Bill Bratton, a former New York City police commissioner, went on MSNBC claiming IF the Las Vegas shooter used a silencer on his gun, ‘you would not have even known this was happening.’
“Right now before Congress — and I will make a prediction for you sitting here — there is a bill to allow silencers that would muffle the sound of a gunshot to be sold openly. Right now, they’re very restricted,” said Bratton.
Host Stephanie Ruhle then asked Bratton what would be a person’s rationale to own a “silencer,” to which he replied:
“The NRA claims it’s to protect the ears of hunters … under the ruse of protecting the hearing of hunters, they’re gonna authorize a device that will effectively silence a weapon. So, imagine if this individual had a silencer on the end of some of these weapons, you would not have even known this was happening. …”
Now, if you’ve been around firearms for most of your life you would know that silencers do not completely omit the sound of gunfire. The job of the device is to reduce the decibel of the fired weapon.
Via Daily Wire: According to Dakota Silencer, a shot fired by a Remington 700 LTR produces a sound that reaches approximately 167 decibels. When a suppressor is attached, that sound is reduced to 133 decibels. An AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel produces a sound reaching 165 decibels. When a suppressor is attached, that sound is reduced to 132 decibels.
For comparison, according to the National Institutes Of Health (NIH), a nearby thunderclap reaches 120 decibels, while a jackhammer reaches 110 decibels. The Center for Hearing and Communication adds that an ambulance reaches 120 decibels.
Allegedly “silenced” rifles are still louder than a jackhammer, an ambulance, or a thunderclap. So no, Mr. Bratton, a suppressor would not, by any means, have made the Las Vegas shooter’s guns silent.
The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm supports the measures, saying suppressors are “harmless and very rarely used in crime” and that the joint bill would end the “cumbersome and lengthy application process.”
A similar measure failed in 2015. But supporters are optimistic this time with President Donald Trump in office.
The GOP lawmakers say the bill aims to “cut through the red tape” of owning a suppressor and, if passed, would remove the accessory from the scope of the National Firearms Act. They also say it would replace the “outdated” federal application process with the “instantaneous” National Instant Criminal Background Check.
What do you think about this bill and the commissioner’s comments? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.