Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity

[wdlove]

Watch Stossel's full report tonight on 20/20

You may be among the many who would answer yes to these questions. You'd be wrong. There are a lot of popularly held beliefs out there that simply aren't true. Yet the media tend to report on many of them as though they were hard facts.

Here's my list of popularly reported lies and myths. I'll reveal Myth No. 1 during my special tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/myths_john_stossel_040123-1.html

[Counterfit]

I like #6 :D

[Powerbook G5]

My girlfriend actually argued that colds don't make you get a cold thing with me before. I figured it might be a little true because the cold weather may leave your immune system slower or less effective or something but looks like she was right.

[MrMacMan]

This was aired last week... when I saw it.

And the East River is better then it was ... but still isn't as good as ocean water.

His articles critique problems with society, I do this all the time, but I have facts.

I don't have free time expect when I post here, otherwise I am doing homework. Do I need a study to point that out? No.

Myth #5 doesn't tell us anything.

He points out facts and sharptons fuzzy numbers.
He gives us fluff when we need substance.

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.
Whats next? Conceled shotguns? Concealed Machine Guns? 'The robber came into my store and robbed me of $10... but I had my machine gun, luckly I was saved when I blew him away.'

Do we want everwhere in the U.S to turn into LA (sorry LA)?


I read the article?

Where is #1?

WHERE?

ARG.

Isn't #1 about pollution in the east river?

DAMN YOU ABC!

:mad: :mad:

[themadchemist]

I am wary about articles that try to make society to look rosy. I would rather think that our society is worse than it is and try to fix it than to think that our society is better than it is and become smug.

[RandomDeadHead]

This is nothing but propaganda.

Guns are good? WTF?
Tell that to the thousands of people killed every year by guns.
Just because their are only a few children kill every year by them doesn't mean that right now their isn't a hommie with a uzi doing a drive by as we speak.

Its just plain common since to think that if no one except police officers and the military had guns their would be virtually no gun crimes.

Now before I get flamed, let me say that I am NOT for getting rid of ALL guns. Rifles and shotguns have their place. But hand guns and automatic weapons only have one point to their existence, To kill other people, and if nobody had them, nobody would need them.

I understand that people say that it is their constitutional right to bear arms, but when Jefferson and Franklin were writing it, I don't think that they were thinking about 30 year old Ms. Smith caring a weapon in her pocket book that could put 20 slugs in someone before they could say NRA.

So they say that all people should be allowed to tote guns with them at all times, just to protect themselves from all the other idiots with guns. If that's the case, then the gov't should make a little extra money by selling nuclear weapons to all the other nations. Hell why shouldn't we? They need nukes to protect themselves from our nukes. Then we will need to make faster, better nukes so that ours will be better then theirs.
Sound familiar? If your as old as I am you will remember a little something call the cold war. Is this what these people want? A mini nation wide cold war? I must have a gun so if you shot me, I can shot you. Do these people want Bullet proof vests to become heirlooms, passed down from father to son. Will they do it like the seatbelt laws? force you to carry a gun and wear a vest "for you personal safety". You have to wear your seat belt to protect you from being stupid and from everyone else's stupidity. 100 years ago their were no seat belt laws because only a fraction of people had cars, now that everyone has cars you have to wear it to protect yourself. If everyone carries a gun and a vest, YOU will end up having to have them too, just to protect yourself from others.

Instead of calling it the right to carry, maybe they should just call it population control.
It definitely would make road rage, nascar races, bar fights, and clan meetings allot more interesting!

I think the number 1 on the List of Popularly Reported Misconceptions should be the myth that the media can actually sometimes tell you the TRUTH.

Think about it,
No guns = No gun violence. And that IS the truth.

[kylos]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
Its just plain common since to think that if no one except police officers and the military had guns their would be virtually no gun crimes.
...

...
Think about it,
No guns = No gun violence. And that IS the truth.

Oh sure, I totally agree with you, no guns = no gun violence. Except for violence perpetrated by the gov. against its citizens. Thomas Jefferson said that the beauty of the Second Amendment is that it won't be needed until they try to repeal it.

And no guns /= no violence. You can kill with anything. Yes, guns are much quicker, but you have to be able to use them. Using the scale of your gun/nuke analogy, I propose illegalizing fists. I mean, you can kill with those things, and we're in a really big mess 'cuz everybody has them and people are always getting punched out and killed.
After all, no fists = no fist violence.

And, finally, the key issue the article brought up that you didn't bother to pay attention: by far most gun violence is committed by perps. And finding a gun is not a problem for them. They have all sorts of sources for weapons and won't ever be lacking for firepower, regardless of laws banning weaponry. A couple years ago, a city in the U.S. (i think dc) introduced a gun buy back program, in which you would be paid $50 to bring in any gun you want to be destroyed no questions asked. It was a great thing for felons, buy a cheap gun from some supplier, pop a guy, and get it destroyed. Almost no money spent and no evidence. Why would a criminal do this? Because they most certainly aren't lacking for a good supply of deadly force. They can get weapons no matter how many laws are made, and even if the supply gets a little short, it will be much shorter among the general populace, making their job so much easier.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
This is nothing but propaganda.


I think he brings up al ot of good points. I don't think he make reports to be unbiased, since most of his reports are designed to counter the opinions of liberal views. But I think what he says is the truth.

BTW Here is a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm) about how gun crime in Britain is on the rise.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Britain have very strict gun control laws?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
This is nothing but propaganda.

Guns are good? WTF?
Tell that to the thousands of people killed every year by guns.
Just because their are only a few children kill every year by them doesn't mean that right now their isn't a hommie with a uzi doing a drive by as we speak.

Its just plain common since to think that if no one except police officers and the military had guns their would be virtually no gun crimes.

