In a prior posting on Federal Firearms Laws, I mentioned that I am in the process of writing a book about firearms for newbies and anyone who wants to learn more about guns. As I said in one of my comments on that article, I really like the book that Nick wrote last year. It was clear, concise, and loaded with a lot of good info. I’m not trying to improve on his work – like that’s even possible – rather, I’m covering a lot more ground to really give newcomers and experienced hands a one-stop reference to the whole firearms culture . . .
One of the section of my book is going to deal with gun control myths. I’m interested in filling that section out and am wondering what the Armed Intelligentsia has to say on the matter. I’ll start the discussion off with a couple of my favorites. Please help me with this and I promise to credit those additions that I include.
So without further ado here is what I have so far:
According to the most up to date statistics as of this book’s publication date, the percentage of homes that have at least one gun ranges from 32% – 45% depending on the survey. Gun sales may be up every year, but recent surveys would suggest that a large portion of those sales are to existing gun owners simply increasing their collection. It’s clear therefore that as a gun owner, you are in the minority.
While adding new gun owners to the community is certainly an important and worthwhile goal, it is more important to convince our fellow non gun-owners that citizen ownership of guns is not the threat that the Gun Control crowd paints it to be. Anti-gun proponents are very passionate with their respective messages and sometimes specifics and accuracy is overlooked (or outright ignored) in their quest to ban firearms. There are a number of myths that I have often heard repeated on television and in print. As a gun owner, you are an advocate for guns to your family, friends, and acquaintances. This section will help you identify and correct some of the misconceptions surrounding guns.
People can buy guns over the Internet without a background check.
Partially true. Federal laws dictate that all firearms that cross state lines must be sent to a Federally Licensed Firearms (FFL) dealer in the state of the buyer. The buyer must then present himself/herself to the FFL, complete the BATFE Form 4473 (Background Check) and go through the state mandated online criminal records check process. From the perspective of the gun purchaser, the process is no different than if they had gone to a gun store and purchased a gun from that dealer.
For intrastate transactions, the rules are bit more complicated as the Federal government does not have the Constitutional Authority to regulate Intrastate Commerce. State laws dictate what process must be followed for intrastate firearms sales and these laws do vary considerably from state to state. Furthermore, the laws are often different for handguns versus long guns (rifles and shotguns) with the laws covering handguns more rigorous.
So, depending on the laws of your state, it may in fact be perfectly legal to conduct a firearms transaction over the Internet. Just because you can however does not mean that you should. In most cases, you should at the very least make the transfer face to face and if you don’t know the person you are selling your gun to, it might not be a bad idea to go through a FFL to get a background check done.
One other note – weapons that fall under the Curios and Relics definition (more on this later) can be sent directly to a Curio and Relics license holder without a standard FFL. I’ll talk about what a Curios and Relics FFL holder is in the next section.
40% of Guns are sold without a Background Check at Gun Shows (The Gun Show Loophole)
Misleading. The gun control crowd likes to quote the statistics regarding the high percentage of guns that are sold at local gun shows and to further suggest that these sales enable people who wouldn’t be able to pass background checks to get their hands on a gun. First of all, most of the vendors who frequent gun shows hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL). As holders of FFLs, they are required to conduct a background check before a gun is transferred irrespective of the venue in which the gun is sold. This means that FFLs at gun shows must subject buyers to the same background checks they would otherwise undergo if they bought a gun from the FFL at some other venue.
What is true is that there is no Federal law that requires private sellers to conduct a background check if they sell a gun to another person. There are however many state and local laws that regulate such sales. As an example, in the state of New Hampshire, it is illegal to sell a gun to someone that you know is a “prohibited person.”
Prohibited persons are defined in USC 922(g) and additional prohibited persons are defined in New Hampshire state laws. You can transfer a long gun (rifle or shotgun) to any other New Hampshire resident, but to transfer a pistol, the buyer must either be “personally known” to the seller or else must produce a valid New Hampshire pistol permit. New Hampshire is a very easy state where it comes to resident to resident transfers. Other states such as neighboring Massachusetts, not so much. It is critical that you familiarize yourself with local and state laws before engaging in any firearms transactions that don’t involve a FFL.
