Top Headline Comments 1-24-13

As an update to yesterday's post on the gun experts at the Chicago Tribune, they've issued a correction of sorts.

It's pretty funny itself. Take this, for instance:

In our description of the flash suppressor placed at the end of the gun’s muzzle, we said the device breaks up the explosion that results from firing the gun. We also said that “some find the suppressor controversial as it could also make the flash from a shot less visible, allowing a shooter to conceal his position.” One very knowledgeable and articulate reader took issue with that statement, as concealment is not the suppressor’s primary function — it’s a safety device to prevent fires. We never said it was the suppressor’s primary function, only that it conceivably could make a shooter more difficult to locate, which is why it’s controversial.

No. No. No!

The reason flash suppressors are "controversial" goes back to the definitional problem of "assault rifle" vs. any old semi-auto rifle and the original assault weapons ban.

According to the Dems, this is an assault rifle:

... and this isn't:

Both are centerfire, semi-auto rifles with detachable box magazines, but only one of them looks scary to liberals.

So in the original assault weapons ban, the Dems threw in a laundry list of cosmetic features that distinguished an "assault rifle" ... pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, etc. Any 2 of them, and you had an "assault rifle".

That's it. That's the source of the supposed controversy about flash suppressors. But bayonet lugs kill dozens every week. Google it!

posted by Andy at 06:32 AM

| Access Comments