Now before I get flamed, let me say that I am NOT for getting rid of ALL guns. Rifles and shotguns have their place. But hand guns and automatic weapons only have one point to their existence, To kill other people, and if nobody had them, nobody would need them.

I understand that people say that it is their constitutional right to bear arms, but when Jefferson and Franklin were writing it, I don't think that they were thinking about 30 year old Ms. Smith caring a weapon in her pocket book that could put 20 slugs in someone before they could say NRA.

So they say that all people should be allowed to tote guns with them at all times, just to protect themselves from all the other idiots with guns. If that's the case, then the gov't should make a little extra money by selling nuclear weapons to all the other nations. Hell why shouldn't we? They need nukes to protect themselves from our nukes. Then we will need to make faster, better nukes so that ours will be better then theirs.
Sound familiar? If your as old as I am you will remember a little something call the cold war. Is this what these people want? A mini nation wide cold war? I must have a gun so if you shot me, I can shot you. Do these people want Bullet proof vests to become heirlooms, passed down from father to son. Will they do it like the seatbelt laws? force you to carry a gun and wear a vest "for you personal safety". You have to wear your seat belt to protect you from being stupid and from everyone else's stupidity. 100 years ago their were no seat belt laws because only a fraction of people had cars, now that everyone has cars you have to wear it to protect yourself. If everyone carries a gun and a vest, YOU will end up having to have them too, just to protect yourself from others.

Instead of calling it the right to carry, maybe they should just call it population control.
It definitely would make road rage, nascar races, bar fights, and clan meetings allot more interesting!

I think the number 1 on the List of Popularly Reported Misconceptions should be the myth that the media can actually sometimes tell you the TRUTH.

Think about it,
No guns = No gun violence. And that IS the truth.


Yeah, Switzerland is just a hot bed of gun violence. :rolleyes:

England, Whales, and Australia all have very strict gun control laws/bans and they all have some of the highest rates of break-ins and crimes against persons among industrialized nations (higher than in the US). And, at least in England, gun crime is actually on the rise even though gun laws, AFAIK, have never been more strict.

Now, here is a thought for you, trying drawing a distiction between criminals who purchase guns illegally and use them to commit crimes and law-abiding citizens who purchase their firearms legally and don't use them to commit crimes (last time I checked there were about 180 or 190 million law-abiding gun owners in the US).

You are corret that no guns=no gun violence but unless you own a magic wand that will make all guns, and all technology to make guns, disappear off the face of the Earth never to return there will always be guns. So your "no guns=no gun violence" logic, while showing a stellar grasp of the obvious, is no more helpful a solution than "feeding everyone=no world hunger."

Stossel's point that gun controls laws do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals is correct. 9 times out of 10 a gun used to commit a crime has been purchase illegally. Thinking more gun control laws will significantly, if at all, reduce gun crime is a fundamentally flawed train of thought. It would be like making it harder for people to get a driver's license in an effort to curb car theft. I don't think any theif would suddenly stop stealing cars because he no longer had a valid driver's license.

If you want to stop/lower crime you need to, among other things, focus on the socio-economic issues that are the underlying cause of crime instead of focusing on the tools used by criminals to commit crimes. Treat the cause not the symptom.


Lethal

[wdlove]

On the show last evening Myth-Busting" viewers wrote in abou questions they had on the topic.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/myths_040130-1.html

Arthritic Knuckle-Crackers?

Francesca from Brookville, N.Y., writes, "Does cracking my knuckles really predispose me to arthritis?"

No, says the Arthritis Foundation. The noise you hear when you crack your knuckles (sot up a few times) is actually the collapse of an air bubble — it forms inside the joint when the joint is pulled apart. The air bubble doesn't do any damage to your hand and has nothing to do with arthritis.

This old myth just may have been started by a very irritated parent, or teacher, because, as those of you who don't crack your knuckles may know, the sound can be a bit irritating.

So, annoying, yes; arthritis, no.

[Les Kern]

5 and 3 are great examples of Stossel's typical lack of analytical skills. I used to like his peices, but as I got older I began to realize he is part of the problem outlined, for instance, in the book "Culture of Fear", only here he spins some cutsey urban myths.
As for 5 and 3? They jumped out at me because I know something about them. He conveniently leaves out commonly known but all too forgotten facts to make it fit his story. That's what he always does. He's not an investigative reporter, he merely tries to entertain, always slanting toward his wacky beliefs.
You should dismiss him out of hand.

[JesseJames]

So Stossel is like Geraldo?

I remember watching Late Night with Conan O'Brian and they did a skit about him.
It was setup like a nature documentary and they showed him scurrying around in Afghanistan and Iraq. The announcer was commenting how Geraldos could be identified by the distinctive hair on its upper lip, it's the most dangerous animal there is.

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by wdlove
On the show last evening Myth-Busting" viewers wrote in abou questions they had on the topic.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/myths_040130-1.html

Arthritic Knuckle-Crackers?

Francesca from Brookville, N.Y., writes, "Does cracking my knuckles really predispose me to arthritis?"

No, says the Arthritis Foundation. The noise you hear when you crack your knuckles (sot up a few times) is actually the collapse of an air bubble — it forms inside the joint when the joint is pulled apart. The air bubble doesn't do any damage to your hand and has nothing to do with arthritis.

This old myth just may have been started by a very irritated parent, or teacher, because, as those of you who don't crack your knuckles may know, the sound can be a bit irritating.

So, annoying, yes; arthritis, no.
No arthritis... but cracking you knuckes leads to bigger air pockets which are very unsightly.

when your hands are all mangled because of you massive overcracking of your knuckled like mine are you have a problem.

Stossel -- Give me a break.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by MrMacman
No arthritis... but cracking you knuckles leads to bigger air pockets which are very unsightly.

when your hands are all mangled because of you massive overcracking of your knuckled like mine are you have a problem.

Stossel -- Give me a break.

I'm sorry to hear that MrMacman. Could you post a picture of what the damage to your hands look like, I'm curious. ;)

[Powerbook G5]

I never crack mine just because it sounds so creepy whenever I hear that sound.

[kylos]

I, unfortunately, am a full-fledged knuckle cracker. I started after seeing some peers do it when I was a preteen. Looked so cool. It was hard to do at first, but now it is necessary to do so to relieve stiffness in my fingers. I'm not sure if this is related to cracking though, since my grandfather had extremely bad rheumatoid arthritis. (Maybe such hereditary beliefs are mostly mythological as well, don't really know) Anyhow, my right knee is already showing signs of arthritis, so it might not be the cracking. I'm starting on some supplements pretty soon, hopefully that will keep me off cortisone injections.

[wdlove]

Kyle? are you going to try some Glucosamine? I hope that is will prove to be effective.

http://www.spine-health.com/topics/conserv/nut/nut01.html

[etoiles]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Yeah, Switzerland is just a hot bed of gun violence. :rolleyes:


Just a little side note on that: for those who don't know, every 'healthy' Swiss male between 20 and 32 (or more depending on your rank etc.) has to do military service. A few months of basic training (again depending on rank and unit this can stretch out quite a bit) and a few weeks each year until you have reached a certain number of days. You also have to go to a shooting range every year and score a minimum of points to avoid additional gun related training. Now, the interesting part is that you get to keep all your 'personal gear' at home, including gun, ammunition (in a sealed box), gas mask etc.

This could seem very dangerous, but I think the main point is that you get a lot of instruction on how to handle a gun, the army is very big on safety. You will be scrubbing toilets if you forget to put your gun on 'safety' or worse punishment if you keep it loaded after an exercise... You definitely lose the notion to handle it like a toy.

Plus, an assault rifle is hardly the thing you'd tuck into your pants and walk down the streets. You still need a permit to acquire/carry a concealed weapon in Switzerland.

The overall high standard of living also explains the low violent crime rates...most deadly uses of guns are suicides.

[kylos]

Originally posted by wdlove
Kyle? are you going to try some Glucosamine? I hope that is will prove to be effective.

http://www.spine-health.com/topics/conserv/nut/nut01.html

My dad (age 50) has been taking glucosamine supplements for a while, and while he doesn't have arthritis, has noticed a marked improvement in mobility. So I'll be trying glucosamine while still young to hopefully avoid the suffering my grandfather went through.

[MongoTheGeek]

I loved #4. It backed up some things that my prof's back in college used to say.

Health Minister Jim Muhwezi of Uganda points out that as many as two million to three million people may die annually because of DDT. But not because DDT is bad, but because Americans' fear of it has deprived much of the world of the DDT that could have saved them.

Let me say something about the gun one as well. Speaking as someone who out sizes most of the players in last night's game, not having a gun doesn't bother me. I might take up mugging as a hobby. :) If I get a ball bat I can even start mugging groups of people.

I like what the PA constitution has to say about guns. the right of citizens to bear arms for their defense of the defense of the state shall not be questioned.

Seriously I think people should be allowed to have more serious firepower. The idea of the militia is to be able to defend the country in time of need. I want to own a TOW and maybe a 75mm mortar and a couple of belt fed 50's.

#5 is true in that it is misrepresented but who is to say what is fair? There are some that would argue that a head tax is the only fair way to go. There are some that would argue that a regressive tax that taxes the poor more would make more sense since they get a greater share of the largesse. Then again #7 would suggest a flat ceiling on income might be the way to go.

#6 is sad but true. I've been tempted to run for congress with the slogan "Burn the $&%&'er down"

#10 is true. Though let me say when you are sick you get cold much much easier. I know I am ill because I get cold. Back when I was seriously ill I spent the entire winter and spring cold. It wasn't until the summer that no longer felt cold.

[Raid]

Originally posted by etoiles
<snip> Now, the interesting part is that you get to keep all your 'personal gear' at home, including gun, ammunition (in a sealed box), gas mask etc.

This could seem very dangerous, but I think the main point is that you get a lot of instruction on how to handle a gun, the army is very big on safety. You will be scrubbing toilets if you forget to put your gun on 'safety' or worse punishment if you keep it loaded after an exercise... You definitely lose the notion to handle it like a toy.

Plus, an assault rifle is hardly the thing you'd tuck into your pants and walk down the streets. You still need a permit to acquire/carry a concealed weapon in Switzerland.

These are great points, when I worked the US/Canada border I was shocked at the carelessness and lack of knowledge people had about their own weapons. From not knowing it was loaded (or how to unload it for that matter) to forgetting that it was in their vehicle! The fact that people were so careless about something designed to kill made me very nervous.

The big problem is handguns... whatever the NRA says they are designed for concealment and close range firing. Attributes that make them bad for hunting, but great for killing other people.

The laws of firearm use, transportation, and ownership in Canada is fairly strict, which (thankfully) includes manditory saftey training, and detailed background checks. Right now there are huge problems with a new gun registry law. (May opponents of the law are causing delays and the budget for the program has skyrocketed)I'm for the law, and not because I think registration will stop the use of firearms in crime, but will provide possible investigation links for law enforcement to capture a suspect or highlight those with strange weapon purchase habbits. We register the make, model, hell even colour of our cars and don't intend to do anything violently illegal with them. So as long as proper proceedure is used I have no problem with the government attempting to track the ownership and possible criminal use of deadly weapons. I think they should take it one step further and ban the purchase of handguns to everyone outside of security/law enforcement.

I wouldn't want to live in a place that I thought I needed a gun for my own protection. The laws should be changed so that illegal use of a weapon automatical brings the maximum sentance for what ever crime was commited.

[mactastic]

Guns again huh? Can I just call someone a prick now and get it over with?

[Counterfit]

LOL! :D

[Don't panic]

Originally posted by etoiles
Just a little side note on that: for those who don't know, every 'healthy' Swiss male between 20 and 32 (or more depending on your rank etc.) has to do military service. A few months of basic training (again depending on rank and unit this can stretch out quite a bit) and a few weeks each year until you have reached a certain number of days. You also have to go to a shooting range every year and score a minimum of points to avoid additional gun related training. Now, the interesting part is that you get to keep all your 'personal gear' at home, including gun, ammunition (in a sealed box), gas mask etc.

This could seem very dangerous, but I think the main point is that you get a lot of instruction on how to handle a gun, the army is very big on safety. You will be scrubbing toilets if you forget to put your gun on 'safety' or worse punishment if you keep it loaded after an exercise... You definitely lose the notion to handle it like a toy.

Plus, an assault rifle is hardly the thing you'd tuck into your pants and walk down the streets. You still need a permit to acquire/carry a concealed weapon in Switzerland.

The overall high standard of living also explains the low violent crime rates...most deadly uses of guns are suicides.

actually, however strange it may sound, switzerland does have one of the highest rate of firearms deaths in europe (not counting eastern europe/russia/balkans).
it is true that most of them are suicide, but this is true for the US too (~11000 homicides vs ~16000 suicides).

On the other hand, the US have a violent death rate which is three to five times that of any of the other G-7 countries (japan, germany, uk, france, italy and canada).
Although comparing data from different countries is always somewhat arbitrary, (because there are many other differences other than gun laws), I think that the equation less guns=less violent deaths/injuries is so obvious (IMO, of course) that I really don't get how it is not "common sense".
I agree that even if strict gun laws were passed, criminals would find ways to getthem, but it would make it harder for them to get them and definitively much easier for police to track them.

Originally posted by stelliform
BTW Here is a BBC article about how gun crime in Britain is on the rise

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Britain have very strict gun control laws?


well, may be the use of firearms-related crimes, went (slightly) up in england, but the number of deaths actually went down. Besides, look at the numbers: 80 homicides in England, >10000 in the US!

i guess i agree with randomhead and raid on this one, guns ARE bad.

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by Don't panic
I think that the equation less guns=less violent deaths/injuries is so obvious (IMO, of course) that I really don't get how it is not "common sense".
Violent crimes can be committed with knives too, do you want to ban knives so no one gets stabbed?I agree that even if strict gun laws were passed, criminals would find ways to getthem, but it would make it harder for them to get them and definitively much easier for police to track them.Except that many of the guns they use now were obtained illegally, and therefore are unlicensed and harder to track due to the lack of a paper trail.
well, may be the use of firearms-related crimes, went (slightly) up in england, but the number of deaths actually went down. Besides, look at the numbers: 80 homicides in England, >10000 in the US! Besides, look at the the numbers: 625 homicides (including 9 by "legal intervention") in New York City in 2002(link (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/vs/2002sum.pdf)), but Cumberland RI only had 0! You have to report on populations too man.i guess i agree with randomhead and raid on this one, guns ARE bad. Tell that to the person who lives in a cabin in the middle of Montana who hunts to survive.

[Raid]

Originally posted by Counterfit
Tell that to the person who lives in a cabin in the middle of Montana who hunts to survive.

Well people who "hunt to survive" don't usually do it with a handgun (in Montana or elsewhere). I don't have a problem with hunting rifles and target shooting as long as it's done safely and legally. Hey I got to admit there's something macho about guns, but it's different (at least for me) when you've got one in your hands. Cause I knew if I screwed up and it went off I could have been fired, hurt myself, or at worst... kill somebody. Thankfully I was trained well and always kept saftey a number one priority, and I never had a problem. But there were only two people my entire time there that I felt had proper respect for their weapons, and they were both law enforcement officers.

The thinking of getting a gun to protect yourself from other people who have guns is a lot like the cold war arms race. The best long term strategy is to reduce the ammount of weapons everywhere and go after the criminals who use them to commit crimes with the full force of the law.

[MongoTheGeek]

Originally posted by Raid
The thinking of getting a gun to protect yourself from other people who have guns is a lot like the cold war arms race. The best long term strategy is to reduce the ammount of weapons everywhere and go after the criminals who use them to commit crimes with the full force of the law.

Actually the best strategy is to have some small but real percentage of the population running around armed and willing to defend themselves competently. Bad guys understand Russian Roulette and typically won't play it willingly. Incompetent defense is worse than none at all if it is to be used a deterrent.

It is like the cold war arms race. Had the US and France not had the guns then Belgium, West Germany, Denmark et. al. wouldn't have been nearly as safe from attack by the godless communists. Likewise has the Soviets not had nukes Poland, East Germany, et. al would not have been as safe from attack by the imperialist capitalists. Both sides were afraid would this be time the bullet came into the cylinder?

[mactastic]

And out of all the issues in the original post we're stuck on guns again... Well, we made it to 9 or 10 pages last time.

