All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2023 - Louder with Crowder
32:58
GUN WEEK w/ Mrgunsngear | Ep 3. Gun Myths Debunked: Chapter 1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today's episode is one of my favorites.
We will be examining and debunking the most ill-founded, cultural, historical myths that you'll hear from the pro-gun control crowd regarding the legal, political aspects of gun ownership and all of their lies therein.
It's gun week continued.
It's 4th of July week and firearms are as American as apple pie.
Which I don't really know how American that is.
They had apples back in the old country.
I think so.
We didn't invent apples.
I don't know.
We put it into a pie.
But this is Mr. Guns and Gear.
You can go check out his YouTube channel, Mr. Guns and Gear.
It's incredibly helpful.
A lot of good information there, but we wanted to take this opportunity.
We've done Handguns 101, Long Guns 101, the most common firearm myths that you've probably heard.
And we'll separate it into two parts, kind of cultural, political, and then technical since, you know, that's more in your realm of expertise.
And you've worked in the firearms industry too for a while.
Yeah, I've been doing this for... Since 2014.
2014 yeah, and the funny thing is you know we can separate the technical from sort of the cult because sometimes
people who work in The firearms industry they're not always fully aware of the
Second Amendment in the historical context. Yeah, that's very common actually
Yeah, it kind of surprises more than it should be yeah, it shouldn't be but
Look, we'll lead this with a clip for you, but right off the bat
We'll go through seven and maybe plus one top firearms myths that you've probably heard
culturally, politically, historically, as well as the rebuttals to those.
We'll make all the references publicly available, but it's no secret that half of this country, at this moment in time, is vehemently against the idea of owning firearms.
There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use it for sporting, hunting, protecting yourself.
But the only way we're going to do that is if we don't have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical Destruction of the Second Amendment.
Do you think that reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high-capacity magazines would do any good?
Yes, I do.
We cannot let a minority of people, and that's what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.
Hell yes!
We're gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47, We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.
If you wanna protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun.
I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, or walk out, put that double barrel shotgun, and fire two blasts outside the house.
I promise you, whoever's coming in is not gonna, you don't need an AR-15.
It's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself.
Buy a shotgun.
So, it's not one of the myths here, but Mr. Gunslinger and I were just laughing.
Mike, I'll call him Mike, in case you guys get confused.
Former Vice President Joe Biden saying, it's too hard to control AR-15.
Use a double-barreled shotgun.
Yeah, that's definitely much harder to control.
It's incredibly difficult to control.
AR-15's hard to aim, is it?
With a red dot?
I mean, it really couldn't be easier.
Easier, right?
Unless you're Elmer Fudd.
So this brings us to seven myths.
So I think these are the ones that you'll most commonly encounter.
Number seven, very common myth that you'll hear, that the Second Amendment, how often do we hear this, only applies to muskets.
What's the truth?
Still graphic there.
Well, look, you know this better than probably I do, but historically the Founding Fathers were well aware of the technological advancements with firearms.
And there were actually, at that point in time, many firearms that were far more advanced than the muskets that were used in the military, and it just wasn't cost effective.
Right.
Or it was slower to reload, or there's different reasons they went with it, but yeah, there was semi-automatic air guns were very common in the period.
And when you think of an air gun, a lot of people think of like a pellet gun, but these things were legitimately Lethal guns that could be used for hunting self-defense war
whatever the case may be right additionally there was volley guns which had
The capability to fire multiple projectiles. I mean there was a ton of them
Yeah, well so to give you an example a few of them And you can check all the references there was the kalthoff
repeater actually which is one I wasn't super familiar with in a previous video. I address
sort of the puckle gun the pepper box revolver There's the the belt and flintlock there's the flintlock
machine gun actually and the jeer and dhoni air rifle Which you may not know that was an air gun that was used
the Lewis and Clark expeditions As a matter of fact, they used that high-capacity air rifle to showcase to all the Native Americans to say, hey, look how much more powerful our boom-boom sticks are to bow and arrows.
It was something the government was aware of and actually encouraged to be used as a display piece.
So, and not to mention, of course, you would have to apply this same rationale to, well, the First Amendment does not apply to the printing press, let alone to your iPhone.
