this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
479 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3026 readers
293 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
They're typically actually designed to protect people's hearing.
Guns should be restricted, but silencers aren't particularly special amongst gun accessories for being more dangerous or violent than any other.
It basically makes it so you get serious hearing damage slightly slower. The shot would still be heard from quite a distance.
Bump stocks and the things that make guns automatic-but-technically-not-in-the-legal-sense should be taxed to hell or outright illegal since they actually increase the danger.
I don’t care about gun nuts hearing. Regulate guns and gun accessories.
Okay. If you're saying they should be regulated more because they're more dangerous, you're wrong because they don't make guns more dangerous.
If you're saying that anything relating to guns should be regulated, that's a very different statement to what you made.
Being dismissive of peoples physical well-being is just unnecessary.
Guns are a dangerous thing just like any number of dangerous things that exist in society. They have legitimate and illegitimate uses and should be regulated to a degree and fashion related to the danger they pose.
A surpressor doesn't increase the danger, so it doesn't need to be regulated beyond what other accessories would.
I think that basically no guns should exist anywhere. I obviously can't get that, so on the list of things I'm concerned about on the way there "surpressors" doesn't really register, and it's certainly not above bump stocks, larger magazines, or even semi-automatic weapons.
Suppressors make guns quieter, have less recoil, and can improve accuracy. How does that not make a shooter deadlier? Regardless, yes, my answer is that it should be difficult or impossible to buy a gun or gun accessory. And I don’t care if you and the rest of Lenny thinks it’s impossible, I still think it’s the right thing.
Don’t start the “bigger fish to fry” argument, we’re not here trying to rank order all the bad things in the world.
They also reduce range, increase jamming, and decrease impact force. Last I checked being quiet didn't increase harm, and doubly so when the reduction in volume is down to somewhere between a firetruck siren and a jet engine during takeoff.
There's thinking an outcome is the right one, which I agree with, and then there's mischaracterizing the dangers of something to support that point.
You can think they're not good for society and also have an accurate understanding of them.
Being factually incorrect and needlessly insulting and dismissive of people who don't perfectly agree with you is a great way to convey "gun control is for ignorant assholes" instead of what you actually want, which is "ugh, does our society really need fewer barriers to gun ownership"?
I am arguing that being quieter can/does increase harm. Sure, not by a whole lot, I know it’s still loud af. But it does make a difference.
I’m not factually incorrect, and I’m not insulting people. I am being dismissive of assholes who just repeat “Hollywood myth” ad nauseam but I hope you can see how that’s warranted.
Never in a million years did I expect a progressive politics community to so vehemently defend guns and oppose regulation of guns and gun accessories.