[Don't panic]

Originally posted by Counterfit
You have to report on populations too man.
ThatÕs exactly what I was looking at: relative numbers.
There are approx 60 million people living in the UK and according to that article, there were less than 100 murders there are approx 280 millions here and up of 10000 firearms homicides (in a good year). You do the math.
There is a culture of violence in this country that is unmatched in the rest of the industrialized countries, and this is is certainly due also to the abundance of guns and the easiness of accessing them, handguns in particular. I find scary when people like Stossel argue that after all there are ÒonlyÓ about 100 of our children killed by guns every year, like it is a fact of life we have to live with. Except, we donÕt have to live with it, and Ðguess what?- most of the people in the industrialized world do not live with it.
In a survey of childrenÕs death in the 26 most industrialized countries (http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm), of the total 1107 firearms deaths, 957 (86%) occurred in the United States (US kid accounted for just 35% of the total number). The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14).
Would we still have violence if we didnÕt have widespread firearms? Of course, but I would argue that the ÒefficiencyÓ of the violence would be lower, resulting in many less deaths, no to mention the reduction in fatal accidents and suicides.
And yes, there are a lot of guns already out there, but thatÕs not an excuse for not doing anything about (hey, you can always put a tight control on the bulletsÉ itÕs even constitutional)

And as far as your Montana hunter-gatherer friends, IÕll be willing to make an exception for both of them .

[Don't panic]

Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
Actually the best strategy is to have some small but real percentage of the population running around armed and willing to defend themselves competently.

I happen to agree on this one, I even came up with a great name for them:
"police"! :)

[SPG]

Stossel is a jackass with an agenda.
#9 We have more free time because more of us are unemployed or above retirement age.

#8 Double income families get clobbered with increased costs of higher education for their children and the very real decline in real wages since 1974.

#7 Money can't buy happiness? Tell that to the dozen homeless guys I pass on the way home every day. It might not buy happiness but it sure as hell can buy off some basic misery. Not to mention the number of marriages that fail over monetary stresses or one spouse working too much. Money won't buy happiness for someone who can never have enough money.

#6 He's right about the Government growing of the republicans. No argument there.

#5 Rich and taxes... First of all there is more than just income tax. Payroll taxes and SSI and state and local taxes and sales tax and you get the picture. All these other taxes become regressive and weighted on the less wealthy to the point where most people pay a much higher percentage than the very wealthy when you add up all the taxes.

#4 Ask the people suffering the effects of agent orange from VietNam and then talk to the survivors of Bhopal India about the thousands who died there, then visit Love Canal, then Minamata, then...well check with your doctor at this point because you will have been exposed to a lot of deadly chemicals. Yeah chemicals are good. DDT was banned for a reason, it killed a lot of things it wasn't supposed to.

#3 Guns are fun! Guns are good! Yay! Bang bang! Woops, sorry about that. Guns are designed for one thing...killing things. Killing a deer each fall? Aside from PETA, most people are cool with that, just don't drink too much and put a cap in your buddy's ass. Handguns on the streets? not good. Handguns around the house where the kids find 'em? not good. Background checks and waiting periods? Good. NRA giving Stossel a fat check? Not good.

#2 Too much garbage? Not if you've ever driven through Utah, there's plenty of room! Do you really want to fill it though? I can take a crap every day in the middle of the street and never fill it, but should I? According to Stossel that's just fine since we're dealing with wild generalizations. What a fartbag.

Since they don't have a #1 on the site, I'll make up my own. John Stossel should be encased in a 10 foot wide cube of solid clear lexan. Why not? His sole purpose is to confuse people with simplifications of real issues to the point that they are so distorted that they would get a wrong impression of the real issue. By encasing John Stossel in a solid, yet semitransparent cube we can illustrate that by using ridiculous logic we can ignore any real problem. A small plaque could be affixed to the cube so that future generations could understand the challenges of living in a world with a real talking John Stossel. ABC would also save a very large amount of money that could go to reporting truthfully on real issues in a constructive manner rather than obfuscation.

[Counterfit]

Well said :)

[wwworry]

about #5

first so the top 1% pays 34% of the federal income tax but they have 40% of the wealth!

and the other thing is that it's not the top1% that is stealing this countries future away but the top .4%. These are the real winners in Bush America.

THe squeeze is on people making between $50,000 and $500,000. THeir tax rates are at historic highs while the top 13,000 hoseholds in America are paying less and less.

They will try and confuse you all the way to the bank.

[Desertrat]

Ah, blame the thing! Guns persuade people to hold up filling stations. Chemicals don't even knock as they slide under your door. People don't have anything to do with malactions?

DDT, if locally applied, sparingly, in powder form, does good. (Naples, 1944 or 1945. DDT, dusted around/in houses, killed fleas, stopping a typhus outbreak.) DDT, if disseminated via a fogger or aerial spraying does indeed kill good critters as well as bad.

Love canal? Does nobody blame the school board that sold the land to the developer? While that land was a park (covered over by the chemical company and donated to the school district for the acknowledged safe use as a park), the surface was undisturbed and the chemicals were not a problem. The unknowing developer dug basements, and voila!

Hoplophobes yowl against armed, law-abiding citizens, while the reality is that these citizens are no problem to law enforcement or society at large. That's been proven, over and over, but facts don't seem to matter.

Not all Stossel's stuff is accurate, of course. The total tax take at all levels has required many wives to work in order to maintain the lifestyle of an earlier generation. "Working more, just to stay equal." And just about every economic analysis group keeps reiterating that the buying power/disposable income of the middle class is declining. Less savings and more debt.

As usual, lots of grains of truth. Lots of "Not quite, Bubba." as well.

'Rat

[radhak]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The total tax take at all levels has required many wives to work in order to maintain the lifestyle of an earlier generation. "Working more, just to stay equal."


my personal opinion, they are not trying to maintain the lifestyle of an earlier generation, but that of their neighbours in this generation. a single tv used to be enough earlier for the entire family, but then, a tv used to cost much more as a percentage of the family's take-home monthly income. if you do the math today, a far bigger tv which performs arguably better, costs far less percentage of the monthly salary, but nobody would be happy with that single tv now, because its an in-thing to have more than one, which means that you need more disposable income, which means the mom needs to work too! and that applies to most of the stuff that we think is a necessity around the house or our life. just look around.

( i said 'arguably' above, because if i was so happy watching a movie or the game on a regular 27" tv till last year, which still functions just as good, how is it that the whole marketing world tries to convince me that the plasma, HD 27" tv is a must-have? could it be that they are just interested in making more money?)


As usual, lots of grains of truth. Lots of "Not quite, Bubba." as well.
'Rat

no arguments there; this was just another way to fill his slot on tv, get people excited, and earn the tag of an 'investigative (?) reporter'.

but still, when i see my mom next, she will insist that i need to cover-up more otherwise i will catch a cold, whatever my current age ;)

[numediaman]

It is amazing how many threads end up talking about guns.

How about a compromise? Don't get rid of guns, get rid of gun owners. That way the gun lovers get to keep their guns, and get a nice warn cot to sleep on. The anti-gun crowd get what they want, a world without crazy people on the street with guns.

(Why do I think neither side will be happy with this?)

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
DDT, if locally applied, sparingly, in powder form, does good. (Naples, 1944 or 1945. DDT, dusted around/in houses, killed fleas, stopping a typhus outbreak.) DDT, if disseminated via a fogger or aerial spraying does indeed kill good critters as well as bad.


So 'Rat, does that mean you are OK with someone using DDT around you? Not you, but some random person who you aren't sure if they know exactly what they're doing and you have to put your faith in them with no way of knowing if they'll do the right thing when push comes to shove.

[SPG]

Originally posted by SPG
#5 Rich and taxes... First of all there is more than just income tax. Payroll taxes and SSI and state and local taxes and sales tax and you get the picture. All these other taxes become regressive and weighted on the less wealthy to the point where most people pay a much higher percentage than the very wealthy when you add up all the taxes.

Forgot to mention tax shelters. If you check what the top 1% are really paying in taxes vs income, you'd find that a lot of them have a very low rate.
Also I just read today how even though corporate profits are up, the taxes paid by these same corporations are down.

[Desertrat]

mac, my kneejerk response was gonna be, "Read the directions." However, that could lead to thread drift about the education system and literacy...:) Anyhow, there's no magic about the use of DDT, assuming you can pour pee out of a boot without having to have a hole in the toe and directions on the heel. The same caveats apply to Chlordane and fire ants (far aints, in the south).

SPG, aren't IRAs and 401ks tax shelters? :) Anyhow, while corporate profits are up in gross dollar terms, the profitability as a percentage of income, or as return on investment, is in the toilet. Profitability for the majority of US corporations has been on a downward trend for over twenty years.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

numediaman, has it ever occurred to you that the people who run law enforcement agencies might have some knowledge about the problems with guns and crime and the people involved? Isn't it reasonable for them to have a fair amount of knowledge and expertise?

Now, quite a few state LEO agencies are on public record as being in support of honest people owning guns, and in favor of the concealed carry laws.

Why, then, would you regard law-abiding gun owners as problems? What makes you think you know more than those who deal with the "package" on a daily basis? What credibility supports your opinion?

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
numediaman, has it ever occurred to you that the people who run law enforcement agencies might have some knowledge about the problems with guns and crime and the people involved? Isn't it reasonable for them to have a fair amount of knowledge and expertise?

Now, quite a few state LEO agencies are on public record as being in support of honest people owning guns, and in favor of the concealed carry laws.

Why, then, would you regard law-abiding gun owners as problems? What makes you think you know more than those who deal with the "package" on a daily basis? What credibility supports your opinion?

'Rat

So would it be safe to apply that logic to education? I mean, wouldn't teachers be the ones to go to for advice on education issues? And what credibility do you have to suggest that the Dept. of Ed. be abolished, as I have seen you argue for? And when we want advice on abortion issues, why go to anyone other than Planned Parenthood and doctors who perform abortions? I mean, anyone who doesn't deal with that 'package' has no credibility on the issue, correct? Environmental issues? If you haven't squatted in a tree lately, your opinion doesn't count?

[Neserk]

Originally posted by numediaman
Don't get rid of guns, get rid of gun owners.

This cracked me up!

Not to far from where I lived two high school kids got killed in a drive by. 1 of the shooters was a former student of a teacher I worked for last Monday and Friday. :( I"m against guns. I did some reasearch through the CIA's website and there is a dfeinate positive correlation between homicides (by guns) and having the kind of access we do to hand guns. And those people who think they are going to protect themselves with them? Nope. It is more likely that you or a member of your family will die from that hand gun then you'll use it to protect yourself.

WHen I have more energy I'll read the "facts" JS puts up and see if I can find the holes.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Desertrat
numediaman, has it ever occurred to you that the people who run law enforcement agencies might have some knowledge about the problems with guns and crime and the people involved? Isn't it reasonable for them to have a fair amount of knowledge and expertise?

'Rat

That theory would work if they were solely interested in the welfare of humanit. Unfortunately that ugly word "politics" rears its head and and distorts everything. *Sigh*

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Les Kern
5 and 3 are great examples of Stossel's typical lack of analytical skills.

Sounds like he should have stuck to 5 myths that were actually documented by studies.

Did he do the one where kissing doesn't pass cold germs? :D

[Desertrat]

Were I curious about life in a classroom, I'd ask a teacher. If my interest is the philosophy of education--what should curricula include, e.g.--I'd ask someone with broader experience and/or more and different education. As far as the Dept. of Edu., about the only worthwhile thing they've come up with is Title 9--which isn't worth the many billions of tax dollars they've spent...

State police agencies collect and collate crime data for their states. This is an area of specific expertise: Who does what to whom, and how it was done.

Abortion? That's philosophical and religious. The medical part is quite simple, all things considered. The p and r ain't.

