ABC News and 20/20 engage in a bit of truth-telling on guns

[Richard G]

May wonders never cease. Nestled in amongst a 20/20 report on urban legends comes this little gem.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-1.html


Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity
(John) Stossel's List of Popularly Reported Misconceptions

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.

[Ranb]

Too bad he did not also talk about the fact that legally owned machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns are hardly ever used by their legal owners to commit violent crime in the USA. Can anyone come up with a murder by an NFA registered machinegun in the USA other than the cop who murdered a drug dealer with his own MG?

Ranb

[Charlie Monoxide]

sigh ....

Charlie (guns aren't evil, they just facilitate) Monoxide

[Earthborn]

I think some of the reports of the myths is quite good, although in some cases the argumentation is a bit silly (DDT is a mosquito repellant? I thought it killed them, not just scared them away. Or how about the one where he says that because the size of landfills are increasing means that there isn't too much garbage.)

But 'Guns are Bad' is not a myth. It is a statement of opinion and cannot be proven or disproven. 'Allowing people to legally own guns increases guncrime' might be a myth (if evidence for that can be given), but a statement that they are 'bad' is not.

For example, I might say say something like 'cheese is bad'. You can argue all you want about the wonderful properties of cheese, how people have averted crime with cheese, how people who own cheese are such wonderful people with such extraordinary self control that they wouldn't use it for evil.

But in the end, I can still continue to say: "That may all be true, but I still think cheese is bad". (Because it is. ;) )

[clk]

John Stossel is famous for yellow journalism. He also likes to distort facts.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0303/stossel-break.html

[Zep]

* DOUBLE sigh *

It's like hitting your head against a brick wall sometimes...

Of COURSE gun accidents are low numbers. But gun CRIME is extraordinarily high by comparison with all but third world tinpot basket-case countries where the AK47 is king.

By way of comparison (AGAIN!), very few Australians own guns, and we have only one fifth the US rate of gun-crime exists here. That is, you are FIVE TIMES SAFER here than in the USA. The numbers are even safer in the UK, which has a similar low gun-ownership rate.

Safe conclusion: Fewer guns in the community = fewer dead bodies hitting the ground with bullet holes in them.

If you seriously haven't cottoned on to this yet, the numbers are out there on the JREF forum somewhere (this has been done to death before), so go find them yourself and read.

[xouper]

Zep: It's like hitting your head against a brick wall sometimes...Well, now you know how I feel whenever I read another of your anti-gun rants. It's the same old sh^t with you and the other anti-gun wackos and I think to myself, "there's five minutes of my life I'll never get back" and I wonder why I don't ever learn simply to ignore threads about guns.

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
Well, now you know how I feel whenever I read another of your anti-gun rants. It's the same old sh^t with you and the other anti-gun wackos and I think to myself, "there's five minutes of my life I'll never get back" and I wonder why I don't ever learn simply to ignore threads about guns. You are quite right - good idea. All you get is abuse from people who don't read what you write because they don't agree with you so whatever you write is whatever they think is OPPOSITE to their viewpoint and not worth reading. So I will join you in departing these subjects.

Bye, gun threads! Hope you have a happy life!

[Tmy]

What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?

"Theres an ax weilding rapist breaking into my house. Im going to use my gun to defend myself........but I really dont want to wake the neighbors."

Sure they have some use but thats nothing compared to the potential for their criminal misuse.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Tmy
What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?

"Theres an ax weilding rapist breaking into my house. Im going to use my gun to defend myself........but I really dont want to wake the neighbors."

Sure they have some use but thats nothing compared to the potential for their criminal misuse.


None of your business. That is the precise point.

[Tmy]

I think public safety is all of our business.

Otherwise people could be walking around with weapons grade plutonium.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tmy
I think public safety is all of our business.

Otherwise people could be walking around with weapons grade plutonium.

Do you really think any of the vast majority of us would have the resources to manufacture or afford to buy weapons grade plutonium? Do you really that those who seek to possess this material are seriously curtailed by our governments desire to control its possession? Your's is another of those BS arguments that are always trotted out. Yes, we'd all be wild in the streets if it weren't for the nanny state reigning us in and keeping us from devouring each other. You can't seriously believe that all the laws in the world will prevent those who want to harm others from doing so. Likewise you can't believe that without those laws all of us who don't would suddenly become inclined to do so.

[xouper]

Zep: You are quite right - good idea. All you get is abuse from people who don't read what you write because they don't agree with you so whatever you write is whatever they think is OPPOSITE to their viewpoint and not worth reading.If it's any consolation, I have often felt the exact same frustration. :)

[clk]

Originally posted by billydkid


You can't seriously believe that all the laws in the world will prevent those who want to harm others from doing so.

Yeah, having strict gun laws would be silly, because if someone really wanted to get a gun, they could, right? So why bother taking away other people's guns? I mean, if the anarchists in the US really wanted rocket launchers, they would be able to get them, so there's no point in banning them. Hey, you know what, let's go one step further and give everybody a rocket launcher! That should solve all of our problems! :rolleyes:

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy
What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?

"Theres an ax weilding rapist breaking into my house. Im going to use my gun to defend myself........but I really dont want to wake the neighbors."

Sure they have some use but thats nothing compared to the potential for their criminal misuse.

Your first sentence really shows your true colors. You sound just like one of those a--holes who want to ban anything they do not like. Think of all the reasons a person would want a "silencer" on their car. They are the same reasons I want a muffler on my rifle. Suppressors make firearms safer to shoot and reduce noise pollution. With more houses cropping up around rifle ranges these days, anything to reduce noise should be welcomed.

Use of a silencer merely makes the firearm less noisey. If you see claims of an effective firearm suppressed to less than 100 decibels, then it is likely the wrong kind of noise meter was used. While they do of course aid the military, or even assassins, it is hardly an excuse to ban them or to question their use by law abiding citizens.

Can you think of any reason why I should not be allowed to use one while hunting or at the rifle range? I paid a $200 tax for each suppressor I built and had to get the local sheriff's OK on the tax forms before I mailed them to the ATF. Would you seriously object to my using a device that makes my AR15 sound like a car door slamming instead of a deafening roar?

Ranb

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Tmy
What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?


To cut the noise down from "permanent hearing loss" (the default) to merely "really loud"?


"Theres an ax weilding rapist breaking into my house. Im going to use my gun to defend myself........but I really dont want to wake the neighbors."


"I don't want to lose my hearing... which is what happens if you fire powerful weapons in a confined space without earmuffs. Nor do I want to deafen my children".

In movies silenced guns make a "pop" noise and unsilenced guns make a startling but painless "crack" noise. In real life guns are much, much louder.


Sure they have some use but thats nothing compared to the potential for their criminal misuse.

I'm on balance against people keeping silenced .22 pistols and other such weapons that you could, indeed, fire without the whole neighbourhood necessarily knowing.

But a silencer on a modern rifle has little potential for criminal misuse as far as I'm aware.

[Dorian Gray]

Wait a minute - "Centers for Disease Control" - guns are a disease?

Yeah, having strict gun laws would be silly, because if someone really wanted to get a gun, they could, right? So why bother taking away other people's guns? I mean, if the anarchists in the US really wanted rocket launchers, they would be able to get them, so there's no point in banning them. Hey, you know what, let's go one step further and give everybody a rocket launcher! That should solve all of our problems! There's a big difference. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Not that many rocket launchers.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?

Your use of the above word (in bold) demonstrates that fact that you don't even understand the fundamental constitutional understanding of what a right actually is, let alone the 2nd amendment...

[geni]

Originally posted by billydkid


Do you really think any of the vast majority of us would have the resources to manufacture or afford to buy weapons grade plutonium?

Err yes. France has put a zero maket value on it's plutonium resurves

Do you really that those who seek to possess this material are seriously curtailed by our governments desire to control its possession?

Err Yes. Have you tried getting hold of any lattly? Or even tried sumggerling it through customs? Without various goverement laws and actions getting hold of weapons grade fission materials would be a lot easyer

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Your use of the above word (in bold) demonstrates that fact that you don't even understand the fundamental constitutional understanding of what a right actually is, let alone the 2nd amendment...

A silencer falls under the 2nd amendment?

What you fail to understand is that none of our rights are absolute. Even freedom of religion has its limits. I cant sacrifice panda bears in the middle of town hall even if my religion calls for it.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ranb


Your first sentence really shows your true colors. You sound just like one of those a--holes who want to ban anything they do not like.

I actually like guns. I go shooting wh my buddies sometimes. While I dont own one myself I can see getting one in the future.

I think its fine for people to own firearms and to get concealed weapons permits.

Im also ok with having some gun control too. Not everyone falls into the extreme ends of the gun control spectrum.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
A silencer falls under the 2nd amendment?

A silencer falls under the Second Amendment as much as pearl pistol grips or a laser pointer do...

Originally posted by Tmy
What you fail to understand is that none of our rights are absolute. Even freedom of religion has its limits. I cant sacrifice panda bears in the middle of town hall even if my religion calls for it.

