ineffective.
The only effective form of hearing protection is by reducing the noise impulse of the firearm.
The rest of your comment is denigrating nonsense. People are being injured despite wearing hearing protection, and aren't seeking effective forms of noise reduction due to red tape and the stigma that an individual using a suppressor is trying to live out a macho fantasy.
I wonder who I should believe? The gun owner who has already claimed "supressors are mandatory in Europe" or the guy with extensive qualifiications in the field of hearing loss that says the gun owner is full of shit.
The rest of your comment is denigrating nonsense
I accused you of demanding a standard from others that you don't hold yourself (nor other gun owners) to and this is now the second time you've done exactly that.
I not only stand by that "denigrating nonsense", I'm happy to escalate it: Take your propaganda and fuck off.
From your own link:
However, in all but the most extreme environments, this will be sufficient protection.
Gunshots are easily among the "most extreme" environments.
From your link:
This means that even if a hearing protector could block all of the sound entering the earcanal, that sound attenuated by 40 to 60 dB would still get though to the cochlea, and like the sound transmitted via the air-conduction pathway, this energy can cause hearing loss.
Your link says that even with completely perfect hearing protection, you can only reduce noise exposure by 40 to 60dB, depending on frequency. High frequencies attenuate more than low frequencies; gunshots produce low frequency noise.
Hearing damage begins to occur with long-term exposure to as little as 85dB. 120dB can instantly cause permanent damage. A .22 rifle produces around 140dB. With 40dB attenuation, that is still above a level where hearing damage can occur from chronic exposure, such as from long sessions in an indoor gun range.
Handguns and rifles produce considerably more noise, typically 155-165dB, but can be up to 175dB. Even with theoretically perfect hearing protection, that's still exposure of at least 95 to 125dB, and possibly up to 135dB even with perfect protection. Actual protection numbers are around 28 to 32dB.
Basically, your link supports my position, and rebuts your own. I don't think you even read it. You certainly didn't read it for comprehension.
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.
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.
asking the general public to give up just a little bit more safety
You know that silencers aren't magic, right? They don't actually make guns silent? A gunshot will go from being about 150dB down to about 120dB, for most rifles and pistols. Any bullet that's supersonic--and that's most bullets--are still going to have a sharp ::crack:: from breaking the sound barrier. Additionally, silencers are pretty big, and will double the length of a pistol, while adding 6-12" to a rifle; that makes them a real challenge to conceal. Yes, you can make guns very, very quite relative to what a gunshot usually sounds like, but that's about it; 120dB is still very loud, and is only hearing-safe for very, very short periods of time. To put that in context, a chainsaw running full-bore is about 120dB, and I've regretted every time I've used my chainsaw without ear protection.
Yep, I knew all of that but thanks for gunsplaining.
But if someone does claim "Mass shooters will use supressors and subsonic ammunition to obfuscate their position and intentions in order to kill more people", what are the pro-gun community going to do? Claim "that's never happened, there's no genuine evidence it will be a common problems and you can't sacrifice my safety just because a bad thing exists in your imagination"?
The pro-gun community routinely does exactly that. They claim we can't have gun licenses because they can imagine them not being issued by a progressive government. They claim we have to keep selling guns to domestic abusers because they can imagine a spiteful ex-girlfriend getting someone's poor innocent guns taken away.
And as long as they can imagine problems with gun control, we're just going to have to keep getting maimed and murdered until we come up with a solution that they can't imagine problems for.
So I'm going to show as much compassion for their eardrums as they have for victims of gun crime and say "fuck the lot of them, what we have suits me fine".
If you don't like that, come up with a solution I can't imagine problems for.
Mass shooters will use supressors and subsonic ammunition
It's ridiculously easy to make a silencer. "Solvent traps" have been sold as illegal silencers through Temu, Wish, Ali Express, and other sites (although it looks like they've finally taken them down, just live Facebook finally did for Glocks switches on marketplace); the risk, obviously, is that buying one is a federal crime if you get caught, which is honestly pretty unlikely (and for someone planning a mass murder, probably not even a concern). Despite this, there have not yet been any uses of silencers in mass murders. You can make a lightning link by bending a wire coat hanger that will make an AR-15 into a machine gun; the information is pretty freely available, and yet it's not been used by mass-murderers yet.
To be quite frank, the tools have not changed all that much since the late 1970s, but we didn't see very many mass-murder prior to Coumbine. Before the AWB in 1994, you could pretty easily go into any gun store and get an AR-15, AK-74 (or even a Steyr AUG if you had the money and wanted a bad rifle), but the mass-murder events that everyone seems so afraid of now simply didn't happen with any real regularity. The issue then appears to be changing social conditions, rather than the tools themselves or the availability of the tools.
As a side note, I'm sure that eventually someone will say that reloading presses need to be banned, because it's too easy to make untraceable subsonic .300 Blackout ammunition if someone has a press and load data.
They claim we can’t have gun licenses because they can imagine [emphasis added] them not being issued.
No, that's actually happened. It happened in New York City; the city made it nearly impossible to get a license to even own a firearm, and made it an annual fee of several hundred dollars for each firearm that you owned. (It took several decades of lawsuits to get that changed, and the city is still trying to buck the SCOTUS ruling.) My license to own a firearm in Illinois was revoked because I was voluntarily held for observation at a hospital immediately after my--physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive--wife left me. You could see that with carry permits, before many states went to a 'shall issue' model from a 'may issue'; e.g., only people that got carry permits in NYC were people that either bribed the police, or were politically connected. You can see it happening right now with items that are covered under the NFA of 1934; despite all of the background checks being electronic, it typically takes anywhere from 3 months to a year or more to get an approval and tax stamp for a typical person, but a week or so for a transfer between FFL holders.
They claim we have to keep selling guns to domestic abusers
If you have been convicted of any domestic violence crime, misdemeanor or felony, you are already legally, federally barred from owning a firearm. What you're talking about is people who are the subject of restraining orders, which have a much, much lower standard of evidence; they are issued at the discretion of the judge, and may not involve any attorneys at all. In general, I'm opposed to revoking rights of any kind without a criminal proceeding.
If you don’t like that, come up with a solution I can’t imagine problems for.
Change the social conditions. Fix the problems that are leading to mass shootings in the first place. Tax the fuck out of the rich and corporations to pay for it. I'll support that long before I'll support anything that would curtail individual civil rights of any variety.
It's ridiculously easy to make a silencer
Then why are you upset they're banned? Just go and make one. I hear it's ridiculously easy.
Fortunately, nobody outside of the pro-gun community is stupid enough to repeal a law just because its easy to break. Do you think "making a suppressor" is easier or harder than driving while intoxicated? What about smothering a baby? Should we get rid of those laws too?
Despite this, there have not yet been any uses of silencers in mass murders.
Doesn't matter. The pro-gun community gets to make laws based on imaginary boogymen so it's only fair that gun control advocates can too.
If you want to campaign for strictly evidence based gun laws, go right ahead, I'll support you. You're going to hate the results though.
You can make a lightning link by bending a wire coat hanger that will make an AR-15 into a machine gun; the information is pretty freely available, and yet it's not been used by mass-murderers yet.
Yep, because mass murderers use whatever is most convient and thanks to people like you, that's almost always a legally purchased, semi-automatic firearm.
To be quite frank, the tools have not changed all that much since the late 1970s, but we didn't see very many mass-murder prior to Coumbine.
Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s. The rest of us are stuck here in 2024 where mass murders are commonplace.
No, that's actually happened. It happened in New York City; the city made it nearly impossible to get a license to even own a firearm, and made it an annual fee of several hundred dollars for each firearm that you owned.
Oh shit, you mean the problem was identified and solved without the pro-gun community shooting people?
My license to own a firearm in Illinois was revoked because I was voluntarily held for observation at a hospital immediately after my--physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive--wife left me.
Good. You were a suicide risk and removing firearms is literally the first thing you do as suicide prevention. It's a super weird thing to get indignant about.
If you have been convicted of any domestic violence crime, misdemeanor or felony, you are already legally, federally barred from owning a firearm
Except for when they're not. This also isn't a policy that the pro-gun community supported, even though it still gave them ample time to execute their partners before they were convicted.
I'm opposed to revoking rights of any kind without a criminal proceeding.
How noble of you to sacrifice other people's lives so that no gun owner is temporarily inconvenienced.
Change the social conditions. Fix the problems that are leading to mass shootings in the first place.
Off you go then. Better hurry, because there's no way America will give you another 20 years of insisting you alone have the solution to a problem you still haven't solved.
We've done this dance before remember? All you're doing is admitting that under the conditions we have right now, the gun laws you're defending are not fit for purpose.
Just go and make one.
Oh, you're upset that pot is illegal? Just, like, grow your own, dude.
The examples you cite are behaviours, things that cause direct harm to other people. The existence or ownership of a <> does not cause direct harm.