That’s what I have so far. What are your faves?
The good ol’ Kellermann “study” that said you are 43 times more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than a criminal if you own a gun.
Yeah, I hear the whole “You’re more likely to be killed by your own firearm…” thing more than many others.
This is #1 hands down, no argument. The study was flawed IMO. Either that, or every single gun owner I know is somehow luckily in the minority or are doing it wrong, because none of us has ever shot or killed a family member or ourselves.
So, wouldn’t the logical extension to this argument be to allow everyone that wants to own a gun, do so? in the long run, that would eventually eliminate all the gun owners,,,a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.
my favorite/ least favorite is that 3 10rd mags will save lives vs 1 30rd mag.
Guns are a substitute for a small peenus.
I dont like any of them
That I am 100 times more likely to be killed with my own gun during a DGU than the bad guy. That one cracks me up. The actually had the nerve to teach that to me in elementary school.
This was the first myth that popped into my mind.
My favorite?
“relax, nobody wants to take your guns away! Don’t worry!” (followed by a dissertation that taking guns away would instantly erase violence forever, and should be done immediately)
+100000
Relax, no one wants to take your guns away. Except the President, VP, Senators, etc.
You can have too much ammo.
+1
Only if you are on fire or drowning. Otherwise, there’s no such thing as too much.
black talons are teflon coated and will go through body armor
I have a box of those in 9mm, and even Winchester admitted that there was nothing special about them. but the press that black talon ammo got from the “cop killer ammo” stories made them valuable as trade items during gun related deals. I traded 1 box of 20 rounds for 70 assorted rounds of 38 and 357 ammo from a guy that i bought a revolver from,
The teflon coated cop killers were called Black Rhinos, of which there was a company who annouced the bullet and then nothing ever happened. There is evidence that the company was setup by antigun organization to smear ammo and gun makers
The entire NFA…
“It’s clear therefore that as a gun owner, you are in the minority.”
“As a natural right not subject to…” we all know that quote so I won’t attempt to paraphrase it here. The point is that this right is not subject to democratic process and so, even if we are the minority, how is that relevant? And can you show me any significant portion of the supposed majority who, in the face of a dangerous situation, would not be glad to have one of our minority nearby and willing to help?
Hmm I wonder if we’re still in the minority if you exclude all of the prohibited person’s.
I question your setup statement, that survey’s “prove” the tremendous increase in gun sales is only caused by us “bitter clingers” buying more guns. I have read some serious challenges to that, no don’t have a cite.
But it goes hand in glove with, “The NRA is a dying organization.” while the NRA reported “membership grew by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut”
But you may want to research that whole idea further. Especially considering it is a favorite quote of the anti crowd. Right after 90% of the population supports gun control. If they said the sun will rise tomorrow, I would have to find my own sources to prove it.
“You can rely on the government to protect you.”
It should be a self-evident myth…but I’m just sayin’ 😉
____________
The 2nd amendment applies only to militias and only to period-correct weapons.
Not sure if that qualifies as a ‘gun myth’ but its certainly myth’ical (see what I did there?)
__________
Take any statistic that anti-gunners like to use (the famous 90%, etc) and tear apart how the actual survey was conducted.
Anything that has it’s for the children attached to it. Like mag limits save lives….
+1
The idiocy of the gungrabbers is especially apparent when they claim they’re just doing it for the kids.
Myth: reducing gun violence makes people safer. People talk constantly on the gun control side about the need to reduce gun violence. Hell, I’d like gun violence to be reduced, too. What rational person wouldn’t?
The problem is the unintended consequences of a net reduction in the number of firearms, particularly through widespread confiscation or elimination of the legal right to own entire classes of firearms.
Gun grabbers LOVE to compare the gun violence rates between the US and the UK. How about we all concede that where there are more guns, there are more gun crimes. That’s not much different than saying where there are more airplanes or automobiles, there will be more aircraft crashes or car accidents. Sort of a no brainer.