If a tree squatter has a broad education in environmental matters, and some number of years experience in applying the education and acquiring knowlege, the opinions might well be valid.

I rather doubt that a state police agency has any particular axe to grind about gun-carry issues. However, in many states--I know of Florida, one of the Carolinas and Texas--the agencies have been supportive. If I and my handgun are allegedly so dangerous to the public, why am I--and folks like me--so liked by the cops? Why are they so unconcerned about my carrying? After all, their jobs involve dealing with folks misusing guns...

Good Guys don't misuse. Hundreds of thousands of us. Tens of millions, if you start including hunters.

'Rat

[mactastic]

The funny part is that you don't preface your LEO statements with things like "If the law enforcement guys had years of experience etc etc...." If you did I might be more persuaded. Yet all your teacher, tree- sitter, abortion responses are highly qualified. If they meet these criteria, and if they have this experience I'll listen to them, but someone who supports my RKBA needs no qualification.

[Desertrat]

mac, folks in any agency who are authorized to issue press releases usually have quite a number of years of experience. It's not really common that a "new hire" speak to official policy. :)

IMO, this has less to do with RKBA than it does with whose arguments or views have merit.

It's funny-odd about all these arguments. I've been "messing" with guns since my first Daisy Red Ryder of Christmas, 1941. I've listened/watched/read all the arguments since introduction of what became the Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as all the ensuing laws and regulations.

I guess the primary area of concern for me in all this is, how do people equate the possible behavior of law abiding citizens with the known behavior of criminals? That is, why should one be afraid of the vast majority of good people having guns? I just don't understand the fear. Nor do I understand blaming an object because of its misuse by some few people.

I dunno. Maybe my genetics are all wrong; fear got left out. I've raised hell in such disparate places as the waterfront of Marseilles and the Algerian section of Paris, as well as a few Tex-Mex border towns. Hung out in lots of sleazy-bars and after hours joints. Seen multi-star generals quiver and worry over ICBMs, and been backwards in race cars at 150+. I survived all that crap. 50 years ago, I beat TB; now I've beaten cancer. Maybeso just living a while has given me a bit of a different attitude about stuff.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IMO, this has less to do with RKBA than it does with whose arguments or views have merit.

Exactly 'Rat. So you didn't miss my point after all!

[Don't panic]

Ok ÔRat, you sound reasonable and I believe youÕre one of the good guys, the law abiding citizens who know what they are doing, who understand and respect their weapons, who donÕt walk around with a loaded beretta tucked in their pants, who shoots for fun at a shooting range and so on. Fine. If the Òvast majority of of good people having gunsÓ were like you I would have (a bit) less of a problem with it. But I do not think that is the case, and a lot of Òpeople having gunsÓ will abuse or misuse their weapons, ending up using them when drunk or enraged, letting (willingly or not) them get in the hands of kids or of people who are not such Ògood citizensÓ and so on. So I am not blaming the tool, I am suggesting that only people who are trained to use that tool should be allowed near it. Do you oppose thorough background checks or the need of a license (yes, with a periodic exam) for legally owning a gun? If you do, why? If you mainly use your gun for ÒfunÓ (i.e. shooting range), would you agree that you could legallly own only Ônon-lethalÕ bullets, and that youÕd need a different kind of license to access lethal bullets? Do you agree that there is a big difference between a hunting rifle and an AK-47?
There are many level of guns control. I hope that everyone agrees that having a privately-owned loaded ICBM silo in the backyard next door doesnÕt make the nighborhood safer. But I donÕt think that automatic/concealed weapons are ÔconceptuallyÕ that different. Who ÒneedsÓ an M-16? DonÕt you think that if less firearms were available, less firearms would be used? Honestly, do you really think that if every other person in the street carried a gun we would have LESS firearm-related deaths/injuries? Would you feel safer? I certainly wouldnÕt.

[Desertrat]

Lotsa good questions, Don't; panic. I'll try to give my views.

For perspective: Prior to the GCA of 1968, you could have the postman deliver your firearm to your door, once your check had cleared. End of story. No perjury-penalty BATFE Form 4473, etc.

My point here is that legally-acquired firearms are way, way more difficult to get than ever was the case in the past. An obvious question, to me, is why did crime rates go up where guns were involved, during a time of increasing regulation?

Now, given the ever worsening level of our society insofar as rudeness and lack of a sense of personal responsibility--or so the sociologists and daily papers tell us--I'm one who favors the NICS. I despise the need for it, but it's a reasonable level of defense against some of the efforts at wrongful acquisition. "Some" but not all efforts.

The BATFE testified before Congress that over 85% of guns used in crimes were stolen, or had been stolen and then sold to the misuser. Of the remainder, the majority were legally acquired by people who later misused them--which could well be years later, in a family quarrel. (How can you foretell anybody's behavior in later years?) To me, then, the problem is not folks who patronize gun dealers.

The "gunshow loophole", according to one of the fed data gatherers (BATFE? Justice?) doesn't really exist. Guns bought "off the books" (from private, non-dealer owners) at gunshows are apparently around one percent of crime guns.

I really don't understand the mistrust of those who own firearms. Why distrust farmers and ranchers and doctors and lawyers and plumbers and mechanics?

A sad reality about the demographics of homicide: The US rate is around 20 or 22 per hundred thousand people. Western European countries average around six. According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, if the homicide rate due to misuse of firearms by blacks is subtracted (And this is predominantly black-on-black crime; drug-related, in the ghettos), the U.S. rate falls to around five or six. (Figures vary a bit on a year-by-year basis.) IOW, if you're not in a "bad" area, you might as well be in a few-gun country in Europe. Fact.

