Hillary Clinton: Would’ve Been More Deaths If Las Vegas Shooter Had ‘Silencer’

“Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton weighed in on the deadliest mass shooting in US history, claiming Monday morning that there would have been more deaths if the shooter had a ‘silencer,'” dailycaller.com reports. “’Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer,’ Clinton tweeted on Monday, ‘which the NRA wants to make easier to get.'”

So here we go . . .

Ms. Clinton’s Tweet signals the somewhat obvious fact that the SHARE Act — deregulating suppressors — is now on ice. We can also expect the civilian disarmament industrial complex to focus on the number of guns found in Stephen Paddock’s hotel room. They’ll say states/Uncle Sam needs to limit the number of gun purchases over a specified time (i.e. one gun a month, or less).

Where else the antis train their attention depends on a few key facts, yet to be revealed . . .

If Mr. Paddock was a conservative and/or NRA member, they’ll focus their ire on all gun owners, labelling all but hunters “right wing gun nuts.”

If the Las Vegas spree killer used a machine gun and bought it legally, they’ll argue for a complete full-auto ban, and another assault rifle ban as well (because guns).

If he converted a rifle to full auto, they’ll still argue for a complete ban.

Watch this space. It’s gonna be a rough ride.

comments

  1. avatar George says:

    So much BS from her. A “silencer” would have created more smoke and set of the fire alarm from his room. They would have been able to find him a lot earlier and killed himself earlier.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      He did set off the smoke detector. Probably only takes a round or two.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        #WTF

        Casino Hotel Security didn’t know someone was shooting from one or two of their windows for over 10 minutes?

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          They knew. They just didn’t have a SWAT team pre-assembled on the 32nd floor.

    2. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

      How does Hillary know the bad guy didn’t have a suppressor(s)?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Because it didn’t have that pew-pew sound like in the James Bond movies.

      2. avatar UncleK says:

        Exactly, I hear tap tap as though he was using one.

    3. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      I disagree with her assertion anyway. People thought it was fireworks for an extremely long time. If he had a suppressor the crack of the bullets whizzing by would have been more obvious for what it was — projectiles whipping through the air — instead of that noise being muted out by the sound of the gunshots themselves. Additionally, it isn’t like anyone knew where the shots were coming from anyway. The only reason they found the guy was due to the smoke alarm in his room going off. The echo of those unsuppressed shots off all the buildings in the area made it nearly impossible to tell where they were coming from. It’s even possible that slightly quieter, suppressed shots would have echoed less, making the direction easier to determine.

      1. avatar Carl Saiga says:

        I agree that a suppressor could make it actually easier to identify the shots. There were so many things for the report to echo off of that I can imagine it was very difficult to tell what was happening. Not to mention that as you stated the sonic crack is still present anyway unless he used which seems like it would have helped the victims. I’ve hit steel with 210gr 308 subs at 500yrds and it sounds like a rock hitting steel.

  2. avatar Evan says:

    Every time I think this schmuck is at a new low…

  3. avatar bob uruncle says:

    You probably would have won the election if you had a silencer, thank God you kept spewing your crap.

    1. avatar HandyDan says:

      Comment of the day, right here.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Boom

  4. avatar Bill Kilgore says:

    I can imagine a lot of things Hillary, but you being President isn’t one of them.

  5. avatar Adub says:

    What a retarded suggestion. A silencer on a supersonic rifle being shot at night? People are still going to hear and see it. Derp.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Visual and aural signature would have been ‘less’ but even if you took into account a panicked crowd’s reaction you’d still hear a rapidly fired suppressed weapon.

      Perfect storm of high un-obstructed shooter’s hide and a possible target of 22,000 people two football fields away.

      Shooter didn’t want to ‘get-away’ or he never would have kept firing for that long.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      It would not have made ANY difference whatsoever. If you watch the video of the crowd they heard the gunfire and did not react, unsure of what it was or if it was fireworks. The crowd reacted when they saw people being dropped by bullet strikes, not before.

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        Solution: Outlaw firecrackers?

