Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Why gun violence can't be our new normal | Dan Gross
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 кві 2016
- It doesn't matter whether you love or hate guns; it's obvious that the US would be a safer place if there weren't thousands of them sold every day without background checks. Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, makes a passionate, personal appeal for something that more than 90 percent of Americans want: background checks for all gun sales. "For every great movement around the world, there's a moment where you can look back and say, 'That's when things really started to change,'" Gross says. "For the movement to end gun violence in America, that moment is here."
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/tra...
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
that is bs you can't buy a gun at a gun show without a background check
+austin h Lies of fake! Where do you see these gun commercial ads!?!?! I have never seen one on TV! or UA-cam. oh wait I see it non-stop anti gun ads.
Truth
+austin h In some states, you can indeed. The org running the event may require vendors to do background checks, but state law doesn't require it in some states.
+Broke My Crayon What states allow licensed vendors to sell guns without a background check?
www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
100% "shall not be infringed"
+MrGreenstar2012
,
+MrGreenstar2012 Regulated militia..?
+haxamin Pharmaceuticals opium addiction on and on and on leave my rights alone go after the criminals go after the drug dealers and the violent criminals and leave my rights alone and yes form a well-armed militia against this foreign corporate globalist takeover sick of you f****** people. Trump 2016
+MrGreenstar2012 Is this satire?
+haxamin you know when your world satire might be something you would interject into a conversation such as this however I would not consider this to be a satirical conversation. there are tragedies there are no doubt about it but when you put into perspective what is it some 300,000 people a year die from cigarettes the stats on medical malpractice are through the roof the pharmaceutical companies are just poisoning everyone the fake food companies you know a man has a right to defend himself and with every chip off of the individual rights of the Bill of Rights you and I both lose. Even if you do not want to own a gun I guarantee you if your life was in danger you would be glad if somebody had one and protected you it's a personal choice it's not your choice to make for others strengthen and apply the laws that are on the books and the violent criminals will be in jail instead of petty drug dealers pot smokers another failed government War
Do you sell EVERYTHING by sole reliance on emotion, reinforced by dishonesty?
Those who give up freedom for security will get neither and deserve neither.
+Benjamin Wood So, can i see some evidence or some facts about this?
***** Having freedom doesn't mean that there is no justice.
+calholli I am not sure whether i get this right. So the very poor Germans didn't deserve freedom and security because they wanted to live a safe live instead of dying? And the Russians that didn't even elect Stalin as well? Or does this quote mean that Hitler / Stalin didn't deserve it, which wouldn't make sense at all because they could basicly do everything they wanted to do.
laureny2000
The point is that if they wanted to "live a safe life instead of dying" then the last thing they should have done was give up their right to have guns... the 2nd amendment is clear. Saying that we, the people, must have guns.. being necessary to the security of a free state. Meaning, without those guns and training we have no guarantees that the state will remain free.
So if you allow them to take your fishing pole, don't be surprised when they also take your fish
calholli Okay thanks, i now really understand why people want to own guns.
We banned guns in Chicago almost completely. Overnight we became the safest place on earth. Move here its so nice
+E Curb Hahaha, that's a good one! Half got me for a few seconds!
+E Curb lol
They banned guns in Chicago but not in Gary you numbskull.
Yes
I was from Chicago, but moved away when I was 5. It's disgustingly hot and humid there.
It's not; it's dramatically reduced over the last 40 years
+blurglide Ssssssssshhhhhhhhh, your are destroying his agenda...........
+Thunder Cat Wrong. Gun violence is in decline for about 25 years. No, you cannot count suicide as violence.
+Galgenvogel Of course you can count gun suicides as gun violence! Just like how they count hangings as rope violence.
William Alexander Urbanization tends to do that
+Jeff Chang not sure if your serious...
it is just stupid of a comment it sounds like a liberal would actually say it
Gun shows in most states require background checks already.
But u can just email florida and then be able to use a concealed gun 31 states
+Edward Dundoned smith Without a background check? I don't know about Floridian laws regarding this and I'm too lazy to google right now.
+Edward Dundoned smith being from Florida and a CC license holder I can tell you that comment has zero base in reality. You have to take a short (sadly) class and then wait roughly 3 months till you receive your license in the mail.
BUT to be fair, Georgia is a joke, all you have to do is get finger printed and you can get your license. I'm a firm believer that people should be licensed to hold them in public and it should be a intensive course.
+William walton its called the good guys with guns program its based in Florida and allows you to own a concealed weapon in 31 states
+A Talking Book its the good guys with guns program
Non sequitur. Guns are not violent.
+Curt Howland
Guns aren't, but people are.
Distributing guns in random family homes and all over the country doesn't make it a safer place.
+Zer0kx Statistics call bullshit. The homicide rate is at a hundred year low. Gun ownership is at an all time high.
+Zer0kx Well, since guns are mostly owned in suburbs and rural areas and those areas are safer than the cities with low gun ownership I have to say that you are wrong.
+Zer0kx And that's why your communist paradise is going to fail.
Zer0kx If "people are" violent, then all the more reason for good people to carry arms.
Bad people are not persuaded to the path of righteousness by words, which is why murder (which has been banned since the beginning) still occurs.
However, there are more good people than bad, and the bad people can be corrected. By good people, with weapons for their defense and the defense of innocents.
That's why crime rates go up when ownership of weapons is made illegal. Bad guys don't obey the laws, only good people do. And good people are not a problem by definition.
>hey guys maybe killing and killing accessories aren't all that necessary
>comments section explodes
America pls.
+DeoMachina Because people cannot be truly free unless they have easy access to the means to kill their neighbours on sight. Doesn't it make sense to you?
+Julia Linne stated:
"Because people cannot be truly free unless they have easy access to the means to kill their neighbours on sight. Doesn't it make sense to you?"
I does not make sense because you are an idiot and it is a malformed question.
The goal of preserving arms was to secure the republic on both foreign and domestic threats,
+Jeff Chang The keyword being "was". In 1776 there were no tanks, rockets, nerve gas or nuclear weapons. Now there are. These new weapons are what determine the outcome of a conflict, not hand guns. Armies who only have hand guns will lose 100% of the time against any modern miltiary.
Miranox stated:
"In 1776 there were no tanks, rockets, nerve gas or nuclear weapons. Now there are. These new weapons are what determine the outcome of a conflict, not hand guns. Armies who only have hand guns will lose 100% of the time against any modern miltiary."
Well, we have rifles, carbines, and shotguns. Furthermore, I find if funny that you assume that the military will just go along with it. Heck, in Syria the military was splitting as was the same in Egypt. So perhaps we are not the front line troops in the most decisive battle but we are the militia that secured the fuel station or cut off the communications substation used by the tyranny.
Jeff Chang
"Well, we have rifles, carbines, and shotguns."
All of these are worthless in the face of a modern military. The only thing that can beat modern weapons are other modern weapons. Guns are used just to mop up the stragglers in small conflicts. Machines and bombs win the battles.
"you assume that the military will just go along with it"
Go along with what? It seems you're assuming I said something which I actually did not.
If gun deaths are the new normal then what does that say about vehicle deaths???
We constantly put more regulations onto cars, such as seat belts, locking of doors and crumple zones, the problem it seems is that guns don't keep up with the level of technology and the need for safety that cars have managed to
+rangerjesse Automobile deaths each day in America. . . . 117+
+Jamie_23 Of course we do. Modern pistols wont go off if dropped.
+Jamie_23 Despite all the automobile regulation we still have tons of people dying and getting injured in accidents. The media doesn't sensationalize vehicle deaths like gun deaths and people seem to not care that hundreds of people are dying in vehicle accidents everyday. But if someone gets shot, then they want to advocate another pointless regulation that will not prevent a single gun death. Also, gun ownership is a constitutional right and vehicle ownership is not. There are very good reasons for this that have to do with freedom.
+Jamie_23 They could easily reduce vehicle deaths by reducing all speed limits to 15 mph and enforceing the new speed limits with jail time or the death penalty. Why aren't people advicating for somethig like this?