"...would you agree that you could legallly own only Ônon-lethalÕ bullets...",

I've been shooting and reloading my ammo for many decades. I've never heard of a non-lethal bullet. The police have "bean bag" loads for their shotguns, but even those can be lethal. Even .22 "ratshot" can be lethal. A .22 Short is definitely lethal.

As for licensing bullets, what's the point? Anybody with a small lathe can make their own. Most of today's bullet manufacturers started out as small-time guys with an idea for a better "mousetrap" of a bullet. They'd start out with such primitive materials as copper tubing and lead and a sizing press. And anybody with access to automobile wheel weights and a mould and a gas stove can cast their own.

"Do you agree that there is a big difference between a hunting rifle and an AK-47?"

Yes. Hunting rifles generally are far more accurate. Their cartridges are more powerful. I won't allow anybody in my mule deer hunt camp with such junk. The sights are crude and the triggers are shameful. But, their function is no different from "pretty" semi-auto rifles that have been around for almost a century. Just hitting a man-sized target b4eyond 150 or 200 yards will have required many hundreds of rounds of practice. I have figured for decades that with my pet deer rifle, anything inside of 500 yards belongs to me. Last, most of the 7.62x39 AK ammo is full-jacketed. I'd much rather get hit with that than with any hunting bullet ever made. Far less tissue damage.

Note: A true AK 47 is a selective fire weapon, capable of fully automatic fire as well as semi-automatic. The so-called "Assault Weapons" are semi-auto only. The ban on them is purely cosmetic. I fail to see the point of worrying about bayonet lugs (Ever heard of a drive-by bayonetting?) or the pistol grip. The ban was passed to create the illusion of "doing something". Congress might as well have legislated the color of women's lipstick as gotten in a lather over "evil black rifles".

Where I differ from many, I guess, is that I believe that if one carries deadly force, he has no choice but to bear a greater responsibility for the consequences of his decisions and actions than one who does not. Fortunately, the Texas Legislature agrees with me. We CHL holders by law are indeed held to higher standards than the rest of society.

Example: You're a bad guy. You come at me with an axe or a knife or threaten me with a firearm. Fine. I exercise my right and shoot at you in order to end the obvious threat to my life. If I miss, and my bullet kills some third party, I can be found guilty of murder. Note that this is even a higher standard than applies to police. (In the U.S. on an annual basis, there are (varies) 33 "Oops!" killings by police gunfire, compared to three by citizens.)

By and large, our police are not very knowledgeable about firearms, nor very skilled in their use. This is "on average", of course, and not applicable to all police. Many departments have qualification once a year, for 50 rounds. I'll commonly--no longer, "regularly"--shoot 500 rounds in a week, and I'm no longer doing competition in IPSC.

How do you decide about "less firearms"? Some 40% of all US households have at least one firearm. That's over a hundred million people, right there. The guesstimated gun population of the U.S. is somewhere around one per person. That's increasing at a rate of some 5 million per year, per the BATFE. Now, "no guns" would mean no gun deaths, but I note that only one-third or one-fourth, roughly, of U.S. homicides are committed with firearms. I guarantee you that the average Stop-n-Rob clerk will cooperate with a knife-wielding "perp" as readily as if the Bad Guy had a gun.

I'm more of a shooter/hunter than a collector, but I have several guns that are over 100 years old. Several others that go back way before WW II, and a few from before WW I. And, I have my father's GI Carbine that he carried in WW II.

Funny. All the way through WW II, our government trusted you and me and others insofar as firearms were concerned. Why did this change? Who benefits?

Read the introduction to "Armed and Female", by Paxton Quigley. She was an activist in getting passage of GCA '68. She's recanted.

Read "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi and Daly. (Univ. of Fla. press; 1985. Amazon.com at one time did list it.) Their primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed or enforced in Florida had ever affected the crime rate there. (Two of these authors are statisticians.)

Read the conclusions of Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU. He's a statistician. He's a card-carrying member of the ACLU. He's called some of the NRA positions "idiotic". However, contrasting the 600,000 illegal misuses of firearms per year, he found that at LEAST 800,000 times per year that firearms were used to prevent a crime; his upper limit is thrice that. ("Use" can be a verbal lie, "I have a gun!" even if the defender does not. Or display, or a "warning shot" (stupid) or an actual firing at a Bad Guy.)

What it is, is, it's complex. Unfortunately, it's also a world of agenda-driven misinformation on the part of those who call for ever more Draconian--but "reasonable"--laws. I've touched on "Assault Weapons"; "Cop Killer Bullets" don't exist. Fact. No such thing. The yowling is over a design that was only available to police. "Waiting periods": I've tried to track the "buy now, kill now" events for a number of years. As near as I can tell, we're talking maybe 30 or 40 per year, nationwide--and this includes suicides. Where waiting periods do exist, people in absolute need of a means of self defense have been murdered during the time of the wait. Fact. Once, at least, in Pennsylvania, some three or four years back. One of those jealous ex-husband deals. Her restraining order did her no good at all.

Last: Courts have held that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. Their purpose is to provide for peace and quiet in the community at large. At least two federal decisions that I'm aware of; one in Oklahoma and one in D.C. Several state court decisions of the same sort. (Sure, if a crime goes down and the cops see it, they'll act, but otherwise they pretty much function as janitors.) The only person responsible for personal safety is that individual person. You, me, whomever.

Hope this helps.

You're always welcome over at http://www.thehighroad.org if you have other questions. Several of the moderators and of the membership are cops. We have some fairly literate and erudite ladies over there, as well. (And a few rank fools, of course. Just like anywhere. Any group is a cross-section of humanity; some sections are crosser than others.)

Regards,

Art

[Counterfit]

Intelligent discussion has no place here! :p

Hmm, I wonder if my uncle can get me some time on the range used by his dept. (He's the armorer for them :D)