Analysis by Kyle A. Lohmeier
Take a tense string arrangement punctuated by ominous timpani drums as a music bed, mix in the utter lack of journalistic integrity and absolute “progressive” bias of the gals who run Huffington Post and you’ll get a propaganda video that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud; which is exactly what HuffPost has posted here on the topic of the Hearing Protection Act and firearm noise suppressors.
The video clocks in at a minute forty-seven, right in the perfect range of a typical liberal’s attention span when they’re looking to have their confirmation bias massaged. It is a carefully choreographed piece that seeks to juxtapose “disturbing” images of people shooting suppressed firearms with captions that fade in and elaborate on the horror being witnessed. Over the aforementioned ominous soundtrack, the first caption appears: “A new bill would have a huge impact on gun industry profits.”
Hang on, I thought the real bugbear here was all the people who will be silently mowed down in the streets once noise suppressors become more available, not that companies will make more money. Apparently, such concern wasn’t top-of-mind for the women of HuffPost.
“The Hearing Protection Act would deregulate the sale of silencers,” reads the next caption as the shadow of a man screws a silencer onto a pistol, lit through venetian blinds. Nice touch.
Yes, the Hearing Protection Act’s stated purpose is, in fact, to eliminate the National Firearm Act of 1934’s registration and background check requirements and the $200 tax on owning a tube that knocks a few decibels off of the damagingly-loud sound of a gunshot.
Of course, being serious journalists, the gals at HuffPost got an expert to speak on the matter.
“There is legislation pending in congress to deregulate silencers which are currently regulated under the National Firearms Act and require fingerprints and certain standards be applied before the sale of silencers,” said Kristin Brown, Chief Strategy Officer of the Brady Campaign to Miscount Gun Violence, offering a comprehensive analysis of how the NFA relates to noise suppressors and their sale.
“The new law would undo regulations that have been in place for over 80 years,” reads the next caption, which would have been unnecessary if the gals followed news writing style and used the full name of the law regulating suppressors now – the NFA of 1934 – and trusted their readers to do basic math.
Oh, wait, scratch that. The fact that the unjust NFA of 34 has been in place for more than 80 years was meant to be taken as some sort of argument against changing the law. My mistake.
“The market for the sale of silencers is not as big as it could be,” Brown says next, for some reason.
“Silencers cost anywhere from $300 -$1200,” reads the next caption, which would suggest to the lucid that these aren’t the sorts of accessories common criminals are going to be able to afford.
“The new law would also repeal the current tax of $200 per silencer,” reads the next caption, explaining to the average HuffPost reader what “deregulate” entails.
“It’ll be a boon for the industry, but it will be terrible for the country,” says Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT, of course) next in the video. “Silencers are used to commit crimes, they’re used to conceal the fact you’re firing a weapon and there will be more crimes committed, more people killed if silencers are legalized.”
Between 1995 and 2005, there have been exactly two federal prosecutions for murder where the suspect used a suppressed weapon. That Murphy is lying is obvious and not surprising.
“Gun lobbyists argue silencers protect the hearing of gun owners,” reads the next caption.
That’s because they do; if the gun is quieter, it is less likely to damage the shooter’s hearing; that’s just physics and biology there.
“But some gun control advocates find this to be an empty justification,” reads the next caption, bizarrely suggesting anyone should give a shit what gun control advocates think.
Also, notice the very careful meta-messages being slipped in here. The people who like this law are “lobbyists,” those standing up to the gun industry and their profits are “advocates.” Fascists always play with the language, it’s in their nature.
“If you go to a shooting range, what you see is people who are actually wearing hearing protection, hearing protection that actually is available, readily so on the market,” Brown said, pointing out the obvious that in a world where noise-suppressors are regulated and taxed out the ass, most people don’t have them and shoot their guns using typical ear plugs or over-the-ear muffs –as per the posted rules of every commercial range I’ve ever been to. The video shows people wearing muffs and firing rifles at this point.