No one on that side of the equation connects the dots between gun violence reductions through eliminating firearms and the overall rates of violence itself. Sure the US has more gun violence than the UK. Duh! We have more guns. But the UK has almost 4 times the violent crime rates of the US. In fact, the UK is the second most violent country in Europe, with Russia being number 1. That means more home invasions, more assaults, more battery, more kidnapping, more rape, more homicides. How does that make anyone in the UK safer? They experience 4 times the violent crimes as people do in the US.
Myth: Gun violence is epidemic and tearing this country apart. Truth: no it isn’t. Homicides from 2010 numbered slightly over 11,000. Yes, it is too many, but medical mistakes kills 100,000 people in the US yearly, at a minimum. How about a more factual representation of the true risk of homicide by gun in the US, a factual representation of true risk rather than perceived risk. Good grief, the gun grabbers even refuse to believe overall violent crime in the US is at a 40 year low! Not us saying it – comes from the FBI – but they don’t buy it.
Hope this helps. Good luck!
Add to this some more information on how restrictive the gun laws are in Russia… It’ll only help to reenforce the point…
Silencers go “fwp fwp fwp” and are used all the time by totally bad-a$$ assassins skulking through the night.
And they work on revolvers!
That cosmetic features on a firearm add to its lethality. That’s my favorite followed by the old semi automatics “spraying bullets” myth.
Ya the spraying bullets myth is my favorite. If they were talking about some sort of water gun then I would agree with that phrase.
How about this one:
“IF you own a gun and someone breaks into your home or attacks you, “studies show” that you are in far more danger of the bad guy taking it away from you and killing you with it than of you are of being able to use it self defense.”
I love that one. My anti daughter actually quoted that to me as a “well known fact” in one of our “warmer” conversations on Civil Disarmament. I asked her to show me the stats. She couldn’t find any, zero, zip. Why was I not surprised? Its pure BS to be sure but, she still believes it. So, help me out here.
Looking forward to the finished work. Thanks
every day show her a dgu story.
Ha!
IF she would read them.
She doesn’t like to be confused by facts on this issue. It’s a purely emotional thing with libs.
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.
I absolutely hate this one… I have extensively trained in the military and as a civilian in martial arts in various ways to disarm an assailant with a gun. It is something done ONLY as a last resort and can be extremely difficult to accomplish if you don’t know what you’re doing and even then it’s risky. Am I to assume that a street thug w/o any training is going to be able to pull a Jackie Chan out of his @$$ and take my firearm away from me?
That brings the myth that taking a weapon from someone is easily accomplished into a very stark relief I’d think…
“low information” voters.
Busted Myth: that anyone can buy modern machine guns in America. I had to school my wife’s anti-gun step-uncle on this. After I reposted a meme on Facebook about requiring Syrian rebels to go through the same bullshit that us Americans have to to buy vintage and antique machine guns he comments to the effect of “Duh. What do you mean. I see them for sale at Fleet Farm.” Not only did I have to tell him that Fleet Farm isn’t licensed to sell machine guns of any kind in any state but I had to point out that WI state law prohibits possession of machine guns and that the “assault” rifles he sees for sale are only semiautomatic.
I like that according to brain dead imbecile fascist gun grabbers a small 5.56mm AR can shoot down planes and stop short of blowing tanks up.
My favorate myth? “GUN” violence.
Oh and I do like ragging on Mayors Against “ILLEGAL” Guns.
Maybe thoes arent technically myths but they work for me.
Another favorate is that the pro gun lobby is too powerful. That they and the gun manufacturers control the people. Because you know, its not painfully obvious that the NRA would be powerless without the support of its memebers.
^^^ This.
I writhe in torment when I hear people in the media declare that a particular piece of anti-2A legislation has been defeated solely by the power of the NRA. These people deny the reality of a genuine pro-2A segment of the population save those incorrigible “gun nuts.”
For my part, I would be defending the 2A as I do whether or not the NRA existed.
People don’t kill people, guns kill people.
this is true if the gun jams during a potential dgu and the home owner cant get a shot off because they bought a sigma.
My sigma has never malfunctioned and neither has my sons. But as a matter of course i don’t rely on just 1 gun to protect me and mine.
You need to register your guns.