  6. avatar Accur81 says:

    Cue all of the Democrats immediately pushing more gun control. What I continue to find disturbing is that so many on TTAG see no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats always support gun control. While there are Republicans as bad as Democrats, virtually zero Democrats support gun rights. Despite this terrible tragedy, I don’t see Trump supporting more gun control.

    I say this as a registered Independent. I consider myself an Independent Constitutional Conservative Libertarian.

    1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Agree. Both sides suck but for different reasons.

      1. avatar Carl Saiga says:

        Well the dems all screw us and the repubs usually do. I’m mature enough to accept the lesser of two evils. That whole protest vote thing always struck me as extremely childish. Vote for the lesser of two evils and try to educate the youngsters on the Constitution so that we have hope for the future.

    2. avatar The Punisher says:

      Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin. They both want to use and are willing to use the power of the State to fulfill their goals. The only questions are what goals and whom gets the end of the hammer?

      Generally speaking democrats tend to want to use coercive taxes to help identity and victim groups at home. They want to disarm people because then that makes people ever more dependent on the State for “safety” and defense.

      Generally speaking republicans want to use coercive taxes to fund the industrial military complex and go kill people abroad. They tend to not want to disarm people because those same pro gun people that they purport to support are the same people that they will recruit to become fodder in their next foreign military adventure.

      But interestingly the sides are beginning to blur in all regards…

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Anyone that uses the term “industrial military complex” has self identified as a moron.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      What?!? The bodies have nearly assumed room temperature and you’re thinking it’s too soon to inject politics into the tragedy?

      Perhaps if the Demoncrats got their way on taxes nobody would be able to afford 10 guns.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Doesn’t matter whatever else is going on in the world, we all agree, it’s never too late, or too early to say what a POS the evil (D) are [to include even the stupid POS voters, and the foreign $$$ supporters] (fair warning, i.e., there’s the dog-shit, don’t step in it).

        We always get the same old “the Republicans are just as bad” crap from the evil POS (D), and it usually ramps up a bit more around each election period.

        F em all. If Republicans hate our Republican representatives, that doesn’t elevate the status of the POS (D) that just should be an indication of how much more we hate the POS (D).

        1. avatar Carl Saiga says:

          The worst repub on the Constitution is probably on the same level as the best demoncrat.

  7. avatar Josh says:

    I would like to hear her logic behind this statement.

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      Her what???

  8. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Say what?

  9. avatar Mike says:

    Unfortunately all NFA items will be under the microscope after this incident.

    1. avatar grendal113 says:

      well geez so what?

      it isn’t like NFA items are immune from abuse by criminals. guess it should be super illegal to kill people and the means should make it even more illegaller…

  10. avatar stateisevil says:

    RIP HPA.

  11. avatar Horacemann says:

    Read in one report police located shooter because of smoke alarm. At this point we know next to nothing. Fact is a suppressor might have made the shooter more difficult to locate but that has nothing to do with changing lawswconcerning suppressors. He could just have easily changed locations to make finding him more difficult.

  12. avatar Whatever... says:

    Kinda pitiful that she thinks she’s still relevant.

    But that won’t stop her from leading the charge of leftists who only get their “information” from Hollywood movies (made for the clueless, by the clueless), and have no fornicating idea how anything firearm-related actually works.

  13. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Anyone have any questions at all, about a vote for Anybody But Hilary?

    By the way, Ms. Clinton, you opportunistic [some flame deleted-worthy adjective goes here] already dancing in the blood of the victims of evil, if this evil person already had NFA items (assuming a legal full-auto rifle), or was willing to modify semi-auto rifles illegally, what would have stopped him, currently, from obtaining another NFA item (a suppressor) just as easily – through either lawful or unlawful means?

    I am so thankful that this deplorable person is not our president.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I am so thankful that this deplorable person is not our president.”

      You mis-spelled ‘despicable’, Chip…

      🙂

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Oh, there are many, applicable spellings; but I chose deplorable intentionally, as a (perhaps-too-subtle) reference to her “basket of deplorables” campaign speech.

