Mere hours after a lunatic ended the lives of 58 human beings, Hillary Clinton took to Twitter, not to mourn with the victims’ families, but to attack the NRA.
“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted at 9:03 am on Monday, October 2. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 2, 2017
Hillary’s shameless politicization of tragedy comes as no surprise.
The Hearing Protection Act, which would make suppressors available to those who can pass a background check, is one of only two major pro-gun pieces of legislation currently being considered by the U.S. Congress. As an emotionless cyborg, Hillary couldn’t pass on the chance to attack whatever GOP-backed legislation happens to be hot.
Her criticisms would have been more effective, however, if they were based in reality (they aren’t).
A new report from Politifact, a nonpartisan fact-checking organization, has this to say about Clinton’s statement:
“A suppressor would not have made a difference in the Las Vegas case, because of the positioning of the weapons and because of the distance of the shooter from the crowd. Clinton’s staff provided no evidence to suggest a different outcome.”
Suppressors suppress the sound of a gunshot; they don’t silence it. Politifact points out that even a suppressed firearm produces a sound approximately as loud as a jackhammer, especially when shooting high-caliber rounds like those used by the Las Vegas gunman.
NRA: ‘We Did Not Say Ban, Confiscate Bump Stocks’
In addition, suppressors work to lower muzzle blast volume for the shooter, not those downrange. Jeremy Mallette, who has researched suppressors for Silencer Shop, told Politifact that the sound of suppressed gunfire would go up 10 to 15 decibels downrange. While the sound of the gunshots would have been slightly reduced, it still would have been audible from the concert venue.
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Twitter)
Other anti-gun proponents point out that suppressors reduce muzzle flash. Since it’s nearly impossible to tell where shots originate based on sound, the muzzle flash allowed concert-goers to identify the threat and run away.
But Politifact notes that suppressors don’t eliminate muzzle flash altogether. Concert-goers still would have been able to locate the source of the gunfire. What’s more, flash hiders are already available via the open market. If the shooter thought a flash hider would have helped him inflict more damage, he could have purchased one online.
The fact that the shooter chose not to use a suppressor — even though he likely could have acquired one — gets at the heart of the Politifact report. The Las Vegas shooting was so deadly because the shooter was close to his targets, and they were packed in a tight urban environment. A suppressor would have made only a marginal difference in this case, which makes Clinton’s remarks even more heinous.
A word about flash suppressors. They do not suppress muzzle flashes that hide the shooter. They suppress the muzzle flash from the shooter’s point of view so the shooter isn’t blinded by it at night. The next time you see the muzzle flashes at night from a firearm in your favorite show, especially a fully automatic weapon, you might notice the muzzle flash is actually more distinctive than the muzzle flash from a firearm with out one.
As for Hillary’s comment about suppressors, she might as well said if the shooter were chewing spearmint gum there would have been more deaths. They would both make the same difference in deaths – none.
You’re wrong on so many levels regarding suppressors. A suppressed rifle would not have dropped the death role at all. Fish in a barrel.
Suprressors reduce the accuracy and reliability of automatic weapons. Some of the gases are returned to the receiver, pollute all the mechanisms and overheat the entire system. Also the excess weight of the suppressor acts on the barrel. If the suppressor were used, the victims would be less than a dozen lives.
This poor old hag is a has been looser. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES ANYONE GIVES A RATS ANUS WHAT SHE SAYS?
You stupid bitch. go stick your head down a hole and maybe we will all go away and it will be a perfect Clinton world, hookers included for the both of you to ravage !!!
Just read a news article saying that our favorite anti-gun Bitch might be accepting a job as a Professor at Columbia University. Ain’t that a sobering thought? A platform that She can use to poison Young Minds about how Evil!Guns and their owners are!Get ready for more Bullshit!
PHD = Piled Higher and Deeper. She qualifies. Too bad she will indoctrinate so many little minds of mush in the process.
For the love of GOD lady, just GO AWAY!
Lady?!?!?!?!? Who are you talking to????? 🙂
What Lady? Surely You ain’t calling Hilldabitch a Lady!
