Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas - Hallo World !!! News Today in World, In this article you read by title Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas, We've prepared this article well so you can read and retrieve information on it. Hopefully the contents of the post
Article Salisbury News, What we write can you understand. Okay, happy reading.
Title : Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
link : Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
You are now reading the article Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2017/10/sorry-hillary-clinton-suppressor-would.html
Title : Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
link : Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
news-today.world | The tragic massacre in Las Vegas which left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded has reignited calls for gun control. None other than Hillary Clinton called for as much in a series of tweets.
Clinton is referring to the Hearing Protection Act, which would, among other things, eliminate a $200 tax on firearm suppressors. The tweet is transparent political opportunism, but the underlying logic manifests a dangerous and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
The Las Vegas shooting is a tragedy, and a senseless loss of human life. The politicization of such a tragedy, especially so soon after the event, is reprehensible. However, the ideas espoused by Clinton and other gun control advocates are dangerous, misleading, politically-motivated, and necessitate a reasoned response.
At first bluff, Clinton's contention that a suppressor ("silencer" is a misnomer – there is no way to "silence" the delivery of almost 2,000 joules of energy) would have made the Vegas shooter deadlier might seem intuitive. After all, the natural reaction of anyone is to run away from the sound of gunfire. However, two things render her contention inane: echoes, and how suppressors actually work.
Many reports of the shooting indicate the crowd fleeing, and scrambling for cover "amid chaos and confusion about where the shots were coming from." Yes, even though Paddock's weapon was unsupressed, the people on the street were unable to discern where the shots were coming from by the sound. The reason why is clear: Watch any video where the gunshots can be heard, the echoes are equally deafening and bounce off buildings, down alleys, and off the pavement. The chaotic cacophony of urban gunfighting is the very reason law enforcement and the military have depended on sophisticatedgunfire location systems for years.
To put it simply: A suppressor makes little difference in determining the direction of the sound.
Next, the use of the term "silencer" is a signal that the speaker is understandably misinformed about how firearm suppressors work. A typical firearm suppressor will reduce the muzzle report by about 30 decibels.
More/Video
Clinton is referring to the Hearing Protection Act, which would, among other things, eliminate a $200 tax on firearm suppressors. The tweet is transparent political opportunism, but the underlying logic manifests a dangerous and fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
The Las Vegas shooting is a tragedy, and a senseless loss of human life. The politicization of such a tragedy, especially so soon after the event, is reprehensible. However, the ideas espoused by Clinton and other gun control advocates are dangerous, misleading, politically-motivated, and necessitate a reasoned response.
At first bluff, Clinton's contention that a suppressor ("silencer" is a misnomer – there is no way to "silence" the delivery of almost 2,000 joules of energy) would have made the Vegas shooter deadlier might seem intuitive. After all, the natural reaction of anyone is to run away from the sound of gunfire. However, two things render her contention inane: echoes, and how suppressors actually work.
Many reports of the shooting indicate the crowd fleeing, and scrambling for cover "amid chaos and confusion about where the shots were coming from." Yes, even though Paddock's weapon was unsupressed, the people on the street were unable to discern where the shots were coming from by the sound. The reason why is clear: Watch any video where the gunshots can be heard, the echoes are equally deafening and bounce off buildings, down alleys, and off the pavement. The chaotic cacophony of urban gunfighting is the very reason law enforcement and the military have depended on sophisticatedgunfire location systems for years.
To put it simply: A suppressor makes little difference in determining the direction of the sound.
Next, the use of the term "silencer" is a signal that the speaker is understandably misinformed about how firearm suppressors work. A typical firearm suppressor will reduce the muzzle report by about 30 decibels.
More/Video
That's an article Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas
Fine for article Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas This time, hopefully can benefit for you all. Well, see you in other article postings.
You are now reading the article Sorry Hillary Clinton, a suppressor would not have helped Stephen Paddock hurt more people in Las Vegas With link address https://newstoday-ok.blogspot.com/2017/10/sorry-hillary-clinton-suppressor-would.html