You’re going to hate the results though.
Not as such, no. Because we already know that the cause of violence isn't the tool itself. The car does not cause the crash. (In most cases. In cases where a firearm does cause a death without the action of the owner, it's a faulty design.) We know, for instance, that economic distress is a major root cause for a lot of violence, and that eliminating wealth inequality would likely result in enormous reductions in violence across the board.
Then jump in your time machine and fuck off back to the 70s.
Hear that ::whooshing:: noise? That's the point, going right over your head, and apparently out of your reach. If the tools haven't changed in 50 years, if the availability of the tools hasn't changed in 50 years, then why has the nature of the violence? What's changed in the culture that mass shootings have the appearance of being common?
Oh shit, you mean the problem was identified and solved without the pro-gun community shooting people
It didn't solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s--which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply--and they'd had their gun ban for decades. Same with Chicago prior to Heller. All it did was prevent people that wanted to own firearms legally from doing so.
Good. You were a suicide risk
...And? I support individual bodily autonomy. That encompasses both abortion and suicide. Moreover, it meant that I had to give up two rifles that my grandfather had left to me, which were--and are--the only thing I have left from him.
It's so weird that people will say, "my body, my choice" when it's abortion or marijuana, but not when it's someone choosing to end their own life. Like, naw, fuck off, we're not going to actually give you any help, but we're going to make sure you can't kill yourself.
Except for when they’re not
"...[T]hat the federal law prohibiting individuals from 'possessing a firearm while under a domestic violence restraining order' is unconstitutional." Literally the first sentence, my dude. The guy in this case had not been convicted of a domestic violence offense. Which, if you review what I wrote, conforms to what I said. This particular guy had other reasons that he shouldn't have been able to legally possess a firearm, so it's all kind of moot anyways.
How noble of you to sacrifice other people’s lives so that no gun owner is temporarily inconvenienced.
How noble of you to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Didn't Ben Franklin have something to say about that...?
Better hurry, because there’s no way America will give you another 20 years of insisting you alone have the solution to a problem you still haven’t solved.
Yeah, neither Republicans nor Dems really want to address it, so, yeah, I guess there won't be another 20 years, will there? Republicans oppose gun legislation, but insist that anything that addresses material conditions is communism, Dems insist that the guns need to be banned without doing anything to directly address the material conditions even in states and localities where they have supermajorities in all the branches of gov't. (Think I'm not arguing in good faith? Look at Kathy Hochul's veto record, particularly her response to why she opposed ending non-compete agreements, which is essentially a gift to large corporations.)
Oh, you're upset that pot is illegal? Just, like, grow your own, dude.
I did.
The examples you cite are behaviours, things that cause direct harm to other people. The existence or ownership of a <> does not cause direct harm.
Yep, that's the usual self-centered pro-gun bullshit. It doesn't cause direct harm to you, so it's fine. All the women it demonstrably endangers don't count.
The car does not cause the crash
No shit. Thats why we ensure the people know how to competently and responsibly drive them as part of licensing, charging anyone who endangers others.
Guns though? Sell them to any dumb fuck.
We know, for instance, that economic distress is a major root cause for a lot of violence, and that eliminating wealth inequality would likely result in enormous reductions in violence across the board.
Yep, I agree. But that isn't the world we live in today, which is why I don't give a fuck about how good your gun laws were in 1800 or how good they'll be in 2100. They're dogshit today.
It didn't solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s--which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply--and they'd had their gun ban for decades.
It didn't solve the problem though, did it? NYC was a pretty shitty place up through the early 90s--which is when violent crime rates across the country started dropping sharply--and they'd had their gun ban for decades.
Cool story, doesn't matter. Widespread gun ownership has had zero chilling effect on crime and has instead just armed more criminals.
There is no magic gun fairy arming gangs, just your gun laws that are no better at identifying threats than your "responsible gun owners" executing children for ringing their doorbells or getting in the wrong car.
...And? I support individual bodily autonomy. That encompasses both abortion and suicide. Moreover, it meant that I had to give up two rifles that my grandfather had left to me, which were--and are--the only thing I have left from him.
I was being polite. You were also a murder-suicide risk and a mass shooting risk. You're also not a hero for enabling other people to blow their brains out.
When your grandfather left you those guns, did he say "I hope you kill yourself with these one day"?
