@@pranc236 That should be available at your local Walmart and Tractor Supply. No need for it to be in a convenience store, but I mean why not there too? I'll go with that.
Wrote a research paper on this in college. I was trying to prove that gun control legislation does in fact work. Found out the opposite was true... whoopsie
Studies are meaningless unless we have uniform rules nationwide. Yes it’s ineffective to have a gun control law in New York when someone can drive an hour or two and get a gun somewhere else. Bottom line, it’s easier to kill yourself or someone else with a gun then it is with anything else. Take away substantial number of guns, deaths by gun and deaths totally will go down. But so many of you are just happy with thoughts and prayers every time a bunch of people get killed.
If you shouldn’t be legally allowed to have an assault weapon just in case you need to fight tyranny, why the hell did we have to send thousands of assault weapons to Ukraine in order to help them fight tyranny?
Uhhh...I dunno. Maybe cuz RaciZuM! Plus we didn't send no assault weapons nowhere cuz nobdy can define what an assault weapon is! Where's your precious logic now Collin?!? Game. Set. Catch. Gunz R bad. Nuff said. Mic drop!
I mean we gave over 400,000 machineguns to the Taliban too, but yeah, that's a perfectly valid point. But more importantly what it shows is we need Javelins.
I did a study in college using FBI crime statistics that showed that banning rifles wouldn’t have a a statistically significant effect on gun crime, because over 90 percent are pistols.
If that's true that's really deceiving because some people might think that it will reduces gun crimes drastically. Consider even those people who buy guns illegally.
And is banning pistols, to get a statistically significant effect, the right thing to do? "Shall Not Be Infringed", and since at least one person will be saved if they or an armed bystander uses a firearm in a defensive gun use...#NotOneMoreIsBogus
Here’s the gun control I believe in: 1. Always treat a gun as if it’s loaded. 2. Never aim a firearm at something you don’t intend to destroy. 3. Practice rangetime to protect your aim. 4. The right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.* Edit: Holy bloody hell this thing has sparked a titanic war. I don’t have the time or interest to read the 355 comments, but ima put in a but more about the fourth aspect. As was very well understood at the time of writing it, congress (including Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights) understood that the nation requires a standing army, and people were by no means okay with having to trust their government to not go bad. Because an army is necessary, law abiding citizens may not have their right to own weapons of war infringed in any way. That means guns. That means armored vehicles. Heck, it even means warships (the entire US navy of that time was civilian owned). The purpose being so that citizens can rise up if the government cannot or will not perform it’s duty to it’s people.
Here’s what we can do his gun control that will work If you wish to purchase a gun you need to complete a safety course in pass the final test with 100% You need to demonstrate that you know how the gun works and how to clean it properly You also must pass a background check witch you have to do all ready and take a mental health Check like a psychiatric exam Let me know if you guys agree with me if should there be more or less
While that is often true and I believe the ATF should be cut back largely, it is important to see that there is a proven way to reduce all violence including gun violence and suicide and that is by increasing quality of life. While being a criminal is a personal choice that should have personal ramifications poverty and low standards of living promote criminality. I find the whole gun issue in America a great distraction and waste of effort when they should be throwing every resource and trying every idea to increase the quality of life in their country. However we finally come around to the issue of rampant lobbying and corruption that is rusting away our democracy. Doing things like making hospitals display their cost or marketers give you access to your own data are always the things they would rather not talk about. There is no party up their who is actually willing to make the sacrifices to do these things. So I expect the US to slowly crumble as china with its authoritarian socialism takes the position of leader of the world.
@@magiricod I have no idea where you live, but Americans in general have an excellent standard of living. We rank 7th among 34 OECD countries Factually, if it were not for the murders committed by drug gangs in the large, already Democratic-socialist controlled cities like Chicago, where the Democrats refuse to actually fight crime, the US would be one of the lowest gun related homicide nations in the world. In 2021, Chicago alone reported over 1,000 drug gang and gun related deaths, which accounts for about 1/10th of all of the US’s non-suicide firearm deaths. It is drug gang activity that causes gun deaths in the US... it has nothing to do with our standard of living.
But why stop at guns then? Why aren't you allowed to have a personal nuke ready to launch in your garden? If you think that not everyone should be able to own a nuke, where between gun and nuke do you draw the line? That's a genuine question
@@portalwalker_ If a government was so tyrannical that they would use a nuke on it's own people then one would hope the people would storm the government and remove them by force. I live in Australia and gun control measures have not worked, all they did was to create a prohibition style market which is at full steam ahead mode. Gun deaths have increased in recent years and even kids have become more brazen in their crimes.
@@portalwalker_you can’t hunt animals with a nuke, you can’t kill a home invader with a nuke without destroying your home, nukes actually only have the purpose of killing innocent people
The data is never inconclusive, It's just too complex for simpletons to understand and we need to trust the experts. Also, if a right can be infringed because "data" shows that it benefits society then it wasn't really a right anyway.
Statistically, you are wrong because out of 3 statistics I chose, none proved anything false. So clearly, it is factually true that statistics can't prove false information. Trust the science.
Meh , it really isnt like that , what your saying is that people are easily misled by others like saying Half of americans support gun control , which means nothing right cuz the other half doesnt so its a meaningless stat in a demoratic debate , the issue is more about peoples basic common knowledge I mean you CAN say 10 % of people hate pepsi , But if you dont understand that means 90% dont then whose fault is that
@@Steve-zf7sr Oh my goodness, thanks for the smile. You pretty much proved my point , thank you. Let me try to explain what I mean. A simplistic question such as Do you hate Pepsi, yes or no, of course will produce a more 'pure' statistic. That people 'can believe' with a reasonable certainty. That's what most people think of when they hear statistics. And that's why statistics can be misleading and even dangerously mis-leading. You need to realize that more advanced types of statistical analysis depends on more complicated questions with more than a yes/no answer. And there have been studies (!) that show how a question is WORDED can lead to different responses. And that even the SETTING in which the questions are asked can also greatly effect the answers. Going further, the specific parameters used in the gathering of the data are easily manipulated. For example, you may not have noticed, but there's been a rise in the number of news reports about "mass shootings" in the USA. There's a 'statistic floating around, that there are 800 mass shootings per year in the USA. I have several friends and family members that have quoted those numbers to me. I got ONE of them to listen when I explained they needed to be wary of that number. Why do I say this? Could you please give me an across the board, agreed upon, EXPLAINED to the public, definition of a mass shooting? You can't because there isn't one. You might be surprised that a fight in south LA where 3 gang members shoot at each usually qualifies as a mass shooting. Say a drug deal at a seedy dive bar goes bad, and the buyer pops off three rounds as he runs for his car and drives away? Yes, there's another mass shooting. I suspect that's a LONG way from what most people think of when they hear 'mass shooting.' Just yesterday I watched a video where an ex-FBI agent stated how often police are 'ambushed' nowadays. That didn't sound right to me so I started some research. It looks to me like he's quoting a 2017/2018 study that showed a HUGE uptick in ambushes against law enforcement! Wow, what happened?! Further research revealed that the group doing the study decided to change what most reasonable people consider an ambush: a pre-meditated, pre-planned attack on someone. They instead decided to include ANY instance where someone being detained or arrested attempted to elude or fight back using a firearm or any other weapon. Voila, your ambush numbers have now risen dramatically. And lastly, once all that data is 'crunched' it has to be presented or reported. I recall several chapters in one statistics textbook that discussed how to easy it is skew the perception of the data you gathered by how you described the data, (what you included and what you eft out or downplayed) and how you set up your charts, graphs and other visual representations.
@@GoToPhx Im going to finish reading your entire response i promise but once again The whole wordiing and context issue is only effective through low level cognition Would you like to be given a billion dollars covered in horse shit? Well there you go 98 percent of people dont want welfare Wait what ? Lol I get it Thats not simply an effort tp manipulate its abusive and our resoonsibility not to get played Theres a clip of mathew machonehey getting annoyed with joy behart for trying to get him to agree he is anti second amendment based on his wanting better laws because its intemtional Do you think you can get elected In a red state like Tx being anti gun See he never said he was anti gun and the question was about elections and demographics But the headline would have been hes anti gun and he said i wont answer loaded questions like that I guess my point is Numbers dont lie People do And if you stick to raw data It is what it is and qualifying it is unneccessary All the on tuesday morning , after eating alpo dog food Is intentional to corrupt the data and people should be smarter than to be played by others with agendas
The issue with the whole "You're more likely to be murdered if you own a gun" question is that it ignores the very real idea of "If you're more likely to be murdered, you're going to want to own a gun."
“Large capacity magazines” no, they are standard capacity for the gun. Also look how well Chicago is doing with some of the strictest gun control laws.
Strictest gun control laws in the US maybe. As long as you allow people to own and carry firearms without the need to do so your laws are not strict enough, simple as that. All that middle-age bullshit about the constitution permitting citizens to own guns is just a ruse, you all just want to keep your murder toys, doesnt matter how many innocent people die, its all about your fun.
@@anon_y_mousse You dont really think this has anything to do with party-politics do you? Its all about whos giving you the money for your election campaigns, and the reps seem to be the ones getting the dough from the nra and co. Any sane person would just shake their head in disbelief over all the bullshit thats going on in the US right now, where owning guns is more important than protecting the lives of children, where the police can do or not do whatever they want, where greedy corporations openly rule the country through their braindead proxis like Trump, Bush jr and co. Are you all out of your mind that you still support shit like that? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Or are you really such a bunch of selfish pricks to whom nobody else matters apart of your fun and your right to own firearms made with the sole purpose of killing things?
You mean Chicago in the _USA_ ? The federation? Without border controls? That city? Why not mention Japan? Because it’s not comparable? Is it? I mean, half of you think you can stop drugs with walls over there and now you can’t stop guns? Is there a logical discrepancy here I don’t see? If I sell chocolate in one city and the other outlaws chocolate, what do you do when you still want chocolate that’s not fairly expensive? Exactly, you cross over into another city and enjoy your chocolate. That’s why these kind of statement you made proves nothing.
A study has shown that one of the major contributing factors of mass shootings is the *media contagion effect* when media networks broadcast the shooter's face all over, which is one of the shooter's motivations, to have their 15 minutes of fame. The media is partly to blame.
I would agree with "The media is partly to blame." if partly was defined as 99%. The media is majorly, almost completely, to blame for mass gun homicide.
@@phelandhu That''s not proven by evidence. I do think the media has a part to play, but mass shootings are so common nowadays that no one I know that doesn't directly research each specific events can name any of the recent perpetrators, yet they are increasing in frequency. These people are suffering psychological breaks, and warning signs constantly go ignored. It's complex. I wish it was as simple as "it's all the medias fault" but, it's really not that simple. It is true, however...that many recent perpetrators believed they felt a "kinship" with past ones; and they wouldn't know about past ones if not for some form of reporting. Also, do the media have anything to do with the emerging mental health crisis? I would say that they certainly do not help, and do likely worsen it; but also recall that many of these people don't necessarily watch or listen to mainstream media outlets but, rather fringe internet websites. All of this to say; it's damn complicated.
@@someguy198 I know someone who told me that if they were going to die they would probably do something like that just so they would be remembered after their death and their "message" would be spread media Hollywood and music absolutely glorify gun violence and I don't think you can argue that it helps the problem and if some internet forum could change someones brain chemistry and concept of reality so readily (I believe it can) then something more mainstream could have the same effect.
Many of us buy guns because we are at an increased risk of getting shot where we are at. Saying owning a gun makes it more likely that you will get shot makes it sound like the gun owner is "creating" the risk by owning the gun. This statement of correlation shapes a negative opinion of gun ownership without giving enough detail to inform the listener as to why.
Please read the rand study. This video misrepresents it. The actual study cites a few gun control measures that have 'moderate' evidence supporting a reduction in violent crime. Rand goes into some detail and provides additional context.
"Many of us buy guns because we are at an increased risk of getting shot where we are at." The opposite can be said to be true. Indeed is the argument used by people outside of the U.S. The dumbest pro gun argument I have heard of is that, owning a gun reduces one's chance of dying, or owning a gun could've stopped a mass shooter. Columbine and other school shootings are evidence of the opposite. Even the SWAT took 2 hours after the death of the two shooters to even step inside the school, whilst the armed security were no where to be seen through out. I respect America's gun ownership and culture, but it is not the best it can be. Plus, no pro gun argument can deny the lack of strong regulations. This in turn leads to more 'bad guys' owning a gun, with you thus requiring the need to be armed your self. It those protect you, no denying that, but it only helps the capitalists making the firearms with more profit.
Common sense tells me that even if you banned assault rifles, criminals would still get them and whoever owns one would be an unnecessary casualty. If you want to stop gun violence, stop people from wanting to commit gun violence. Firearms are tools, not killers! PEOPLE are killers!
So how would you, say, decrease the amount of gun violence? What causes the US to have such rampant amounts of gun deaths, comparable to 3rd world countries? Im genuinly curious, i have little idea about the culture and laws and whatnot regarding the americas
@@ijsbeermeneer9952 In my opinion, it's the lack of safety nets we have in place. I believe strongly that our right to firearms should absolutely not be infringed upon, but I also believe that, with a constitutional right to own firearms, we should have a more strict, intensive process for obtaining a firearm with people who take their jobs seriously and know lives could be on the line. We shouldn't be stripping rights of citizens to provide safety that will never truly exist. We, instead, should address the root of the problem, very often being poverty and mental health issues (often caused by domestic violence or cycles of abuse). I can garuntee that many mass shootings would've been avoided if we had proper safety nets with responsible people who know the gravity of their job ready to provide help. Don't strip our rights. Provide services that increase our quality of life.
New Zealander here. After the Christchurch massacre our gun laws became extremely strict. Who'd have guessed that our shooting numbers WENT UP as criminals became more confident in their ability to freely victimise unarmed citizens.
up? yes exactly who would have thought... damn that is actually annoying.. and shoudl be thought of a nasty result in this kind of thing.... i was expecting the australian model to be used against the american gun ownership and was going to point out those are two very different countries... one has a piddly population of 25 mill and the other... over 300 mill... and australia has NEVER been invaded over land and if an isolated island... i am australian .... still surprised taht the NZ problem got worse.. is it still bad?
@@albertbresca5801 tf does being invaded over land have anything to do with it??? The last time the US was invaded (not counting alaskan islands or overseas territory) was over 200 years ago... right? Thats like my nation having laws because Napoleon crossed the Rhine !! Madness ! I just don't get why the US can't solve that problem... I'm german, so big cultural differences, but the US did it here. After ww2 weapons and explosives were so ubiquitous we still dig up over 1000 bombs and guns each year! Add to that an era of extreme uncertainty and a collapse of all governance and somehow the americans were able to get it under control. ... We can still own guns. We have hunters who own more than enough guns. It's not like we are allergic to them. I just don't get how the US was able to solve it here, where it was a literal warzone and people had to kll each other for scraps of meat, but isnt able to do it in their own nation now. :/
I love when people give the argument of "the second amendment was made for muskets" okay. So that means that the second amendment was made with the intentions of allowing all citizens to purchase the most advanced military weaponry of that time period. The musket was literally the most deadly weapon in the world at that time, and they wanted to make sure citizens had access to them.
If the second amendment was just made for muskets, then the first amendment is not for people to express their opinion on the internet… BTW, when the second amendment was written, they authorized ships to have cannons, not just muskets ;)
@@paulsernine5302 No I just know bullshit when I hear it. Show me one ounce of actual progress from what our government officials have done, republican or democrat.
USA ranks like 3rd in the world for gun violence. If the five highest US cities for gun violence were pulled from the statistic, US would rank 198th of 200 countries. These 5 cities, Chicago, Philadeplphia, LA, St. Louis, and Baltimore have ridiculously strict gun laws. It's an urban tragedy, don't let it spread. Pack everyday!
"If the five highest US cities for gun violence were pulled from the statistic, US would rank 198th of 200 countries" Lol what a load of crap. Do you lot even think before repeating such easily corrected lies?
@@solaceofsnow2140 Prove it then. I've seen the claim before, but no-onbe has been able to pony up proof funnily enough lol. Of course most crime is in urban areas, that's true almost everwhere.
Wow imagine that making laws directed at people who aren't breaking any laws don't affect those who are breaking laws and adding to crime statistics the laws are meant to be reducing .
No they are meant to control! And when the people in government are committing more crime than the Citizens then gun control is only meant to control the Citizens. I’m surprised that some of these people aren’t trying to pass vehicle control because of vehicle deaths.
Here's the thing: Even if there *WAS* strong data to show that gun control did offer a measurable and statistically significant increase in public health, using that data to disarm an individual and render him/her defenseless in the face of a threat would still be immoral. That said, you can always count on Reason to offer lucid and rational analyses that doesn't carry water for any major party's position, and for that they should be applauded.
You can certainly *not* count on Reason to offer anything you described. Reason is a globohomo puppet-piece. Nothing it does is "lucid and rational analysis," it's just slanted in a way you sometimes like.
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to.... - Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966); - CCW -Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939); - CCW - Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966); - CCW -Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971); - Waiting Period -Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968). - Form 4473
To be pedantic, 2A says nothing directly about either CCW or acquiring arms, so arguably those are not rights. But acquiring arms is a necessary enough precondition for the right to keep that it's likely a right by implication. OTOH I'd have a hard time arguing down even a 100% CCW ban on constitutional grounds if open carry was unrestricted (that said, I'm more in favor of CCW than open carry, just for different, non-2A reasons).
@@spikedpsycho2383 open carry *is* bearing arms. Arguing CCW on the grounds of 2A basically requires tacking on an "in any way I want" clause which would be highly problematic for other reasons. Would it be a violation of my rights for you to say I can't bring a gun onto your property? Trying to say you making that restriction is okay under 2A but that a CCW ban (with no open carry ban) is unconstitutional starts to look gerrymandered.
120.5 guns per 100 people. (393 million total) In the USA guns were used in: 21,000 homicides & 26,000 suicides. That means, assuming each gun can only kill one person, (obviously, some shootings have multiple casualties from the same weapon) for every 8,543 guns, one gun kills someone. if you discount suicide, that ratio goes down to 18714:1 a similar comparison of automobiles is 42,795 deaths, & 263.6 million total "passenger vehicles" So for each 6159 cars, one kills someone. All numbers are for 2021.
What on earth does total number of guns have to do with anything? The only true comparison is homicides per 100,000 population. The US has by far the worst of ALL 1st world nations, all of whom have tighter gun laws.
@@jernhardstang1565 "Wondering how the homicide number might be determined" FBI stats have the definitions. " Including inadvertent discharge, legal civilian defensive action, legal law enforcement action" None of these are homicides and not counted as such in the FBI stats.
