this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
482 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3114 readers
148 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Alright, so, no one here seems to be prior military. Yes, actually, that’s exactly why militaries use them. So, for the practical, it’s really fucking hard to communicate during a firefight and I promise you any sort of assistance is nice. Being able to communicate is a major factor to being an effective force.
Second, it costs the government a lot of money in disability. A lot. Pretty sure tinnitus is the most common issue paid out.
Source: former infantryman.
I don’t want to give people in firefights assistance. If you’re willing to use a gun in a firefight, you deserve hearing damage.
If you're in the vicinity, you're in the firefight whether you have a gun or not. You want the shooters to have suppressors.
No, I want no shooters.
I also want no shooters, and yet there are shooters. Given that there are shooters, if you don't want them to have suppressors, then you do want them to cause hearing damage to bystanders.
I don’t really believe in the concept of a considerate shooter that wants to protect my ears by using a suppressor. Maybe at a gun range, but not elsewhere.
I don't care what you do or don't believe in. At this point you're arguing just to argue.
Yes