Log in

Myths and Common Sense

04/02/2024 11:46 AM | Anonymous

Myths and Common Sense  by Tom Reynolds

Peter Mutuc recently did an article entitled: 10 Science Myths You Probably Believe (Thanks To The Movies).

Two of Mutuc’s ten myths involve myths about firearms and we thought you might be interested.  None of this probably comes to SCOPE members as a surprise but this might be helpful in explaining to some of the gun grabbers about the misinformation that exists about firearms, much of it perpetuated by Hollywood.

#1Silencers / Suppressors

Modern silencers decrease the noise from a gunshot by around 30 decibels (dB). This isn't nearly enough to keep most guns quiet, as firearms typically produce around 150 dB.  Using a silencer can only really reduce gunshot noises down to the level of a nearby jackhammer. Even the firearms industry recognizes that the term silencer is a misnomer, and has shifted to calling them suppressors in order to more accurately describe what they do.  Nonetheless, silent gunfire remains one of the most widespread science myths in the history of Hollywood - as seen in the film adaptation of Hitman, the John Wick movies, and the Bond franchise.”

#2 Impact of bullets

“A common occurrence in action movies, people shot by guns are often shown getting thrown back by the impact as they would with a melee hit. However, bullets are not only designed for penetration but are also thousands of times lighter than any human body. This is why they tear through flesh and actually have a minimal impact on anywhere else apart from where they hit. While gunshots throwing people off their feet has been largely perpetrated by Hollywood blockbusters, the roots of this myth go back to classic Hong Kong action cinema - particularly the birth of gun-fu through the first John Woo movies.”

On the topic of common sense issues…

Georgia Senate Bill 189 passed their House by a vote of 101 to 73 and the Senate by a vote of 33-22, sending it to Gov. Brian Kemp for his signature or veto.

Democrats slammed the bill, saying it would enable more baseless attacks on voters. 

So, what is so “baseless” about it?

The bill spells out what constitutes “probable cause” for upholding challenges to voter eligibility, which could lead to voters being removed from the rolls.

Probable cause would exist if someone:

  • has voted or registered to vote in a different jurisdiction,
  • has registered for a homestead exemption on their property taxes in a different jurisdiction, is registered at a nonresidential address, or is dead.

I’m going out on a limb and if the dead person shows up to challenge being deregistered, they will probably win and be reregistered.  The other challenges would prevent voters from voting in two different places.

Oh yeah, there is something else in the bill the Democrats don’t like.  The bill would grant access to Georgia’s ballot to any political party that has qualified for the presidential ballot in at least 20 states or territories. The change could be a boost to independent candidates such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose campaign has spooked Democrats worried it could draw support away from President Joe Biden.

Speaking of Robert F. Kennedy Jr…

The Hill and Ammoland report that Kennedy has said, in the past, that he would get behind a bipartisan assault weapons ban, which the overwhelming majority of Democrats support and Republicans oppose.  (And if the Democrats could pass it with Democrat only votes, would RFK Jr. veto it for not being bipartisan?  If one Republican voted for it, would it qualify as bipartisan?)

Going after people’s guns at this point in history is to me just going to cause more polarization and make it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kinds of tribal silos which we have to somehow figure out a way to get past.”  (Don’t go after guns because of polarization and not because of the right to self-defense?  The “Going after people’s guns at this point in history” leaves open that there might come another time or set of circumstances where he’ll return to his past hostility to guns and decide the time is right.)

I am not going to take people’s guns away. You know, anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns is not being truthful with you.”   (That is real common-sense talk about guns.)

He is also quoted as saying: “I do not believe that there is, within that second amendment, that there’s anything we can meaningfully do to reduce the trade in the ownership of guns.”  (He is acknowledging that there are 2nd Amendment restrictions that many other gun grabbers ignore.  But, why would we want to reduce the legal trade in ownership of guns?)

We cannot have any more school shootings even if that means protecting schools the same way that we protect Airlines.”  (Metal detectors at schools?  Xray all back packs?  He ignores that 100% of school shootings happen in gun-free zones.) 

SCOPE could not find any positions on gun control by RFK Jr.’ VP candidate Nicole Shanahan.  However, one of the 3 main thrusts of her Bia-Echo Foundation is “social justice”.

A 2nd Amendment Defense Organization, defending the rights of New York State gun owners to keep and bear arms!

PO Box 165
East Aurora, NY 14052

SCOPE is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization.

{ Site Design & Development By Motorhead Digital }

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software