Such was the case when Sen. Gillibrand attacked the Hearing Protection Act on twitter this last week
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
The #2A faithful on twitter immediately responded to her slew of misinformation with evidence of how wrong she was. Bob Owens, Editor of Bearing Arms, did a particularly phenomenal job of countering her lies.
Hi @SenGillibrand. You were wrong on silencers, as the entire Internet let you know. Do you think yourself above apology for being wrong?
The Twitter responses from across the right were phenomenal but Gillibrand’s falsehoods were so glaring that they were even called out by the Washington Post. The article is well documented and researched, definitely worth a full read, but I’ve included excerpts below.
The Hearing Protection Act is focused on making firearm suppressors more accessible to the law-abiding public. Buying a suppressor under current law requires an extensive waiting period and $200 tax stamp. For some smaller suppressors, this can be equal or greater to the cost of the suppressor itself.
Congress is preparing to debate the so-called Hearing Protection Act, which would streamline the purchase of suppressors for firearms. To buy a suppressor, more popularly known as a silencer, one must meet a number of requirements that result in a nine-month approval process (including submitting fingerprints and a photograph) and a $200 tax stamp. (A silencer generally costs hundreds of dollars, and can easily top $1,000.) The legislation would make buying a suppressor as easy as buying a firearm (with an instant background check), and do away with the tax stamp and federal registration.
Following their extensive analysis, here is the Washington Post’s reasoning behind awarding 3 Pinocchios to the statements they reviewed:
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.
I would have given a few more Pinocchios but on the whole, WaPo’s analysis is both fair and damning.