No so in most states. Its so pervasive it made an episode of “Longmire” which is set in Wyoming. The last time I looked, Wyoming wasn’t a stupid blue state that requires gun registration. Its all over other TV programs as well.
You can easily buy a machine gun at a gun show.
Not so. This actually was promoted by a couple misinformed congressmen which watched a Youtube video from Al Qaeda.
You are more likely to be harmed by your gun than defending yourself.
Again not true. Badly formed studies and suicide stats were skewed to make conclusions.
Yep that bothers the shit out of me as well – “the Hollywood gun registry.” Apparently most writers aren’t aware that there is not national firearms registration. Most generic TV crime dramas will include some bit where they access “the gun registry” to see where Joe Criminal bought his gun – since, you know, criminals play by the rules.
PS I assume you’re Cyrano from TFR. This is “incredibull”. Got kind of bored of that forum. I think I’m getting too old. 29. Ancient.
“What’s Your Favorite Gun Control Myth?”
The underlying implication espoused by grabbers that honest law abiding gun owners are somehow responsible for the gun violence in this country and should therefore be unjustly restricted and prohibited in their use and enjoyment of firearms irrespective of the 2nd Amendment protections.
All the rest has become boring dribble used to misinform the uninitiated.
OOPS Hal already covered this one. Thanks Hal.
Go forth and debunk!
I have known a few criminals in my time, an all of them were for gun control. Logic being they would rather defend them selves from a ball bat armed home owner than a gun armed home owner.
I think there is a myth that it takes years of experience to learn how to be safe with a firearm.
Being safe with a firearm is a matter of following a couple of very simple black and white rules. It takes no skill like being safe with a motorcycle or aircraft. Is this breaking one of those rules or isn’t it?
Being safe with a firearm get’s confused with being a proficient shooter. We all know it takes a ton of practice to become proficient but almost all of us learned how to be safe within the first 10 min of being exposed to a firearm for the first time.
Suppressors being silent.
Guns ALWAYS go off when they are dropped and almost never does the discharge avoid hitting someone in the vicinity.
Unlike the military style AR – muskets, lever guns, and revolvers were not designed for the milityary or as weapons of war.
The second amendment was only written because everybody knew that the musket was a pretty mundane firearm despite being the weapon of choice of the most advanced and powerful military forces in the world.
One of the talking points used against firing ranges in Chicago was that when people with guns got together, they shot each other. That was always my favorite because it was used in court to a panel of judges. I think it was the 9th right around McDonald. Hilarious when I heard it!
The entire list of Hollywood myth I can come up with:
1. The weaver stance is the only stance you should adopt. It makes you look badass like these guys on TV yelling “FBI!”
2. Shooting with one pistol in each hand is super efficient. But how do you reload? (Scarlett Johansson does look hot in The Avengers. Or is it the skin tight outfit?)
3. It’s a clip, not a magazine.
4. It’s a buller, not a round or a cartridge.
5. Silencers go “Pffft! Pffft!” (as someone already said) and they are by the way illegal everywhere for that reason. Only contract killers and special forces own them.
6. Guns make all sort of clickitty sounds when you point them or just pull them out of the holster.
7. Safe action pistols emit the sound of a hammer being cocked when you point them.
8. Magazines emit the sound of a hammer being cocked when you insert them.
9. Everything sounds like a hammer being cocked anyway.
10. Lasers are the best target designation system. Proof is that 100% of special forces, commandos, SWAT team members use one.
11. When lasers are pointed at you, they always dance on your chest.
12. Magazines (sorry, “clips”) have all an infinite capacity. Never ever is anyone shown actually reloading his firearm (insurance, probably?)
13. Only mentally deranged crazy snipers reload their ammo. They usually live alone and have PTSD.
14. When you rack the slide, not only do you have to pull it, but also push it forward.
15. If you get shot by a shotgun, or any hunting caliber, you are sure to fly backwards a few feet and through windows but the shooter barely experiences any recoil.
16. If you shoot at something really solid, like an alien from Krypton, at close range, the bullets will immediately disappear after striking their target and never ricochet or hurt you back.
17. Shooting at an engine block at close range is perfectly safe and is sure to destroy it.
That a so-called “assault weapon” can only be used for one thing: TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE!!