That's not what I said, and what I said has nothing to do with absolutes...

My point is that "need" is not a requisite component of a right or freedom - a point you obviously don't understand.

[Ed]

A silencer is not a firearm.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im also ok with having some gun control too. Not everyone falls into the extreme ends of the gun control spectrum.

Then welcome to the NRA, who advocate a national instant FBI computerized background check, voluntary gun locks and gun safes, and stricter enforcement of current guns laws, especially illegal sale and trafficking.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Kodiak


My point is that "need" is not a requisite component of a right or freedom - a point you obviously don't understand.

But there is no right or freedom to own a silencer.

My point is more on weighing the public safety interests along with the right in oder to have some reasoable limitations.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
But there is no right or freedom to own a silencer.

There is no right or freedom to own ammunition either... :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Tmy
My point is more on weighing the public safety interests along with the right in oder to have some reasoable limitations.

Great...Now just show that banning silencers is a reasonable limitation based on a lack of need...

On the other hand, it is much easier for me to show that banning silencers is an encroachment (read infringement) of a right that, according to the Constitution, shall not be infringed...

[Tmy]

I dont think a silencer is an integral part of the makeup of a firearm. No bullets defeats the purpose of an arm (making it useless) but a lazer pointer or silencer are accessories.

We have freedom of speech, but that doesnt mean you have freedom to have your speech amplified thru a 100,000 watt pa system at 1:00am.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think a silencer is an integral part of the makeup of a firearm. No bullets defeats the purpose of an arm (making it useless) but a lazer pointer or silencer are accessories.

We have freedom of speech, but that doesnt mean you have freedom to have your speech amplified thru a 100,000 watt pa system at 1:00am.

Again...

Great. Now just show that banning silencers is a reasonable limitation based on a lack of need...

On the other hand, it is much easier for me to show that banning silencers is an encroachment (read infringement) of a right that, according to the Constitution, shall not be infringed...

[Tmy]

Its not a need based argument its a public safety argument. Pros vs. cons.

Your wanting a quiter gun at the driving range vs. the public saftey danger of being able to shoot "quitely". The noise of the gun is helpful for police responding to a dangerous situation, its helpful in leveling the hunting playing field, its helpful to warn other hunters or people who are nearby, its helpful getting peoples attention so they can report shots being fired.

You can easily wear ear muffs to protect your hearing. Or build walls to muffle the sound at a range. Compare that to the dangers of silencers being misused.

You still havent shown a right to own silencers either. Has there been some Supreme Court case protecting them under the 2nd? Sicne theyve been banned in so many places Im sure the question has been litigated.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its not a need based argument its a public safety argument. Pros vs. cons.

Thank you for the admission. That was what I was looking for in light of your previous statement: "What purpose would a law abiding person need a silencer for?"


Originally posted by Tmy
You still havent shown a right to own silencers either. Has there been some Supreme Court case protecting them under the 2nd? Sicne theyve been banned in so many places Im sure the question has been litigated.

Arguably, the Second Amendment is all I need, but then again I am a narrow constructionist. I admit that reasonable people can disagree as to what is covered by the Second Amendment.

I am also fully aware of how firearms and their accessories are used and misused. I am of the opinion that it is wrong to punish the law-abiding for the behavior of criminals. Instead make the law for silencer misuse so severe and strictly enforeced that no one would dare violate it.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its not a need based argument its a public safety argument. Pros vs. cons.

Your wanting a quiter gun at the driving range (snip)

What's that Bill Murray line from "Caddyshack?"

"But if I kill all the golfers, they'll lock me up and throw away the keys."

:D

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Ed
A silencer is not a firearm.

Silencers have been defined as firearms by the National Firearms Act since 1934. I do not know what country you live in, but in the USA, it is big trouble to make or transfer one unless the proper taxes or paper work are filled out.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Originally posted by Tmy


You can easily wear ear muffs to protect your hearing. Or build walls to muffle the sound at a range. Compare that to the dangers of silencers being misused.



Oh really? Can you even come up with one case of a legal silencer being used by its owner in a violent crime in the USA? Show me proof of just one murder committed with a NFA legal suppressor since 1934. If you can, I will bow down to you and announce my unworthiness to post on this forum again until I have come to my senses.

I'm sure you understand that criminal misuse of firearms should not justify taking away my right to possess firearms of my own. Also, I have not paid taxes quadruple what my silencer was worth just to have someone like you bad-mouth me on this forum.

Ranb