The tragic massacre in Las Vegas which left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded has reignited calls for gun control. None other than Hillary Clinton called for as much in a series of tweets.
Clinton is referring to the Hearing Protection Act, which would, among other things, eliminate a $200 tax on firearm suppressors. The tweet is transparent political opportunism, but the underlying logic manifests a dangerous and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
The Las Vegas shooting is a tragedy, and a senseless loss of human life. The politicization of such a tragedy, especially so soon after the event, is reprehensible. However, the ideas espoused by Clinton and other gun control advocates are dangerous, misleading, politically-motivated, and necessitate a reasoned response.
At first bluff, Clinton's contention that a suppressor ("silencer" is a misnomer – there is no way to "silence" the delivery of almost 2,000 joules of energy) 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, two things render her contention inane: echoes, and how suppressors actually work.
Many reports of the shooting indicate the crowd fleeing, and scrambling for cover "amid chaos and confusion about where the shots were coming from." Yes, even though Paddock's weapon was unsupressed, 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. The chaotic cacophony of urban gunfighting is the very reason law enforcement and the military have depended on sophisticatedgunfire location systems for years.
To put it simply: A suppressor makes little difference in determining the direction of the sound.
Next, the use of the term "silencer" is a signal that the speaker is understandably misinformed about how firearm suppressors work. A typical firearm suppressor will reduce the muzzle report by about 30 decibels.
More/Video
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
7 comments:
If Hillary's voice were reduced by 30 decibels it would still be too loud.
What does this fat stinking subject know about weapons anyway. Didn't she hire all of her hits?
A "silencer" only helps mask the location of the shooter and only for the first round or two. As far as reducing the noise, it's okay, but most people who be surprised. It's still loud.
She is SO stupid.
And so yesterday.
Will she please just shut up and go away?
She thinks she is till relevant.
She should consult her team of killers to se exactly how a silencer works and how it is used. THEY sure as hell know.
PLEASE - PLEASE - you have to excuse her, all her hitman use a silencer, so that is what she is using for a reference. She is referring to what she knows best when her hitman take people out for her. LMAO
A suppressor is for preventing flash , it's called a flash suppressor , has nothing to do with silencing .
It is conceivable that a suppressor could have made the situation worse. A shot from your average AR-15 registers in at 160 decibels, while a concert registers at 120 decibels. Therefore the addition of a suppressor would put a shot from an AR-15 (now 130 decibels) very near the same level as the concert. And this doesn't account for the fact that the shooter was roughly 500 yards away from the stage/crowd.
She needs a silencer! 9 mm, 357 Mag, 44 Mag right in her fat lying mouth!
Post a Comment