Whenever the media needs to talk to an "expert" on the issue of guns, they tend to gravitate toward those who work for anti-gun organizations. These are people who are paid to help sell the idea of gun control, though, so unless you're just trying to get their take, this is not a place any journalist should be getting their information from.

Unfortunately, they do.

Which wouldn't be a problem if they knew their butt from a hole in the ground.

I missed this over the last couple of days, but Gun Owners of America had an amazing video showing just how little some of these people actually know. This wasn't some random anti-gunner talking to the media. This was the litigation director for Giffords, Esther Sanchez-Gomez, and we got this little nugget from her.

WATCH | @GIFFORDS_org's Litigation Director say that a stabilizing brace "gives" a pistol "more power and more velocity and therefore more lethality." pic.twitter.com/32OjoBFsdY

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 13, 2024

A stabilizing brace gives a pistol more power and more lethality?

What the hell are they smoking in the Giffords offices, anyway?

I ask because that's the only explanation for this.

For non-gun people who might be seeing this and don't understand what's what, allow me to explain. A gun's power and "lethality" isn't determined by where you hold it. Exactly what factors determine it could be an entire post of its own, but they're all part of the firearm itself. Any kind of stock or brace added to such a firearm isn't going to change that.

What a stabilizing brace does is allow people to secure the firearm on their forearm, which doesn't seem like a big deal unless that's the only way you can really handle one of these firearms.

Sanchez-Gomez argues that these can be attached to AR-style pistols, then shouldered like a rifle. This is the only part of what she said that's remotely accurate. However, it's also the most trivial thing one can take issue with.

For one thing, putting a stock on an AR pistol is trivially easy. The stock attaches to the buffer tube that has to be there for any AR-style firearm. You can just swap out the necessary parts in a short period of time and make a short-barreled rifle. Putting a stabilizing brace may have allowed someone to get around this restriction, but those who want an illegal SBR will still be able to have them.

But it doesn't make these weapons more dangerous or more lethal. It's still the same round as it was in pistol form or that you'll find in a full-size rifle. In fact, because of the short barrel length, they can actually lose some velocity over the longer barrel firearms.

Their advantage for criminals is that they're more easily concealable, but so are the handguns they tend to prefer and can get far more easily.

Sanchez-Gomez is a high-ranking official with a leading gun control organization, and she doesn't seem to know the issue with illegal SBRs, with stabilizing braces, or any of it, and we're supposed to take these people seriously?

The horrifying thing is that anyone listens to them at all.