One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

[P@triot]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

 

[Spare_change]

Silencers cannot be used on automatic weapons and are not effective on high powered rifles, this OP needs to stop having an opinion until he addresses his/her ignorance on this subject.

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

Really? I mean REALLY? You are very funny dude.
I know you are going to come out with lousy garbage link.
Don’t you ever check your links if they are credible? Or where it came from?
It came from Tucker a right wing liar bias bullshit. Dude grow fuck up. Stop embarrassing yourself.



Daily Caller - Media Bias/Fact Check

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: The Daily Caller is an American news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Daily Caller produces sensational headlines and has a right wing bias in reporting and has made false claims according to Snopes and Politifact. (7/19/2016) Updated (4/21/2017

When left with no way to refute the post, there are only two avenues of response:

1) Attack the source, and, by association, attempt to damage the reputation of both the content and the poster.

2) Attack the poster, deflecting from the presence of uncomfortable facts.

You have tried both - and failed.

Please refute the facts, the analyses, and the summarizations in the post. If, given your accusations, the data is tainted or fictitious, you should have no problem whatsoever proving them wrong.

Do you have proof that silencers, in fact, cause guns to not be heard? Do you have proof that silencers muffle the sonic crack? Do you have proof that that CEO of Silencer, Inc is providing fictitious, or erroneous, data?

Nice try ---- for a liberal. Shame it doesn't work in the adult world.

I will give you a suggestion, though .... just slink off into the sunset ... you've embarrassed yourself enough.

 

[charwin95]

Silencers cannot be used on automatic weapons and are not effective on high powered rifles, this OP needs to stop having an opinion until he addresses his/her ignorance on this subject.

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts. Did you really read your link or to just look at it? If you didn’t. For your own sake PLEASE read it again.

Clinton NEVER said INAUDABILITY. She never said that. But your link said she said that. That is a lie. Keep reading your link there are lots of false and inconsistencies.

Did you even watch some of the news videos when the shooting was taken place? And the people interviewed? It took them awhile to realized it was semi automatic gun shots. Just imagine if he used a silencers.
Hillary is right——- this sick dude could have killed thousand with if he fitted his big guns with silencers.

Using liberals to counter act with your rebuttal shows you are weak. Why? What is this has to do with liberals? Are you saying most of those attendees are liberals? Are you saying that only liberals has brain? Grow up dude.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)

Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:

Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)

The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......

/—-/ Hey gun grabber, you’ll distort these laws to cover almost anyone to prevent them from owning a gun. Vets all have PTSS so no guns for them. Anyone who denies climate change is mentally unbalanced. Fundamental Christians who are pro life.... the list goes on and on.

 

[P@triot]

And yet he fired guns. Speculation may be a fun parlor game, but it serves no purpose here.

No “speculation” here, buttercup. He owned a pilot’s license. A plane would have killed everyone. Thanks for playing.

 

[P@triot]

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts.

I’ll take someone who “distorts facts” over someone like you - who ignores facts and then makes shit up - any day. At least a person who “distorts facts” has the facts to begin with and has something rooted in reality. Every stupid thing you say is 100% bullshit fantasy.

 

[eddiew37]

I know that this thread will also be trashed by our faithful mods......but I wanted to point out to those few fellow posters on here who still value reality, ONE major difference between the 2 parties (mindful, however, that many elected democrats are also spineless)

Just ask yourself which party almost unanimously backs:

Guns to be sold to folks on the no-fly list
Guns to be sold to folks with questionable mental capacities
Silencers to attach to guns to be sold, with the lame excuse that silencers "protect children's ear drums.)

The blood of the hundreds of killed Americans by automatic weapons are mostly in republicans' hands.......

viva la difference

 

[nat4900]

/—-/ Hey gun grabber, you’ll distort these laws to cover almost anyone to prevent them from owning a gun. Vets all have PTSS so no guns for them. Anyone who denies climate change is mentally unbalanced. Fundamental Christians who are pro life.... the list goes on and on.

Here we see a typical,moronic right winger, who lives in FEAR of someone taking his toys away........LOL

 

[P@triot]

Thank God the American people don’t take progressives seriously. That’s a tragic mistake that other nations have made...

How effective has Australia’s gun control program been? The NRA reported on a University of Melbourne and British Journal of Criminology study that took place 12 years after the imposed ban. The cold, hard facts cannot be denied:

• Armed robberies skyrocketed 69%

• Assaults involving guns rose 28%

• Gun murders increased 19%

• Home invasions jumped 21%

Over and over, the evidence shows that banning guns and imposing strict laws consistently raises homicide rates.

