this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2025
480 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3038 readers
1369 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 a common sense accessory; they make guns safer for the hearing of everyone around. That said, having 27 is silly. I won't begrudge someone an odd collection, though. Some people collect Magic Cards.
The guy is 67, so he may have bought those over a long time, possibly for different guns. If he shoots a lot, he might even have burnt out a few.
The photo is of a different person.
I think I've been misconstrued by a few folks in a few directions.
I think silencers are a useful safety device, and not a tool of criminal enterprise at least at their current cost. I see no reason not to be allowed to buy as many as you wish.
I also don't think that most collections of things you can just buy in a store are interesting, personally.
You have to pay the $200 tax on any suppressors you build as well as those you buy.
I didn't know that. That feels unreasonable and largely unenforceable.
If one silencer makes the gun quieter, imagine how quiet it must be with twenty-seven!
You'd think that, but it actually wraps around the bottom of the graph and BECOMES EXTRA LOUD!
Each is a unique piece of art with a different use in a complicated game. Very affordable and easy to store.
Meanwhile silencers... Creepy AF. Kinda wacky to equate with Magic cards.
I would definitely rather hang out with a Magic nerd than a gun psycho. Not even close.
Right, there is no valid argument that is based on reality, not Hollywood fantasy, for restricting suppressors or taxing suppressors, a literal safety device. It's like restricting and taxing airbags on a car.
I'd say its more akin to restricting muffler use on cars. Instead, we usually place upper limits on how loud a car's exhaust can be. Hearing protection is important and muffler/suppressor use should be encouraged.
There are microphones placed around some cities that can triangulate the location of gunshots with great accuracy and provide rapid response. Whether or not you think this is a good thing is another topic. I'm just shocked more people don't know about this.
edit: I literally do not care, it's a minor issue to me, spamming me with links about this thing you're frothing over means nothing to me, I'm not even contesting anything, there's like three people reading down this far, you need to get off the soapbox and chill bros.
makes an incorrect claim, gets factually proven wrong
"I dOn'T cAAAAAAAAAAAAArE!!!! pOsTiNg SoUrCeS iS sPaMmInG!!!!!! sToP fRoThInG!!!!!!!"
lmao.
Those systems were forced into city budgets even though they’re highly prone to mistakes and mostly useless. It was basically some sweetheart deal for the company that manufactures it, and placed almost entirely in lower income neighborhoods. Fuck that stupid ass bloatware—not to mention fuck the eavesdropping machines that they really are. Sensitive microphones and you think the cops are only using that access to listen for gunshots? Fuuuuck no.
Cops regularly call the company and ask them to "find" gunshots in convenient locations. They're just another tool of oppression.
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection
I'm well aware of shotspotter systems.
This is provably false. Shotspotter is incredibly inaccurate, the false positive rate is EXTREME (84% false positive rate). Even when it does correctly detect a gunshot, this information is of almost no value to police. 0.9% of shotspotter detections led to seizure of a firearm and 0.7% of detections led to an arrest. This means that literally over 99% of shotspotter detections are wrong or unhelpful. It's a totally bunk system that does not work and provides no value to a community's safety.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/12/05/new-study-nypd-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-is-wildly-inaccurate/
The most value shotspotter has to police has literally nothing to do with guns or suppressors. The shotspotter towers can be used as general surveillance of the public, because the microphone systems are able to record human voices, and these recordings have even been used as evidence in court to make convictions.
https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection
It is actually a major waste of police resources as they constantly respond to false positives and dead end leads with no useful information. Shotspotter is so ineffective and wasteful that many cities are canceling their contracts.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-not-renewing-contract-with-shotspotter-program/PYYGLLNVRJGUHEAF4OSJJ7K4NA/
Suppressors would have almost no impact on how effective shotspotter systems are, regardless of the fact they are only 0.9% effective anyway and can't really get any worse, but because the gunshots when using a suppressor are still loud enough to cause hearing loss and would still theoretically be detected by these microphone systems. From the company's own promotional material:
https://www.soundthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FAQ-June-2019.pdf
You have much stronger feelings about all of this than me, have a good one.
These aren't my feelings, they are facts.
Of course you have strong feelings about it, your brain writes stories to explain your feelings, that's how reality itself works. Denying it is denying reality.
But that's just like the story your brain wrote to explain how you feel about reality
Those are mostly bullshit and used to excuse militarized police incursions into poor black neighborhoods.