search
top

Fact Checkers: ARS Full of It

When even the biased Fact Checkers say you’re full of crap, you’re full of crap. It looks like Gifford’s ARS backtracked with a “Well, it could still make a gun ‘silent’ in really loud places.”

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.

The facts are on our side. There’s no reason for the GOP not to pass this sucker.

11 Responses to “Fact Checkers: ARS Full of It”

  1. Even these corrupt left-wing apologists are letting them have it. Progress.

  2. Whetherman says:

    I just feel like being a PITA for the moment, but if you think these people are so full of crap the rest of the time, why are you so quick to think they’re not, this time? Why wouldn’t they still be lying?

    It always amazes me how lying sacks of offal become Golden Sources of Heaven-Inspired Truth, and unimpeachable sources, every time they agree with us. ;-)

    • Donny Anonny says:

      Feel free to point out where they are factually wrong.

      Kthnxbai

      • Whetherman says:

        Oh, I’m not saying they are, though I might suggest they could have acquired some better data (sound levels in dB with and without suppression) to make their point.

        But more importantly, because I don’t seek to prove them wrong, in this case, I’m not likely to spend any time on it. I mostly like their conclusion.

        But if we didn’t like their conclusion, we’d be searching for every jot and tittle that might be in error; down to their punctuation. And any criticism of their conclusion, we’d accept with the same non-inspection we are applying to them, with the conclusion we like.

        That is all I’m saying, and this was hardly the best example for illustrating it. But the principle has been amusing me for a long time; the opinion of someone who is despised will as often as not, not even be read; until sometime they somehow say something that supports us, in which case it will be echoing up and down the hallways.

        It is a subset of the same phenomenon that makes anyone who can master a few phrases like “enforce existing laws” a Second Amendment Stalwart.

    • lucusloc says:

      You are mixing up cause and effect. We are not believing what they say is true because we agree with it, we are recognizing that they are correct because we knew what they said was true before they said it. Most of the time we know what they say is false, or if they say something we don’t know a lot about we assume it is false due to precedent. In this case we are just pointing out that what Giffords said was so blatantly wrong that a publication that we recognize usually skews left had to drop the pretense and report the truth, because what was said was so blatantly wrong.

  3. There’s a great reason for the GOP to screw this up and not pass it. They like to be the party that talks about repealing taxes and regulations without ever doing it. The dems will vote no just based on a deep hatred of red flyover country and then they can say they’re tough on guns and stupid rednecks who support crime in big cities. This not passing is a win for both parties and we are the ones who get screwed.
    Now the Trump ATF could change the way the $200 is collected, done at the point of sale and sold with a NICS check. Suppressors would become cash and carry like gun purchases in most states.
    I don’t expect this bill to make it to a full Senate vote. The house vote I put at 50/50 chance of getting to the full floor.

    • Whetherman says:

      IMO one thing we have to recognize right now is that with all issues, almost everything will be acted upon according to partisan alignments, with little or no crossover or concern for merit.

      Our danger lies in that polarization. Whichever faction pisses off enough of the population may see a lot of the issues they have embraced, that have some merit, go down the tubes with their other issues that are total bullshit.

      The particular danger is that Trump alone will eventually piss off enough people that he will drag down whatever issues he has given lip-service to, including things he hasn’t actually touched with a ten foot pole.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Most of the “fact check” sites are not completely full of crap, and there are some that are less biased (Snopes) than others (WaPo, PolitiFact).

    Their bias is that if they can spin an issue in a way to that supports the preferred political narrative, they will do so. They will also often conflate fact and opinion, as I’ve pointed out in the past.

    The fact that they couldn’t find a way to spin the suppressor issue is a good indication we have a solid case here.

  5. Whetherman says:

    “if they can spin an issue in a way to that supports the preferred political narrative, they will do so.”

    It’s a good thing no one we know in our camp ever does anything like that. Otherwise, for example, we might help elect people who don’t really give a big rat’s ass about gun rights, but have just learned some fool-proof (and fool-inspiring) rap.

    I know that’s a somewhat different subject, but it’s a subset of the same phenomenon. And I did start this thread admitting I just intended to be a big Pain In The Ass (PITA). But it’s the phenomenon that contributed to our (the U.S.’s) current political scenario. And as I’ve mentioned at other times, I reached a point where I got so tired of bullshit, I even got tired of our own bullshit.

    Otherwise, all intended in the spirit of perverse Good Cheer. ;-)

  6. Chas says:

    The sound volume of various suppressed firearms vs. unsuppreassed firearms cannot be accurately communicated via TV or the Internet. My understanding is that the microphones used aren’t up to the task.
    Most people are not familiar with suppressors, I’m certainly not, having never even seen one, let alone heard one, so it’s a debate taking place in a vacuum of ignorance, where anyone can say anything because so few actually know.
    I would say that the murderous gangbangers in Chicago do not seem to be slowed down in the slightest for lack of suppressors, so what’s the point in sending ordinary gun owners to prison for having them?
    The NFA was a political fashion statement in its time, but is now ridiculously obsolete. Suppressors, pistols with shoulder stocks, and full auto rifles are pretty much obsolete with every police and military organization that thought they were the wave of the future way back when the NFA was passed. All that scary new technology turned out to be pretty ho-hum.

  7. TexasCharlie says:

    Firearm loudness is a feature for the typical gangbanger. A fusillade of shots, followed by sirens and, a few days later, wailing at a funeral, all help them mark their turf and terrorize a neighborhood. I doubt they would use suppressors anymore than they do now.

top