Gun Control: The Four-Part Series

 

[P@triot]

/—-/ Hey gun grabber, you’ll distort these laws to cover almost anyone to prevent them from owning a gun. Vets all have PTSS so no guns for them. Anyone who denies climate change is mentally unbalanced. Fundamental Christians who are pro life.... the list goes on and on.

Here we see a typical,moronic right winger, who lives in FEAR of someone taking his toys away........LOL

As opposed to the progressive pussy who lives in FEAR of an inanimate object...

 

[Spare_change]

Silencers cannot be used on automatic weapons and are not effective on high powered rifles, this OP needs to stop having an opinion until he addresses his/her ignorance on this subject.

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts. Did you really read your link or to just look at it? If you didn’t. For your own sake PLEASE read it again.

Clinton NEVER said INAUDABILITY. She never said that. But your link said she said that. That is a lie. Keep reading your link there are lots of false and inconsistencies.

Did you even watch some of the news videos when the shooting was taken place? And the people interviewed? It took them awhile to realized it was semi automatic gun shots. Just imagine if he used a silencers.
Hillary is right——- this sick dude could have killed thousand with if he fitted his big guns with silencers.

Using liberals to counter act with your rebuttal shows you are weak. Why? What is this has to do with liberals? Are you saying most of those attendees are liberals? Are you saying that only liberals has brain? Grow up dude.

Attack the facts ---- tell us what facts are wrong?

Not 160 dB? Not 130 dB? No sonic crack? You, and Hillary, claim that using a silencer would have meant "thousands" killed because they wouldn't be able to hear the gunshots. I say - and the reference says - you both are wrong.

Prove your point.

As for the liberal comment ---- can't you even read? I said that you had a nice try - for a liberal ... more particularly, for a liberal who has absolutely ZERO facts to back them up ... who doesn't allow their ignorance to stop them from posting a moronic post like yours ... for a liberal who, when shown his error, doubles down, calls people names, tries to discredit the source rather than the content. I have no idea why you would think I was commenting about liberals at the concert. Your reading comprehension definitely went haywire.

You can be absolutely confident that i never said, nor did I mean to indicate, that a liberal had a brain. The Scarecrow did better than most liberals.

 

[Nosmo King]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

 

[Slyhunter]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Limit mass murderers from being mass murderers by limited the weapons they can get their hands on would also make it harder to defend the masses from their government.

 

[BluesLegend]

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts. Did you really read your link or to just look at it? If you didn’t. For your own sake PLEASE read it again.

Clinton NEVER said INAUDABILITY. She never said that. But your link said she said that. That is a lie. Keep reading your link there are lots of false and inconsistencies.

Did you even watch some of the news videos when the shooting was taken place? And the people interviewed? It took them awhile to realized it was semi automatic gun shots. Just imagine if he used a silencers.
Hillary is right——- this sick dude could have killed thousand with if he fitted his big guns with silencers.

Using liberals to counter act with your rebuttal shows you are weak. Why? What is this has to do with liberals? Are you saying most of those attendees are liberals? Are you saying that only liberals has brain? Grow up dude.

Attack the facts ---- tell us what facts are wrong?

Not 160 dB? Not 130 dB? No sonic crack? You, and Hillary, claim that using a silencer would have meant "thousands" killed because they wouldn't be able to hear the gunshots. I say - and the reference says - you both are wrong.

Prove your point.

As for the liberal comment ---- can't you even read? I said that you had a nice try - for a liberal ... more particularly, for a liberal who has absolutely ZERO facts to back them up ... who doesn't allow their ignorance to stop them from posting a moronic post like yours ... for a liberal who, when shown his error, doubles down, calls people names, tries to discredit the source rather than the content. I have no idea why you would think I was commenting about liberals at the concert. Your reading comprehension definitely went haywire.

You can be absolutely confident that i never said, nor did I mean to indicate, that a liberal had a brain. The Scarecrow did better than most liberals.

Liberals are DUMB, if he had used a silencer it would have been 132 decibels...a 100 watt Marshall concert tube guitar amplifier cranked to 10 is 110 decibels.

 

[Spare_change]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Nosmo King]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Limit mass murderers from being mass murderers by limited the weapons they can get their hands on would also make it harder to defend the masses from their government.

Is there's a pressing problem of repressive n happening? Are citizens marched in chains and property burned in their wake? Suspicion of your government and your means to actively fight against the 101st Airborne are not justifications to keep weapons of war from devastating our streets.

 

[Nosmo King]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

 

[Spare_change]

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts. Did you really read your link or to just look at it? If you didn’t. For your own sake PLEASE read it again.

