Deafening Bull S***

Moms Demand Action has ratcheted up the anti-suppressor rhetoric.

Except they are wrong about the background check issue, as the proposed law would make suppressors subject to a 4473 NICS check, just not an NFA tax stamp.

Of course, being a far Leftist organization, it’s not just guns that are the problem, it is profit.  Why allow gun companies to make profit?  That’s twice as evil.

The worst argument against suppressors is that it will prevent ShotSpotter systems from working.

ShotSpotter doesn’t work, and cities like Charlotte and Miami have spent huge sums of money on a system that “doesn’t work.”  When it was tried in the UK, it recorded over 1,600 false positives.  According to ShotSpotter, Birmingham, UK had more shootings than Chicago in a month.

This is the single dumbest argument against suppressors I can think of.  So, of course, Moms is going to run with it.  With any luck, the validity of the ShotSpotter system will come into question and all the data that the antis use that comes from that will go out the window too.

 

7 Replies to “Deafening Bull S***”

  1. “The only reason to have a silencer is to be able to commit a crime more easily.”

    I think the latest information says 1.2M registered suppressors, but yet we don’t have 1.2M assassinations with suppressors. In fact, I can only recall one registered suppressor being used in a murder, and that was Dorner.

    Last year I was doing some research and it seemed that once a week, someone was charged with, or sentenced for, possession of an unregistered suppressor, but the suppressors weren’t actually used in a violent crime. Also, if I’m not mistaken, CA led with the most arrests for possession of an unregistered suppressor. Though, I might be confusing that with possession of an unregistered ‘assault weapon’. The CA felons have turned to making their own guns and suppressors, in violation of CA’s strict gun laws, and contrary to the laws of the United States.




    2



    0
  2. That “the only reason” argument is just as much hogwash as the similar argument against “assault weapons” [sic].
    The only thing wrong with the pending law is that it should treat suppressors like any other accessory, such as a holster. Requiring a background check is absurd.




    2



    0
  3. The shotspotter argument is actually a lie. Shotspotter’s own FAQ says they can detect suppressed gunfire the same as unsuppressed.
    I can’t say I’m surprised the demanding moms lied.




    3



    0
  4. ShotSpotter is a fake technology! San Antonio also spent lots of taxpayer $$ on it and is now dumping it, because it does not work, in spite of glowing reports from leftist rags like WIRED Magazine.




    0



    0
  5. I’m OK with the suppressor being treated as a “firearm,” IF it’s like the AR-15, 10/22, etc. With firearms, you can buy one, or you can legally make your own, provided it’s made for your own use.

    I look forward to 80% suppressor kits.




    2



    0
  6. ShotSpotter has only proven to be an overly expensive and ineffective program. One report I read showed a cost of over $600,000.00, but only resulted in 4 arrests/convictions. The same report announced that the program would be trashed because of its ineffectiveness.




    1



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .