TopTenz Top 10 Myths About Guns

[3MTA3]

This YouTube Top 10 list actually does a great job of being neutral and informative.

Read More

 

[Flopsweat]

He really didn't sound like he was pushing one side or the other. Neutral or not, he's probably not getting any ad revenue from YT because the video is about guns.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I thought the video was pretty good ... I do think that he still needs some help when discussing certain aspects of ammunition and the 2A....
That said as a "quick and dirty" reference to folks who don't know much about guns , gun laws , etc ... it was pretty good.
Andy

 

[JeremyK]

Very well done.

 

[Vendor Hidden]

Very good for public consumption, and could hopefully whet the average non-gun owner's appetite for more in-depth information.

 

[Boboclown]

Don't agree with his statement on the 2nd Amendment being able to be limited (the precedence is still unconstitutional I say! ) but overall a good video.

 

[etrain16]

That was pretty well done. It would have been nice if he would have addressed the myth that a gun with a 30-round magazine is more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine. Or maybe the myth that a pistol grip is more deadly than a gun without one. But overall, well done.

 

[Boboclown]

That was pretty well done. It would have been nice if he would have addressed the myth that a gun with a 30-round magazine is more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine. Or maybe the myth that a pistol grip is more deadly than a gun without one. But overall, well done.

He does say that the "assault weapons" are not deadlier than the hunting rifles. He probably thought that covered it or something.

 

[etrain16]

He does say that the "assault weapons" are not deadlier than the hunting rifles. He probably thought that covered it or something.

I did catch that, but he really focused on the 'cosmetics'. Since the anti's love to go after magazine capacity, it would have been nice to have that myth thoroughly debunked as well. Still, a good video and one I'll be sharing with others.

 

[Boboclown]

I did catch that, but he really focused on the 'cosmetics'. Since the anti's love to go after magazine capacity, it would have been nice to have that myth thoroughly debunked as well. Still, a good video and one I'll be sharing with others.

He probably thought the magazines were a cosmetic difference too.

 

[awshoot]

I would be wary of teaching hardcore antis that magazine capacity doesn't mean much because they're response will not be "well then, 30 rd mags are OK" -- it will be "hmmm, if there is no difference between 10 and 30 rd mags, guess we'll limit you to single shot firearms."

 

[Andy54Hawken]

There is no difference in a gun that takes a magazine of 5 , 10 , 20 , 30 rounds etc ... or a singe shot gun .
Both are deadly if misused.
I understand that potential of hits rises as you have more cartridges in the magazine.
But if laws were made to ban everything that had the potential for harm ... then we would be left with nothing.

If someone was shot and killed with one of my flintlocks and someone else was shot and killed with the latest Infantry rifle .. then both are equally dead.
Again I understand why the military is no longer using a flintlock and have gone to the M16 series of rifles.
My point is that non gun people need to understand that it is not the gun that is deadly.... but the person who is misusing it , might be.

When someone brings up the "Assault Rifle" / "High Capacity magazine " argument , I like to point out that no matter the numbers of crimes or murders committed with a so called assault rifle or high capacity magazine ... Just how does that compare to the numbers of the legally owned and lawfully used guns and magazines of those types ( whatever they are ) that never are used in a crime?

Note to all I do not like the terms "Assault Rifle" and "High Capacity magazine"... They mean many different things to many different people , no matter whatever legal definition there may be.
Andy

 

[titsonritz]

Note to all I do not like the terms "Assault Rifle" and "High Capacity magazine"... They mean many different things to many different people , no matter whatever legal definition there may be.
Andy

That is because they are both stupid and inaccurate.

 

[Boboclown]

When someone brings up the "Assault Rifle" / "High Capacity magazine " argument , I like to point out that no matter the numbers of crimes or murders committed with a so called assault rifle or high capacity magazine ... Just how does that compare to the numbers of the legally owned and lawfully used guns and magazines of those types ( whatever they are ) that never are used in a crime?

And how does it compare to the fact that homicides (which includes self defense) are on the decline despite them being prevalent in the U.S? Or how these so called "assault weapons" are used in less homicides than handguns are (under 500 vs over a few thousand)?

 

[teflon6string]

Fairly balanced overview for such a short vid.

That nebulous access for anti-gunners to impose "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment (certain weapons, places, people) is THE leverage-point they relentlessly seek to exploit, incorrectly as needed, setting new precedence for restrictions/bans/confiscation at every opportunity. And then call it law.

"Pro-gunners" not paying keen attention to that specific point have their heads buried deeply in the sand. Salem is counting on that.

 

[etrain16]

Fairly balanced overview for such a short vid.

That nebulous access to impose "reasonable" limits on the Second Amendment (certain weapons, places, people) is THE leverage-point that career anti-gunners relentlessly seek to exploit, incorrectly as needed, setting new precedence for restrictions/bans/confiscation at every opportunity. And then call it law.

"Pro-gunners" not paying keen attention to that specific point have their heads buried deeply in the sand. Salem is counting on that.

And therein lies a huge part of the problem - who defines "reasonable" limits? What's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another. Then it gets left to the courts to help define "reasonable" And of course, if you get the kind of justices that populate the 9th circuit, you know how they're going to define "reasonable", and it certainly won't be to our benefit.

 

[Boboclown]

And therein lies a huge part of the problem - who defines "reasonable" limits? What's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another. Then it gets left to the courts to help define "reasonable" And of course, if you get the kind of justices that populate the 9th circuit, you know how they're going to define "reasonable", and it certainly won't be to our benefit.

Oh yeah? Well in regards to firearms there should only be one "reasonable" law. The 2nd Amendment.

If a citizen population that is heavily restricted then they can't perform their duty to fight a tyrannical government should the need arise. But I guess that's their plan and the idiots gobble it up like some treat.

 

[teflon6string]

And therein lies a huge part of the problem - who defines "reasonable" limits? What's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another. Then it gets left to the courts to help define "reasonable" And of course, if you get the kind of justices that populate the 9th circuit, you know how they're going to define "reasonable", and it certainly won't be to our benefit.

Like practicing law in court, so much of it boils down to semantics du jour.

Whatever I'm using (benign practice/target pistols for poking holes in paper, motor vehicles, or tools in my garage/yard), anything handy becomes an "assault weapon" if I'm forced to defend myself. As a gun owner, it's a definition I must choose, not some career political a$$clown in Salem or DC affixing contrived arbitrary definitions to something they think they need to control.

 

[Koda]

30rd mags are "more deadly"
But the problem with "reasonable" limits is it only limits, the reasonable. People always forget the end result of prohibition,

 

[Andy54Hawken]

"All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures"
Just as true today as it was when Julius Caesar was supposed to have that...
Andy