I wouldn't say nuts. These are the words of a man so privileged, so lucky in life that he is able to ignore so much of what's going on in the world such that the ONLY issue he cares about is if he gets to have his shooty toys.
Yeah, and the Democrats are the ones in charge, so them saying there is a lot going on in this country, while they sit back and do literally nothing while the rest of the country suffers from record high gas prices, record high inflation , absurd unaffordable housing market and a pending recession. There is no point in history where having a firearm right now is the most important thing, because each year its getting worse and the Democrats are loving every second of it.
I don’t agree it’s a constitutional right if someone had a platform and was running for president and said everything you wanted him to except for he wanted the ban the right to free speech would you vote for him
@@christophermoran3978 The problem is that very few want to outright ban guns. At most they say "I want common sense gun reform" and then end up doing nothing anyway. We already accept restrictions on freedom of speech for the good of society, guns aren't anything special and should be treated in kind.
Maybe looking at this the wrong way, single issue voters and politically uninformed people are a fact of life. You can't appeal to all of them honestly but maybe guys like this are a reason why the liberal obsession with banning guns is ultimately a really bad thing. There are tons of people who only vote red because they're terrified that the Democrats, who constantly and proudly repeat their believe in banning any gun they can, are going to try and do so. Democrats who will roll over with the slightest breeze on any issue from trans rights to tax reform to healthcare suddenly are the biggest diehard come hell or high water fanatics when it comes time to ban AR15s
When guns are THE issue you base your vote on, your life and priorities are extremely out of whack. You officially have no problems in life if this is what you care most about.
Kind of inspirational... I wish my life/country was like that, to reach a point where this is the last issue left to fix and everything else is running smoothly.
@@hkgunmoney4029 your lifes work is to spread death and provide destructive weapons to a society flooded with them already. I hope your proud of yourself.
@@hkgunmoney4029 in no way does that negate my point. Some people work to give children an education, some cure sicknesses, some work to preserve the environment, some work for charities. You sell weapons of war to a society that already has more guns than people. I would be ashamed.
@@hkgunmoney4029 I would say it's the following thing: the fact that you prioritize yourself over the country. I have never voted in any election what is best for me personally or what I'm interested in, but what is best for my country, regardless of how it might impact me personally. I remember once having a discussion with an anti-immigration guy and he was amazed when I told him that yes, I would pay for some illegal immigrant's healthcare out of my taxes. Yes, it would be more profitable for me and my interests to say no to that, but come on, you can't just let someone die just because they crossed a border illegally. And if my tax money is spent on saving a life, I'd call that money well spent. Not saying you're some evil monster for doing it, but I do disagree with your approach of focusing on one issue alone and one that impacts you personally. I would look into more policies, because even from a personal perspective, that's inefficient. So, let's look at it from a personal standpoint. Ok, some politician might be great for you on guns, but what if he/she makes a massive mess on a lot of other things? Overall the financial gains you get on that one policy might be squandered on others. This is why it's better to get a big picture view.
Yes kids die from drinking alcohol. How much higher would that number be if alcohol had no age limit, or alcohol concentrations weren't regulated, or certain harmful ingredients weren't banned? The argument is ridiculous. You don't ban dangerous things or make laws against crimes to completely eliminate anything, you do it to reduce the number of deaths.
@@thingofportals yeah, and framing the argument as "well you'll never stop ALL the child deaths, so we shouldn't bother reducing" is beyond the pale stupidity.
@Lock Bresnar fetuses aren't babies. You can reduce abortions by education but people making arguments conflating gun restrictions with abortions are too stupid to make a decent argument.
@Lock Bresnar when it's born, that's the definition of a baby vs a fetus. Rather be a "hypocrite" (not what that word means) than an idiot that can't define a simple term.
I would respect people like him more if they just blatantly said "I love guns, I know it's dangerous & I'm stupid, so I won't argue." rather than them trying to "debate" and not realizing how ridiculous they sound. Wasting all that breath for what? 🤦🏾♀️
that's the entire right wing "debate" ecosystem for you. couching their simplistic moronic instincts behind convenient points of argumentation and sophistry.
issue isn't that simple tho...he just didn't articulate it very well nor did he capture the essence of the second amendment. It's not a toy and you shouldn't simply own one cuz you like pew pew shit and pretending to be a special forces operator.
@@JoeMcknart69 You can definitely get one if that's what you want it for, is to LARP as a cool military man at a range and shoot some paper or bottles or whatever the hell else, go wild. But there should definitely be far more regulation and requirements for ownership. It's a right and a privilege, prove that you are of sound body and mind to own this tool of death to protect yourself or just have fun.
And the body counts is why these guns are so appealing to these young high school dropouts. If you can't get your diploma, you shouldn't have assualt weapons. We should have at least mininal standards. . .
Having a beer would be more akin to going to a shooting range to fire a round or two than shooting up a public place. Imagine if arms and ammunition marketing was required to advise people to "shoot responsibly".
@@RedElm747 agreed, drunk drivers kill also, difference is its generally accidental where mass shootings are intentional. All the sober people driving get killed by drunk drivers there is a parallel to innocent people being gun downed by a nut with a gun.
Wishing to have a tool at your disposal so that you don't fall victim to people that wish injury or death upon you is selfish or lacking in compassion? Interesting. Must be a privilege thing. I wish to have a tool available so that the Orange Cultists don't try to kill me as an atheist, or my wife as a bisexual pagan, or my daughter as a pansexual wiccan. Good luck being a victim!
@@johnonymous1592 Everybody needs freedom, and not having psychopaths wandering the streets with weapons of war is an important step in obtaining that freedom.
@@fishbiter9409 Bingo. Maybe think about taking responsibility for once in your life and advocating for the society people are brought up in to be absolutely degenerate and filled with leftism?
I'm only half way through but I think a better counter to his 5000 adolescence alcohol deaths is comparing how many deaths it would be if alcohol was legal for adolescents.
less, because criminalization has been well proven to increase use. Do you know who is statistically most likely to own guns in America? Yep, convicted felons.... which are literally never allowed to have them.
@@ASDeckard seriously? I think there 100+ million gun owners in the US, are they mostly felons by your logic? I can agree felons will still obtain guns regardless of laws, but most gun owners are law abiding folk.
@@ASDeckard , I doubt your statistics...source? Also, you just gave a reason to make laws more strict for felons having guns...life in prison if found having one on their self? 20 years?
I think an even better one is looking at alcohol as one tolerable subclass within the class of mind-alterinf substances. Just like pistols or hunting rifles, sure let's allow alcohol. But heroin and crack and fentanyl are too risky, sure maybe some isolated people might use them responsibly, but it's not worth it collectively as a society to allow them.
It was a 12 pack in my high school and it was in his locker. if it happened there it happened elsewhere and i'd bet my life it happened today. so would you
One key thing that you are overlooking is that in the act of buying a gun, you aren't ending someone's life. In the act of getting an abortion, you are ending a life. Are we to legalize murder as a whole, because clearly people are still getting killed. I think the difference between legalizing murder, and legalizing firearms is very clear.
As a leftist who understands how asinine (and ineffective) feature/model based bans of weapons are. When you make statements like this, you look like a clown.
Yeah, as soon as he said "I don't like this line of argument" it was him indirectly admitting he knows his position is psychotic but he is too much of a coward to own up to it. I really wish that rightists like him would just be honest and bite the bullet, just admit they are ok with innocent children dying in school shootings just so that the gun lobby can reap profits every year. Or admit they want to control women, or admit they want to oppress minorities. Cuz if they would just be honest a lot less people would even take them serious.
The problem I have with comparing gun control to alcohol prohibition is that unless you can prove that taking guns out of a society will actively make that society LESS safe, then the comparison holds no water. So far there is ZERO data backing the claim that a heavily armed society is safer. It’s a no brainer… even if you don’t believe gun control works, it’s not going to make the situation worse, as in the case of prohibition, so the government has a responsibility to at least try it.
You've gotta take a step back and reevaluate your beliefs when you make your whole personality about the type of gun you own and then consider it more important than other peoples lives.
Gun control isn't going to stop criminals from having them and doing all the killing. You know who else had gun restrictions? Our southern neighbor Mexico, they're citizens can't even own guns and the only ones that has most of the guns is the cartel group.
@@kevin6293 you mean the riots that were either a reaction to cops killing black men, or were caused by police deliberately escalating protests into riots? is that what you're referencing?
This guy was not good at this debate from the start. Don't think because some clown on a dumb show you watched got pissy and wanted the caller to engage with her "point" that your beliefs are any less dumb. You try this debate with me or anyone else on the right you will embarrass yourself more. Sit down.
@@CrystalMannequinsMoonshine is literally just whiskey that is clear and unaged. It is sold in stores right now. It was dumb of her to bring up something she knows nothing about even while being somewhat correct. Moonshine became safer after regulations that made it illegal to have additives that were dangerous. And really the point is that AR-15s are designed to kill people while alcohol is not. This is also the reason why people should be allowed to distill while not being allowed to own AR-15 style weaponry.
Mummy - Ok honey hurry up please, the bus will be here soon, you got your backpack? Child under 10- yes mum Mommy- lunch pack? Child under 10- yes mum Mummy- webbing and kevlar helmet? Child under 10- I don't want to be in this joke anymore actually.
@@fourleaf7570 What is webbing in the army? The webbing consists of a belt, yoke (shoulder harness) and a number of pouches. Associated with PLCE webbing is a series of other similar load carrying equipment and rucksacks. The purpose of PLCE is to hold everything a soldier needs to operate for 48 hours. Unicorn stickers optional.
@@jonstone9741 thank you for your unsolicited feed back, I don't usually write for America. Tbh I was more afraid that the two moms would be offensive or treated poorly, I personally wish they would move back to England where they met and people are able to speak properly and not shoot each other quite so often. The reason we went with webbing is obviously because the two met in england after mum had finished her 10 year military service and they moved to Florida for the weather 😊 it seemed like a good idea at the time although as time moves on and the adoption has been successful it becomes a serious issue for mum despite mom's reassurance of 'it won't happen to us' mum just can't sleep night after night shooting after shooting the stress is becoming too much. So after lengthy discussions about moving to Europe have gone nowhere she is genuinely losing her mind with worry and decided to fall back on her training, since she grew up in the UK webbing is what she knows, so webbing is what she ordered. Permission to modify the joke to your own preference denied.
@@SantasGAINdeer what's wrong with single issue voters? I beat many voters vote for democrats because of single issues like trans rights, abortion etc.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 that type of single issue voter is why the national debt is so high and why inflation won't get any better. If someone is to be a single issue voter (though voting is fake) he should vote for our gun rights to be reinstated.
feral hogs are actual dangerous, city folk often laugh at that, but one needs a gun to fight them off. Also something like a bear, most handguns you have almost no chance of walking away from that encounter, but a rifle, yes, you can much more easily subdue and stop the bear.
What all the take the guns people do not understand is they are not going to the suburbs and small towns to get them. They will head straight for the red line districts of cities and all hell will break loose and the violence will stop there. The right grows more violent and the libs and left wanna disarm. It's astounding.
@@fishbiter9409 by the end of the video he is suggesting regulation. Regulation and banning are not the same thing, important distinction, so his thought exercise here, he came to conclusion to regulate.
It's not really brilliant if the person presenting the argument sucks at debating. Currently, alcohol kills more people than guns do in the US. We had an assault weapons ban but Columbine happened. They used handguns and shotguns instead. Prohibition doesn't work because criminals find a way to get their hands on things. I don't need an AR-15 to protect my family but some people do.
Drunk driving kills people, but making it illegal won't completely stop all the drunk drivers... So how about we not only keep drunk driving legal, but make it easier for people to get alcohol while they're driving! And we should encourage kids to drink too, so more kids try drinking while driving, and when they die in accidents we can blame it on the cars or roads. No problem!
Sounds like the state of Louisiana who allows drive thru drivers to purchase 32 oz daquries to be sold made with grain alcohol, 151 rum and 40 proof liquor in one drink. It's only technically legal if the paper is covering the top of the straw (as if I don't know people who carry straws unopened so they can stick it in the daiquiri if pulled over)...it's not like anyone reasonable would drink it while driving home or wherever. 🤷♂️ I love my Louisiana heritage, but that's ridiculous. Drive thru crab and crawfish = yes. Drive thru drunks = no.
So, this isn't the correct logical deduction. Drunk driving is illegal as murder is illegal. Therefore to prevent drunk driving you would ban drinking and for murder you would ban firearms.
@@jaer678 I think you're missing the point. The original commenter seems to be talking about how there's a huge misconception in pro gun apologism that laws are meant to prevent gun crime (and because they can't, they must be ineffectual) . But they're not. Road safety and drunk driving laws don't prevent accidents and drink driving. They reduce them by imposing punishment for breaking those laws, but they don't abolish the occurrence of those things. Is the same with making murder illegal. It doesn't abolish murder. It just reduces rates of murder hopefully by imposing punishment and removing from public circulation the people who commit those crimes. However another fundamental purpose of these kinds of laws is to make the people who break those laws legally culpable, and to give their victims legal recourse to seek punishment for them or compensation from them.
Kids pick up improperly stored loaded weapons and either take themselves out or someone unfortunate enough to be standing close by. Guns are the number one cause of children's deaths.
@@maxpowers123 Great. Now tell me how often that actually happens, and more importantly, how the need for more gun regulations abroad that someone is able to do that would be affected negatively?
@@MrMarket1987 so u don’t care that it happens to some people? It’s unlikely to happen to YOU, so who cares, right? The hypothetical old lady getting assaulted is just some random stranger, and probably white anyway.
Look at the gun made in Japan it required a military expert possibly months to hand craft a gun that could only fire two bullets he was then immediately tackled by two unarmed security the idea that once it's banned people just make homemade guns and that will be just as dangerous is ludicrous
you never heard of 3D printers? Building your own AR15 is as easy these days as hobbyists building their own gaming PC. Also was the shooter in Japan not effective? He did accomplish what he set out to do, gun laws be damned.
Insert vans, acid, knives, explosives where you would guns. What is needed is proper vetting of who gets access to guns and those that do get vetted to own them are responsible for them and whoever ends up using them...
@@Disaletteritis background checks already exist and have in all 50 states for some time now, recently the federal govt with some GOP support even passed red flag laws, what more can realistically be done?
@@hepwo91222 c'mon man...if that vetting was done effectively we wouldn't be talking about banning the AR-15...the Uvalde shooter wouldn't have had access to guns...
@@Disaletteritis I am not saying its perfect, but there are background checks, new red flag laws. Shootings will still happen the most common, gang involved mass shootings will be ignored by the corporate press, but lone wolf mall or school shootings will be their focus. Yet they are not covering the mall shooting in Indiana much due to it being stopped by a concealed cary citizen in a food court, doesn't fit their crafted narratives.
Almost every single argument these gun activists have falls over from my perspective. In Australia, nothing they claim that will happen or could happen with gun laws has happened. if it does after introducing gun laws then the laws were insufficent, not that they don't work.
Australia isn't the US. The US is a completely different culture with a large part of the population plainly and loudly calling for violence. There is no comparison.
@@wvu05 covid camps in Australia? Or are we going to pretend that doesn't happen? Having to quarantine for weeks when entering the country? A lot of govt overreach right now and the citizenry is now unarmed, compare that to the US, where certain cities comply with this (high gun control too), but areas that are more rooted in the US Constitution is more freedom, less govt overreach.
The caller is right. We really should be banning semi-automatic tequila shots. It’s dangerous stuff. Many innocent bystanders have been barfed on, by such reckless partying.
I can not ever imagine having guns being my number one issue when voting as the caller said he was. I am very pro gun regulation, but if a candidate agreed with me on more gun regulation, but he seemed dumb, uncaring, out of touch, to the right on other issues, I would vote for the other candidate if total package is better.
Regulating guns and their features will do little to nothing. Regulating who can have guns would be more effective. A candidate who understands that would make a more attractive choice in my eyes rather than one who just wants to use it as a wedge issue.
Guns can be a number one issue...if one has financial investments in them. i.e. shares with weapons manufacturers, being lobbied$$ by the industry. More guns, more deaths = more profit$ Gun manufacturers and their 1% wealthy shareholders make a killing off of the killings.
Marx understood that you couldn’t let gun control be a thing. The working class should not be disarmed. I can understand why people see it as a big issue of theirs
@@Groucho_Marxist_ASMR The types of weapons are just important as who can have them. There is no need for weapons of war and mass carnage to be in the hands of everyone and anyone. We need regulations for who can have guns and we need regulations that bar anyone from having a mass murder machine.
When Shinzo Abe was killed, I actually saw people saying that if Japan had guns the police would have been more vigilant on the possibility of a gunman being present. The USA has had 2 mass shootings per day on average this year so far. Compare that to the gun crime in Japan or any other country that does not allow guns ffs.
Want to compare gun and alcohol regulations? There are places you can't carry alcohol, there are legal limits on how much alcohol you can have in certain settings and contexts. Providers of alcohol are held legally responsible for what their customers do with their product.
I'll take an angry kid with a 6pk over an AR-15. This caller's "logic" isn't making any sense.. or is it me?? 🤔 Edit: I'll take an angry kid with a 6pk IN A CAR over an AR-15 ..... ANY DAY 💯
@@papaSwarls to dodge the bullets shooting from an ar-15 ----- criss cross all you want but you're still very very liable to get shot. A drunk kid -- I can run & dodge. Btw -- I am a firearm enthusiast. I just don't believe in nonsense. I can protect my family with a .380 or a glock just as well as I can with an ar-15. Edit: or better yet -- 12 gauge I'll load hollow point if I really want to do damage. 💯 Have a fabulous evening/day/ morning, btw. 🙂✌🏻
@@Jin420 It is much harder to take down someone drunk in a car going sixty down a neighborhood or towards a school compared to someone outside with no protection besides a gun.
And no one has killed Little ones ramming their car into a school. But we all know what these AR's can do. 💯 Plus -- most schools are bricks --- much harder than these "cookie cutter homes".
Just a ton of stories of drunks holding up stores with knives, killing their children or spouses, drunk driving and killing people, getting into fights that end in death etc... No, alcohol never caused any issues with violence 🙄
Can someone please tell the dudes who call in to Sam’s show with their arguments about the evils of vaccines, second amendments issues, etc that the university is called JOHNS HOPKINS - not one person named “John Hopkins.” It undermines their credibility from the jump…
@@hkgunmoney4029 As sad as it is, those people drank alcohol willingly. I don't think that people are being forced to drink to death. The people who got killed in mass shootings probably didn't want to die on that day but they couldn't say no, could they? Another thing, alcohol is a liquid, while a gun is a tool that was specifically designed to harm living things.
Alcohol is age, content, and time-and-place regulated across the US. The ban on the AR-15 and regulation on age availability is perfectly modelled by legislation dealing with alcohol. The details vary from state to state, but the age restriction is of course federal. ETA: In fact, the regulations concerning limits of alcohol content are a perfect analogy, because ABV is about how much alcohol can be delivered and how quickly, which is a good comparison with weapons with high rates of fire.
@@rajashashankgutta4334 Direct correlation with escalating numbers of dead children and the paucity of responsible gun owners. It falls under the bit about being well regulated.
@@tonymurphy2624 rifles are only used in about 3% of gun murders, and ARs are only a fraction of that 3% so pretty idiotic to focus on ARs if you ask me. I think it's just another wedge issue to distract voters from the policies that will actually solve gun violence like wealth inequality. It's curious that one-party Democrat states can't give people healthcare, but they can ban a gun that will have no impact on gun deaths (perps will just use a different gun).
Her point doesn’t seem like a good analogy. Here’s why I say that: Bans on selling moonshine was more an example of quality control. That would be like saying, as a consumer product, you can’t have a gun that has below a particular melting point. As for homemade guns (like moonshine made by yourself for personal use), they’re becoming more sophisticated and common place
@@DireAvenger001 Her point was terrible, he just was not smart enough to counter her. Moonshine is the term given to alcohol made at home without a license. You have to have a license to manufacture alcohol and liquor stores are only allowed to buy from manufactures with a license. Just like Guns are only made by licensed manufactures.
@@creaturecore13 Absinthe is the AR15 of the alcohol world but you are making Sam's point even with moonshine... "licensed" means that they are following the regulations in place.
Be quiet you probably believe in actually banning firearms. Drop that stupid arrogant tone before you embarrass yourself more. You are the shinning example of why democracy is a failure.
I think banning particular makes and models of weapons based on certain features is not going to change much. Sam focuses on the real difference (semi automatic weapons vs manually operated weapons), but no politician is really in favor of that. Assault weapons are a subset of semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines, which have certain features: pistol grips, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, etc, which are, for the most part, aesthetic differences, they may provide some advantage but not nearly the same as semi automatic vs manually operated. If we ban AR-15s mass shooters will just use mini-14s or SKS’, or any other semi automatic but not assault rifles or pistols. We won’t be banning semi autos any time soon. This is all, of course, not really relevant, because handguns are what are used in the overwhelming majority of murders and to some degree mass shootings in the US. Mass shootings also don’t make up a large proportion of the murders anyway. If we are going to support the ban or further restriction of many particular TYPE of firearm it should be handguns of course. But the bigger issue has always been that the wrong people have access to firearms. We should care more about who gets access to a gun rather than what gun they can get. A good, responsible person could get an AR-15 and it wouldn’t be a danger to anyone. Better (universal) background checks, licenses, safe storage requirements, and universal healthcare so we can better handle our mental health crisis. This is what is really needed.
100%. Hyper-focusing on the types of guns used and not the ease of access to those guns is completely counter-productive to effective gun reform. There's only so much political capital to expend on gun control, and wasting it on extremely unpopular gun bans that would have little to no impact on gun crime and mass shootings is a great way to guarantee that nothing ever gets done.
I agree with everything you said, and your solutions are reasonable. Unfortunately, they will never be implemented. In my state of residence, Ohio, the Republican lead legislature has stripped away the few gun restrictions that existed.
As someone who owns an AR-15 (got it for my 15th birthday) and many other guns and is an avid hunter, I would gladly give mine up, for home defense a rifle is by far the worst option and an assault rifle doesn’t add any extra advantage to hunting, you don’t hunt with it except for maybe little stuff and hogs/coyotes which again you can hunt with long rifles and shotguns, I’m a gun nut but I understand the dangers and how it’s not necessary, we need to regulate this with a yearly license that takes a while to get and you have to renew it every year and ban semi auto guns
You don't sound like the kind of guy that everyone is collectively worried about. Sadly (and largely more difficult to predict) It's the unhinged people, or those that snap and become suicidal/homicidal (violence against domestic partners statistics as a fraction of gun violence is all the evidence of that you need, as well as the suicide by gun stats- although I consider the latter to be an abuse of 'gun violence' statistics... its not what everyone is really worried about in terms of gun regulation).
@@maxpowers123 yes but what’re you worried ab? Like soldiers or an army? There is nothing that will break into a normal persons house that a handgun or shotgun can’t fix
Good post. I advocate for license -insurance - ammo registration- gun registration - and a tax on ammo and guns to pay for all of it. Also large mandatory minimums for illegally owning guns and or using guns in the commission of a crime. I'm not for bans personally. I don't care if the OP here has whatever gun he wants. He seems reasonable.
@@maxpowers123 Dude, if a guy breaks into your home and he's armored to the point where you need a 5.56 to take him down, guess what? You're being raided by SWAT and you'll get killed the second you grab for a gun... Robbers don't wear a level 3 armor, bro... And if they're wearing a level 3, might as well go all out and get a level 4 that'll stop the AR-15 as well... Which would immediately negate all your weaponry.. People who rob homes do not have access to any vests other than those they've robbed from other homes. Vests cost a bit of cash, and house robbers don't have a bit of cash.. They have very little cash. Silverware doesn't exactly make you a fortune.
@@maxpowers123 would you keep it locked in a safe like a responsible gun owner? If so you won’t have time to get up in the dark, get it out, take it out of the case silently, put it together if necessary, and then use it readily. If you don’t keep it in a safe, you aren’t a responsible gun owner and shouldn’t be eligible to own one, as your argument is against you.
So frustrating on the alcohol point. Since when can you aim alcohol at a person and kill them within a fraction of a second? When can you refuse to be served bullets in a mass shooting situation?
I had someone suggest banning sugar along the same lines. I was like, yeah? Okay? Get rid of sugar, let’s do it. It’s out of control. They suddenly were like “w-wait!”
Never heard of DUI-related fatalities, huh? Someone "pointed" a car at someone, hit the other person's car, and killed them. But, let's focus on one issue.
AR15s are never going to be banned. The problem with the gun debate is that most liberals know nothing about guns, and most conservatives aren't open to even discuss any regulation or restriction. The conversations around guns are usually not very deep or fact-based. Kind of typical of the several off-limits issues in this country.
What do you mean by "know nothing about guns"? Guns are designed for killing people and some guns are designed to kill many people in a very short time. What's There more to know?
It is the 2nd most popular hunting rifle in the world, 1st in America, but kills less people than kitchen knives. Are we not able to use kitchen knives in moderation either?
@@ASDeckard If basically every month there were massacres of children in the US with kitchen knives then I would say that we can't use them in moderation. But as far as I can tell that only seems to be happening with guns
@@ASDeckard A) When's the last time you've heard of a story of a mass kitchen-knifing? B) There's way more kitchen knives than AR-15s in America, C) kitchen knives have a primary purpose that does not involve killing. Try to be a little more honest with your talking points.
Arizona man: "I don't believe that I should be forbidden from owning an M249 "SAW" LMG with quad rocket launcher barrel attachments just because some guys do all those murders with their pea-shootin' Glock 19C's. It's a perfectly reasonable hill to die on"
@@cottonballs185 I'm guessing the people opposing a better armed and better trained vastly overfunded and over-armed professional military and the police?
@@dahakaguardianofthetimelin4780 The police cower before armed suspects (Uvalde, Parkland, Columbine HS, etc.) and the US military was defeated by armed goat herders in Afghanistan
@@cottonballs185 Last I checked, the suspect of Uvalde was shot dead, the suspect of Parkland was arrested and Columbine kids shot themselves before they could be arrested or shot down. Those instances weren't handled well, but the suspects are either dead or captured so I don't see your point here. The reason the US was beaten in Afghanistan wasn't because they were weaker than the "armed goat herders". It was because the US was trying to establish, arm and train local military and militia capable of fending off the Taliban by themselves. They weren't storming the place to "kill all the baddies". They were providing "military intervention" and tried reconstructing the collapsed local establishments at the same time. Killing the "armed goat herders" wasn't their prime objective and mission. Also, the US was operating well outside their country and away from all of their reserves that needed to be shipped and delivered to a foreign country and driven through the desert into faraway encampments in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere. If the military rolls up on you - it'll be in its own home turf with the full support of the US national budget which overwhelmingly overfunds the military. I can't believe that I have to side with the US military and the police on this (or anything for that matter), but if you think you and your neighbor homies can take on the US military on your front lawn with your dog's scat on your face for warpaint - you're flat out delusional.
Comparing alcohol to guns is absolutely asinine. When you buy alcohol, YOU choose to put alcohol in YOUR OWN body. That's totally fine. With a gun, you choose to put YOUR bullet in SOMEONE ELSE'S body. That's not ok. It's a very simple fundamental difference of who is consenting in each scenario. While addiction absolutely _does_ affect those besides the addict, guns are _inherently_ devices used explicitly with the express purpose of harming (so definitely "affecting") another human being.
@@SY-qg6qn yes and drinking and driving is heavily regulated. There are dui checkpoints. People are encouraged to call 911 if they see someone swerving across lanes. Bars and restaurants can be held liable of they overserve someone. If your point is that we should treat AR-15 ownership like we treat drunk driving then I agree.
@@SY-qg6qn you do not understand the original message. You do not by a car because you want to kill somebody. There are also speed limits for every driver. And I would argue the person that drives drunk ... they definitely shouldn't... is not going out to roll over a kid. The purpose of a car is not to kill even though it could happen drunk or not. But there is only one purpose for a weapon.
I can’t comprehend how people complain about everything going on in the world then vote solely on guns. Yes vote for the party that doesn’t care about helping American people as long as we have our guns
Clearly don’t work in their current form. Two choices. Introduce tighter restrictions or get rid of the restrictions altogether. Wonder which will result in fewer deaths.
this whole argument of gun control is pointless to a certain extent when the black market makes weapons so readily available. i still agree that they should be heavily restricted by the government
(edit: haha lovely comment to end the vid on, you guys' editing is awesome) Definitely the first thing to come up when ppl bring up alcohol deaths is 1) the product only can kill 1 person per product Vs guns, and 2) like Sam said, alcohol death is stemming from individual choice while mass shooting deaths come from someone's, who is not the person dying, power over eliminating their victims' freedom to make choices And for car deaths it's just plain and simple fact that the fatality efficiency of guns is way higher than cars, same for knives A more accurate analogy is nuclear weapons and other bio weapons or hazards Those are in broad terms "arms" and they get regulated. And everyone understands this and no one argues "Well um, actually, responsible nuclear warhead owners just want to have them to defend themselves. Look at the past 60 years of data, not 1 of the majority of nuclear warhead owners have used nuclear to kill anyone. NOT. ONE. PERSON So therefore, there is no danger to ppl owning nuclear weapons, it's 100% defensive, and I will defend my neighbour's right to keep a warhead and launcher in their backyard Liberty and freedoooooooom!" Everyone recognizes that as insanity and not an argument at all And for comparing it to moonshine, no one argues "well, um, actually, anyone trying to harness the power of nuclear to power their house is just like someone who buys a car. Are there ppl who blow up their entire county bcos they mishandled their nuclear reactor? Sure. But my aunt killed her 2 sons and another couple in car accident. So, um, actually, ppl should be allowed unrestrained access to nuclear production in their backyard" Everyone recognizes there are levels to things and once smth is terribly efficient at creating deaths, we should regulate and ban ppl's free access to it
It's proven. Mass shootings went up 163% after the ban ran out. Thanks to the war criminal George W Shrub. Mass shootings went down by 70% when the ban went into effect.
I doubt they will ever ban guns of any type until they show the actual footage of the school/club/parade etc shootings uncut on the prime-time local and cable news. Until people are forced to see what the real consequences are and they become disturbed enough by those visuals to put things into perspective it will always remain this way and things will get much, much worse... The new guns the military had designed that are the successors to auto rifles like the AR15 are now available for citizens to purchase for only 5 grand and, they were designed specifically to go through body armor. The damage that is going to do to a kid or a random person on the streets is going to be 100 times worse than it is currently. Not to mention make even the most seasoned SWAT COPs think twice about going in to help.
Lol you are giving conservatives way to much credit on caring about others. Deaths from Covid, mass shootings, bad healthcare have proven that those issues do not to matter to them when it comes to voting for a candidate.
Wrong chicago had over 700 murders last year. You think watching 20 people get gunned down would stop anything 20 people shot is a calm weekend in chicago
Banning alcohol brought about organized crime. Banning guns would not. Guns require complex factories to manufacture guns and bullets. Banning guns would not lead to organized crime. Ta da.
Just looking at the image used for the video, can we at least ban real guns that are intentionally designed to look like toys? How am I supposed to teach my young daughter to respect real guns and not to touch them if they’re pink?
@@brandonellis8111 I don’t want a kid picking up a real gun thinking it’s a toy, because it looks like a toy, and accidentally killing someone. I guess that means I’m not manly enough?
Dude you can't use them for anything and 99.999% of gun owners will never use them in any form of self defense. They're a toy, a toy you can kill yourself with.
@@wynngwynn If you saw a pink hummer, would you go "dang, that thing is for adult men!" or would you go "oh shit, some asshole painted his hummer like the barbie car!" Who do you think pink appeals to? I'm an adult male who wears a disproportionate amount of pink clothing, but I'm fairly alone in that.. Mostly me and the kids. Pink is literally the colour of babies.. Girl babies to be specific. Let's make it simpler: A pink VR with baby blue stock and rails. Marketed for whom?
I feel like the better argument would have been that drinking alcohol is a choice and you'd be harming yourself; while being shot up would be completely out of your control and you'd be a victim of.
You have the 2nd amendment telling you you have the right to defend yourself but you don't even after the SCOTUS has said law enforcement has no duty to protect you nor does anyone or anything else have that responsibility. Only you
I think the point he was trying to get to but never quite gets there or only suggests I guess alcohol poisoning in youths (not sure?) is the drunk driver, they kill people that were not drinking at all.
@@hepwo91222 Graduated highschool in the early 80's. We had fire drills of course, but that was it. What's your point, better to have panic rooms than deal with the actual issue? So in the same token, those are like having fire drills, while there are open fires in the hallways that you don't bother to put out.
@@-suphur you never had nuclear bomb drills? For older people it might have been hide under your desk, people around our age it was lean on the wall of the gymnasium as it was the most solid part of the building. Or you never asked what that drill was where you didn't go outside and they marched you to the gym wall? They were nuclear bomb drills during the Cold War.
@@hepwo91222 Ya, lived through the cold war all through school, I was born right at the end of the "boom", mid sixties. I should add context that I am Canadian and we most assuredly had fire drills, never once did we have a drill for nukes. I grew up in a strategically important area too as it has some of the biggest nickel produing mines in the world. Maybe our government realized that your ass was toast if you were anywhere near the detenation and hiding under your desk was ridiculous.
I am 52 and never in my life felt the urge to call into a Talkshow to passionately argue FOR the FREEDOM to live in a society with easy access to machines that not only kill an insane amount of innocent people but terrorize and traumatize pretty much EVERYONE every SINGLE DAY. What is going on in the mind of this (probably a lot younger than me?) caller?????
@@hkgunmoney4029 I am truly truly sad my friend. Especially as a father and someone who works with young peopleWith your engineering skill you could do something good for humanity ! That is what my father did but anyways = your choice man! Hope you sleep well at night ...
@@Draxtor you're not a young father or you'd want every tool necessary to defend your children. The police will not defend and have no requirement to do so. This has been ruled in court several times.
"Currently 14 states ban the sale of Everclear including California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Iowa, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, North Carolin, Virginia, and Ohio. Alcohol vendors can sell Everclear in the other 36 states. Some states, such as Maryland, disallow the sales of grain alcohol, but owning such drinks is not a crime."
I thought that was great dialogue. In a subject so contentious it takes very little for things to escalate and begin diminishing into answers borne of frustration. Not an easy thing to do. So kudos!
Alcohol is age restricted, it is regulated against its use in public (in most cases: restricted to certain areas), you cannot operate vehicles or machinery legally under its influence, there must be the proper licensing in place for the sale of it, and the illegal sale or distribution of it is a serious offense. I would say alcohol is highly regulated because of its danger... Somehow guns are still not...
@@dygytylace Then you should advocate for laws that make society safe enough that you don't have a legitimate need for sudden lethal force at the drop of a hat. Because the hat can drop both ways.
@@smaakjeks pretty sure we don't need any more laws. Law abiding citizens aren't to be feared. Then there's the 3%, and as Alfred says, "Some men like to see the world burn." Thankfully they are few and far between. And 3% is the amount of humans that will disagree with a perfect idea.
Making a gun from scratch takes a lot more skill then people realize. Specially repeating firearms. Its just on a completely different level then brewing alcohol. - Not to mention requires a lot more investment of machines. There are videos of craftmade pistols from the vietnam war. Whoever made them was probably a fairly skilled craftsman (and least more skilled then the average person) but even then they were firearms one would hesitate to actually use.
Yup, I watched a video showcasing a selection of hand made firearms that are kept in a secure armoury in the UK (i.e. not a museum, since they are still live weapons). We're talking basic stuff here - single shot pipe shotguns, blunderbusses made from carved wood and old pipes, that sort of thing. Nothing on the level of a modern firearm, bar one that was made with specialised tools and used a few actual firearm parts that was made seemingly as a political statement then for practical reasons by someone criticising the (at the time) lax gun part laws in the UK. The experts in the video said about all of them that the chances of the gun functioning at all was uncertain, and chance of self injury was high. I don't think people realise just how difficult making effective hand made weapons is, even for experts in manufacturing. A ban on certain types of firearm and parts wouldn't be sidestepped by home tooled weapons. Even the 'best' 3D printed parts aren't going to be effective for more then a handgun.
@@margotpreston Not made up. But a jankier gun you would have to look far and wide to find. Made by someone with incredible know-how, and yet still looked like apocalyptic steampunk on acid. There's a reason you don't see many people using them.
3D printing has changed the game though, PDF files, right materials, can manufacture guns easier than ever for regular civilians. These gun control laws won't matter in a decade as 3D printing tech gets better. Libs are behind the curve as usual on yet another topic they don't grasp.
3:50 This analogy would have worked better if Emma used grenades as an example. In the same way alcohol regulations work, so do regulations on grenades.
@@hepwo91222 So it's pointless to make murder illegal because people still do it? Every single law is still broken so there should be no laws? Something tells me you don't believe that and are just being purposefully obtuse.
@@hepwo91222 if you allowed 12 year olds to drink, in America, more children would die from alcohol. Laws are written consequences for crimes not deterrents.
The caller has a point for not banning all guns in all situations, but that’s where their rationale ends. Most of the mass shooters in the past decade got their guns legally. Most of them are carried out by young men who are not well or terribly bright. Do we really believe those guys would’ve gone to the efforts to buy one illegally and made one in a 3D printer if they couldn’t have just gotten when from their parents or walked in a gun store or show and walked out with one? I’m not convinced, but we’ll never know as long as it’s so absurdly easy to walk in and walk out with a gun that can easily kill dozens is 15 minutes.
most mass shootings got their guns legally? That is MSM garbage, most mass shootings are inner city illegally obtained guns often carried out by gang members. Maybe most mass shootings the media actually covers?
@@hepwo91222 show me a peer-reviewed study that proves different Most are bought legally, either buy the person themselves or a relative who then improperly stores them.
All yoi have to do is spend a few minutes looking into the history of the gun, it's manufacturing, and availability versus the history of mass shootings. There is a direct correlation between the two. Now there is a maker putting out a JR AR 15 made specifically for kids under 18. It's going to get worse.
The only people that should have guns, are people that are extremely well trained and disciplined. The army itself needs to step in and set up training centers that evaluate their responsibility and mental condition. Finland does it, Switzerland does it, and they do it via conscription. Not an optional training course.
If I take moonshine to a school and come screaming into a room brandishing my moonshine, I will be escorted out and arrested, and all the children will be fine.
@@hkgunmoney4029 They are usually covered where I live on the nightly local news. Also when I lived in NYC and NJ they were covered on local news as well.
@@hkgunmoney4029 According to the CDC: "Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes.". So maybe have a daily hour long program to cover them? Maybe you can start a UA-cam channel for it.
I think he probably didn't even want to concede on regulations, but maybe I'm reading too much into that big sigh at the end of the call. It did sort of give the vibe of "well shit, that didn't really go how I expected and they just got me to agree to a position I can't accept" though.
@@TheSquareOnes I'm a big Seder fan but I felt bad for the guy. They kinda bombarded him. He didn't really get enough time to extrapolate on his opinion and just seemed over it by the end.
@@TheSenatortruthSeder is an idiot. He got his ass handed to him trying to debate someone on Kyle Rittenhouse. He even stated that he didn't watch the trial, yet he tried to pull out all these points about it. He's a shill that gets his flock to believe him without offering up any real data.
Though the dude on the phone is a tool, he's not completely wrong imo. If you completely restrict access to AR-15s (and the many other guns that are essentially the same gun but go by another name) then these mass shooting monsters will choose the next best gun. Then you'll need to restrict that gun, but they'll just go to the next best gun for mass murder, etc, etc. The focus shouldn't be banning specific models of guns. It should be the general access to firearms, that's what needs to be properly regulated. How do we do that? Good question, especially when you consider complications like 80% lowers and 3D printing. At a bare minimum, imo, there needs to be a national registry and universal background checks. And not just the background check system we have now as that has failed to encompass military records that would have shown that person shouldn't be getting a gun (I'm specifically thinking of one of the Fort Hood shootings that could have been prevented if the shooters military record would have been seen by the background check). But tbh, good luck getting anything substantive passed with how weak the corporate Dems are and how insane the RepubliCONs are.
I think pointing out that we have fishing licenses, drivers licenses, etc is a really great point in favor of gun regulation. Nobody thinks anybody should be allowed to drive on public roads without a license, at least nobody who isn't insane. So why shouldn't the same apply to extremely lethal weapons? It should be shown that you have basic competency to operate a weapon of that caliber before you are allowed to own one, that seems more than reasonable to me. And I would say taking issue to this amounts to nothing more than whining.
I'm almost as far left as it goes I'm in the same boat as Jamie almost but I'm also half Native American and grew up hunting with my family and my daughter was raised to hunt so I do have firearms but there's no reason whatsoever for the public to own that group of weapons that are used in mass shootings. I really hate that excuse that they might need them to overthrow the government, cause that's the hugest joke. Even North Korea knows that's not an option.
There is literally no rifle you can find that has never been used in a mass shooting. One of Texas's worst shootings was done with a Remington 700, a very basic hunting rifle. The worst mass shooting police ever suffered was conducted with a 10 round internal magazine SKS. What do you mean if it's used in a mass shooting, people shouldn't have it?
@@ASDeckard Semi auto rifle are not needed and I also don't see the use for glocks, if it holds a large capacity and is easily reloadable it's not needed. I realize it's fun playing around with these weapons but that fun shouldn't be the price we have to pay for watching the children or anyone else dying from the people who choose to kill indiscriminately. No one's truly going to be oppressed if we're not allowed to have these weapons. I'm also very much in favor of large background checks, licensing, testing and securing to own or purchase firearms of any kind. Things are out of control and no one is truly safe under the laws we have. Also I don't think we can illuminate all shootings but I believe it's our responsibility to not make it as easy as it is.
@@zedwolf1589 You shouldn’t be talking about guns😂. You literally just spoke of semiautomatic weapons and glocks as if they’re separate things. Majority of gun deaths are suicide and gang related. Get rid of those we have one of the lowest gun fatalities in the world
Imagine saying that guns are the thing you vote on, cost of living crisis nah I care more about guns. In every other nation on earth and more than half American think this man is a fre ak. But he lacks the self awareness to realise that
The second he said “it’s the issue I vote on” you should’ve hung up because that’s not only an unreasonable person but someone who needs an evaluation.
Sam lost me when he suggested that the militarization of police was because civilians own guns. They have militarized regardless of whether the citizens are armed or not.
Caller lost me saying guns was the only issue he votes on. With all that is going on in the country and the world, that is pretty insane on its face.
Totally. That's all I needed to hear. This guy is nuts
I wouldn't say nuts. These are the words of a man so privileged, so lucky in life that he is able to ignore so much of what's going on in the world such that the ONLY issue he cares about is if he gets to have his shooty toys.
average murican
Yeah, and the Democrats are the ones in charge, so them saying there is a lot going on in this country, while they sit back and do literally nothing while the rest of the country suffers from record high gas prices, record high inflation , absurd unaffordable housing market and a pending recession. There is no point in history where having a firearm right now is the most important thing, because each year its getting worse and the Democrats are loving every second of it.
Most right wingers are one issue voters.
As a liberal gun owner, the idea of single issue voting based on your preferred hobby is absolutely insane to me.
Only facists the murder of people is a hobby
I don’t agree it’s a constitutional right if someone had a platform and was running for president and said everything you wanted him to except for he wanted the ban the right to free speech would you vote for him
@@christophermoran3978 The problem is that very few want to outright ban guns. At most they say "I want common sense gun reform" and then end up doing nothing anyway.
We already accept restrictions on freedom of speech for the good of society, guns aren't anything special and should be treated in kind.
Maybe looking at this the wrong way, single issue voters and politically uninformed people are a fact of life. You can't appeal to all of them honestly but maybe guys like this are a reason why the liberal obsession with banning guns is ultimately a really bad thing. There are tons of people who only vote red because they're terrified that the Democrats, who constantly and proudly repeat their believe in banning any gun they can, are going to try and do so.
Democrats who will roll over with the slightest breeze on any issue from trans rights to tax reform to healthcare suddenly are the biggest diehard come hell or high water fanatics when it comes time to ban AR15s
@@ashfox7498 nice idea, until you get shot. Would you change your mind, or would a bullet do its job?
When guns are THE issue you base your vote on, your life and priorities are extremely out of whack. You officially have no problems in life if this is what you care most about.
Kind of inspirational... I wish my life/country was like that, to reach a point where this is the last issue left to fix and everything else is running smoothly.
@@hkgunmoney4029 your lifes work is to spread death and provide destructive weapons to a society flooded with them already. I hope your proud of yourself.
@@hkgunmoney4029 in no way does that negate my point. Some people work to give children an education, some cure sicknesses, some work to preserve the environment, some work for charities. You sell weapons of war to a society that already has more guns than people. I would be ashamed.
@@hkgunmoney4029 whatever u need to tell yourself in order to sleep at night.
@@hkgunmoney4029 I would say it's the following thing: the fact that you prioritize yourself over the country. I have never voted in any election what is best for me personally or what I'm interested in, but what is best for my country, regardless of how it might impact me personally. I remember once having a discussion with an anti-immigration guy and he was amazed when I told him that yes, I would pay for some illegal immigrant's healthcare out of my taxes. Yes, it would be more profitable for me and my interests to say no to that, but come on, you can't just let someone die just because they crossed a border illegally. And if my tax money is spent on saving a life, I'd call that money well spent.
Not saying you're some evil monster for doing it, but I do disagree with your approach of focusing on one issue alone and one that impacts you personally. I would look into more policies, because even from a personal perspective, that's inefficient. So, let's look at it from a personal standpoint. Ok, some politician might be great for you on guns, but what if he/she makes a massive mess on a lot of other things? Overall the financial gains you get on that one policy might be squandered on others. This is why it's better to get a big picture view.
Yes kids die from drinking alcohol. How much higher would that number be if alcohol had no age limit, or alcohol concentrations weren't regulated, or certain harmful ingredients weren't banned? The argument is ridiculous. You don't ban dangerous things or make laws against crimes to completely eliminate anything, you do it to reduce the number of deaths.
Also buying alcohol doesn't give you the ability to do mass murder. Guns are literally murder tools invented to kill. Alcohol isn't..
Judge Kavanaugh is a living PSA on why the drinking age might need to be higher. ;)
Actually its lower
He said he wasn’t against regulation, just bans.
@@CTS-V Handguns it's 21 federally & 18 gun show. Long rifle it's 18 federally & no restriction gun show.
My god, the "you'll never stop ALL the shootings" argument... DUDE, you can REDUCE things without making it impossible to happen...
It’s insane how “less child deaths” isn’t a good enough reason for these people anymore.
@@thingofportals yeah, and framing the argument as "well you'll never stop ALL the child deaths, so we shouldn't bother reducing" is beyond the pale stupidity.
@Lock Bresnar fetuses aren't babies. You can reduce abortions by education but people making arguments conflating gun restrictions with abortions are too stupid to make a decent argument.
@Lock Bresnar when it's born, that's the definition of a baby vs a fetus. Rather be a "hypocrite" (not what that word means) than an idiot that can't define a simple term.
@Lock Bresnar obviously if I'm "too stupid" for you, quite the opposite, actually, there's no point in arguing. So "kindly" GFYS.
“Engage with my point” Emma is a boss.
I lol’d at that. She was not playing around!
Sad that people like him need to be told to 1.) Articulate their perspective logically 2.) Practically have to be scolded to take Emma seriously.
@@user-jy2sj4ed4i conservatives aren’t used to debating smart people
@@deadflake I notice a lot on UA-cam just troll and consider that to be their argument.
I both agree with and fear her lol.
"I don't like that line of argument." Well duh. What did you expect coming on to Sam's show.
I would respect people like him more if they just blatantly said "I love guns, I know it's dangerous & I'm stupid, so I won't argue." rather than them trying to "debate" and not realizing how ridiculous they sound. Wasting all that breath for what? 🤦🏾♀️
A toy I like kills people all the time but I like my toy 😢
that's the entire right wing "debate" ecosystem for you.
couching their simplistic moronic instincts behind convenient points of argumentation and sophistry.
issue isn't that simple tho...he just didn't articulate it very well nor did he capture the essence of the second amendment. It's not a toy and you shouldn't simply own one cuz you like pew pew shit and pretending to be a special forces operator.
@@JoeMcknart69 You can definitely get one if that's what you want it for, is to LARP as a cool military man at a range and shoot some paper or bottles or whatever the hell else, go wild.
But there should definitely be far more regulation and requirements for ownership. It's a right and a privilege, prove that you are of sound body and mind to own this tool of death to protect yourself or just have fun.
Jim Jeffries does a bit like this love that guy
You can have just one beer and nobody gets hurt. Harder to do that with just one shooting.
And the body counts is why these guns are so appealing to these young high school dropouts. If you can't get your diploma, you shouldn't have assualt weapons. We should have at least mininal standards. . .
Having a beer would be more akin to going to a shooting range to fire a round or two than shooting up a public place. Imagine if arms and ammunition marketing was required to advise people to "shoot responsibly".
@@RedElm747 agreed, drunk drivers kill also, difference is its generally accidental where mass shootings are intentional. All the sober people driving get killed by drunk drivers there is a parallel to innocent people being gun downed by a nut with a gun.
how many hundreds of millions of guns are in the US? What percentage of those guns are used in mass shootings or nay shootings for that matter?
@@hepwo91222 Too many. Also too many.
It never ceases to amaze me the selfishness and lack of human compassion that rises to the top in these defenses of weapons of mass destruction.
Use proper terminology. Assault rifles are clearly not weapons of mass destruction. You discredit your own argument through hyperbole.
@@wzsmart2890 must feel good
Wishing to have a tool at your disposal so that you don't fall victim to people that wish injury or death upon you is selfish or lacking in compassion? Interesting. Must be a privilege thing. I wish to have a tool available so that the Orange Cultists don't try to kill me as an atheist, or my wife as a bisexual pagan, or my daughter as a pansexual wiccan. Good luck being a victim!
@@crystalrachel Do you eat avocados?
@@wzsmart2890 If it kills droves of people in short work its a weapon of mass destruction.
3:20 that sound he makes when his 'argument' just falls off a cliff into the pit of "BUT I LIKE MY GUNS"
“Æeeehh”
yeah who needs freedom
@@johnonymous1592 Everybody needs freedom, and not having psychopaths wandering the streets with weapons of war is an important step in obtaining that freedom.
@@johnonymous1592 What is your definition of freedom?
@@fishbiter9409 Bingo. Maybe think about taking responsibility for once in your life and advocating for the society people are brought up in to be absolutely degenerate and filled with leftism?
I'm only half way through but I think a better counter to his 5000 adolescence alcohol deaths is comparing how many deaths it would be if alcohol was legal for adolescents.
less, because criminalization has been well proven to increase use. Do you know who is statistically most likely to own guns in America? Yep, convicted felons.... which are literally never allowed to have them.
@@ASDeckard seriously? I think there 100+ million gun owners in the US, are they mostly felons by your logic? I can agree felons will still obtain guns regardless of laws, but most gun owners are law abiding folk.
@@ASDeckard , I doubt your statistics...source? Also, you just gave a reason to make laws more strict for felons having guns...life in prison if found having one on their self? 20 years?
I think an even better one is looking at alcohol as one tolerable subclass within the class of mind-alterinf substances. Just like pistols or hunting rifles, sure let's allow alcohol. But heroin and crack and fentanyl are too risky, sure maybe some isolated people might use them responsibly, but it's not worth it collectively as a society to allow them.
think of a world, where a kid walks into a classroom pulls out their dad's 30 pack bud light. the horror.
Right 🤦🏻♀️😂😂😂
Hahaha exactly!
I mean, is there enough to share with the entire class?
Well over 10k people die per year from drunk driving deaths, or do deaths only mater when they are in a school?
It was a 12 pack in my high school and it was in his locker. if it happened there it happened elsewhere and i'd bet my life it happened today. so would you
“People are gonna get it anyway so we shouldn’t ban it”
This logic applies to guns but not abortion?
Coat hangers, FG42s, meh same speedrun times! /s
I support abortion and gun ownership.
The gotcha doesn't work on people with principles.
I also support the death penalty for mass murderers.
Did the caller say he was against abortion? Just because some people are hypocrites doesn't mean you have to be with them.
One key thing that you are overlooking is that in the act of buying a gun, you aren't ending someone's life. In the act of getting an abortion, you are ending a life. Are we to legalize murder as a whole, because clearly people are still getting killed. I think the difference between legalizing murder, and legalizing firearms is very clear.
As a leftist who understands how asinine (and ineffective) feature/model based bans of weapons are. When you make statements like this, you look like a clown.
Sam was right, this caller does seem psychotic & his argument is absolutely flaccid. That being said, I'm glad he called to have this debate.
Yeah, as soon as he said "I don't like this line of argument" it was him indirectly admitting he knows his position is psychotic but he is too much of a coward to own up to it.
I really wish that rightists like him would just be honest and bite the bullet, just admit they are ok with innocent children dying in school shootings just so that the gun lobby can reap profits every year. Or admit they want to control women, or admit they want to oppress minorities.
Cuz if they would just be honest a lot less people would even take them serious.
The Gun Lobby Representative is always the same guy
The problem I have with comparing gun control to alcohol prohibition is that unless you can prove that taking guns out of a society will actively make that society LESS safe, then the comparison holds no water. So far there is ZERO data backing the claim that a heavily armed society is safer. It’s a no brainer… even if you don’t believe gun control works, it’s not going to make the situation worse, as in the case of prohibition, so the government has a responsibility to at least try it.
@@jabrokneetoeknee6448 see Indiana shopping mall this week
@jabroKnee toeKnee
They banned alcohol, that didn't stop alcohol. That's the point.
You've gotta take a step back and reevaluate your beliefs when you make your whole personality about the type of gun you own and then consider it more important than other peoples lives.
Gun control isn't going to stop criminals from having them and doing all the killing. You know who else had gun restrictions? Our southern neighbor Mexico, they're citizens can't even own guns and the only ones that has most of the guns is the cartel group.
Exactly. I love playing guitar. But, if guitars were killing people on a daily basis, I’d consider getting a new hobby.
@@stevenbatke2475 Ban all telecasters immediately! Kurt Cobain killed himself with one and we can't have another loss like that!
I used to think weapons of war had no place in a civil society, but then I saw the Be eL eM riots.
@@kevin6293 you mean the riots that were either a reaction to cops killing black men, or were caused by police deliberately escalating protests into riots? is that what you're referencing?
This is the guy that types "Bro" at the beginning of all sentences he writes online.
@@hkgunmoney4029 bro, your takes are garbage you should consider not helping people kill other people or themselves
@@hkgunmoney4029 It's Bruh, innit?
@@vgaportauthority9932 no it's definitely 'bro'💯
Bro I take issue with your statement.
I love how Emma forced him to engage with her analogy/point. We gotta start doing this!
This guy was not good at this debate from the start. Don't think because some clown on a dumb show you watched got pissy and wanted the caller to engage with her "point" that your beliefs are any less dumb. You try this debate with me or anyone else on the right you will embarrass yourself more. Sit down.
Yeah the the analogy made no sense though. Moonshine was never legal or manufactured it was always homemade.
@@CrystalMannequinsyou don’t live in TN. Moonshine is sold here. Absolutely. But it’s HIGHLY regulated and the content is controlled.
@@chickenman5477 who tf do u think u r omg 💀
@@CrystalMannequinsMoonshine is literally just whiskey that is clear and unaged. It is sold in stores right now. It was dumb of her to bring up something she knows nothing about even while being somewhat correct. Moonshine became safer after regulations that made it illegal to have additives that were dangerous. And really the point is that AR-15s are designed to kill people while alcohol is not. This is also the reason why people should be allowed to distill while not being allowed to own AR-15 style weaponry.
Mummy - Ok honey hurry up please, the bus will be here soon, you got your backpack?
Child under 10- yes mum
Mommy- lunch pack?
Child under 10- yes mum
Mummy- webbing and kevlar helmet?
Child under 10- I don't want to be in this joke anymore actually.
Webbing? Is he going rock climbing
@@fourleaf7570 What is webbing in the army?
The webbing consists of a belt, yoke (shoulder harness) and a number of pouches. Associated with PLCE webbing is a series of other similar load carrying equipment and rucksacks. The purpose of PLCE is to hold everything a soldier needs to operate for 48 hours.
Unicorn stickers optional.
@@ursinecanine9657 no everyone needs unicorn stickers even soldiers 🤣
The joke would have been better if you said "bulletproof vest and kevlar helmet."
@@jonstone9741 thank you for your unsolicited feed back, I don't usually write for America. Tbh I was more afraid that the two moms would be offensive or treated poorly, I personally wish they would move back to England where they met and people are able to speak properly and not shoot each other quite so often. The reason we went with webbing is obviously because the two met in england after mum had finished her 10 year military service and they moved to Florida for the weather 😊 it seemed like a good idea at the time although as time moves on and the adoption has been successful it becomes a serious issue for mum despite mom's reassurance of 'it won't happen to us' mum just can't sleep night after night shooting after shooting the stress is becoming too much. So after lengthy discussions about moving to Europe have gone nowhere she is genuinely losing her mind with worry and decided to fall back on her training, since she grew up in the UK webbing is what she knows, so webbing is what she ordered. Permission to modify the joke to your own preference denied.
Single issue AR-15 voter? And he willingly admits this about himself?
It's extremely common
It’s more concerning to me that he votes solely based on gun policy than that he doesn’t want to ban AR-15s.
@@SantasGAINdeer Sure, but then it wouldn’t be an AR-15, right?
@@SantasGAINdeer what's wrong with single issue voters? I beat many voters vote for democrats because of single issues like trans rights, abortion etc.
@@rajashashankgutta4334not hardly dude
@@SantasGAINdeer who gets in a say in what firearms anyone anywhere should be allowed to own?
Also, do you support gun control for Ukraine?
@@rajashashankgutta4334 that type of single issue voter is why the national debt is so high and why inflation won't get any better. If someone is to be a single issue voter (though voting is fake) he should vote for our gun rights to be reinstated.
When they mentioned feral hogs, I thought they meant police.
They meant you Sport.
@@moonlightfishin4113 They meant you, Spork.
@@-suphur
feral hogs are actual dangerous, city folk often laugh at that, but one needs a gun to fight them off. Also something like a bear, most handguns you have almost no chance of walking away from that encounter, but a rifle, yes, you can much more easily subdue and stop the bear.
So cop-killer ammo is for killing feral hogs?
Unless you’re gonna take them from all them fascists first. That includes the cops and military
based
What all the take the guns people do not understand is they are not going to the suburbs and small towns to get them. They will head straight for the red line districts of cities and all hell will break loose and the violence will stop there. The right grows more violent and the libs and left wanna disarm. It's astounding.
Stupid. Just stupid. This is just validating an arms race.
Great idea that will go far 🤣
Quite ironic coming from a Bubba and firearms discussion 😄. And I quite agree with your point on the fascists too
Brilliant! It's really no mystery why cold feet crowder is just that. Sam's brilliant in debates!
Sam made a fool of himself on this topic as did Emma and Sam admitted at the end not to ban guns. So not sure what you saw in this?
@@hepwo91222 sure bub... xD you guys are weirdos
@@hepwo91222 When did Sam "admit to not ban guns"?
@@fishbiter9409 by the end of the video he is suggesting regulation. Regulation and banning are not the same thing, important distinction, so his thought exercise here, he came to conclusion to regulate.
It's not really brilliant if the person presenting the argument sucks at debating. Currently, alcohol kills more people than guns do in the US. We had an assault weapons ban but Columbine happened. They used handguns and shotguns instead. Prohibition doesn't work because criminals find a way to get their hands on things. I don't need an AR-15 to protect my family but some people do.
Drunk driving kills people, but making it illegal won't completely stop all the drunk drivers... So how about we not only keep drunk driving legal, but make it easier for people to get alcohol while they're driving! And we should encourage kids to drink too, so more kids try drinking while driving, and when they die in accidents we can blame it on the cars or roads. No problem!
The only thing that can stop a bad driver that’s drunk is a good driver that’s drunk!!!
Sounds like the state of Louisiana who allows drive thru drivers to purchase 32 oz daquries to be sold made with grain alcohol, 151 rum and 40 proof liquor in one drink. It's only technically legal if the paper is covering the top of the straw (as if I don't know people who carry straws unopened so they can stick it in the daiquiri if pulled over)...it's not like anyone reasonable would drink it while driving home or wherever. 🤷♂️ I love my Louisiana heritage, but that's ridiculous.
Drive thru crab and crawfish = yes.
Drive thru drunks = no.
@@mazzb305 brilliant observation. Bravo! A 10/10 truly! 👏
So, this isn't the correct logical deduction. Drunk driving is illegal as murder is illegal. Therefore to prevent drunk driving you would ban drinking and for murder you would ban firearms.
@@jaer678 I think you're missing the point. The original commenter seems to be talking about how there's a huge misconception in pro gun apologism that laws are meant to prevent gun crime (and because they can't, they must be ineffectual) . But they're not.
Road safety and drunk driving laws don't prevent accidents and drink driving. They reduce them by imposing punishment for breaking those laws, but they don't abolish the occurrence of those things.
Is the same with making murder illegal. It doesn't abolish murder. It just reduces rates of murder hopefully by imposing punishment and removing from public circulation the people who commit those crimes.
However another fundamental purpose of these kinds of laws is to make the people who break those laws legally culpable, and to give their victims legal recourse to seek punishment for them or compensation from them.
Having a gun in your home is more likely to kill someone living in that house than the having someone entering your home and killing someone.
Kids pick up improperly stored loaded weapons and either take themselves out or someone unfortunate enough to be standing close by. Guns are the number one cause of children's deaths.
@@JSkyGemini yep and a properly stored gun will never protect the home owners from a burglar
@@maxpowers123 Great. Now tell me how often that actually happens, and more importantly, how the need for more gun regulations abroad that someone is able to do that would be affected negatively?
Lol. Maybe in your home.
@@MrMarket1987 so u don’t care that it happens to some people? It’s unlikely to happen to YOU, so who cares, right? The hypothetical old lady getting assaulted is just some random stranger, and probably white anyway.
Look at the gun made in Japan it required a military expert possibly months to hand craft a gun that could only fire two bullets he was then immediately tackled by two unarmed security the idea that once it's banned people just make homemade guns and that will be just as dangerous is ludicrous
you never heard of 3D printers? Building your own AR15 is as easy these days as hobbyists building their own gaming PC. Also was the shooter in Japan not effective? He did accomplish what he set out to do, gun laws be damned.
Insert vans, acid, knives, explosives where you would guns. What is needed is proper vetting of who gets access to guns and those that do get vetted to own them are responsible for them and whoever ends up using them...
@@Disaletteritis background checks already exist and have in all 50 states for some time now, recently the federal govt with some GOP support even passed red flag laws, what more can realistically be done?
@@hepwo91222 c'mon man...if that vetting was done effectively we wouldn't be talking about banning the AR-15...the Uvalde shooter wouldn't have had access to guns...
@@Disaletteritis I am not saying its perfect, but there are background checks, new red flag laws. Shootings will still happen the most common, gang involved mass shootings will be ignored by the corporate press, but lone wolf mall or school shootings will be their focus. Yet they are not covering the mall shooting in Indiana much due to it being stopped by a concealed cary citizen in a food court, doesn't fit their crafted narratives.
The caller said "that being said" too many times.
True. It means his arguments heavily float around... "But I just want my gun whaa!" lol
What would you say is an appropriate amount of "that being saids"? 😊
@@octavianpopescu4776 I was trying to say it more times, trust me!
@@hkgunmoney4029 Wait, you're the clown that called in?
Most people have phrases they repeat a lot. I know I do.
Almost every single argument these gun activists have falls over from my perspective. In Australia, nothing they claim that will happen or could happen with gun laws has happened. if it does after introducing gun laws then the laws were insufficent, not that they don't work.
Australia isn't the US. The US is a completely different culture with a large part of the population plainly and loudly calling for violence. There is no comparison.
Australia has become way more authoritarian since guns were taken from the citizenry.
@@hepwo91222 [citation needed]
@@hepwo91222 "bro, just trust me"
@@wvu05 covid camps in Australia? Or are we going to pretend that doesn't happen? Having to quarantine for weeks when entering the country? A lot of govt overreach right now and the citizenry is now unarmed, compare that to the US, where certain cities comply with this (high gun control too), but areas that are more rooted in the US Constitution is more freedom, less govt overreach.
Dude hung up the phone, and went out and bought another AR
Good!
These caller debates give me life ❤️❤️💯💥
The caller is right. We really should be banning semi-automatic tequila shots.
It’s dangerous stuff. Many innocent bystanders have been barfed on, by such reckless partying.
I guess you really don't care about those 5000 kids.
@@hkgunmoney4029 I hate them ;)
13:06 I don't know why Sam saying "you can't just take a clam" made me laugh as hard as it did, but I'm damn thankful for it 🤣🤣🤣
I can not ever imagine having guns being my number one issue when voting as the caller said he was. I am very pro gun regulation, but if a candidate agreed with me on more gun regulation, but he seemed dumb, uncaring, out of touch, to the right on other issues, I would vote for the other candidate if total package is better.
Regulating guns and their features will do little to nothing. Regulating who can have guns would be more effective. A candidate who understands that would make a more attractive choice in my eyes rather than one who just wants to use it as a wedge issue.
Yes . I couldn’t believe he said that. Out of ALL the issues out there, guns is what does it for you?
Guns can be a number one issue...if one has financial investments in them.
i.e. shares with weapons manufacturers, being lobbied$$ by the industry.
More guns, more deaths = more profit$
Gun manufacturers and their 1% wealthy shareholders make a killing off of the killings.
Marx understood that you couldn’t let gun control be a thing. The working class should not be disarmed. I can understand why people see it as a big issue of theirs
@@Groucho_Marxist_ASMR The types of weapons are just important as who can have them. There is no need for weapons of war and mass carnage to be in the hands of everyone and anyone. We need regulations for who can have guns and we need regulations that bar anyone from having a mass murder machine.
When Shinzo Abe was killed, I actually saw people saying that if Japan had guns the police would have been more vigilant on the possibility of a gunman being present. The USA has had 2 mass shootings per day on average this year so far. Compare that to the gun crime in Japan or any other country that does not allow guns ffs.
Want to compare gun and alcohol regulations? There are places you can't carry alcohol, there are legal limits on how much alcohol you can have in certain settings and contexts. Providers of alcohol are held legally responsible for what their customers do with their product.
I'll take an angry kid with a 6pk over an AR-15.
This caller's "logic" isn't making any sense.. or is it me?? 🤔
Edit:
I'll take an angry kid with a 6pk IN A CAR over an AR-15 ..... ANY DAY 💯
I dont know how you just said that and wanted to question the callers logic
@@papaSwarls to dodge the bullets shooting from an ar-15 ----- criss cross all you want but you're still very very liable to get shot.
A drunk kid -- I can run & dodge.
Btw -- I am a firearm enthusiast. I just don't believe in nonsense. I can protect my family with a .380 or a glock just as well as I can with an ar-15.
Edit: or better yet -- 12 gauge
I'll load hollow point if I really want to do damage. 💯
Have a fabulous evening/day/ morning, btw. 🙂✌🏻
@@Jin420 It is much harder to take down someone drunk in a car going sixty down a neighborhood or towards a school compared to someone outside with no protection besides a gun.
@@papaSwarls blow out their tire... pit maneuver. There are ways...
And no one has killed Little ones ramming their car into a school.
But we all know what these AR's can do. 💯
Plus -- most schools are bricks --- much harder than these "cookie cutter homes".
Yeah like how many stories have you heard of a robber holding up a convenience store worker with a bottle of gin??
How many stories have you heard of a drunk killing people
Just a ton of stories of drunks holding up stores with knives, killing their children or spouses, drunk driving and killing people, getting into fights that end in death etc... No, alcohol never caused any issues with violence 🙄
Can someone please tell the dudes who call in to Sam’s show with their arguments about the evils of vaccines, second amendments issues, etc that the university is called JOHNS HOPKINS - not one person named “John Hopkins.” It undermines their credibility from the jump…
Emma’s Inner monologue “don’t roll your eyes don’t roll your eyes don’t roll your eyes”
If semi-auto alcohol was a thing then I'd be for banning it.
So you are okay with the non semi auto alcohol killing 5000 kids?
@@hkgunmoney4029 it's a lot harder to kill people quickly at least.
@@hkgunmoney4029 do you think more or less would die if alcohol wasn't regulated...
@@hkgunmoney4029 you're aware that alcohol is in fact not legal for children right?
@@hkgunmoney4029 As sad as it is, those people drank alcohol willingly. I don't think that people are being forced to drink to death. The people who got killed in mass shootings probably didn't want to die on that day but they couldn't say no, could they? Another thing, alcohol is a liquid, while a gun is a tool that was specifically designed to harm living things.
Alcohol is age, content, and time-and-place regulated across the US. The ban on the AR-15 and regulation on age availability is perfectly modelled by legislation dealing with alcohol. The details vary from state to state, but the age restriction is of course federal.
ETA: In fact, the regulations concerning limits of alcohol content are a perfect analogy, because ABV is about how much alcohol can be delivered and how quickly, which is a good comparison with weapons with high rates of fire.
Why are you guys so hell bent on banning ar 15s?
@@rajashashankgutta4334 Direct correlation with escalating numbers of dead children and the paucity of responsible gun owners.
It falls under the bit about being well regulated.
@@tonymurphy2624 rifles are only used in about 3% of gun murders, and ARs are only a fraction of that 3% so pretty idiotic to focus on ARs if you ask me. I think it's just another wedge issue to distract voters from the policies that will actually solve gun violence like wealth inequality. It's curious that one-party Democrat states can't give people healthcare, but they can ban a gun that will have no impact on gun deaths (perps will just use a different gun).
"engage with my point" let's go emma
“How many people do you know that make moonshine?” “None.”
EXACTLY!
i know lmao i heard that & was like poor guy's in a pickle now hahah
Her point doesn’t seem like a good analogy. Here’s why I say that:
Bans on selling moonshine was more an example of quality control. That would be like saying, as a consumer product, you can’t have a gun that has below a particular melting point.
As for homemade guns (like moonshine made by yourself for personal use), they’re becoming more sophisticated and common place
@@DireAvenger001 Her point was terrible, he just was not smart enough to counter her. Moonshine is the term given to alcohol made at home without a license. You have to have a license to manufacture alcohol and liquor stores are only allowed to buy from manufactures with a license. Just like Guns are only made by licensed manufactures.
@@creaturecore13 Absinthe is the AR15 of the alcohol world but you are making Sam's point even with moonshine... "licensed" means that they are following the regulations in place.
It's scary, depressing, and infuriating at the same time knowing that there are people like that out there that's allowed to vote. I have no words.
Yes we should institute a test in order to register to vote. Good idea!
Be quiet you probably believe in actually banning firearms. Drop that stupid arrogant tone before you embarrass yourself more. You are the shinning example of why democracy is a failure.
@@huestifer literacy test for voting is wrong.
Why is it wrong? Single issue voters are common.
It’s scary that you exist to be able to think that way
The families of the victims of mass shootings should be able to sue the gun companies and the shooters as well
I think banning particular makes and models of weapons based on certain features is not going to change much. Sam focuses on the real difference (semi automatic weapons vs manually operated weapons), but no politician is really in favor of that. Assault weapons are a subset of semi automatic weapons with detachable magazines, which have certain features: pistol grips, adjustable stocks, bayonet lugs, etc, which are, for the most part, aesthetic differences, they may provide some advantage but not nearly the same as semi automatic vs manually operated. If we ban AR-15s mass shooters will just use mini-14s or SKS’, or any other semi automatic but not assault rifles or pistols. We won’t be banning semi autos any time soon.
This is all, of course, not really relevant, because handguns are what are used in the overwhelming majority of murders and to some degree mass shootings in the US. Mass shootings also don’t make up a large proportion of the murders anyway.
If we are going to support the ban or further restriction of many particular TYPE of firearm it should be handguns of course. But the bigger issue has always been that the wrong people have access to firearms. We should care more about who gets access to a gun rather than what gun they can get. A good, responsible person could get an AR-15 and it wouldn’t be a danger to anyone.
Better (universal) background checks, licenses, safe storage requirements, and universal healthcare so we can better handle our mental health crisis. This is what is really needed.
Someday there will be enough guns to keep us safe from guns.
100%. Hyper-focusing on the types of guns used and not the ease of access to those guns is completely counter-productive to effective gun reform. There's only so much political capital to expend on gun control, and wasting it on extremely unpopular gun bans that would have little to no impact on gun crime and mass shootings is a great way to guarantee that nothing ever gets done.
@@Alltime2050 lol
@@CynicExtraordinaire Exactly! Couldn’t have said it better
I agree with everything you said, and your solutions are reasonable. Unfortunately, they will never be implemented. In my state of residence, Ohio, the Republican lead legislature has stripped away the few gun restrictions that existed.
As someone who owns an AR-15 (got it for my 15th birthday) and many other guns and is an avid hunter, I would gladly give mine up, for home defense a rifle is by far the worst option and an assault rifle doesn’t add any extra advantage to hunting, you don’t hunt with it except for maybe little stuff and hogs/coyotes which again you can hunt with long rifles and shotguns, I’m a gun nut but I understand the dangers and how it’s not necessary, we need to regulate this with a yearly license that takes a while to get and you have to renew it every year and ban semi auto guns
You don't sound like the kind of guy that everyone is collectively worried about.
Sadly (and largely more difficult to predict) It's the unhinged people, or those that snap and become suicidal/homicidal (violence against domestic partners statistics as a fraction of gun violence is all the evidence of that you need, as well as the suicide by gun stats- although I consider the latter to be an abuse of 'gun violence' statistics... its not what everyone is really worried about in terms of gun regulation).
@@maxpowers123 yes but what’re you worried ab? Like soldiers or an army? There is nothing that will break into a normal persons house that a handgun or shotgun can’t fix
Good post. I advocate for license -insurance - ammo registration- gun registration - and a tax on ammo and guns to pay for all of it. Also large mandatory minimums for illegally owning guns and or using guns in the commission of a crime. I'm not for bans personally. I don't care if the OP here has whatever gun he wants. He seems reasonable.
@@maxpowers123 Dude, if a guy breaks into your home and he's armored to the point where you need a 5.56 to take him down, guess what? You're being raided by SWAT and you'll get killed the second you grab for a gun...
Robbers don't wear a level 3 armor, bro... And if they're wearing a level 3, might as well go all out and get a level 4 that'll stop the AR-15 as well... Which would immediately negate all your weaponry..
People who rob homes do not have access to any vests other than those they've robbed from other homes. Vests cost a bit of cash, and house robbers don't have a bit of cash.. They have very little cash. Silverware doesn't exactly make you a fortune.
@@maxpowers123 would you keep it locked in a safe like a responsible gun owner? If so you won’t have time to get up in the dark, get it out, take it out of the case silently, put it together if necessary, and then use it readily. If you don’t keep it in a safe, you aren’t a responsible gun owner and shouldn’t be eligible to own one, as your argument is against you.
So frustrating on the alcohol point. Since when can you aim alcohol at a person and kill them within a fraction of a second? When can you refuse to be served bullets in a mass shooting situation?
Also, your body has biochemical pathways to break down and deal with alcohol. Not so much with lead.
I had someone suggest banning sugar along the same lines.
I was like, yeah? Okay? Get rid of sugar, let’s do it. It’s out of control.
They suddenly were like “w-wait!”
Never heard of DUI-related fatalities, huh?
Someone "pointed" a car at someone, hit the other person's car, and killed them.
But, let's focus on one issue.
@@firestream93 lmfaoooooooooo
Not to mention the fact that alcohol IS highly regulated.
AR15s are never going to be banned. The problem with the gun debate is that most liberals know nothing about guns, and most conservatives aren't open to even discuss any regulation or restriction. The conversations around guns are usually not very deep or fact-based. Kind of typical of the several off-limits issues in this country.
Thank you.
What do you mean by "know nothing about guns"? Guns are designed for killing people and some guns are designed to kill many people in a very short time. What's There more to know?
There's no such thing as using an AR-15 in moderation.
It is the 2nd most popular hunting rifle in the world, 1st in America, but kills less people than kitchen knives. Are we not able to use kitchen knives in moderation either?
@@ASDeckard If basically every month there were massacres of children in the US with kitchen knives then I would say that we can't use them in moderation. But as far as I can tell that only seems to be happening with guns
@@ASDeckard A) When's the last time you've heard of a story of a mass kitchen-knifing? B) There's way more kitchen knives than AR-15s in America, C) kitchen knives have a primary purpose that does not involve killing. Try to be a little more honest with your talking points.
Has nothing to do with guns at all. Has everything to do with mental health
Arizona man: "I don't believe that I should be forbidden from owning an M249 "SAW" LMG with quad rocket launcher barrel attachments just because some guys do all those murders with their pea-shootin' Glock 19C's. It's a perfectly reasonable hill to die on"
Try to confiscate firearms and find out who dies on that hill
@@cottonballs185 I'm guessing the people opposing a better armed and better trained vastly overfunded and over-armed professional military and the police?
@@dahakaguardianofthetimelin4780 The police cower before armed suspects (Uvalde, Parkland, Columbine HS, etc.) and the US military was defeated by armed goat herders in Afghanistan
@@cottonballs185 Last I checked, the suspect of Uvalde was shot dead, the suspect of Parkland was arrested and Columbine kids shot themselves before they could be arrested or shot down. Those instances weren't handled well, but the suspects are either dead or captured so I don't see your point here.
The reason the US was beaten in Afghanistan wasn't because they were weaker than the "armed goat herders". It was because the US was trying to establish, arm and train local military and militia capable of fending off the Taliban by themselves. They weren't storming the place to "kill all the baddies". They were providing "military intervention" and tried reconstructing the collapsed local establishments at the same time. Killing the "armed goat herders" wasn't their prime objective and mission. Also, the US was operating well outside their country and away from all of their reserves that needed to be shipped and delivered to a foreign country and driven through the desert into faraway encampments in the middle of bumf*ck nowhere. If the military rolls up on you - it'll be in its own home turf with the full support of the US national budget which overwhelmingly overfunds the military.
I can't believe that I have to side with the US military and the police on this (or anything for that matter), but if you think you and your neighbor homies can take on the US military on your front lawn with your dog's scat on your face for warpaint - you're flat out delusional.
@@dahakaguardianofthetimelin4780 A lot of cope for a "non" bootlicker
Comparing alcohol to guns is absolutely asinine. When you buy alcohol, YOU choose to put alcohol in YOUR OWN body. That's totally fine. With a gun, you choose to put YOUR bullet in SOMEONE ELSE'S body. That's not ok.
It's a very simple fundamental difference of who is consenting in each scenario. While addiction absolutely _does_ affect those besides the addict, guns are _inherently_ devices used explicitly with the express purpose of harming (so definitely "affecting") another human being.
@@SY-qg6qn yes and drinking and driving is heavily regulated. There are dui checkpoints. People are encouraged to call 911 if they see someone swerving across lanes. Bars and restaurants can be held liable of they overserve someone. If your point is that we should treat AR-15 ownership like we treat drunk driving then I agree.
@@SY-qg6qn your side is the one that compared guns to alcohol to begin with. You brought up drunk driving in a gun debate.
@@SY-qg6qn I think you have me confused with someone else.
so can we disband the ATF? I can agree with that.
@@SY-qg6qn you do not understand the original message. You do not by a car because you want to kill somebody. There are also speed limits for every driver. And I would argue the person that drives drunk ... they definitely shouldn't... is not going out to roll over a kid. The purpose of a car is not to kill even though it could happen drunk or not. But there is only one purpose for a weapon.
I can’t comprehend how people complain about everything going on in the world then vote solely on guns. Yes vote for the party that doesn’t care about helping American people as long as we have our guns
There are already regulations in place for the legal use of firearms.
How much of a social bubble-boy are you that you think that is a good argument?
Clearly don’t work in their current form. Two choices. Introduce tighter restrictions or get rid of the restrictions altogether. Wonder which will result in fewer deaths.
this whole argument of gun control is pointless to a certain extent when the black market makes weapons so readily available. i still agree that they should be heavily restricted by the government
(edit: haha lovely comment to end the vid on, you guys' editing is awesome)
Definitely the first thing to come up when ppl bring up alcohol deaths is 1) the product only can kill 1 person per product Vs guns, and 2) like Sam said, alcohol death is stemming from individual choice while mass shooting deaths come from someone's, who is not the person dying, power over eliminating their victims' freedom to make choices
And for car deaths it's just plain and simple fact that the fatality efficiency of guns is way higher than cars, same for knives
A more accurate analogy is nuclear weapons and other bio weapons or hazards
Those are in broad terms "arms" and they get regulated. And everyone understands this and no one argues
"Well um, actually, responsible nuclear warhead owners just want to have them to defend themselves. Look at the past 60 years of data, not 1 of the majority of nuclear warhead owners have used nuclear to kill anyone. NOT. ONE. PERSON
So therefore, there is no danger to ppl owning nuclear weapons, it's 100% defensive, and I will defend my neighbour's right to keep a warhead and launcher in their backyard
Liberty and freedoooooooom!"
Everyone recognizes that as insanity and not an argument at all
And for comparing it to moonshine, no one argues
"well, um, actually, anyone trying to harness the power of nuclear to power their house is just like someone who buys a car. Are there ppl who blow up their entire county bcos they mishandled their nuclear reactor? Sure. But my aunt killed her 2 sons and another couple in car accident. So, um, actually, ppl should be allowed unrestrained access to nuclear production in their backyard"
Everyone recognizes there are levels to things and once smth is terribly efficient at creating deaths, we should regulate and ban ppl's free access to it
Unless you're gigacha Dim Fool ofc and say ppl should just straight up own nuclear weapons lol
drunk driver accidents? Did the sober people killed make a choice?
Alcohol usually hurts the user not the innocent. Alcohol isn’t designed to kill people. That’s not it’s purpose.
mass shootings have gone way up since the assault weapons ban was lifted....bro
It's proven. Mass shootings went up 163% after the ban ran out. Thanks to the war criminal George W Shrub.
Mass shootings went down by 70% when the ban went into effect.
Columbine happened right in the smack dab middle of the last one
I doubt they will ever ban guns of any type until they show the actual footage of the school/club/parade etc shootings uncut on the prime-time local and cable news. Until people are forced to see what the real consequences are and they become disturbed enough by those visuals to put things into perspective it will always remain this way and things will get much, much worse...
The new guns the military had designed that are the successors to auto rifles like the AR15 are now available for citizens to purchase for only 5 grand and, they were designed specifically to go through body armor. The damage that is going to do to a kid or a random person on the streets is going to be 100 times worse than it is currently. Not to mention make even the most seasoned SWAT COPs think twice about going in to help.
But that would hurt people's delicate sensibilities...
Seeing *CONSEQUENCES* on the news?
Sheesh. Americans aren't ready for that.
Lol you are giving conservatives way to much credit on caring about others. Deaths from Covid, mass shootings, bad healthcare have proven that those issues do not to matter to them when it comes to voting for a candidate.
What is an auto rifle? What new gun can go through body armor?
Wrong chicago had over 700 murders last year. You think watching 20 people get gunned down would stop anything 20 people shot is a calm weekend in chicago
@@ChristopherJones-lt3le i think it's the XM5 rifle. It's far more powerful than an AR and the civilian model is available.
Banning alcohol brought about organized crime. Banning guns would not. Guns require complex factories to manufacture guns and bullets. Banning guns would not lead to organized crime. Ta da.
Just looking at the image used for the video, can we at least ban real guns that are intentionally designed to look like toys? How am I supposed to teach my young daughter to respect real guns and not to touch them if they’re pink?
@@brandonellis8111 I don’t want a kid picking up a real gun thinking it’s a toy, because it looks like a toy, and accidentally killing someone. I guess that means I’m not manly enough?
why is the color pink considered "toy"?
Dude you can't use them for anything and 99.999% of gun owners will never use them in any form of self defense. They're a toy, a toy you can kill yourself with.
@@wynngwynn If you saw a pink hummer, would you go "dang, that thing is for adult men!" or would you go "oh shit, some asshole painted his hummer like the barbie car!"
Who do you think pink appeals to? I'm an adult male who wears a disproportionate amount of pink clothing, but I'm fairly alone in that.. Mostly me and the kids. Pink is literally the colour of babies.. Girl babies to be specific.
Let's make it simpler: A pink VR with baby blue stock and rails. Marketed for whom?
@@vgaportauthority9932 women like pink as well. Hell, some men like pink.
I feel like the better argument would have been that drinking alcohol is a choice and you'd be harming yourself; while being shot up would be completely out of your control and you'd be a victim of.
Drunk drivers?
You have the 2nd amendment telling you you have the right to defend yourself but you don't even after the SCOTUS has said law enforcement has no duty to protect you nor does anyone or anything else have that responsibility. Only you
@@dygytylace Yeah, that's why you gun nuts defend yourselves by committing mass shootings and storming the Capitol.
I think the point he was trying to get to but never quite gets there or only suggests I guess alcohol poisoning in youths (not sure?) is the drunk driver, they kill people that were not drinking at all.
Ever been to a DUI-related fatality?
Laws against people driving while intoxicated doesn't stop as many people as Seder and that woman think.
3:10 I was yelling “absinthe” at my phone lol
Look at those "safety pods/FREEDOM PODS) that they are proposing for classrooms now, talk about traumatizing seeing that thing every day.
when did you grow up? I remember fire drills and nuclear bomb drills when I was in school.
@@hepwo91222 Graduated highschool in the early 80's. We had fire drills of course, but that was it.
What's your point, better to have panic rooms than deal with the actual issue?
So in the same token, those are like having fire drills, while there are open fires in the hallways that you don't bother to put out.
@@-suphur you never had nuclear bomb drills? For older people it might have been hide under your desk, people around our age it was lean on the wall of the gymnasium as it was the most solid part of the building. Or you never asked what that drill was where you didn't go outside and they marched you to the gym wall? They were nuclear bomb drills during the Cold War.
@@hepwo91222 Ya, lived through the cold war all through school, I was born right at the end of the "boom", mid sixties.
I should add context that I am Canadian and we most assuredly had fire drills, never once did we have a drill for nukes. I grew up in a strategically important area too as it has some of the biggest nickel produing mines in the world.
Maybe our government realized that your ass was toast if you were anywhere near the detenation and hiding under your desk was ridiculous.
I am 52 and never in my life felt the urge to call into a Talkshow to passionately argue FOR the FREEDOM to live in a society with easy access to machines that not only kill an insane amount of innocent people but terrorize and traumatize pretty much EVERYONE every SINGLE DAY. What is going on in the mind of this (probably a lot younger than me?) caller?????
I am younger for sure and it is my passion. I think the engineering of firearms is fascinating. I'm an engineer.
@@hkgunmoney4029 I am truly truly sad my friend. Especially as a father and someone who works with young peopleWith your engineering skill you could do something good for humanity ! That is what my father did but anyways = your choice man! Hope you sleep well at night ...
@@Draxtor you're not a young father or you'd want every tool necessary to defend your children. The police will not defend and have no requirement to do so. This has been ruled in court several times.
@@DUDEBroHey i am not young but i am a father of adult children who I raised as stay-at-home hubby and i have NO IDEA what u are talking about
@@Draxtor you're not supposed to understand me. We're worlds apart and that won't change.
"Currently 14 states ban the sale of Everclear including California, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Iowa, Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Nevada, North Carolin, Virginia, and Ohio. Alcohol vendors can sell Everclear in the other 36 states. Some states, such as Maryland, disallow the sales of grain alcohol, but owning such drinks is not a crime."
I thought that was great dialogue. In a subject so contentious it takes very little for things to escalate and begin diminishing into answers borne of frustration. Not an easy thing to do. So kudos!
Alcohol is age restricted, it is regulated against its use in public (in most cases: restricted to certain areas), you cannot operate vehicles or machinery legally under its influence, there must be the proper licensing in place for the sale of it, and the illegal sale or distribution of it is a serious offense. I would say alcohol is highly regulated because of its danger... Somehow guns are still not...
you don't have a right to alcohol but you do have a right to defend yourself in the most efficient way possible
@@dygytylace So, a handgun? Because that's the most efficient firearm in 99% of situations you'll find yourself in at home.
Glad we agree.
@@dygytylace "you do have a right to defend yourself in the most efficient way possible" - you do? Where is this right declared?
@@dygytylace Then you should advocate for laws that make society safe enough that you don't have a legitimate need for sudden lethal force at the drop of a hat. Because the hat can drop both ways.
@@smaakjeks pretty sure we don't need any more laws. Law abiding citizens aren't to be feared. Then there's the 3%, and as Alfred says, "Some men like to see the world burn." Thankfully they are few and far between. And 3% is the amount of humans that will disagree with a perfect idea.
Ar 15 has little recoil. It is possible to harm many quickly and very efficiently. It was meant to be a weapon of war, not for everyone.
Making a gun from scratch takes a lot more skill then people realize. Specially repeating firearms. Its just on a completely different level then brewing alcohol. - Not to mention requires a lot more investment of machines.
There are videos of craftmade pistols from the vietnam war. Whoever made them was probably a fairly skilled craftsman (and least more skilled then the average person) but even then they were firearms one would hesitate to actually use.
Yup, I watched a video showcasing a selection of hand made firearms that are kept in a secure armoury in the UK (i.e. not a museum, since they are still live weapons). We're talking basic stuff here - single shot pipe shotguns, blunderbusses made from carved wood and old pipes, that sort of thing. Nothing on the level of a modern firearm, bar one that was made with specialised tools and used a few actual firearm parts that was made seemingly as a political statement then for practical reasons by someone criticising the (at the time) lax gun part laws in the UK. The experts in the video said about all of them that the chances of the gun functioning at all was uncertain, and chance of self injury was high.
I don't think people realise just how difficult making effective hand made weapons is, even for experts in manufacturing. A ban on certain types of firearm and parts wouldn't be sidestepped by home tooled weapons. Even the 'best' 3D printed parts aren't going to be effective for more then a handgun.
@@maxpowers123 and he had to make multiples because he couldnt reload. Really effective for an assassination, not for shooting up schools
@@maxpowers123Nice story. I can make shit up too.
@@margotpreston Not made up. But a jankier gun you would have to look far and wide to find. Made by someone with incredible know-how, and yet still looked like apocalyptic steampunk on acid. There's a reason you don't see many people using them.
3D printing has changed the game though, PDF files, right materials, can manufacture guns easier than ever for regular civilians. These gun control laws won't matter in a decade as 3D printing tech gets better. Libs are behind the curve as usual on yet another topic they don't grasp.
3:50 This analogy would have worked better if Emma used grenades as an example. In the same way alcohol regulations work, so do regulations on grenades.
alcohol regulations work? So no one under 21 is drinking? Drunk drivers don't harm anyone?
@@hepwo91222 So it's pointless to make murder illegal because people still do it? Every single law is still broken so there should be no laws? Something tells me you don't believe that and are just being purposefully obtuse.
@@hepwo91222 if you allowed 12 year olds to drink, in America, more children would die from alcohol. Laws are written consequences for crimes not deterrents.
@@Confusedn1NJA you are comparing underage drinking to castrating, sterilizing, and mutaliating children for mental illness?
You can’t discuss gun control without discussing race. Period.
The caller has a point for not banning all guns in all situations, but that’s where their rationale ends. Most of the mass shooters in the past decade got their guns legally. Most of them are carried out by young men who are not well or terribly bright. Do we really believe those guys would’ve gone to the efforts to buy one illegally and made one in a 3D printer if they couldn’t have just gotten when from their parents or walked in a gun store or show and walked out with one? I’m not convinced, but we’ll never know as long as it’s so absurdly easy to walk in and walk out with a gun that can easily kill dozens is 15 minutes.
@Oliver except that 70% of mass shootings are with pistols.
@Oliver less than 5% of all gun murder is with a rifle of any type.
@Oliver that banning the ar will do little if anything to curb overall gun murder.
most mass shootings got their guns legally? That is MSM garbage, most mass shootings are inner city illegally obtained guns often carried out by gang members. Maybe most mass shootings the media actually covers?
@@hepwo91222 show me a peer-reviewed study that proves different
Most are bought legally, either buy the person themselves or a relative who then improperly stores them.
All yoi have to do is spend a few minutes looking into the history of the gun, it's manufacturing, and availability versus the history of mass shootings. There is a direct correlation between the two. Now there is a maker putting out a JR AR 15 made specifically for kids under 18. It's going to get worse.
That is fucking insane, when will america realise that there is no need for assault rifles, even a hand gun is crazy in a civilised society.
The only people that should have guns, are people that are extremely well trained and disciplined. The army itself needs to step in and set up training centers that evaluate their responsibility and mental condition. Finland does it, Switzerland does it, and they do it via conscription. Not an optional training course.
@@KlaraZoom i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but America isn't exactly a civilized society
Your statement is just wrong lol simply as that.
ofc a troll is going to shout the op is wrong once a musket enters the chat.. Hello 2010.
If I take moonshine to a school and come screaming into a room brandishing my moonshine, I will be escorted out and arrested, and all the children will be fine.
I’m geeked at the ending. Treat em like bazookas? Sure. Glad we can come together. 😂
and then the caller went silent ... because he knew he twisted himself into a pretzel and can't get out of it.
@@RunForPeace-hk1cu LOL I told him that they were not banned.... they were regulated. If that was a gotcha, so be it
@@hkgunmoney4029 but regulations according to people like you are bans.
Bottom line, us Americans do not need a military style weapons
Also… when a drunk runs over someone, it usually makes the local news.
If those were, posted as breaking news every night, you'd see the change in attitude on the topic of alcohol.
@@hkgunmoney4029 can you make alcohol at home?
Can you make an AR15 at home?
Can someone kill 19 kids with alcohol at school randomly?
@@hkgunmoney4029 They are usually covered where I live on the nightly local news. Also when I lived in NYC and NJ they were covered on local news as well.
@@AlfredoRichner I think they should become mainstream news every time it happens.
@@hkgunmoney4029 According to the CDC: "Every day, 29 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 50 minutes.". So maybe have a daily hour long program to cover them? Maybe you can start a UA-cam channel for it.
So he literally just cared about the semantics lol
I think he probably didn't even want to concede on regulations, but maybe I'm reading too much into that big sigh at the end of the call. It did sort of give the vibe of "well shit, that didn't really go how I expected and they just got me to agree to a position I can't accept" though.
@@TheSquareOnes I'm a big Seder fan but I felt bad for the guy. They kinda bombarded him. He didn't really get enough time to extrapolate on his opinion and just seemed over it by the end.
@@TheSenatortruthSeder is an idiot.
He got his ass handed to him trying to debate someone on Kyle Rittenhouse.
He even stated that he didn't watch the trial, yet he tried to pull out all these points about it.
He's a shill that gets his flock to believe him without offering up any real data.
Dynamite doesn’t kill very many people that doesn’t mean we should legalize it
Does Sam want to ban semi automatic weapons period? 😂 unhinged
I think he sort of walks it back to regulate it more by the end of the video.
AR-15s Don’t ban em , set high standards for ownership. Strict regulations. An 18 year old , got no business
Why does a 19 year old need one?
The less access people have to guns, the less gun deaths there will be.
So why not ban them?
The word BAN is always “ weaponized” to own this type of gun should be not so easy , put a price on it as well due to liability “
@@Tamar-sz8ox that's not a reason. That's a descriptive statement of the dishonesty of right wingers.
If it was designed for battlefield use, it should be banned from the streets.
Though the dude on the phone is a tool, he's not completely wrong imo. If you completely restrict access to AR-15s (and the many other guns that are essentially the same gun but go by another name) then these mass shooting monsters will choose the next best gun. Then you'll need to restrict that gun, but they'll just go to the next best gun for mass murder, etc, etc.
The focus shouldn't be banning specific models of guns. It should be the general access to firearms, that's what needs to be properly regulated. How do we do that? Good question, especially when you consider complications like 80% lowers and 3D printing. At a bare minimum, imo, there needs to be a national registry and universal background checks. And not just the background check system we have now as that has failed to encompass military records that would have shown that person shouldn't be getting a gun (I'm specifically thinking of one of the Fort Hood shootings that could have been prevented if the shooters military record would have been seen by the background check).
But tbh, good luck getting anything substantive passed with how weak the corporate Dems are and how insane the RepubliCONs are.
There shouldn't be any government input on the subject at all then we could have separation of firearm and state like we have church and state.
Guns are four loko...
I think pointing out that we have fishing licenses, drivers licenses, etc is a really great point in favor of gun regulation. Nobody thinks anybody should be allowed to drive on public roads without a license, at least nobody who isn't insane. So why shouldn't the same apply to extremely lethal weapons? It should be shown that you have basic competency to operate a weapon of that caliber before you are allowed to own one, that seems more than reasonable to me. And I would say taking issue to this amounts to nothing more than whining.
Caller was extremely respectful to be fair to him
Not very logical, but respectful. Fair assessment.
@@RunForPeace-hk1cu I'd like to know where I was being illogical? Asking for serious constructive criticism.
No one needs a semi-automatic rifle unless you're going to war.
So what makes an ar-15 "too dangerous to sell"?
Let's go deer huntin...... but only thing left will be a bloody pile of yuk...I've seen an ar-15 used for exactly that.
💯💯💯
@Shinshocks Been once but did see a ar-15 used on a white tail deer.
Fuck You!!!!
I'm almost as far left as it goes I'm in the same boat as Jamie almost but I'm also half Native American and grew up hunting with my family and my daughter was raised to hunt so I do have firearms but there's no reason whatsoever for the public to own that group of weapons that are used in mass shootings. I really hate that excuse that they might need them to overthrow the government, cause that's the hugest joke. Even North Korea knows that's not an option.
There is literally no rifle you can find that has never been used in a mass shooting. One of Texas's worst shootings was done with a Remington 700, a very basic hunting rifle. The worst mass shooting police ever suffered was conducted with a 10 round internal magazine SKS. What do you mean if it's used in a mass shooting, people shouldn't have it?
@@ASDeckard
Semi auto rifle are not needed and I also don't see the use for glocks, if it holds a large capacity and is easily reloadable it's not needed. I realize it's fun playing around with these weapons but that fun shouldn't be the price we have to pay for watching the children or anyone else dying from the people who choose to kill indiscriminately. No one's truly going to be oppressed if we're not allowed to have these weapons. I'm also very much in favor of large background checks, licensing, testing and securing to own or purchase firearms of any kind. Things are out of control and no one is truly safe under the laws we have. Also I don't think we can illuminate all shootings but I believe it's our responsibility to not make it as easy as it is.
@@zedwolf1589 You shouldn’t be talking about guns😂. You literally just spoke of semiautomatic weapons and glocks as if they’re separate things. Majority of gun deaths are suicide and gang related. Get rid of those we have one of the lowest gun fatalities in the world
Illegal alcohol? Name one.
"Americans who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither"
Ben Franklin.....
"A great talker may be no fool, but he is one that relies on him.”
- Also Ben Franklin.
Imagine saying that guns are the thing you vote on, cost of living crisis nah I care more about guns. In every other nation on earth and more than half American think this man is a fre ak. But he lacks the self awareness to realise that
so the police protect you where you live I guess? Do they have guns? We are all protected by guns.
Alcohol is more deadly than the AR-15? 95k alcohol deaths a year vs 400 a year from all rifles.......
AR-15 rifles should not be banned.
The second he said “it’s the issue I vote on” you should’ve hung up because that’s not only an unreasonable person but someone who needs an evaluation.
Sam lost me when he suggested that the militarization of police was because civilians own guns. They have militarized regardless of whether the citizens are armed or not.
It's as militarized as the elites in society think they can get away with, so yeah.
Gun nuts can’t even admit there’s not a legitimate reason to own an AR-15. It’s just a hobby.
Hobby is reason enough, plus there’s a right to it.
@@jeremyweaver7689 Okay, I want to weaponise anthrax for funsies.
@@jeremyweaver7689 A right? Who or what gave you this right?
@@km666 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.
@@hepwo91222 I see. If that amendment is changed, do you stop having that right?
I love Sam and his logic 😘