Myths About Gun Control

10-24-2005, 07:07 AM

( John Stossel )

http://www.rense.com/general68/myths.htm

Myths About Gun Control
By John Stossel
10-22-5

Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are
very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill
people.

"Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President
Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law.

Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference.
The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various
types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and
bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws
have reduced violent crime is simply a myth.

I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts.
"I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security
inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background
check or not."

"There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you
can get a gun."

Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First,
criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.")
Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's
money to be made selling something, someone will sell it.

A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the
prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The
study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison
system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told
me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder
because you don't know what to expect out of them."

What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed
weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton.
His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!"

In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to
carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not
one of those states reported an upsurge in crime.

Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as
criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot
her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I
could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who
had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived.
Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at
least 700,000 times a year.

And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has
it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller,
interpreted the Second Amendment -- "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" -- as conferring a special
privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual
right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear
arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that
aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law
still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of
the United States militia.

What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and
an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth --
born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government
need not fear the wrath of an armed people."

"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid
stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw
the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is
a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare
circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the
government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who
protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no
one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies
may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get
to make only once."

2005 JFS Productions, Inc.

Otter · 10-24-2005, 03:13 PM

We need Crime Control not Gun Control. When someone pulls a knife or other deadly weapon on you and says "Give me your wallet," you're being threatoned with death or bodily harm. That person should get the death penalty, no plea bargain, just regular or extra crispy. Allowing everyone unrestricted carry will weed out a few morons, but will weed out alot of criminals.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously."

Dale · 10-24-2005, 04:33 PM

quote by Bulletproof: "The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth."

Who invited a medical based organization into investigating and commenting on a non-medical issue?

Or has the majority of society now considered illegal gun use a medical disease or a disorder rather than a crime?

Thrawn · 10-24-2005, 05:23 PM

The CDC in Atlanta handles gun use as a disease. Even Georgia isn't commie free...

10-24-2005, 06:00 PM

Letter to Grantees: Restriction of Funding

Dear Recipient of NCIPC funds:

The purpose of this letter is to remind you of the restriction of using injury-related funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to advocate or promote gun control and to inform you of recent legislative developments pertaining to this restriction. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, CDC has received appropriations language each year stating, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” CDC takes this language seriously and continues to ensure the agency and its funded recipients are abiding by this requirement.

The Department of Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003 (H.R. 246) contains modified language from the initial gun control restriction language in fiscal year 1997. The modified language is included below:

“Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control . . .”
(Source: H.R. 246; bold added)

Furthermore, Conference Report language accompanying H.R. 246 has also been modified from initial gun control restriction language and now states:

“The conference agreement includes a modification to the proviso carried in prior appropriations acts prohibiting the use of funds available to the CDC to advocate or promote gun control, as proposed in H.R. 246. The Senate bill included a similar proviso. The conferees acknowledge that the purpose of this proviso is to prohibit Federal funds from being used to lobby for or against the passage of specific Federal, State or local legislation intended to advocate or promote gun control. The conferees understand that the CDC’s responsibility in this area is primarily data collection and the dissemination of information and expect research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded through an impartial, scientific peer review process. The conferees instruct the CDC to provide a detailed report, within 90 days of enactment, on the steps the CDC has taken to ensure this restriction is being followed.”
(Source: House Report 108-10)

CDC has always complied with the existing Anti-Lobbying Act requirements, which prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated federal moneys. Specifically, the Anti-Lobbying Act provides that, unless such activity is directly authorized by Congress, no part of the money appropriated by Congress shall be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, printed matter or other device intended to influence a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to favor or oppose (by vote or otherwise) any legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation. This prohibition includes funding or assisting public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence Members of Congress with regard to such actions by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the appropriations and conference report language regarding gun control to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

This new appropriations requirement still supports CDC’s work to:

* collect and support the collection of data related to firearm-related injuries;
* engage in objective scientific, public health research awarded through an impartial, scientific peer review process, directed to preventing injuries related to violence and firearms; and
* publish and disseminate the results of firearm-related injury research and surveillance data.

Importantly, recipients of CDC funds are subject to the same limitations in using CDC injury prevention and control funds. Recipients are expected to establish appropriate fiscal control and other mechanisms to ensure that CDC funds are not used to promote specific legislation that restricts or controls the purchase or use of firearms through conferences, public events, publications, and “grassroots” activities. Recipients of CDC funds should not give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under these instructions.

Most of you should be aware of these restrictions, but if you have any questions regarding a particular matter or event, please contact staff of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

Sincerely,

Sue Binder, M.D.
Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Sandra R. Manning, CGFM
Director, Procurement and Grants Office

