• Gabby Giffords’ Gun Control Group: Use ‘Ear Plugs’ Not ‘Silencers’



    By AWR Hawkins

    On Monday, Gabby Giffords’ gun control group Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS) tweeted that Americans who want hearing protection should use “ear plugs” not “silencers.”

    In fact, ARS claimed that “silencers do not protect your hearing.” This is an interesting claim, especially if the “silencer” reduces muzzle noise to a level equal to what “ear plugs” or other forms of ear protection allow you to hear.

    Read full story here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...not-silencers/
    Comments 24 Comments
    1. Golddiggie's Avatar
      Golddiggie -
      Quote Originally Posted by EC1 View Post
      So according to gaby when people who live near ranges or hunting area complain, we should just tell them to get ear plugs?
      I live very close to a range... My only complaint is when I hear the report of something that sounds like a lot of fun, that I don't own.

      People that move into a house that didn't look to see what was in the surrounding area are a level of stupid that deserve to be annoyed.

      As for 'gabby', while I was always told it's not nice to talk ill of the retarded... Well, there's nothing good to be said about her (or her husband). They should both move to someplace with tight gun control, like England or Australia...
    1. Monadnock's Avatar
      Monadnock -
      Gabby sez, "Loud Pipes Save Lives" ...hmmm, I'm guessing that she has never said that.
    1. bigtig50's Avatar
      bigtig50 -
      The truth is this. The suppressors are to hide the sound of the muzzle blast and the earplugs are for us so we can't hear these morons whining!
    1. Kevin_NH's Avatar
      Kevin_NH -
      Violence Policy Center opposes the law, but says suppressors aren't a problem in crime. Shotspotter says their gear will still detect gunshots even if a suppressor was used.

      And even the Washington Post isn't swallowing the anti's lies:
      Quote Originally Posted by WaPo View Post
      We obviously take no position on whether this proposed law would be good or bad, but we were curious about this pair of tweets. Americans for a Responsible Solution
      . . .
      Peters pointed to a 2013 article in The Washington Post that said the ShotSpotter detection system may have trouble detecting shots fired from a silencer. But ShotSpotter says that information is out of date.

      “In regard to gun silencers, it is more accurate to call them suppressors, as they suppress the impulsive sound of gunfire, not wholly eliminate it,” said Ralph Clark, the chief executive of ShotSpotter. “We have successfully if not inadvertently detected confirmed suppressed gunfire within our existing deployments. Although we have not formally tested the theoretical impact to our system, we intend to do some targeted testing in the near future. We believe we will have various options ranging from increasing our sensor array density to developing software/firmware to address the detection of suppressed gunfire if it were to become a widespread issue.”
      . . .
      The Violence Policy Center, which opposes the proposed law, can point to only a handful of examples of silencers being used in violent crimes, including a case in Milwaukee last year in which undercover FBI agents sold a silencer to a man said to be planning a mass attack. “The data indicates that use of silenced firearms in crime is a rare occurrence, and is a minor problem,” says a 2007 study cited by the Violence Policy Center.
      . . .
      In the meantime, although the popular name of this accessory is a silencer, foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

      Three Pinocchios
  • Visit our sponsors