Few things make me smile more than a liberal argument quietly ground into the dust by experts with facts.
In the gun control debate, this happens about once an hour. And it just happened to Hillary Clinton.
Like most lib politicians, Clinton tried to take advantage of the national tragedy in Las Vegas, and tweeted a baity suggestion – maybe we should ban silencers. It’s the kind of suggestion that wins mindless votes.
But it wouldn’t have saved anyone in Vegas. And at least one young lawyer made that brutally, brutally clear.
The Washington Examiner reports:
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
The tweet is transparent political opportunism, but the underlying logic manifests a dangerous and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
Before we go on, one thing should be pointed out – the article’s author, Matthew Larosiere, isn’t your run-of-the-mill reporter (and those guys are pretty good at the Examiner). He’s a law school grad and gun expert, with a healthy knowledge of physics to boot.
In his takedown of Clinton, he uses all three skills.
With his gun expertise, Larosiere makes one thing clear – there’s no such thing as a ‘silencer.’ And the thing that’s closest to it doesn’t…actually silence.
Clinton’s contention that a suppressor (“silencer” is a misnomer) would have made the Vegas shooter deadlier might seem intuitive.
After all, the natural reaction of anyone is to run away from the sound of gunfire. However, the people on the street were unable to discern where the shots were coming from by the sound.
The reason why is clear: Watch any video where the gunshots can be heard – the echoes are equally deafening and bounce off buildings, down alleys, and off the pavement.
Dems (mainly #Hillary) jump on the gun control and 'silencer' debate just hours after the Las Vegas massacre. #LasVegasShooting #Tucker pic.twitter.com/MFpsaxN72N
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 3, 2017
In short, being able to hear the gunshot doesn’t mean being able to locate the shooter. It actually makes things more difficult.
But that, of course, isn’t the only problem with Clinton’s argument. There’s also simple physics.
The use of the term “silencer” is a signal that the speaker is understandably misinformed…a typical firearm suppressor will reduce the muzzle report by about 30 decibels.
A typical AR-15 will have a muzzle report of 167dB. With a suppressor, this goes down to 137dB, still louder than an unsupressed 22 caliber rifle.
For comparison, the threshold of pain is generally considered 110dB, or the pleasant sound of a fighter jet taking off from an aircraft carrier.
It is safe to say that nobody on the deck of an aircraft carrier has ever been taken by surprise by a fighter jet taking off.
Indeed.
Vegas shooting reignites gun control debate in Congress; We knew this was coming. #NoGunControl #PoliticalAgendahttps://t.co/Ma1bx4jik1
— Nina J Tomasieski (@NinaMorton) October 3, 2017
Clinton doesn’t know the first thing about guns. If you’re going to regulate something, you have to know what you’re talking about.
And Hillary does not.
Source: Washington Examiner