Millions of modern sporting rifles are used every day for purposes other than TO KILL A LOT OF PEOPLE!!
“The 5.56mm round is the most powerful bullet around! And because its the most powerful bullet it can be used to kill anything and everything.”
“A double barrel shotgun is all you need for self defense.”
“No one needs anything bigger than a 22 to go hunting with.”
“I learned everything I need to know about guns from video games.”
“Bullets don’t shoot through people but a .22 LR can shoot through several schools.”
“No one needs an AR-15. Get a shogun. People have a higher chance to survive getting shot by a shotgun than getting shot by an AR-15.”
That: It’s super easy to convert any scary looking gun to real full auto. So easy that bad guys with no technical experience can do it with garage tools and no machining experience.
That: carrying and shooting two pistols at once is easy, no problem, totally possible given human eye physiology, and is the preferred method of Badass Female Heroes ™
Just one more gun law will solve the problem of “gun violence”.
Guns just “go off”
“Assault weapons/AR-15s/Semi-automatics serve no purpose but to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time, and only the police and military should have them.”
Because it’s the job of the police to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time. One of the most disturbing gun control memes I’ve ever heard.
How did I NEVER catch that little bit of logic before?!? Thanks for that one.
+1
This +10000!!! I’ve never caught that before!
all gay people want to ban guns and support gun control.
Far from the truth.. A very large amount of homosexuals love guns. They just love equal rights more.
+1
It would be easier to fight for equal rights if people had the means to put fear in to potential attackers
Isn’t there enough love for both?
Busted Myth; “A gun in the home is “X” times more likely to be accidentally discharged, or used criminally or for a suicide than it is to be used in self defense.”
This argument divides things up into “Harmful” and “Helpful”, but then conveniently ignores a huge neutral category of “does nothing”.
The truth is that there are (according to FBI estimates) 200 MILLION guns in the U.S. and that seems to mean that a gun in the home is, quite literally, MILLIONS of times more likely to do nothing but sit around gathering dust than to be used harmfully or to help in a crisis.
It also completely ignores how seriously under-reported self-defense use is (especially when showing a firearm causes the thug to abort so no crime ever actually took place).
My favorite gun control myth? Gun control will have an effect on crime.
Well it does, just not in the way the grabbers say it will.
The “NRA has blood on it’s hands” whenever there is a mass shooting.
“Gun companies are against gun control because they WANT criminals to buy there guns so they make more money.”
Certainly one of the most pervasive myths is that gun control laws reduce crime. Background checks, awb, magazine bans, all have a proven track record of failure.
Also that 40% stat referenced in the article. Decades old, included family gifts, etc. See John Lott’s commentary on the data.
My favorite gun control myth is that Diane Feinstein won’t burst into flames in sunlight.
/\ /\/\ THIS! /\/\/\
Whenever I hear “Dianne Feinstein”, all I can think of is “Die in a Fire”.
How did 90% of Americans support universal background checks not make the list?
+1
There exists such a thing as an ‘accidental discharge’ (as opposed to a negligent discharge).
The one where the police are all really superhuman expert marksmen.
Something about a shoulder-thing-that-goes-up.
Civilian semi-automatic AR-15s are high-caliber, indiscriminately-firing ‘assault rifles’ that shoot 30 bullets in a matter of seconds from ‘high capacity clips’, but police select-fire M-16s are intermediate-caliber, high precision ‘patrol rifles’ that fire from ‘standard capacity magazines’.
Yeah I had that debate with someone who believed that all police were super accurate marksman who are master of all weapons by simple virtue of being a cop, and only they should be allowed to own firearms.
Apparently, I hate the police. Or so I was told.
I had that same debate with some friends of mine. They insisted that the police cause have ‘assault rifles’ and civilians couldn’t because “the police have special training on how to use them”. My attempts to explain just how much (or little, depending on your perspective) a police officer is required to have fell on deaf ears. Also, they said that a non-LEO shouldn’t be able to carry a firearm at all because they “didn’t trust them not to hit me even if they were aiming for the bad guy” and it “makes them uncomfortable”.
