Quote of the Day: Focusing on the Real Problem

“There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire. There is evidence of a public health crisis from gun violence, and we think that’s where legislative efforts should be directed.” – The Brady Campaign’s Kristin Brown in Hill Republicans try to ease purchase of gun ‘silencers,’ as NRA-backed Trump arrives [via foxnews.com]


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Elections have consequences.

    1. And no one really cares what the brady campaign thinks. They don’t matter to Bloomberg and they certainly don’t mater to the NRA let alone the aveage gun owner.

  2. avatar Honzo says:

    Could you please speak a little louder and more clearly?

    1. avatar NikcaP says:

      I’m sorry what did you say?

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Yes, that is Mrs Leary. Did you want to speak with her?

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Kristin, I’d like to extend an invitation to go to the range and educate you on the items you have remained willfully ignorant of all these years. We’ll start with the .44 magnum. Don’t worry about hearing protection, there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      Only criminals need ‘silencers’ and when we don’t use them abutters bitch that the range noise is too loud and try to shut us down.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Didn’t you know that being a good little marxist requires a liberal amount of head-in-arse? They don’t mind that their arguments completely contradict each other.

        1. avatar Mosinfan says:

          Having your head up your arse muffles the sound of gunfire. The same way it blocks truth, logic, and reasoning.

      2. avatar WRH says:

        It’s not the “range noise” they dislike. It’s the range (and the guns).

        1. avatar Doctor Hog says:

          I don’t like the noises they make. Maybe we can find someone to make a “gun control freak silencer”.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          The issue in my town wasn’t the noise coming from the police range, it was the spent .40 cal slugs that were littering the abutting residential neighborhood. This was a situation where the range was a couple of miles west of town–until the town grew out to meet it. There was a protective berm, but the cops were shooting over it during active drills. Around here, it seems the police shoot rapid fire to slide lock (17 rounds), reload and continue as needed.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      Oh, Gov, let me participate, please! I have some nice hot reloads that will be perfect for that. Last time I shot them at indoor range the RO came to ask what’s shaking the building. I would love to see this liar’s face after just one shot

  4. avatar mk10108 says:

    Citing fired police officer Chris Dorners use of asymmetric warfare on law enforcement. “They argue the fatal attacks might have been stopped earlier had Dorner not been using silencers”.

    The exposed underbelly of anti-gun safety speak. If we heard gunfire, we MIGHT be able to stop a mass shooter. History shows, at the sound of gunfire, most officers pull back from the shooter and call for backup.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “History shows, at the sound of gunfire, most officers pull back from the shooter and kill the hostages.”


      1. avatar mk10108 says:

        to add…police get a pass when they’re scared. Gun mufflers may not have awaken the neighborhood.


        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Maybe no criminal charges, but it cost the city $1.5 million in civil damages paid to the two women in the truck–and a new pickup truck. Never heard about the other folks whose cars and houses were perforated.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Reading after action reports and survivors’ media interviews, most people in mass shootings mistakenly interpret the sound of gunshots as beinh anything other than gunshots. The initial sound of gunshots has been described as construction noises, a car backfiring, something having fallen, doors being slammed, firecrackers, etc.

      It’s only when someone sees the shooter, a body, some blood, people running, or hears the screaming, that they figure out what’s going on. Those confirming facts are what convinced them and those aren’t affected by anyone’s use of a suppressor. So use of a suppressor isn’t likely to enhance the effectiveness of an attack.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree. I’ve been shooting since age 13 (52 years). Generally, I can’t distinguish gun-fire from other noises when I hear it outside of an expected context (e.g., at a range). An exception illustrates the point.
        I worked at a bank’s office location in a suburban environment. This is out-of-context for gunfire. One morning, going to work, I heard a couple dozen “bang” sounds at great distance. I immediately recognized the sound as gunfire. It wasn’t the sound of the bangs that was identifying; it was the cadence. Nothing other than gunfire would likely make that pattern of sounds; just like one would hear at a range. A guard confirmed (what I should have recalled); the State police had a range a few miles away.
        Most people won’t recognize a few shots as gunfire; probably not 6 shots. Unless the listener is an active shooter he won’t recognize gunfire until the number of shots reaches a dozen or so and the cadence begins to register as consistent with gunfire vs. some other cause.
        In most “active shooter” cases one is unlikely to recognize the cadence of gunfire. If the time-between-shots is 5 – 10 – 15 – 20 seconds, randomly spaced, it’s hard to recognize as gun-fire. It just doesn’t sound like: Bang-Bang- – – Bang-Bang-Bang – – – Bang.
        So, even if silencers were to make a detectable difference to listeners at hearing distance (which I doubt), gunshots in an active-shooting situation are unlikely to be recognized as such; not even by cops.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          I agree that it can be hard, especially if it is only one or two shots. But this is not always the case. One night it was the sound of two shots fired nearby, loud enough to startle us awake, followed a minute later by shouting and the unmistakable sounds an AR in full auto mode.(It was a police chase that ended in my neighborhood.) Another day it was someone with a semi auto .22 rifle around the bend of the ravine behind the house. And a third time it was the again unmistakable sound of some idiot at the bridge a mile off with a .45 shooting at the bridge lights. (I saw the holes later.)

    3. avatar Pwrserge says:

      I like how they forget to mention that suppressors are already illegal as hell in Commiefornia. How did Dorner get his? Could it have something to do with the fact that he was a cop and thus not subject to the laws for “little people”?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        That would be a 10-4.

  5. avatar Omer Baker says:

    Well Kristin, you and your ilk have spent the last eight years focusing on that and look how far you got. Now sit down and let the adults make some decisions that may actually help people.

    1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

      *80 years. Fixed it for you.

  6. avatar Dale says:

    Funny how the most cited complaint about shooting ranges from the surrounding area is always NOISE.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      But…but…gun ranges are BAD!

      If we let them fix the noise, how are we supposed to drum up support for getting rid of them??

  7. avatar Resident CT says:

    Brady campaign yet again shows how ignorant they are. If they were truly for gun safety they would be clamoring to make suppressors mandatory. What they are saying is like arguing that cars shouldn’t have mufflers because there is no proof that they are harmful.

    Sheer ignorance.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      In fairness I have heard of blind people having an issue with electric cars being too quiet and walking out in front of them. But then when suppressor technology becomes so advanced that they are truly silencers and the blind can’t even hear the sound, then they might have a point.

      1. Because blind people can dodge bullets.

  8. avatar knightofbob says:


    The CDC disagrees. Granted, they are talking about hearing loss from all sources.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The CDC disagrees.”

      The CDC should be the least of their worries.

      I do believe OSHA has an opinion on noise levels and its impact on health and hearing… 🙂

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Further, you cannot buy a non-electric lawn mower without a muffler.

        I could see the antis mandating suppressors on guns, driving the price up and making them more difficult to conceal in the bargain.

        Call it a natural extension of ‘Saturday night special’ laws…

  9. avatar ColdNorth says:

    This illustrates the whole problem with the anti’s mindset. To them, suppressors are dangerous because they are scary. Something is more dangerous because it looks more scary.

    I’m not sure there’s any easy answer to fixing that problem.

  10. avatar Bil says:

    Funny, I got 10% disability from the VA for hearing loss. It’s crazy common in the military for that to be the case. Would have been nice to have simplified access to suppressors (not a 9 month wait and a $200 tax stamp). And yes, we often practiced at the range on our own dime and with our own firearms.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      This is what the special people at the Brady bunch don’t get. Some jobs actually deal with firearms. I may not be infantry or enlisted, but I do train with my weapons on my own time.

      My hearing is screwed up from equipment and I use double hearing protection most of the time. It would be nice to have the affordable option to use a can while training. Also, I live outside of the city limits. I can go into my backyard and blast away. I don’t because I don’t want to irritate the neighbors. It would be nice if I could have a can for going out in the backyard for plinking.

      But, I think everyone should be able to have a can without silly retrictions so they can shoot safely and not have to worry about hearing damage from visiting the range, even with hearing protection.

  11. avatar C.S. says:

    One time, I didn’t put in my ear plugs correctly (it was the flange type, and I didn’t stick it deep enough) I fired a 9mm pistol indoors once and literally stunned myself, the ringing and pain in my head was awful. At that point, I was a dangerous person holding a gun due to total incoherent thought. After that experience, shooting indoors I use earmuffs and often double with earplugs, and generally prefer shooting outdoors whenever possible.

    In a home defense situation, where I wouldn’t have time to wear ear protection, I’m still trying to figure out what’s the ideal. I know longer barrels are generally quieter. I’ve considered a blast shield on a rifle, but a suppressor is the best solution I’ve come up with… I’d want a suppressor for all of my rifles. Suppressors on handguns seems really unwieldy, I’d like to hear other people’s opinions on this.

    I tell most antigun people that the decibel level of suppressed rifles and pistols isn’t quieter than a jackhammer, and no gangbanger is going to be able to conceal a suppressed weapon in his hoodie.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      A friend of mine shot a 5″ or 6″ .357 out a window ONCE. I believe the muzzle might have been inside the house.
      He says it made his ear(s) bleed.
      And his hearing was never quite the same.

      He’s 76 now and wears hearing aids.
      Hard to say whether he’s have hearing aids if he wasn’t a shooter.

  12. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    “There’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with responsible firearms ownership. There is evidence of a public health crisis from gun violence perpetrated by repeat offenders in urban gangs who benefit from weak enforcement of existing laws, and we think that’s where legislative efforts should be directed.”

    I’m sure that’s what she meant to say. Simple typo, no doubt.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      The keys are like right next to each other.

    2. avatar Timmy! says:

      Friggin’ autocorrect!

  13. avatar Ollie says:

    The MAJOR health issues in the US are:

    1. Every 75 seconds, an American is murdered by an incompetent, lazy, careless or just plain stupid health care “professional”.

    2. An insurance system that provides free or heavily subsidized coverage to Dopeheads, STD Transmitters, Drunks, Obese, Couch Potatoes and others with crappy lifestyle choices will never be solvent and penalizes those who take proper care of themselves.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      And insists on idiotic immunizations.against disease spread by the same.

      Immunize BOYS against cervical cancer. A special kind of progtard stupid.

      I wonder if CDC would work to develop an immunization against LGBTQXYZ and then would proselytize to require the shot?

  14. avatar Sian says:

    So does that mean they’re not going to oppose the HPA?

  15. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    She is an example of a person who wants to be uneducated. Who wants to be ignorant.
    She is a fool.

    Ask any military veteran from any branch of service about hearing protection at a weapons range.
    And no, you can’t a file a claim at the VA for hearing loss, since 1980 when they issued me and the rest of my basic training unit out ear plugs. That’s when the VA stopped excepting hearing loss claims.

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Last I checked, Tinnitus is still 10% disability. I also got hearing aids issued from the BAS about half way through active duty. I think what did it was being behind ~six M2 machine guns all banging away at the same time, each one of them is over 200Decibels. Ear plugs at best give you a 10-20Db reduction and they can issue ear plugs all they want, damage is still damage.

      Just like pages going missing from medical records, they try to bullshit you through your final medical, dental, etc. They try to bullshit you again telling you that you can’t claim anything for hearing loss. In a few weeks I’ll suck the green weenie one last time. Yes, I know I can be a ‘no show’ and nothing will happen, at worst, OTH discharge from the IRR. Drill pay is still pay and $200 will cover quite a few things since I work for myself now.

    2. avatar Arc says:

      Last I checked, Tinnitus is still 10% disability. I also got hearing aids issued from the BAS about half way through active duty. I think what did it was being behind ~six M2 machine guns all banging away at the same time, each one of them is over 200Decibels. Ear plugs at best give you a 10-20Db reduction and they can issue ear plugs all they want, damage is still damage.

      Just like pages going missing from medical records, they try to bullshit you through your final medical, dental, etc. They try to bullshit you again telling you that you can’t claim anything for hearing loss. In a few weeks I’ll suck the green weenie one last time. Yes, I know I can be a ‘no show’ and nothing will happen, at worst, OTH discharge from the IRR. Drill pay is still pay and $200 will cover quite a few things since I work for myself now.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        This retired CH 47 crew chief has occasional ringing in the ears from the APU noise.
        Im glad they are taking csre of you.

  16. avatar explainist says:

    the behavior of antis is precisely the behavior of creationists: start with an established belief, try to mold perceptions and facts to match that preexisting belief

    rational thinking: If your theory does not match reality, believe reality and come up with a new theory

    irrational thinking: redefine words to suit your needs and pretend that this behavior alters reality. which is how you come up with 51 genders that can not be identified by anatomy, men who need to use the ladies room, inanimate objects causing violence and a political party that claimed it had 91% of the electoral votes before the election screaming for elimination of the electoral college after the election,

  17. avatar Burner says:

    That whole sonic boom thing just goes over their heads

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I remember those days. We lived near the Glenview Naval Air Station north of Chicago, and for a while there the booms and rattle were fairly frequent. In the earliest days, they’d break windows if they were flying too low.

  18. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Deep down, I’d guess she sees hearing damage (or other harm) to gun owners as a feature.

