Gun suppressors would be easier to get in Missouri under legislation 39%

By Sarah Kellogg38%

4/9/2026, 4:06:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 484 faulty-reasoning hits from 409 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.3% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,503 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.70% of the article peer group.

Firearm suppressors would be easier to get in Missouri under legislation the House approved Thursday. 
The House voted 95-44 to pass a bill that would allow for the possession, manufacturing, transportation, repair or sale of a firearm suppressor in Missouri. 
Suppressors muffle the sound of gunfire. 
Supporters, like Rep. 
Mike Costlow, R-Dardenne Prairie, say they help reduce the harm the sound of gunfire does to gun owners, including hunters. 
“These devices are very important to protect the ears of our sportsmen,” said Costlow, the bill's sponsor. 
The legislation now goes to the Senate with five weeks of session remaining. 
Democrats repeatedly spoke against the legislation, with many saying that in situations of public safety, hearing gunfire is important. 
“It matters for neighbors who are trying to recognize danger. 
It matters for officers trying to respond quickly. 
It matters for schools. 
It matters for churches, apartment complexes and public spaces where seconds count,” said Rep. 
Kem Smith, D-Florissant. 
People in Missouri can already legally obtain suppressors, but they are regulated by the National Firearms Act. 
That means to obtain one, certain requirements need to be met, like being at least 21 years old to purchase from a licensed dealer and passing a federal background check. 
Costlow, a firearms dealer, said the legislation makes it easier to obtain a suppressor. 
The process to get one now, which he called onerous, is one reason he said he filed the bill. 
“The last time I purchased a suppressor, it took me 14 months before that background check and approval came back. 
That is incredibly long,” Costlow said. 
“It is my understanding right now, two to three months, which is still a long time to be able to take the thing that you own and start to use it.” 
In speaking against the bill, Rep. 
Mark Boyko, D-Kirkwood, said Missourians can already obtain suppressors. 
“This isn't just a bill to give Missourians access to suppressors. 
Missourians already have access to suppressors. 
This is a bill to give felons access to suppressors, and therefore I'll be voting no,” Boyko said. 
The bill also changes the law so that a firearm suppressor that's manufactured in Missouri and remains in Missouri would not be subject to federal law or regulation, including registration. 
Additionally, the legislation bars any state or local government from passing an ordinance that would restrict or ban suppressors. 
The legislation is HB 1730. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic1.5%This article: 4.6%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias7.6%This article: 8.6%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man4.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 4.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma4.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.9%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 12.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question12.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.9%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.8%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote10.8%This article: 2.4%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 2.2%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice2.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

409 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech218writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageMike Costlow • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMike Costlow • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageKem Smith • 10 words • 100.0% coverageKem Smith • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKem Smith • 4 words • 0.0% coverageKem Smith • 14 words • 100.0% coverageKem Smith • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMike Costlow • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMike Costlow • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMike Costlow • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMike Costlow • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageMark Boyko • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMark Boyko • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Costlow

100%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words57% of attributed speech29% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+18.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mike Costlow: 18.5%18.5%Biased Writer Voice-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Mike Costlow: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.