Let me Correct that for you. I think it’s supposed to read -from”high caliber clips with large capacity bullets”,-That sounds more grabberesque.
Let me correct that for you. It should read- from”high caliber clips with large capacity bullets”,-That sounds more grabberesque.
I did in fact hear the words “assault pistol with high-caliber clips” today in reference to the Aaron Hernandez arrest today. Oh. My. God.
“Armor piercing” ammo is designed specifically for defeating body armor.
Last I knew that without plates, nearly any centerfire rifle round will defeat ballistic body armor.
You don’t need a gun because the police will protect you. . .
“A pistol grip allows a person to shoot an assault weapon from the hip making it deadlier.”
BAM! Right in the kisser.
That guns in the hands of police and military “do not count”. Like cops and soldiers have not gone on shooting sprees, or had an AD, or had their guns stolen, or committed suicide w/ a firearm, or that their weapons do not count towards weapon “proliferation”.
magazines are disposable.
1. if you kill a bad guy in your home, the perp will instantly die and the cops will show up with champagne to throw you a hero’s party. just like on CSI. reality – the dead guy will do a great impression of a victim, you will be placed in cuffs, there will be a full investigation, and there may be enough blood that your home is declared a hazmat area and you are not allowed back in for quite a while. There may in fact be large legal bills even if you are completely in the clear, just to make sure the investigation stays on track. To most people (not your average drug dealer or junkie mind you), this serves as a significant deterrent to unreasonable use of force, which is why insurance that lets people shield their assets is a phenomenally moronic idea.
2. homicide victims are innocent. Maybe some are, but statistically, most have had prior run-ins with the law, and not for misdemeanors. If you are not in the drug trade, your chances of being shot are pretty small.
“Cop killer bullets” Aren’t they exactly the same as “civilian killer bullets”?
And speaking of which, even a cb cap is a “cop killer” with perfect shot placement.
I actually know of a young man that negligently shot and killed his twin brother in the chest at point blank range with a high powered pellet gun.
That said, I guess banning “cop killer” (sibling killer?) pellets would make us all safer.
Clearly, the problem is siblings. As a first-born, I say ban ’em.
Hey, Cain killed Abel. It’s long over-due to ban siblings. (J/K BTW)
I live in PA, went to Dicks in NY. Could not buy .40 ammo because I did not have a license for it.
That criminals buy their guns from unethical gun shops, straw purchases, and gun shows. Almost universally, they are stolen or purchased from family member or friends (Who probably stole them.)
That a higher concentration of guns leads to violence. That’s why at every shooting event, gun show, and gun shop the floors run red with blood.
That the Second amendment has anything to do with duck hunting.
That small arms cannot successfully fight an established modern army. That’s why we and the Russians were so stunningly successful in Afghanistan.
That gun owners are paranoid cowards afraid of things that will never happen, but people who buy flood and fire insurance are not.
That it’s “for the children” when “gun free zones” leave them defenseless while your local bank, courthouse, or politician are all protected by – men with guns.
That gun control has anything to do with safety, when they REFUSE to acknowledge any facts or logic when they are surrounded with proof that they are wrong or lying. It is about control, not about guns.
That gun owners will meekly surrender their guns when they are made instant criminals with the stroke of a pen. That there are no consequences to be paid for criminalizing (we’ll use your figure) 40% of the population.
Ray Schneider from “Jaws”, “I think we’re going to need a bigger” camp!
THE MYTH OF BIG-TIME GUN TRAFFICKING AND THE
OVERINTERPRETATION OF GUN TRACING DATA
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf
(A really good read, also)
That the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, which is used in a statistically insignificant amount of crimes per year, and labeled a “personal defense weapon” by the United States government, is not in common use at the time for lawful purpose and has no relation to self defense, and therefore it is not covered by the 2A.
Unfortunately, we have to wait to see if any courts will buy this myth, because the first court to look at this, the DC circuit in Heller 2, effectively tried to overturn Heller by saying the “common use” test isn’t good enough and more deference needs to be given to the government.
I don’t know if it qualifies as a myth, but to me, it’s the belief that the gun shoots the entire thing, cartridge, bullet and all.
