Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand went out of her way Tuesday to prove she knows next to nothing about guns or silencers.
Gillibrand is currently trying to stop suppressors from being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), and fired off several tweets against the common sense move to protect the hearing of people who enjoy shooting. (SLIDESHOW: Celebrate The Second Amendment With These Gorgeous Gun-Loving Women)
The tweets were soaked with the ignorance of somebody who has spent more time watching spy movies than actually firing weapons.
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.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
Can you imagine if we allowed a criminal with a gun in New York City to attach a silencer to their weapon? It’d be a dangerous mistake.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
I’m fighting back against bills (backed by the Trump admin) that’d make it easy for criminals to buy gun silencers. https://t.co/m1uFZNOBYI
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
Suppressed weapons aren’t like how they’re portrayed in movies. In fact, firing a suppressed weapon without hearing protection is still not a wise move.
Here are a few videos to prove how loud a suppressed weapon can be. Senator Gillibrand might be surprised to learn it’s not exactly how James Bond makes it look.
Having a suppressed weapon is a great idea because it does lower hearing risk, and it might allow easier shooting for those who live in rural areas with neighbors perhaps only a few hundred yards away.
However, it’s naive to pretend slapping a suppresser on a weapon automatically makes you a bad guy with a gun that nobody can now hear.