Sen. Kirsten Gellibrand (D., N.Y.) went on a Twitter storm Tuesday against a proposed bill that would make it easier to purchase firearm suppressors, causing the bill's sponsor Rep. Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.) to call her out in his own tweet.
Kirsten first tweeted that, "When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it's quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter."
She then wrote, "How can we end violence in our communities if criminals can get easy access to equipment that'd make it hard for police to solve gun crimes?"
When someone gets shot by a gun with a silencer, it's quiet. Witnesses might not hear. Police will be less likely to track down the shooter.
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
How can we end violence in our communities if criminals can get easy access to equipment that'd make it hard for police to solve gun crimes?
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) March 14, 2017
In response, Duncan offered to take Gillibrand to a gun range to prove that she is misinformed.
.@SenGillibrand this is my bill. You seem misinformed. I'd love to invite you to a firing range to demonstrate them first hand. Interested? https://t.co/Uk0Ky4pZhy
— Rep. Jeff Duncan (@RepJeffDuncan) March 14, 2017
Even the National Rifle Association got in a jab.
Careful, @SenGillibrand. Your ignorance on this issue is showing. https://t.co/lA8q4plL99
— NRA (@NRA) March 14, 2017
Gillibrand's claims say The Hearing Protection Act would grant criminals "easy access" to suppressors, when it would actually require purchasers to "pass an instant NICS check, the same background check that is used to purchase a firearm. In doing so, law-abiding citizens will remain free to purchase suppressors, while prohibited persons will continue to be barred from purchasing or possessing these accessories."
In a white paper recommending their deregulation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives likewise noted that silencers are rarely used in criminal shootings, and because of this, "it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety."