Debunked gun control myths

3 Common GUN CONTROL MYTHS Debunked

thepholosopher (56) in anarchy 3 months ago

VIDEO thumbnail.jpg

Number 3: “Gun Bans Are Effective in Other Countries.”

When gun control is argued, many try to bring up examples in other countries to suggest that gun control necessarily brings down the crime rate. The problem with this argument is that when people compare countries, they do not compare them proportionately, but instead, frame the situation in a manner that deceives others as to causation.

For example, one of the most commonly referred to countries is Australia as Australia enacted a uniform approach to firearms regulation at the federal level, applying bans across all territories with the Firearms Act of 1996. This act, along with other acts and regulations, essentially banned most firearms for private possession and required those who still had firearms such as simple shotguns and rifles to pass a screening and a waiting period. Self-defense with guns was also essentially banned with this act as the possession of a firearm for self-defense purposes is reason for denial of an Australian firearms permit.

Australia’s denial of the individual right to guns and self-defense might appear at first to be something remarkable as their homicide rate declined to 1 in 100,000 in 2017. However, this statistical significance is diminished when put into context for comparison.

First, Australia’s violent crime rate was already on the decline, with a firearm declination of 3% annually for years before the ban, meaning that other factors were influencing the change.

Second, when comparing Australia to the United States, the population size and nature of legal differences must be accurately accounted for. Australia is a country of about 24 million people. The United States population is over 320 million.

To make an apt comparison for questioning the efficacy of gun control, one must consider that Australia has a smaller total population and uniform federal gun law restrictions, unlike the 50 states. To make a proper analysis, one should compare the states in the U.S. with the most gun freedom with Australia’s population.
If one counts the population in America’s most pro-gun states up to Australian population count, and then compares the homicide rate, a clarity will emerge that demonstrates a negligible difference.

In Australia, across 24 million people, there is approximately 1 homicide per 100,000. Counting up approximately 24 million people from the most gun friendly populations of New Hampshire, Vermont, North Dakota, Minnesota, Utah, Maine, Oregon, and Arizona, the homicide rate is approximately 1.6 per 100,000, a negligible difference in what is a vastly different legislative scheme for gun control.

With this in mind, it should be clear why the mainstream media frames nationwide comparisons to make it appear that gun control laws are the magic bullet to stopping homicides: they don’t want to look carefully at the states with more gun freedom.

For further understanding in comparing Australia’s gun laws to the U.S., look at the states in the U.S. with the most gun control: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and Rhode Island. Taken together, these states have an average of 3.78 homicides per 100,000 people. From this information, we can infer that gun control laws are not themselves the core attribute that makes murder rates go up or down.

Rather, what we see is that dense populations afflicted by localities that prohibit gun ownership and self-defense can be a possible factor in the equation.

And, looking closer to localities, this holds true when narrowing in where the higher murder rates are coming from.
In 2014, the Crime Prevention Research Center reported that just 1% of the counties in the United States with 19% of the population held 37% of the murders. In fact, half of the murders in the U.S. came from only 2% of counties, and these counties are in localities with some of the greatest gun restrictions like in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., and Chicago.

By this information, the homicide rate is more closely correlated with urban clustering and with gun and self-defense bans by those urban localities.

So, when people try to compare the whole of the United States to other countries, remind them to not compare apples and oranges.

Number Two: “Homicide Can Be Stopped by Banning Assault Rifles.”

People often try to suggest that a certain type of gun should be banned because it seems scary without looking at other types of accepted harms. For example, many try to suggest that certain guns that are black and have scopes should be banned because they can shoot a lot of people. These guns are often incorrectly labelled as “assault rifles,” when they are just semi-automatic rifles. “Assault” means selective-fire with the ability to go automatic, and automatics have been generally illegal to make and purchase in the U.S. since 1986.

So people often argue to ban semi-automatic rifles in the Armalite Rifle style, AR for short, without any meaningful analysis as to what guns are used for crime. According to the FBI’s statistics, handguns are used for murder some 8,000 times per year while rifles are used in less than 300 instances. In other words, rifles are used only 3 percent the amount of times handguns are used. The FBI’s classification of “rifle” doesn’t differentiate between an AR-styled rifle and a brown hunting rifle, so it’s likely that the percent is even lower in reality for AR-styled rifles.

Even clubs, hammers, and body parts are used more often for murders than rifles, with blunt objects totaling 428 murders in 2013 and hands and feet used 687 times.

So when looking at what people are arguing to ban, one ought to consider the fact that there are far more weapons that can be used to murder than rifles, and banning rifles will not stop people being murdered through other instrumentalities.

Number 1: “The Second Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals and Modern Guns.”

Some try to say that the second amendment doesn’t apply to individuals owning modern guns because the founding fathers didn’t foresee it. Hypocritically, these same people argue this using their freedom of speech via the internet, which also didn’t exist at America’s founding.

The reality is that the second amendment was always about the individual right of self-defense, which has already been settled case law from the United States Supreme Court Cases of D.C. versus Heller and from McDonald versus Chicago.
Justice Scalia noted about the second Amendment in Heller that: “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia…on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Justice Alito noted in the McDonald case that gun rights were fundamentally about resisting government, saying:

“As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep and bear arms.

This understanding persisted in the years immediately following the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In addition to the four States that had adopted Second Amendment analogues before ratification, nine more States adopted state constitutional provisions protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms between 1789 and 1820.

Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”

With this in mind, it is important to see that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right, one that must be held first and foremost as a defense against government. As the right to bear arms must be maintained with the ability to resist government, military grade weapons cannot be peremptorily kept out of the hands of individuals as it is violative of their fundamental rights.

Sam colt reprint off facebook

The reason Colt made his first pistol, was because he was bullied. He wanted to allow the weaker smaller man, have a chance against the larger tougher one. When his first pistol was successfully made, he called it the Equalizer. So that no person, big or small, will be at an advantage. The gun gun was made not just for war, but for self defense. You can not tell me that an assault rifle is not a warranted weapon when you get attacked by gangs, I have been attacked on a few occasions for being in “their turf”. Had I had a way to defend against so many attackers, I would have taken the opportunity. The only reason I am still alive today, is because some passerbys called the cops and they actually got there in time. That is not always the case. What good are gangs, when everyone around them is armed? They lose all the power we give them by doing nothing.

Facts straight

Let’s get our terminology straightened out first, because this is a problem with the discussion and for misinformed politicians…….automatic weapons required an FFL Class 3 license. I know because I sign off on those permits. Automatic weapons are machine guns, whether magazine or belt feed. You are really talking about semi-automatic firearms in which the operating system is cycled by gas. What is the difference between a semi-auto rifle or a semi-auto shotgun…..other than the caliber, nothing. So we ban semi-auto everything, including semi-auto pistols? Where does it stop and who gets to make that decision? The word “Arms” in the 2nd Amendment is any tool for the use of self-defense or business. I have a ranch and jack rabbit control is necessary to keep them off my fields to reduce hay loss for my livestock. I need a semi-automatic rifle, so who gets to decide on that tool? Living in the big city back east, you seemed to have lost your Western values……lol

Surrounded

What Should You Do If Protestors Surround Your Car?
By Kevin Michalowski // 07/29/2016


Street protests are all too common these days and blocking traffic has become one of the favorite methods of public protest. If you, as a motorist, round a corner and find yourself in the middle of a protest march, or if protestors suddenly surround your car, you need to take action quickly.

Dave Young, founder and director of Arma Training, stresses that immediate action is important, but such action requires forethought and a thorough understanding of the laws of self-defense in your state.

“Most state’s self-defense laws allow you to use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family, but you may not use deadly force unless you are facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm,” Young said. “Some prosecutors could see using your car to drive away from a protest as using force, even deadly force. So the first thing you must do is assess the threat level.”

If the protestors are merely blocking your way, you may be able to use a reasonable level of force to get out of the situation, but you must remember that someone who was not at the scene will evaluate your decisions.

In Wisconsin, the use of force is outlined in state statute 939.48, which reads:

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Call 911

Local law enforcement may already be aware of the protest and may even have people on the scene. If you make them aware that you are trapped in a large angry crowd, they may take action to attempt to disperse the crowd and facilitate a rescue, but don’t count on it. Officers at the scene may not be prepared for a riot situation, and it may take several minutes or more before police feel they have the resources to take on a large crowd. You could be injured or killed waiting for help.

Capture the Images

One of the best ways to show what you were facing and begin the basis for an effective legal defense of your actions is to record video of the incident. Most cell phones have video recorders these days. If you are with a companion, have the companion record as much of the incident as possible. Try to remain quiet while recording so as to caption the words as well as the actions of the protestors.

Do not attempt to record video and drive if you are alone. In that case, start the recorder, capture as much of the action as you can, then leave the recorder on, put it down, and focus on your escape.

Keep Moving If You Can

Turing around and immediately leaving the area, if possible, is your best option. If you cannot turn around or go around the group, driving your car slowly through a group of protestors may be seen as a reasonable use of force. But unless you can articulate a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, you can’t use your car as a deadly weapon by driving over people or accelerating through the crowd.

“If you can drive away, do so. That might mean driving on the sidewalk or on the shoulder of the road or through the median,” said Young. “Escape is your first option.”

