If you’re looking for someone who knows what the hell they’re talking about when it comes to guns, you’d be hard-pressed to find someone better than the Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski. But Shannon Watts thinks she knows more. She does not, in fact, know more. And she certainly doesn’t know never to bring a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

Let’s set the stage first. Earlier today, Gutowski shared one of Donald Trump’s recent comments regarding banning silencers:

New: When asked if silencers should be "restricted," President Trump responded "I don't like them at all." https://t.co/DTB4hHKWfJ — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Since “silencer” is a made up liberal/movie term, I doubt anyone knows what they are. — Pouncing Coder (@lightguy10) June 3, 2019

It's not. The term was created by Hiram Percy Maxim who invented the devices. It's also the term used to describe them in the NFA and the name of the most popular manufacturer, SilencerCo. Many prefer the term "suppressor" because it better describes what the devices do, though. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

To the point about silencers/suppressors/mufflers, here is an early ad from Hiram Percy Maxim's company announcing they'd developed a special "silencer" for Ford cars. pic.twitter.com/S2wKwBu7Rr — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

The conversation shifted to a discussion of silencers and suppressors, and it served as a pretty accurate illustration of gun control advocates’ ignorance with regard to the things they’re trying to ban:

Can you idiots that know NOTHING about weapons just shut the fu knup please? Thanks — Ray Sexauer (@SexauerRay) June 3, 2019

You might try doing any research at all before tweeting at somebody, bud. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

"Suppressor" is more accurate than "silencer" since the devices merely suppress the sound of gunshots instead of silencing them. However, their inventor called them "silencers" and so does federal law. The most popular modern manufacturer is called SilencerCo. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

It's also the term most people associate with the devices. So, personally, I'm more concerned with how they're described than which of the two terms people use to refer to them. That's where I see a lot more problems. Silencers/suppressors do not work like they do in media. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

*movies — Rufus T. Firefly ?? (@hoggomcswineass) June 3, 2019

Movies, tv, video games, and a lot of news reports. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

It amazes me how many people believe that one can fire off a few rounds with a suppressor and someone standing 10 feet away won't hear it. — Rufus T. Firefly ?? (@hoggomcswineass) June 3, 2019

John Wick 2 is a great example of how movies/tv push that absurd idea for entertainment purposes. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Silencers/suppressors merely muffle the sound of gunshots (they're literally the same technology as car mufflers and were invented by the same person). They do not make guns silent, just like car mufflers don't make cars silent. This is the key point to understand. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

They are also very highly regulated and have been since 1934. They are regulated under the National Firearms Act in the same way machineguns are. The only real difference is new sales remain legal. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

they don't turn the report of a gunshot into a near audible squeaky sound? — Cigargoyle (Baldoino) (@Cigargoyle_) June 3, 2019

They do not. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

To own a silencer is already very difficult. You can’t just go buy one — Cam Mashburn (@cammashburn) June 3, 2019

That is true. They are regulated in the same way as machineguns. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Silencers reduce a guns noise to a stealthy quiet while suppressors only knock it down enough to preserve hearing, big difference. There's no grounds to slash it, they are NOT the same. — John C. Jacobs Jr. (@Flashmx1) June 3, 2019

This couldn't be further from the truth. Where did you even get this absurd idea from? "Silencers" and "Suppressors" are terms for the same devices. One term ("Suppressors") is simply more descriptive than the other since they don't make gunshots silent. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Because I've been around guns, gun shows, military weapons demonstrations and I have a licensed suppressor and seen many silencers demonstrated as obviously you have not. — John C. Jacobs Jr. (@Flashmx1) June 3, 2019

It's people like you that cause confusion about firearms term which leads to bad policy and bad laws. What you said isn't remotely true and your too ignorant of the facts to know it. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Here is a picture of me shooting a shotgun equipped with a SilencerCo suppressor during an American Supressor Association demo at the NRA range. I'm happy to read any piece of literature you can find backing your assertion that "silencers" are some kind of magic super suppressor. pic.twitter.com/CSHDW8ZKTO — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

No, it's people like you that will cause them both to be banned together as the same thing when they are not. — John C. Jacobs Jr. (@Flashmx1) June 3, 2019

Do some actual research and get back to me. Try reaching out to the American Suppressor Association and see what they tell you. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

I have a suppressed rifle it goes bang, I've seen a silenced .45 that goes phfft, you are a troll or some other creature with a agenda. — John C. Jacobs Jr. (@Flashmx1) June 3, 2019

Come show me this magic silencer you've come across and I'll go ahead and write up a story on it. Tell me, what company makes this device you've supposedly witnessed? — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

I saw it at angun demonstration at Fort Lee Va. when I was thirteen, 59 now, it was an assassin's pistol and not on the market, green wrinkle finish, quick break down and cry he action made more noise than the report. — John C. Jacobs Jr. (@Flashmx1) June 3, 2019

