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

So, is it ok for me to tell them how to have sex with their partners? Didn't think so.

Why TF do these people think that they can tell me how to exercise MY god-given and Constitutionally protected rights? **** them!

Furthermore, what is the problem with suppressors? Too many Hollywood movies for these morons.
 
So, is it ok for me to tell them how to have sex with their partners? Didn't think so.

Why TF do these people think that they can tell me how to exercise MY god-given and Constitutionally protected rights? **** them!

Furthermore, what is the problem with suppressors? Too many Hollywood movies for these morons.

Yep, can't have you silently killing people with no more noise than a blowgun.
 
Actually this is the same argument that motorcycle riders use when they say "loud pipes save lives". Which is why I hate
that argument.
 
Dear Gabby Giffords,
Would the use of a suppressor have made any difference in your unfortunate shooting?
NOT ONE BIT!

But the people that hunt with firearms might want their hearing saved.
Ever hunt with ear plugs on?

I bet all of our troops would love a little quieter noise and save some of their hearing as well.

How about people that live near a sportsman club? I think they would like a little more peace and quiet time.

I bet your one of those people that smirk as loud motorcycles ride past you..

So your saying suppressors are loud enough that you still should use hearing protection. But that law enforcement would not hear the gunshots because they used a silencer? Loud enough to damage hearing, but not loud enough for the police to hear..SUUURE!

Hmm, let me just ask this. How many firearm crimes have been committed with a suppressor?

I think it's time to get your head checked again...[rofl]
 
Last edited:
I wish they would stop making it look like she really has anything to do with this other than what that jackal of a husband coaches her to say.
She's in the other room with coloring books while this is all being written up.
He really is going to end up in hell getting a pineapple shoved up his ass daily for the next millennium.
 
So according to gaby when people who live near ranges or hunting area complain, we should just tell them to get ear plugs? [hmmm]
 
The real reason they are against the Hearing Protection Act is that it would make gun ownership more acceptable in that it would make muzzle blasts less damaging to human ears, and therefore, safer. It mitigates one important piece of gun safety.

Aren't these people supposed to be FOR gun safety?

But knowing that gun ownership would be safer, more acceptable, and attract a new audience, they can't have that. So in effect, they're saying "Screw guns safety, this would boost THEIR numbers!"
 
So according to gaby when people who live near ranges or hunting area complain, we should just tell them to get ear plugs? [hmmm]

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. [smile]

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... [rofl2]
 
ShotSpotter. “We have successfully ... detected confirmed suppressed gunfire"

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:
WaPo said:
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​
 
Condoms don't protect against pregnancy and STD's. Practice abstinence. We don't want to legalize condoms because it might hinder trained law enforcement's ability to detect and identify rapists.


[rofl]
 
Maybe the people in Winchendon can use the earplug line on the people complaining about the range there.
 
Back
Top Bottom