Previous Post
Next Post


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  Sensing defeat is at hand, Illinois gun control advocates now cite misleading, outdated information in addition to fears and emotions to oppose the bill.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.

Technology advances.

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  The WashPo directly addressed the  IGVPC’s information, with ShotSpotter’s chief calling it “out of date”.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.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Not to mention that the ShotSpotter technology has been largely proven ineffective, so the point is moot at best.

  2. If you have to lie to promote your agenda then your agenda can’t stand on its own merits. This in turn leads to the conclusion that you have ulterior motives outside of your stated agenda.

    • “This in turn leads to the conclusion that you have ulterior motives outside of your stated agenda.”

      I wouldn’t go quite that far, I feel a more accurate statement would be “implies that you have motives, etc.”

      In my experience, the overwhelming majority of antigun folk genuinely believe their talking points, and make their decisions accordingly.

      If you were speaking only of the upper echelon of the gun control movement, then I agree completely.

      • Take a note from the left. Use phrases like “[w]e all know that gun control is racist, classist and sexist,” from the article above. Constantly paint the gun control and those who push it as supporting taboo agendas in our society. “Gun control is racist. If you support gun control, you must be racist.”

        Almost no one in our society wants to be viewed as racist. We need to get people to think “if I support this, then I am a racist.”

        And it’s not like we don’t have a good argument that gun control is racist. Most of the gun control laws in America have there roots in keeping blacks from owning/carrying guns. Requiring ID to vote has been determined to be racist. If requiring an ID to exercise a fundamental right is racist, the 2A is a fundamental right, laws require the use of an ID to exercise said fundamental right, then the laws requiring ID for purchasing and perhaps carrying a firearm are racist. (Carrying a firearm has not, to my knowledge, been ruled as a fundamental right).

  3. Notice the prop piece says, “criminals sell to prohibited persons”. This isn’t about curbing crime, this is complete and udder removal of tools that make people independent and safer.

    • They believe that the more ready legal availability of suppressors will suddenly make them more attractive to the criminals.

      They don’t seem to realize that if criminals wanted suppressed guns, they already could EASILY make and use illegal suppressors, but somehow this doesn’t seem to happen.

    • The whole message is important. We can’t skim the technical details. If the db rating is provided with comparison noises, then 98% of the population will agree it’s about hearing safety. That other 2% just can’t be mooooved on this issue.

    • “complete and udder removal”
      Please, leave the bovine mastectomy patients out of this. They have a hard enough time with body image and social stigma.

  4. I’m curious to hear what criminal can’t duct tape a soda bottle to a gun, or duct tape a potato on, or get a mag lite and some freeze plugs. If they want it and aren’t afraid of the time they’ll have it quite frankly. I mean shit being a convicted felon, not having a FOID/CCW permit, being under age etc. sure hasn’t stopped them from acquisition of firearms on the south and west sides.

    • Agreed. I remember seeing a Dateline episode when I was a kid that explicitly laid out how a guy made a functional suppressor to kill his dad. That was almost as bad as when the local newspaper had a front page story listing all the ingredients of Meth “in order to scare kids away from doing it.” You can guess how that turned out.

  5. NPR also had a technically accurate, non-pants-wetting piece three days ago…

    It even had vids of four firearms (9mm pistol, .308 bolt-action rifle, 12 gauge shotgun, 5.56 semi-auto rifle) with and without a suppressor.

    “The recording was done about 8 feet from the shooter with a microphone pointed away from the gun, so as not to overwhelm the mic. That makes all of the sounds much quieter than they actually were. For perspective, the quietest shot you’ll hear, the 9mm handgun suppressed, is still about 125 decibels – louder than an ambulance siren.”

    Okay, there was some pants-wetting:

    “This act is reckless,” says David Chipman, a senior policy adviser at Americans for Responsible Solutions and a retired 25-year veteran of the ATF. “And it’s a threat to public safety.” …he says that guns don’t sound like guns when a suppressor is being used. They also reduce the flash at the end of a muzzle. In combination, he says, a silencer could confuse the police or the public during a shooting and allow “an active shooter to not give away their location.”

      • I think it’s because it’s probable that most ammunition used by criminals is supersonic (the bullet exits the gun muzzle at more than about 1,100 feet per second). So…demonstrate the most likely scenario.


        Trying to educate the typical audience about the multiple issues and their differences that are involved with muzzle velocity would more than likely just confuse them. Adding complexity tends to make any demonstration less effective.

  6. This is great marketing. We need more of this. The dumber these people think the average American is, the better for our side.

  7. All Shot Spotter needs is to add the sound profile of suppressed shots (still at 130+DB!) to its library to detect them just as well (poorly) as it does unsuppressed shots.

  8. The messaging of these groups is all over the map. They don’t do anything to save hearing yet they’re so quiet mass murders will take place in public venues and nobody will notice.

    You’d think proponents of Shot Spotter would want everyone to have multiple suppressors so when municipalities ask why Shot Spotter doesn’t work and start demanding their money back Shot Spotter can say “it’s not our fault, everyone is using suppressors!!!”

    • Beat me too it shire -man. Do they not realize how badly they contradict themselves?
      Utter insanity.
      And I’m sorry after the last 8 years of bullsh!t from the atf…. anyone from that organization has no credibility. 25 years there tells me two things…. you are a very good liar, and you don’t have a clue. The national inquirer of government agencies.
      As for suppressors in Illinois, doubt it will happen. As much as I would like it too…. just won’t happen.

  9. It’s not lies. It’s an alternative truth….

    I haven’t seen the paper noted in the image, but will gladly point out the inaccuracies and double speak of said front of as many people as I can.

    Too quiet for Law enforcement efforts to hear?!?! Not as good as ear protection?!?!
    Hollywood shows them otherwise!! It has to be true then, right?

  10. The problem here is that they are partially right. Supressed small calibers are a little louder than a popcorn fart. The spy systems installed in large cities may not register these sounds. Use subsonic small caliber rounds even without a suppresor might not be detected either. The thing is that criminals know about duct taping a 2 liter soda bottle onto the barrel of a small ciliber firearm and they do use it. It is shown on tv on just about all cop shows in at least one episode each..
    Carrying concealed with a suppresor is not very easy. Either you have 2 pieces to keep track of and hidden, or you have one long unit to try to keep concealed. After the deed is done, you want to take it down asap, not exactly what your 3rd grade drop-out gang banger is going to do, especially when high.

  11. I would like to suggest that we stop calling the silencers or suppressors
    The term ” gun muffler” is better
    Everybody knows that cars without mufflers are incredibly loud
    And that you can still hear a car coming when it has a muffler

  12. Very difficult to mount an offense against these anti gun pieces of shit who lie, hide facts, and are just generally immune to anything involving science or statistics. They can die and go to hell.

  13. Why do the libtards always start out opposition to any common sense legislation by saying “it will not make us safer”? Whoever said that laws must make us “safer.” Knowledge of acceptable risk, and accepting it, are way more important than frivolous lawsuits.

  14. But…a “silencer” (gasp!) makes a gun look SO much scarier!!! It therefore has to make guns more deadly. You know…just like all black or camoflage-colored parts, folding stocks, handles, “scopes”, and other evil gun attachments. I’m cowering in the corner and shaking just thinking about it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here