The Corner

Politics & Policy

What ‘Silencers’ (Don’t) Do

(George Frey/Reuters)

About the recent shooting, Juliette Kayyem — “a former assistant secretary of homeland security and is faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government” — has this to say in the Washington Post:

Details of the rampage include one fact unique to the growing list of active-shooter cases: the assailant used a .45-caliber handgun with extended magazines and a barrel suppressor. This small detail — that the loaded gun was fitted with simple, and lawful, “silencing” equipment — threatens to upend how we understand and train for active-shooter cases in the future.

. . .

It is true that suppressors do not quiet guns; industry experts often cringe at the popular reference to “silencers.” Instead, suppressors act like a car muffler — both devices were pioneered by the same inventor, Hiram Percy Maxim — by cooling and dissipating the gases that emanate from the chamber as the trigger is being pulled. That alters the sound enough that the gunshot’s normal sound — a suppressed gunshot can sound like a chair scraping on the floor — is difficult to identify.

A few points here. For one, the fact that this is “unique” to this shooting would seem to indicate that it’s not what we should dwell on when trying to prevent shootings in general, especially given that suppressors are legal in many states, widely available, and regularly used to protect hearing. (Not to mention already tightly regulated.) They’re not some new product that slipped through a legal loophole like bump stocks.

Second, if we’re concerned about other shooters mimicking this, calling it an “ominous precedent” in the Washington Post seems like an odd way to head that off.

And third, about that chair-scraping-on-the-floor bit. Here’s how a fact-checker at . . . the Washington Post . . . described the actual effect of a suppressor on various firearm calibers:

Katie Peters, a spokeswoman for [an anti-suppressor group], supplied an article that stated: “The average suppression level, according to independent tests done on a variety of commercially available suppressors, is around 30 dB, which is around the same reduction level of typical ear protection gear often used when firing guns.”

. . .

Peters acknowledged that gun enthusiasts recommend that even with suppressors, other hearing protection is necessary. Hearing damage begins to occur at about 85 decibels, about the sound of a hairdryer.

. . .

A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer. A .22-caliber pistol would be 116 decibels, which is louder than a 100-watt car stereo. In all likelihood, the noise level is actually higher.

Suppressors reduce the sound of a gun from painfully loud” to “loud but tolerable.” The makers of the “quietest 45 pistol suppressor on the market” brag about getting the sound down to about 129 decibels. And whatever the volume, they don’t sound like a chair scraping on the floor.

I won’t say this never matters when it comes to violence. There may be times when a gunshot is harder to hear over other loud noises, or when it’s harder to tell, from a distance, where gunshots are coming from. But that’s roughly the ten-thousandth thing we should be worried about when it comes to mass shootings.

The Free Beacon‘s Stephen Gutowski has a thread noting other issues with the new Post article as well here.

Most Popular

Film & TV

The Manly Appeal of Ford v Ferrari

There used to be a lot of overlap between what we think of as a Hollywood studio picture (designed to earn money) and an awards movie (designed to fill the trophy case, usually with an accompanying loss of money). Ford v Ferrari is a glorious throwback to the era when big stars did quality movies about actual ... Read More
Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More