Top 10 Myths About Guns 10. Suppressors (aka Silencers) This myth regularly shows up on lists of lies
Hollywood tells about guns (right next to “if you run out of ammunition, throw away
your gun”). Suppressors, sometimes called silencers, are
designed to reduce the speed and sound of the gas that propels the bullet out of the
barrel of the gun. The way a cartridge works is that a pin, or
striker, in the gun hits a primer (usually on the round,) which ignites powder and sends
the bullet projectile out of the barrel. By slowing the escaping gas, you can reduce
the amount of sound produced. It can also work by reducing the speed of
the bullet, reducing the sonic boom or crack. Again, you can reduce the sound, but not eliminate
it. On most rounds, you can get a 30-40 decibel
reduction. In quieter rounds, like the popular small-game
.22 caliber, this means a pretty significant reduction in volume from around 140 db to
the 110-120 db range. But still, that’s a very loud sound, and
repeated exposure can result in hearing loss. You should always have hearing protection
when using firearms. 9. Semi-Automatic Firearms When I say “semi-automatic”, many people
have an image in their head of a man on a rooftop with an M16, pulling the trigger and
firing off thousands of rounds (again, thanks to Hollywood). This is a false image. In a semi-automatic firearm, whether it’s
a pistol (like the Glock 17), rifle (including the controversial AR-15), or shotgun, when
the round is fired, the expanding gas from the cartridge launches the projectile and
then opens the chamber, ejecting the spent cartridge and, if available, using a spring
system to slide the next cartridge into place ready for the next trigger pull. The gun will not fire the next round for you,
and most guns are designed to prevent this from happening. This works out to one trigger pull per shot,
similar to how you have to pull a trigger in a revolver to fire the next round. Fully automatic weapons, that fire multiple
rounds with one trigger pull, do exist, but they are mostly illegal for citizens to own
in the United States (you have to go through some serious federal licensing headaches). 8. Assault Weapons There’s a lot of debate over the use of
“assault” weapons, but sadly, there’s not a lot of actual information. So let’s sort through what we actually have. Many gun rights advocates argue that there
is no real definition of an assault weapon, and they would be incorrect. The term “assault weapon” was legally
defined in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban as a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable
magazine, that contains characteristics one would find on military firearms. Simply put, it’s a civilian version of a
military weapon. Gun control advocates argue that assault weapons
are much more dangerous than the average hunting rifle. And they are equally wrong. The vast majority of add-ons that turn a hunting
rifle into an assault rifle are mostly cosmetic: pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors
– things that the shooter may appreciate, but have no real bearing on the function of
the gun or on its ability to fire rounds. These are semi-automatic weapons: one trigger
pull per shot, just like a revolver or your granddad’s hunting rifle. 7. Stand Your Ground In the US, while you do have a right to defend
your life with deadly force, there are two basic theories on how to apply that deadly
force in self-defense: duty to retreat, and stand your ground. A few states in the US use a legal standard
called “duty to retreat,” which basically says that, while you have the right to defend
your life with deadly force, you need to make every possible, reasonable effort to get away
from your attacker before using that deadly force. While this sounds nice in theory, in practice
it means that a person who has to use deadly force to defend their lives may have to appear
in court and be tried as a potential murderer, spending tens of thousands of dollars and
potentially ending up in prison for the rest of their life, all because
someone else tried to kill them and they didn’t want to die. On the other end of the spectrum, you have
“stand your ground,” or “castle doctrine”. Basically, this doctrine states that whatever
space you’re occupying at the moment, you do not have to leave that space, in order
to defend your life. If someone is coming to kill you, you can
pull your weapon and stop them with deadly force. Some states that have this law also protect
those who’ve used it from criminal and civil liability. Again, it’s great in theory, but not so
much in practice. There have been dozens of cases where judges
and juries have grossly misinterpreted these laws, acquitting people who chased down attackers
out of revenge. Between the extremes, you also have a patchwork
of laws around the country that fall somewhere in the middle. Some states allow a citizen to only use the
castle doctrine defense in their homes. Other states say they don’t really have
a duty to retreat in law, do so in practice. Gun laws are very complex and that’s why
it’s very important to know what they are before you purchase and use a firearm. 6. Magic Bullets Every so often, there’s a new concern over
a new type of “cop killer” bullet that will magically defeat everything in its path. The truth of the matter is this: there is
no such thing as a magic bullet. However, knowing how your bullet will behave
when it reaches its target is crucial in deciding what kind of bullet you need to choose. Let’s talk about hollow point bullets. Hollow point bullets are designed to dissipate
their energy into their target, reducing penetration into the target, thus lessening – but not
eliminating – the likelihood of coming out the other side and harming someone else. In contrast, a full metal jacket is designed
to penetrate its target, and continue until it slows to a stop. That’s why hollow points are usually recommended
as a good personal defense round; it’s more likely, should you have to use it, to stay
in the bad guy and not harm anyone else. Over the years, design names and manufacturing
tricks have given some a great deal of concern. The key to remember is that, at the end of
the day, there’s not much you can do to a bullet to make it more or less dangerous
that hasn’t already been done. 5. Self-Harm You may have heard that you’re 43 times
more likely to kill yourself or someone you know than you are to kill a criminal with
a gun. This statistic is from a study done by Dr.
Arthur Kellerman back in 1986, and is used by gun control advocates to challenge the
usefulness of owning firearms. But is it a myth? And the answer is: kinda. The devil is very much in the details of the
strongly criticized study. Part of the problem is that Kellerman, in
his study, only focused on gun deaths and not gun use, ignoring incidents where guns
protected, but did not take, life. He was also criticized for failing to provide
complete data, recognize contradictory studies, and include suburban or rural areas in his
studies. However, common sense does dictate that people
who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don’t, often in tragic ways. Statistics show that more gun deaths occur
via suicide than by homicide and accidental shootings combined. My personal advice is that if you do choose
to own a weapon, please make sure that those who you trust have a plan to remove your guns
in case you show signs of suicidal behavior. If you are having suicidal thoughts, please
get help. In the US, you can call the National Suicide
Prevention Helpline at 1-800-273-8255. 4. It’s Easy to Buy a Gun After tragic events, there’s often a focus
on how firearms are acquired by members of the general public, usually focusing on strengthening
requirements and restricting access to certain types of weapons. The result has been a series of laws that
have been designed to keep guns out of the wrong people’s hands. If you’ve never bought a gun, you may be
surprised at all the hoops you have to jump through to get one. To start off with, many states have some sort
of licensing or permitting process for guns and gun owners, which can take weeks or months
to complete. Once you have your permit or license, you
have to meet a fairly long set of federal requirements (age, legal status, mental status,)
in order to purchase a firearm. Federal firearms license dealers are required,
by law, to do an instant background check on you, to make sure you’re not on the FBI’s
long list of people who aren’t allowed to own a gun. Only after you jump through all the hoops,
are you allowed to walk out the door with your gun. Even private sales between people can be very
complex. There’s also the part where you have to
pay money for your gun. Guns, in case you’ve never been shopping
for one, tend to be expensive, and fluctuating supply and demand can quickly drive prices
up. Even in the cheapest of times, guns are an
expensive investment. You can easily expect to spend $300-600 on
a decent lower-cost handgun, rifle, or shotgun, and it’s very easy to spend more. This doesn’t include the cost of licensing,
accessories, and ammunition. Training classes and range time are also prudent
investments that can cost big money. If you go hunting, purchasing the right equipment
is a big investment, as is the investment of processing your harvested meat. Used guns can save you some money (usually
20-30%) on your investments, but make sure to have them checked out by a knowledgeable
person before you buy them. 3. You Need a Big Gun “Why do you NEED an AR-15?” It’s a common enough question by those who
favor gun control, and if your focus is personal defense, a smaller weapon would probably suffice. When we get down to simple practicality, a
lot of people who look at guns get weapons far more powerful than they actually need,
and in doing so, can put others at risk. If you live in an apartment complex with people
on the other side of the typical apartment paper-thin walls, while it may be cool to
own a larger caliber handgun like a .45, you take the risk that a missed shot (which you
are legally liable for) will go through the wall and injure someone other than the person
coming after you. A smaller caliber firearm with the proper
bullets can defend your life without creating a higher risk of injury. The same concept exists for hunting. A lot of deer hunters tend to favor large
rounds like the .30-06 Springfield (called the 30-aught-six) to take down their prize
whitetail. The problem with the .30-06 is that in areas
where the distance between you and the target is likely to be less than 100-150 yards, the
30-06 is overpowered. A less powerful round, like the 7mm or 270,
is plenty powerful to quickly take down a deer and not do major damage to the carcass. I’ve talked to some hunters who encourage
people to hunt deer with a teeny little .22, but I ignore them because a .22 is more likely
to cause the animal needless suffering, than to actually take it down. The key here is to think of guns as tools,
and you need to pick the right tool for the right project. If you wouldn’t use a 30 pound sledgehammer
to pound in a nail for a family portrait, then you probably shouldn’t use an overpowered
gun to hunt squirrels. Similarly, if you wouldn’t use a tack hammer
to try to break up concrete, you probably shouldn’t use an under-powered gun to take
down a grizzly bear. 2. Gun Control and Crime Rates One of the biggest debates in the US is whether
gun control actually reduces the rate of crime. Gun control advocates point out that other
countries with heavy gun control tend to have lower murder rates, while gun control opponents
point out that, where strict gun control has been implemented in the US, violent crime
has skyrocketed. So what’s the truth? Well, if we look at the top 20 cities for
murders per 100,000 residents, we find that nine of them are in seven of the states with
