Salon writer Amanda Marcotte first achieved infamy by labeling people defending the falsely-accused players in the Duke Lacrosse case as “rape-loving scum.” She’s a familiar [rhetorical] target in these parts for her shameless willingness to bend, twist and manipulate facts to promote her civilian disarmament agenda. Here’s a fresh example of her work from Silent but deadly: Gun industry eyes a sneaky and dangerous new revenue stream:
NRA leaders have argued that the name “silencer” is a misnomer, because the devices muffle but do not eliminate the sound of gunfire. In May, gun lobbyists invited reporters to a demonstration of guns fired with silencers, to show that one can still hear a firearm’s report. Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s lobbying efforts, argued that the movies distort people’s views of silencers, adding, “They’re not silent.”
Fair enough, right? So fair I suspect that Ms. Marcotte’s Salon editors forced her to include that information. Regardless, the Texan enfant terrible is not one to consider incontrovertible facts an impediment to peddling anti-gun agitprop. There’s no gun truth so truthy that she can’t find a way to bend it to her will.
It’s true that silencers don’t completely silence the sound of a gunshot, but the correct perception that the muffle or distort that sound can be used by kidnappers, robbers or domestic abusers who use guns to control and intimidate their victims. Seeing a silencer on a gun could go a long way towards convincing a victim that the assailant could shoot them without being detected, making the crime victim more likely to comply with an assailant’s demands. It’s also true that the movie images of silencers, accurate or not, are a big selling point with gun customers who are motivated in large part by the glamorization of guns in pop culture.
In Marcotte’s view, someone facing the business end of a silencer-equipped firearm is more likely to comply with a bad guy than a victim looking down the barrel of a suppressor-less gun. And suppressors will stimulate gun sales because pop culture has glamorized them. And that’s a bad thing, not a good thing.
Oy.
To bolster her “argument” that suppressors should remain NFA items, Ms. Marcotte claims “73 percent of gun owners want to keep the restrictions on silencer sales in place.” The poll quoted offers no indication of the methodology used. And here’s the question in question:
[A] Since the 1930s, silencers have been regulated the same way as machine guns and short barreled rifles: to purchase a silencer, the buyer must have a clean criminal record and register the silencer with law enforcement. Do you support the current law regarding silencers, or would you support changing the law to deregulate the sale of silencers?
– Support the current law regarding silencers 73% ….
– 24% Support changing the law to deregulate the sale of silencers
– Not sure 3%
The query stacks the deck by asserting the historical legitimacy of silencer regulation and equating silencers with machine guns. Equally, it woefully mischaracterizes silencer “de-regulation.” If the Hearing Protection Act passes, suppressor buyers will have to go through the same FBI background check as they would when purchasing a firearm.
The good news? Ms. Marcotte reckons the HPA will “sneak through Congress.” From her lying conniving lips to Congress’ ponderous ears. And just in case you thought Ms. Marcotte’s misandry is a thing of the past, she recently Tweeted “I’m not saying ban guns. But maybe ban men from having guns.”