  19. avatar Defens says:

    I’m gonna have to disagree with Ms. Brown. There are millions upon millions of citizens who regularly shoot firearms, and of that number, very few of them can hear any sort of cogent argument being advanced for more gun control. Most of it sounds like gibberish when articulated by anti-gun spokeslibs – so either it really IS gibberish, or our hearing has been compromised by shooting. Which is it?

  20. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    ? Apparently, having your head up your butski provides a certain amount of hearing protection on its own!

  21. avatar Doctor Hog says:

    The current freak out from the usual suspects on gun control surrounding the Hearing Protection Act has clearly revealed, even more starkly than things they’ve argued before, that they are not interested in guns but only in control.

    They know less about silencers than they do guns. Less about what they are, how they work, how they are used and who uses them. Their opposition to them is clearly for no other reason than they don’t want the POTG to have anything they don’t like. There is no rational argument that silencers pose any danger to anyone yet they claim, again, that blood will run in the streets if we loosen restrictions. Its ridiculous.

    What else can we conclude from the fact that they want to maintain restrictions on a harmless item? At least with guns they can scream that we should regulate them because they’re dangerous. How, then, do you come up with an argument for the restriction of the access of a free people to something harmless?

    Clearly, they just want to restrict our rights, any rights, any way they can. It has nothing to do with public safety or health. Their approach is to shout “No!” in response to anything anyone who opposes them wants.

    This current argument about silencers makes it more clear than any previous argument about firearms, their types, features and uses that it is not the guns they hate, its freedom.

  22. avatar Soylent Green says:

    Typical liberal thought process, “if I don’t think it, it’s wrong”. We need to divorce them from the word “liberal” and instead call them the “one way” crowd.

    Dear Kristen, go choke on a broom handle.

  23. avatar MarkPA says:

    It occurs to me to ask: Why regulate silencers as “firearms” under the GCA? What is it about a silencer that distinguishes it from a flash suppressor or muzzle break? We don’t regulate flash suppressors nor muzzle breaks; they are merely “accessories”. Why regulate silencers at all?

    I readily acknowledge that by moving silencers from the NFA to GCA we accomplish 3/4 of the goal of de-regulation. 3/4-of-a-loaf is better than none. And, we should gratefully take this bill as-is rather than insist on 100% de-regulation.

    Nevertheless, we ought to point out that we are being magnanimous here in conceding that we are willing to live with silencers under the GCA; at least for a while. We can point out that it is nonsensical to regulate silencers at all. After 10 years (or so) of silencer-regulation under GCA we should have the data to show that silencer regulation doesn’t accomplish much, if anything. (After all, we don’t see cops demanding that flash suppressors or muzzle breaks be regulated now.)

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      They regulate flash suppressors in California (and I assume a few other states). Here, add one to an otherwise featureless AR style rifle (fixed stock, no pistol grip), it suddenly becomes an evil “assault weapon.” On the other hand, muzzle brakes are good to go, unless the manufacturer advertises its flame suppression qualities. (And no, I can’t explain it.)

  24. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    My question for Paid Shill Brown:

    We have no crushing lack of nonsense in the chatter-sphere, so what’s the health crisis demanding we allow you to type?

    I mean, aside from trying to encumber peaceful responsible people practicing a hobby you disapprove of with physical harm, on top of the legal jeopardy you (and the rest of Bloomies Battalions) have already attached. Legislation by other means after you lost (repeatedly). You can’t win fair and square, so cheat. (Isn’t there something about that in the news lately? Anyway, moving on…)

    I get it. This is what you’ve got. Seems like a job not worth taking, but that’s just me.

  25. avatar Bill says:

    That’s weird. One of the main reason they shut down my favorite shoot range was the noise pollution.

    F-ing gun grabber.

  26. avatar Mr Bad Example says:

    I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of my crippling tinnitus.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      Will somebody please ANSWER THAT PHONE!

  27. avatar Mike says:

    Every vet can tell you that gunfire causes hearing loss. But, you don’t have to know a vet, just run a search online for ‘noise induced hearing loss’ and there’s a ton of stats. Any prolonged exposure to sound above 85 decibels causes hearing loss. So, when the ATF charges $200 for a tax stamp on every suppressor purchased, it’s an unjust tax. It’s absurd to pay an extra $200 fee to protect you own hearing. When I use my suppressor; I can still hear the gun fire, it just changes the sound slightly so it doesn’t make your ears ring at target practice. Website for reference: https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/noise-induced-hearing-loss

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