Hillary Clinton offered her unwanted take on the mass shooting in Las Vegas earlier this week. Fifty-nine people were killed and over 500 injured after the murderer pointed his gun at a country music festival from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. In a pair of tweets, the defeated 2016 Democratic presidential candidate pointed fingers at the NRA and offered a specific recommendation.

PolitiFact decided to test her theory. In a new fact check posted Wednesday, staff writer Manuela Tobias notes that Clinton and her staff provided “no evidence” to suggest that the Vegas shooting would have resulted in even more casualties if a suppressor had been used. Tobias upended Clinton’s narrative with some research of her own. In their analysis, experts discovered that suppressors would not have significantly reduced the sound of a gun blast.

Tobias also explained how a silencer would not have allowed the shooter to better hide himself because a silencer may minimize the flash, but it doesn’t eliminate it. Additionally, a suppressor would not have increased accuracy to the point that would have had a huge impact on the already deadly attack.

Other Democrats are using the Vegas rampage to try and spur a debate on gun control. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), for instance, has proposed a ban on “bump stock” devices, which can increase the firepower of semi-automatic weapons. The Vegas murderer used the device during his rampage Sunday.