To the internet.
Right.
And they were aware of all these technological advancements.
These guns existed back then, they were high capacity, and let me give you one more truth that I think is pretty important, interesting.
It also applied to cannons.
So this is actually a private letter of Mark in 1812 from James Madison to a privately owned ship to have cannons.
They basically were saying, let me just sort of summarize this for you.
They were saying, hey, we're coming into contact with, you know, like British forces and we're out here on our ship.
We just want to make sure.
Is it OK for us to have cannons?
And Madison said, Second Amendment.
Yeah, you can have cannons, which would be the equivalent to approximately maybe like a javelin.
Yeah.
Something today.
An AT4.
Yeah.
Some kind of bunker busting weapon.
Yeah.
It was a very heavy artillery.
And by the way, you can also still have cannons.
Yes, you can.
You can still have them shipped to your house.
Today, as of right now, you can have huge cannons shipped to your house, and it's perfectly legal.
There's no background check.
Nothing.
Okay, well that's a conversation.
I don't necessarily know that that's the... I mean, I guess, what are you gonna use a cannon for?
Right.
YouTube videos.
Yeah, exactly.
If you have someone small enough to fire it.
I mean, if you're working in the circus.
But the point is, cannons back then, the letter we have, I have commissioned the private armed brig called Prince Neufchadel, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, mounting 18 carriage guns.
So this is something that, again, one of the Founding Fathers knew about, said, yeah, you can have cannons.
Which brings us to another one.
Myth number six that you've probably run into.
And this is remedial for a lot of you, but for a lot of folks it isn't.
They still encounter these, for example, if you're in high school.
You'll still hear these myths touted on a consistent basis.
That the Second Amendment is only for the militia.
What part of your ass is part of a well-trained militia?
We've heard that famous quote, right?
Well, let's, I think first we can read the Second Amendment.
Sure.
I think to start with that.
Yep.
And then sort of get into more historical context, the corroborating documents that clarify what constituted the militia.
So here is the Second Amendment for people who haven't actually read it.
A well-regulated militia, comma, being necessary to the security of a free state, comma, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This was written pretty damn carefully, too.
It was.
I don't think they thought it would ever be challenged like it has been, because it's so clear.
Right.
Like a regulated militia.
Regulated means well-run.
Right.
It doesn't mean regulated by the government.
Right.
It means capable.
Correct.
And here's another truth, just to be clear.
There are plenty of corroborating documents, right, if it's not just in the Constitution.
Let's say the Constitution, right, and the Bill of Rights is the prescription.
Well, then there are other corroborating documents that sort of add to that, like, okay, hold on a second, this is just a prescription that's been written, but this is how you would take it, or this is what is most effective, or this is the tapering pattern.
There are a lot of documents out there and also conversations that were
that were notarized that would have been written down that would
corroborate this and none to the opposite effect. So this is actually George
Mason, one of the founding fathers for those of you who don't know, when
asked, well what is the militia? He said, I asked sir what is the
It is the whole people.
To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
So the right of the people, comma, that's after, a well-regulated militia, comma, being necessary to the security of a free state, comma, the right of the people, and to keep and bear arms.
And George Mason said, well, what is a militia?
Of course, it's the whole people.
You are the militia.
Any able-bodied, particularly able-bodied male who can carry a firearm is part of the militia, and you have the right to keep and bear arms.
Just don't tell the FBI.
Right.
Yes, exactly.
I mean, I'm pretty sure everyone here is on a list, but we do it so you don't have to.
Correct.
This one is right in your wheelhouse.
Myth number five.
Sure.
And this one is silly, but you do hear this a lot, that a pistol brace makes a gun deadlier.
And we didn't know if we should put this in the next installment on technical myths, but it's sort of pervasive culturally right now because of the laws that people are facing.
So, a pistol brace makes a gun deadlier.
You can buy the brace without a background check, but when it becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal status and makes it In essence, the same that caused a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado supermarket, the stabilizing brace made, and a shorter barrel, made a pistol under federal gun regulations.
Made it harder for people to buy stabilized braces.
Put a pistol on a brace, it turns into a gun.
Makes it more, you can have a higher caliber weapon, a higher caliber bullet coming out of that gun.
