After Stephen Paddock carried out a massacre in Las Vegas on Sunday, there were a lot of opinions about what happened.
One of the most discussed comments came from Hillary Clinton. And it wasn't without controversy.
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.
Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.
Clinton's two-sentence remark backfired big time, though. The largest critique of them all came from a surprising place — PolitiFact.
On Wednesday, PolitiFact dissected Clinton's claim.
First, the publication said:
Our research shows that a suppressor would not have made a difference in the Las Vegas case, because of the positioning of the weapons and because of the distance of the shooter from the crowd. Clinton's staff provided no evidence to suggest a different outcome.
But it gets worse for Clinton.
If the shooter's aim was to lower the sound emissions, the room could have better trapped the noise, according to Tom Satterly, the director of development for Asymmetric Solutions, a firearm training firm based in Missouri.
“If you hang your weapon outside of your window the muzzle blast is going outside,” Satterly said. “If you back in — a foot or farther — a lot of that sound is absorbed into the room. That’s what snipers do when they’re trying to hide their position.”
Suppressed or not, Mallette said adjacent hotel rooms would have heard the sound very loudly.
Then the CIA weighed in, too.
“Which brings us to our next point: Langley also pointed out that silencers make shooters less detectable in the dark. The flash hider that comes with a silencer is designed to minimize the flame the shooter sees coming out of the barrel, which can blind night vision goggles for a couple of seconds. But while it minimizes the flash, it doesn't eliminate it altogether,” PolitiFact said.
PolitiFact rated Clinton's claim as false. Ouch.