  14. avatar Sian says:

    News flash:

    Gunfire from a 32nd story 400 yards away is not louder than a fucking music concert.

    Can we deport all the morons?

    1. avatar Rich M says:

      Deport them …no. make them AND ALL ELECTED officials have to pass 3 tests
      1) Fundamentals of the Constitution.
      2) Economics 101
      3) basic phyics regarding firearms – Specifically the meaning of sound suppression, and sub-sonic vs. supersonic projectiles.

      Hell, make them all pass a spelling contest and if they fail, they win a one way ticket to Venezuela. If they score less than 70% but greater than 65% they get a round trip ticket and will have to write an essay about their experiances in that Socialist paradise.

      1. avatar Andrew says:

        You missspelled Physics

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      it would appear that you haven’t watched/listened to the videos shot from within the concert itself.
      The gunfire was very clear over the music.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        and they thought it was a string of firecrackers until people started falling down.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          Thank you for saying I’m right.

  15. avatar Bob says:

    Nice to know shes more concerned with political agendas than the victims families welfare.

  16. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Thank you, Ms. Clinton, for reminding America that you’re too stupid for elected office.

    Let the grownups handle this, ok?

  17. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    Well, that didn’t take long….and from the Hildebeast no less.

    1. avatar Adub says:

      She must have been woken up. Or this was posted by an aide and she is still asleep with a bottle of Jack clutched in her hand.

  18. avatar Wanderingninja says:

    My open letter to Hillary Clinton:

    Dear Mrs. Clinton,

    Thank you for immediately turning a tragedy as a platform for your agenda to strip Americans of their right to protect themselves from people who’s tyrannical ideals you serve. Your husband is an old burnout but I’m sure you are passing him up on the highway to an unAmerican hell. You are not welcome to my house for dinner. Don’t let the door hit your *** on the way out.

    -Sincerely,
    Wanderingninja- concerned patriot, global hitchhiker extraordinaire.

  19. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    My Hillary impression….hey…look at me…I’m still relevant!

    1. avatar Boba Fett says:

      lol

  20. avatar James Earl Hoffa says:

    Go screw yourself Hillary Clinton! You’re talking about silencers causing more death woman please, you’ve had over a hundred and twenty-seven people die from suicide squads and other unexplained deaths really close to you. You’re nothing more than a murderer, and a child molester you friggin pedophile! I wouldn’t cross the street to pee on you if you were on fire! You big piece of garbage you and your husband both pedophiles of America!

  21. avatar samuraichatter says:

    This is the “gun control works even when it doesn’t” mentality. Wasn’t the GCA of 1968 supposed to end all of this? I mean that was a turbulent time with all the assassinations so “reasonable” safety regulation was enacted (at least they called it “gun control” back then”).

    This women is so two faced. She still pedals the “gun show loophole” after being told repeatedly there is no such thing (and she is/was a BAR certified attorney). She is the face of big government control.

  22. avatar Vincent says:

    Ain’t no rest for the wicked, until we close our eyes for good. oh an RIP HPA. This will probably fix that Trump Slump for a minute while the sheep do the their thing.

  23. avatar Matt says:

    There goes ANY chance of HPA or any of the other laws.

  24. avatar BDub says:

    Ok, now I’m not overly quick to don the tin-foil hat, but that was a helluva quick connect between new shooting and current legislation – especially coming from somebody that isnt an active politician. WTF?

  25. avatar Sir Tri says:

    Can you IMAGINE if he had a GHOST RECON SQUAD with GHOST guns shooting hollow point bullets using a night-vision scope with auto-targeting and face-recognition app how many MORE would have died???!!
    That comment is a total insensitive comment directed and Clinton’s misdirected grab at “gun-control”. My heart ache for all involved in this Vegas atrocity. Side note and curiosity though. Why has no one brought up the fact that the weapon of choice is full-auto. The perp could not have been equally effective if his weapon was semi-auto. 95% or more of gun owners do not have this option available to them legally.