So what's the truth?
So it doesn't change the deadliness, if you will, of it at all.
If you look back at the history of the National Firearms Act, which is what prohibited short
barrel rifles.
And which year was that?
1934.
1934.
Right.
It didn't prohibit them.
You just had to get a tax stamp to have one.
But the reason for that is they're trying to get rid of like gangster guns, if you will.
Mm-hmm.
Sawed-off shotguns, things like that.
Things that were easily concealed.
So the thing about it is, if you take an AR pistol and you remove the brace, it's actually smaller and easier to conceal than it is with the brace.
Right.
Additionally, brace pistols, like for ARs, just for this example, the reason people are putting a brace on them is because they have a barrel less than 16 inches.
Well, with AR-15s, the amount of, I guess, lethality damage That the round is going to do is directly dependent on
barrel length.
So they're putting them on guns with shorter barrels, therefore they're less lethal, would
be if you had a full-size rifle.
Right.
And to be clear, the reason for that, for people who may not necessarily be super familiar
with ballistics, is you have that powder burning, right?
And the longer the barrel, every round kind of has an ideal length to sort of simplify
it.
And a lot of that powder is still burning, which accelerates the bullet, right?
The round has the powder and the bullet is just the tip of it.
Remember when you were young, you thought that whole thing was the bullet?
Right.
Not the gun.
No, it's the tip, basically, at that little, that neck of the round.
That powder is still burning.
And so unless with an AR, is it 16 inches is what's optimal?
No.
So somewhere between 20 to 22 is about optimal, depending on the round.
It's still pretty rare that you run into people with like 22 inch. Yeah, almost never almost never almost never
But you're losing a lot of that velocity in a shorter Ar-15 that would be using a pistol brace correct and that's
when we've done the ballistics video Which you can go and watch when people talk about that sort
of wound channel from the air 15 that directly relates to the speed
Right when you reach certain speed, that's where you get create that hydrostatic shock that sort of temporary
wound cavity Which you wouldn't necessarily be running into sometimes in
some scenarios with something that would have that short of a barrel
But really, a pistol brace was originally created for people who were compromised to be able to control a gun.
Correct.
Alex Bosco is the man who created it, the owner of SB Tactical, and he created it when he was with this friend who was a Marine veteran who couldn't use his AR-15 properly because he was injured.
And they were actually kicked off the range because the range officer said they weren't being safe.
So he created the brace as a way to increase the safety of the gun, literally.
So why is this such a big issue right now?
Before we go into myth number four, why has it become an issue now where they're saying, we've got to get rid of the laws that we're looking at, pistol braces?
Sure.
So the reason is it's because they've become so popular and so pervasive.
So the estimates are that there's anywhere between 10 to 40 million of them out there.
And they've only been around since 2012.
So if you think about that many firearms in that period, I mean, that's a sizable number
of guns that have been sold since 2012.
And they're very popular because it just helps a lot of things.
For example, I took a new shooter out to the range the other day, a female who hadn't shot
guns before.
And I gave her a 16 inch AR9.
And she said, oh, it'd be so much nicer if it wasn't so heavy out front and had a little
bit of a shorter barrel.
Well, that's what the pistol brace enables people to choose.
Right.
Right.
And unfortunately, they're trying to take that away.
But it's also simply, like I said, because they become so popular.
And that's another thing.
We haven't addressed this specifically, but if you even look at the Assault Weapons Ban Act, right, a lot of these A lot of these sort of, I guess you'd say, characteristics of the firearms that make them illegal are entirely arbitrary.
For example, if you, you know, in some cases it's, if it, if the gun has any of these two characteristics, you know, for example, if it has a buttstock, and then if it has a conspicuously protruding vertical grip, you know, hold on a second, who defines conspicuously?
That's the term that defines it, versus, I guess, inconspicuously, it's okay, the pistol grip on a pistol, but on a rifle, this is okay, this is now an assault weapon.
Okay?
Assault weapon.
And I know you think I'm being reductive, that's actually true.
It's absolutely true.
The ATF has actually issued letters from their FATD division, which is their division that, I guess, makes rules, doesn't make rules, clarifies rules, whatever they claim that day.
