The Mysterious Gun Study That’s Advancing Gun Rights
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- In the battle to dismantle gun restrictions, raging in America’s courts even as mass shootings become commonplace, a Times’ investigation has found that one study has been deployed by gun rights activists to notch legal victories with far-reaching consequences.
Mike McIntire, an investigative reporter for The Times, discusses the study and the person behind it.
Guest: Mike McIntire (www.nytimes.co...) , an investigative reporter at The New York Times.
Background reading:
• Case after case challenging gun restrictions cites the same Georgetown professor. His seemingly independent work has undisclosed ties to pro-gun interests (www.nytimes.co...) .
For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily (nytimes.com/the...) . Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
"To get around laws favoring guns rights". That's all you need to know about the New York Times…
Ding! We have a winner.
The 2nd amendment (which I whole heartedly support) is more of a principle than a law so can't really have any laws that protect it. You can only either infringe upon it with laws or simply leave it alone.
I think people should just leave it alone. After all, free men don't ask for permission and all that it entails.
@@Cacowninja Since it's enshrined in the original bill of rights, it's actually a Civil Right.
@@randallsanchez3161I hate to be the "ummm actually" guy but the second amendment isn't a civil right. The bill of rights does NOT grant us rights. When you read the bill of rights you will start to see language that isn't granting rights to people, you see a list of things the government can't do.
"Congress shall make no law..."
"...the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
"No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or his libertie..."
See? It's not granting is rights. It's restricting the government.some may call this a pedantic distinction but I think it's an important one. We aren't granted rights by the government. We already have them. However, the government can deprive us of the rights we already have and that's why the bill of rights is actually a check list of stuff it can't do.
@@Cacowninjaany clarification or interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a tyrant trying to take control
After all the innuendo and hand wringing, this is what stands out:
1. There is absolutely no evidence that the study is incorrect in even the most minor detail.
2. There is no reference to any scholarship demonstrating conclusions contrary to Dr. English's findings. Do you imagine that Bloomberg and other deep pocket anti-gun advocates haven't tried to find it . . . and failed because it doesn't exist.
3. Somehow the fact that an anti-gun group pressured the CDC to take down a study on it's website that largely accords with the English research was not unearthed by this reporter. Doesn't that make one doubtful about the motives and competence of this reporter, and the NYT generally?
1. Correct
2. Correct
3. Yes
I concor.. this guy found only what he was. Looking for
1) There is also no evidence that the study was conducted in good faith or correctly , no one but the author knows what methodology was used or what definitions
2) same as number 1 no transparency in the study how can you attempt to refute something that you cannot examine
@peterlaine3929 thats funny . In good faith. Isnt something that you stamp on your research. In good faith is a premise that civilized society has deemed as the best approach to other people in general. Especially when they have differing opinions. This starting point is often taken advantage of by snakes and psychopaths and your common politician'. I assume that any person who is presenting something in the public Square to be doing it in good faith or aa a honest agent. That you believe the things youe are saying to be true and your reasons for you to be presenting them also are true vs ulterior motives or diseptive motives. People present things all the time they believe to be true that are not infact true. This does not make them liars. It's when you know some thing is bullshit, not on point, not actualnevidance in support of and other such tools of meritless personal gain. So the gentlemen who I contoured with has it right. With out a credible source or knowledge of any actually fuckery .. just becuae you don't like that results, pointing out possible flaws and passive errors isn't any thing other then bias confirmation. You want to go on air broadcast to the world that English is a contrast or billshit artist .... be able to. Prove it, not just suggest it .
@@peterlaine3929 so you're saying that presenting facts and statistics is possibly "not in good faith"… Is that it
😂🤣
How about trying to squash that study and pressuring the CDC hide it? Is that also "in good faith"?
30 round magazines are standard capacity magazines. The term “high-capacity” is a term coined by anti-gun advocates and politicians.
It's also the same "preamble" he has a problem with in the study. It's okay when he does it.
Just like "assault weapon".
Shall not be infringed is the law of the land. Any infringing law is illegal
Oh my God, a study done by an academic who supports the Constitution.😮
Lmao
They have a hard time believing that. They should check out Prof Gary Kleck who did the first study of defensive use of firearms I know of.
The blue bubble is so ignorant about fire arms.
They are aware of how many people have bullets in them, which is one point
Auron MacIntyre - "You don’t hate journalists enough You think you do but you don’t"
@@pootytang2872muh man!
@@peterlaine3929how many people have been gunned down in France, and with what types of guns?
@@peterlaine3929 If that is a valid point, then why does the left focus on the few tens of thousands a year who are killed by guns, while they completely ignore the estimated half million to 3.5 million lives that are SAVED each year by defensive gun use, in the hands of everyday Americans? YOU just implied that the left is about saving lives. The numbers indicate that I just revealed your blissfully flawed logic.
Strengthening Gun Rights? There is no strengthening…they are what they are. Anyone that has ever read the Federalist Papers knows exactly what the founders meant when writing the 2 amendment and what it means when they said, “shall not be infringed”.
Not everything the founders stated should be adhered to. They wrote that amendment back when everyone had muskets and flintlocks. They could've never envisioned such a thing like the AR 15.
@@charlesmiv3842 Yeah. "What if the shooty-shoots do moar booms?" Inconceivable...
@@jeffwatkins1022 good analysis
You’ve never heard of a WELL REGULATED militia?
Typical.
@@charlesmiv3842 Thanks to the Uber AI:
Number of Guns in America vs. the World
Guns in America
The estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in the United States ranges between 393 million and over 466 million. This estimate reflects both older data and recent surges in firearm purchases.
Global Context
Globally, there are more than 1 billion firearms, with civilians holding approximately 857 million of these. The remaining firearms are held by military forces (133 million) and law enforcement agencies (23 million).
Proportion of Guns
United States: The U.S. holds the highest number of civilian-owned firearms, accounting for about 39% to 46% of the world's civilian-held guns. This is significant given that the U.S. population is only about 4.25% of the global population.
World: The remaining 61% to 54% of civilian-held firearms are distributed among other countries, with significant numbers also held by militaries and law enforcement agencies globally.
--
You can also appreciate this tidbit of what happens when you disarm your populace:
Mexican Autodefensas and Their Battle Against the Cartels
Overview
The Autodefensas are civilian self-defense groups that emerged in various parts of Mexico in response to the escalating violence and influence of drug cartels. These groups have been particularly prominent in states like Michoacán and Guerrero, where the government has struggled to maintain law and order.
Origins and Purpose
Origins: The Autodefensas began forming around 2013 as a direct response to the atrocities committed by drug cartels. These atrocities included extortion, kidnappings, murders, and other forms of violence that left communities feeling unprotected and desperate.
Purpose: The primary aim of these groups is to defend their communities from cartel violence. They often take up arms to protect their families and lands, seeking to fill the security vacuum left by ineffective or corrupt law enforcement.
Man its so hard to listen to firearms ignorant people speak about them and out rights. You should talk about the bias and lies and cherry picking of "studies" from the anti gun side as they are aggregious and everywhere.
There's quite a bit of bias on the pro-gun side, too.
I see some for sure but the outright lies spread from people who are scared of guns and at the same time let violent offenders back onto the streets time after time. Those same people that tell us that we should happily give up our rights to self preservation and let the police save us yet they say to the police are corrupt murderers. I don't trust people that want to take and are slowly chipping away our natural given rights.
@@331Grabbera little... But they're also not the ones trying to take away people's rights 🫠
@@331Grabber oh man, that's so true. The difference, however, is that only the pro-gun side uses facts and numerical data to defend their stance.
@@331GrabberHow dare they protect their rights. 😂
The problem is, almost everyone discussing this issue in the public space is a dishonest actor (yes, including the NYT). For example, Mike McIntire uses a number of biased, contrived terms that lack accurate, precise definitions when referencing firearms, such as "high-capacity magazines" and "assault rifles." On the pro-gun side, the terms would be "standard-capacity magazines" and "modern sporting rifles." The reality is, there's no specific number associated with "high" or "standard" when describing magazines, and the technical definition for "assault rifle" has been avoided by lawmakers for years because they know that actual assault rifles have been banned outside of special licenses since 1934.
Likewise, the phrase "used for self defense" appears to have two different interpretations depending on which side you ask. People who oppose gun rights are typically extremely ignorant about guns and gun use, so they appear to interpret that phrase as meaning actually discharging a weapon in an act of self defense. People who know about and own firearms, however, would interpret that as making a gun ready and accessible for use in situation where it might be required for self defense. For example, the young man who was recently killed by a mountain lion in California had considered carrying a gun for "self defense," but decided to leave it at home to avoid being harassed by State law enforcement.
Also, the English study is at least accurate if not conservative in its assessment of gun use and gun owner sentiments (something anti-gun lobbyist would be loath to accept), and its existence (though funded by gun rights lobbyists) is a direct response to the dishonest actors working to limit gun rights. For example, the State of California uses equally deceptive language when testing gun owner, communicating and describing gun rules and regulations, and influencing voters within the State.
Finally, this is a moot point and distraction anyway, because regardless of this amicus curiae brief, the real question that SCOTUS is currently answering is whether individual states have the right to interpret the U.S. Constitution on their own, to pass laws and regulations that restrict the rights of their citizens outside of what the Constitution allows, and to opt out of or supersede Federal laws whenever it suits them to do so.
The same thing with my comment above.. I mean, the gun statistics and mass shooting events statistics by the government, are very deceptive...
I was really angry to find out that the whole good guy with a gun statistics weren't accurately recorded... That plenty of times where a shooter is stopped, or hindered, by an armed civilian, if that person ends up arrested, or otherwise dispatched by the police after the good guy with the gun was involved, that counts as the police stopping a shooter .
The civilian action isn't even counted in the stats.
It makes me wonder how in other ways the statistics are deceptive or variables are left out..
And I completely agree that the issue has been so overly politicized that we're not even able to agree on fact
They should interview YOU next time
@@claudeyaz Not to mention the fact that they point to the 2004 expiration of the "Assault Weapons Ban" as the point when mass shootings suddenly increased; however, those numbers were static for another 8 years. They didn't really jump until after the Obama Administration pulled back the FBI's domestic terrorism investigation teams. There's definitely a closer correlation between mass shootings and the Feds not doing their jobs than there is with private citizens owning semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines.
Well said
An AR-15 with a bump stock seems a lot like an assault rifle to me. What's it lacking, a bayonet stud?
I must say that it’s particularly upsetting to hear commentary on guns, gun rights, the 2nd Amendment, self-defense, the rights of self protection, etc., from people that have never even owned a gun, never fired one, never had to use one/couldn’t if they had to, think that self protection means keeping a golf club or baseball bat behind their bedroom door or a sharp stick in their car, doesn’t realize that the need for self protection isn’t something you can schedule and when seconds count, the cops are always minutes away and that the sheep only survive (that’s you) upon the good nature or indifference of the wolves you unknowing walk amongst everyday.
You Are Complete and utter dilettantes.
Which is why I do not blame Dr. English. All the NYT wanted was to do a hit piece.
would you accept testimony from someone who had been shot by a gun even though they didnt own one?
@@peterlaine3929Nope.
@@peterlaine3929That wouldn't be a prejudiced opinion in the slightest lol!
I have 4 guns. Guns in the USA are far to accessible. We need more restrictions gun ownership. My opinion is valid and cannot be argued with because I own guns, O have fired guns and have used a gun in self defence.
No, no you can't argue with me because by your own logic the mere fact of gun ownership makes my opinion valid and correct.
You sir, with such a deluded opinion, of not accepting research based on the gun ownership of participants, exactly the reason the reason we need gun regulation because that is such a flagrant lack of critical thinking skills that it makes anyone with actual critical thinking skills question your competency to safely own and secure a firearm. Grow-up and stop acting and reasoning like a child. oh and don't bother arguing with me because I actually own 4 guns, so I'm right, you've already made the determination that I'm right.
Garland V Cargill which was wrapped up this week states that the AR15 is in common use.
&? What's your point???? Seriously????
@@marthamasdeo9833If you've been paying attention, you would know, the point is that one of the anti gun side's last arguments, is that AR-15s or *Assault Weapons" in general and/or "Large Capacity Magazines" are not commonly used for self defense ,but are instead used thousands of times over for unlawful purposes. That's part of their interest balancing scheme they've been using since Heller to side step the directive in Heller. Sotomayor slipped up, and in her dissent, wrote that these things are "commonly available." Personally, I don't see "in common use" and "commonly available" as being the exact same thing, but either way, I don't think the anti gun side can overcome the Heller directive, now that Bruen clarified it, and shut the door on the workaround of interest balancing's "two-step.approach." What the anti gun side is trying to do, is argue that the activity or items in question, does not implicate the Second Amendment, because they know, the analogous laws at the time of the founding and ratification of the Constitution were few and far between that regulated and/or banned arms. In Heller, they cited a definition of arms from the time period as anything that could be carried on person or deployed at a moments notice such as a weapon of offense or armor of defense to defend oneself or others. The language in Heller wasn't perfect, and it gave wiggle room to the anti gun side because it raised a question as to whether or not a military rifle like the M-16 could possibly be banned, or weapons that are dangerous and unusual. That wasn't the scope of Heller. That's why the imperfect language is there. Scalia wasn't saying or giving his blessing that M-16s could be banned, he was merely saying that it wasn't being decided in that particular opinion on that particular case. Well, the anti gun side seized on those few words, touting Heller says "Assault Rifles" "Large Capacity Magazines" and any other gun they don't like can be banned within Heller because they are similar in looks to the M-16 or are dangerous. They use their own biased studies to argue the dangerous part, but the standard dangerous AND unusual, not dangerous OR unusual. So, that's why it's a big deal, that Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that these arms are commonly available, which doesn't necessarily mean commonly owned nor used, but it definitely means such arms are not by any means or definition "unusual." Since they need dangerous AND unusual to disqualify an arm or class of arms from being covered by the text of the Second Amendment, her writing that in that dissent is a pretty big deal.
Because the SCOTUS said an arm in common use can not be banned easily .
@@marthamasdeo9833 read up on the heller decision martha. It will help you understand common use. Why do people having expanded civil rights bother you?
Imagine trusting the government so much that you believe they should be the only ones with all the guns. You either know history or you trust the government. You can't do both.
What they get wrong is that you don’t have to use a gun to ascertain that it’s for self defense. In fact, ideally the possession of the gun itself for self defense means ideally that you never have to use it against another person. I carry a knife regularly for among other reasons self defense. It is therefore a self defense weapon. I pray that i never have to use it, and in not using it, it remains a weapon for self defense.
Yes like how a gun-free zone sign attracts crime, living in a town where it's known that people are armed, you have less robberies and petty crime
Deterrence is a part of self defense. But in the case of concealed carry, most states do not allow the weapon to be visible, unless actually being deployed, but that does not mean that the weapon is not “used”.
Buying a fire extinguisher and cutting a fire break only count as fire prevention if there's a fire. 🙄Their logic is impeccable. 🤦♂
No where in the SOTUS test does it require that guns be used for self defense.
It requires them to be in common use.
By trying to add the self defense stipulation they are trying to change the law.
I believe it's "in common use for lawful purposes" from Heller, 2008.
Right, lawful purposes like self defense not just self defence .
This civilian disarmament campaign will never end… just like communism and fascism. It all begins with the state taking away rights of the people to control them against their will.
@@Hunpecked
Conceal carrying a firearm/keeping a rifle in the home is lawful in the vast majority of the country, and is commonly done done by millions.
If you take a gun camping for protection, but never discharge it. Is that using it for self defense.
If you live in a high crime neighborhood and routinely carry, is that using it for self defense?
It seems to be a pretty narrow definition to insist the definition requires you to brandish or discharge your weapon.
Big facts
Every day my firearm is nearby, it is used for self defense… just like my fire extinguisher and smoke alarms exist for defense against fire. Arms rights are human rights.
lol people forget that the second amendment is a restriction on the government. Shall not be infringed.
If you're referring to the term "defensive gun use" as it shows up in statistical works, yes, brandishing or discharging are the criteria to be counted. Agree that the concept of self defense is much broader, and as far as I can tell, much less accurately studied (for obvious reasons).
The number of times a firearm is used per year in self defense, is irrelevant. The SCOTUS said ‘in common use for lawful purposes’. Gun grabbers have dishonesty changed this to ‘in common use for self defense’. That is not the test. They also want to only count ‘use’ as pulling the trigger. Guns, like fire extinguishers, seat belts, and insurance, are in use as a form of risk mitigation, before the actual emergency.
Let's assume that the true number of times a citizen uses a gun to defend themselves is in truth less than 100,000. We'll say 90,000, since it seems to me that if it was less than 90,000, he would have said less than 90,000. That would still mean that guns are used by citizens to defend themselves at a much higher rate than guns are used to kill someone.
There are 30-40-thousand-gun deaths per year. 60% of those are suicides. So, the high estimate for gun murders is 16,000 per year. The low estimate is 12,000. We'll take the high end, to bias everything toward minimizing the relevance of how often people use their gun to defend themselves.
Accepting the lower estimate, which I will point out is given anecdotally with no reference to any specific study, and assuming that every killing is an individual murder, to bias the rate higher, and ignoring that the total number of gun deaths actually includes the times a citizen shoots and kills the person trying to kill them, we still have a ratio of 5.625 to 1. In other words, biasing the data used as much as we possibly can, we still see that Americans use guns to defend themselves more than 5 times as often as they use guns to murder someone.
So... yes, guns are in common use for lawful purposes. This does not tell us that AR-15s are in common use for lawful purposes. However, we know that there are roughly 4 million AR-15s privately owned by American citizens. The total number of gun murders committed with a rifle (all rifles including single shot bolt actions) is 300 to 400 per year. I think it should be obvious then, that the legal use of AR-15s dwarfs by multiple orders of magnitude the use of AR-15 to commit murder.
You can't reason with these people and provide stats and logic. They are emotional children. The only stat you need to know is if you remove five cities from the gun death stats the US gun violence rate goes to very bottom of the list.
Your analysis is sound but this is the the problem that people don’t appreciate. You gave a conservative, sound, reasonable analysis, but this issue is that Dr. English used biased and shotty methods. The problem is that it can backfire and ultimately undermine the true essence of gun rights because his work does not hold up to rigorous analysis, which taints the quality of the argument ultimately hurting those of us who are pro gun rights. If the argument is sound you don’t need to “pad” the results. I don’t know if you listened to the entire pod cast l, but there where instances that because the study that English did actually hurt the cases of pro gun plaintiffs because his study didn’t hold up nor was he willing to defend it in court therefore causing it to become a liability thus hurting the very cause it was supposed to support.
@@robertwalker8453 I definitely agree that we should never seek to manipulate or misrepresent data, in the hopes of convincing people to adopt our position. I think that you're correct both strategically and ethically.
@@t3tsuyaguy1
Your 16000 number includes those killed while committing crimes like robberies and assaults and shouldn’t be referred to as murders.
AR-15 is a high powered weapon !
Illegal in Most states to hunt deer with as underpowered …..
Your Dad’s WWIi Garand M-1 is laughing .
His WWII Carbine had only “high capacity “magazines .
power of an "arm" is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment.
Found a second amendment right to carry guns outside of the home? It’s clearly written in the text of the second amendment. Since the word ‘infringe’ meant ‘ to hinder or destroy’, all gun laws infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Actually, "bear" means to carry on your person in 1791 English. Keep means to own and possess which also implicitly means to be able to buy, trade for, receive as a gift, make yourself, etc. Keep and bear means to own and carry with you. Text, history, tradition in 1791 and shortly afterward are the criteria.
Can't imagine why a pro2a researcher wouldn't want to interact w/ a NYT journo who was harassing him and showing up at this house...
He only went to his house after using every other means available. You folks are funny.
@@stephenboyington630 Sure. Doesn't make it less creepy.
Why did you even post this video? Here. Let me spell it out for you. Let me know if I'm talking too fast.