@@ratofvengence not to mention the suicides and police and gang activity make up about 90% of these crimes, leaving the other 10% to things like mass shootings and ordinary homicide. i may be about 10-15% off
@@ZaMonolith1986 Again, as I told the other person, the FBI has definitions for these stats. Homicides don't include suicides or police shootings at all. And yes, gang activity is homicides, why on earth wouldn't they be lol? I already explained this above... "leaving the other 10% to things like mass shootings and ordinary homicide." It's way more than that, as should be clear now. "i may be about 10-15% off" Lol.
Neither of these was a war, people that abuse drugs die, their own fault. People that use guns irresponsibly face consequences, again, their fault. People who lack personal responsibility tend to make irrational decisions.
A town in Holland did an experimental test on road traffic measures..... they got rid of ALL of it. The removed traffic lights, street markings and signs, in a radical experiment to see what would happen to driver safety in an environment where there was no hand-holding. Road traffic accidents dropped radically. In an environment where everyone had to take personal responsibility for driving safely, everyone paid vastly more attention, made no assumptions about what other cars would do, and as a result, the whole town was safer. I think there are lessons to be learned here about the "prohibition industry". Its the same with knives here in the UK. The laws keep getting stricter, but the knife crime keeps going up. Perhaps a different approach is required, because you cannot legislate against crime and stupidity.
hold your horses cowboy. theres another experiment where they switched from left to right driving and accidents dropped down as well.... for a time. then people got used to it and the accidents went back up to usual rates. i promise you that after a while, that town would probably have higher traffic accidents.
@@slinger7529that's a great point, but I feel like he was more trying to say that prohibition or restriction is not always the answer to all of our problems. You said that the other town went back to their usual rates, which implies that they didn't excessively exceed the previous rates. Who's to say that the town in Holland would exceed former rates. In fact, we presumably don't even have the information to say that they went back up in the first place.
I know this is an old comment. But I can share with you my perspective on this. I was on a small island for a year called Saipan. While on the island a massive typhoon (hurricane) hit the island. It wiped out power for about 50 days. Traffic lights didn’t work whatsoever. What we realized on the island in that time was that when there were no traffic lights, traffic flowed much smoother.
@@slinger7529 That would work on small communities where everybody has seen everybody face, so you would feel more responsability or at least fear that commiting a felony won't go free. In a metropolis, of course they would relax. But I've been to small towns where there were no traffic lights and people had respect. Also the ticket cameras were on spot.
We need a serious believer Second Amendment president who will issue pardons for every non violent, technical, gun control conviction that's occurred since the 1930s.
Englishmen here. After the Scottish Shootings in 1996. The British Government took fast action to completely ban the ownership of firearms...Granted we still have illegal imports of firearms to gang members. But generally speaking the likelihood of you seeing or even knowing someone who has been injured or killed by a firearm is extremely low...Our epidemic is Knife Crime.
@carlthelongshoreman1979 As bad as knife crime is in the UK, it doesn’t even come close to being as problematic as gun crime is in America. The UK is a crime free paradise compared to America.
While I appreciate what Reason is trying to do here, I still don’t believe my rights are subject to the statistical likelihood of “making society safer”.
One could make the argument that you shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Make no mistake. You are in a democracy. People have been voting away the rights enumerated in the Constitution for a long time and the checks and balances employed in preserving those rights have been hijacked.
While I agree this is the argument people make and replying without any data ti the guy who us using data to argue makes your side look pretty terrible.
Best idea ever. Even from here, Spain, i can tell you the difference, you have free speech (even with Big te hs attacks) and here polive can came to the door for a tweet. USA is the last and only free nation of the world, if you fall, we will. 1 7 7 6
We have multiple studies on that very subject. Case studies, in fact. It's called history; just look up any authoritarian regime. Namely the one with all those guys who could see Kyle.
Look into Venezuela. There has been research put out that after they got rid of gins, violence went way up with criminal on civilian. And government on civilian.
I read the laws in Mexico, they are incredibly restrictive. Yet they are the 3rd or 4th highest. Brazil is the first. But I'd like to know the laws in Brazil. If you can send a link
@@XXXPPMXXX laws only work if they're enforced and followed. These are places infamous for ineffective law enforcement. Cartel laws have more bearing on large swaths of these populations rendering something like gun control laws and they're effect on society not very analogous to first world countries unfortunately.
The best studies show gun violence like the vast majority of violent crime is an inner city problem. If more guns meant more crime, wouldn't the bulk of gun violence be where all the legal guns are.
Exactly… Inner city, black on black crime distorts the statistics for the rest of country, but for some reason we quantify data as if those crimes are rampant all over the place. And, the reasons for this disproportionate amount of crime has already been put forth many years ago by libertarian-leaning conservatives like Thomas Sowell. The left, who often wields way too much legislative power would rather ignore the facts as usual and instead demonize all guns/gun owners.
Well if you compare the homicide rates of individual US states to those of other countries, you'll find that pretty much every single state has an extremely high rate in international comparison. The only two that are ok, not great but ok, are maine and new hampshire. Whereas for example Montana has no big citys, little gun control, few left wing people or minorities etc. yet its homicide rate is 5.0 compared to 2.0 in canada and 1.7 in belgium (those are pretty much the worst developed countries). All developed countries are pretty diverse, but one of the few things they all have in common, is stricter gun laws than the US. Btw i'm not even anti gun. I'm swiss and own like 10 guns, including an AK47 and full auto SIG550. Its probably more the attitude and specifics of how it works in the US, not so much the general availability of guns.
As a latin guy i will tell you this, some people are terrified of guns and the ones who actually acquire one have lots of cash, being inside a third world country that means not a lot of us have guns and you could say that's a way to regulate the use and purchase of guns and the big surprise is we're no where near SAFE, in fact, MOST of the criminals here have guns and we can't do shit against them, why? because guns are too expensive, only cops are allowed to fight criminals and the law itself is very specific when it comes to "self defense" and even when people defend themselves there's a chance the criminal will fight back in court, so what do we do? just pray that cops will catch them eventually meanwhile people feel unsafe and most tragically die. For me to see american politicians saying "life would be much safer without guns" is a big lie, we ARE NOT safe based on this simple logic, corruption exists and criminals will get guns one way or another to intimidate or achieve their mischievous goals. People should always have the right to fight back and not be condemn to an insecure style of living even inside your house just because some maggot who picked your house will enter by force and take everything you worked for. "There's no proof of this will not work" it doesn't work, we are the proof, it just doesn't.
Extreme minarchism is the solution for Latin America. Corrupt, expensive regimes only bring poverty, high crime, hunger and mass unemployment. Having lived in Peru, I'd love to see that terrible regime crumble. It's time to start from 0 Peru failed after a socialist coup in the 1960s.. today it's the same bloated socalist regime under another name in power.
Absolutely right, it just doesn't work. Except in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, England, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and all the other western democracies.
@@paulmcewen7384 Doesn't work in Canada either. People will find other ways to harm you if they don't have a gun Personally speak as I was stabbed defending a young lady at a party in Surrey Canada. Sure wish I had the right to defend myself and the young lady with a pew pew rather than trying to disarm a violent thug bare handed. F off with your "guns r scarry" bs
@Vesta_the_Lesser Did I say or imply that gun violence is not a problem, or that I don't want anyone to do anything about it, or did you come to that conclusion on your own through your own biases? If you read my statement and take it for what it is then it's clear to see your biases are making you come to that conclusion, and it doesn't change the fact that the source of the money for the study more often than not influences the results of said study. Simply put, you read more into my statement than was there, and that's on you. The problem is there are dozens of solutions being offered, but the only acceptable one for the people yelling about the problem is to ban guns, which will not be a solution at all. We have several cities in this country that are proof of that, as well as Brazil's crime rate falling by 34% over three years after they made it easier for citizens to own and carry guns, and Japan having one of the highest suicide rates in the world despite citizens not being allowed to own guns. There are plenty of facts to the contrary that gun control works, and the fact that people will always find another way to do evil, hence the saying you can't legislate against evil, all you can do is try to prepare for it. Being armed is one of those ways.
@Vesta _The_Lesser It is a problem, but not a major one 300,000 gun deaths a year The vast majority are suicide (which is more of a social issue) and misfires, malfunctions, and others. If you also take into account self defense, then decide what is gang violence (again social issues) it is rare. The DOJ found that 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally, no laws put in place will do anything if the current ones aren't followed.
I live in Australia and can say without doubt the gun control laws introduced 25years ago have done nothing to stop gun violence. Infact gun deaths went up and illegal gun caches are seized regularly. The only thing our gun laws did was to make it easier for criminals to kill.
@@Finnbobjimbob It has though? What way has gun control worked? Just yesterday yet another unarmed man was shot by a criminal. That's around 10 people just this year.
I'm glad they showed politicians from both parties advocating for gun control. As someone who actually wants to get rid of all gun laws, it's frustrating to see republicans get so much credit.
In other words, we can only give democrats credit for being somewhat honest about the evil they want to do of constantly destroying more of the human right to self-defense.
True, but are there many democrat controlled state legislatures that have passed constitutional carry? I think some Republicans are doing a pretty good job of keeping our 2nd amendment intact. There are decades of harm that need to be corrected, however. I just don't see many Dems up to the challenge.
The guest is right. Studying statistics taught me that it’s very hard to prove causation, and most studies you read in the news are sensationalized or BS. I know a bunch of people personally who are MDs and do research as part of their job (all intelligent people, but also very left wing type of folks). They have such a political axe to grind going into the study, I have no faith in the results to not be biased. For example, my one friend described her study as how she’s trying to show having guns in the home increases risk of suicide in minors. There ya go…
The reason why the 2nd amendment exists, tyranny and foreign attacks, can be measured. In the last century more than 150 million people were killed by their own government, WW1 killed 30 million, WW2 killed 80 million. And there are 500k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. Gun control, other than being unconstitutional, could only affect those of the 15k annual homicides actually committed with guns. Subtract all of those committed with illegal guns that by definition can't be affected by law, police shootings,... and you might have 1k homicides with legal guns. By about 100 million people in the US that live in a household with a firearm. And about 4k homicides with non-guns, probably mostly by the 230 million without guns. Meaning, you could prevent literally zero murders through gun control and would just force people to use other means, which the 4k homicides show is absolutely possible. Worse than that, illegal guns would be through the roof while legal self defense nearly impossible. Zero defensive gun uses, and then the real crime wave would start. Thousands of death by gun control, not legal guns. And that's even before war or tyrannical gen0cides happen.
Gee, all I needed to hear was that old Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Free Kentucky News: The obedient must be slaves ua-cam.com/video/8JyqZKGXAg4/v-deo.html There are NO good guys now
As soon as someone mentions statistics, the reasonable part of the conversation is over, because anyone can find a study that supports their position, and it's probably wrong.
Let us never forget those who "Champion Gun Control" in politics were the *same ones demanding to Defund the Police* and promoting a soft on crime solution that now has NYC looking like it did in the late 80's to early 90's. Its about POWER not like they care about "public safety". Actions tell far more than their words ever will.
"Soft on crime" is not a thing. The Idea is to keep one time offenders from falling into career criminality by keeping them out of prison. Also defunding the police does not mean cutting police Budgets it means keep police doing police stuff like preventing and investigating crime. And not catching all the Fallout from failed social institutions. It means police have the ability to do their job instead of having to act as Medics, psychologists, socialworkers.... which they correctly have to do.
@David Daniels Just no. By mainstream Media you mean those idependently reporting on facts instead of lying and being a propaganda Tool of the American Nazi Party.. oh whait they are called Republicans aren't they...
Yeah the whole thing is a nonsense, look at EU, we have guns here too in central europe and we have no mass shootings. Even my neighbor has guns, I do too, and next neighbor 3 houses further has guns too. What we have here tho is almost non-existent war on drugs, like even when calculated per capita its like 10 times lower than in US. We also have a good education system, to me it seems to be like at least 5 times as serious and strict, + its mandatory. You cant really teach kids competence and responsibility if the schools and their parents fail at it completely. I think if you want to prevent the crime, any kind of crime, you need to start with a good education, promoting good behavior, manners, teaching responsibility and adequate morals. That alone will reduce all the violence and crime. Then the next step would be to reduce bullying, both by schools (school officials, teachers, students) and esp. by the state and its injustice in legal system. If you bully and destroy peoples lives, they'll snap. It can be me, it can be you, your neighbor, anyone really. Teach people responsibility, treat them properly, create a good environment for them to live in and they wont go on streets shooting at each other. Thats the only thing which would reduce the gun violence effectively without taking a single gun. Also other things like for example ending the war on drugs would help, it would stop being such a problem and substances would even become safer for everyone. The same effects had prohibition on both alcohol safety and violence because of prohibition, but people uneducated on the matter see it as the ultimate boogeyman, just like they did with alcohol back in the day. Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest, imagine if they legalized most substances, all the gangs and cartels dependent on usa would fall apart in matter of weeks.
The question is "why people decide to kill other people?" not "what tools people use to kill?" An answer to the first question will provide a solution to the problem but politicians do not want to have an answer to this question they want citizens to be disarmed because disarmed citizens are easier to control and don't have much chance of standing against a tyrannical government, a government that doesn't trust the citizens and is afraid of armed citizens is a tyrannical one.
Right, the US has lots of guns and lots of gun deaths on the world stage. Only Brazil has more deaths per year. And gang and drug infested corrupt Latin America has more deaths per head. Great company! Guns and gun violence is simply a non-issue in the vast majority of the developed world besides the US.
@@super8mate gun deaths in other countries are simply NOT reported in A.ericsn media. But apparently you couldn't explain why our country with 400 million does NOT have 400 million shootings, duh!!
@@super8mate I'm saying three things. #1: yup #2: nobody cares about other countries #3: regardless of other countries YOU haven't explained why U.S. has 400 million guns but we don't have 400 million shootings. Apparently we gun owners are NOT the problem.
@@ltdc426 This is plain crazy. Admittedly USA residents don't hear anything about Australia BUT - I live here in Australia, and we changed our gun laws after a particular mass shooting. We've had zero mass shootings since then. ZERO. Gun control regulation will not stop a violent person from being violent, but a violent person with a knife cannot inflict the same level of damage to a person out of 'arms length reach' from them as they could with a gun because....range. HOWEVER - the USA already has high levels of gun ownership, so I don't see how you can 'disarm' the bulk of the citizenry. God help America.
I think back to when I studied statistics in university. Our Prof brought in a book he had entitled “How To Lie With Statistics”. It was a tongue-in-cheek humorous publication meant for fun. In it, it was proven that it was cheaper to own a Cadillac than a VW Beetle by cherry-picking the numbers such as the Caddy was in Florida and the Bug was in a very remote town in Alaska where parts had to be flown in. Another was looking at crop yields of fields in arid regions vs places where rainfall is more plentiful by picking particular drought years in the latter and unusually high rainfall years in the former. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is no different.
I heard that Bill Gate had recommended a book, maybe the same book, titles how to lie using facts and statistics (or very close to that). I was skeptical and did some research and sure enough. It was brought about during the covid madness and Fauci. It is so easy to manipulate people using facts and statistics. A cardiologist told me Fausic was a political hack and was mad that he was using facts and statistics to manipulate people. He even used an example like child hospitalizations from covid tripled. He said that can sound like a lot but if there was only 1 child hospitalized and now there are 3 then that would be true bit that still is not a lot. I have trying to explain that to people. Just like doubling your money. Wow you doubled your money!? Well doubling a dollar isn't significant but if you double a million dollars that is way more significant. I was saying that when the economy was trying to recover the statistics used on the so called huge growth. When you shut things down and make people stay home then job numbers are way down so percentages will be much larger with a much smaller number. I won't explain any more. I know you get it. Hopefully others do too.
statistics can give good portraits but for that to be the case the data needs to be troughly investigated. ... most studies don't even bother with basic review of the data. As they say in the statistical world ... context is everything.
What a completely worthless and uninformed statement from someone who has never even seen another civilized country where no one is armed, not even the police. No, an armed society is a society where a lot of people are going to die from gunshots, it has no effect on politeness.
Gun control works if your purpose is to keep the law abiding from owning guns. Criminals are unaffected if you discount the added safety to them of knowing your victims are unable to defend themselves.
There is a little irony here with your comment. The solution was actually added in at a later date using an amendment. That is why people talk about the Second Amendment. This right that we have is not actually as fundamental as people claim - it wasn't that immediately apparent or important to make its way into the original writing of the constitution.
@@michaelharrison1093 neither was abolishing the ownership fo slaves. Do you realize how hard it is to start a country from scratch? You act as if this is a easy thing to do. Have you read the federalist papers? The creation of the constitution we have today took time to become what it is within perfectly good reason.
@@michaelharrison1093 That seems like a very goofy argument. The 2A was ratified at the exact same time as the 1A, which would then suggest (at least by what your reasoning seems to be) that free speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are ALSO "not actually as fundamental as people claim" since those rights didn't "make their way into the original writing of the constitution"... No?
That's solid. But i watched a video where he described why he turned away from the political left & joined the right. It was because he asked his boss for some data about crops in south america & he never got the data back. Like. He didn't change his strongly held views because he got proof that his conclusions were wrong. From his own mouth, it's because he sent one request for data and didn't get a response back. He could have tried a FOIA request. Or done some more legwork.
Idr exactly what he was trying to prove, but it was something about economics. I also read his book about Marxism where he thoughtfully discusses marxism throughout the book, citing sources & whatnot, then at the end his tone completely changes. He denigrates everything he has said throughout the book and does not substantiate his changed opinion. He abandons all nuance to take a hard stance of political right talking points.
2:15 The most pressing question should be "Do gun control laws reduce freedom?" A policy's results are often a reflection of the governance or society it's implemented in. Even if one day we see academic consensus that legalizing weed makes our society more dangerous and less productive, weed should still be legal because freedom is more important. Obviously this isn't the sexy opinion, but it's something to consider. Gun control doesn't prevent or reduce violence, but more importantly gun control is not a right function of government. In fact, it violates individual liberty.
Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, who delegate to government the authority to exercise those powers granted to it. The individual citizen cannot in his own right, under his own authority, authorize his neighbor to commit murder on his behalf because the individual has no just authority to commit murder himself. Similarly the individual cannot grant to government the authority to prohibit his neighbor from owning a firearm since he cannot prohibit his neighbor on his own authority Government, being a human creation, does not have and cannot have any powers which the people are unable to grant to it. This is why we have a Constitution in the first place - to specify exactly what authority we are granting to government and how that authority is to be used. We, the people, explicitly told government that we denied it any authority to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This does not change simply because a few people, most notably the kind of mental defectives we seem to regularly vote into office, want the authority to restrict the liberties of the people. Government's entire purpose is to protect the liberties of the people, not to decide which ones the people will be "allowed" to retain. Unfortunately, we're stuck with an entire class of governing professionals who reject the idea that their authority is or should be limited, as well as a large number of ignorant, foolish voters who continually return these frauds to office.
Statistically, a person is more likely to become a victim of gun violence when the firearm is in the hands of an agent acting on the behalf of a government -either the victim's own, (highest incidence) or an agent of another government, as in the case of war. This statistical probability increases when the victims of gun violence perpetrated by the State are themselves unarmed - Clearly, we cannot afford to wait any longer to take meaningful action to remove weapons from State ownership.
@@georgeenke4937 1)"Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" ISBN 3825840107, available for viewing at the Berkley Law Library - not a very exciting title - but accurate. 2) "NCPA Policy Report No. 211" ISBN 1568080271, from the National Center for Policy Analysis Please note that, depending om the compendium of sources you choose to consult, the rate is between 4:1 and 6:1 of humans killed by their own governments, as opposed to being killed by hostile enemy action during war. Not every perpetrator of mass murder is as meticulous in their record keeping as Germany was
well that's in part the result of high availability of guns, as unlike in states where citizens almost never have guns in US police officers are trigger happy psyhos who shoot first and ask questions later because very likely response from the person whom you try to stop will by gun shoot in my country police is practically unarmed and they will absolutely never ever point a gun to any person which they are trying to arrest even if that person is armed with knife and threatening bystanders if policeman ever takes a a gun to his hands that's a big event. Touching a gun is a big no no here.
I would much rather have a gun and not need it, as opposed to needing one and not having it. That goes for high capacity magazines and so called “Assault Weapons”. I really love the presentation about statistics, and how it backs up my belief that you can manipulate any statistic to forward your own personal point of view.
Gavin: "gun safety save lives" > mostly everyone in my area has illegal guns. > very easy to get guns from the street. > all it does was screw over law abiding people.
I see what you're saying. However, the rand study actually finds supporting evidence for some control measures reducing violent crime. Please go read the actual rand study.
@@valentindelasierra7517 Reasonable gun control advocates don't want to take away your right to defend yourself. A couple of the policies were regarding mental illness, background checks, child access laws, and domestic violence. None of those would stop most people from getting legal guns. However, with how many people have records due to non-violent drug offenses, i would hope there are provisions in such laws to allow non-violent "criminals" to get guns to protect themselves. Main point of my comment is that this video is disingenuous. I don't know your community & i don't know what will work there. I am confident this video is highly partisan and dishonest.
@@valentindelasierra7517 I'm not really advocating for gun control policies. I'm not well enough informed on the matter. I'm not emailing policy makers or anything. So I'm not really preaching anything here, except for some political analysis and criticism of political pundits (such as the makers of this video).
Oh please, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." And please, high cap magazine? A 30 round magazine is standard capacity as is a 15, a 10, a 5. It is built to hold exactly the amount of rounds as designed.
assault rifle is a term meaning select fire automatic rifles. Politicians regularly misuse this term, and "assault weapon" pretty much just means "weapon" a spear is an assault weapon, as is a trebuchet, as is a cap & ball pistol, as is a fully automatic AK-47.
@@envygd4902 yes, that is what I meant. "Assault rifle" means a very specific thing (which is already mostly illegal), which is why they call them assault weapons because that doesn't actually mean anything
@@joeypaulzine3769 Yeah, the "all or nothing" approach really isn't helpful to either side. There are absolutely people who, for the safety themselves and others, should not be allowed the power that comes with owning a fire arm because they have proven themselves unfit for the responsibility. Additionally while we might not have data to back it up, it seems intuitive that rules about proper storage, transport and carry of firearms would limit accidental injuries and deaths.
"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." -- Jeff Cooper.
The most sensible gun law in the United States is the one that is the supreme law of the land. It states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say that the right of the _militia_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear _certain types of government approved_ arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms _shouldn’t_ be infringed. It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed _unless some people want them to be infringed upon._ It doesn’t say the _privilege_ … It says …the *_RIGHT_* of the *_PEOPLE_* to keep and bear arms *_SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED._* Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Is it because they don’t want to understand?
All gun laws are advocated by and for people who can afford private security. Politicians. They will always scheme ways to take the power from those they govern. Once they finally get their way, well…just look back through history. You know what happens next. During Obama’s term, he signed gun legislation with children standing around him. The news made it a huge deal. You know who else signed gun legislation into law with children standing around when he did it? Hitler. It was supposedly “for the children”. It effectively removed civilian ownership of guns. Communism did this too. Absolute hell followed shortly thereafter. Millions dead. The government will never give back power they can lay claim to. They will always need more funding. There is one office in Washington that officially exists, yet hasn’t been staffed since the mid 90’s due to “budget cuts”. It’s the office of gun rights restoration. This ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about politicians on both sides. They aren’t about to give you back “rights” they legislate away from you.
Because most people dont know what the term regulated means in this context. Unfortunately for the founders this definition was probably the most popular so they thought they picked the correct word. Now everyone thinks of a rule passed, by, say, the EPA, as what a regulation is. Also lacking in the modern perspective is what a militia is. People say that means national guards but those never existed for a while. Militias were local, and united under the Continental army by Washington and others.
@@piouswhale Yes, the militia was the general population and well regulated meant that they had everything they needed to do what needed to be done. Still, it doesn’t say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (even though the people were the militia) it says the right of *_THE PEOPLE_* … It’s pretty clear. You have to do mental gymnastics in order to misunderstand. That’s why I say that the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t want to understand. It doesn’t say what they want it to say so they try to make it say something else. (By “they” I mean educated leftists. They’re the ones taking our rights away. They enlist the support of naïve people who don’t think it through- useful idiots.)
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380) "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
countries in Latin America, such as Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico, have often reported some of the highest rates of gun-related homicides in the world. These countries have struggled with issues related to organized crime, drug trafficking etc And yet they have strict gun control laws
@@thatguy2521 Indeed, and ALL of them have a FRACTION of the US homicide rate. Legal gun ownership, but no 3rd world homicide rate and no frequent mass shootings. You guys should try it :)
Hot take: any weapon too dangerous to trust the citizenry with, is far too dangerous to trust the government with. I’ll happily support disarmament the day after the Secret Service, FBI, ATF, and military are disarmed. Oh, that’s not what people meant by “gun control?”
Don't forget that in the past 10 or so years the USA has publicly lost 6 nuclear warheads (Not counting the ones we don't even know about), but says the common civilian is not responsible enough to own a gun
@@deltaxcd in theory. In reality, government doesn’t take responsibility for leaving guns in Afghanistan for the Taliban, or giving guns to the cartel, or burning down a building full of women and kids.
@@philrab Well at least in theory, you can vote for another government and change it if you dislike what it does. If you vote for the same then probably you do like that they do all that stuff after all. It is now your responsibility to change government and if you don't then you are responsible yourself for everything it does.
@@deltaxcd thats funny as hell. The citizens in the usa are way more accountable than the government. Leave one gun on the street you as a citizen are going to jail. How many were left in the enemy hands? How many did the atf let go to Mexican drugs cartels? How many times have the politicians armed rebels? That later became terrorists? Like Binladend? Yep we trained him to fight the Russians. Oh the difference between rebel and terrorists. If they kill people the politicians want dead there rebels or freedom fighters if they do something the politicians don't like the same people become terrorists. Na the government not accountable
The argument taking away guns will reduce suicide has recently been proven to me to be ineffective. What happens is many gun owners end up not seeking help, because they know their guns will be taken away, and may never be given back. Guns to many are a favourite sport, gather food, and give a sense of personal security, as well can be collectors items. To lose them is a huge deal. There shouldn’t even be a thought about taking them away unless there is a real, imminent danger. Studies have shown no correlation to gun ownership and a drop in suicides. They’re used more often, because they’re an effective, and easy way to do it, but I can tell you the vast vast majority of suicides are not spontaneous decisions that are taken lightly. People will simply find another way. Just like using a truck to kill dozens of people in a mass murder, there are many ways to kill.
@@c3bhm Yes. They also had a mass murder of I believe like 40 people, and all it took was $5 in gas and a $1 bic lighter. Even in Canada, people are killed by almost anything more than guns. Like literally, you name it, and more die from it than guns, yet there are over 2 million legal gun owners and probably even more illegal owners. Take out the recent gang crime and it’s almost nothing. Some people say "even if it saves one life", but that’s such a pile of crap. 4000 Canadians die every year on the roads. Cut speed limits in half, and instal speed limiters so no on can cheat. You’ll cut it by more than half, but they would have a stroke. They mean so long as it doesn’t inconvenience THEM, one life matters. There are inherent risks in society, to pretend no one should die, means no one gets to actually live.
They aren't even the most effective way to cease one's own existence. Consider how many people have been shot (by themselves or by others) and survived. That bullet may do a lot of damage, but that might mean that you just wind up having to live with a horrible, disfiguring injury if one does things wrong. Additionally, a rope isn't regulated. Firearms are not for targeting oneself. They do a bad job of it. They're more suited for others.
@@latemanparodius5133 Yes, true. I used to think no one survived, but I’ve seen some really horrible cases of survival…..though I can’t imagine someone with firearms experience making a mistake like that, but anything is possible.
"The possibility that one's intended victim is armed was evidently a concern to most of these men- the strong majority(81%) agreed that it was wise to find out in advance if one's potential victims are armed, and to avoid them if they are." 'The Armed Criminal in America- a survey of incarcerated felons' by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi
Researchers do the same thing with "climate models". If you choose what input variables should be considered, you automatically choose the outcomes you're predicting. The confidence they have as completely misplaced. Also it doesn't matter if the data is accurate or not. The 2nd Amendment is a right, period.
I legitimately heard someone say once "how could more people use guns for self defense than for harm? If there were no guns, there wouldn't be a need to defend yourself" as if somehow we can make a perfect utopia where there is no crime and governments never do anything corrupt and there are never any wars, and that we can just take away guns from criminals at any point. People seem to forget that government is just a socially accepted form of organised crime.
Your last statement shows that your understanding of government is of the same level as the opinion of a radical anarchist. Aka. completely invalid and unjustified.
well the difference between mafia ang government is that at lest in theory you are part of that big mafia gang yourself while plain mafia is unaccountable to anyone outside of their limited gang but they still tax outsiders breaking that "no taxation without representation" rule
@@Arcaryon explain how a government is different from a moralized-ish crime ring? The only reason what they do isn't illegal is because they make the rules. They take your money, they tell you what you can and can't do, they punish you for not doing what they say. How is that different from organized crime? I'm not saying that a government is inherently bad, hell, I think that having a government is generally a good thing, but that doesn't make it any different from a really big mafia that society decided to say 'fuck it' to resisting and let it take power.
@@kugelblitz1557 You argue like one of the idiot anarchists who have no actual idea of government even is. Are you an idiot anarchist? Of course not? Well then don’t pick up their talking points :P Government is entirely different from organised crime ( which you could know if you would simply ask google the same things I will partially explain to you now ) They don’t take your money. You _get_ money for being a part of society which is why you don’t create it, you _earn_ it. Ever thought about what money is? It’s a commodity we use to facilitate trade, at the core it’s a tool used to reward those of us who participate in society, it’s an agreed upon thing, it’s inherently _government_ because government is literally the only way humans are able to organise themselves above the most rudimentary family level of hunter gatherers. Are their governments which operate similar to the mafia? Sure. But they are usually not to be found anywhere in the more developed parts of the western world. Do me a favour and google some definitions next time because, and I mean this with the least possible offence to your person as a whole, the way you present your thoughts here is fundamentally so incoherent and ill-thought out that you may as well try to argue that the earth is flat and demand a response which is why I am nearly certain that it’s not really your own original understanding as you seem like a smart guy at first glance. Illegal organisations exist _outside_ of the rest of society. They primarily extort money for their own gain, not to manage it for society. At the core, government is management. Laws manage how we can coexist, taxes are used to facilitate our cooperation, to pay the many managers we need, like the police or the army or judges and ( mainly in modern times ) politicians etc. - the list goes ok but the core issue with the idea of taxation is theft is that people don’t understand that by merely being born and raised within a community, they are in an immense dent to said community. Ever thought of it that way? You get born and get to go to school, use roads others built for your usage, do not have to fear common raiders or invading armies ( if your government does it job that is ), can expect a reasonable protection from crime and fair, unbiased trials… You get the point. Now, you can always argue about the form of a government, who should pay what taxes, how should the money be actually spend, how much should be spend, should the government be democratic, authoritarian or perhaps a theocracy, an oligarchy or a technocracy ( or perhaps a combination of the aforementioned and many other possibilities ). But no governments? Which is fundamentally what you argue for when you compare government to organised crime? That’s a downright ridiculous motiojßc
According to the FBI's own data, homicide by firearms is very low considering our population size. Usually ends up being around 10,000 or so, for 330 million people and a large portion of those are gang related. And most of those are carried out with a pistol, despite what politicians want you to think. You can find this info on the FBI's homicide data table 8.
i’m doing a research paper on gun violence for college, the results of which have taught me it’s not about restricting guns, we tried that with drugs and that didn’t work, it’s about allowing the people who need them to have them for protection, all we see on the news are shootings but it’s because we actually show ours, countries like mexico and other South America ones have an absolutely astounding amount of gun violence compared to us, we just actually report on ours.
Exactly, and the meaning liberals define mass shootings as are a crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm. So, 2 injured people fall under "mass shootings" criteria. They also count gang on gang violence in their statistics so that's why it seems like so many mass shootings happen all the time. Most people have zero idea what a mass shooting is defined as. The goal by the dems is to disarm civilians. 90% of criminals obtain guns "illegally" so who are they really using gun control on?
Way to feel better comparing US to Mexico and South America. You should try doing it with some middle east countries, african countries too. Don't do it with European , Canada, Australia, Russia , Japan, China etc, it will only make you feel bad.
Laws define crime, they don’t prevent it. Prohibition didn’t stop anyone from drinking alcohol, and the war on drugs…well, we all know how well that is working.
@pivanov3321 That would prove their point more. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the violence erupting in all of those places, the deliberate reporting biases there, the fact that criminals remain armed in every single one of those places… Weapon-free zones enable rampages to proliferate, politician’s solution is to expand the domain of the circumstances which enable massacre. Look at every massacre in history before pretending it’ll be different this time; it fits the definition of insanity.
When I hear people say, "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," I think to myself that the things that should engender outrage are how we allow ourselves to have such a poor understanding of the tools that we can use to obtain an accurate picture of reality, and how that nearly-universal poor understanding of those tools creates a populace that is disturbingly easy to sway in any direction that allows the Anointed to feel justified in congratulating themselves. Temper the outrage about most other things.
He is not. Read the rand study. The conclusions of the rand study do not agree with the very confident claims in this video. One quote from their study: "We found moderate evidence, our second-highest evidence rating, that dealer background checks reduce firearm homicides." But you should read it yourself for better context and understanding.
@@reed6514 Where would you even find a place in the world that doesn't have background checks? Comparing places with background checks to those that don't probably have more problems. The US, Canada, and probably the vast majority of Europe would have background checks. Comparing them to countries that don't is comparing very different countries with very different people.
@@IIBloodXLustII idk. I didn't conduct any studies myself. I just read the rand study's conclusions which do not agree with this video's claims about the rand study.
The best gun-control law we could pass would be to eliminate all restrictions that prohibit people from carrying guns as a means of self-defense and stop making them into unarmed victims. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Only the law abiding do.
and criminals dont desevre any human rights in prison if i was the warden of Houston FDC i would stirp criminals of their rights and subject the inmates to brutal beatings and torture from the guards which would easily break the criminals
@@adoe2305 i am amaerican i jsut think criminals dont deserve human rights in prison when you look at thatlands prisons syetm criminals have no rights and are beaten and tortured by the guards and when theyre released they quit crime for good knowing that if they go back to crime theyll end up being beaten or tortured by the guards again and why should we allow the guards to torture and beat criminals in prison and strip criminals of human rights? becuase our prison system is broken
Finally a video that stated some facts about the subject of gun control and what studies say or don't say. We often put way too much faith in something that is written without backing it up with numerous other studies and articles on the same subject matter. Thanks. This was very helpful and opened me up to look further and deeper into what is being represented.
One of the greatest arguments for having a firearm is simple: There are only two methods for a victim to stop an attacker. 1. "Reason". The victim can try to convince the attacker to stop on their own. 2. "Force". This means the victim has something to force the attacker to stop, whereas the firearm is the #1 tool used to force an attacker to stop. Since this cannot be debated (those are the only methods, nothing else is possible), it means that a gun in the hands of a potential victim means they have a fighting chance.
This is an oversimplification, but I get it. Desired outcome is an important factor in this argument. What does forcing the attacker to stop mean? Just stop? Die? Be apprehended? Alot of people would say the least amount of force possible should be used.
@@Codeeez forcing the attacker to stop means shoot until u are empty or they stop moving and then get help to clean up the mess. My 11 year old daughter I a better shot than I am and I'm not terrible. If she gets attacked when it's no longer my job to keep her safe on the daily I know she will at least have a chance.
@@Codeeez I don't think it's "oversimplified", the issue at hand is to stop an attacker, and those are the options. Stop means not continue, death isn't necessary, but it's the usual result. Be apprehended would be a good outcome as well, as laws are in place to punish someone when they break it (laws don't really prevent crime). When I took both of my CCW classes, "stop the threat" is however many shots it takes (on target) to keep the person from continuing their attack.
@@Codeeez No, not really. All human interactions, when one person wants the other person to "do" something all boil down to "reason or force". If you ever have to be a victim, I hope you had the opportunity to use the best tools at your disposal to stop the attack, regardless of what it is. The criminal (attacker) gets to choose the time, location, number of victims, number of attackers, and choice of weapons. A victim has no say in any of that, and they're at the mercy of their abilities.