the strictest gun control laws in the country (Newark, NJ; Baltimore, MD; Oakland, CA; Philadelphia,
PA; Stockton, CA; Washington, DC; Chicago, IL; Pittsburgh, PA; and Buffalo, NY). However, 11 of them are in states that have
fewer restrictions on guns, with the top three most dangerous cities (New Orleans, LA; Detroit,
MI; and St. Louis, MO) all in states that have a lack of gun control. So what can we draw from this? Well, the first thing is that gun control
doesn’t actually work. Even if Chicago isn’t as violent as New
Orleans, it’s still a violent place to be, where handguns were banned up until recently
and yet, mysteriously, people were still murdered with them. Scientific studies have backed up this conclusion. It’s like the laws against illicit drugs:
those drugs are illegal and yet, people who shouldn’t acquire them still do so. The solution? Well, there is a correlation between gun violence
and another metric: socioeconomics. To put it simply, the same cities you tend
to see on the top of the murder list are the same cities you see on the top of the poverty
rate list. So the question then becomes: what can be
done to lift those poverty-stricken areas out of poverty? If you come up with a workable solution, let
me know. 1. The Second Amendment Lots of international folks wonder why the
US doesn’t just ban all guns, and the reason is found in our Constitution: the Second Amendment. The problem is that most people don’t really
understand what the Second Amendment means, and the result is a lot of arguing on both
sides. So I’m going to try to help clear things
up. First, let’s look at the text: “A well
regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Now, to today’s folks, the second part of
the Amendment is fairly clear, but that first section gives us a lot of pause. Gun control advocates argue that, since most
states have replaced the militia with the National Guard, then the right to keep and
bear arms for the average citizen isn’t really covered here. Therefore, gun ownership is a privilege, not
a right, that should be revoked. The problem: that’s not what the Amendment
says. You have to consider the historical context. The US was a country born of war, where the
average citizen could grab his musket or Pennsylvania long rifle, walk out the door, and join up
with some other average citizens as a small militia group. They could be used to conduct small raids
against the British and their militias, to weaken the armies prior to everyone fighting
in the big battles. When the war was over, the standing army was
heavily reduced, and militias would be called up if needed. In other words: the militia was, pretty much,
the military of the country. This leads us to two elements of interpretation. First: since common men could be called into
service to protect the country, they would need to be armed, and so, the right to bear
arms would have been needed for national security. However, the other element is that, because
these men had just fought a Revolution against the British militia and government, the right
to bear arms represented the right of the citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical
government. In order to keep the government in check,
the right to bear arms was needed. This second interpretation is backed up, heavily,
by the recorded discussions on the amendment by Patrick Henry, Noah Webster, George Mason,
James Madison and, ultimately by the Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois. In other words, because a person could be
called up to militia, and because our government could become a tyrannical dictatorship, the
right of the people to arm themselves shall not be infringed. Where the real debate kicks in, is whether
this right can be limited. And the answer to that question is: yes. Much like your first amendment rights don’t
cover slander or screaming “fire” in a crowded theater, your second amendment rights
can be limited within reason. The Supreme Court has said, in US v. Miller,
that the government does have the right to restrict access to certain firearms – in
that particular case, a sawed-off shotgun. There’s also been a few cases – including
the recent District of Columbia vs. Heller – that have determined the rights of the
government to restrict firearms access to felons and the mentally ill. In other words: the Second Amendment protects
your right to bear arms, but can be reasonably limited for the purpose of public safety.
A lot of good stuff, but I wish he'd taken the opportunity in #3 to mention that an AR-15 isn't a big gun, especially when he somewhat implied at the beginning that it was.
I'd argue that the major impediment for owning a full auto weapon isn't "serious federal licensing headaches" but rather the inflated prices due to artificial scarcity. To obtain an NFA tax stamp, you fill out a form 4 and a form 5330.20, get a fingerprint card, passport photo and get a CLEO sign off. Oh, and pay the $200. And then wait for the processing, which can be anywhere from 4 to 12 months, depending. That is no more of headache than getting a CDL or passport. Getting the $30k for an MP5 or M16 is a headache.
Pretty good video, good Info
I like how he talks about the cost. Even at bare minimum you are talking 200-500 bucks. For some people that's a paycheck, and for people living to paycheck to paycheck that's something they can't even consider (and in the poorest neighborhoods, the place where defensive firearm use would have the biggest impact).