!!

Hello, Guest!

You are viewing the GunLink forums as a guest.  CLICK HERE to register for the forums and unlock more features, hidden forums and the ability post in topics, vote in polls, see poll results and more.

Tandemkross

Author Topic: Even Washington Post doesn't buy the anti-silencer propaganda  (Read 1160 times)

Offline masfonos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • Karma: 9
Dem NY senator Kirsten Gillibrand and some anti gun group sent out a couple of tweets about how useless and evil silencers are and WAPO called them out on their BS and gave them 3 Pinocchios. 

If WAPO can't be convinced that silencers make guns quiet or undectable or make them so "shot spotter" systems can't find them, I call it a win.  Hopefully people pay attention to this.  Maybe it will get people on board with the HPA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/20/are-firearms-with-a-silencer-quiet/?sf64366373=1&utm_term=.fd2b6fd4b834

Quote
The Pinocchio Test

We can understand the irritation of gun-control advocates about legislation with a benign-sounding name such as the Hearing Protection Act. Clearly the main impact of the measure would be to loosen restrictions on the purchase of suppressors that have been in place for decades. It would be better called the Paperwork Reduction Act, especially because the use of suppressors does not mitigate the need for hearing protection.

But that title does not give opponents the liberty to stretch the facts.

It’s debatable that ear plugs protect ears better than a suppressor — and meanwhile, no self-respecting gun owner would use an AR-15 rifle without ear protection, even if he or she had a suppressor. Certainly the two in combination would provide better ear protection than one type alone, especially because the NRR of earplugs in regular use is probably overstated. So ARS’s tweet is rather misleading.

In the meantime, although the popular name of this accessory is a silencer, foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

Three Pinocchios



3 (out of 4) Pinnocchios:  Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.

GunLink Discussion Forums


Log in or register to disable this ad