Everytown Buys Anti-Suppressor Ad Spots for D.C. Taxicabs

Everytown for Gun Safety is trying to kill suppressor de-regulation, and as part of that objective, the anti-gun organization announced Friday that it is launching ads in D.C. taxicabs calling on lawmakers to oppose the SHARE Act.

The ad, which you can see below, will run in 2,500 taxicabs over the next two weeks.

“When people hear the sound of a gunshot, they know to run, hide, protect themselves or notify law enforcement – that’s why silencer-equipped firearms in the wrong hands put people’s safety at risk,” said John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety in a press release.

“Congress must listen to the American people, and reject the gun lobby’s agenda to gut silencer safety laws, or any other legislation that puts gun industry profits ahead of public safety,” he continued.

As it’s been said, many, many, many times, firearm suppressors don’t completely silence gunfire, they simply lower it to a more hearing-friendly level.  Much like a muffler does for one’s engine.

SEE ALSO: No, Hillary, Suppressors Would Not Have Made Las Vegas More Deadly

The fact-checkers at PolitiFact looked into this very issue recently, debunking a claim by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that suppressors would’ve made the shooting in Las Vegas much worse.

Here’s an excerpt from the article:

A typical gunshot is around 150-160 decibels, a level that can cause hearing damage. Suppressors can reduce that sound by around 20-30 decibels, depending on the gun, ammunition, temperature and even humidity.

That’s just below the threshold for instant hearing damage. Experts compared the suppressed sound levels to a jackhammer and a jumbo jet on the tarmac 100 yards away. That’s still fairly loud.

It’s important to note that suppressors are intended to lower the sound for the shooter, not the target. Jeremy Mallette, who has researched suppressors for Silencer Shop, estimated the sound of suppressed gunfire would go up 10 to 15 decibels downrange — making the impact of the suppressor even lower for those on the receiving end.

(Photo: PolitiFact)

PolitiFact said that Clinton’s assertion was “False.” The same could be said Everytown’s claim that suppressors pose a risk to public safety.  That’s false.  They don’t.

The SHARE Act, which now contains language from the Hearing Protection Act, the original bill to remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act, has not been scheduled yet for a vote in the Senate or in the House.

Progress on the legislation stalled in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting.  Reports from McClatchy this week, however, suggest that Republicans are “still hopeful” about a floor vote on the SHARE Act and that GOP House members continue to “quietly” advocate for the suppressor deregulation.

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • AK October 13, 2017, 4:03 pm

    Well why not just use executive orders like the last president did when he gave a pass to marijuana users and illegals, the same could be done for suppressors since you could \”grow your own\”.

    • Mark N. October 13, 2017, 7:34 pm

      The President cannot issue an executive order that contradicts a law. The law specifically subjects silencers to the NFA. The only thing that the President could theoretically do is not prosecute violators–but there isn’t an FFL anywhere that will put its license at risk on the possibility that the ATF will not take action to revoke a license or that the DOJ will not prosecute. It isn’t worth the risk.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend