The Top-Six Gun Myths Debunked 1. Assault Weapons A meaningless term created to provoke shock and fear. When politicians and media types talk about "assault weapons" they're usually referring to rifles that work the same as any other semi-automatic rifle that uses a detachable magazine, but have an appearance similar to true military assault rifles. And appearance is all they share with the real thing. They do not fire fully-automatic or in bursts. They fire one-shot-per-trigger- pull, just like any other semi-automatic firearm. There's nothing any more dangerous or "powerful" about them than any other semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. By the way: The "AR" in "AR-15" does not stand for "assault" or "automatic rifle." It stands for "Armalite Rifle," for the company that developed it in the 1950s. 2. High-Capacity Magazines (sometimes incorrectly called "clips") These are almost always really standard-capacity magazines, designed to hold as many rounds as will fit in the grip of a pistol or, in the case of a rifle, will fit in a magazine that doesn't extend so far from the bottom that it would be awkward or unreliable. There are true high-capacity magazines, but few shooters own them, and even fewer actually use them. They're really not very handy, and they can be unreliable. They're often more a curiosity than truly useful. But the real issue is that, even were we to eliminate "high-capacity" magazines, it would have little, if any, effect on the potential for firearms misuse. It takes but a moment to eject an empty magazine and insert a full one. "Moment" being "as little as a fraction of a second" for somebody practiced in it. (It doesn't take much practice.) 3. Armor-Piercing Ammunition and So-Called "Cop Killer" Bullets Like so-called "assault weapons": Mainly bogeyman terms. Federal law already prohits the sale of armor-piercing handgun ammo, and Teflon- coated bullets are no more dangerous than any other. (Nonetheless: Teflon-coated bullets have been banned in some states.) When you hear or see "armor-piercing bullets," what they're talking about is almost always plain old, run-of-the-mill hunting and target shooting rifle ammunition. Truth is most common hunting and target shooting rifle rounds will penetrate most body armor, the relatively thin sheet steel of cars, some building construction, etc. The stuff isn't designed or sold as "armor piercing." It's just ordinary rifle rounds. They're powerful because they're designed to shoot long distances, not so they'll pierce armor. Armor-piercing rifle ammunition is available, but, given the above, it's hard to say just how much additional threat it is. 4. A gun in the home (or wherever) is more likely to kill or injure you, a loved one or a friend, than be used for self-defense That claim is almost always based on a discredited study done by a Dr. Arthur Kellermann, back in 1986. That was the source of the infamous "43 times" number you sometimes still hear. Even Dr. Kellermann, himself, has backed away from that number. (Some myths die very hard.) Not only is the research to back such claims questionable, but there's evidence of just the opposite: That firearms are frequently used by people to defend themselves, their loved ones and others from attack. 5. Guns are the reason for America's high violent crime rate The fact is that, of every credible study ever done on violent crime and firearms ownership, not a single one has ever found a relationship between the availability of firearms and violent crime. So, while it seems logical that such a relationship exists, it does not. There are U.S. cities with very restrictive gun laws that have violent crime rates much higher than that of other, similarly-sized U.S. cities with less restrictive gun laws. There are countries with a fraction of the gun ownership rate of the U.S. that have much higher violent crime rates--higher even than those of America's worst cities. If there was a relationship between the number of guns in a population and violent crime it experienced, these things would not be so. By the way: So-called "assault weapons" account for less than 2% of the times in which a firearm is used in the commission of a crime in the U.S. 6. Guns are way too easy to get in the U.S. In fact: They're not all that easy to get. With one exception: To buy any firearm in the U.S. one must be cleared by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Some states require additional, more thorough checks to obtain a special permit to purchase a handgun. Which brings us to the much-maligned "gun show loophole." It's not a loophole and it has nothing to do with gun shows. It's a part of the law that says private sales, such as between you and me, do not require the NICS check. One reason for that may be because only holders of Federal Firearms Licenses, such as firearms dealers, are allowed to access NICS. Some of the sales that happen at gun shows are private sales by non-dealers. 7. "No Use For Hunting" and "No Use For Self-Defense" 8. Special Law To Shield Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers From Lawsuit 9. Shooting Down Airplanes and Destroying Railroads There have been no end of thoroughly silly claims about the capabilities of certain "scary" firearms. One such claim was that Barrett's 50 BMG rifle could be used to shoot down passenger airliners. Even at their lowest airborn speeds, airliners travel at hundreds of miles per hour. Barrett's 50 BMG rifle is a bolt-action rifle. It is highly unlikely even an expert marksman could hit something moving that fast with a rifle like that--much less hit it in a spot that will "down" it. Another recent claim was that "assault weapons" can "blow up railroads." Let's see: A modern locomotive weighs about 12 tons. A typical "assault weapon" bullet weighs less than 1/4 ounce. Even the mathimatically-challenged amongst us can figure this one out. This piece could have as well been entitled "Top 6 Gun Lies," because anti-gun politicians and organizations, and the entertainment media that masquerades as "news," have been corrected about them repeatedly, for years, yet they continue to repeat the falsehoods. They can't very well claim ignorance, can they? At this point a curious person might begin to wonder what else they've been deliberately misled about.