But they have issued letters stating exactly what you just said, in writing, for public consumption.
So, he's not making that up.
Which brings us to myth number four here.
This is one.
We just talked about the Assault Weapons Ban Act that happened under Clinton and obviously just lapsed because even the left realized this didn't really do anything.
It wasn't very effective and there was backlash.
Myth number four that you'll hear a lot is assault weapons need to be banned because they're the preferred weapons of mass murder.
Now, before we even get into that and why it's not true, This is the problem with a myth that starts off with a false premise and the people perpetuating it know it.
Assault weapon doesn't really mean anything, just to be clear.
Assault rifle was a term that was used, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, in the military that had select fire, meaning it could be changed from semi-automatic to a fully automatic, what you might consider machine gun.
That's an assault rifle.
Right.
just means weapons that may be scary looking to someone who doesn't know about guns.
Correct.
There's been at least two assault rifles that were real things.
The Sturmgewehr that the Germans used literally translates to assault rifle.
And then Bushmaster made one that they marketed in the probably late 80s, early 90s that was
called the assault rifle as well.
So yeah, outside of those, there's no assault rifles.
And then the term assault weapons is even more.
It just means whatever we don't like.
Right.
It means it's black and scary looking.
Yes, exactly.
Pistol grip?
No.
Rifle grip?
Fine.
Vertical foregrip?
No.
If it's slightly angled, it's not an assault weapon anymore.
Magic.
So that's the premise.
Just deconstruct that.
If someone says assault weapon, they're a silly goose.
You can tell them so.
But let's go with what we think they mean.
When they say assault weapon, they're probably talking about something that's like an AR-15.
Or an AK-47 variant.
A semi-automatic variant.
Rifle variant.
Okay.
Here's the truth.
In 2020, rifles themselves, this would include all rifles, they were responsible for 408 murders.
That's 3% of all firearm murders.
And when they try and say that the AR-15, oh, these are the guns of mass shooters, it's their weapon of choice, 77% of, wow, it still surprises me when, 77% of mass shooters used handguns.
Yep, I mean that's true across the board.
A lot of the most famous ones, Virginia Tech for one, 9mm and 22 pistols, both.
Right.
Yeah, and it's one of those things where sometimes they'll have something that could be considered an assault weapon, but they'll actually fire more from a pistol, or for example, a pistol carbine I believe in... In Nashville.
Yeah.
Which was crazy, yeah.
She used a Kel-Tec Sub 2000 to actually do the shooting, but she had a Brace AR-15 pistol that would have been Possibly worse for folks involved, I guess, but she didn't choose to use it.
Thankfully.
Right.
Yeah, since it's one used to Caltech of all things.
I know of all things.
Gross.
It's gross.
This brings us to myth.
Sorry, Caltech.
I'm sure you have some good things.
Myth number three, and this is one we've addressed on the show.
I believe we have a clip.
But again, it's a lie, and it's an agreed-upon lie from half of the people in power in this country.
They know that it's not true.
And that myth is that guns, and you'll hear this on CNN, you'll hear it everywhere.
I want you to remember this.
Check the references I make available.
It is not true.
Guns are the leading cause of death amongst children.
And according to the CDC, the number one cause of death for children ages 1 to 19 in this country is gun-related violence.
Data from the University of Michigan also shows gun violence increased dramatically from 2020 to 2021.
Okay.
Here's the truth.
And then I'll point out something really silly with that clip that you just saw.
The leading cause of death among children ages 1 to 14?
Accidents.
Just to be clear.
Now, where else do you ever hear Children's ages 1-19.
Find me a board game that says ages 1-19.
Find me a show that is made for children ages 1-19.
one through 19. Find me a show that is made for children ages one through 19. We usually have
one and up, which may mean one to four, four and up, right?
PG-13. Nowhere else do we include a demographic that one through 19, which by the way, includes
legal adults and people who can be tried as legal adults.
We don't do that anywhere else in our legal... We only do it here so that we can cheat those numbers.
We can lie about those numbers.
So the number one cause of death, to be clear, 1 to 14 years old, which is still a pretty wide spectrum.
Right.
Is accidents.
Now, the study that these gun control advocates are actually using, it defines kids, again, up to 19 years old.
85% of those children killed by guns in 2019 were in that 15 to 19 year old range.
Now, you change that, where you change the number in the study, to men and boys, the number gets even smaller.
When you classify by age.
Race, ethnicity, and criminal background, that number gets even smaller.
It is not, it is, and here's the problem with this, you put people at risk, at danger, if, what if people have a pool?
Right.
But they're thinking, well the number one killer is guns.
It's not even close.
The pool, the bathtub, your toaster, is more dangerous to your four-year-old child than the gun in a safe in your closet.
It's not even close, especially the pool one.
I've had people who want to come over my house with their kids and they'll be like, People have said to them, rather, oh, he has guns in the house.
Be careful with your kids over there.
Well, I also have a pool.
No one ever says that.
No one's ever like he has a pool.
Be careful bringing your kids over there.
Right.
I never get that feedback, which I would assume because you don't have kids at your own.
You probably have a fence around it.
The pool?
Yeah.
We have to.
I believe it's law.
Is it law?
I believe so.
Okay, it's not law in every state.
I won't let my kids go to your place.
You don't have a fence.
Right.
Yeah.
You can leave the guns strewn about the floor.
But the pool is, by far, more dangerous.
Pool, bathtub.
Trampoline.
It's one of those things that it's a lie that's repeated often enough.
You've heard that old adage, but I'd like for you to think of it a different way.
It's an agreed upon lie.
Do you believe that former Vice President Joe Biden doesn't have access to these statistics?
Do you believe that Barack Obama doesn't know better?
Kamala Harris?
Nancy Pelosi?
Do you believe that they actually think 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 year olds are at greater risk of being killed by a firearm than common accidents, than automobile accidents, than common household items?
Of course they don't.
Don't fall victim to an agreed-upon lie, just because enough people agree on it.
Which brings us to myth number- this one's always fun.
Myth number two.
You hear this a lot.
You do.
Is that you're more- if you have a firearm in your house, you're more likely to have it used against you.
Right?
Here's the truth.
No.
That is the truth.
That is the truth.
That's just not true.
But they cite one study, which we'll make available, and it's flawed in a multitude of ways.
Everybody in the study, just to be clear, had already been shot.
So that matters, because you're starting the sample pool with people who've already been shot.
You're excluded from the study if you haven't been shot.
Correct.
And that matters because some people estimate the vast majority, but at least on the lowest estimate, half of all defensive firearm uses, don't require a single shot fired.
Right.
Simply the presence of a firearm.
It's definitely higher than half.
Yeah, I know.
I'm just trying to be generous to the public.
I've saw some that's only half, but what would you estimate it is?
Probably 90% or higher.
Yeah, exactly.
Easily.
Yeah, it's a very strong deterrent.
Just like how many times, you know, do you hear about a guard dog mauling somebody?
It's pretty rare.
Right.
They know there's a guard dog, they move on.
Correct.
That's why I always say, as much as I love firearms, get a dog first.
If you're looking to keep your house safe, you should have security, a security system, and a dog is one of the greatest deterrents.
It's your eyes and ears when, you know, if you're, well, if you're blind, deaf, and dumb.
I mean, I don't know, Helen Keller may need a guard dog.
The point is firearms are important, but it's not the panacea.
Uh, but just, just one note on this.
So this was back in the nineties.
Oprah did a show on this topic saying it was more dangerous to have guns in your house.
My grandparents had World War II bring backs, like historically significant guns.
My grandfather got put in the hospital with an infection.
And so my grandmother, when he was in the hospital, sold all of his World War II bring
back guns and didn't tell him.
And now we don't have them.
So yes, for real.
It sold them off for $200.
He was fooled by Oprah?
Yes, she was fooled by Oprah.
Oh my God.
But unfortunately now our family doesn't have those firearms that are historically significant
because of this stupid myth.
Well the good Lord giveth and then take, in your case, he taketh away.
But I told you about the three World War II-era firearms that I found in the attic in my house.
I found an old Colt Woodsman, and then I think it's a Beretta that's a .25 caliber, and then another Colt that was from the 1930s.
Now, here's the thing.
It was in a crawl space that was newly built, so it's not like it was old.
And I asked the construction workers, I said, is this your fire?
I asked everyone I knew.
I said, no.
So, I found three firearms that are between the years 1934 and I think 1942.
So, maybe they were your grandfather's.
They might have been.
They might have made their way.
He's like the Tooth Fairy with guns.
Here's something else, by the way, in this study, and I highly recommend you go and check
it out because the method, it's so flawed.
The sort of, the criteria they use is they use interviews with police and medical examiners,
right?
So a lot of this is reported on third, reported by third parties.
And here's how the case participants were defined.
Also, by the way, it doesn't take into account firearm training at all.
So this is a study that includes only people who've been shot right away, or you don't
And then you're basing the study on commentary from police officers, from medical examiners.
These people may have not had any firearm training whatsoever.
And here's a quote as far as how the case participants were defined.
We coded control participants as in possession if they reported any guns in a holster they were wearing.
Okay.
In a pocket or waistband, okay, in a nearby vehicle, or in another place, quickly available and ready to fire at the time of their matched cases shooting.
Okay, so I'll give them waistband, holster, vehicle, if the altercation took place in the vehicle.
It doesn't really matter if you're in your living room.
Uh, or other place that could be quickly available and ready to fire.
And that's not clearly defined.
This is one study that is so immensely flawed, anyone who cites, again, it's an agreed upon lie.
Right.
Also, here's something else to take into account.
There could be some truth to it.
For example, I was saying, well, if you're going to say that You're more likely to ever be involved with an accidental discharge if you handle a gun than if you've never touched a gun.
Absolutely true.
That's true.
Just like you're more likely to drown if you ever enter a pool.
Now that doesn't mean that somebody who is a competitive swimmer is more likely to drown than someone who's never swam before in their life, right?
The moment that you use that pool in your level of experience plays a huge significance.
in the danger factor. Right. And the same is true with somebody who's proficient with firearms.
Right. I mean, basics. By the way, it's not that hard to make sure that you don't do something
unsafe with a firearm. It doesn't take that long. And then, of course, you train it up as best as
you can. All right. This brings us to myth number one. And it was hard to pick number one. And we'll
do the technical issues. That's pretty fun because that's really his realm of expertise. Sure. I'm
just a I'm a I'm a caveman when it comes to that. I'm I usually just throw my firearm.
It's a technique where you reach out and do this when you shoot.
If I have a home intruder, the bullet is more likely to hit them in the cylinder than it is to actually be used as a projectile.
But the number one myth, you hear this a lot, is nobody needs a high-capacity magazine.
There's no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets, that can be fired.
From that weapon.
Nobody needs that.
Nobody needs that.
You just heard former Vice President Joe Biden in that clip early on say, you know, no one needs that.
Just get a shotgun.
Fire two rounds.
Again, I don't know how he can be all places at all times and know that that's what you would need.
But even going with that again, most defensive uses of firearms, OK, don't involve the weapon being discharged at all.
I want to be clear about that.
Now, when you get to the point where you're in a gunfight, meaning there's an exchange of gunfire or you have to use your firearm, That number changes dramatically.
So the stats are skewed with defensive uses of firearms, zero shots, and then any shots, and the number is significantly higher than you may anticipate.
And to be clear, this number can be argued.
It's not always necessarily clear because the way that people study gun violence isn't always very accurate and it's often politicized.
But the total average number of shots that we see, according to the crime data that's
available, that would be considered reputable, to stop an assailant is around 12.
Now, let me explain to you why that is.
The average number of hits to incapacitate a shooter is about 2.45.
That's what they average it out to.
The number of shots that actually hit the assailant are 1 out of 5, meaning 4 out of
5 tend to miss.
That's something that a lot of people don't take into account.
So if you take 5 and you multiply it by 2.45, you end up with 12.25 shots on average.
Now let's say that that could be anywhere between 5 and 12.
Let's say it's between 3 and 10.
The point is, the top end of that, with one assailant, if you're missing one out of five, which is probably the most clear statistic we have, puts you well beyond the idea of a double-barreled shotgun.
Right, and then you have three guys that kick in your door.
Yes.
And that is something, too.
The number of assailants, specifically involved in home invasions, have gone up.
And this is one of the, you can look at the statistics, or of course, you know what you've experienced, and you can believe your lion eyes and ears.
This is exclusive video caught on security cameras in the area where a St. Louis County
woman was shot and killed from bullets started flying outside her home.
As you can see, someone turns around in a yard and fire shots right at someone and then
that person returns fire.
Marmarita Automotive Group Skyfox was over the scene in the 300 block of Lanshire Road
in North St. Louis County where the tragedy all unfolded around 3 Tuesday morning.
In the video, it appears multiple people were exchanging gunfire from outside the victim's home on the front yard.
We were told the woman was inside the home.
Terrifying moments caught on camera as a Phoenix homeowner protects themselves from several suspects trying to break in.
The Phoenix Police Department released this surveillance video tonight.
You can see four men kicking in a front door only to be met by gunfire from the homeowner.
That homeowner says they were alerted by a motion sensor linked to their surveillance cameras and they were able to arm themselves just seconds before their door was kicked in.
The suspects quickly fled the scene in a gray car before officers arrived.
I think that guy just said a new 40 time.
He did.
Quick.
Very quickly.
Quick out of the gate.
One thing I wanted to add, just getting back to the incapacitate someone.
Yeah.
Especially with handguns, which is what the majority of folks are using.
They've done studies on Incapacitation if you will and
varies by the study just like everything else we talked about but somewhere between 70 to 85 percent of people who
are Incapacitated when they get shot, it's a psychological stop,
right? So you don't want to count on it, right?
So in order to physically incapacitate someone with especially with a hang on you have to hit their central
nervous system, right?
That's the only way so other than that It's either they bleed out or they quit right? So and that's
something you can't count on it, right?
We'll touch on the technical myths in the next installment Which I would recommend you click below or just you can go
through the the playlist where you'll get some people saying this well
Let's say well 20 more people are killed by Well, that's true, but if someone is killed, or, it could be true.
In other words, it can be just as lethal, but if you die four hours later in the emergency room, something you may not, like, you can get a lot of rapin' done.
You sure can.
Especially if you're wearing your old lucky raping slacks.
In those four hours time so it's about that like you're saying that central nervous system shock incapacitating trauma and usually that's either actual neurological damage or immediate blood loss as opposed to something lethal because you can get pierced through a lung and still go on for a while absolutely And aside from rape, they can be holding a gun, squeezing the trigger at you.
Exactly.
So that's probably more important in that instance.
Well, I mean, I don't know.
I mean, both tomato tomato.
They both seem unpleasant.
They do.
I agree with that.
I'd rather be shot than face old rapey McRaperson's lucky rapin' slacks.
I mean, I tell you what, I have heard stories and I don't want to take part.
But that'll bring us actually to the next installment, the Technical Myths.
So hopefully this has helped inform you, enlighten you.
If you like it, click the like button, subscribe, comment below which myth you run into the most and where you've heard it.
Because we've been through this, this is kind of remedial.
We've done these as different videos in the past, but we wanted to compile them as a reference piece and always make the references available to you so that you can dive in a little bit deeper.
And I highly recommend looking into that study regarding, you know, you being more likely to have your firearm used against you.
It's very eye-opening.
Flawed is an understatement.
Yes.
It's an understatement and you think, well, there must be others.
No, there really aren't.
That's what will often happen.
It will come from one piece of cherry-picked information from a flawed study that then
becomes something that is repeated.
Everyone knows that's true.
Yeah, everyone knows that's true.
Everyone knows that you're more likely to have your firearm used against you.
And then you just think, well, hold on a second.
Do you have any idea how hard it would be to Steven Seagal your gun against you?
It's slightly more difficult than in the movies.
Yes.
Slightly.
Especially, well, especially if you have your lucky raping slacks on.
So we'll see you in the next installment, Technical Myths with Mr. Guns and Gear.
Check out his YouTube channel.
This man knows far more about firearms.
Well, he's forgotten more than we'll ever know.
and see you in that next installment, Gun Week.
Music Go baby!
If you like this video, click like, consider subscribing, or comment below.
And of course, consider tuning in to the live show, Monday through Friday, 10 a.m.
▲
Export Selection