It's so weird that people will say, "my body, my choice" when it's abortion or marijuana, but not when it's someone choosing to end their own life. Like, naw, fuck off, we're not going to actually give you any help, but we're going to make sure you can't kill yourself
Go fuck yourself. I have volunteered at multiple suicide prevention organisations and your opinions about suicide are those of a self absorbed cunt. Every minute you can keep a suicidal person alive dramatically increases their chances of getting the help they need and you'd rob them of that, even after you got that help.
This particular guy had other reasons that he shouldn't have been able to legally possess a firearm, so it's all kind of moot anyways.
Cool, I grabbed the wrong article by mistake and you openly supported a domestic abuser keeping his guns, even knowing he used them to murder his partner.
How noble of you to sacrifice freedom for a false sense of security. Didn't Ben Franklin have something to say about that...?
Who has the false sense of security? You're in measurably more danger than me right now, let alone people in other wealthy countries with gun control.
which is essentially a gift to large corporations
So no different that the gun laws then.
It doesn’t cause direct harm to you, so it’s fine.
A firearm by itself does not cause direct harm to anyone. A N Y O N E. It is the illegal use of a firearm that causes harm, in much the same way that illegal use of a hammer can cause harm.
No shit. Thats why we ensure the people know how to competently and responsibly drive them as part of licensing,
You're focusing on one aspect of one thing, but the principal applies to a lot of things rather than just cars. For instance, a baseball bat doesn't cause harm simply by existing. A hammer doesn't cause harm just because it exists. You can kill people with a nailgun, but the nailgun doesn't kill people without affirmative action being taken by the user.
Widespread gun ownership has had zero chilling effect on crime.
I never said that it did. I did say that widespread gun ownership doesn't--by itself, or as a primary cause--create crime. Look at violent crime rates right now; they're trending down across the board. There was a spike during/after the pandemic, but it's dropped sharply again. And yet, before and during the pandemic, there were massive surges in gun sales. In fact, there are still intermittent shortages of ammunition (although gun sales have cooled off sharply, likely due to inflation pressures; I'm basing this off the few people I talk to that are in the gun manufacturing business). So you have a problem to contend with; if guns are causing crime, by simply existing, then why is it that crime rates are continuing to fall despite record numbers of guns being on the streets?
I was being polite. You were also a murder-suicide risk and a mass shooting risk.
Oh, very interesting that you can diagnose over the internet. Where did you get your PhD in psychology or sociology, or which medical school did you go to, and where did you do your residency in psychiatry?
You’re also not a hero for enabling other people to blow their brains out.
I just watched my mother-in-law commit suicide while in hospice by intentionally dehydrating herself. Even in a very frail condition, at 92 years old, it took her a week to die, and every time she woke up and found herself still alive was a new tragedy for her. She would have cried the last time she woke up if she had been able to form tears any more. She wanted to die because she was sick of the endless medical treatments, and because she knew that her mind was rapidly fading on her. So, with all sincerity, go fuck yourself for your moralistic stance on suicide. An anti-suicide stance forces people to suffer without offering any options. Anti-suicide hotlines are the same bullshit; you keep someone alive, with no care for whether or not their quality of life improves. You're glorifying life at all costs, because of your feelings about other people staying alive, rather than thinking about how they feel, and how they want to be.
I'm done with you.
A firearm by itself does not cause direct harm to anyone. A N Y O N E. It is the illegal use of a firearm that causes harm, in much the same way that illegal use of a hammer can cause harm.
Yes, every single person in the world is aware of that. Not a single one thinks there are guns just going out and doing mass shootings and murders by themselves. Do you even understand your own talking point?
But put them in the hands of a dangerous psychopath and there's few objects more dangerous -- certainly not legal ones with such a low barrier to entry. Hammers and baseball bats don't even come close.
And boy, do you ever love putting them in the hands of dangerous psychopaths. Around 80% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Why is this acceptable to you? Why will you do nothing to lower that number, even slightly?
I did say that widespread gun ownership doesn't--by itself, or as a primary cause--create crime
Doesn't matter, still bullshit. Compare the crime rates of wealthy countries the world over and they're all much the same. You know what stands out? America has a layer of gun violence on top. Just as many robberies, only sometimes the cashier gets shot and killed. Just as many assaults, but the only country with more than 1 mass shooting a year.
Because guns, in the hands of fuckstains, absolutely do create crime. They give dangerous, impulsive and damaged people the opportunity to kill another person just as easily a they can unlock their phone.
And try as you might to twist it into some idiotic "guns don't kill people" strawman, only in the deepest depths of idiocy do you find people who genuinely think gun-control is about banning a harmless, inanimate object, rather than keeping that object out of the hands of scum.