Don’t know if it’s covered in Legitimate Sportsman’s link above but I get really mad about the myth that 90% of crime guns in Mexico come from the US. Hillary like to use this one, as recently as this year I think.
To be clear, 90% of guns SUBMITTED by Mexico to the US for testing were traced to the US.
The Mexicans only submitted guns they suspected were from the US in the first place. Most of their crime guns were from non-US sources.
Also, many of the US crime guns were gifts of the US to the Mexican Federales that happened to go missing.
And the balance are Mexican arms the US gov’t gave the Mexican “military” and police.
Hollow-point rounds are excessively deadly and/or ‘cop killers’, etc. As opposed to being effective, non over-penetrating defensive use rounds.
You’ll shoot your eye out.
Classic 😀
It’s apparent that there are enough myths, and the related facts to debunk them, that you could probably write an entire book on the subject alone. Maybe if this book does well, you can follow it up with a book on gun myths? Just a thought.
My favorite myth: There are practically no/very little laws/regulations when it comes to purchasing a fire-arm.
I just love the way that points out the person’s ignorance and lack of research into the subject before they said it.
The one about “guns should be as heavily regulated as cars” is always amusing, both for the total ignorance it displays and for providing me the opportunity to explain what it would be like if guns actually were treated like cars.
The “assault weapons” myth that semi-autos and black scary looking guns with certain features are considered assault weapons by the unknowing antis.
Thirty round magazines are standard capacity and *not* high capacity magazines that should be banned.
The statement “You don’t need more than five rounds for hunting.”
The Second Amendment is about personal protection and has little to do about hunting.
We already have an “assault weapons ban” in place since 1934 called The National Firearms Act that prohibits ownership of select fire or full auto weapons unless one pays a *tax* of $200 to own such.
Our Founding Fathers are still spinning in their graves over that one.
We’ve already had an unConstitutional *assault weapons ban* from 1994 to 2004 that achieved absolutely nothing for which it was originally intended, more so the opposite.
Slick Willy should’ve been tarred and feathered for signing that into law but he’s better known to most for what happened under his desk rather than on top of it.
Founding Fathers spinning even faster.
The DHS recently accepting bids for 7,000 5.56 caliber *select fire* rifles they call Personal Defence Weapons or PDWs while the AR-15 semi-autos designed for civilian use are considered *assault weapons* that so desperately need to be banned for our own safety and most importantly for the safety of the children.
Founding Fathers spinning even faster.
The myth that an AR-15 can be easily converted to select fire or full auto with a simple modification anybody that knows how to use a screwdriver can perform, totally untrue. It requires much more than the average Joe is capable of.
Founding Fathers spinning even faster.
Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein et al.
Founding Fathers now spinning at a glowing white hot rate that contributes to global warming.
I’ve actually written a very similar book. The title is “Knowing Guns: The Ins and Outs of Firearms and Firearm Politics for the Uninitiated.” The original idea was to write “Guns for Dummies,” but you wouldn’t BELIEVE what those guys want you to do to write for THAT series!!! Anyway, my book has been finished for more than a year now, and I’ve been shopping for a publisher. Trouble is, getting a traditional publishing deal is outrageously difficult! So, like Nick did, I’ll be self-publishing for the time being. I was a bit surprised, considering the topic is about as hot as Tabasco!
100% of those shot with their own guns are/were gun-owners…. Well, DUH!
I love most of the myths mentioned. Some of my favorites “gun free” zones are safer than an area with lots of guns, cops need full auto while civilians don’t, cops can use any gun safely & efectivly with no training, silencers should be banned & are not safety devices, more guns = more crime, banning guns will reduce crime, ignoring that the UK has a much higher home invasion rate than the US, full auto guns will kill thousands of people with one trigger pull, law enforcement has no problem enforcing all of our current gun laws.
The constant cries that there is an epidemic of “gun violence” sweeping the US when ALL sources show a huge decline in the criminal use of firearms over the past 20 years, more so when the increase in population is taken into account.
My favorite is probably the oldest:
The United States has the highest violent crime rate in the modern society.
The source is this is communist propaganda from the 1960’s that has since been dis proven. See http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
An entire set of laws built on a lie…
All good points.
Hate to piddle on anyone’s parade but, have you read Glenn Beck’s “Control”. It covers, and refutes, pretty much all of the hopolophobe ‘bulletpoints’, i.e. lies/myths.
My ‘favorite’ myths about guns and control? “The NRA is an outgrowth of the KKK . The NRA is an all-white org. that won’t accept non-WASP members.” ad nauseum
Adding onto your %40 of guns are sold without a background check, the Washington Post did a nice piece (more than once) about this fallacy. Excerpt from that article below:
The White House says the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago. This study is based on data collected from a survey in 1994, just the Brady law requirements for background checks was coming into effect. (In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, while Brady law went into effect in early 1994.) In other words, this is a really old figure.
The data is available for researchers to explore at the Interuniversity consortium on political and social research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. Digging deeper, we find that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Moreover, when asked if he or she bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)
When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, though as we noted the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.
Moreover, when gifts, inheritances and prizes are added in, then the number shrinks to 26.4 percent. (The survey showed that nearly 23.8 percent of the people surveyed obtained their gun either as a gift or inherited it, and about half of them believed a licensed firearms dealer was the source.)
Cook and Ludwig, in a lengthier 1996 study of the data for the Police Foundation, acknowledge the ambiguity in the answers, but gave their best estimate as a range of 30 to 40 percent for transactions in the “off-the-books” secondary market. (The shorter 1997 study cited by the White House does not give a range, but instead says “approximately 60 percent of gun acquisitions” involved a licensed dealer.)
Interestingly, while people often speak of the “gun show loophole,” the data in this 1994 survey shows that only 3.9 percent of firearm purchases were made at gun shows.
Ludwig acknowledged that “our estimate is clearly not perfect.” He said that a larger sample size would have provided a more precise estimate of off-the-books transactions, but he and Cook were not involved in the design stage of the survey. He added that one reason why the data is so old is because the federal government has generally stopped funding such research.
“While there is no perfect estimate in social science, we’d have a better estimate for this proportion had the federal government not decided to get out of the business of supporting research on guns and gun violence several years ago,” he said.
Ludwig and Cook were among the social scientists who signed a letter to Biden earlier this month calling on ending barriers to firearms research. The letter includes an interesting figure, comparing how many National Institute of Health awards have been given for firearms research versus infectious diseases.
Major NIH research awards and cumulative morbidity for select conditions in the US, 1973–2012
Condition Total cases NIH research awards
Cholera 400 212
Diphtheria 1337 56
Polio 266 129
Rabies 65 89
Total of four diseases 2068 486
Firearm injuries >4,000,000 3
One of the executive orders signed by Obama on Jan. 16 directed the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence, based on a legal analysis that congressional restrictions on spending money to advocate for gun control does not apply to such inquiries.
There is a bit of irony here. While the 40-percent figure appears overstated and out of date, it remains the most cited statistic on the secondary market because foes of gun control have thwarted extensive research on guns. Advocates of gun controls thus continue to rely on a flawed statistic nearly two decades old.
Cook and Ludwig, in a paper that released this month at a gun-violence conference hosted by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that there appears to be little or no impact from the Brady law in reducing the homicide rate, even though government officials (such as Obama) routinely tout the number of people prevented from buying guns because of background checks.
“One explanation is that the type of person who is disqualified from legally buying a gun but shops at FFL [dealer with a federal firearms license] anyway tends to be at relatively low risk for misusing a gun,” Cook and Ludwig write in “The Limited Impact of the Brady Act: Evaluation and Implications.”
So is there any other, recent data that might provide some insight into the impact of the off-the-books gun market?
Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, will report data from a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons in a chapter in a book titled “Reducing Gun Violence in America,” to be published Jan. 28 by Johns Hopkins Press.
The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:
Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent
Friends or family: 39.5 percent
“The street:” 37.5 percent
Stolen gun: 9.9 percent
Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent
In other words, only a relatively small percentage was purchased from licensed dealers. Obama’s proposal on universal background checks, however, allows for “limited, common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes.”
Comments are closed.