Clinton NEVER said INAUDABILITY. She never said that. But your link said she said that. That is a lie. Keep reading your link there are lots of false and inconsistencies.

Did you even watch some of the news videos when the shooting was taken place? And the people interviewed? It took them awhile to realized it was semi automatic gun shots. Just imagine if he used a silencers.
Hillary is right——- this sick dude could have killed thousand with if he fitted his big guns with silencers.

Using liberals to counter act with your rebuttal shows you are weak. Why? What is this has to do with liberals? Are you saying most of those attendees are liberals? Are you saying that only liberals has brain? Grow up dude.

Attack the facts ---- tell us what facts are wrong?

Not 160 dB? Not 130 dB? No sonic crack? You, and Hillary, claim that using a silencer would have meant "thousands" killed because they wouldn't be able to hear the gunshots. I say - and the reference says - you both are wrong.

Prove your point.

As for the liberal comment ---- can't you even read? I said that you had a nice try - for a liberal ... more particularly, for a liberal who has absolutely ZERO facts to back them up ... who doesn't allow their ignorance to stop them from posting a moronic post like yours ... for a liberal who, when shown his error, doubles down, calls people names, tries to discredit the source rather than the content. I have no idea why you would think I was commenting about liberals at the concert. Your reading comprehension definitely went haywire.

You can be absolutely confident that i never said, nor did I mean to indicate, that a liberal had a brain. The Scarecrow did better than most liberals.

Liberals are DUMB, if he had used a silencer it would have been 132 decibels...a 100 watt Marshall concert tube guitar amplifier cranked to 10 is 110 decibels.

Thank you.

Facts are such a dangerous thing.

 

[Spare_change]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Limit mass murderers from being mass murderers by limited the weapons they can get their hands on would also make it harder to defend the masses from their government.

Is there's a pressing problem of repressive n happening? Are citizens marched in chains and property burned in their wake? Suspicion of your government and your means to actively fight against the 101st Airborne are not justifications to keep weapons of war from devastating our streets.

Actually, it is ....

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Spare_change]

Would a government be seen as ensuring the domestic tranquility by enabling anyone with means to own a rocket propgrenade launcher, a flamethrower, a thermonuclear warhead?

The federal government was never granted the power to “ensure domestic tranquillity”. Nice try though.

Now what does it say to about you that you’re too shortsighted to realize this man could have crashed his plane into the crowd, killing 2,000 instead of 59 and that that is exactly what will happen if your idiotic desire to ban firearms was achieved?

It’s sad that you literally can’t grasp that anything can be used to kill. Anything. And the only thing that will stop a person with a desire to kill is to incapacitate that person.

The Spetsnaz teach that man is the only weapon in the world. Everything else is merely a tool. Your idiotic ramblings would end with the plane being the tool and more dead. And why? Because you insist on replacing logic and reason with emotion.

You really need a course in what we called so many years ago when I was in grade school, social studies. You'll find that precise phrase, ensure domestic tranquility right there in the preamble of the constitution.

As for Paddock augering into the crowd with a plane, consider he did not do that. Rather, he modified an assault rife or two, or a dozen, and fired bullets into the crowd.

I realize you worship at the Altar of the Gun and rationalization and specious speculation is all you have in the wake of this tragedy. But but please try, if you can, to stay with us in reality.

Of course everything, from bannas to bayonets can be used to kill. But killing 58 and wounding hundreds more was done with bullets from guns. That is the topic at hand. Technology has made the rate of fire, and therefore the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another. Stemming the tide of this new, deadly technology is the responsible thing to do, in spite of how cool you find guns to aesthetically be.

Your logic fails ....

1) The preamble of the Constitution is not considered a source of law, so your point is irrelevant.

2) " ... the body count more lethal than citizens should be toward one another ..." Leads me to wonder - just exactly what the body count should be? I mean - is one okay? 10? 15?

3) Clearly, there is already a move afoot in Congress to outlaw the bump stock. Fine. But, do you seriously think that's going to make one iota of difference? Bump stocks can be made at home - by anyone. It ain't rocket surgery.

My position is this:

1) bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shotguns are just fine. Weapons designed as battlefield weapons with an increased rate of fire and large capacity ammunition clips are not.

2) no law is a panacea. Writing a law does not eliminate crime. But throwing up our hands and saying "No law could have prevented this! Therefore, let's not enact laws!" is naive at best, criminally negligent at worst

There will always be crime and criminals. But surrendering to them is irresponsible.

Taking away my ability to protect myself and family from these criminals is unconscionable. When YOU can guarantee my security AND my freedom, you can have my guns.

Until then ....