Can you articulate what you believe the difference in technology is between the silencer demo you witnessed as a kid and the suppressors of today? — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Well anyway, apparently Shannon Watts decided that what this conversation had been missing was her amazing insight. So she offered it up on a silver platter:

Silencers diminish gunshots by 20 to 35 decibels; Virginia Beach witnesses said they thought shots were a "nail gun" or coming from outside the building. Also, you fail to mention that the @NRA tried and failed to deregulate silencers, thanks in part to police orgs that opposed. https://t.co/ZdU8PIV94U — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

Unfortunately for her, she was way out of her depth. As usual. But in the ensuing conversation with Gutowski, she managed to make herself look even worse than usual:

I didn't "fail to mention" anything since the legislation you're referring to hasn't passed and isn't current law. Current law strictly regulates silencers/suppressors. Do you have an actual critique of anything I said in this thread, Ms. Watts? Because I don't see one. https://t.co/EAavEQb0ZU — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Yes, silencers/suppressors reduce the sound of a gunshot but they are only so effective and are still extremely loud. Louder, in some cases, than a jackhammer or jet taking off. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Also, as you can see from this story on Virginia Beach police scanner activity, the gunfire was clearly recognizable. "Still actively hearing gunshots." "Shots fired, Shots fired. Second floor." "We still have the suspect shooting through a doorway."https://t.co/ytsaxu5llS — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

It is nice that Ms. Watts has unblocked me, though. Up to this point she'd had me blocked even though we'd never interacted on Twitter before now. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

She’s very generous that way.

Errors of omission and a convenient regurgitation of @NRA talking points. But then, you didn’t win the Gun Rights Policy Conference "Journalist of the Year" award for nothing. https://t.co/VFduxWTNsp — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

I've reported extensively on the the effort to partially deregulate silencers so the idea I'm trying to hide that effort is odd. You're right I don't win that award for nothing, though. I won it for my fair and straightforward reporting which has quoted your organization often. https://t.co/Xsejob3XMJ — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

I won that award for the same reasons I was featured on the cover of Time Magazine or profiled by The Washingtonian or invited to speak as part of NBC's Meet the Press Film Festival. It's because I'm knowledgeable and I strive to be fair to everyone I report on. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Quoting all sides doesn’t make you unbiased. https://t.co/SQIdza4GEA — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

That's true but, if your complaint is that I'm covering up the existence of the Hearing Protection Act, I don't think your argument holds water.https://t.co/AmvKj1MxHlhttps://t.co/KUTToRk8gwhttps://t.co/i7RFwoNPSMhttps://t.co/FRdCSnq6Za https://t.co/KRDftxJViH — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

What Shannon failed to mention was the context of the "nail gun" comment. The reason given for that one witnesses confusion, wasn't the use of a suppressor. pic.twitter.com/Gm2Xyj80Kt — Duke (@somethingldsay) June 3, 2019

None of these articles point out the @NRA fallacy of deregulating silencers to protect hearing, explore the potential dangers of deregulation, nor mention the concerns of major law enforcement organizations. https://t.co/OAhQie2lUk — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

You are literally quoted in one of those stories, Ms. Watts. Ought I have quoted somebody else to represent the opposition to the bill? Just because I don't write my stories like they're press releases for your organization doesn't mean I'm not fair or accurate. https://t.co/otHDqQNM2p — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Oh, snap!

If anything, @shannonrwatts, I was too kind to you in this piece since part of your claim is demonstrably false. Despite what you claimed, the Hearing Protection Act wouldn't "make it easy" felons to buy suppressors since that would remain illegal. https://t.co/i7RFwoNPSM pic.twitter.com/oCz2QEg7dX — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

I should have pointed out your blatant falsehood to my readership. Perhaps you should focus on not misleading your followers instead of attacking reporters, though, @shannonrwatts. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

She should … but she won’t. She’s Shannon Watts, after all.

Thanks for quoting me Steve! Still doesn’t explain why you didn’t point out the @NRA fallacy of deregulating silencers to protect hearing, explore the potential dangers of deregulation, nor mention the concerns of major law enforcement organizations. https://t.co/UZYPhaDpmL — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

So, you believe that silencers reduce the sound of gunshots to the point where they become undetectable but also that they don't reduce the potential hearing damage caused by unsuppressed gunfire? How do you reconcile those questionable and contradictory beliefs? https://t.co/9ZDisfXj0d — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Hey Steve – I have other things to do today besides debate @NRA apologists. You can find the answers in my twitter feed. — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

She’s too busy and important to be held accountable for her misinformation and lies.