Wow, just by reading the comments you can tell how fucked up is America on that particular matter...
But hey, the rest of the world are the brain washed idiots...
Hahaha :p
I live in Japan, no guns, no gangs. Almost no crime.
If I lived in America I'd have an assault weapon under each bed, sofa and table.
When armed youths break into my home to rape and kill my children, I'd save their lives. Who wouldn't?
cheerfulerik Then when does the cycle break? People breaking into your house to kill you in America does not happen nearly as many times as children killing themselves with your gun.
+Matt Gaudio I understand that, it appears to be a strong minority at least
Here comes a shitstorm *grabs popcorn:*
Pretty rich for a gun-grabber like this guy to talk about someone else "telling a big enough lie often enough". The gun-grabbers live by lies: "40% of gun sales are done without a background check", still being quoted even after the author of the "study" (a random phone survey) that came up with that figure renounced his own conclusion and stated that the true figure is about 10-15%, which had been borne out empirically in Colorado after they instituted "universal" background checks. "You can buy a gun over the Internet easier than you can buy a pair of shoes": No, you can't, guns cannot be delivered across state lines to your home or to you unless you are a Federally-licensed dealer, who must run a background check before transferring a firearm to a purchaser (that has been the law since about 1968, BTW). "AR-15s are military high-powered rifles that spray 30 bullets in a half-second": No, they aren't, they are ordinary semi-automatic rifles that no military in the world would issue , that shoot a round that is not considered powerful enough to hunt deer with in some states (it is actually a .22-caliber round, albeit a centerfire). And real, honest-to-goodness full-auto submachine guns do not empty 30-round magazines in a half-second; no semi-auto will. I could go on all day like this; if gun-grabbers like Mr. Gross didn't have lies and bogus statistics, they wouldn't have anything to talk about.
Glad to see a rational person on the internet.
Except that Mr. Gross didn't mention any of those figures. That's quite the strawman you've erected. Pretty rich for you to be calling anyone a liar.
Were we watching the same video?
SGRODmaster Mr Gross addressed the "corporate gun lobby" as a whole and called them liars. I addressed the anti-gun "lobby" (or "community", if you prefer,) as a whole and pointed out that their stock-in-trade is lies. And Mr Gross's group, the Brady Campaign, has certainly espoused some of the falsehoods I mentioned. Doin' a little straw-man building yourself, there? As far as Mr Gross specifically, it didn't take long to catch him in a likely lie right off. Did you hear his comment that "it isn't about removing some kinds of guns from all people"? Are you trying to tell me that the Brady Campaign does not support an "assault weapons" ban? Somehow I don't think so. But I'll be willing to stand corrected if you show me otherwise. And yes, he did mention the "buying guns online" thing. The truth is, you can't "buy guns online" the same way you can buy a book or shoes or pretty much anything else online and then just sit back and wait for it to be delivered to you. Once he started down the old familiar road I gave up on the rest of it.
+Texx Mexx I am glad this is the highest rated comment on here. Atleast some people are thinking.
Oh my god guys. Why do you still want freedom? It's the current year.
He's busy trumpeting out his goal of halving gun violence... but the rate of gun violence almost halves every decade or so regardless of legislation. The issue that causes such violence isn't lack of legislation, but lack of equality and lack of opportunity.
Aww look at all the salt. Its ok gun-nuts, just build a wall round your house, you'll be fiiiine :'D
I dont have a clue? The last school shooting was decades ago where im from. But please, continue to make comparisons to fucking ww2 in response to my satirical comment/
+haxamin Your comment is ironic because it's the people giving him a standing ovation that live in gated communities. Try living in a neighborhood with rampant gang violence, all of whom are getting their guns through the black market.
PS All of whom? Try revising a bit of statistics now and again
haxamin "gangs"
This man does not know his facts. Playing in emotions. So sad....
+Rock Mills Welcome to advertisement
Except he knows the statistics! The enormous amounts of homicides and tiny amounts of crime preventions with guns! It's gun nuts that argue with emotion.
@Dylan Klebold and your point is... that guns dont kill?
@Dylan Klebold Well if guns don't kill people then why don't you equip the army with pencils? They don't kill people either, and they could rub out their mistakes. Just think of the tax savings. :-)
@Dylan Klebold The mistake is in letting anyone have the gun, it doesn't matter who gets the pencils.
Remember when TED use to have a interesting Discussion with cited references, and potent statements.... ya those where the days
the only way to stop gun violence is more technical and tactical than policy and can only be stopped through immediate action
lol, so that's why the rest of the civilised has fewer homicides and gun deaths.
Gun shows = background checks
Online sales = shipping to FFL gun store + background checks
I like how the video's only been out for 10 minutes, it's 13 minutes long, and yet 21 people somehow know the entirety of the video to know that they without a doubt dislike it.
+TheMightyWill Because gun nuts are literally that, nuts.
If we were nuts there'd be a lot more massacres. Ignorant idiot.
+Manden Compare deaths and violence from guns to most other 1st world countries. And you see how bad it really is within the US with gun violence.
+TheMightyWill how many likes did it have?
+TheMightyWill The title of this video make me want to buy a gun... just saying....
NIJ's earliest firearms studies uncovered who owns guns, legally and illegally, and how illegal gun trafficking is tied to juvenile gun violence and other crimes such as drug dealing and gang crime. Highlights of these studies:
Many juveniles and young adults can easily obtain guns illegally; most claim to carry them for self-defense.
A study of persons arrested for a wide range of crimes showed that a higher percentage of arrestees than regular citizens own firearms. Arrestees are also more likely to be injured or killed by gun violence. Within a community, this amounts to an identifiable group of “career” offenders.
Surveys of offenders have found that they prefer newer, high-quality guns and may steal or borrow them; most, however, acquire guns “off the street” through the illicit gun market. www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/aquired.aspx
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt the Younger
That is very fake for so many reasons and people with crime in their record aren't alway bad and sometimes they need help
"If you tell a lie long enough it becomes truth" must be this guy's moto
+William walton No surprise there... he's an advertiser.
+William walton Here's some truth www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
Daysleeper70 and here's more truth and perspective v=sFMUeUErYVg
Sorry, Goggle has banned me from posting links.
+PS Stefan is not debunking the stats I gave. Mostly focuses on the cultural aspects of violence in US, and gun ownership that leads to crime in relation to it. That doesnt solve the problem.
Daysleeper70 I'm pretty sure he does debunk it. Because the article you posted could pretty much be summarized as follows:
"You are more likely to die from guns in the US than any other developed countries and it's because there are so many guns in the US"
It's simply false. If you look at the details carefully (as Stefan does in multiple videos), you'll find the problem is far more nuanced. The US is by far the most intoxicated country on the planet. For example it has the highest rates of suicide, depression, most medicated, most mentally "ill", most debted population in world history, most incarcerated for non-violent offenses.. actually most incarcerated, period. Most children raised without a father. I mean the list goes on!
So if you judge this fairly, you'll find that the increase in likelyhood of gun violence in the US has nothing to do with guns because you are also more likely to die from a stabbing in the US than other developed nations.
If we don't look at the REAL problems head on, they will not only persist but they will get WORSE
I've never understood the whole gun control thing since I live in a country where the Gardí don't have guns!
+Chocolatelover The Gardaí do possess firearms. The special branch carry them routinely under their jackets. They do so because our criminals have easy access to them thanks to the cocaine trade. The only people who don't have guns are people like yourself. Better hope neither side ever takes a dislike to you.
They really lowered the bar for TED Talk presenters. I thought they only let intelligent people up there.
+MethosOhio people with ideas are let up there. Stupid people can also have ideas :D
+MethosOhio Maybe you just aren't as intelligent as you thought?
You cannot pin suicides on gun companies it's like blaming a drug company because your kid overdosed to commit suicide. The bottle clearly says it will kill you if you take too much and the box your gun comes in clearly says "this is a deadly weapon".
+Crazysniperman
I think the guns make it easier for them to accept suicide. Hanging yourself or overdosing on drugs could be a slow painful death while the option of shooting your brains all over the wall makes it seem quick and painless. This makes it easier for them to commit to the suicide rather than being afraid of it.
+John Doe regardless, you cannot pin the self inflicted death of a teenager on the gun companies who clearly state that their product is a deadly weapon. Just because some kid wanted to put an end to his life quickly doesn't justify trying to shut down massive companies who employee thousands of people in the U.S. I am sure if someone really wanted to end it all they would do it with or without a gun.
@@TrainLikeYouFight but impulsive suicides will decrease.
Do you know much 5 foot of rope costs? A packet of razor blades? Drano? There are a million ways to die if you so choose. How about the people who choose to live and then are told their right to defend their own lives isn't important and our government officials will decide whether your life. is worth defending. News flash!! Civil rights are no one's business other than the individual involved. Theres no voting on rights. Whether or not you think are some big shot important person. Your opinion doesn't mean a thing, neither does your feelings. Charleton Heston had it right. From my cold dead hands!!
lmao, salty dislikers
+MythicalRedFox Dunno more like a salty regressive left. After all, it's you guys who are being salty over guns.
+Tespri why so salty m8
+Tespri I think it's pretty logical to be salty over having the highest rate of gun related deaths on the planet. We have the highest rate of school shootings as well. Maybe we're fucking tired of seeing the same thing over and over again
+Matt Terrill Some people aren't, apparently.
+Matt Terrill "gun related deaths" only if you include suicide...which is clearly a gun problem, not a mental health one, and there was definitely no incident in Australia, where the confiscation did nothing to reduce suicide. Also, you are incorrect on the school shootings thing. We are pretty good at gobbling up media attention for mass shootings though.
fun fact more kids a year die from drowning in a family owned swimming pool then from accidentally shooting themselves with a parent's gun
BAN WATER!!
The statistics show that most gun violence is self inflicted, he should be focusing on mental health.
Self inflicted? Why would he even bother with this if that was the case? This lecture was not about suicide, but about accidental fire and criminal actions.
Why does the RNA not allow for intelligence fire arms that children can't fire?
+Science and Truth 2 Rock because the government ALWAYS overreaches and illegally infringes on liberties. look at how much they respect the 4th amendment with all the illegal surveillance. look at how much they respect the 1st amendment with the war on whistle blowers. look at how much they respect the 5th amendment with the war on encryption. why would i trust them to to leave the intelligence alone and not ban my gun from ME using it?
i would trust that a lot more if they pulled a sudden huge list of apologies and started respecting the constitution and repealing very dirty government behavior. but i somehow doubt that is going to happen. as such a very sad truth is that i must defend myself from my own government, and not allow them a slope to slip down. anything that gives them more power over me than i have over myself is a threat i am not willing to risk.
Eli Nope. Again, who is trying to take your guns away? We are talking about taking them away from known criminals with either a criminal RECORD or a known medical condition.
So this guys argument is that gun owners aren't evil, just stupid. Yeah, that's going to win you support from lawful gun owners.
Where did he say that? He clearly stated that most Gun owners a law abiding citizens. The checks are to stop lunatics from getting a hold of the weapons they would use against your kids. What part of that did you miss?
+Science and Truth 2 Rock right around the 5 minute mark. Don't be such a lemming.
+Science and Truth 2 Rock and again around 6:30.
5 min mark has him saying that most guns are in law abiding people.
6.5 mark has him saying that the parents where sold bad information. What lecture are you watching?
Thumbs up if you think that all the Thumbs down are coming from the gun lobby.
+Marco Fantin Not everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill. Grow a brain.
+Marco Fantin I guess the gun lobby is 90% of youtube commenters now... according to idiots like you and this guy. Fucking morons.
If children are using their parent's guns, how effective is the background check? Are there any laws that could be created to prevent children from accidentally firing guns? Serious questions here.
+Sarmachus It'd work much better to openly advocate teaching kids how to safely handle a firearm. Stigmatizing things only causes problems.
+Sarmachus
One of many strict gun rules in Norway states that guns are to be kept in a locked gun cabinet. Ammunation stored separately. That would be a nice place to start.
+The Bullshooter
or require a reason to have the license in the first place. In Australia, before you can get a gun, you need to provide a reason to have it the license at all, ie farmer's and those who are members of gun clubs. The Applicant needs to provide proof of this need...and that's about it.
Note: 'Protection' isn't a reason or 'need' for a gun/ gun license.
As such, VERY few people have guns or even access to guns.
Result of this and a few other regulations- i know noone who has been affected in anyway by gun violence. I have never been concerned about encountering gun violence. There has been no mass shootings since 1996.
+Amelia Murphy And no one can protect themselves with a gun either.
The Bullshooter I think ammunition is already required to be stored separately, but the locked cabinet would be good to implement.
You never mentioned _how_ you were going to fix the problem. *It doesn't matter how many people have guns.* It matters how many *bad* people have guns. The problem with relying on government is that only good law abiding people will follow them. Bad people can still easily get ahold of guns on the streets. Making it difficult to get guns is only a workaround.
To lower children suicide rates, you need to fix the educational system. Throwing large numbers of children into a stressful school environment is just asking for disaster. Keeping guns out of bad hands is a lot more difficult a problem. A lot of these mass shooting are simply looking for attention. They don't care how they get it, so long as they do. This is where the media itself is (indirectly) causing the problems. Mass shooters get nationwide and even worldwide attention.
But not all bad people will be able to get guns, and it will be harder to get those guns. All this video is saying is deaths will be slashed in half. It's step one, and if you don't take step one, you will never make it to step two.
+Winsane C. Your right. Only the smart psychopathic dangerous ones. I don't know (and doubt) if deaths would be slashed in half. It would probably slightly reduce young suicidal deaths, but there are plenty of other "pleasant" ways to die too. (CO fumes being one of them.)
Every good people can turn into a bad people so yea
+Blasterix x Innocent until proven guilty? What's that all about? You're right. Everyone COULD be guilty at one point or another, the potential exists, so therefore we should treat them as if they already are guilty.
As soon as the gun conversation brings up hunting, I'm done listening. There is no common ground when anyone is discussing limiting and reducing ANY of my freedom and liberty. Since over 96% of gun homicides are committed with illegally obtained firearms why don't these gun grabbers go and confiscate all of them first? The laws are already in place and we don't need to debate anything. Any additional laws won't remove a single one of these already illegal firearms. Once this act of law enforcement has been accomplished, we can then discuss more gun control laws.............................. if it would even be necessary at that point.
I'm from Australia and America appears as very unsafe from my perspective due to American gun laws or lack thereof
+steph from oz
Unfortunately it comes from an uneducated public. I live up in Queensland and while there can be a few people here in Australia who would seem dumb enough to be responsible for gun violence, America is a country that is FULL of people who are like that. Look at how many people voted for Trump. That in itself shows where the problem is. People should not be putting their effort into gun restrictions, people should be putting their effort into making more people into decent human beings. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. You take away one of the people's tools for killing other people and they will simply just pick up a different one. The problem is with the people.
TheGreeny3003 Yes it always seems to come back to education being the key
There are only 2 types of people in this world.. The ones who believe "someone will protect them" and the ones who take responsibility to protect themselves. His brother was shot, and not even legally allowed to protect himself.. How sad.!!
How many GOOD men get shot, waiting for a good man who has a gun to show up and save them?
oh don't mention the fact that gun violence and crime rates have been dropping for decades.
+austin h So if someone close to you is blown away tomorrow it wouldn't bother you? Cool.
Every one I know is more likely to die in their car on their way to work than by a gun.
Answer the question.
+IamMANnumber1 To be bothered by the death of someone close, and to demand irrational laws based on fiddled numbers are two completely sepperate things.
if someone close to me died in an automobile accident tomorrow i'm not going to go sell my car.
What is wrong with all of you? No one here is trying to take your guns. Background checks being expanded hurts no one.
I don't see why you would even care to hate this video unless you are a criminal or someone who can't get a gun. I which case, you are stupid to make yourself look like a killer in the youtube comments section, and gtfo of the United States.
...the world gave up on gun issues in the US a long time ago...the chance to own a gun is part of the freedom that comes with being American...
The fact this video has so many dislikes compared to likes is genuinely sickening. It's sad to see how addictive the gun culture in America is that many won't even give the time to try and hear out why there needs to be stricter laws and regulations. Or maybe many are simply in denial.
Perhaps his ideas are false and misleading.
Here’s a little fact, the 90s were fucked up. Numbers in 2019 say that gun violence is less that 50% of what it was in the 90s. Also, politicians are trying to ban high capacity rifles and fire arms with accessories that protect the gunner. Problem is about 80% - 90% of firearm aggression is done with a handgun. 9mm, .45. Also, what is with people going on about automatic firearms. They’re not being produced anymore and were banned in 1986 with the assault weapons ban. Besides, no one with an automatic gun from before 1986 who hasn’t been arrested yet will use their automatic firearm for unprovoked assault and or murder. Also, with rough statistics, it is proven that areas with less gun control laws typically have less gun violence. In the recent parkland shooting, an firearm protest and speech were held. My problem is that despite saying all this emotional bullshit about how the gun was the issue. The speaker was using a double edge blade. Every point they made could be turned against them. “We need to stop blaming the victim for what was the shooter’s fault.” They openly admitted that it was not the gun, it was the shooter. “My right to live is more important than your right to own a gun.” Equally, my right to live is more important than your right to own a vehicle. As of 2019, vehicle death number 38000 while rifle deaths number less than 400. I’m saying rifle and not firearm because the speaker was specifically calling out rifles and not firearms as a whole. 14500 deaths from fire arms are homicidal. 24000 are suicidal. Anyone who takes the suicide number over the homicidal number should listen up. Realize that those suicides could also be conducted by hanging, stabbing, self induced torture (yes, that has happened). Gun just happen to be easier to release oneself. ALSO!!! Guns are not designed to kill, at least not the ones civilians can purchase. If you are a gun owner, you will realize that the user manual always tells you to point the barrel in the safe direction AWAY from people. If you are not a gun owner and have never shot a firearm or you simply have no basic knowledge about the history of gun violence, shut up. You shouldn’t get a say in the gun debate because what you say with no knowledge is delaying and hindering the productivity of future actions.
More people die from cars every day.
A) u can't substantiate that claim Trump Jr.
B) cars are A LOT more in use than guns(yet). Heck, most American Families have 1 car at the very least, but not every household has a gun. So by Newton's law of common fuckin sense, the number of casualties COULD be more by cars than guns. But have u established a % relation between the no. of accidents and no. of cars owned? that'd be miniscule compared to % of gun owners and gun fatalities.
C) Read about the gun control laws world over. I hope u know You're not the only developed nation, and certainly the others are laughing on u guys. As someone said earlier, u guys need to piss off a lot of people but take the right decision. No one says ban guns completely. But one has to EARN the right to hold something as substantial as a gun. It's not the wild west anymore my friend. It's 2016. There should be rigid tests for gun holders, written as well as practical (THESE HAPPEN FOR A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND NOT GUNS?!?!) + people should be clinically approved by psychologists to be mentally capable of holding a gun, all data of gun license holders should be stored online, etc etc. Watch the Most recent episode of LWT with John Oliver, specially the NRA segment. It's eye opening to say the least
Half baked knowledge is more harmful than lack thereof buddy
You haven't even turned on the goddamn oven.
www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-deaths-compared-to-motor-vehicle-deaths/
haha bro this link just supports my point, word by word :) . Read and comprehend both the things
How does your point have anything to do with what I said? I'll repeat it. "More people die from cars every day." In raw, actual, numbers, more people die from cars every day. I am right and you are an idiot.
I'm okay with common-sense gun regulation, but I also think we should ban cars in urban areas and transition to public transit and lighter and slower electric vehicles and that our entire society should stop taking automotive transport and the carnage that it creates as granted.
Haha so you basically made a dumbed down statement and now you're backing it up. God bless America (He doesn't exist though, you're fucked).
Where do you reside in the US if I may ask?
He's a good car salesman....throwing out numbers and statistics...conjuring up the boogy man. No substantive argument put forth.
Too bad Paris shooters didnt read the sign saying guns were illegal.. xD
I took an NRA safety course and they teach proper gun safety and storage. Lol idk why these people keep calling them evil. Maybe they should do some gun safety courses too and help the NRA instead of calling them evil.
I NEED TO TAKE MY GUN GUN INTO A GROCERY STORE WHILST I BUY MILK
Respectfully, Mr. AyyyyyyyG, you never think you need a gun, until you need a gun
The fact is if there's guns you'll have gun violence, more guns isn't going to stop the problem it's just throwing fuel on the fire, a country like the UK where police don't even carry guns has a minuscule gun violence rate
+Kosta Thomas ... and a worse violent crime rate. Fun fact, in the US, the homicide rate is inversely proportional to the rate of gun ownership.
This has been proven time and time again. Go read "More Guns, Less Crime".
He said "This isn't about keeping certain guns away from all people, it's about keeping all guns away from certain people." An assault weapons ban would absolutely be keeping certain guns away from all people.
Define assault weapon
They gonna let open carry on college campus in Texas :(
+King Ckang That should be something you're overjoyed about.
+Slaughtz yeah, people can finally walk around with an M249 Saw and a Barrett .50. CCW makes sense but open carry is too far. just makes you the first target. I'm sure some people love the attention
Why am I not surprised that an advertiser is lying through his teeth while appealing the his audience's emotions. And look at the fools stand up and applaud at the very end, only to then go home to their gated communities. Appalling!
I like the advertisement aspect of this lie and falsify facts to push your agenda
They're not called defence rifles, they're called assault rifles.
You park in a driveway.
to bad Bernie Sanders won't win.
I was going to watch this with an open mind, but read the description... "Brady Campaign." yeah, not going to waste the time.
+stereomike111 sooo...youre not open minded?
generally people aren't one or the other, and in this case I couldn't reserve my judgement. you know what kind of movie it is if it is starring rob schneider, and you know certain groups are not out for compromise solutions
But youre actively ignoring an opposing viewpoint
one of them, yes
+haxamin I watched it to hear what he had to say despite being an NRA member. Dan Gross lied on some occasions. Or at least is misinformed. You can buy a gun online but it has to be shipped to a federally licensed dealer who does the background check on you. Then it gets released. This is the law for ALL states.
Gun violence is at an all time low in the US
+Daniel Bostock so is gun ownership
That says a lot about the usa, doesn't it?
+Felix T-Rex to the contrary. There are more guns than people. The last five years has seen a massive surge in gun ownership
+Tomas B. No. Western societies have gradually become less violent as the standard of living and knowledge rises. Trade unites also
+Daniel Bostock yes there are more guns. That is because less people own more guns. The people who own guns tend to be whack jobs that have collections of dozens of firearms.
I'd rather be attacked by a knife or a box cutter or a shoe, than a gun. At least you still have a chance of survival!
I have heard More people have been kicked to death then kill by a rifle. What was he saying about repeating a lie enough times? Like guns bought with out a back ground check sold to bad guys. While the statics do not back that up.
"Pleease dooont taake my gun muummy?" :'( whee whee wheeee
Where ever there is a demand for a good or service, there shall always be someone to provide the goods and services needed. Laws are only speed bumps in business.
+CplDabu909 Criminals and violent anti-social teenagers in other countries just do not want guns enough.
CplDabu909
If your country got invaded, I am pretty sure that you would encourage it.
+plainlake bingo! I'd be the one teaching kids how to do it right :)
Could I offer a diplomatic solution? Ban all handguns, legalize all assault rifles.
+plainlake
Not a good idea. Ban all handguns and assault rifles. Legalize all explosives.
I just want to address this common sentiment, which wasn't mentioned explicitly in the talk, but I've seen a number of comments perpetuating it: "The fact is if there's guns you'll have gun violence, more guns isn't going to stop the problem it's just throwing fuel on the fire, a country like the UK where police don't even carry guns has a minuscule gun violence rate."
With all due respect, this is exactly as interesting a statement as saying "if there are cars there will be deadly car accidents," or "if there are pools and lakes people will drown." Focusing on "gun violence" alone is misleading, because what is important is *how much violence and murder* is happening overall, not just what tools people are using to commit it.
*It is a red herring to talk about gun violence on its own*, as if it is entirely distinct from other forms of violence. *By comparing the UK and the US's gun violence alone*, one is missing all the far more directly or indirectly causative or correlative factors that contribute to reduced quality of life and increased violence *across the board*, especially poverty and social strife. For instance, the UK is a small group of countries that were settled by the dominate ethnic groups almost two thousand years ago, have high social cohesion, low cultural diversity, comparatively low poverty, low population density, high access to social services, low gang activity, and do not have recent histories of institutional racism, slavery, expansionism, and civil war. The US is different, depending on the state/city, in almost every respect, and in fact has much more in common with our fellow Northern and Southern American countries in this way. Even then, there are still many, many areas of the US that are almost as safe as any European nation -- including Vermont, which has some of the most lax gun laws in our country. It is primarily in large, very population-dense cities with, typically, high gang membership, like Chicago, LA, and Houston, where you see these huge spikes in crime (including gun crime), and that brings the average up for the entire country of 400 million people.
It's not as if the UK had a giant problem with violence when guns were more available, and then that problem went away as soon as they were banned. The UK had very low rates of violence compared to the US before *and* after the ban, with no significant drop aside from the same, meandering path of decline of almost every form of violence -- the same path that the US has been on and still is on since the crack epidemic of the late 1980's and early 1990's. The fact is that violent crime is going down throughout the western world, including the US, and including gun related crime, despite the wider availability of more advanced firearms and the fact that nearly every state in the Union allows for obtaining permits to carry firearms.
You *cannot possibly* explain the differences in rates of violence by only looking at the availability of guns, and anyone who says you can is either not looking at the wider picture, or they don't care to. Many people, on both sides of this issue, are so emotionally invested in their worldview that they ignore factors that show that the world, as usual, isn't so damn simple.
Lastly, I want to address this thing that Mr. Gross said, which is a giant red flag that turns me off to just about any one on any issue -- especially issues that are so cloudy and complicated, like social issues: "... we're smarter... and *we have the truth on our side*..."
This always reminds me of a quote from AronRa, which I think is something to keep in mind. To paraphrase: *Do not put your trust in those who claim to have the truth, because their beliefs are not open to change. Only trust in those who are committed to finding the truth, and who are capable of adjusting their worldview to new information.*
Add this to all the excessively moralizing language, and Mr. Gross comes across as the kind of righteously indignant person who thinks he knows exactly what's happening and how to fix it, and that people who disagree aren't just wrong, they're *evil* or they're conspiracy theorists, and they're just not like *us*. The statistics he mentions gloss over all the nuances of the "90% want background checks" number, which admits of all sorts of variations of *what* background checks people want (the grand majority of NRA members, for instance, do *not* want universal background checks -- something he lies about). *Gun crime is down*, like all violent crime, in spite of the propaganda coming from organizations like the Brady Campaign, who perpetuate ridiculous myths like the "gun show loophole," or that you can just buy guns online without a background check, etc. These are patently false, and, with all due respect, I don't think Mr. Gross can be so involved in this issue yet be ignorant enough of the laws to not know that what he is saying is very misleading.
I don't think that one can honestly have such unwavering certainty in how to fix such a complicated issue as this, and we should be very suspect of those who claim to have it, no matter what side we're on.
+GuitarNoob101 I like you. This was a wall of text and I'll admit I haven't read it all but it's very nicely formatted and your position seems pretty well thought out. I'm going to quote you in the future.
+GuitarNoob101
You seem to be reasonable, I feel save here.
But to say that the availability of guns doesn't play a large role in the number of deaths by homicide is questionable. There are three effective ways to kill people: melee weapons, ranged weapons and explosives. Melee weapons will always be available but you have to overcome a high emotional threshold to use a deadly melee weapon against another person. Explosives are usually not legal, homemade explosives are flatout dangerous to yourself as the most easily made ones are the most volatile ones. And then you have firearms. Firearms detach you emotionally from the kill, making their deadly use much more likely than with melee weapons. They can be used from safe range, you don't have to take large personal risks when using them. The simplest ones can hold one bullet at a time, mag-fed dramatically increases the rate of fire, it doesn't really make a difference whether it's semi-auto or full-auto.
Then the common argument that criminals are criminals and they don't care whether or not firearms are legal or not. Which is an incredible ignorant statement to make, by this way of thinking everyone should be allowed to use a Humvee with top-mounted cal.50 Browning for shopping at the supermarket, what could go wrong. If you deny legal acquisition of firearms, people have to overcome the massive threshold to buy them illegally. And you can be jailed just for trying to buy them from the black market. Also, you have to get access to the black market first. You have to be really passionate about that gun if you want to get it this way and you have to run risks of being caught, it's not like the police is playing farmville all day. You pracitcally shut out all accidential and impulsive gun-related homicides. Also, parents don't own guns that can be used by their children for school shootings. The kids don't buy them from the black market, they don't buy them from the legal retailer, they open their parents weapons cache.
But even if they decided to vastly restrict gun laws in the US, there is practically no way to enforce them. Most firearms aren't registered, you don't know which person has which guns in his possession, it's impossible to retrieve them. Even if you would ransack every home, people aren't that stupid, they will bury their arsenal in their gardens sandbox or out in the wild.
GuitarNoob101
I am here for the wall of text :)
I agree that there are countless factors impacting the crime and armed homicide rate, too many to predict it or to simply cherry-pick one factor and compare totally different countries. But surely some factors are exclusively of amplifying nature. There was a study last year that evaluated the correlation between gun ownership and crime rate in the different US states, they seem to have found a positive correlation. But at the moment I can't look into the paper itself, thetrace.org did report on this study
www.thetrace.org/2015/06/new-study-is-latest-to-find-that-higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-lead-to-higher-rates-of-violent-crime/
I was searching for verification of my claim that ranged combat detaches you from the act of violence in comparison to melee combat, but all that Google decided to show me was tons of gender studies nonsense for some reason. I don't want to say that after the kill they are less prone to PTSD or similar disorders, but I see different thresholds for committing violence dependend on the type of weapon. In case of drones, I saw a bunch of publications arguing that the use of drones lowers the threshold for lethal force. I guess it's hard to evaluate.
With the point on explosives I was again not targeting organized crime or terrorism, but simple amateurs. People who didn't plan their action for a long time and work without an intelligence network. You can make basic explosives at home, I guess in the US it is easier than in most European countries. The easiest thing to produce is APEX, but it's pretty suicidal. Black powder is ineffective. Nitrocellulose is rather ineffective too. ANFO might be acceptable and affordable. The really good stuff like TNT, hexogen etc. has to be extensively nitrated (you might burn your house down if you don't have any clue about organic chemistry) and requires primary explosives as well. Organized crime/terrorism has the capabilities to either buy it from the black markets or they have specialists who know what they are doing, ISIS loves their cooks.
As it isn't possible to take away the guns, the only option is to take away the ammunition. The gun nuts won't be happy that they can't do target shooting anymore, but over time this might reduce the peoples ability to use the weapons. Probably not, though.
I know, the Humvee thing is just a hyperbole, I am applying the logic, that lawful citizens don't commit crimes with their guns and criminals will get the weapons anyway, to more dangerous weaponry. Usually I use nukes for this hyperbole, so hey, moderation :D
A step in the right direction would be compulsory registration of firearms by federal law. Simply to know where the weapons end up. Then enforcing background checks for both commercial and private sales and psychological evaluations before you can purchase a gun. Simple stuff to make sure that you don't sell military grade weaponry to the next Breivik. Looking at the incredible school shootings rate in the US, it should be a felony when your weapons are stolen and used to commit a crime. Which is somewhat linked to the weapon registration. Simple stuff that still allows you to get those firearms, but emphasizes responsible handling of this power. DON'T TAKE MAH GUNZ!
Hey Gunner, thanks again for the response. You wanted a wall of text, so you'll get a wall of text. ; )
I'll have to read into that study. Sadly, as you noted, the study itself is hidden behind a paywall, and I'm always a little skeptical of journalists interpreting these things for me, since one can see how much they tend to regularly sensationalize and slaughter science reporting, especially when it comes to climate change, evolution, or anything with partisan political leanings. Especially in the case of online news outlets, and many cable news outlets, they typically don't assign people with actual expertise in the fields they are reporting on to do these stories. The Trace, itself, has a very anti-gun bent, judging from... well, seemingly every story they have on the site. That said, it doesn't mean they're wrong, but it does mean that one should approach them with healthy skepticism.
Anyway, I've given the article a read and maybe I can dig up the study somewhere if it has been mirrored. Judging by the summary at the end, it seems as though the researchers did indeed interpret a positive correlation between gun ownership and "violent death," but again I would like to read the actual study to see what data they were basing it off of, specifically. In the article, the authors seem to use the terms "homicide" and "murder" interchangeably, but this is sloppy. By US definitions, murders are necessarily a form of homicide, but homicides are not necessarily murders -- homicide can also include accidental killings, criminally negligent killings, justifiable homicide, etc. Homicide is broadly the killing of another person, whereas murder is specifically illegal & intentional homicide. Poor use of these terms can skew the numbers in either direction, but, again, I'll reserve my judgement until after I get a chance to read the actual study, or until I get a chance to read confirming reports of it from more neutral sources -- thanks for bringing it to my attention.
One interesting thing is, looking at statistics for 2014, there isn't a very big difference between the states they point to as being "high ownership high violence" states, and those they point to as "low ownership low violence" states.[2] I'd like to see updated figures that account for more current rates of gun ownership and violent crime, especially since the figures they are using come at the tail-end of the crack epidemic of the 1990s. Average crime rates have fallen around 40%-50% since then.
Something I do find interesting, and I brought it up earlier, is that, as gun laws have become progressively more liberal (as in, less restrictive, especially after DC vs Heller), and more-and-more states have enacted permit-to-carry legislation, overall gun homicides have, on average, gone down -- quite significantly, in fact. Similarly, overall violent crime has gone down, even as population has risen.[1] It's possible that there are other forces at work here, that are perhaps countering and overpowering the negative effects that gun ownership might have on these statistics, but nonetheless it does seem reasonable to suspect that whatever effect gun ownership *might* have on violent crime, it is outweighed by other factors. My opinion is that we should focus on these other factors, which aren't so loosely correlative as firearms are -- like poverty, etc. -- first, and which will be guaranteed to increase quality of life for everyone, before we go after everybody's enumerated rights. It's seems to me that guns are targeted because of their emotional impact on people, because of the fear some people have of them, not because the preponderance of the evidence points towards their undeniable culpability.
>
>
With all due respect, this just wouldn't fly, nor should it, and I will do everything I can to oppose this kind of, to put it frankly, dangerous overreach and erosion of fundamental rights.
First, let's take a moment to appreciate what you are suggesting: You are saying that an enumerated right that is protected against the government by the supreme law of our land (the U.S. Constitution) which, in large part, was enacted as a deterrent to federal (and even local) over-reaching, should itself be subject to the ever-present and watchful eye of that very same federal government, such that they know exactly who has firearms, where they are, and how many there are at all times, no matter the implications for privacy rights, self-incrimination rights, etc., and leaving the "right" (more of a privilege, at that point) open to swift and efficient retraction at the will of the federal government. I think people underestimate the potential for abuse this kind of thing has, and this is a standard I do not believe should exist for ANY fundamental right, let alone the right to own the tools needed to defend oneself.
All of that is, of course, if one can even do it. As we discussed earlier, and you admit again above, the number of firearms available -- more than 300,000,000 by most estimates -- would likely make it impossible to register all or even a significant number of them. The vast majority of them are not currently required to be registered, unless they fall under regulation by the NFA, so one would have to rely on the honesty of the owners of all of those weapons to be able to reliably register all of them. I can guarantee you that there are many, many people who would not comply with such a thing, and it would be easy to lie about it in most states, where one could just claim to have sold their firearms to a private party some time ago.
Next, " *... enforcing... psychological evaluations before you can purchase a gun. Simple stuff to make sure that you don't sell military grade weaponry to the next Breivik.* "
I always have to wonder if people consider what implications this would have on the foundations of other rights, or even how to enact this kind of thing. Surely, it wouldn't be acceptable, for good reason, to require mental evaluation to exercise ones right to vote, or to speak. Public speech has initiated some of the deadliest riots we've had, even civil war. Voters have elected presidents and legislators who have gone on to (arguably) encourage war crimes and the like. Freedoms like these carry with them inherent dangers.
Applying this to the right to own firearms, how would one enact it? Would you have to have your psychologist or doctor OK you for purchasing a firearm? Would your files have to be reviewed by a committee or sheriffs' office to determine your eligibility to exercise your enumerated rights? What does this do to ones guarantee of doctor-patient confidentiality? In a time when suicide is such big concern, do we really want to tell people that your rights can be arbitrarily redacted because of a poor evaluation? What would that do to the number of people seeking help? Would anyone who values their rights even want to see a psychologist anymore? Just saying "people should be psychologically evaluated" is easy, but it's very difficult, I believe, to actually do so without risking some very serious unforeseen consequences.
This has been tried before. Consider the case of Navy veteran and retired police officer Donald Montgomery, who in late 2014 had been to the doctor and voluntarily went to the hospital after a stressful move to New York. He was diagnosed with mild depression and insomnia, was prescribed medication, but his assessment said his "insight, judgment, and impulse control are good." Four days after leaving the hospital, police determined that Montgomery was mentally defective and prohibited from owning firearms, and he received a call the next day saying his firearms would be confiscated. Later, his pistol license was suspended and then terminated. He is having to undergo a lengthy, stressful, and surely expensive legal fight to have all of these restrictions revoked, his property returned, and his rights restored - hopefully with the result that the mental hygiene portions of the SAFE act (that allow hospitals/doctors to, without notice, incriminate you as mentally deficient to the police) are struck down as unconstitutional, as I believe they are.
This is why I think the only things that should be a guaranteed strike against you for your right to own firearms is an actual record of violent behavior, or the repeated and plausible declaration of intent to commit violence -- not just some doctor or police officer's guess of your *potential* to maybe sometime in the foggy future commit violence. Speculating into somebody's future just opens up all sorts of dystopian abuses that I think we would do well to stay as far away from as we can.
>
Arguably, these are very abuse-prone and likely ineffective ways of doing this. I certainly don't believe the above scenario is something people should have to go through if they want to both exercise their rights and pursue mental health treatment, and I certainly don't think that maybe saving a few lives is worth this kind of massive and arbitrary restriction. It doesn't encourage responsible handling of this power -- the laws already *severely punish* its abuse -- but it does make it mighty easy to restrict "undesirables" (according to whoever is in power at the time) from exercising their enumerated rights. In a country where the very foundation of our government is the *limitation* of its powers over the people (indeed, the Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights, it was put there as an explicit limitation of the power of the government), I think this is a very slippery rabbit-hole to jump down.
Anyway, you might have noticed a nerve being touched here -- apologies for the sterner tone of my writing this go around, I don't mean to be personal. However, I see these things said many, many times, and I firmly believe that 99% of the people who make these suggestions haven't thought through either how to enact/enforce them in the first place, or the many ways they could go very, very bad. I believe that maintaining our rights in the face of these challenges should be our top priority, and, since other things have great promise of improving quality of life for everyone (better access to healthcare, poverty fighting initiatives, gang-fighting initiatives [3], etc.), we should focus on them first before we take measures that effect everyone and will be very hard to undo.
Let me know your thoughts.
Best,
~Noob
Sources:
1. FBI National Crime Report, 1995-2014 -- www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1
2. FBI Crime Report by state, 2014 -- www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
3. Such as "Operation Ceasefire" -- www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miracle-program-reduces-gun-violence_us_56649f58e4b072e9d1c68813
I can't imagine having guns in the UK. Look how peaceful (perhaps not recently with everything that's going on right now) we are. We don't fear our neighbours. I just don't get why people can't see that giving people guns is a means of both defense and offence. They were made to kill, not protect. And killing shouldn't be the answer to all our problems in the first place.
Goddammit, a minute in and I'm already tearing up. And it's a damn shame that so many gun nuts will instantly dislike this vid without watching/listening to it.
*sigh*
So one minute in, after he told you about how he is obsessed with advertising, you let yourself become emotionally sabotaged for the next 12 minutes of a video?
Sounds like instead of blaming guns we should focus on mental illness and blame the parents who did not properly store their firearms.
so many foreigners talking about our policies in the comments and I thought we were the interventionists LOL
We definitely are.
Ah now I understand TED. Unsubscribing.
+tEh kEEpEr TED talks are not vetted for rationality, just popularity.
Ken Robinson's talks on the child abuse that is government school are well-watched TED talks. As wonderful as Ken's talks are, some are, like this one, not based on reality.
how about proper gun training for all kids with guns in the home?
How about also not letting people who are killers have guns?
+Winsane C. - Because you don't know they are killers until you let them have a gun and wait to find out what they do with it. There is no reason for anyone to own a personal firearm. If they have kids then that should show in their background check and should automatically disqualify them. Also each year a fresh check should be performed before allowing the licence to be renewed. The licence can be stricter and more expensive year on year until the point that either nobody wants a firearm or nobody can afford one. Also, anyone caught with an unlicensed firearm should get a mandatory life sentence if found guilty.
+Keira Churchill You're proving, yet again, that you have no idea what you're talking about.
germinvermin I'm lucky your comment went into so much detail to correct me then. What would I do without you?
+Keira Churchill Well you certainly wouldn't have the mental capacity to fucking google the answer whether or not I was here to inform you of your stupidity, so why should I even bother?
Yes, there are quite a few valid reasons to own personal firearms. Claiming that there is no reason is nothing more than you shouting at the top of your lungs to everyone that you have zero life experience, zero relevant education on the matter, and have absolutely zero understanding of why the amendments exist in the first place.
Yet another brainless millennial.
While his message is inspirational, its also entirely a sales pitch. He's also practiced this sales pitch for his entire life.
I wanna know which gun shows he has been to that dont enforce background checks. There are always background checks at gun shows. And for online sales, and individual cannot buy a gun directly at all. The gun is required to be shipped to an FFL (federal firearm license) holder, most likely a gun store, and then a background check is done. The only way to buy a gun in America without a background check is either from person to person just like selling a guitar or washing machine or if you have an FFL which means you are already the owner of a gun store.
Correct. People don't know the difference between "buying" and "taking possession". You can buy a gun without a background check online and at many gunshows, but to take possession of that gun (once it's sent to an authorised firearms dealer for the buyer's collection) you have to pass a background check.
I'm curious to ask to anyone who disliked the video, why? Just wanting other peoples views on this
People are just being petty, they love their guns too much to realize that guns are destroying humanity, making us shrug it off every time we hear about some shooting
GameSnippets_Jimmy,
1. He lied actively and passively.
2. To support those lies omitted the whole truth of the statistics he used.
3. He ignored the legal issues and advocated usurping the Constitution doing such.
4. He ignored the history and technology to push his agenda.
Because this is propaganda
Maybe it's not the gun, maybe it's the person holding the gun... How many of the "90 killed everyday" are from Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore where gang/drugs run free w/o respect for human life and total disregard for the rule of law??
+Doug Brockhard
Acknowledging problems that relate in anyway to black people is considered racism in this day and age Doug.
How many of the people "stopped" by Brady were arrested? Aren't "internet" gun sales already regulated (GCA 1968)? What portion of gun owners committ firearms related violent crimes? How do gun control laws affect ALL violent crimes?
Ted Talks....where's the balance?
As with many other issues in USA, the underlying cause is the influence corporations have on politics. Before we do anything else, we have to change the way politics work.
+bj0rn And before you can change the way politics work, you need to change the way elections work. So that a true democracy can indeed take place.
The problem is not the weapon with which violence is committed. It is that the violence is committed at all. There are two kinds of gun related deaths: accidents and attacks. In both cases, the solution is the same; educate people.
Accidents are the result of improper handling of a tool capable of doing great harm. Teach people how to handle a weapon and they won't have so many accidents.
Attacks are the result of an ignorant belief that the attack will improve the situation. If people are taught that the result of violence is making things worse rather than better, they don't attack others. And, if we're honest, a big part of the problem is that for some desperate people, violence does make their life better, at least for a time. The only solution to that is to find ways to keep them from getting that desperate in the first place. Educate them so they can get better jobs and the risks inherent in committing acts of violence become much more tangible. Despite how it might seem, most individuals are fairly rational actors. The choice between prison and going hungry is a very different choice than the choice between prison and a living wage, even if it only barely qualifies as such. And, almost more importantly, reducing desperation reduces the general stress that causes people to lose control. Education and employment will do much more to decrease violence than any prohibition law.
+finfan7 I personally hate guns. But i'm not for losing them in general. I was raised by a cop, i feel a little safer knowing theres a gun in the house and someone who knows how to use it. But i do believe in a little more regulation for guns, and it sorta sounds like your leaning that way. I personally believe to own a gun there should be just as much inconvenice as say.... owning a car. Maybe more. So like, a DMV, a test, classes to take. THEN you can buy a gun. I'm saying all this as a liberal. I am a liberal. Would Republicans find that reasonable? Because to me, that's pretty fuckin' reasonable. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
I really like your comment. It makes sense, but in addition, gun laws should be put in place.
Yeah, you're both about right.
There definitely needs to be a better process for obtaining the weapon. However, Rob M., the right to own a weapon, or any right really, is not something to cast away because some people do stupid things or are stuck in situations where a gun is a useful tool. It is a bad idea to take or give away liberties for any reason. History shows us that a liberty, once lost, is much harder to regain than it would be to maintain.
Optimally, we would have a multifaceted approach. Get money into education, for prevention, and get a simple law, a fine which makes it, while not worthy of imprisonment, financially irritating to be irresponsible. If you own a weapon but haven't been to a gun safety class, you are given a citation, a kind of gun parking ticket. If you own a weapon but do not store it safely, i.e. in a safe, that's another citation. The fines disincentivize irresponsible ownership and the money collected could be used to help pay for the education resources.
+finfan7 Exactly. That's exactly how I believe it should be. But at that point it's the same ad owning a car, and that's something they always tell you when you're learning to drive, driving is not a right, it's a privilege. The same should be seen with guns. And as soon as you're seen abusing that privilege, the state loses its trust in your responsibility.
Rob M. That's where the two differ.
Driving is a privilege because it isn't strictly necessary to give people the ability to travel long distances quickly. It does not present an extra risk your rights to life and liberty to go without a car. In fact, it makes it that much less likely you will die in a car accident.
The right to bear arms exists to allow citizens to defend themselves, a basic part of survival, and act as a militia, which helps the survival of the nation in times of great duress. Seeing weapons as defensive weapons, which is what they should be, they act to preserve life and liberty.
That's why one is a right and one is a privilege.
and 1,315 die every day from smoking related illness but clearly guns are the problem.
+puddinhead99
Never seen a smoker running amok with his cigarette, but you seem to be totally reasonable with your point.
Call up Mr.Dapperton, lord killan they needs to rip this guys arguments up
The only people who don't want background checks are nutty conspiracy theorists? Little does he know that is exactly the demographic watching these videos. :D
You can tell he works in advertising.
U.S. Population: 318,900,000
Total deaths, annual: 2,596,993
Vehicle-related deaths, annual: 33,804
Rifle-related homicides, annual: 285
Sources:
CDC Fast Stats
FBI Homicide Table
+manictiger Since we aren't just talking about rifles, but guns in general:
Number of murder victims killed with a gun in 2014: 8,124
Percentage of total murders committed with guns in 2014 across the US: 67.9% (Knives: 13.1%, Unknown: 13.5%, Personal (hands, feet, etc.): 5.5%)
Source: FBI Expanded Homicide Data 2014, tables 7 and 8
So thanks for the source, and I'd appreciate if you didn't bend data to support you opinion.
Also, on the motor vehicles, fro CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 64, Number 2, 02/16/2016, p. 10 - Injury mortality by mechanism and intent:
In 2013, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 33,804 deaths, accounting for 17.5% of all injury deaths. (My note: Keep in mind, most of these are accidents)
In 2013, 33,636 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18 and 19), accounting for 17.4% of all injury deaths in that year. The two major component causes of firearm injury deaths in 2013 were suicide (63.0%) and homicide (33.3%)
David Hellinga
It isn't supporting _'an opinion'_.
It's a direct counter to every time they try to restrict _"assault rifles"_, _"that shoulder thing that goes up"_ and _"30 magazine clips"_.
If you want to talk about firearm-related homicides in general, most of those are in cities with strict gun control.
On top of this, fire-arm related homicides include:
Police-related homicides
Home defense-related homicides
Business defense-related homicides
+David Hellinga
Oh yeah, and check this out:
wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Take a look at DC.
Previous laws have not made a positive decline in areas where they are most heavily implemented. Why would federally mandating them rather than giving communities and states power work any better?
aaaaannndd.....unsubscribe.
+Ben B aaaaaaand..... bye
+MadCatAttack123 Bye
Won't miss you
+Ben B Your world just got a little smaller...
+Ben B
LOL can't handle one person saying something you disagree with so you unsubscribe. Thin skin much?
Go to a gun show and buy a gun see who really lied to you. You can't get one at a gun show without a background check
what a joke TED ! his in advertising, I feel for your lost brother. that's all i felt for this guy. This guy does what every other anti gun does blames the firearm industry for the bad choices people make. WHY WHY is it that none of them EVER just blame the Father,Mother, Uncle and so on. IT's COMMON sense to lock your gun. Also if your kid is old enough teach him safety from the start. KIDS are always curious you may as well teach them.
+ShootAirsoftVideos I mean... people are stupid. Not all of them, but a lot of them are just... realllllly stupid. Just because they have the mental stability to know right from wrong doesn't mean they have to mental capacity to understand they shouldnt keep something dangerous near kids. It's common sense TO YOU, but its inconvenient to some people, and those people are incredibly irresponsible. What did that kid do to deserve an irresponsible parent? If we can stop gun violence before it happens... why don't we?
Rob M. So what, your objective is to Punish lawful and responsible gun owners by taking or implement laws that Does nothing to stop stupid people, Nor should it be. Everyday people get in accidents I don't see you calling for banning cars. You blame the operator of that car. WHY because its NORMAL to you to be around cars everyday. You UNDERSTAND how a car works even when you don't own one. This is the biggest problem with Anti gunners. They REFUSE To learn about the weapon itself. But the WORST CRIME they have is not educating themselves about guns.
Rob M. Problem is the majority of crime are commented with an illegal gun and this is what anti gunners end up using for them to want to out right BAN guns. Restricting is a term often use by anti gunners. Some may be like you who want laws that DO actually good. But the other 99% are nut anti gunners. I'll leave it at that.
ShootAirsoftVideos I don't meet too many anti-gunners, like people who want to outright BAN guns. But i do think that even if we're stopping a small percentage of crime by requiring more security in owning a gun, i think thats good enough. Even if it's 6% of crime that's stopped, that's still a good chunk. That's all im saying. I can definitely see both points of view though.
Gun violence isn't a new thing. To quite the contrary it's been declining.
Angry Aaron
And this SPECIFICALLY a gun issue?
Certainly not a mental health issue.
Really? More emo misinfo... I'm sorry for your loss but just BC u can make a living stripping away the 2nd Amendment, so important it was just after 1st Amendment, doesn't give u any credibility to strip away those rights. Your stated 'facts' are categorically wrong. Plz be pragmatic, not dictorial.
Bullshit...
"If you disagree with me then you don't care about peoples' lives" ~ this guy
The gun is not the aggressor it’s a tool
How many people are killed everyday by cars? LOL
+Nate d-O-doubleG So getting a driving license is easier than the Brady background checks? Just asking.
Does this guy have any idea about the epidemic of hit and run vehicle deaths in Detroit?
The stabbings, beatings, and other deliberate homicide crimes there?
The only thing saving the lives of some people in their own home is a .45.
+InMaTeofDeath - Just hope it's not a cop, lest poor dead doggy.
+InMaTeofDeath
The point is self defense, something that's been part of human nature since walking upright.
This speaker is intellectually limited, dishonest, emotionally driven, a permission seeker and a nihilist.
The issue is self defense against violence, not just gun violence.
+InMaTeofDeath
A dog isn't half as reliable, safe, or economical as a gun.
If you think a dog is good enough, get a dog, but don't force everyone into your inefficient box.
+InMaTeofDeath
Now you're obfuscating.
What's your point?
+InMaTeofDeath There are 350,000 dog bites per year that require a visit to hospital.
He's an admitted propagandist; it shouldn't be surprising that he's going to lie to the audience.
And look at you. You learned your lies from who, a politician *ahem* liar who gets votes by saying what you want to hear. If you want facts, do your research first.
+Winsane C. what lies do I know and what politician do you imagine is teaching them to me?
+The Justicar Yes, he's an illuminati, chemtrails, inside job, fucking koolaid drinking, new world order stooge... can't have that now can we.
It's all about the money! *Every big company*
You know you have a liberal when they say,"on the wrong side of history." My question what does that mean?
It roughly translates to "but I don't know a lot about history."
You have that right!
Sometimes the truth is hard to tell and there's always people who don't wanna hear it.
Thank you to much TED for increasing your content in regard to social justice and the like. The backlash of ignorance proves how important these talks are.
+poopisnotpoop The support of blithering idiocy proves just how much this insanity must be stopped.
+poopisnotpoop
What has a reasonable gun law to do with social justice?
Holy smokes! The Brady Campaign is still around?
5:16 goodbye your opinion does not equal fact.
Guns aren't the problem, guns are not violent, society is.
As long as people know the difference between gun deaths and gun violence.
Cigarettes, alcohol, over the counter drugs, sugar, etc. How many deaths are caused by these? A death by gun is immediate in most cases, but these other agents kill slowly and exponentially more. The loss of your brother drives personal bias, I get it, but this romanticized notion of yours to end gun violence only feeds black markets and is not as bad as things we should actually be concerned with. Be realistic, criminals won't be deterred by some law. If they want to cause pain and suffering they WILL find a tool of destruction to do so.
Please realize violence in general is an expression of an individual trying to find one's identity within their environment. Have you ever thought that maybe he very structure of society is to blame? After all, 7 billion homosapiens are competing for scarce resources, and that's just one species of animal that inhabits this planet... Don't be so egocentric to think the universe and its laws must bow before you.
"Truth on our side", Truth is subjective, what you really want on your side is facts.
30 people a day are murdered, 60 commit suicide. Those 30 a day, 29 are in gun free zones and cities, and 90% drug related. We have a drug problem, pharma and recreational. Drug war and Zoloft. #2A