Now, the video cuts to a man firing a suppressed AR-15 in dramatic slow motion; spent casings arching up and backward as dust and smoke swirl. Then, the tin-foil-hat stuff comes out.
“Gun lobbyists are less likely to mention the more revealing benefits of silencers,” reads the next caption. I’m now on the edge of my seat in anticipation.
“Greater accuracy” the next caption says as 12-gauge-slug-sized holes appear in a silhouette target’s head. Never mind there are no shotgun suppressors and especially never mind the fact that the statement is a bald-faced lie. Subjecting a bullet to many inches of turbulent air in a tube just after it leaves the muzzle does nothing to help its accuracy.
“Clearer night vision,” reads the next caption over an image rendered in the typical green-tinged display of night vison gear.
Yes, anything that reduces muzzle flash will help prevent overloading the sort of really expensive night-vision goggles most criminals never get to wear. Of course, military surplus ammo with chemical flash suppressants will work just as well and are readily available, often for far less money than comparable cartridges made by American companies for civilian use, but one shouldn’t expect the “journalists” at HuffPo to have actual knowledge about the topic they’re covering.
Speaking of journalistic integrity, aren’t we about to the point in the video where at least something like equal time is given to an opposing viewpoint? So far, the only two “sources” cited are on the same side and are either objectively ignorant as hell or are lying.
“The ability to communicate while shooting,” reads the next caption as a guy looks down the scope of an unsuppressed, bolt-action rifle as his spotter looks on with binoculars. Indeed, being better able to hear someone shout “range cold!” would be a terrible way to prevent accidents.
“The gun industry will do better, but lives will be lost,” Murphy says as the video closes with the “HuffPost” logo.
So, no counter-point?
Well, not from the gals at HuffPost, anyway.
Sen Kirsten Gillibrand, (D-NY) tweeted something so idiotic on March 14 that The Washington Post just had to look into it; and the result might just be the best article to ever appear in that paper or its website.
“When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it’s quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter.” Gillibrand said via Twitter.
The Washington Post gave her comment three of four possible Pinocchios, meaning her sentiments contained: “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,” reads a portion of WaPo’s rating scale description.
Unlike HuffPost, the folks at WaPo actually went out and found some scientific data on how suppressors work compared to other forms of hearing protection. It turns out a noise suppressor on the gun works as well as if not better than ear plugs or muffs – taking an average of 30 decibels off of the report.
So, how quiet does that make a suppressed gun? Loud as hell, still. Not for nothing that “Silencer” was originally just the optimistic brand name of the first commercially available item actual gun experts call a “noise suppressor.”
“A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer. A .22-caliber pistol would be 116 decibels, which is louder than a 100-watt car stereo. In all likelihood, the noise level is actually higher,” Washington Post reported.
A spokesperson for Gillibrand tried to do her thinking for her, suggesting that she meant that since gun crimes happen in urban, noisy areas, the little bit of noise suppression a silencer allows will make crimes impossible to solve.
“’While these items/instruments/environments may be louder or as loud as firearms, none carry with them the easily recognizable sonic pulse of a gunshot,’ said Bob Owens, editor of Bearing Arms, which advocates for expanded gun rights,” Washington Post reported, using the ages-old journalistic practice of fairness and equal coverage in reporting. The gals at HuffPost could learn something here.
So, what we have here is, once again, the Left using lies to stir up their ignorant-as-hell base to oppose the natural right of all humans to own firearms and whatever other accessories we choose. Not a single valid logical argument is presented anywhere in HuffPost’s propaganda video and the only true facts given are used as springboards from which to launch into yet another lie. Furthermore, not a single one of the statements made by either of the above Democrat senators is even remotely true.
Of course, no government on earth has any right to tell any human what guns they can or cannot own, but we don’t live in a world that respects individual self-ownership, leaving humankind sadly beholden to the whims of the worst among them – those inclined to be politicians. That the worst humans on this planet would be willing to lie to get their way should surprise no one. Just keep in mind, anyone opposed to the Hearing Protection Act is either a liar or an imbecile. No middle ground.
Leave a Reply