TL;DR; it’s likely a result of guns

  • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 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.