Guns save life. Suppressors save hearing. These are the facts of life. Suppressors also make you a good neighbor to those around you when you shoot. Not suprisingly, those opposed to gun ownership also oppose allowing mufflers for guns. Their arguments make about as much sense as opposing the use of mufflers in cars.
In recent days, paid anti-gun shills got busted misrepresenting their so-called facts to Illinois legislators. Ironically, the Washington Post spilled the beans, and not the National Rifle Association. The fact that an anti-gun mainstream media outlet gutted the only “scientific” reason the hoplophobes had to oppose legalization made it all the more delicious.
See, Illinois came very close to passing suppressor legalization for its residents last year. Regrettably, the Prairie State owns the dubious distinction as the only state between California and New York that bans suppressors for civilians. Now, with a new session, the battle has begun anew. Sensing defeat is at hand, Illinois gun control advocates now cite misleading, outdated information in addition to fears and emotions to oppose the bill.
Here’s a snapshot of their opposition propaganda:
The Illinois Gun Violence Prevention Coalition (IGVPC), a back-bencher gun grabber group in the Land of Lincoln, uses ShotSpotter Chief Executive Ralph Clark’s quote regarding suppressors from days gone by to support their opposition to the common sense legalization proposal.
The quote refers back to a four-year-old article in the Washington Post, excerpting only part of Mr. Clark’s quote – from the next to the last paragraph in the long story:
ShotSpotter detection system documents 39,000 shooting incidents in the District
…If a silencer is used or shots are fired into a car and the vehicle absorbs the acoustic energy of the blast, the sound may elude the sensors, said Ralph Clark, ShotSpotter’s chief executive. The same is true, he said, for an “execution style” shooting in which the gun is inches away from the victim. He also said that gunfire in a canyonlike area could be clouded by ambient noise.
Days ago, the very same Washington Post undermined the main IGVPC talking point. The very objection so many Chicagoland Democrats used as their primary excuse to oppose suppressor legalization. The WashPo directly addressed the IGVPC’s information, with ShotSpotter’s chief calling it “out of date”. Again, from the Washington Post:
Are firearms with a silencer ‘quiet’?
…Peters [a spokeswoman for Gabby Giffords’ Americans for Responsible Solutions] 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.”
We all know that gun control is racist, classist and sexist. Advocates of gun control use lies and half-truths to promote the failed schemes. We see it everyday.
However, it proves quite refreshing to catch them red-handed promoting falsehoods as facts. Winning feels even better when anti-gunners undermine anti-gunners.