As any reporter interacting with you has long known, answers from remotely critical questions from you are few and far between. I expect better public conduct from an official spokesperson but I'm not surprised that I didn't get that from you. https://t.co/gAEUTzCIIX — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

My God – This is so painful. Are you telling me the esteemed reporters you interact with from outlets like @NRA TV and the Washington Times don't think highly of me? And now I'm persona non grata with the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON, too? Excuse me while I go apply salve to my wounds. https://t.co/ZUBlkCaglZ — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

She actually could use some burn cream right about now.

My reporting has been cited by every major news outlet in the country and reports from all of them have reached out for advice but I do agree that your display is painful to watch. https://t.co/lpso9GqIUF — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Sure, Jan. — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

Bless her heart.

The New York Times just cited me a few days ago. Here you can read it in this Washingtonian profile of me. https://t.co/AIdTGMrQ6Q — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Reading is for serious people who are actually interested in having serious discussions. Shannon Watts is not a serious person.

You've also been on @NRA TV multiple times. Keep it. — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

Well, your twitter account was also promoting my reporting just last month. I guess I wasn't just a shill back then? ? https://t.co/aXCn7mgRmR pic.twitter.com/pkzaR1oUYm — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

The best she can do is bravely run away. And you know what? If we were her, we’d run away, too. Gutowski thoroughly mopped the floor with her. And she earned every bit of that beatdown.

I'm not here to do your bidding or anyone else's. I'm here to report the news on an important and undercovered issue. That's never going to change. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

***

Update:

The humiliation of Shannon Watts continues apace:

Weird. No response this time. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

I was glad to have your exclusive insight into the @NRA’s Board meeting implosion. All those dinners and interviews with NRA spokespeople really paid off for you. You were still a shill – just a shill with access. https://t.co/oPmt1q8ZFf — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

Are you going to respond to my question about your contradictory positions on what you believe suppressors actually do or no? You said you were too busy before but then here you are continuing to attack my reputation without provocation so clearly wasn't true. https://t.co/3ljppv5h1Y — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Let's make this exchange productive, @shannonwatts. What do you propose doing with silencers? Do you want them banned completely? If so, what do you propose to do with the more than 1.4 million already legally owned? — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Steve – How many interviews did you do on @NRATV before @DLoesch put KKK hoods on Thomas and Friends figures, and how many afterward? This tally will help us determine your journalistic integrity. https://t.co/TOuEShby0V — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

My work speaks for itself and has been recognized across the political spectrum. I have appeared on NRAtv, in Time Magazine, on Fox News, on NPR, and countless other media outlets. I do interviews with people of all viewpoints. Now, will you please answer my policy questions? https://t.co/uH4uXsURbU — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

She won’t do that … but she will keep digging:

In fact, proceeds from my new book, Fight Like a Mother, will go to gun violence prevention organizations. To learn how @momsdemand became the largest grassroots organization in the nation, buy my book on Amazon or at a local bookstore near you. https://t.co/Uunx6afbj5 — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 3, 2019

By what measure is Moms Demand Action the "largest grassroots organization in the nation," Ms. Watts? https://t.co/nLZrj18CZO — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Moms Demand Action claims to have "more than 5 million supporters" and "more than 350,000 donors" on their website. They have about 750,000 Facebook likes and 237,000 Twitter followers. I don't understand how that gets anywhere close to the largest. https://t.co/Lpy13xfvtY — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

For comparison, the NRA claims they have more than 5.5 million dues-paying members–that's people who have paid money to join the organization. They have about 5 million Facebook likes and 760,000 twitter followers. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Their claimed supporter numbers are still smaller than the NRA's claimed membership numbers. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

And the NRA isn't the biggest org out there, though it is large. — Rquebus (@Rquebus) June 3, 2019

Yes, that's true. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Let's take a look at the financials of Moms Demand Action to see if they shed any further light on this claim. Moms Demand Action is part of the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, a 501(C)(4). Their 2017 form 990 shows total revenue of $35,741,537. https://t.co/IpZIQ8xHup — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

That's down by $17,143,175 from 2016 but pales in comparison to the National Rifle Association of America (The NRA's own 501(C)(4)) which brought in $311,987,734 in 2017. https://t.co/sZpkoUbmgv — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

So, yea, in 2017 the NRA's (C)(4) brought in $276,246,197 more than Everytown's (C)(4), of which Moms Demand Action is only one part, did. In other words, the NRA's (C)(4) was more than 8 times the size of Everytown's in 2017. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

As far as I'm aware, we don't yet have 2018 financial documents for Everytown or Moms Demand Action. However, if you want to read the NRA's 2018 annual report to members, which includes more than just their (C)(4), then read my latest story: https://t.co/78QzCix8x5 — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

So, I would really like to hear Ms. Watts explanation for how Moms Demand Action is the "largest grassroots organization in the nation" given all this. It appears clear the group isn't even the largest grassroots organization focused on the gun debate. — Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) June 3, 2019

Better grab a Snickers … it could be a while.