Gun control advocates oppose the reduction or elimination of any gun control laws. They believe that failed laws that do nothing to reduce crime shouldn’t be abandoned — they should be strengthened! Reduce the time and paperwork needed to purchase a silencer? Assassinations! Confused cops! Cats and dogs living together! These groups include . . .
The Washington Post. The paper recently published an opinion piece opposing to the Hearing Protection Act. They used the same tired arguments mooted by Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelley’s Americans for Final Responsible Solutions (ARS).
But wouldn’t you know it: the WaPO’s very own fact-checking department has finally gotten up to speed. They’ve debunked both ARS and their own editorial’s claims.
Their investigation boiled down to pointing out a logical inconsistency within Americans for Responsible Solutions’ own statement (as pointed out by RF in a post preceding the Post’s post).
Katie Peters, a spokeswoman for ARS, supplied an article that stated: “The average suppression level, according to independent tests done on a variety of commercially available suppressors, is around 30 dB, which is around the same reduction level of typical ear protection gear often used when firing guns.”
If that’s the case, we’re not sure why the group would say that ear plugs protect hearing “better” than suppressors.” It seems the answer is that they are about the same, give or take two or three decibels. And if that’s the case, ARS is especially wrong to claim that legislation to make it easier to buy such devices “does nothing to protect hearing.”
ARS admit that suppressors and standard hearing protection are roughly equally effective at making the sound of a firearm tolerable. Therefore, by their own admission, suppressors are in fact an effective form of hearing protection.
Not only do they protect the hearing of the shooter, but they also protect the hearing of everyone around the shooter — hearing protection or not. So, better.
What about the claim that suppressors would make it harder for police to identify gunshots and pinpoint their locations? From the man behind ShotSpotter, an automated system that identifies and locates firearms discharges:
“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.”
So, in short, it isn’t an issue. Americans for Responsible Solutions has their knickers in a twist about an effective safety technology that has no impact on public safety.
The Washington Posts‘s conclusion?
We can understand the irritation of gun-control advocates about legislation with a benign-sounding name such as the Hearing Protection Act.
Clearly the main impact of the measure would be to loosen restrictions on the purchase of suppressors that have been in place for decades. It would be better called the Paperwork Reduction Act, especially because the use of suppressors does not mitigate the need for hearing protection.
But that title does not give opponents the liberty to stretch the facts.
Three Pinocchios are earned by the gun control groups. Again. A quick rant:
Mainstream media seems all too happy to bemoan “fake news.” And yet gun control groups have been relying on “fake news” for decades. How about subjecting their claims to rigorous scrutiny, as we do here on TTAG.
It’s nice that some media outlets are finally acknowledging the mendacity of gun control groups, but they should stop parroting the anti-gun rights line and publishing their equally fact-free opinion anti-gun rights editorials.