On Tuesday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., issued a tweet proving that she knows next to nothing about guns and silencers, and what she does “know” appears to be the result of watching too many movies.
When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it's quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
The Daily Caller reported:
Gillibrand is currently trying to stop suppressors from being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), and fired off several tweets against the common sense move to protect the hearing of people who enjoy shooting.
The tweets were soaked with the ignorance of somebody who has spent more time watching spy movies than actually firing weapons.
Gillibrand, naturally, got her clock cleaned on Twitter by people who know something about the subject:
@SenGillibrand This is … Um … Not true.
— The Mental Recession (@rustyweiss74) March 14, 2017
@SenGillibrand Look another Liberal Democrat that gets her gun information from Hollywood movies. You can't be that clueless.
— Eddie (@JN31621) March 14, 2017
Oh, yes, you can. You can even get elected to the Senate…
@SenGillibrand What in the hell are you talking about?? Stick to what you know like destroying our healthcare and robbing our kids blind!
— Gerald Thomas (@gpthomas10) March 14, 2017
Despite what Gillibrand and anti-gunners might think, a suppressed weapon is still quite loud when it’s fired, as these videos demonstrate:
The Daily Caller added:
Having a suppressed weapon is a great idea because it does lower hearing risk, and it might allow easier shooting for those who live in rural areas with neighbors perhaps only a few hundred yards away.
However, it’s naive to pretend slapping a suppresser on a weapon automatically makes you a bad guy with a gun that nobody can now hear.
A post at Bearing Arms also notes that it’s quite easy for one to make a silencer:
The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 does not “easier for criminals to obtain gun silencers.” If Senator Gillibrand (or let’s be honest, her staff) had done any research at all before opposing HPA, she and they would know that if criminals actually wanted silencers, they could make them very easily from common items for less than $30.
In addition to being impractical for your average hoodlum, silencers are counterproductive to the goal of instilling fear that violent gangs use as a weapon against one another in turf wars. When a gang-banger does a drive-by, the fear and terror he instills in those he targets is even more important than bullets finding flesh. Loud guns instill fear more effectively than something that makes no more noise than a pellet gun.
Criminals have always had easy access to silencers. They’re just counter-productive to their goals, so they don’t use silencers.
“Gillibrand is wrong on the facts, and is simply making empty statements that she cannot back up with any data or crime statistics whatsoever,” Bob Owens said.
- All eyes on Washington State gun control measures
- Seattle easier on homeless than gun owners?
- Portland restaurateur bans gun owners, cries over backlash
- New York town officially condemns gun control law, supports Second Amendment
- Campaign launched to ban ‘human black targets’ from gun ranges
And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book: