Fox News Hosts Make Stuff Up About Guns

Here's Greg Gutfeld, Eric Bolling and a cast of several Fox News Channel people making stuff up about gun laws.

Notice how Gutfeld doesn't cite a single verifiable fact beyond what he personally has observed, along with ambiguous, nameless "research" that could have come from anywhere -- including his own ass. Here's some actual research. A quick glance at the Gallup poll shows that Americans feel less safe in public places where guns are present, specifically courtrooms and schools, and, as I've mentioned before, only 12 percent of Americans want gun laws to be less strict.

Later, Bolling employs a remedial level gun debate tactic by reciting the Second Amendment, which, by the way, includes the word "regulated" in the phrase "well regulated Militia," both of which he reads out loud to the panel. These gun people have to come up with a better argument because they can't keep ignoring the militia and well regulated parts of that amendment.

And, yes, they want to be able to carry guns in church. You know, because of all the muggings there.

(This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.)

  • muselet

    Rather than try to fisk Gutfeld’s nonsense, I’d like to address only one statement of his:

    … [Y]ou’re safer if there’s a law-abiding person with a gun everywhere.

    Oh, really?

    I can’t find it on their website (partly because I’m lazy, partly because the search function stinks—if anyone’s more patient than I, please post a link), so I apologize for misremembered details, but ABC News did a demonstration some time after the Virginia Tech shooting, when the gun nuts were shouting that guns make everyone safer everywhere and every time. ABC had some college students take basic firearms training, put them in a lecture theater setting with concealed handguns that fired paintballs, along with a number of unarmed students. In the middle of a simulated lecture, a bad guy burst in, firing paintballs at the people in the room.

    The only people who weren’t “killed” were those who immediately hit the floor or made it out the door before they were shot; all of the armed students were “killed”, most before they even got their handguns free of their clothing. Only one of the armed students managed to hit the bad guy, a graze to the shoulder. The presence of armed resistance didn’t slow the bad guy down a bit.

    Guns do not make people safer. Under certain very specific, very limited conditions, perhaps they could, but not generally.

    Oh, and Bob, this

    These gun people have to come up with a better argument because they can’t keep ignoring the militia and well regulated parts of that amendment.

    was true until the Supremes decided that the right to bear arms was an individual right and that “militia” and “well-regulated” were meaningless boilerplate. Original intent, my foot.


    • bphoon

      The presence of armed resistance didn’t slow the bad guy down a bit.

      Very cogent argument but I’d amend the above this way: “The presence of armed resistance didn’t slow the bad guy down a bit that time.”

      Here’s my opinion–and I’ve stated as much here before: Each situation is different. As an old Instructor Pilot once told me on the occasion of issuing me the only check ride bust of my career, “Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.” Sometimes you have the opportunity to effectively bring armed resistance to bear, sometimes the bad guy gets the drop on you. Life on life’s terms. This is what gives the lie to Gutfeld’s nonsense that law abiding armed citizens make people safer everywhere all the time.

      One thing is for sure, however: if a bad guy bursts into a room and starts firing and nobody else has equal or more force to bring to bear, everyone instantly becomes a victim with no other recourse. Maybe dropping to the floor saves your life, maybe the bad guy walks over and puts one through your head. Either way, you’re ill equipped to influence the outcome.

      For my part, I personally refuse to allow myself to be in a position where, should the unthinkable happen, I become a victim by default .

      • muselet

        If a bad guy bursts into a room full of police officers and starts firing, what do you suppose the chances are of one of those armed, well-trained, disciplined (and surprised) cops managing to stop him? Me, I’d put the odds at one in a very large number; one in a much larger number if it’s a room full of ordinary citizens. In the ABC News demonstration, the armed students knew there was going to be an attack and they still got “killed.” In the real world, where the armed people would be taken by surprise, they’d all be really dead with their pistols still in their holsters. Maybe, just maybe, someone might beat the odds, get off a golden BB and take down the bad guy. More likely, they’d shoot an innocent.

        As far as I can tell, the best way of dealing with a shooter is to hide behind something solid, wait until he has to reload, then run away terribly fast—or rush him, if you must, and hope you can tackle him before he’s in a position to resume firing. More guns mean more bullets and more chance of more people getting hurt. We don’t need more guns, we need fewer.

        I could be wrong, and I’m willing to be convinced I am. For the time being, though, I stand by my conclusion. Guns do not make people safer.


  • holyreality

    I trust law abiding people who carry a sidearm.

    Used to be that on Saturday mornings waiting in line at the bank, you would see someone waiting with you, pistol holstered finishing up some business on their way to the range for practice.

    Nobody ever cared, or was overly afraid. Mostly because everybody knew everybody else, and familiarity led to trust.

    I personally do not care if the faithful carry in their church, it did save some lives a few years back at the New Life when that security guard lady shot the nutjob.

    CCW carriers pass legal vetting and must finish training, so I trust them too.

    It’s the Seung-Hui Cho types that gets me going. If a crook ignores the law, no law will stop them. But their chickenshit rampage will be enough for me to put up a fight. Every atrocity from the last couple decades had the shooter pausing to reload, time enough to bust them in the face, and keep them from finishing.

    The VT massacre had no fighters in his midst, so the cowardly oaf kept shooting.

    Bruco Eastwood was stopped because two fighters saw their opportunity, and seized it, thus saving the day.

    I’m not defending FOX, and their idiocy, I merely point out that a fight is a fight if you put one up, and it is a massacre if the victim is a victim. We can wring our hands, and tut tut about feelings, or we can proceed with our day, ready to act when action is required.

    • bphoon

      I merely point out that a fight is a fight if you put one up…

      And the fight doesn’t necessarily have to be gun play.

  • Tom Moser

    They also ignore the part that says “arms.” Not “guns.” Arms refers to a very broad category of weapons, including suitcase nukes and hand grenades, weapons that no one, including Republicans, wants legalized for the common citizen. They’re about as interested in the 2nd Amendment as they are small government or less spending.

  • Bobby Carr

    You can have all the guns you want as long as they are muskets.

    • Gern Blandston

      I like to go with the trusty Blunderbuss.

      • Bob Rutledge

        I think they should each be issued an arquebus. Those had about a 50% chance of exploding when used and killing the wielder.