@@chuck_norris who's crying...no one here. It's about violations of our (meaning your's too, if you're an American citizen) civil liberties, individual rights and constitutional rights. It's actually really simple, and was written that way so it can not be misconstrued or misunderstood
@@chuck_norris what's the matter, have nothing to say now🤔? Interesting how people just make stupid snarky remarks, but when I try to engage with them, they mysteriously disappear and go away. Either you're trolling or your clueless and have no idea what your talking about. Just another ignorant, naive person who can not see the destruction of our rights that's happening right in front of their eyes 🙄
I'm from Sacramento, Ca. Here in Ca you must pass a background check, provide many forms of documentation, valid ID, and if your background checks out you also must wait 10 days before even being able to pickup your firearm(You can NOT leave with it the same day). Need ammo with that? Well guess what, we must conduct another background check in order for you to make that purchase. All of that and yet this past Sunday on 4/3/22 Multiple gang members/prohibited felons in possession of hand guns exchanged fire shooting 10 people and killing 6 outside a night club. One of the gunmen was just recently released early from prison, was in possession of a stolen pistol modded with a auto sear making it fully automatic(which doing such a conversion is already illegal here) with an extended magazine (what California calls "high capacity" magazines, which is also prohibited from purchase here) So at what point or what "gun control" law could we put in place that would have stopped this? I'll save yourself the brain aneurysm and just tell you flat out that obviously NOTHING would have stopped this. These morons DO NOT CARE about the law. Gun control is a fucking joke!
People think places like Florida where I'm from is bad, but we also like everywhere else, already require background checks, documents, IDs and a waiting period. I had to do that everytime I have bought a gun. When people call for gun control they really don't know what they are asking, everything they complain about is already in the books and happening, in reality they want complete and absolute bans and restrictions regardless.
The level of knife crime in london tells me all I need to know about the efficacy of gun control. People will find ways to be violent if they're pushed towards violence.
@@Brough_builds The difference in your analogy is that if you treat other diseases, AIDS doesn't increase its intensity as a result of that. If you implement gun control, a direct result of that is more knife violence.
@@Brough_builds you wish. It tells plenty about the value of self defense, and a firearm tends to be one of the most effective means of enacting self defense. You can't cure aids, but you can definitely take steps to protect yourself and avoid exposure.
Yet the knife crime in the US is still higher than London. Plus London is still a safe city even more safer than a lot of US cities. You're more likely to survive a criminal with a knife than a criminal with a gun.
@@Captain_Yorkie1 you realize the US is a lot BIGGER right? The stats don't exactly match well either given the complexity of the matter Important part is here I have my own gun so my safety is in my own hands, I don't have to rely on the police being minutes away when seconds count. That and I don't live in one of those hellhole big cities that are rife with crime.
0:42 yeah he’s right here. Gun safety saves lives. Lives are saved when you 1, treat every firearm as if it’s loaded 2, keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to fire 3, never point a gun at anything you’re not willing to kill or destroy and 4, always be sure of your target, what’s near it and what’s behind it.
Does everyone have to undergo training before they get a gun? No. Why? Because the NRA has bought some of our politicians, and the NRA doesn’t want a law than even slightly affects gun sales. The same reason that we dont even require background checks before buying a gun (federally, that is).
First comment where all 4 rules are stated. And i scrolled a while. People need to be more educated on the dangers, handling, safekeeping and maintaining firearms. The swiss habe a lot of guns per capita, but most, if not all, have served
@@michaelthompson9548 Australia is less violent as a whole and it has nothing to do with guns. Prisons have no gun deaths in the US yet people are killed at a much higher rate than they are on the street. We have a violence problem and innocent people deserve the right to protect themselves from criminals by using guns. We also hold some power over our government by being an armed populace. Some of the most dangerous areas in the US have the most strict gun control but criminals with murderous intent aren't going to get guns legally anyway. Guns also come across the border and further gun restrictions will only make cartels richer.
70% of American adults don't keep guns. The main trick for the left is getting the people at low risk of gun death, which is close to all Americans, scared enough to screw the rest of us out of our rights.
Even if "gun safety laws save lives" it would *STILL* be unconstitutional, as some person misusing a firearm does not justify restricting the general public and their natural right to keep and bear arms for their personal defense, whether from criminals or from a tyrannical government.
I’m trying to look into conservative/constitutionalist perspectives on gun rights. Would you be open to a civil discussion or debate on guns? I can send my discord
Not really if you interpret the 2nd amendment as it is supposed to be interpreted. Before 2008 states had heavy restrictions on guns in order to keep a well regulated militia.
I remember hearing one year that the UK had 14 deaths due to guns. The US, on the other hand, had thousands of deaths from guns. In the UK, gun ownership is severely limited. In the US, I can get a new gun as soon as the stores open tomorrow. But there's no connection. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone...
@@EbonyPhoenix Not really, violent crimes and guns are different than other laws. Criminals will target individuals if they know they are unarmed, and gun control has had no statistical data showing they are effective. So yes, the only thing they accomplish supported by data we can see is that they make law abiding citizens defenseless and more vulnerable to violent crimes. It gives abusive governments peace of mind and make it easier to oppress the population.. Look at California, look at Los Angeles, gun crime and violent crime is rampant and citizens are left mostly defenseless.
@@EbonyPhoenix That's the point, criminals in the US can get firearms easier than law abiding citizens and none of these gun control acts have changed that. In my state it's a grueling process to get a CCW permit, and that's just so I can defend myself in the fucking hoodlum I live in... Meanwhile the people that robbed me a couple years ago could give a shit less about carry laws lol, they were carrying stolen guns that were probably sold to them or taken. None of the gun control acts stopped them, but they stopped me because I wanted to follow the law and not be terrorized by police. Also did you even watch the video?! When you take into consideration all of the studies, gun control acts in the USA have had no measurable effect while simultaneously disarming citizens and turning non-criminals into felons. People have been arrested by the ATF after bills have passed and didn't even realize they were felons.
@@weasle2904 not easier, just as easy. In many states it's completely legal to buy a gun from a gun owner, with no background check or anything. And in my state I bought a gun from my friend the week I moved, and was completely legal as long as I don't CC, but now even that is legal. The point of common sense gun laws is to get people who knowingly act as a third party to criminals. As it stands now, it's hard to prove it, and even proved, you get a slap on the wrist. A simple monitory background check makes the process much easier, and much more consiquencal. Again, in my state they would just shoot you.
The moment someone says "I'm setting out to try and prove (insert political talking point here) in my study I know the study is going to be a sellout for their respective political party, and gun control is not exception. "I'm here to prove gun control works" If that's what they set out to find, that's what they're going to find. "I'm here to prove gun control doesn't work" If that's what you're looking for, that's what you're going to find.
Gun control should be taught in high school. Every single Year 12 student should be taught how to responsibly handle and maintain all types of non-automatic firearms.
You realize that non-automatic excludes like half of what gets produced today and most common self-defense guns, right? All the sidearms are semiauto, pretty sure a single action revolver counts. Not sure about double action, but anything that uses the impact from the initial shot to chamber and cock the next round to be shot is semi-auto.
Why doesn't anyone mention Venezuela crime in conversations like these. Venezuelans gave up their guns years ago and crime was sky rocketed. Between criminals and gangs attacking civilians. To the government down there being tyrannical. They are a perfect example of why NOT to give up guns.
@@nonamenoname9468 Its one of the many reasons, in fact the abuse of power, rapid centralisation of the economy(and resulting mismanagement), erosion of civil rights, attacks on human rights and use of gangs as enforcers would have been impossible if venezuela had a armed and well informed population. The government would realise they are risking civil war if they try that.
The reason why the 2nd amendment exists, tyranny and foreign attacks, can be measured. In the last century more than 150 million people were killed by their own government, WW1 killed 30 million, WW2 killed 80 million. And there are 500k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year. Gun control, other than being unconstitutional, could only affect those of the 15k annual homicides actually committed with guns. Subtract all of those committed with illegal guns that by definition can't be affected by law, police shootings,... and you might have 1k homicides with legal guns. By about 100 million people in the US that live in a household with a firearm. And about 4k homicides with non-guns, probably mostly by the 230 million without guns. Meaning, you could prevent literally zero murders through gun control and would just force people to use other means, which the 4k homicides show is absolutely possible. Worse than that, illegal guns would be through the roof while legal self defense nearly impossible. Zero defensive gun uses, and then the real crime wave would start. Thousands of death by gun control, not legal guns. And that's even before war or tyrannical gen0cides happen.
One thing not mentioned is the difficulty of measuring how many crimes guns prevent. While it's usually easy to determine if somebody was killed by a gun, it's far more difficult to measure if the known or likely ownership of a gun prevented a crime from happening in the first place.
whoa, no shit. But that works in reverse aswell, we cant say how many rash decisions to buy and use firearms to kill were prevented by gun control laws providing a barrier to entry. The real point the video makes is not that gun control doesnt work but that we dont know if it works or not
There was a CDC study back in 2012 I believe that gave an estimate of 500k to 1.2 million crimes prevented with guns, but as stated it is hard to quantify.
The rand study actually cites a couple policy measures that (supporting evidence suggests) are effective in reducing violent crime. Please read it. This video greatly misrepresents it.
The CDC did this study in 2012 to disprove the only other study in existence. It confirmed what the first study found; that guns save lives and stop crimes. So the only logical agenda based decision was made to ignore both the studies and make no further effort. This information does not fit the agenda. The fact they could prove this true into the measure of millions speaks volumes; considering we do know that proving fate, proving the series of events was set but was thwarted is difficult. The Constitution was written to thwart a fate proven by ALL of history, tyranny. Wars are still fought against tyranny today. Human nature, power, greed still exist and then so does this fate. So our ability to protect ourselves from each other is a side gig anyways.
@@jons3223 I watched a 90 monute debate yesterday that was far more nuanced than what you're saying about academic & scientific studies of gun policy. I don't think it's near as simple as you are suggesting.
"Remains higher than in SOME other parts of the developed world" They say while showing a chart with Honduras, Eswatini, Brazil, and Peru surrounding America while France and Denmark are a third lower and Australia is barely even on the graph.
It's true that Republican establishment are not your friends when it comes to guns, but still they are infinitely better than the alternative and at least listen to reason and change their minds. And the amount of actual 2nd amendment supporters in the Republican party is far far greater than the few in the Democratic party that are left. In that particular clip of Trump, he was talking about taking guns from people that were particularly dangerous, like gang members or teens making shooting threads on facebook, then deal with the due process later. Clearly a bad idea but not nearly as anti gun as CNN would like you to think. The clue of it is simply that CNN showed that clip as if he's insane and a gun grabber, instead of agreeing with him which they clearly do.
What is an assault weapon? A club, a knife, a pipe, a slingshot, a rock, a hammer, an axe, a dart, a pistol, an ice pick, a book, a rifle, bow and arrows, hands...?
An assault rifle. I think that’s what their talking about. Rifles, with high-magazine capacity and fire rates, capable of quickly delivering devastating power. Not hammers and axes.
Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms should be the name of a convenience store, not a federal agency
Absolutely. There should be no federal agencies but high courts and defense. Although they did pick an enticing sounding name.
Dont forget explosives!
@@pranc236 That should be available at your local Walmart and Tractor Supply. No need for it to be in a convenience store, but I mean why not there too? I'll go with that.
@@pranc236 Yes, dear.
@@pranc236 and really big fires.
Wrote a research paper on this in college. I was trying to prove that gun control legislation does in fact work. Found out the opposite was true... whoopsie
But gun control works. It enables more control. Look at the Center for Disease Control. That was very successful in enabling more control too
@@raul0ca hahaha right guess it depends on your goalpost
Studies are meaningless unless we have uniform rules nationwide. Yes it’s ineffective to have a gun control law in New York when someone can drive an hour or two and get a gun somewhere else. Bottom line, it’s easier to kill yourself or someone else with a gun then it is with anything else. Take away substantial number of guns, deaths by gun and deaths totally will go down. But so many of you are just happy with thoughts and prayers every time a bunch of people get killed.
@@raul0ca Yes, Gun Control is exactly that...Control...Just ask Cuba, Chinese communist party and Russia...
It works in preventing law abiding citizens from using them to prevent criminals from using illegal guns
If you shouldn’t be legally allowed to have an assault weapon just in case you need to fight tyranny, why the hell did we have to send thousands of assault weapons to Ukraine in order to help them fight tyranny?
Damn good point.
Shut up and watch the totally nonbiased news, wear your mask and get your jabs, there will be no tyranny here.
Uhhh...I dunno. Maybe cuz RaciZuM!
Plus we didn't send no assault weapons nowhere cuz nobdy can define what an assault weapon is!
Where's your precious logic now Collin?!?
Game. Set. Catch. Gunz R bad. Nuff said.
Mic drop!
@@Great_Wall_of_Text
Silly. Assault weapons are whatever we say they are.
I mean we gave over 400,000 machineguns to the Taliban too, but yeah, that's a perfectly valid point. But more importantly what it shows is we need Javelins.
The Second Amendment is a Common Sense Gun Law.
Make this man president!
@@TakenWasTakenYTtoo young, gotta be 200yrs
@@CrazedKen 35 actually
The 2nd Amendment isn't a gun law. It is a guaranteed Right for all citizens.
@@Rusterman-is7ex fair enough
I did a study in college using FBI crime statistics that showed that banning rifles wouldn’t have a a statistically significant effect on gun crime, because over 90 percent are pistols.
If that's true that's really deceiving because some people might think that it will reduces gun crimes drastically. Consider even those people who buy guns illegally.
Stats without context is deceiving. Common strawman....
@@markyuto6820 Pistol deaths were like 2500-3000 people.
Rifle, NFA, undetermined guns were like
And is banning pistols, to get a statistically significant effect, the right thing to do? "Shall Not Be Infringed", and since at least one person will be saved if they or an armed bystander uses a firearm in a defensive gun use...#NotOneMoreIsBogus
@@DomoArigatoRobot0 I don't disagree....
Here’s the gun control I believe in:
1. Always treat a gun as if it’s loaded.
2. Never aim a firearm at something you don’t intend to destroy.
3. Practice rangetime to protect your aim.
4. The right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*
Edit: Holy bloody hell this thing has sparked a titanic war. I don’t have the time or interest to read the 355 comments, but ima put in a but more about the fourth aspect. As was very well understood at the time of writing it, congress (including Madison who wrote the Bill of Rights) understood that the nation requires a standing army, and people were by no means okay with having to trust their government to not go bad. Because an army is necessary, law abiding citizens may not have their right to own weapons of war infringed in any way. That means guns. That means armored vehicles. Heck, it even means warships (the entire US navy of that time was civilian owned). The purpose being so that citizens can rise up if the government cannot or will not perform it’s duty to it’s people.
"Be sure to use both hands"
-Don't know who said it first
@@Krbyfan1 exactly we need two guns for every citizen
@@Krbyfan1 That's what she said
Gun safty not gun control, what we really need in the US right now is adult child control (and child control)
Here’s what we can do his gun control that will work
If you wish to purchase a gun you need to complete a safety course in pass the final test with 100%
You need to demonstrate that you know how the gun works and how to clean it properly
You also must pass a background check witch you have to do all ready and take a mental health Check like a psychiatric exam
Let me know if you guys agree with me if should there be more or less
Remember government agencies will always come to the conclusion that they need more funding.
And they will always come to the conclusion they need to be in control of everything and everyone all the time.
Yes
While that is often true and I believe the ATF should be cut back largely, it is important to see that there is a proven way to reduce all violence including gun violence and suicide and that is by increasing quality of life. While being a criminal is a personal choice that should have personal ramifications poverty and low standards of living promote criminality. I find the whole gun issue in America a great distraction and waste of effort when they should be throwing every resource and trying every idea to increase the quality of life in their country. However we finally come around to the issue of rampant lobbying and corruption that is rusting away our democracy. Doing things like making hospitals display their cost or marketers give you access to your own data are always the things they would rather not talk about. There is no party up their who is actually willing to make the sacrifices to do these things. So I expect the US to slowly crumble as china with its authoritarian socialism takes the position of leader of the world.
@@magiricod I have no idea where you live, but Americans in general have an excellent standard of living. We rank 7th among 34 OECD countries
Factually, if it were not for the murders committed by drug gangs in the large, already Democratic-socialist controlled cities like Chicago, where the Democrats refuse to actually fight crime, the US would be one of the lowest gun related homicide nations in the world. In 2021, Chicago alone reported over 1,000 drug gang and gun related deaths, which accounts for about 1/10th of all of the US’s non-suicide firearm deaths.
It is drug gang activity that causes gun deaths in the US... it has nothing to do with our standard of living.
And more staff and more control.
NEVER trust anyone who wants you defenseless
Nail'ed it, truth and fact,,,,,,
But why stop at guns then? Why aren't you allowed to have a personal nuke ready to launch in your garden? If you think that not everyone should be able to own a nuke, where between gun and nuke do you draw the line? That's a genuine question
@@portalwalker_
If a government was so tyrannical that they would use a nuke on it's own people then one would hope the people would storm the government and remove them by force.
I live in Australia and gun control measures have not worked, all they did was to create a prohibition style market which is at full steam ahead mode. Gun deaths have increased in recent years and even kids have become more brazen in their crimes.
@@portalwalker_you can’t hunt animals with a nuke, you can’t kill a home invader with a nuke without destroying your home, nukes actually only have the purpose of killing innocent people
and somehow I live in Poland and heard a gun shot once in my life fired by a security guard
If data is inconclusive, every infringement should be repealed immediately for all states.
The data is never inconclusive, It's just too complex for simpletons to understand and we need to trust the experts. Also, if a right can be infringed because "data" shows that it benefits society then it wasn't really a right anyway.
It doesn't even matter if the data is conclusive. The people bear arms to fight oppressive governments. Full stop.
@@perrywilliams4587 Well the "expert" just told us that the data is insufficient. And a right is a right.
@@perrywilliams4587 maybe actually watch the video and not make a claim that is completely opposite to what this well qualified statistician said??
@@perrywilliams4587 Politicians would give up their armed bodyguards if they believed in gun control.
What I learned in basic statistics class in high school is that anyone who's 'good' at 'statistics' can pretty much 'prove' anything they want!
true
Statistically, you are wrong because out of 3 statistics I chose, none proved anything false. So clearly, it is factually true that statistics can't prove false information. Trust the science.
Meh , it really isnt like that , what your saying is that people are easily misled by others like saying Half of americans support gun control , which means nothing right cuz the other half doesnt so its a meaningless stat in a demoratic debate , the issue is more about peoples basic common knowledge
I mean you CAN say 10 % of people hate pepsi ,
But if you dont understand that means 90% dont then whose fault is that
@@Steve-zf7sr Oh my goodness, thanks for the smile. You pretty much proved my point , thank you. Let me try to explain what I mean. A simplistic question such as Do you hate Pepsi, yes or no, of course will produce a more 'pure' statistic. That people 'can believe' with a reasonable certainty. That's what most people think of when they hear statistics. And that's why statistics can be misleading and even dangerously mis-leading. You need to realize that more advanced types of statistical analysis depends on more complicated questions with more than a yes/no answer. And there have been studies (!) that show how a question is WORDED can lead to different responses. And that even the SETTING in which the questions are asked can also greatly effect the answers.
Going further, the specific parameters used in the gathering of the data are easily manipulated. For example, you may not have noticed, but there's been a rise in the number of news reports about "mass shootings" in the USA. There's a 'statistic floating around, that there are 800 mass shootings per year in the USA. I have several friends and family members that have quoted those numbers to me. I got ONE of them to listen when I explained they needed to be wary of that number. Why do I say this? Could you please give me an across the board, agreed upon, EXPLAINED to the public, definition of a mass shooting? You can't because there isn't one. You might be surprised that a fight in south LA where 3 gang members shoot at each usually qualifies as a mass shooting. Say a drug deal at a seedy dive bar goes bad, and the buyer pops off three rounds as he runs for his car and drives away? Yes, there's another mass shooting. I suspect that's a LONG way from what most people think of when they hear 'mass shooting.'
Just yesterday I watched a video where an ex-FBI agent stated how often police are 'ambushed' nowadays. That didn't sound right to me so I started some research. It looks to me like he's quoting a 2017/2018 study that showed a HUGE uptick in ambushes against law enforcement! Wow, what happened?! Further research revealed that the group doing the study decided to change what most reasonable people consider an ambush: a pre-meditated, pre-planned attack on someone. They instead decided to include ANY instance where someone being detained or arrested attempted to elude or fight back using a firearm or any other weapon. Voila, your ambush numbers have now risen dramatically.
And lastly, once all that data is 'crunched' it has to be presented or reported. I recall several chapters in one statistics textbook that discussed how to easy it is skew the perception of the data you gathered by how you described the data, (what you included and what you eft out or downplayed) and how you set up your charts, graphs and other visual representations.
@@GoToPhx Im going to finish reading your entire response i promise but once again
The whole wordiing and context issue is only effective through low level cognition
Would you like to be given a billion dollars covered in horse shit?
Well there you go 98 percent of people dont want welfare
Wait what ? Lol
I get it
Thats not simply an effort tp manipulate its abusive and our resoonsibility not to get played
Theres a clip of mathew machonehey getting annoyed with joy behart for trying to get him to agree he is anti second amendment based on his wanting better laws because its intemtional
Do you think you can get elected In a red state like Tx being anti gun
See he never said he was anti gun and the question was about elections and demographics
But the headline would have been hes anti gun and he said i wont answer loaded questions like that
I guess my point is
Numbers dont lie
People do
And if you stick to raw data
It is what it is and qualifying it is unneccessary
All the on tuesday morning , after eating alpo dog food
Is intentional to corrupt the data and people should be smarter than to be played by others with agendas
The issue with the whole "You're more likely to be murdered if you own a gun" question is that it ignores the very real idea of "If you're more likely to be murdered, you're going to want to own a gun."
So...you are saying, you are more likely to murdered in the US than any other civilised western society
No, it’s usually because of domestic disputes, unneeded escalation of force and suicides
@@kirayoshikage1491 lol, good try
@@fjb960 just the facts
@@kirayoshikage1491 state a fact then.
Theres a city in Georgia where its illegal NOT to own a gun.
Lowest gun violence in the country
while cities than have banned guns have some of the highest
@@smyleez what horsehit....
@@mottthehoople693 stats dont lie buddy
I think Montana has such a law, am I right? I live in Australia and heard it is illegal not to carry a gun.
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd kinda
“Large capacity magazines” no, they are standard capacity for the gun. Also look how well Chicago is doing with some of the strictest gun control laws.
Strictest gun control laws in the US maybe. As long as you allow people to own and carry firearms without the need to do so your laws are not strict enough, simple as that. All that middle-age bullshit about the constitution permitting citizens to own guns is just a ruse, you all just want to keep your murder toys, doesnt matter how many innocent people die, its all about your fun.
Or Washington, DC for that matter, a bastion of leftism.
@@anon_y_mousse You dont really think this has anything to do with party-politics do you? Its all about whos giving you the money for your election campaigns, and the reps seem to be the ones getting the dough from the nra and co.
Any sane person would just shake their head in disbelief over all the bullshit thats going on in the US right now, where owning guns is more important than protecting the lives of children, where the police can do or not do whatever they want, where greedy corporations openly rule the country through their braindead proxis like Trump, Bush jr and co.
Are you all out of your mind that you still support shit like that? Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? Or are you really such a bunch of selfish pricks to whom nobody else matters apart of your fun and your right to own firearms made with the sole purpose of killing things?
It is very easy to change out magazines, so the capacity issue is just total baloney.
You mean Chicago in the _USA_ ? The federation? Without border controls? That city? Why not mention Japan? Because it’s not comparable? Is it? I mean, half of you think you can stop drugs with walls over there and now you can’t stop guns? Is there a logical discrepancy here I don’t see? If I sell chocolate in one city and the other outlaws chocolate, what do you do when you still want chocolate that’s not fairly expensive? Exactly, you cross over into another city and enjoy your chocolate. That’s why these kind of statement you made proves nothing.
A study has shown that one of the major contributing factors of mass shootings is the *media contagion effect* when media networks broadcast the shooter's face all over, which is one of the shooter's motivations, to have their 15 minutes of fame. The media is partly to blame.
I would agree with "The media is partly to blame." if partly was defined as 99%. The media is majorly, almost completely, to blame for mass gun homicide.
@@phelandhu That''s not proven by evidence. I do think the media has a part to play, but mass shootings are so common nowadays that no one I know that doesn't directly research each specific events can name any of the recent perpetrators, yet they are increasing in frequency. These people are suffering psychological breaks, and warning signs constantly go ignored. It's complex. I wish it was as simple as "it's all the medias fault" but, it's really not that simple. It is true, however...that many recent perpetrators believed they felt a "kinship" with past ones; and they wouldn't know about past ones if not for some form of reporting. Also, do the media have anything to do with the emerging mental health crisis? I would say that they certainly do not help, and do likely worsen it; but also recall that many of these people don't necessarily watch or listen to mainstream media outlets but, rather fringe internet websites.
All of this to say; it's damn complicated.
Never let someone else do your thinking for you.
@@phelandhu "The media is majorly, almost completely to blame for mass gun shootings." - My source is that I made it the fuck up.
@@someguy198 I know someone who told me that if they were going to die they would probably do something like that just so they would be remembered after their death and their "message" would be spread media Hollywood and music absolutely glorify gun violence and I don't think you can argue that it helps the problem and if some internet forum could change someones brain chemistry and concept of reality so readily (I believe it can) then something more mainstream could have the same effect.
Many of us buy guns because we are at an increased risk of getting shot where we are at. Saying owning a gun makes it more likely that you will get shot makes it sound like the gun owner is "creating" the risk by owning the gun. This statement of correlation shapes a negative opinion of gun ownership without giving enough detail to inform the listener as to why.
Please read the rand study. This video misrepresents it. The actual study cites a few gun control measures that have 'moderate' evidence supporting a reduction in violent crime. Rand goes into some detail and provides additional context.
"Many of us buy guns because we are at an increased risk of getting shot where we are at."
The opposite can be said to be true. Indeed is the argument used by people outside of the U.S.
The dumbest pro gun argument I have heard of is that, owning a gun reduces one's chance of dying, or owning a gun could've stopped a mass shooter.
Columbine and other school shootings are evidence of the opposite. Even the SWAT took 2 hours after the death of the two shooters to even step inside the school, whilst the armed security were no where to be seen through out.
I respect America's gun ownership and culture, but it is not the best it can be.
Plus, no pro gun argument can deny the lack of strong regulations. This in turn leads to more 'bad guys' owning a gun, with you thus requiring the need to be armed your self. It those protect you, no denying that, but it only helps the capitalists making the firearms with more profit.
You'll need a gun to protect you from all those "sweet, gentle" pit bulls that have been mauling people.
We know that the anti gun side consistently say you're more likely to shoot yourself on way or nother
@@davidlafleche1142 i had a pitbull and he was lovely.
Common sense tells me that even if you banned assault rifles, criminals would still get them and whoever owns one would be an unnecessary casualty.
If you want to stop gun violence, stop people from wanting to commit gun violence. Firearms are tools, not killers! PEOPLE are killers!
Lol the party that wants to ban abortion to save a clump of cells wants to arm more school shooters.
So how would you, say, decrease the amount of gun violence? What causes the US to have such rampant amounts of gun deaths, comparable to 3rd world countries?
Im genuinly curious, i have little idea about the culture and laws and whatnot regarding the americas
@@ijsbeermeneer9952 In my opinion, it's the lack of safety nets we have in place.
I believe strongly that our right to firearms should absolutely not be infringed upon, but I also believe that, with a constitutional right to own firearms, we should have a more strict, intensive process for obtaining a firearm with people who take their jobs seriously and know lives could be on the line.
We shouldn't be stripping rights of citizens to provide safety that will never truly exist. We, instead, should address the root of the problem, very often being poverty and mental health issues (often caused by domestic violence or cycles of abuse).
I can garuntee that many mass shootings would've been avoided if we had proper safety nets with responsible people who know the gravity of their job ready to provide help.
Don't strip our rights. Provide services that increase our quality of life.
New Zealander here. After the Christchurch massacre our gun laws became extremely strict. Who'd have guessed that our shooting numbers WENT UP as criminals became more confident in their ability to freely victimise unarmed citizens.
up? yes exactly who would have thought... damn that is actually annoying.. and shoudl be thought of a nasty result in this kind of thing....
i was expecting the australian model to be used against the american gun ownership and was going to point out those are two very different countries... one has a piddly population of 25 mill and the other... over 300 mill... and australia has NEVER been invaded over land and if an isolated island... i am australian ....
still surprised taht the NZ problem got worse.. is it still bad?
@@albertbresca5801 tf does being invaded over land have anything to do with it???
The last time the US was invaded (not counting alaskan islands or overseas territory) was over 200 years ago... right?
Thats like my nation having laws because Napoleon crossed the Rhine !! Madness !
I just don't get why the US can't solve that problem...
I'm german, so big cultural differences, but the US did it here. After ww2 weapons and explosives were so ubiquitous we still dig up over 1000 bombs and guns each year! Add to that an era of extreme uncertainty and a collapse of all governance and somehow the americans were able to get it under control.
...
We can still own guns. We have hunters who own more than enough guns. It's not like we are allergic to them.
I just don't get how the US was able to solve it here, where it was a literal warzone and people had to kll each other for scraps of meat, but isnt able to do it in their own nation now.
:/
Holy shidd, a Kiwi who isn't insane when it comes to firearms! You're the only one I've seen
@@Jay_in_Japan there are a lot of us out there, most aren't active on social media.
kiwi with a brain. I salute you
I love when people give the argument of "the second amendment was made for muskets" okay. So that means that the second amendment was made with the intentions of allowing all citizens to purchase the most advanced military weaponry of that time period. The musket was literally the most deadly weapon in the world at that time, and they wanted to make sure citizens had access to them.
And private military warships.
Well Rifles were around back then. And I think we can all agree a rifle is better than a musket.
Cool, and the first amendment was for pamphlets off printing presses, not fully-automatic Xerox machineprinters and unlicensed websites.
If the second amendment was just made for muskets, then the first amendment is not for people to express their opinion on the internet…
BTW, when the second amendment was written, they authorized ships to have cannons, not just muskets ;)
@Exculpatory Shōgun -- Your point is good, but dynamite was not invented until the 1860s.
When the govt. uses the words "common sense legislation", speak out immediately against it, whatever it may be.
Government never has common sense
Be especially afraid when they add "for the children." Both phrases are designed to circumvent thought.
Oh you too have a compass that point to South ? very usefull
@@paulsernine5302 No I just know bullshit when I hear it. Show me one ounce of actual progress from what our government officials have done, republican or democrat.
Conspiracy much?
USA ranks like 3rd in the world for gun violence. If the five highest US cities for gun violence were pulled from the statistic, US would rank 198th of 200 countries. These 5 cities, Chicago, Philadeplphia, LA, St. Louis, and Baltimore have ridiculously strict gun laws. It's an urban tragedy, don't let it spread. Pack everyday!
Stl does not have strict gun laws this is a lie. I live there lol.
"If the five highest US cities for gun violence were pulled from the statistic, US would rank 198th of 200 countries"
Lol what a load of crap. Do you lot even think before repeating such easily corrected lies?
@@solaceofsnow2140 Prove it then. I've seen the claim before, but no-onbe has been able to pony up proof funnily enough lol. Of course most crime is in urban areas, that's true almost everwhere.
This is a meme. The us is 97th. And only 2 of those cities are in the top 10.
Lol." If you take out a majority of the population, then gun crimes go down!"
Wow imagine that making laws directed at people who aren't breaking any laws don't affect those who are breaking laws and adding to crime statistics the laws are meant to be reducing .
No they are meant to control! And when the people in government are committing more crime than the Citizens then gun control is only meant to control the Citizens. I’m surprised that some of these people aren’t trying to pass vehicle control because of vehicle deaths.
Exactly!
you definitely didnt watch the whole video lol
Punctuation goes a long way.
@@benjaminan1183 Intelligent!
Here's the thing: Even if there *WAS* strong data to show that gun control did offer a measurable and statistically significant increase in public health, using that data to disarm an individual and render him/her defenseless in the face of a threat would still be immoral. That said, you can always count on Reason to offer lucid and rational analyses that doesn't carry water for any major party's position, and for that they should be applauded.
The bad guy is looking for easy targets. If you look armed they will avoid you. That cannot be measured.
You can certainly *not* count on Reason to offer anything you described. Reason is a globohomo puppet-piece. Nothing it does is "lucid and rational analysis," it's just slanted in a way you sometimes like.
@@23wtb The fuck are you yappin about?
Couldn't agree more
@@23wtb - "globohomo" - nice work brah.
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to....
- Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966); - CCW
-Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939); - CCW
- Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966); - CCW
-Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971); - Waiting Period
-Register (record in a government database) the exercising of a right (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v US 1968). - Form 4473
If you need mystics in black robes to tell you what your rights are, you are part of the problem in America.
This needs to be a copy pasta
To be pedantic, 2A says nothing directly about either CCW or acquiring arms, so arguably those are not rights.
But acquiring arms is a necessary enough precondition for the right to keep that it's likely a right by implication. OTOH I'd have a hard time arguing down even a 100% CCW ban on constitutional grounds if open carry was unrestricted (that said, I'm more in favor of CCW than open carry, just for different, non-2A reasons).
@@benjaminshropshire2900 Right to KEEP AND BEAR arms. What hood of a gun for defense solely at home if you're not home 13-18 hours a day.
@@spikedpsycho2383 open carry *is* bearing arms. Arguing CCW on the grounds of 2A basically requires tacking on an "in any way I want" clause which would be highly problematic for other reasons.
Would it be a violation of my rights for you to say I can't bring a gun onto your property? Trying to say you making that restriction is okay under 2A but that a CCW ban (with no open carry ban) is unconstitutional starts to look gerrymandered.
120.5 guns per 100 people. (393 million total)
In the USA guns were used in: 21,000 homicides & 26,000 suicides.
That means, assuming each gun can only kill one person, (obviously, some shootings have multiple casualties from the same weapon) for every 8,543 guns, one gun kills someone. if you discount suicide, that ratio goes down to 18714:1
a similar comparison of automobiles is 42,795 deaths, & 263.6 million total "passenger vehicles"
So for each 6159 cars, one kills someone.
All numbers are for 2021.
What on earth does total number of guns have to do with anything? The only true comparison is homicides per 100,000 population. The US has by far the worst of ALL 1st world nations, all of whom have tighter gun laws.
@@jernhardstang1565 "Wondering how the homicide number might be determined"
FBI stats have the definitions.
" Including inadvertent discharge, legal civilian defensive action, legal law enforcement action"
None of these are homicides and not counted as such in the FBI stats.
@@ratofvengence not to mention the suicides and police and gang activity make up about 90% of these crimes, leaving the other 10% to things like mass shootings and ordinary homicide.
i may be about 10-15% off
@@ZaMonolith1986 Again, as I told the other person, the FBI has definitions for these stats. Homicides don't include suicides or police shootings at all. And yes, gang activity is homicides, why on earth wouldn't they be lol? I already explained this above...
"leaving the other 10% to things like mass shootings and ordinary homicide."
It's way more than that, as should be clear now.
"i may be about 10-15% off"
Lol.
@@ratofvengenceGermans or the French dont allow any Guns, and guees what. They dont Kill each other in schools or Malls.
The war on guns just like the war on drugs has already been lost...
It's a war on freedom and individualism. Guns are just one front on which the war is being waged.
@Perry Williams Agreed its never been about health or safety and has only ever been about control...
To control society, you must disarm society. To silence society, you must control the speech/thoughts of society
Neither of these was a war, people that abuse drugs die, their own fault. People that use guns irresponsibly face consequences, again, their fault. People who lack personal responsibility tend to make irrational decisions.
Atleast I'm not completely surrounded by junkies and idiots with guns
A town in Holland did an experimental test on road traffic measures..... they got rid of ALL of it.
The removed traffic lights, street markings and signs, in a radical experiment to see what would happen to driver safety in an environment where there was no hand-holding.
Road traffic accidents dropped radically.
In an environment where everyone had to take personal responsibility for driving safely, everyone paid vastly more attention, made no assumptions about what other cars would do, and as a result, the whole town was safer.
I think there are lessons to be learned here about the "prohibition industry". Its the same with knives here in the UK. The laws keep getting stricter, but the knife crime keeps going up. Perhaps a different approach is required, because you cannot legislate against crime and stupidity.
hold your horses cowboy. theres another experiment where they switched from left to right driving and accidents dropped down as well.... for a time. then people got used to it and the accidents went back up to usual rates.
i promise you that after a while, that town would probably have higher traffic accidents.
@@slinger7529that's a great point, but I feel like he was more trying to say that prohibition or restriction is not always the answer to all of our problems. You said that the other town went back to their usual rates, which implies that they didn't excessively exceed the previous rates. Who's to say that the town in Holland would exceed former rates. In fact, we presumably don't even have the information to say that they went back up in the first place.
I know this is an old comment. But I can share with you my perspective on this. I was on a small island for a year called Saipan. While on the island a massive typhoon (hurricane) hit the island. It wiped out power for about 50 days. Traffic lights didn’t work whatsoever. What we realized on the island in that time was that when there were no traffic lights, traffic flowed much smoother.
@@slinger7529 That would work on small communities where everybody has seen everybody face, so you would feel more responsability or at least fear that commiting a felony won't go free. In a metropolis, of course they would relax. But I've been to small towns where there were no traffic lights and people had respect. Also the ticket cameras were on spot.
So you want people to carry guns instead of knives ? U braindead?
Abolish the ATF repeal the NFA.
We should, Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
Abolish all government institutions
ATF should be a convenience store, not an unconstitutional organization of state thugs and thieves.
@@thefurryteacher1120 even Karl Marx had it right. Lol
We need a serious believer Second Amendment president who will issue pardons for every non violent, technical, gun control conviction that's occurred since the 1930s.
Englishmen here. After the Scottish Shootings in 1996. The British Government took fast action to completely ban the ownership of firearms...Granted we still have illegal imports of firearms to gang members. But generally speaking the likelihood of you seeing or even knowing someone who has been injured or killed by a firearm is extremely low...Our epidemic is Knife Crime.
Really? Banning guns means the killers WILL FIND ANOTHER WAY TO KILL?!?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The US has a higher knife homicide rate than the UK, then add on their 3rd world level of gun homicides...
England has less knife murders per year than the US,
@carlthelongshoreman1979 As bad as knife crime is in the UK, it doesn’t even come close to being as problematic as gun crime is in America. The UK is a crime free paradise compared to America.
@@denisdiderot6779 no
While I appreciate what Reason is trying to do here, I still don’t believe my rights are subject to the statistical likelihood of “making society safer”.
Their content would be far less entertaining if their only argument was self evidence.
@@tcorourke2007 yea and that’s why I prefaced my statement the way that I did.
One could make the argument that you shouldn't have the right to bear arms. Make no mistake. You are in a democracy. People have been voting away the rights enumerated in the Constitution for a long time and the checks and balances employed in preserving those rights have been hijacked.
@@jimlovesgina you just summed up my opposition to democracy and the constitution perfectly. 👍🏻
While I agree this is the argument people make and replying without any data ti the guy who us using data to argue makes your side look pretty terrible.
We need a study comparing gun control to tyrannical rule
Best idea ever.
Even from here, Spain, i can tell you the difference, you have free speech (even with Big te hs attacks) and here polive can came to the door for a tweet. USA is the last and only free nation of the world, if you fall, we will.
1 7 7 6
We have multiple studies on that very subject. Case studies, in fact. It's called history; just look up any authoritarian regime. Namely the one with all those guys who could see Kyle.
Look into Venezuela. There has been research put out that after they got rid of gins, violence went way up with criminal on civilian. And government on civilian.
We have one. It's called "the twentieth century." ua-cam.com/video/snM3hZfjS5s/v-deo.html
Look at pre-war Germany.
I live in Brazil and we have extreme gun control over here, It's safe to say that... indeed... it doesn't work lol.
I read the laws in Mexico, they are incredibly restrictive. Yet they are the 3rd or 4th highest.
Brazil is the first.
But I'd like to know the laws in Brazil. If you can send a link
The anti-gun cabal likes to exclude "third world countries".
I don't think it's the gun control laws that aren't working in Brazil or Mexico etc.... what a dumb comment. no laws work there and you know it.
@@Bubba_Grimm why doesn't the gun control laws work there? Or any law?
@@XXXPPMXXX laws only work if they're enforced and followed. These are places infamous for ineffective law enforcement. Cartel laws have more bearing on large swaths of these populations rendering something like gun control laws and they're effect on society not very analogous to first world countries unfortunately.
The idea of restricting gun access to citizens but at the same time defunding the police, does not work. Shall not be infringed.
The best studies show gun violence like the vast majority of violent crime is an inner city problem. If more guns meant more crime, wouldn't the bulk of gun violence be where all the legal guns are.
Exactly… Inner city, black on black crime distorts the statistics for the rest of country, but for some reason we quantify data as if those crimes are rampant all over the place. And, the reasons for this disproportionate amount of crime has already been put forth many years ago by libertarian-leaning conservatives like Thomas Sowell. The left, who often wields way too much legislative power would rather ignore the facts as usual and instead demonize all guns/gun owners.
Like my local range must be the most dangerous place around...🙄
Most dangerous thing are fatherless homes in the inner cities. Future gang bangers come from fatherless homes
@@scoot45123 that's what makes it the most safe
Well if you compare the homicide rates of individual US states to those of other countries, you'll find that pretty much every single state has an extremely high rate in international comparison. The only two that are ok, not great but ok, are maine and new hampshire.
Whereas for example Montana has no big citys, little gun control, few left wing people or minorities etc. yet its homicide rate is 5.0 compared to 2.0 in canada and 1.7 in belgium (those are pretty much the worst developed countries).
All developed countries are pretty diverse, but one of the few things they all have in common, is stricter gun laws than the US.
Btw i'm not even anti gun. I'm swiss and own like 10 guns, including an AK47 and full auto SIG550. Its probably more the attitude and specifics of how it works in the US, not so much the general availability of guns.
As a latin guy i will tell you this, some people are terrified of guns and the ones who actually acquire one have lots of cash, being inside a third world country that means not a lot of us have guns and you could say that's a way to regulate the use and purchase of guns and the big surprise is we're no where near SAFE, in fact, MOST of the criminals here have guns and we can't do shit against them, why? because guns are too expensive, only cops are allowed to fight criminals and the law itself is very specific when it comes to "self defense" and even when people defend themselves there's a chance the criminal will fight back in court, so what do we do? just pray that cops will catch them eventually meanwhile people feel unsafe and most tragically die.
For me to see american politicians saying "life would be much safer without guns" is a big lie, we ARE NOT safe based on this simple logic, corruption exists and criminals will get guns one way or another to intimidate or achieve their mischievous goals. People should always have the right to fight back and not be condemn to an insecure style of living even inside your house just because some maggot who picked your house will enter by force and take everything you worked for.
"There's no proof of this will not work" it doesn't work, we are the proof, it just doesn't.
Extreme minarchism is the solution for Latin America. Corrupt, expensive regimes only bring poverty, high crime, hunger and mass unemployment. Having lived in Peru, I'd love to see that terrible regime crumble.
It's time to start from 0
Peru failed after a socialist coup in the 1960s.. today it's the same bloated socalist regime under another name in power.
Very good statement.
Absolutely right, it just doesn't work. Except in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Germany, England, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and all the other western democracies.
@@paulmcewen7384
Doesn't work in Canada either.
People will find other ways to harm you if they don't have a gun
Personally speak as I was stabbed defending a young lady at a party in Surrey Canada. Sure wish I had the right to defend myself and the young lady with a pew pew rather than trying to disarm a violent thug bare handed.
F off with your "guns r scarry" bs
Why don't you all become outlaws then?
What I've learned about studies, especially in the last 10 years, is that the "result" of the study largely depends on who is paying for the study.
Not really. Also Look into homicides with a hammer VS. AR-15s.
@@JohnSmith-is4uu What?
@@JohnSmith-is4uu Look into knife homicides in Brittian
@Vesta_the_Lesser Did I say or imply that gun violence is not a problem, or that I don't want anyone to do anything about it, or did you come to that conclusion on your own through your own biases?
If you read my statement and take it for what it is then it's clear to see your biases are making you come to that conclusion, and it doesn't change the fact that the source of the money for the study more often than not influences the results of said study. Simply put, you read more into my statement than was there, and that's on you.
The problem is there are dozens of solutions being offered, but the only acceptable one for the people yelling about the problem is to ban guns, which will not be a solution at all. We have several cities in this country that are proof of that, as well as Brazil's crime rate falling by 34% over three years after they made it easier for citizens to own and carry guns, and Japan having one of the highest suicide rates in the world despite citizens not being allowed to own guns.
There are plenty of facts to the contrary that gun control works, and the fact that people will always find another way to do evil, hence the saying you can't legislate against evil, all you can do is try to prepare for it. Being armed is one of those ways.
@Vesta _The_Lesser It is a problem, but not a major one
300,000 gun deaths a year
The vast majority are suicide (which is more of a social issue) and misfires, malfunctions, and others.
If you also take into account self defense, then decide what is gang violence (again social issues) it is rare.
The DOJ found that 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally, no laws put in place will do anything if the current ones aren't followed.
I live in Australia and can say without doubt the gun control laws introduced 25years ago have done nothing to stop gun violence. Infact gun deaths went up and illegal gun caches are seized regularly. The only thing our gun laws did was to make it easier for criminals to kill.
Because we haven't had a mass shooting since the laws were passed?
It has though, that’s fact
@@Finnbobjimbob
It has though? What way has gun control worked? Just yesterday yet another unarmed man was shot by a criminal. That's around 10 people just this year.
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zdbut it stopped mass shootings
I'm glad they showed politicians from both parties advocating for gun control. As someone who actually wants to get rid of all gun laws, it's frustrating to see republicans get so much credit.
That's the bipartisanship these politicians celebrate. Republicans and democrates collaboration to make life of normal Americans harder .
Democrats in Republican districts
The left vs right paradigm is a lie. There is one club and we the people are not in it.
In other words, we can only give democrats credit for being somewhat honest about the evil they want to do of constantly destroying more of the human right to self-defense.
True, but are there many democrat controlled state legislatures that have passed constitutional carry? I think some Republicans are doing a pretty good job of keeping our 2nd amendment intact. There are decades of harm that need to be corrected, however. I just don't see many Dems up to the challenge.
The guest is right. Studying statistics taught me that it’s very hard to prove causation, and most studies you read in the news are sensationalized or BS. I know a bunch of people personally who are MDs and do research as part of their job (all intelligent people, but also very left wing type of folks). They have such a political axe to grind going into the study, I have no faith in the results to not be biased. For example, my one friend described her study as how she’s trying to show having guns in the home increases risk of suicide in minors. There ya go…
Bill Gates wanted us to read "How to Lie with Statistics"...
The reason why the 2nd amendment exists, tyranny and foreign attacks, can be measured. In the last century more than 150 million people were killed by their own government, WW1 killed 30 million, WW2 killed 80 million. And there are 500k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
Gun control, other than being unconstitutional, could only affect those of the 15k annual homicides actually committed with guns. Subtract all of those committed with illegal guns that by definition can't be affected by law, police shootings,... and you might have 1k homicides with legal guns. By about 100 million people in the US that live in a household with a firearm. And about 4k homicides with non-guns, probably mostly by the 230 million without guns.
Meaning, you could prevent literally zero murders through gun control and would just force people to use other means, which the 4k homicides show is absolutely possible. Worse than that, illegal guns would be through the roof while legal self defense nearly impossible. Zero defensive gun uses, and then the real crime wave would start. Thousands of death by gun control, not legal guns. And that's even before war or tyrannical gen0cides happen.
Except for the 13/50 statistic. That's pretty alarming.
Gee, all I needed to hear was that old Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Free Kentucky News: The obedient must be slaves
ua-cam.com/video/8JyqZKGXAg4/v-deo.html
There are NO good guys now
As soon as someone mentions statistics, the reasonable part of the conversation is over, because anyone can find a study that supports their position, and it's probably wrong.
Let us never forget those who "Champion Gun Control" in politics were the *same ones demanding to Defund the Police* and promoting a soft on crime solution that now has NYC looking like it did in the late 80's to early 90's. Its about POWER not like they care about "public safety". Actions tell far more than their words ever will.
"Soft on crime" is not a thing. The Idea is to keep one time offenders from falling into career criminality by keeping them out of prison. Also defunding the police does not mean cutting police Budgets it means keep police doing police stuff like preventing and investigating crime. And not catching all the Fallout from failed social institutions. It means police have the ability to do their job instead of having to act as Medics, psychologists, socialworkers.... which they correctly have to do.
@David Daniels Just no. By mainstream Media you mean those idependently reporting on facts instead of lying and being a propaganda Tool of the American Nazi Party.. oh whait they are called Republicans aren't they...
@David Daniels Its is very easy to research to know what you say is invented and so badly that it takes a total moron to believe it.
Yeah the whole thing is a nonsense, look at EU, we have guns here too in central europe and we have no mass shootings. Even my neighbor has guns, I do too, and next neighbor 3 houses further has guns too. What we have here tho is almost non-existent war on drugs, like even when calculated per capita its like 10 times lower than in US. We also have a good education system, to me it seems to be like at least 5 times as serious and strict, + its mandatory. You cant really teach kids competence and responsibility if the schools and their parents fail at it completely. I think if you want to prevent the crime, any kind of crime, you need to start with a good education, promoting good behavior, manners, teaching responsibility and adequate morals. That alone will reduce all the violence and crime. Then the next step would be to reduce bullying, both by schools (school officials, teachers, students) and esp. by the state and its injustice in legal system. If you bully and destroy peoples lives, they'll snap. It can be me, it can be you, your neighbor, anyone really. Teach people responsibility, treat them properly, create a good environment for them to live in and they wont go on streets shooting at each other. Thats the only thing which would reduce the gun violence effectively without taking a single gun.
Also other things like for example ending the war on drugs would help, it would stop being such a problem and substances would even become safer for everyone. The same effects had prohibition on both alcohol safety and violence because of prohibition, but people uneducated on the matter see it as the ultimate boogeyman, just like they did with alcohol back in the day. Forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest, imagine if they legalized most substances, all the gangs and cartels dependent on usa would fall apart in matter of weeks.
@@TheNecromancer6666 That is fundamentally flawed, thieves will keep stealing because they know that they won't get into real trouble.
The question is "why people decide to kill other people?" not "what tools people use to kill?"
An answer to the first question will provide a solution to the problem but politicians do not want to have an answer to this question they want citizens to be disarmed because disarmed citizens are easier to control and don't have much chance of standing against a tyrannical government, a government that doesn't trust the citizens and is afraid of armed citizens is a tyrannical one.
With an estimated 350-400 million guns in 100 million citizens hands, if guns were truly the problem I think we'd know it.
Right, the US has lots of guns and lots of gun deaths on the world stage. Only Brazil has more deaths per year. And gang and drug infested corrupt Latin America has more deaths per head. Great company! Guns and gun violence is simply a non-issue in the vast majority of the developed world besides the US.
@@super8mate gun deaths in other countries are simply NOT reported in A.ericsn media. But apparently you couldn't explain why our country with 400 million does NOT have 400 million shootings, duh!!
@@ltdc426 Are you trying to say that other countries comparable to US (wealthy, western) have similar gun deaths but media just doesn't report it?
@@super8mate I'm saying three things. #1: yup
#2: nobody cares about other countries
#3: regardless of other countries YOU haven't explained why U.S. has 400 million guns but we don't have 400 million shootings. Apparently we gun owners are NOT the problem.
@@ltdc426 This is plain crazy. Admittedly USA residents don't hear anything about Australia BUT - I live here in Australia, and we changed our gun laws after a particular mass shooting. We've had zero mass shootings since then. ZERO. Gun control regulation will not stop a violent person from being violent, but a violent person with a knife cannot inflict the same level of damage to a person out of 'arms length reach' from them as they could with a gun because....range.
HOWEVER - the USA already has high levels of gun ownership, so I don't see how you can 'disarm' the bulk of the citizenry. God help America.
I think back to when I studied statistics in university. Our Prof brought in a book he had entitled “How To Lie With Statistics”. It was a tongue-in-cheek humorous publication meant for fun. In it, it was proven that it was cheaper to own a Cadillac than a VW Beetle by cherry-picking the numbers such as the Caddy was in Florida and the Bug was in a very remote town in Alaska where parts had to be flown in. Another was looking at crop yields of fields in arid regions vs places where rainfall is more plentiful by picking particular drought years in the latter and unusually high rainfall years in the former. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is no different.
They are definitely pretending that Australia doesn’t exist.
@@genericamerican7574 most definitely…ooh, these numbers don’t fit our narrative so I’ll just disregard them.
Yes, the gun lobby and gun crowd do have flawed statistics and logic; most recent large studies from top institutions are exposing their lies!
I heard that Bill Gate had recommended a book, maybe the same book, titles how to lie using facts and statistics (or very close to that). I was skeptical and did some research and sure enough. It was brought about during the covid madness and Fauci. It is so easy to manipulate people using facts and statistics. A cardiologist told me Fausic was a political hack and was mad that he was using facts and statistics to manipulate people. He even used an example like child hospitalizations from covid tripled. He said that can sound like a lot but if there was only 1 child hospitalized and now there are 3 then that would be true bit that still is not a lot. I have trying to explain that to people. Just like doubling your money. Wow you doubled your money!? Well doubling a dollar isn't significant but if you double a million dollars that is way more significant. I was saying that when the economy was trying to recover the statistics used on the so called huge growth. When you shut things down and make people stay home then job numbers are way down so percentages will be much larger with a much smaller number. I won't explain any more. I know you get it. Hopefully others do too.
statistics can give good portraits but for that to be the case the data needs to be troughly investigated. ... most studies don't even bother with basic review of the data. As they say in the statistical world ... context is everything.
Big nope. The best control is both hands...
An armed society is a polite society
Shall not be infringed
I have gun control, it's a good stock, foregrip, and a sling.
@mr oko yeah, using live targets.
Shall not be infringed.
What a completely worthless and uninformed statement from someone who has never even seen another civilized country where no one is armed, not even the police.
No, an armed society is a society where a lot of people are going to die from gunshots, it has no effect on politeness.
@@thealexanderbond Found the anti-2Ar
Gun control works if your purpose is to keep the law abiding from owning guns. Criminals are unaffected if you discount the added safety to them of knowing your victims are unable to defend themselves.
None of these studies are necessary. The solution is already in the Constitution: The right to bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
bear
There is a little irony here with your comment. The solution was actually added in at a later date using an amendment. That is why people talk about the Second Amendment. This right that we have is not actually as fundamental as people claim - it wasn't that immediately apparent or important to make its way into the original writing of the constitution.
@@michaelharrison1093 neither was abolishing the ownership fo slaves. Do you realize how hard it is to start a country from scratch? You act as if this is a easy thing to do. Have you read the federalist papers? The creation of the constitution we have today took time to become what it is within perfectly good reason.
@@michaelharrison1093 That seems like a very goofy argument. The 2A was ratified at the exact same time as the 1A, which would then suggest (at least by what your reasoning seems to be) that free speech and freedom of assembly and freedom of religion are ALSO "not actually as fundamental as people claim" since those rights didn't "make their way into the original writing of the constitution"... No?
so you think a law proposed to defend against the Brits from around 300-400 years ago should still be used? lol
“What is history but the story of how politicians have squandered the blood and treasure of the human race?”
― Thomas Sowell
Based Thomas Sowell quote :)
That's solid. But i watched a video where he described why he turned away from the political left & joined the right. It was because he asked his boss for some data about crops in south america & he never got the data back. Like. He didn't change his strongly held views because he got proof that his conclusions were wrong. From his own mouth, it's because he sent one request for data and didn't get a response back. He could have tried a FOIA request. Or done some more legwork.
Idr exactly what he was trying to prove, but it was something about economics. I also read his book about Marxism where he thoughtfully discusses marxism throughout the book, citing sources & whatnot, then at the end his tone completely changes. He denigrates everything he has said throughout the book and does not substantiate his changed opinion. He abandons all nuance to take a hard stance of political right talking points.
@@reed6514 Ok Tanky
@@Barskor1 i have no love for state communism, dictatorship, or the ussr. You're misunderstanding my comments.
This video explained more in 16 minutes than politicians did in 16 years lol.
Depressing, isn't it... xD
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
2:15 The most pressing question should be "Do gun control laws reduce freedom?"
A policy's results are often a reflection of the governance or society it's implemented in. Even if one day we see academic consensus that legalizing weed makes our society more dangerous and less productive, weed should still be legal because freedom is more important. Obviously this isn't the sexy opinion, but it's something to consider. Gun control doesn't prevent or reduce violence, but more importantly gun control is not a right function of government. In fact, it violates individual liberty.
This guy right here ladies and gentleman, is what we need more of. Or at least this opinion.
Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, who delegate to government the authority to exercise those powers granted to it. The individual citizen cannot in his own right, under his own authority, authorize his neighbor to commit murder on his behalf because the individual has no just authority to commit murder himself. Similarly the individual cannot grant to government the authority to prohibit his neighbor from owning a firearm since he cannot prohibit his neighbor on his own authority Government, being a human creation, does not have and cannot have any powers which the people are unable to grant to it.
This is why we have a Constitution in the first place - to specify exactly what authority we are granting to government and how that authority is to be used. We, the people, explicitly told government that we denied it any authority to restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This does not change simply because a few people, most notably the kind of mental defectives we seem to regularly vote into office, want the authority to restrict the liberties of the people. Government's entire purpose is to protect the liberties of the people, not to decide which ones the people will be "allowed" to retain.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with an entire class of governing professionals who reject the idea that their authority is or should be limited, as well as a large number of ignorant, foolish voters who continually return these frauds to office.
I give you alcohol to validate your point even further. Very few benefits, lots of harm, yet still legal.
@@ericswart3786 Was illegal and actually did way more harm than the harm it initially and supposedly had.( I hope you know what I mean )
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
This is the most underrated and under-viewed videos on gun control I’ve seen. Well done.
It's idiotic cherry picking to push a political narrative, by a far right libertarian group.
Your statement says a lot
@@longgone9869Yours don't
Germans or the French dont allow any Guns, and guees what. They dont Kill each other in schools or Malls.
Statistically, a person is more likely to become a victim of gun violence when the firearm is in the hands of an agent acting on the behalf of a government -either the victim's own, (highest incidence) or an agent of another government, as in the case of war. This statistical probability increases when the victims of gun violence perpetrated by the State are themselves unarmed - Clearly, we cannot afford to wait any longer to take meaningful action to remove weapons from State ownership.
Especially with leftists controlling the government, we'll see more government induced acute lead poisonings of citizens.
agree
Please Cite your source. I can provide numerous sources that refute everything you claimed.
@@georgeenke4937 1)"Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900" ISBN 3825840107, available for viewing at the Berkley Law Library - not a very exciting title - but accurate.
2) "NCPA Policy Report No. 211" ISBN 1568080271, from the National Center for Policy Analysis
Please note that, depending om the compendium of sources you choose to consult, the rate is between 4:1 and 6:1 of humans killed by their own governments, as opposed to being killed by hostile enemy action during war. Not every perpetrator of mass murder is as meticulous in their record keeping as Germany was
well that's in part the result of high availability of guns, as unlike in states where citizens almost never have guns in US police officers are trigger happy psyhos who shoot first and ask questions later because very likely response from the person whom you try to stop will by gun shoot
in my country police is practically unarmed and they will absolutely never ever point a gun to any person which they are trying to arrest even if that person is armed with knife and threatening bystanders if policeman ever takes a a gun to his hands that's a big event. Touching a gun is a big no no here.
I would much rather have a gun and not need it, as opposed to needing one and not having it. That goes for high capacity magazines and so called “Assault Weapons”. I really love the presentation about statistics, and how it backs up my belief that you can manipulate any statistic to forward your own personal point of view.
If someone really wants a gun, it's easy to illegally obtain one.
Really? Easy?
@@f41lurizerYe it is
Gavin: "gun safety save lives"
> mostly everyone in my area has illegal guns.
> very easy to get guns from the street.
> all it does was screw over law abiding people.
I see what you're saying. However, the rand study actually finds supporting evidence for some control measures reducing violent crime. Please go read the actual rand study.
@@reed6514 come live down here and tell me how the studies are working. Studies this studies that. Nah man , do what you preach.
@@valentindelasierra7517 Reasonable gun control advocates don't want to take away your right to defend yourself. A couple of the policies were regarding mental illness, background checks, child access laws, and domestic violence.
None of those would stop most people from getting legal guns.
However, with how many people have records due to non-violent drug offenses, i would hope there are provisions in such laws to allow non-violent "criminals" to get guns to protect themselves.
Main point of my comment is that this video is disingenuous. I don't know your community & i don't know what will work there. I am confident this video is highly partisan and dishonest.
@@reed6514 do what you preach. Come and live down here in California.
@@valentindelasierra7517 I'm not really advocating for gun control policies. I'm not well enough informed on the matter. I'm not emailing policy makers or anything. So I'm not really preaching anything here, except for some political analysis and criticism of political pundits (such as the makers of this video).
Oh please, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." And please, high cap magazine? A 30 round magazine is standard capacity as is a 15, a 10, a 5. It is built to hold exactly the amount of rounds as designed.
Standard capacity for the Galil is 50 rounds :)
Fr, every weapon can be an assault weapon lol
Idiots don’t understand what they say
assault rifle is a term meaning select fire automatic rifles. Politicians regularly misuse this term, and "assault weapon" pretty much just means "weapon" a spear is an assault weapon, as is a trebuchet, as is a cap & ball pistol, as is a fully automatic AK-47.
@@gonkdroid4prez539 Also most Ars don't even count under that definition since they are all semi automatic and same with most pistols lmao
@@envygd4902 yes, that is what I meant. "Assault rifle" means a very specific thing (which is already mostly illegal), which is why they call them assault weapons because that doesn't actually mean anything
End All gun laws
ok maybe that’s a bit far
@@joeypaulzine3769 Yeah, the "all or nothing" approach really isn't helpful to either side. There are absolutely people who, for the safety themselves and others, should not be allowed the power that comes with owning a fire arm because they have proven themselves unfit for the responsibility. Additionally while we might not have data to back it up, it seems intuitive that rules about proper storage, transport and carry of firearms would limit accidental injuries and deaths.
Germans or the French dont allow any Guns, and guees what. They dont Kill each other in schools or Malls.
"The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." -- Jeff Cooper.
The most sensible gun law in the United States is the one that is the supreme law of the land.
It states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say that the right of the _militia_ to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear _certain types of government approved_ arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms _shouldn’t_ be infringed.
It doesn’t say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed _unless some people want them to be infringed upon._
It doesn’t say the _privilege_ …
It says …the *_RIGHT_* of the *_PEOPLE_* to keep and bear arms *_SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED._*
Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Is it because they don’t want to understand?
All gun laws are advocated by and for people who can afford private security. Politicians. They will always scheme ways to take the power from those they govern. Once they finally get their way, well…just look back through history. You know what happens next. During Obama’s term, he signed gun legislation with children standing around him. The news made it a huge deal. You know who else signed gun legislation into law with children standing around when he did it?
Hitler. It was supposedly “for the children”. It effectively removed civilian ownership of guns. Communism did this too. Absolute hell followed shortly thereafter. Millions dead. The government will never give back power they can lay claim to. They will always need more funding.
There is one office in Washington that officially exists, yet hasn’t been staffed since the mid 90’s due to “budget cuts”. It’s the office of gun rights restoration. This ought to tell everyone everything they need to know about politicians on both sides. They aren’t about to give you back “rights” they legislate away from you.
Yes. That's exactly why.
Because most people dont know what the term regulated means in this context. Unfortunately for the founders this definition was probably the most popular so they thought they picked the correct word. Now everyone thinks of a rule passed, by, say, the EPA, as what a regulation is. Also lacking in the modern perspective is what a militia is. People say that means national guards but those never existed for a while. Militias were local, and united under the Continental army by Washington and others.
@@piouswhale
Yes, the militia was the general population and well regulated meant that they had everything they needed to do what needed to be done. Still, it doesn’t say that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (even though the people were the militia) it says the right of *_THE PEOPLE_* …
It’s pretty clear. You have to do mental gymnastics in order to misunderstand. That’s why I say that the reason they don’t understand is because they don’t want to understand. It doesn’t say what they want it to say so they try to make it say something else. (By “they” I mean educated leftists. They’re the ones taking our rights away. They enlist the support of naïve people who don’t think it through- useful idiots.)
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
"Aaron Brown absolutely NUKES gun control studies for 16 minutes straight" - alternate title
"Crypto guy talks about guns" for me
countries in Latin America, such as Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico, have often reported some of the highest rates of gun-related homicides in the world. These countries have struggled with issues related to organized crime, drug trafficking etc
And yet they have strict gun control laws
Now compare the US with other 1st world nations lol.
@@ratofvengence the fact we have guns and are a 1st world country says alot by itself
@@thatguy2521 Lol, you think other 1st world nations don't have gun ownership? You clearly know nothing of the outside world :D
@@ratofvengence
they do but it’s a lot stricter than ours
@@thatguy2521 Indeed, and ALL of them have a FRACTION of the US homicide rate. Legal gun ownership, but no 3rd world homicide rate and no frequent mass shootings. You guys should try it :)
Hot take: any weapon too dangerous to trust the citizenry with, is far too dangerous to trust the government with. I’ll happily support disarmament the day after the Secret Service, FBI, ATF, and military are disarmed.
Oh, that’s not what people meant by “gun control?”
Don't forget that in the past 10 or so years the USA has publicly lost 6 nuclear warheads (Not counting the ones we don't even know about), but says the common civilian is not responsible enough to own a gun
Well, government at least in theory is accountable for their actions and citizens are not.
@@deltaxcd in theory.
In reality, government doesn’t take responsibility for leaving guns in Afghanistan for the Taliban, or giving guns to the cartel, or burning down a building full of women and kids.
@@philrab Well at least in theory, you can vote for another government and change it if you dislike what it does. If you vote for the same then probably you do like that they do all that stuff after all. It is now your responsibility to change government and if you don't then you are responsible yourself for everything it does.
@@deltaxcd thats funny as hell.
The citizens in the usa are way more accountable than the government.
Leave one gun on the street you as a citizen are going to jail.
How many were left in the enemy hands?
How many did the atf let go to Mexican drugs cartels?
How many times have the politicians armed rebels? That later became terrorists? Like Binladend?
Yep we trained him to fight the Russians. Oh the difference between rebel and terrorists. If they kill people the politicians want dead there rebels or freedom fighters if they do something the politicians don't like the same people become terrorists.
Na the government not accountable
The argument taking away guns will reduce suicide has recently been proven to me to be ineffective. What happens is many gun owners end up not seeking help, because they know their guns will be taken away, and may never be given back. Guns to many are a favourite sport, gather food, and give a sense of personal security, as well can be collectors items. To lose them is a huge deal. There shouldn’t even be a thought about taking them away unless there is a real, imminent danger. Studies have shown no correlation to gun ownership and a drop in suicides. They’re used more often, because they’re an effective, and easy way to do it, but I can tell you the vast vast majority of suicides are not spontaneous decisions that are taken lightly. People will simply find another way. Just like using a truck to kill dozens of people in a mass murder, there are many ways to kill.
Japan has the highest suicide rate in the modern world and they have essentially zero guns.
@@c3bhm Yes. They also had a mass murder of I believe like 40 people, and all it took was $5 in gas and a $1 bic lighter. Even in Canada, people are killed by almost anything more than guns. Like literally, you name it, and more die from it than guns, yet there are over 2 million legal gun owners and probably even more illegal owners. Take out the recent gang crime and it’s almost nothing.
Some people say "even if it saves one life", but that’s such a pile of crap. 4000 Canadians die every year on the roads. Cut speed limits in half, and instal speed limiters so no on can cheat. You’ll cut it by more than half, but they would have a stroke. They mean so long as it doesn’t inconvenience THEM, one life matters. There are inherent risks in society, to pretend no one should die, means no one gets to actually live.
They aren't even the most effective way to cease one's own existence. Consider how many people have been shot (by themselves or by others) and survived. That bullet may do a lot of damage, but that might mean that you just wind up having to live with a horrible, disfiguring injury if one does things wrong. Additionally, a rope isn't regulated.
Firearms are not for targeting oneself. They do a bad job of it. They're more suited for others.
@@latemanparodius5133 Yes, true. I used to think no one survived, but I’ve seen some really horrible cases of survival…..though I can’t imagine someone with firearms experience making a mistake like that, but anything is possible.
I hate that shit. I have no intention of killing myself but they dont let me have a gun cause i was sad for a little while
"The possibility that one's intended victim is armed was evidently a concern to most of these men- the strong majority(81%) agreed that it was wise to find out in advance if one's potential victims are armed, and to avoid them if they are."
'The Armed Criminal in America-
a survey of incarcerated felons'
by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi
"Common sense" is a vastly overused term.
Also, prepared to ignore all gun laws now since obviously the lower courts are ignoring Bruen.
Researchers do the same thing with "climate models". If you choose what input variables should be considered, you automatically choose the outcomes you're predicting. The confidence they have as completely misplaced.
Also it doesn't matter if the data is accurate or not. The 2nd Amendment is a right, period.
Have any example of that for climate?
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Go watch Tony Heller on Rumble . . . you'll get hundreds of examples.
@@philroe2363 Not gonna lie, that guy sounds like a nutjob, and more than a little partisan
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 yeah. So do you.
Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary
I legitimately heard someone say once "how could more people use guns for self defense than for harm? If there were no guns, there wouldn't be a need to defend yourself" as if somehow we can make a perfect utopia where there is no crime and governments never do anything corrupt and there are never any wars, and that we can just take away guns from criminals at any point.
People seem to forget that government is just a socially accepted form of organised crime.
Right on, government and the mafia are one and the same.
Your last statement shows that your understanding of government is of the same level as the opinion of a radical anarchist. Aka. completely invalid and unjustified.
well the difference between mafia ang government is that at lest in theory you are part of that big mafia gang yourself while plain mafia is unaccountable to anyone outside of their limited gang but they still tax outsiders breaking that "no taxation without representation" rule
@@Arcaryon explain how a government is different from a moralized-ish crime ring? The only reason what they do isn't illegal is because they make the rules. They take your money, they tell you what you can and can't do, they punish you for not doing what they say. How is that different from organized crime? I'm not saying that a government is inherently bad, hell, I think that having a government is generally a good thing, but that doesn't make it any different from a really big mafia that society decided to say 'fuck it' to resisting and let it take power.
@@kugelblitz1557
You argue like one of the idiot anarchists who have no actual idea of government even is. Are you an idiot anarchist? Of course not?
Well then don’t pick up their talking points :P
Government is entirely different from organised crime ( which you could know if you would simply ask google the same things I will partially explain to you now )
They don’t take your money.
You _get_ money for being a part of society which is why you don’t create it, you _earn_ it.
Ever thought about what money is?
It’s a commodity we use to facilitate trade, at the core it’s a tool used to reward those of us who participate in society, it’s an agreed upon thing, it’s inherently _government_ because government is literally the only way humans are able to organise themselves above the most rudimentary family level of hunter gatherers.
Are their governments which operate similar to the mafia? Sure. But they are usually not to be found anywhere in the more developed parts of the western world.
Do me a favour and google some definitions next time because, and I mean this with the least possible offence to your person as a whole, the way you present your thoughts here is fundamentally so incoherent and ill-thought out that you may as well try to argue that the earth is flat and demand a response which is why I am nearly certain that it’s not really your own original understanding as you seem like a smart guy at first glance.
Illegal organisations exist _outside_ of the rest of society. They primarily extort money for their own gain, not to manage it for society. At the core, government is management. Laws manage how we can coexist, taxes are used to facilitate our cooperation, to pay the many managers we need, like the police or the army or judges and ( mainly in modern times ) politicians etc. - the list goes ok but the core issue with the idea of taxation is theft is that people don’t understand that by merely being born and raised within a community, they are in an immense dent to said community. Ever thought of it that way? You get born and get to go to school, use roads others built for your usage, do not have to fear common raiders or invading armies ( if your government does it job that is ), can expect a reasonable protection from crime and fair, unbiased trials… You get the point.
Now, you can always argue about the form of a government, who should pay what taxes, how should the money be actually spend, how much should be spend, should the government be democratic, authoritarian or perhaps a theocracy, an oligarchy or a technocracy ( or perhaps a combination of the aforementioned and many other possibilities ). But no governments?
Which is fundamentally what you argue for when you compare government to organised crime? That’s a downright ridiculous motiojßc
According to the FBI's own data, homicide by firearms is very low considering our population size. Usually ends up being around 10,000 or so, for 330 million people and a large portion of those are gang related. And most of those are carried out with a pistol, despite what politicians want you to think. You can find this info on the FBI's homicide data table 8.
Yup, and the CDC website shows that 600k-3mil people defend themselves with firearms so its not much of an issue
@@lloydlloyd3236 there's that too, amazing what being informed can do for you.
I think america has an issue with violence but it's not gun related.
@@paulsernine5302 that would be the entire world that has a violence issue
@@lloydlloyd3236 Switzerland has more fun per habita and much less crime rate
Gun control has never been about the guns. It’s been about control.
i’m doing a research paper on gun violence for college, the results of which have taught me it’s not about restricting guns, we tried that with drugs and that didn’t work, it’s about allowing the people who need them to have them for protection, all we see on the news are shootings but it’s because we actually show ours, countries like mexico and other South America ones have an absolutely astounding amount of gun violence compared to us, we just actually report on ours.
Exactly, and the meaning liberals define mass shootings as are a crime in which an attacker kills or injures multiple individuals simultaneously using a firearm. So, 2 injured people fall under "mass shootings" criteria. They also count gang on gang violence in their statistics so that's why it seems like so many mass shootings happen all the time. Most people have zero idea what a mass shooting is defined as. The goal by the dems is to disarm civilians. 90% of criminals obtain guns "illegally" so who are they really using gun control on?
what you are talking about is gun control right?
Thats it.
Way to feel better comparing US to Mexico and South America. You should try doing it with some middle east countries, african countries too. Don't do it with European , Canada, Australia, Russia , Japan, China etc, it will only make you feel bad.
Laws define crime, they don’t prevent it. Prohibition didn’t stop anyone from drinking alcohol, and the war on drugs…well, we all know how well that is working.
@pivanov3321 That would prove their point more. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to the violence erupting in all of those places, the deliberate reporting biases there, the fact that criminals remain armed in every single one of those places… Weapon-free zones enable rampages to proliferate, politician’s solution is to expand the domain of the circumstances which enable massacre. Look at every massacre in history before pretending it’ll be different this time; it fits the definition of insanity.
When I hear people say, "If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention," I think to myself that the things that should engender outrage are how we allow ourselves to have such a poor understanding of the tools that we can use to obtain an accurate picture of reality, and how that nearly-universal poor understanding of those tools creates a populace that is disturbingly easy to sway in any direction that allows the Anointed to feel justified in congratulating themselves. Temper the outrage about most other things.
The rand study's actual conclusions don't agree with the claims in this video. Please read the rand study.
Indignance and ignorance onocialmtters have. Ery high correlation.
BLM is the perfect example. Feminist wage gap tooo
@@reed6514 What’s your point? That’s the entire reason why they went over the Rand Study in this video.
@@IStanAmerica They misrepresented the Rand Study's conclusions.
@@reed6514 Are you going to explain how, or just leave it at that vague response?
This guy is very well informed and makes his points simply, clearly and effectively. Great video, thanks!
It is very clear that it is unclear.
XD
He is not. Read the rand study. The conclusions of the rand study do not agree with the very confident claims in this video.
One quote from their study: "We found moderate evidence, our second-highest evidence rating, that dealer background checks reduce firearm homicides."
But you should read it yourself for better context and understanding.
@@reed6514 Where would you even find a place in the world that doesn't have background checks? Comparing places with background checks to those that don't probably have more problems. The US, Canada, and probably the vast majority of Europe would have background checks. Comparing them to countries that don't is comparing very different countries with very different people.
@@IIBloodXLustII idk. I didn't conduct any studies myself. I just read the rand study's conclusions which do not agree with this video's claims about the rand study.
There are SO many lives saved with firearms that are never accounted for. Statistics, garbage in garbage out.
The best gun-control law we could pass would be to eliminate all restrictions that prohibit people from carrying guns as a means of self-defense and stop making them into unarmed victims.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Only the law abiding do.
and criminals dont desevre any human rights in prison if i was the warden of Houston FDC i would stirp criminals of their rights and subject the inmates to brutal beatings and torture from the guards which would easily break the criminals
Noooo. Just like we shouldn't just legalize all drugs. People are STUPID
I do not want an idiot with a gun next me.
@@bludeuce3855 Must not be American.
@@adoe2305 i am amaerican i jsut think criminals dont deserve human rights in prison when you look at thatlands prisons syetm criminals have no rights and are beaten and tortured by the guards and when theyre released they quit crime for good knowing that if they go back to crime theyll end up being beaten or tortured by the guards again and why should we allow the guards to torture and beat criminals in prison and strip criminals of human rights? becuase our prison system is broken
"law abiding citizens" = the talk of fudds.
Finally a video that stated some facts about the subject of gun control and what studies say or don't say. We often put way too much faith in something that is written without backing it up with numerous other studies and articles on the same subject matter. Thanks. This was very helpful and opened me up to look further and deeper into what is being represented.
right that's what i was thinking
One of the greatest arguments for having a firearm is simple: There are only two methods for a victim to stop an attacker. 1. "Reason". The victim can try to convince the attacker to stop on their own. 2. "Force". This means the victim has something to force the attacker to stop, whereas the firearm is the #1 tool used to force an attacker to stop.
Since this cannot be debated (those are the only methods, nothing else is possible), it means that a gun in the hands of a potential victim means they have a fighting chance.
This is an oversimplification, but I get it. Desired outcome is an important factor in this argument. What does forcing the attacker to stop mean? Just stop? Die? Be apprehended? Alot of people would say the least amount of force possible should be used.
@@Codeeez forcing the attacker to stop means shoot until u are empty or they stop moving and then get help to clean up the mess. My 11 year old daughter I a better shot than I am and I'm not terrible. If she gets attacked when it's no longer my job to keep her safe on the daily I know she will at least have a chance.
@@Codeeez I don't think it's "oversimplified", the issue at hand is to stop an attacker, and those are the options. Stop means not continue, death isn't necessary, but it's the usual result. Be apprehended would be a good outcome as well, as laws are in place to punish someone when they break it (laws don't really prevent crime).
When I took both of my CCW classes, "stop the threat" is however many shots it takes (on target) to keep the person from continuing their attack.
@@sysoptech So we're talking about a very specific type of attack/attacker and a very specific type of victim.
@@Codeeez No, not really. All human interactions, when one person wants the other person to "do" something all boil down to "reason or force". If you ever have to be a victim, I hope you had the opportunity to use the best tools at your disposal to stop the attack, regardless of what it is. The criminal (attacker) gets to choose the time, location, number of victims, number of attackers, and choice of weapons. A victim has no say in any of that, and they're at the mercy of their abilities.
i am my last line of defense. you can tell me it's illegal to protect myself, but I'm going to protect myself anyway.
2nd amendment "shall not be infringed" enough said...
lol cry more
@@chuck_norris who's crying...no one here. It's about violations of our (meaning your's too, if you're an American citizen) civil liberties, individual rights and constitutional rights. It's actually really simple, and was written that way so it can not be misconstrued or misunderstood
@@chuck_norris what's the matter, have nothing to say now🤔? Interesting how people just make stupid snarky remarks, but when I try to engage with them, they mysteriously disappear and go away. Either you're trolling or your clueless and have no idea what your talking about. Just another ignorant, naive person who can not see the destruction of our rights that's happening right in front of their eyes 🙄
@@JimmyLicari That guy isn't a citizen. He's a subject.
@@banditoheat a surf, just a walking mindless zombie, a robot who merely takes orders and is a yes man to the whims of the tyrant's
I'm from Sacramento, Ca. Here in Ca you must pass a background check, provide many forms of documentation, valid ID, and if your background checks out you also must wait 10 days before even being able to pickup your firearm(You can NOT leave with it the same day). Need ammo with that? Well guess what, we must conduct another background check in order for you to make that purchase. All of that and yet this past Sunday on 4/3/22 Multiple gang members/prohibited felons in possession of hand guns exchanged fire shooting 10 people and killing 6 outside a night club. One of the gunmen was just recently released early from prison, was in possession of a stolen pistol modded with a auto sear making it fully automatic(which doing such a conversion is already illegal here) with an extended magazine (what California calls "high capacity" magazines, which is also prohibited from purchase here) So at what point or what "gun control" law could we put in place that would have stopped this? I'll save yourself the brain aneurysm and just tell you flat out that obviously NOTHING would have stopped this. These morons DO NOT CARE about the law. Gun control is a fucking joke!
Criminals just don't care about the law, only law abiding citizens do.
People think places like Florida where I'm from is bad, but we also like everywhere else, already require background checks, documents, IDs and a waiting period. I had to do that everytime I have bought a gun. When people call for gun control they really don't know what they are asking, everything they complain about is already in the books and happening, in reality they want complete and absolute bans and restrictions regardless.
The level of knife crime in london tells me all I need to know about the efficacy of gun control.
People will find ways to be violent if they're pushed towards violence.
That's like saying "well there's no cure for aids so why bother treating any diseases"
@@Brough_builds The difference in your analogy is that if you treat other diseases, AIDS doesn't increase its intensity as a result of that. If you implement gun control, a direct result of that is more knife violence.
@@Brough_builds you wish.
It tells plenty about the value of self defense, and a firearm tends to be one of the most effective means of enacting self defense.
You can't cure aids, but you can definitely take steps to protect yourself and avoid exposure.
Yet the knife crime in the US is still higher than London. Plus London is still a safe city even more safer than a lot of US cities. You're more likely to survive a criminal with a knife than a criminal with a gun.
@@Captain_Yorkie1 you realize the US is a lot BIGGER right? The stats don't exactly match well either given the complexity of the matter
Important part is here I have my own gun so my safety is in my own hands, I don't have to rely on the police being minutes away when seconds count. That and I don't live in one of those hellhole big cities that are rife with crime.
0:42 yeah he’s right here. Gun safety saves lives. Lives are saved when you 1, treat every firearm as if it’s loaded 2, keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to fire 3, never point a gun at anything you’re not willing to kill or destroy and 4, always be sure of your target, what’s near it and what’s behind it.
Does everyone have to undergo training before they get a gun? No. Why? Because the NRA has bought some of our politicians, and the NRA doesn’t want a law than even slightly affects gun sales. The same reason that we dont even require background checks before buying a gun (federally, that is).
First comment where all 4 rules are stated. And i scrolled a while. People need to be more educated on the dangers, handling, safekeeping and maintaining firearms. The swiss habe a lot of guns per capita, but most, if not all, have served
The “control” in “gun control” is talking about controlling you more than controlling guns
BINGO!
No it's. I'm an Aussie gun control LITERALLY saves lives. Why do you think we have so few gun deaths per capita?
@@michaelthompson9548 Ok, why does your country have more home invasions than the us? Maybe because they cant defend themselves? Also im european.
@@michaelthompson9548 Australia is less violent as a whole and it has nothing to do with guns. Prisons have no gun deaths in the US yet people are killed at a much higher rate than they are on the street. We have a violence problem and innocent people deserve the right to protect themselves from criminals by using guns. We also hold some power over our government by being an armed populace. Some of the most dangerous areas in the US have the most strict gun control but criminals with murderous intent aren't going to get guns legally anyway. Guns also come across the border and further gun restrictions will only make cartels richer.
michaelthompson9548 how's the ban working for the uk lmao, there's definitely deaths in your country just the shitty media hides it form you.
"Assault Weapons" is a set of words meant to scare people that know little about firearms.
Don't be gullible.
exactly. and actual assault rifle is really hard for united states citizens to get.
70% of American adults don't keep guns. The main trick for the left is getting the people at low risk of gun death, which is close to all Americans, scared enough to screw the rest of us out of our rights.
Even if "gun safety laws save lives" it would *STILL* be unconstitutional, as some person misusing a firearm does not justify restricting the general public and their natural right to keep and bear arms for their personal defense, whether from criminals or from a tyrannical government.
I’m trying to look into conservative/constitutionalist perspectives on gun rights. Would you be open to a civil discussion or debate on guns? I can send my discord
But doesn't "tyrannical government" nowadays mean administrations that promote public health and safety?
Yep "unconstitutional" what a bullet proof argument, because the constitution is objectively correct
Not really if you interpret the 2nd amendment as it is supposed to be interpreted. Before 2008 states had heavy restrictions on guns in order to keep a well regulated militia.
You would probably need army tanks and fighter jets to take on a tyrannical American government. Our airforce is by far the most superior on Earth.
We gonna act like the US isn’t the only developed country in the world with this problem?
Every day that passes our own government becomes more and more of a fear monger because fear controls the minds of the feeble.
I feel that politicians forget the one thing that defines criminals: _they don’t follow the law._
Politicians have a license to break the law
Right, because guns just pop into existence whenever a criminal wants to acquire one...
I love that this shows how important statistics is and how bias can affect the results
I remember hearing one year that the UK had 14 deaths due to guns. The US, on the other hand, had thousands of deaths from guns. In the UK, gun ownership is severely limited. In the US, I can get a new gun as soon as the stores open tomorrow. But there's no connection. There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone...
You don’t need studies to understand it, just logic. Criminals will still be criminals, and we will be less defended
I don't get this argument, because it applies to all laws.
@@EbonyPhoenix Not really, violent crimes and guns are different than other laws. Criminals will target individuals if they know they are unarmed, and gun control has had no statistical data showing they are effective. So yes, the only thing they accomplish supported by data we can see is that they make law abiding citizens defenseless and more vulnerable to violent crimes. It gives abusive governments peace of mind and make it easier to oppress the population.. Look at California, look at Los Angeles, gun crime and violent crime is rampant and citizens are left mostly defenseless.
@@weasle2904 "actual" data, like you or anyone decides what is considered. If you can get a gun easy, so can they.
@@EbonyPhoenix That's the point, criminals in the US can get firearms easier than law abiding citizens and none of these gun control acts have changed that. In my state it's a grueling process to get a CCW permit, and that's just so I can defend myself in the fucking hoodlum I live in... Meanwhile the people that robbed me a couple years ago could give a shit less about carry laws lol, they were carrying stolen guns that were probably sold to them or taken. None of the gun control acts stopped them, but they stopped me because I wanted to follow the law and not be terrorized by police.
Also did you even watch the video?! When you take into consideration all of the studies, gun control acts in the USA have had no measurable effect while simultaneously disarming citizens and turning non-criminals into felons. People have been arrested by the ATF after bills have passed and didn't even realize they were felons.
@@weasle2904 not easier, just as easy. In many states it's completely legal to buy a gun from a gun owner, with no background check or anything. And in my state I bought a gun from my friend the week I moved, and was completely legal as long as I don't CC, but now even that is legal. The point of common sense gun laws is to get people who knowingly act as a third party to criminals. As it stands now, it's hard to prove it, and even proved, you get a slap on the wrist. A simple monitory background check makes the process much easier, and much more consiquencal.
Again, in my state they would just shoot you.
The moment someone says "I'm setting out to try and prove (insert political talking point here) in my study I know the study is going to be a sellout for their respective political party, and gun control is not exception. "I'm here to prove gun control works" If that's what they set out to find, that's what they're going to find. "I'm here to prove gun control doesn't work" If that's what you're looking for, that's what you're going to find.
“Im setting out to prove the sky isn’t a projection” wow shocker i found so much evidence that says it isn’t. Must be because of political bias
Gun control should be taught in high school. Every single Year 12 student should be taught how to responsibly handle and maintain all types of non-automatic firearms.
You realize that non-automatic excludes like half of what gets produced today and most common self-defense guns, right? All the sidearms are semiauto, pretty sure a single action revolver counts. Not sure about double action, but anything that uses the impact from the initial shot to chamber and cock the next round to be shot is semi-auto.
When criminals use guns for any reason the jail sentence should be at least doubled.
Why doesn't anyone mention Venezuela crime in conversations like these. Venezuelans gave up their guns years ago and crime was sky rocketed. Between criminals and gangs attacking civilians. To the government down there being tyrannical. They are a perfect example of why NOT to give up guns.
Sadly my homeland Canada is likely to wind up in a similar predicament if Justin ever gets his way.
yes, of course, venezuela is a failed state because it introduced gun restrictions
@@nonamenoname9468 If only more people realised that.
@@Wolf-oc6tx wait are you serious? you really think thats why venezuela is a failed state?
@@nonamenoname9468 Its one of the many reasons, in fact the abuse of power, rapid centralisation of the economy(and resulting mismanagement), erosion of civil rights, attacks on human rights and use of gangs as enforcers would have been impossible if venezuela had a armed and well informed population. The government would realise they are risking civil war if they try that.
The reason why the 2nd amendment exists, tyranny and foreign attacks, can be measured. In the last century more than 150 million people were killed by their own government, WW1 killed 30 million, WW2 killed 80 million. And there are 500k to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
Gun control, other than being unconstitutional, could only affect those of the 15k annual homicides actually committed with guns. Subtract all of those committed with illegal guns that by definition can't be affected by law, police shootings,... and you might have 1k homicides with legal guns. By about 100 million people in the US that live in a household with a firearm. And about 4k homicides with non-guns, probably mostly by the 230 million without guns.
Meaning, you could prevent literally zero murders through gun control and would just force people to use other means, which the 4k homicides show is absolutely possible. Worse than that, illegal guns would be through the roof while legal self defense nearly impossible. Zero defensive gun uses, and then the real crime wave would start. Thousands of death by gun control, not legal guns. And that's even before war or tyrannical gen0cides happen.
.
One thing not mentioned is the difficulty of measuring how many crimes guns prevent. While it's usually easy to determine if somebody was killed by a gun, it's far more difficult to measure if the known or likely ownership of a gun prevented a crime from happening in the first place.
whoa, no shit. But that works in reverse aswell, we cant say how many rash decisions to buy and use firearms to kill were prevented by gun control laws providing a barrier to entry. The real point the video makes is not that gun control doesnt work but that we dont know if it works or not
There was a CDC study back in 2012 I believe that gave an estimate of 500k to 1.2 million crimes prevented with guns, but as stated it is hard to quantify.
The rand study actually cites a couple policy measures that (supporting evidence suggests) are effective in reducing violent crime. Please read it. This video greatly misrepresents it.
The CDC did this study in 2012 to disprove the only other study in existence. It confirmed what the first study found; that guns save lives and stop crimes. So the only logical agenda based decision was made to ignore both the studies and make no further effort. This information does not fit the agenda. The fact they could prove this true into the measure of millions speaks volumes; considering we do know that proving fate, proving the series of events was set but was thwarted is difficult.
The Constitution was written to thwart a fate proven by ALL of history, tyranny. Wars are still fought against tyranny today. Human nature, power, greed still exist and then so does this fate. So our ability to protect ourselves from each other is a side gig anyways.
@@jons3223 I watched a 90 monute debate yesterday that was far more nuanced than what you're saying about academic & scientific studies of gun policy. I don't think it's near as simple as you are suggesting.
"Remains higher than in SOME other parts of the developed world"
They say while showing a chart with Honduras, Eswatini, Brazil, and Peru surrounding America while France and Denmark are a third lower and Australia is barely even on the graph.
@williamemareschal1656 Funny how people's categories move around when it suits them.
"Take the firearms first and then go to court".
That was one of my biggest issues with Trump.
It's true that Republican establishment are not your friends when it comes to guns, but still they are infinitely better than the alternative and at least listen to reason and change their minds. And the amount of actual 2nd amendment supporters in the Republican party is far far greater than the few in the Democratic party that are left.
In that particular clip of Trump, he was talking about taking guns from people that were particularly dangerous, like gang members or teens making shooting threads on facebook, then deal with the due process later. Clearly a bad idea but not nearly as anti gun as CNN would like you to think.
The clue of it is simply that CNN showed that clip as if he's insane and a gun grabber, instead of agreeing with him which they clearly do.
Omg that guy is crazy! Like Biden except with a memory
Enforcing any gun control law requires violations of our 2nd and 4th ammendments. No thanks.
What is an assault weapon? A club, a knife, a pipe, a slingshot, a rock, a hammer, an axe, a dart, a pistol, an ice pick, a book, a rifle, bow and arrows, hands...?
I saw someone ask this to a gun control crowd and one said “a gun that shoots” no shit Sherlock
lol funny
An assault rifle. I think that’s what their talking about. Rifles, with high-magazine capacity and fire rates, capable of quickly delivering devastating power. Not hammers and axes.
Amazing job on this ReasonTV. Now show this video to Andrew Heaton after his recent comments on We're Not Wrong.