Silencer Ban Considered More Important
Than 'Gun-free-zone' Abolition

By George Devinney. June 10, 2019

Since a gunman murdered twelve people at the Virginia Beach Municipal Center on May 31, we have seen the predictable 'same-old same-old' collection of ant-gun posturing. "Enough is enough - we must act now" said Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris said she was "sick and tired of senseless violence", which is a common prelude to seeking (even) more 'gun control' measures. Perhaps the most egregious example of 'jumping on the band waggon' has come from VA Gov. Ralph Northam, who among a broad slew of planned bans also includes silencers.

From The Boston Herald:

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nominee, noted that the killer used "silencing equipment," which she thinks demonstrates the folly of loosening restrictions on such accessories. "The sound of gunfire can save lives," she said.

So-called silencers, aka suppressors, do not eliminate "the sound of gunfire." On average, they reduce the noise generated by a .45 ACP pistol (the kind used in the Virginia Beach attack) from around 157 decibels to something like 127 decibels, which is still louder than a siren or a thunderclap. It's not surprising, then, that "most law enforcement experts say" the Virginia Beach shooter's suppressor "likely had no bearing on his ability to kill so many people in so little time," as The Associated Press noted.

The Virginia beach perpetrator, who thankfully was given little media exposure, used regular handguns (and not "assault" style weapons), apparently having obtained these legally but the mere mention of 'silencer' was enough to increase the 'hype' factor. No amount of 'gun control' would have prevented this murderer.

One voice of reason it's reputed, came from Andrew Pollack who lost his daughter Meadow in the Parkland shooting, stating that lawmakers should be putting efforts into banning 'gun-free-zones' instead of looking to ban silencers. Indeed, it is elimination of 'gun-free-zones' which should be front and center instead of the usual calls for bans, but that logic escapes those seeking to only infringe on rights.


Back to Top