Unfortunately many people, millions in fact, will take what Hillary tweeted as fact. Our society is terribly uninformed and too lazy to get informed. They’d rather get their info on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram
Ain’t that the truth? They live in Cyberspace!
By the way,that B–ch don’t tweet. She sounds more like a Sick Crow! Know what I mean?
Doc Loch, how you make your point will always allow you to “win” the debate. Of course the gov. can’t stop every law breaker. But I believe part of it is what kills faster. Forums are filled with militia types advocating for effective ways to defend ourselves from OUR military who happens to have a lot of full auto weapons in 5.56. But I didn’t get my SKS, my AR, my ccw’s, my truck gun and my wife’s share because I’m afraid of our gov. I have all this because of the prolific amount of guns out there. Now having them we do enjoy working on them and practicing. As I did with my more “mundane” hunting rifles and shotguns that I have had since my youth. All my legal gear won’t save me from a dead on cheap cowardly shot. But the death count COULD have been lower if he hadn’t had bump stocks. I believe there are sacrifices at the line drawn between oppression and anarchy.
Doc Loc, well said. It’s a sad thing that reading and comprehending don’t go hand in hand.
Just wondering if the lost velocity from using a suppressor could have saved a few lives
Actually, the increased effective barrel length will add a small amount of velocity (a few %). Though with a high powered cartridge, that makes a negligible difference in terms of lethality. Its like comparing a 308 and 30-06. Same bullet, slightly different velocities, both are nearly equal in terms of range and lethality.
Plus, for those who watch movies and play shooter video games, which always seem to indicate a suppressor equals reduced damage, velocity and/or power. The reason the game designers do this is because they base the game mechanics on using sub-sonic ammunition with the suppressor to achieve better sound dampening and to give a negative effect within the game to offset the positive effect of using the suppressor. In real life, you simply fire standard rounds instead of sub-sonic rounds and there’s no negative impact on accuracy or velocity.
\”especially when shooting high-caliber rounds like those used by the Las Vegas gunman.\” \”The Las Vegas shooting was so deadly because the shooter was close to his targets,\” I don\’t care what side of the argument a person is on, I expect truthfulness. The gunman (according to all information available thus far) was using a .223 or 5.56×45 round. This is in no way high-caliber, but rather the very smallest with the exception of the 17 hmr and MAYBE a .22 LR. The distance was by no definition \”close.\”Now, that said, the worst problem with this is the failure to stick to the debate and falling into the logic trap of the usurpers. The argument NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN what is legal and what is not. The argument NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN what kills better and what does not. The argument NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN will persons kill more with a more effective weapon or will they not. The latter is the logical argument that the author has taken on, and he will loose.The argument really MUST BE: Can a law be passed that stops, prevents or inhibits lawless people? The argument really MUST BE: Have the laws to-date stopped the killing since they were passed? The argument really MUST BE: Can we un-invent the gun? The argument really MUST BE: Is there any place at all for government to fix anything!? How have then done so far?
To comment on the article of why the act was so deadly, besides the 2 points made, a faster rate of fire had to contribute and should’ve been mentioned. You don’t have to be accurate with a higher rate of fire when you’re “close” and shooting into a packed crowd. Both sides of the isle sanitize info at times.
Anytime someone makes a comment to the news media, they should fist declare how much they know about the subject, before they start spewing nonsense out of their other large opening they have. Just as the public has been brainwashed into saying “clips” instead of “Magazine” they are being taught to use word “silencer” instead of “suppressor”, but thats holywood for you.
David B
dumbascraps are to dumb to even know how dumb they are ! NOTHING SILENCES AN OBJECT TRAVELING OVER 1050FPS AT SEA LEVEL ! IS\’T CALLED BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER !
There is no law that says you actually have to know anything about what you talk about or even tell the truth to run for President. If there were, we probably wouldn’t have elected anyone in the past 10 years. Of course, given how many deaths Presidents have been known to cause, maybe there should be a law against people running for office lying or talking about things that they know nothing about. Spending a couple of decades in a hard supermax prison might be good for her.
Precisely! She and most people for that matter don’t know this.