Why do you support selling guns to violent people? Why do you support reckless gun owners arming criminals by leaving their guns unsecured? Are you even able to pretend you don't after 20 years of opposing every reform that tries?
So you have a problem to contend with; if guns are causing crime, by simply existing
Nope, I don't. Crime rates are falling because of social reforms and access to services. You know, the things the pro-gun community have finally decided are the answer (since it wasn't Marilyn Manson, Doom, Grand Theft Auto, Hiphop, gay people or the 5000 other times they were complete fucking liars).
But even with that falling crime rate, oh look, this months mass murder, a problem no other country has. While we've been actually improving things, what has the pro-gun community done? Maximized the damage criminals can do by making semi-automatic weapons cheap, accessible and easy to steal.
Is that weak shit genuinely all you've got to offer your country? "Look, if you ignore all the schoolchildren being shot in the face, our crime rate is falling at much the same rate as the rest of the world".
Oh, very interesting that you can diagnose over the internet. Where did you get your PhD in psychology or sociology, or which medical school did you go to, and where did you do your residency in psychiatry?
Why? It's not like you're not already ignoring hundreds of people with those exact qualifications. It's no great mystery why so many domestic abusers and mass murderers put a bullet through their skull before the cops arrive.
I just watched my mother-in-law commit suicide while in hospice by intentionally dehydrating herself
Sounds like bullshit to me. Medical staff aren't exactly unfamiliar with patients who are terminal and ready to go and I'm skeptical they'd sit around and watch someone torture themselves to death without ever reaching for the saline.
Why didn't you give her one of your cool guns so they could have scraped her brains off the floor? Sounds to me like yet another case of a gun owner claiming that guns are the solution, then not using them to solve anything.
An anti-suicide stance forces people to suffer without offering any options.
Have you forgotten that there are ways to kill yourself without a gun? I'm pretty certain you've literally said "they'd just use another method" to me before.
Anyway, that jab was pillow soft because I've been an advocate of right to die legislation for literally decades. You can do it without arming school shooters or forcing your family to clean up fragments of your skull.
Anti-suicide hotlines are the same bullshit; you keep someone alive, with no care for whether or not their quality of life improves.
The world over, only 1 in 10 people who attempt suicide will go on to die by suicide. If they use a gun, their chances of survival are functionally zero and they won't even be cold before you sweep them under the rug claiming "suicide doesn't count".
I'm done with you
No you're not. Every time you post your pro-gun bullshit, I'm going to be right there making sure everybody can see how slimy and self serving you are as you use tortured old ladies and suicide victims to attack someone who would have helped them, because they won't use a gun to do it.
I like guns, a lot. I own more guns than the typical gun owner. Given that I compete when I can--I have a match this weekend with a projected round count of 450, between rifle and pistol--I shoot more than about 99% of all gun owners.
I never shoot without ear protection. When I'm near people that are shooting rifles, I prefer to have both ear plugs and electronic ear muffs (because even with ear muffs, a gun shot is LOUD). Yeah, I've got hearing damage, but that's because I was stupid and went to a shit ton of punk, industrial, and metal shows without hearing protection before I wised up in my 30s and started wearing ear protection to concerts. (I highly recommend Etymotic high-fidelity ear plugs; they reduce sound more evenly than foam earplugs, so you don't end up having the earplugs kill all the treble and mid without touching the bass. The sound is much, much cleaner than with foam ear plugs.)
I will probably start buying silencers once I can, because they're just too useful at preserving your hearing if you're a high-volume shooter.
And, BTW - there's no record of why silencers were put in the NFA of 1934. There apparently wasn't any debate about it. We know that all handguns were originally going to be in the NFA, and short-barrel rifles and shotguns were included to prevent people from using that as a work-around for a handgun ban. But handguns were removed from the final version, which made SBRs and SBSs orphans in the bill. The best guess about silencers is that they were banned to make it a little easier for game wardens to detect poachers, since 1934 was the height of the Great Depression, and poaching was a common way for very poor people to feed themselves.
3M earplugs are fine for blocking noise in general. But all foam ear plugs block more noise at the treble and mid ranges better than in the bass. For live music, that means that the sound will end up being very muddy, with way too much drum and bass, and the vocals, lead, and rhythm guitar will be mostly gone. Etymotic is specifically good for audio settings; you're getting less overall noise reduction, but it's keeping the sound more clear.
I think that bass in particular is hard to block because at least some of the sound it through conduction rather than air movement in your ear canal.