Juliette Kayyem, a former assistant secretary of homeland security, has an opinion piece in The Washington Post about how the mass shooting this week in Virginia Beach by a man armed with a handgun and a suppressor “sets an ominous precedent.”

And whenever we need perspective by a reporter who actually knows guns, we turn to The Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski, who thinks Kayyem might be overestimating the efficiency of a suppressor, or “silencer.”

How does something that is filed with complete gibberish get published? I know opinion sections have some pretty low standards these days but come on. https://t.co/qbUBVRZmyF — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

This person, who bragged about her knowledge of guns, produced this paragraph and the editor who greenlit this piece apparently didn't bat an eye. This is pure gibberish. pic.twitter.com/RTSIGDElda — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

In case that’s cropped or illegible:

Gun violence in America is unique not simply because of our culture but also because we have lawful weaponry that can kill many people very quickly. In terms of death-to-time ratio, single-shot weapons are preferable to multi-round handguns and handguns are preferable to the semiautomatic, and the favorite of mass shooters, the AR-15. It’s a simple calculation of time.

It’s a simple calculation of time, you see, based on the well-known death-to-time ratio.

This person has clearly never actually experienced shooting with a suppressor/silencer. They obviously do muffle the sound of a gunshot but not to the point of sounding "like a chair scraping on the floor." — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

As somebody who has shot suppressed firearms on many occasions, I can assure you the movies and this piece are wrong. Suppressed firearms may be hearing safe depending on the caliber and loadout but the gunshots are still very much audible and still very loud. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

The author actually uses a good metaphor at one point. Suppressors are like car mufflers, exactly like them in fact since they're the same technology from the same inventor. A car without a muffler is much louder and potentially dangerous to your hearing. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

However, a car is clearly still loud with a muffler. Gunshots are the same way but a large degree louder. I don't know how she pushes through that metaphor to get to suppressed gunfire, especially from a .45, to be the equivalent of a chair scraping on a floor. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

Beyond all of that, the argument that if the evil attacker only had a non-suppressed firearm to attack defenseless people the outcome would have been better is extremely dubious. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

The idea that if an attacker had access to slightly less effective weapons the outcome when pitted against defenseless people would have been less tragic is also not new. It's a common gun control argument after mass shootings and could have been articulated far better than this. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

"a suppressed gunshot can sound like a chair scraping on the floor" Huh? How do you figure? None of the ones I've heard. — Dave Wise (@AardvarkSagus) June 1, 2019

What is the probability that the author has ever heard suppressed gunfire? — Robert Woolley (@RandomlyBob) June 1, 2019

There is no chance at all this person has ever heard suppressed gunfire. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 1, 2019

I think that person needs to do her research. Handguns are by far the "preferred" weapon of choice to kill. Rifles aren't used as much, and yet, the AR-15 is the "bad gun". She needs to learn the truth – bad people, not firearms – kill. — Sam Coco (@Sam_Coco_837) June 1, 2019

Hollywood has convinced people that having a suppressor equals total silence. — kelly Borgman (@BorgmanKelly) June 1, 2019

Does this expert think a silencer makes a gunshot inaudible? Well, since she also thinks AR15 is the preferred weapon of mass shooters, she probably does — Karen Y (@IAmSwell) June 1, 2019

She would be surprised to learn that a suppressed 45 is about as loud as a construction nail gun and can damage your hearing over time. — Ben Langlotz ????? (@GunPatent) June 1, 2019

WaPo assigns a non-gun owner to write a story about guns. For the curious…go to an indoor gun range…stand outside the front door and listen. Retort produced by modern day firearms are…deafening. Why use a muffler on a car or a gun…same reason…preservation of hearing. — Bill Krehnbrink (@CoachforPOTUS) June 1, 2019

Yeah I find it funny how survivors heard gun fire, yet the media is crying about “silencers” — Draco Arcane (@Draco_Arcane) June 1, 2019

"it does mean we must continue to vigorously regulate and even eventually ban these devices as essential steps in adopting common-sense gun-control measures." The usually unspoken mantra of the anti-gun clique, applicable to every item they oppose. Unusual candor. — Nick (@muscadyne) June 1, 2019

Wonder when someone is going to point out that getting a suppressor requires a 4-8 month background check that costs 200 bucks and is registered with the Federal government. You Can't buy one period without a NFA background check, No loopholes or anything plus a 4-8 mo wait time. — Sun Zue (@Cho_Zue) June 1, 2019

That's some BS going on in that article. I kept re-reading that death time ratio part and it never made sense. I can't wait to read and hear all the brilliant insight on suppressors and their purpose coming up. — Clyde Marcantel, Jr. (@ClydeMarcantel) June 1, 2019

Wow. This is exceptionally bad. — Pat (@bruc3_wayn3_) June 1, 2019

The entry team was able to locate the shooter by the sound of gunfire. The stupid is strong with this one. — Deplorable Brian (@BDSoCal) June 2, 2019

Can’t demonize the AR-15 in this case, but you can, of course, blame the NRA for “selling” guns and suppressors to anyone who wants them at gun shows. You know, anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much if any regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns … according to Barack Obama.

Related: