"Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad"

[Gunshy]

Something for the Gun nuts to pound their fists in the air to, as they fire off a few rounds after downing a bottle of Jim Beam.

John Stossel wrote:

Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad

America is notorious for its culture of gun violence. Guns sometimes do cause terrible harm, and many kids are killed every year in gun accidents. But public service announcements and news stories make it seem as if the accidents kill thousands of kids every year.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, however, fewer than 100 kids 15 and under are killed in gun accidents every year. Of course that's horrible, and I understand why demonstrators say we need more gun control.

But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

The government wants to say things like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't. Some maximum security felons I spoke to in New Jersey scoffed at measures like the Brady law. They said they'll have no trouble getting guns if they want them.

A Justice Department study confirmed what the prisoners said. But get this: the felons say that the thing they fear the most is not the police, not time in prison, but, you, another American who might be armed.

It's a reason many states are passing gun un-control. They're allowing citizens to carry guns with them; it's called concealed carry or right to carry. Some women say they're comforted by these laws.

Many people are horrified at the idea of concealed carry laws, and predict mayhem if all states adopt these laws.

But surprise, 36 states already have concealed carry laws, and not one reported an upsurge in gun crime.

Link[url]

While this isn't news to me, it's the first instance I can think of when a major media outlet has done a favorable story on guns.

[Montcalm]

As usual some do not realise that when you put the gun away always remove the freaking ammos,plus they can buy a trigger lock at any good gun shop.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Family Guy leaps into my mind with that promotional NRA video...

"Myth: Guns are bad. False. Guns are good."

[DPDarkPrimus]

"Oh my god, I shot Charleton Heston!"

"Don't worry son... it's your right as an American..." *dies*

[MKSheppard]

Someone tell me someone can't be this fucking stupid.

Oh yes, you owe me $200 dollars now.

[Nathan F]

*Proceeds to pound fists into air whilst shooting off a few rounds from his big bad gun(s)*

[Xon]

Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad
But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

Violent crime does not equal Violent crime with fire arms.

Violent crime with fire arms is a subset of Violent crime, and not the largest.

But otherwise no out right hidious flaws

[Glocksman]

All in all a decent spot. Much better than CNN and their phony 'assault weapon' report a few months back.

Bravo ABC.

**waves SKS in air and dances**

[Nathan F]

Myth No. 3 — Guns are Bad
But guess what? The Centers for Disease Control recently completed a review of studies of various types of gun control: background checks, waiting periods, bans on certain guns and ammunition. It could not document that these rules have reduced violent crime.

Violent crime does not equal Violent crime with fire arms.

Violent crime with fire arms is a subset of Violent crime, and not the largest.

But otherwise no out right hidious flaws

Violent crime is violent crime. As Mr. Kurt Vonnegut put it, "Dead is dead, no matter how much our scientists try, there will be no way to make you deader than dead." If anything it only goes to show that once you outlaw guns, your just hurting the law abiding citizen.

[Glocksman]

Someone tell me someone can't be this fucking stupid.

Oh yes, you owe me $200 dollars now.

I'd love to Shep, but you know better.
Just look at the Brady Campaign membership list.

BTW, is your avatar Viktor Belenko from the cover of MiG Pilot?

[Darth Raptor]

What does the CDC have to do with any of this?

[Howedar]

They generally cover all causes of death for some reason.

[Mayabird]

Family Guy leaps into my mind with that promotional NRA video...

"Myth: Guns are bad. False. Guns are good."

Did you know that Jesus and Moses used guns to conquer the Romans?
[scenes of Jesus and Moses plowing down hundreds of Roman soldiers charging up a hill.]

[Uraniun235]

"Oh my god, I shot Charleton Heston!"

"Don't worry son... it's your right as an American..." *dies*

Didn't they actually get Charlton Heston for that episode?

[Gunshy]

Didn't they actually get Charlton Heston for that episode?

No, it was actor Phil Lamarr. Of course, I always loved this quote:
"Remeber kids, guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."

Violent crime does not equal Violent crime with fire arms.

Violent crime with fire arms is a subset of Violent crime, and not the largest.

True, but the CDC report Stossel references to specifically deals only with firearm related violence, and the effectiveness of gun control measures. Anyway, here's a link to the report itself.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[Durandal]

Violent crime is violent crime. As Mr. Kurt Vonnegut put it, "Dead is dead, no matter how much our scientists try, there will be no way to make you deader than dead." If anything it only goes to show that once you outlaw guns, your just hurting the law abiding citizen.

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why does the average, law-abiding citizen need anything more than a pistol to protect himself?

[Nathan F]

Violent crime is violent crime. As Mr. Kurt Vonnegut put it, "Dead is dead, no matter how much our scientists try, there will be no way to make you deader than dead." If anything it only goes to show that once you outlaw guns, your just hurting the law abiding citizen.

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why does the average, law-abiding citizen need anything more than a pistol to protect himself?

Which is the exact thing most gun control advocates are for restricting the most.

As for heavy weapons, I'm not going to go into my spiel about why most Class IIIs aren't any more dangerous or likely to cause crime than anything else.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Violent crime is violent crime. As Mr. Kurt Vonnegut put it, "Dead is dead, no matter how much our scientists try, there will be no way to make you deader than dead." If anything it only goes to show that once you outlaw guns, your just hurting the law abiding citizen.

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why does the average, law-abiding citizen need anything more than a pistol to protect himself?

Shotguns and all forms of semi-automatic rifle are for hunting and sport.

You need to let in shotguns for Farmer Joe, and pistols for Citizen Bob, and there goes the two best weapons for armed crimes.

Full-automatic weapons are really a red herring: they account for so infintesimally low number of guns owned (even before bans) and even fewer gun crimes (virtually none) that it doesn't make a difference.

12-gauge shotguns and low-calibre pistols (convienently the same as good for self-defense) are the ideal gang and robbery weapons.

The only guys using SMGs and assault rifles would be powerful syndicate gangs and with bans they just as easily, even more easily, acquire them via the black market.

[Gunshy]

I'm all for the right to bear arms, but why does the average, law-abiding citizen need anything more than a pistol to protect himself?

Depends. A pistol is great for concealed carry. Less great for home defense (A shotgun is much better). And even worse when social order breaks down.
Remember the L.A. riots? Those Korean shopkeepers used AR-15s to defend their property, since a semi auto rifle has greater intimidation, and lethality than a pistol.

[Xon]

True, but the CDC report Stossel references to specifically deals only with firearm related violence, and the effectiveness of gun control measures. Anyway, here's a link to the report itself.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Good, then that makes more sense.

But the summary says:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness)

So this report basicly says they couldnt find anything which provided proof for or against the laws in any major way.

A bit different from what the Original Post implied.

Also I would like to see a comparison with other countries with strict gun laws, like Australia.

[Glocksman]

But the summary says:
Quote:
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness)


So this report basicly says they couldnt find anything which provided proof for or against the laws in any major way.

Which in itself is damning enough since the first strict gun control laws (NYC's Sullivan Law) date back to 1911 and the first Federal gun laws date back to 1934.

If you can't find proof that laws are effective in a period spanning almost 100 years, I submit that the laws aren't very effective after all.

Also I would like to see a comparison with other countries with strict gun laws, like Australia.

The differing cultural and political histories of the US and Austraila make such a comparison invalid. Australian homicide rates were drastically lower than US homicide rates both both and after their adoption of gun bans due to the Port Arthur massacre. Consider this: The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than most European countries' (and Australia's and Japan's) total murder rates.

It would be just as invalid for me to point to Switzerland, where 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes and a very low crime rate. The guns have little to do with the Swiss crime rate and Swiss culture has a lot to do with it.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports lists the most prominent factors in crime, and guns don't make the list.

• Population density and degree of urbanization
  Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
  Stability of population with respect to residents' mobility, commuting patterns, and transient factors.
  Modes of transportation and highway system.
  Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
  Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
  Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
  Climate.
  Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
  Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement.
  Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial, correctional, and probational).
  Citizens' attitudes toward crime.
  Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Before someone makes the accusation that Bush and the NRA influenced the FBI in compiling the factors list, I'll point out that this comes from the 1997 FBI UCR, and that Bill Clinton was President and Janet Reno controlled the DOJ.

You can call Clinton and Reno a lot of things, but tools of the NRA they weren't.

[Darth Wong]

It's not the guns so much as the reason people are buying them. Canada has 1 gun for every 4 people, yet it still has only a fraction of the American murder rate.

When people buy guns to hunt or kill farm vermin, you don't have a problem. When people buy guns either out of fear or out of a desire to intimidate others (or both, as the two are often linked), then you have a problem.

[Glocksman]

When people buy guns either out of fear or out of a desire to intimidate others (or both, as the two are often linked), then you have a problem.

If someone buys a gun thinking that it makes them 'bad', then they are indeed part of the problem.

If they try to intimidate someone with a gun, they'll find out right quick that pointing a firearm at someone without cause is a felony, and that a felony conviction means that you can never legally possess a firearm.

If someone buys one based on an irrational fear, that's a problem, as irrational people do irrational things.

However, not all fear-based purchases are irrational nor do they cause a problem.
Anecdotes are not data, but I know two women who were advised by the local police to purchase a gun and get a carry permit in order to protect themselves from abusive ex-spouses.

One woman never needed the gun and she later sold it.
The other woman used it when her ex broke into her apartment.

He found himself staring down the barrel of a Colt Commander .45 Auto.
She told me that he took one look and ran off, and she's never seen him since.

I have a CCW and numerous guns, but I rarely carry one.

The reason I got my CCW is that it exempts me from the state waiting period for handgun purchases and it used to exempt me from the Federal NICS check. I buy guns and shoot as a hobby, not because I'm stocking up to fight off the black helicopters.

I guess the difference is that I'm looking at things from the perspective of an American who lives in a state with liberal gun laws and sees nothing out of the ordinary with the idea of the average citizen carrying a pistol.

I think the average Canadian would see that a little differently.

[Darth Wong]

When people buy guns either out of fear or out of a desire to intimidate others (or both, as the two are often linked), then you have a problem.

If someone buys a gun thinking that it makes them 'bad', then they are indeed part of the problem.

That's what I always think of whenever I see the people who plaster "This car protected by Smith and Wesson" on their bumper stickers etc. It's one thing to own a gun; it's another to walk around advertising that fact as loudly as possible.

Anecdotes are not data, but I know two women who were advised by the local police to purchase a gun and get a carry permit in order to protect themselves from abusive ex-spouses.

One woman never needed the gun and she later sold it.
The other woman used it when her ex broke into her apartment.

He found himself staring down the barrel of a Colt Commander .45 Auto.
She told me that he took one look and ran off, and she's never seen him since.

Heh heh ... don't get me wrong, I'm all for someone dealing with a known, specific threat carrying a gun. Actually, that reminds me of another anecdote:

Bill: "I carry a handgun all the time."
Jim: "Why?"
Bill: "I live in a really bad part of town, and without my gun, I just don't feel safe."
Jim: "Why don't you move?"

[Sea Skimmer]

That's what I always think of whenever I see the people who plaster "This car protected by Smith and Wesson" on their bumper stickers etc. It's one thing to own a gun; it's another to walk around advertising that fact as loudly as possible.

Most people get those for shits and giggles, and probably don't even carry a gun. Anyway, the deterrent effect could be useful if people did take such things seriously. I know more then one person who has the signs and stickers on their house for a security system they don't have.