10-24-2005, 07:07 AM	#1
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	Myths About Gun Control ( John Stossel ) http://www.rense.com/general68/myths.htm Myths About Gun Control By John Stossel 10-22-5 Guns are dangerous. But myths are dangerous, too. Myths about guns are very dangerous, because they lead to bad laws. And bad laws kill people. "Don't tell me this bill will not make a difference," said President Clinton, who signed the Brady Bill into law. Sorry. Even the federal government can't say it has made a difference. The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth. I wanted to know why the laws weren't working, so I asked the experts. "I'm not going in the store to buy no gun," said one maximum-security inmate in New Jersey. "So, I could care less if they had a background check or not." "There's guns everywhere," said another inmate. "If you got money, you can get a gun." Talking to prisoners about guns emphasizes a few key lessons. First, criminals don't obey the law. (That's why we call them "criminals.") Second, no law can repeal the law of supply and demand. If there's money to be made selling something, someone will sell it. A study funded by the Department of Justice confirmed what the prisoners said. Criminals buy their guns illegally and easily. The study found that what felons fear most is not the police or the prison system, but their fellow citizens, who might be armed. One inmate told me, "When you gonna rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder because you don't know what to expect out of them." What if it were legal in America for adults to carry concealed weapons? I put that question to gun-control advocate Rev. Al Sharpton. His eyes opened wide, and he said, "We'd be living in a state of terror!" In fact, it was a trick question. Most states now have "right to carry" laws. And their people are not living in a state of terror. Not one of those states reported an upsurge in crime. Why? Because guns are used more than twice as often defensively as criminally. When armed men broke into Susan Gonzalez' house and shot her, she grabbed her husband's gun and started firing. "I figured if I could shoot one of them, even if we both died, someone would know who had been in my home." She killed one of the intruders. She lived. Studies on defensive use of guns find this kind of thing happens at least 700,000 times a year. And there's another myth, with a special risk of its own. The myth has it that the Supreme Court, in a case called United States v. Miller, interpreted the Second Amendment -- "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" -- as conferring a special privilege on the National Guard, and not as affirming an individual right. In fact, what the court held is only that the right to bear arms doesn't mean Congress can't prohibit certain kinds of guns that aren't necessary for the common defense. Interestingly, federal law still says every able-bodied American man from 17 to 44 is a member of the United States militia. What's the special risk? As Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals judge and an immigrant from Eastern Europe, warned in 2003, "the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people." "The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do," Judge Kozinski noted. "But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." 2005 JFS Productions, Inc.

10-24-2005, 03:13 PM	#2
Otter Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vermont Posts: 974 Images: 6	We need Crime Control not Gun Control. When someone pulls a knife or other deadly weapon on you and says "Give me your wallet," you're being threatoned with death or bodily harm. That person should get the death penalty, no plea bargain, just regular or extra crispy. Allowing everyone unrestricted carry will weed out a few morons, but will weed out alot of criminals. "Life is too important to be taken seriously." __________________ Life is too important to be taken seriously.

10-24-2005, 04:33 PM	#3
Dale Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Too Dang Hot, Arizona Posts: 4,284	quote by Bulletproof: "The Centers for Disease Control did an extensive review of various types of gun control: waiting periods, registration and licensing, and bans on certain firearms. It found that the idea that gun control laws have reduced violent crime is simply a myth." Who invited a medical based organization into investigating and commenting on a non-medical issue? Or has the majority of society now considered illegal gun use a medical disease or a disorder rather than a crime? __________________ "It confuses me how some people can vigorously go against the 2nd. Amendment and still call themselves patriotic"-me

10-24-2005, 05:23 PM	#4
Thrawn Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Okeefenokee Posts: 1,618 Images: 6	The CDC in Atlanta handles gun use as a disease. Even Georgia isn't commie free...

10-24-2005, 06:00 PM	#5
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	Letter to Grantees: Restriction of Funding Dear Recipient of NCIPC funds: The purpose of this letter is to remind you of the restriction of using injury-related funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to advocate or promote gun control and to inform you of recent legislative developments pertaining to this restriction. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, CDC has received appropriations language each year stating, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” CDC takes this language seriously and continues to ensure the agency and its funded recipients are abiding by this requirement. The Department of Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003 (H.R. 246) contains modified language from the initial gun control restriction language in fiscal year 1997. The modified language is included below: “Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control . . .” (Source: H.R. 246; bold added) Furthermore, Conference Report language accompanying H.R. 246 has also been modified from initial gun control restriction language and now states: “The conference agreement includes a modification to the proviso carried in prior appropriations acts prohibiting the use of funds available to the CDC to advocate or promote gun control, as proposed in H.R. 246. The Senate bill included a similar proviso. The conferees acknowledge that the purpose of this proviso is to prohibit Federal funds from being used to lobby for or against the passage of specific Federal, State or local legislation intended to advocate or promote gun control. The conferees understand that the CDC’s responsibility in this area is primarily data collection and the dissemination of information and expect research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded through an impartial, scientific peer review process. The conferees instruct the CDC to provide a detailed report, within 90 days of enactment, on the steps the CDC has taken to ensure this restriction is being followed.” (Source: House Report 108-10) CDC has always complied with the existing Anti-Lobbying Act requirements, which prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated federal moneys. Specifically, the Anti-Lobbying Act provides that, unless such activity is directly authorized by Congress, no part of the money appropriated by Congress shall be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, printed matter or other device intended to influence a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government to favor or oppose (by vote or otherwise) any legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation. This prohibition includes funding or assisting public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence Members of Congress with regard to such actions by Congress. In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the appropriations and conference report language regarding gun control to mean that CDC’s funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms. This new appropriations requirement still supports CDC’s work to: * collect and support the collection of data related to firearm-related injuries; * engage in objective scientific, public health research awarded through an impartial, scientific peer review process, directed to preventing injuries related to violence and firearms; and * publish and disseminate the results of firearm-related injury research and surveillance data. Importantly, recipients of CDC funds are subject to the same limitations in using CDC injury prevention and control funds. Recipients are expected to establish appropriate fiscal control and other mechanisms to ensure that CDC funds are not used to promote specific legislation that restricts or controls the purchase or use of firearms through conferences, public events, publications, and “grassroots” activities. Recipients of CDC funds should not give the appearance that CDC funds are being used to carry out activities in a manner that is prohibited under these instructions. Most of you should be aware of these restrictions, but if you have any questions regarding a particular matter or event, please contact staff of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Sincerely, Sue Binder, M.D. Director, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Sandra R. Manning, CGFM Director, Procurement and Grants Office