  26. avatar pwrserge says:

    … and ISIS just claimed responsibility. Watch this get swept under the biggest rock the MSM can find.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      48-hour rule.

      And ISIS is not immune to opportunistic claiming of responsibility for events in which they had no involvement, so I put zero stock in their social media claims.

  27. avatar Jason says:

    Never let a good tragedy go to waste! Hillary is on point!
    What a bitch

  28. avatar El Bearsidente says:

    Legalizing suppressors is on the table even in some EU countries.

  29. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Objectively speaking, would having had a silencer benefited the shooter in this particular situation if they had an escape plan?

    Past events infer that silencers would not really benefit mass shooters as they usually don’t have an exit strategy and their goal is to inflict as much damage as they can before they commit suicide.

    Not to mention mass shooters usually ammo dump so any silencer they would have would likely fail in short order and may even make their weapon non-functional if the failure were significant.

    So yes, unsurprising logic fail from the Clinton clan.

    1. avatar bob uruncle says:

      Mass shooters may dump ammo, however most suppressors are full-auto rated, as such there’s little to no chance of a commercial suppressor having failed during this brutal attack. That being said, it’s highly questionable whether or not a suppressor would have made any difference at all, the police located the suspect via the smoke alarm, and I highly doubt you could hear the gunfire over a live concert, even at the back of the lawn. Once the music stopped and people could hear the gunfire, who cares if you could hear it happening, or where it came from? It’s effectively raining lead, all you’re trying to do is get as far away from that concert as possible, knowing where the gunfire is coming from likely makes no difference in this case.

      It will be interesting to note, if this is a legal full-auto firearm, that this will be the first use by a non-police affiliated civilian using a registered machine gun ever in US history since registration in 1934. Considering it’s Las Vegas, I’d wager there’s as good a chance as ever that this is a legal full-auto weapon. If it’s the more likely scenario of an illegal full-auto weapon, then what are you going to do, make something illegal more illegal? What if the full-auto weapon came from Mexico, will you support the wall?

      Anyone who thinks Stephen couldn’t have rented a moving van and killed just as many people by driving around the sidewalks of Vegas is denying reality. I say this as someone 3 degrees separated from this event, a friend of a friend was wounded at last nights attack. So don’t give me that crap about ‘if you were affected by this attack you wouldn’t feel that way’ bs.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Fun Fact: it would actually be third murder committed with a legal machine gun, in the U.S. A doctor in Florida killed two people with an M16 and a police officer killed an informant with a MAC-11 — both happened well after the Hughes Amendment passed.

  30. avatar DaveL says:

    Keep in mind, everybody’s kind of assuming at this point that the dead and wounded were actually shot. It occurs to me that when a crowd of 30 thousand in a confined area realizes it’s taking fire, people get trampled.

  31. avatar Adam says:

    Wish Clinton would use a silencer on her mouth so we wouldn’t have to hear her shrill voice anymore.

    1. avatar Sir Tri says:

      Suppressors & silencers don’t come in that large a size

  32. avatar Gaston's love child says:

    Well, Hillary would certain qualify as an expert at killing people, wouldn’t she.

  33. avatar MDH says:

    32 stories high with an automatic weapon – and I’m calling it right here – this was full auto fire, absolutely nothing beyond immediately neutralizing the shooter would have made any difference in the death toll.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “…absolutely nothing beyond immediately neutralizing the shooter would have made any difference in the death toll.”

      He neutralized himself.
      Very considerate of him.

  34. avatar million says:

    *cough* sound barrier *cough*

  35. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Go back into your hole in the wall and make some more uneducated comments Hitlery. How many deaths are you responsible for Hitlery?? More then this asshat is Im sure.

  36. avatar Calvin says:

    Your a very sick evil lady hitlary. How disgusting of you to use this terrorist attack to push your anti American socialist agenda, you are a murdering piece of trash!!!

  37. avatar FB says:

    According to police, it was the fire alarms that led the police to the shooters room. Not gunfire sounds.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email