On Friday's 20/20, ABC anchor John Stossel discussed the self-defensive benefits of gun ownership, debunking the myth that 'gun control reduces crime,' during 20/20's recurring series 'Myths, Lies & Downright Stupidity,' based on Stossel's book of the same title. Citing the recent Federal Appeals Court for D.C. ruling overturning Washington, D.C.'s ban on gun ownership, Stossel talked to the pro-gun plaintiff in the case, Tom Palmer, and pointed out that the murder rate in D.C. increased after the city's gun ban. Stossel: "Since Washington's gun law passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while America's murder rate dropped. It's because guns can also save lives, says Palmer, as one saved his years ago in California." (Transcript follows)
The ABC anchor cited the case of Kennesaw, Georgia's law that requires its citizens to own guns, relaying a local police officer's observations that crime had dropped after the law passed. Lieutenant Craig Graydon, Kennesaw Police Department: "Well, after the city ordinance passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime in the Kennesaw area, especially violent crime." Stossel described two instances in which guns were used by law-abiding citizens to stop criminals, including students at the Appalachian School of Law who went to their cars and retrieved their guns after a gunman attacked their school in January 2002.
After relaying that the National Academy of Sciences "could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder," he concluded the story with a soundbite from pro-gun advocate Tom Palmer: "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."
Below is a complete transcript of the segment on gun control from the Friday May 4 edition of 20/20 on ABC:
Elizabeth Vargas: "Now, it's time for our popular series 'Myths, Lies & Downright Stupidity,' which is also the title of John's best-selling book. It challenges conventional wisdom like 'stress causes gray hair.' Does it? And 'never eat out on Mondays.' Is that right?"
John Stossel: "Well, you'll find out now as we begin our top ten list, starting with number 10: 'Gun control reduces crime.' The horror of the shootings at Virginia Tech had many people talking about gun control."
John Roberts, CNN: "It's about the weapons, the guns. Where did the killer get them?"
Elizabeth Cohen, CNN: "They're shocked at how easy it is to purchase a gun."
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA): "It is simply too easy to obtain a firearm."
Stossel: "The belief that gun control prevents gun crime is why many were upset this spring when-"
Unidentified male news anchor: "A bombshell court ruling could put handguns back in D.C. homes."
Stossel: "A court threw out Washington, D.C.'s 30-year ban on guns. And that's outrageous, said public officials."
Mayor Adrian Fenty (D-Washington, D.C.): "More guns very simply lead to more violence."
Tom Palmer, Washington, D.C. resident: "I don't know how anyone could be serious in saying that because the gun violence went up when they banned handguns."
Stossel: "Tom Palmer is one of the plaintiffs who sued D.C. over the right to have a gun. He's correct about gun violence going up. Since Washington's gun law passed, the murder rate actually increased, even while America's murder rate dropped. It's because guns can also save lives, says Palmer, as one saved his years ago in California."
Palmer: "We were walking on the street, and this group of young men took really strong exception to that. They stood up, 19 or 20 young guys, followed us, and they told us, 'We're gonna kill you. They'll never find the bodies.' And I turned around and showed them the business end of a pistol."
Stossel: "Just pulling out the gun was enough to stop them."
Palmer: "Yeah. It works. Merely having a weapon and being able to display it when I was threatened saved my life."
Stossel: "Now, you may think that carrying a gun, as Palmer did, is illegal in most of America, but it's not. Many people don't realize that today, in America, in about 40 states, it is legal to carry a concealed weapon on your person. And in those 40 states, there is no more violent crime or murder than in states where guns are restricted. The town of Kennesaw, Georgia, went a step further and passed a law requiring every household to have a gun. Did they then experience a crime wave? No."
Lieutenant Craig Graydon, Kennesaw Police Department: "Well, after the city ordinance passed, there was actually a decrease in reported crime in the Kennesaw area, especially violent crime."
Stossel: "Now, I don't want politicians ordering me to have a gun. And the law isn't enforced here. But townspeople we talked to liked the law."
Unidentified woman: "I think it makes people think twice."
Unidentified man #1: "This is a very peaceful place to be."
Unidentified man #2: "We should have guns. I mean, that's what free society do."
Stossel: "These maximum security felons said they fear an armed victim much more than the police."
Unidentified male prisoner: "When you go to rob somebody you don't know, it makes it harder."
Stossel: "And they said gun laws don't matter to them. They don't obey them."
Male prisoner: "I'm not worrying about the government saying that I can't carry a gun. I'm gonna carry a gun anyway."
Stossel: "It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals because who reports a crime that doesn't happen? But people use guns in self-defense every day. Often, just showing a gun is enough to prevent the crime. When robbers broke into Joyce and Raymond Papin's home and attacked Raymond, he yelled."
Raymond Papin: "Get the gun. Get the gun."
Stossel: "Joyce did. And when the robbers saw it, they ran away."
Papin: "Boy, when he saw the gun, he just started running, and they weren't just walking fast. They were running. They had boots on. You could hear them boots a'clopping."
Stossel: "Joyce says having a gun changes the balance of power. And here's a controversial idea: Some Virginia Tech students say they wish students had been allowed to carry guns because one of them might have stopped the killer before he shot so many people. And that's what happened five years ago at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns, and helped restrain this shooter until police arrested him."
Palmer: "One of the things that the gun does is it equalizes unequals. My mom told me when I was a young boy because she was armed she was never afraid."
Stossel: "So gun control isn't necessarily crime control. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of studies and could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder."
Palmer: "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution
August 19, 2008 - 21:13 ET by EdwardGun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts, http://reno.broowaha.... Most liberal Marin County Ca has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next? I was pleased to see the recent US Supreme Court ruling about gun control. Along with others that are challenging previous court rulings and laws in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, one more challenge desperately needs to be immediately mounted. That is the blanket all-inclusive law that a person with any sort of restraining order against them is not allowed to have any sort of a gun. Based on my experience as a Deputy Sheriff, that is bad law and I have always believed that is unconstitutional. It is also even worse law when the restraining order is obtained by default and a contemptible law when obtained through breaking the court’s own rules to get the default in the first place. It is a gross denial of civil rights. In one of my Among Us stories I’ve been following and reporting on, exactly that happened. When husband is caught in bigamy living a double life, wife changes locks to Reno family home. According to the Reno police report, that home is immediately violently broken into. Two well-secured doors were broken down. The second door was so well secured that the only way to get in was to break that door frame and surrounding sheet rock. This is exactly what happened according to the witnesses, Reno police report and photographs. It took 45 minutes to an hour to break through those two doors. The garage door was then blocked shut. The home is thoroughly ransacked, a knife is taken to their bed. According to the Truckee Meadows Community College police and Pat Slavin, there is then an attempted break-in of wife’s locker at Truckee Meadows Community College. Average criminals breaking into a home take a minute to enter that home. If more than that, they immediately move on to the next home. To take the hour and hard work it did to break through those two door, thoroughly ransack the home and take a knife to the bed is evidence that wife is in danger. The attempted break-in at Truckee Meadows Community College is evidence that the wife remained in danger and the danger was escalating. Wife has no history of violence. Husband does have flip-flop history. The evidence is there that the wife desperately needs a gun for protection. Wife, who has lived in Reno since summer 1995, files for a divorce in Reno, Nevada. Husband does an end run and cheats. He files for a restraining order in Marin County, California, 200 miles away, although wife has not lived there since summer 1995 nor does she visit there due to her disabilities restricting her ability to travel. Husband has wife served with Marin County California court papers in Reno on a Thursday evening while she is teaching an evening credit class at Truckee Meadows Community College. According to those court papers, a court hearing was scheduled by husband in Marin County California for first thing that Monday morning for a temporary restraining order against wife. Therefore, wife thinks she had only 8 business hours that Friday to find and hire a California attorney. Didn’t happen. So wife mails pro per response to Marin Court and husband’s attorney. Illegally, husband gets a 3-year default restraining order against wife and wife is threatened with prison if she has a gun for protection although recent evidence proved she desperately now needs a gun. Problems, here is an illegally obtained restraining order, and the gun restriction is illegal. For several reasons. First, it is illegal for service to be 36 hours before a court hearing. Therefore, husband, his attorney and/or the Marin County courts falsified the date of service. Second, a gun prohibition is unconstitutionally illegal. As the US Supreme Court just recently again affirmed. Third, a blanket restriction of a gun prohibition in every restraining order is unconstitutionally illegal. As the US Supreme Court just recently again affirmed. Fourth, wife had mailed her pro per response to the Marin County court, so that court issuing a default order is illegal. Fifth, a California court issued a default order against a Nevada citizen that they have no legal jurisdiction over. Sixth, Novato, California police have threatened to jail the wife based on this illegally obtained order. “You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”- Mark Twain. Marin County California is the most liberal county in America. They have repeatedly evidenced that they are willing to break several laws, repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, imposed their illegal actions on a Nevada citizen, threatened a Nevada citizen, and terrorized a Nevada citizen. Who and what’s next? Sources and further readings: Washoe District Court, Marin County (California) Superior Court, Reno Police Department reports, Twin Cities (California) Police reports, Sausalito (California) Police reports, Marin (County California) General Hospital medical reports, Now You Call It Madness (But I Call It Love ), A List of Questions I Promise Not To Pose , Cheaters Among Us, Olson , California’s Legal Secret Marriage Racket , Get All Those Instructors You Can – Or Maybe No t, Bigamists Among Us, Olson, Flip Flop RERs Among Us, James K. Olson . http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://reno.broowaha..., Copyright © 2008 Craig B Ed
After relaying that the Natio
May 6, 2007 - 00:09 ET by jdhawkAfter relaying that the National Academy of Sciences "could not document a single gun regulation that reduced violent crime or murder," . . .
John Stossel is one of my heroes. I have either bought his book or the DVD of his two of books. He is right on the money on this subject and many more, too.
In his early days as a consumer advocate, he was praised, won many awards, and lots of pay raises. Since, he has been lambasting the government on gun control, abortion, graft and corruption, among many topics, he is basically persona non grata at ABC. The way he tells it in his book, referenced above, most at ABC won't even give him the time of day. And, the hate mail, comes in fast and furious.
pistoles
May 6, 2007 - 16:12 ET by tejanodiablowhen in doubt, whup it out !
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
Beautiful, bravo. I could not
May 6, 2007 - 02:05 ET byBeautiful, bravo. I am going to put this in my News Letter on my site, right now.
Thank you for posting this, Brad Wilmouth. Great news. Great report.
Debra...
You know it's real simple..
May 6, 2007 - 02:45 ET by mlongYou know it's real simple..it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out....cities that have right to carry....crime rate goes down..cities with strict gun control....crime rate goes up..it's not to hard to figure out why..is it?
countries also; check the S
May 6, 2007 - 09:53 ET bycountries also; check the Swiss
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I wonder how long it will be
May 6, 2007 - 07:12 ET by SouthJersey1953I wonder how long it will be before ABC "cans" him. They were probably furious that he de-bunked so many of thier talking points!
"You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think." - Milton Berle
They can't, they're stuck w
May 6, 2007 - 07:26 ET by sarcasmoThey can't, they're stuck with him. Plus, as one of the few libertarians on TV, he easily hamburgerizes enough conservative sacred cows that half the time they like him, anyway. We all know they totally-disagree, but you don't see O'Reilly rarin' for a drugwar-debate with Stossel whenever he's on that gassbag's show for a reason, and the reason is, like it or not, Stossel would intellectually kick O'Reilly's ass. ABC knows that just as well as O'Reilly does...
JMR
Stossel vs. O'Reilly
May 6, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Free StinkerI'd like to see that debate. :-)
And you're probably right about why ABC keep Stossel around. He got his start skewering Conservatives, and he was a hero to the Libs unitl he started going after their sacred cows.
I'd like to see it too, but
May 6, 2007 - 08:37 ET by sarcasmoI'd like to see it too, but with a fair moderator, meaning not-O'Reilly. When he continually-interrupted my friend, the late Ron Crickenberger, Bill O'Reilly lost a lot of my respect. While of course, intellectually-losing the debate, too. RIP Ron.
JMR
As Stossel himself notes, the
May 6, 2007 - 12:44 ET by GalvanicAs Stossel himself notes, the liberals in the media loved him earlier in his career when his work centered mainly on exposing the dark side of corporations and Big Business. I think that probably earned him his permanent slot at ABC. Later, as Stossel recounts, when he turned his focus on the perils of Big Government (the liberal's sacred cow), the liberals turned on him.
I love reading his books and watching his shows, and I tend to trust his exposes more than any other MSMers.
An answer
May 6, 2007 - 10:58 ET by goldenthroatHey, SJ - I have this feeling the clock is already ticking on Stossel at the 'Atta Boy, Clinton' network. This type of excellent investigative reporting is completely foreign to them! Their minds are already made up - why confuse viewers with the facts?
If you have followed Stossel over the years, you would have noticed he has done a 180 in his reporting and views and that, in itself, has got to have the big shots at ABC doing a slow boil.
I also have a feeling FNC may already be getting a desk ready for John.
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Palmer: "One of the thin
May 6, 2007 - 07:52 ET by MidAmericaPalmer: "One of the things that the gun does is it equalizes unequal. My mom told me when I was a young boy because she was armed she was never afraid."
This statement illustrates why left leaning governments do not want armed citizens. It promotes wrong thinking. In the leftists world self reliance is a form of selfishness. A person should look to 'authorities' in every aspect of life.
For socialists an individual is a passive participant in a group. The cohesiveness of the 'group' takes precedence over the individual. This group is regulated by a benevolent government.
Why are you people so obsesse
May 6, 2007 - 09:04 ET by ArchConservativeWhy are you people so obsessed with Bill O'Reilly (he's great by the way). I'd love to see John Stossel debate Keith Olbermann. Now THAT would be a great debate that would finally put the last nail in that bastard's coffin.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
Hey, semirelated question: Wh
May 6, 2007 - 09:36 ET by AtheistRepublicanHey, semirelated question: When does 20/20 come on? I can't seem to figure it out... I'm a big Stossel fan but have no idea when he is on.
how big are you? many here
May 6, 2007 - 09:44 ET byhow big are you? many here may have weight issues but i fail to see it's relation to politics
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/202
May 6, 2007 - 09:45 ET byhttp://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Thanks
May 6, 2007 - 10:02 ET by AtheistRepublicanThanks
Atheist Republican,I believe
May 6, 2007 - 10:18 ET by msh1973Atheist Republican,
I believe it is on Friday's at either 9 or 10pm.
here in WV, anyone without a
May 6, 2007 - 09:42 ET by hillbillyhatfieldhere in WV, anyone without a permit can carry them on there hip, or anywhere they are seen. but you cann't be a felon. WV has the fewest gun laws in the nation, and the lowest crime rate.including murder and assalt.
John Stossel debunks gun control myths in 2005
May 6, 2007 - 10:34 ET by JRThis is nothing new. John Stossel has been debunking various myths for some time. Here's a link to 20/20's Myths, Lies and Straight Talk from 2005. Myth #5 debunks the idea that gun control laws have done anything to reduce violent crime.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606
An observation
May 6, 2007 - 10:52 ET by goldenthroatGod bless John Stossel! These left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do' liberal morons in D.C. will think twice when a violent crime hits home.
But then again, they'll still defend the criminal - not the victim.
Gun control means using both hands.
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Recent Kansas City shooting
May 6, 2007 - 12:01 ET by w0tmMost who you who are reading this, heard the news of the mentally ill man who recently shot three people before police shot him. You may have even seen news footage of the shooting area and interviews with very upset mall workers and shoppers (he was shot inside a shopping mall). But that's it. The story suddenly stopped on national news. Did you wonder why? Probably not but I'll tell you anyway.
Here in KC, it was major news of course. Every media outlet had reporters there. Helicopters were vying for air space. Each news conference was packed and emotional. There were many. It seemed every police department and local politician wanted airtime. It was just across the street that is state line from a city in Kansas so that city jumped in as well with press conferences as their police officers also responded. Our local TV was turned over to this shooting for about five hours. The police had nothing to say for a long time but kept saying it over and over.
At each press conference or interview, the first question by the media was not about the victims or anything else you'd think would be first in line to ask about. No -- it was "was the weapon a handgun?" (over and over and over). Police responded (correct answer) "we're still making sure this was a lone killer so we are releasing no information that might aid a second shooter if he or she exists. We will as soon as we're certain the shooter acted alone.
Then there was ANOTHER press conference about four hours after the shooting. The police assumed their finally answering THE question plus displaying the weapon would be a major news event. A police officer brought out a low-caliber hunting rifle. The size used for shooting rabbits and the like. I never did read or hear exactly what kind of rifle it was as the story STOPPED RIGHT THERE!
If they had turned the cameras around, you would have seen much of the media putting their pens, cameras and microphones away. Even watching on TV, you could sense the air being drawn out of the room. I'm sure network and other major media who had their news anchors and anchorettes already on Gulfstreams planning to do the Nightly News from Kansas City as long as they could keep gun control panic alive. Pilots were called and told to "turn around". The next press conference was at 8 AM the next morning. Not televised. Just briefly mentioned in the local news that night.
No handgun. It was a basic "small critter/target practice" rifle. The three people he shot were barely mentioned in all of this. The Kansas City Star (our only paper and a clone of a New York Times' most liberal issue ever. Except we have it every day. The headline and some of the "commentary" articles had already gone to press. It was a huge headline. Big headlines are rare in this paper. Full width headlines are reserved for End of the World Events. Already written were anti-gun sidebar articles and op-ed columns that could have been written any time and used to fill up a newspaper after a shooting like this. The main op-ed was a rage against "right to carry" that just passed last year in Kansas. The op-ed hypothesized the shooter must have been from Kansas and he must have used a high-powered automatic "assault hand gun" (their term). It was too late to pull copies. They were on trucks heading to their subscribers and thousands of newspaper boxes.
So the story went from HUGE to zero in ten seconds just as soon as the breathless, excited media saw a small hunting rifle being carried into the room. It turned out the man had been in a mental health facility against his will (his family plus the KC police had signed that he was a danger to others). He would have still been there if the local ACLU hadn't gotten him out six months ago. Just like the VT shooter. That killer had also been involuntarily confined to a mental health facility but was let out by the left and then had the event expunged from records available to the police. In this case, unlike the VT shooter, the killer did not try to buy a gun and not be denied because of his mental illness incarceration. Law enforcement, when approving or denying someone's attempt to buy a gun, can only ue with the person's history they have in their files. Virginia has a very good gun purchase database but the ACLU and the like have allowed even felons to expunge bad parts of their history from their files. In this case, the killer took the rifle from a relative. He was mad at Target Stores where he had worked in the past because they turned down his application to become a night security guard. The job all those who work there at night stocking shelves want. Just walk around, drink coffee and take smoke breaks, versus moving boxes all night. Target knew of his mental problems so their turning him down was a "no brainer" for them. What if he had gone to work elsewhere (as he was trying to do). Target couldn't have provided what they knew of his mental problems if contacted for a reference check. It was expunged from his police record. To law enforcement, he didn't even have a parking ticket. Take away the PC laws and "legislation from the bench" that has run rampant the last 30 years and this would not have happened. He would still be locked up until he was no longer "criminally insane".
Shooters need to consider their weapon of choice if they want the media to pay attention to them. Any handgun will get good coverage. Any type of higher-powered semi-automatic handgun gets even better coverage. If someone with a right to carry permit ever goes on a shooting rampage, it will be major news for months, if not years.
As I say, the media scattered as soon as they learned it wasn't a handgun. The only follow-on coverage that local media seems to have all jumped on all at once is "since Missouri and Kansas now both have right to carry laws, doesn't that prove private gun ownership is of no value in protecting people from killers such as this man?" The shooter killed two of the people as he pulled into the mall parking lot. They were both unlucky enough to be in the cars on both sides of the spot he pulled into. He then went inside the mall. The chances of one of the 7,000 citizens in the entire state who now have right to carry permits being in that exact spot at that exact time has be a million to one odds. If anything, it showed if far more people carried weapons legally, one of these four lives might have been saved. But, unless small caliber hunting rifles are outlawed, this is a tragedy that couldn't have been stopped by pro or anti-gun advocates.
The handgun debate continues. Pro-gun personal defense people (like me) have all the facts on their side (such as all John Stossel covered). But those who want an unarmed general population have emotion on their side. Unfortunately, as is being proven more and more in every election "mindless emotion trumps fact, reason, truth and common sense every time". BTW - John Stossel began his career on TV in Kansas City.
We're eventually going to lose this battle. We'll join England, Australia and many other countries that only permit criminals to own and use firearms. But not if killers such as this fellow don't get with the program and stick to handguns only.
**********************************
View http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c to FINALLY understand why liberals think the way they do. This was the most informative 47 minutes I've ever spent. Please -- take the time to view it.
Good Post WOtm
May 6, 2007 - 15:44 ET by alamojbGood Post WOtm
We are loosing the fight to keep and bare arms because we are loosing the information war. The local news media where I live is somewhat conservative, so cases where someone uses a weapon to stop a crime do occasionaly get thru. The hard part is getting it to the national media. I have made a decision that from now on, when one of these stories come up, I will forward the link to Drudge, Fox, Stossel, Hannity, Lou Dobbs, etc, in hopes that someone at the national level picks it up.
Hey W0TM, I'm stealing your s
May 6, 2007 - 16:07 ET by tracheostomyHey W0TM, I'm stealing your sig, but I'll give credit where credit is due. >;)
That was one of the best lectures I've ever seen. Summed it all up quite well.
-PJ
wOtm and alamojb,Folks, never
May 7, 2007 - 06:37 ET by Indiana JoewOtm and alamojb,
Folks, never, EVER believe we are losing this debate. The number of "shall issue" right-to-carry states is at an all-time high. The public is waking up to the simple fact that criminals avoid armed victims. The SCOTUS threw out the D.C. gun ban. And even the major networks can't ignore the truth anymore. No, the fact is we are finally WINNING this debate. It's already won, really, so now is NOT the time to throw in the towel. That would be like surrendering to Japan in July of 1945. We WILL prevail.
Regards,
IJ
It was several years ago but
May 6, 2007 - 20:35 ET by wwsmithIt was several years ago but one of our local rags pushed a story for over a week about how a "Assault Gun" owner had gone on a killing spree killing an entire family including an infant in the womb. They went on and on about how many guns he owned and all the ammo he had in his house... Mentioned only once was the fact that he had used a butcher knife for the murders.
I sure hope John keeps
May 7, 2007 - 06:52 ET by Dave RI sure hope John keeps his resume' updated. Too many more stories like this and ABC is going to send him packing.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
It is slowly being understo
May 7, 2007 - 10:30 ET by NortonPeteIt is slowly being understood by the populace that restricting guns will not help stop the VT type of violence. After chaining the doors closed, a gallon or two of gasoline probably would have killed more people. The 86 deaths from the HappyLand Club fire was caused by one disgruntled person with a gallon of gas.
When I was a kid, many kids talked about how you could make a gun from a car antenna.