If Things Turn Violent

If the protest turns violent and people begin throwing objects, striking your vehicle, or attempting to overturn your vehicle, you have to act quickly. If you reasonably believe the protestors are going to attempt to enter your vehicle, drag you out, and injure you, the time to use force—perhaps even deadly force—has come. Young suggests the following:

Immediately get your family to lay down in the car while shielding their eyes and covering their skin to protect them from breaking glass or hard objects thrown at or into the car. If possible, pull the back seat down and take cover in the trunk area.
Get your car out of the danger area. Drive where you need to in order to escape. Avoid areas where your car might get stuck or hung up. If you can’t see effectively, driving “blind” is dangerous—but you have to weigh that danger against the danger of remaining where you are. If you have to use your car to push people out of the way or drive over people trying to stop you, then you must do it. Remember that you will be held accountable for your actions, so make sure you can prove that you believed you were in immediate danger.
Get out of sight of the protestors. If you are in contact with the police, tell them where you are going. If not, call them immediately after you get out of the dangerous situation and be prepared to make a full report.
If Your Car Is Stopped, Stalled, or Disabled

If you can’t move and the crowd does not appear to be dangerous, you might just be better off sitting tight and waiting for things to disperse. But if the crowd appears to be dangerous, you are now in a very serious, life-threatening emergency. And this requires a plan (and likely some very intense actions on your part). You will have to determine if you can safely and effectively leave your car and move to a protected area.

Again, if protestors are not attempting to make entry into your vehicle, it may be better to just sit tight until things subside. But Young suggests immediately leaving the vehicle if any of the follow things happen:

The vehicle is not operational, has stalled, or will not move.
There is fire inside or directly outside your vehicle.
Protestors are smashing your windows or attempting to make entry into your immobile vehicle.
This is where an effective plan is all but required. If you are planning to leave your vehicle, remember that you will likely be fighting your way out of your vehicle and fighting your way to safety. Do not leave in a panic. Think things through. First and foremost, Young suggests looking for an area that could provide relative safety and determining a direction of travel to that area.

If you are responsible for family members or others who are with you, explain the importance of trying to stay together. This may limit your movement and defensive options, especially if you have young children, but is it paramount that you keep everyone accounted for.

Access your defensive situation, taking a quick inventory of all the items you may be able to use as weapons when fighting your way to safety. In addition to your personal firearm, do you have knives, impact weapons, or anything else you can use in your defense?

Do not leave your car without ensuring you take important items with you. This includes your identification, house keys, cell phone, and any weapons.

Young suggests you consider the following as you prepare to fight your way out of the situation:

Can you operate your firearm effectively from inside your vehicle?
Have you ever fired through glass? (Flying glass could cut you or damage your eyes.)
Are you and your companions prepared for the discharge of a firearm in a confined space? (This is extremely loud.)
Is everyone prepared to move when the time comes?
“Fighting through a large, violent crowd is one of the most dangerous situations in the world. Often the sheer number of attackers can overwhelm even heavily armed and well-trained individuals. Exiting your vehicle is the last resort in a very dangerous situation,” said Young. “The first and best option is to avoid such situations. If you happen upon such a protest, do your best to get away immediately because there is no telling when the crowd can turn violent.”

Related: Surrounded by “Protestors” — What Do You Do?


Related Categories

Self-Defense & Home Defense

Search
New This Week

Beth Walker: Competitive Shooter … Future of 2A
By Beth Alcazar

Never Fire a Warning Shot
By Kevin Michalowski

Gun Cleaning for the Guilty
By Mark Kakkuri

Membership

Join USCCA Now
About
Contact
Member Stories
Find An Attorney
Login
Resources

CCW Reciprocity Map
Concealed Carry Magazine
Shop USCCA
Find A CCW Instructor
USCCA Expo
Armed American Radio
Women’s Community
Blog

Self-Defense & Home Defense
Women & Guns
Guns & Gear
True Stories
Legal & Second Amendment
News & Current Events
Explore USCCA

Become An Instructor
FAQs
USCCA Press Room
Giveaway Winner’s List
Join USCCA Law Network
Become a USCCA Affiliate
Join Our Team

Call us today: 877.677.1919

© 2003-2018 Delta Defense, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.

USCCA | Delta Defense, LLC • 1000 Freedom Way, West Bend, WI 53095-4945

Right to self defense

God not only defends his people, but expects them to act in their own defense. They are to wisely plan their defense and put it into action, while still trusting God for its effectiveness. Current conditions in society justify having at least a few Safety Team members who are armed. But with the firepower comes responsibility. This means preparation, practice, and prudence.

Never say kill

the goal of using deadly force is to stop the imminent deadly threat you are facing. The goal is not to kill anyone. Therefore, if you choose to offer a verbal challenge, do not threaten to “kill” your attacker. Never say, “Stop or I’ll kill you.” Those words could be used against you, but, more importantly, that is not your intent. Your intent is to stop the threat. You may need to shoot someone to stop that threat. But you didn’t want them dead. You wanted them to stop.