The right. Of the people. To keep and bear arms. SHALL NOT. Be infringed.
THE DEBATE IS OVER.
You overlooked the bit about a well regulated militia
@@StevenAaa-uc6lg No, I didn't. You overlooked a comma.
Overlooking the 30,000 odd acts and regulation that "infringe" on the right to carry a firearm
Try to carry a firearm into a federal penitentiary...you'll find your rights significantly infringed
@@notlikely4468 Okay. The government is corrupt. What else is new. Regulations can be overturned. The constitution is our standing to overturn said regulations.
You haven't refuted my claim. You've only pointed out that we, as a people, have grown complacent, and given ground to the government where we should have held the line.
Make no mistake, my right to keep and bear arms is yours as well, and if you are an American citizen, I consider you a brother in arms.
The well regulated militia part, in regards to the 2nd amendment, is expressing the need for a standing army, to be ready to protect us from foreign invaders. Then there's a comma, and a further expression that the right of the people, separate from the militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, to protect people like us from our own government.
@@StevenAaa-uc6lg a well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy diet, the right of the people to eat food shall not be infringed
Who has the right to eat food? The breakfast?
Mr. English’s study is irrelevant.
Anyone who keeps a weapon of any type, keeps it for self defense for as long as they have access to it. Meaning, if you have a gun that you can access in a timely manner you are using it for self defense even if you never kill or hurt anyone with it. An accessible weapon is, at all times, actively being used for self defense. Law enforcement officers are actively using the weapons they have access to at any given moment, for the same reasons.
Now count the guns and you don’t need Mr English.
Why are you Gas lighting us? What is your agenda?
NYT has always been on the commie-fueled disarmament train.
*Shall not be infringed*
Well Regulated Malitia ...
@@CarlosIowa”regulated militia” meant well-organized, well-armed, or well-disciplined.
Why would the founders implement a right with the intention of preventing a tyrannical govt, but also limit the available arms citizens could possess. There were no limitations, and firearms technology was indeed evolving.
"...shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion..." - 1st Amendment
"...shall not be violated..." - 4th Amendment
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation..." - 5th Amendment
"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." - 6th Amendment
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed..." - 8th Amendment
I'll make you a deal. Eliminate tax-exempt status for religious institutions, make "no-knock warrants" never happen again, do away with "civil asset forfeiture" (i.e. theft), make it mandatory for courts to properly fund Public Defender programs, and make $300 speeding tickets for minimum-wage workers a thing of the past, and you can have your high-capacity-magazine toy.
Epth dreyt bla bal you can't have a cannon. We have F-15's.......I just pooped my pants or I would have posted more.
Not everyone has the 2nd amendment right, FACT.
Silly. Exactly as suspected from NYT reporting.
The test referred to as the Bruen ‘test’, is actually the Heller test. Bruen reiterated what Heller said, because inferior courts were ignoring Heller. Now the courts are ignoring Bruen. When everything changes, everything stays the same.
Yes. This how you know the guy talking doesn't know what he's talking about about. Bruen didn't "expand" gun rights. It reiterated the Heller test.
As far as guns used for self defense, other studies have shown similar results, including one funded by the CDC. All show that guns are used for self defense at least 100s of thousands of times per year minimum.
Anyway, the study is not what convinced the Supreme Court, it was a document called the US Constitution.
It's ridiculous to make an argument about "high cap" magazines because the majority of magazines are over 10 rounds unless you are in a draconian restrictive state. This is a hit piece and they have so much confirmation bias they don't even try to hide it.
I wonder what people want to do to me, that they do not wish me to be armed so they can do it?
Roof top Koreans
Guess what NPR a lot of your listeners owned guns. This is not a left and right issue as you would like to see it and make it.
Throw the guns then throw out the Constitution. I see what you want. No.
*Gun Rights.*
Keep saying it until you understand it. RIGHTS. Like voting rights, civil rights, right to protest, right of free speech, right of due process...
It's a right no matter how you feel, NYT. Your uninformed Left bias is showing.
If only every study was examined this thoroughly.
The copium is strong here.
standard magazines would be commonly sold with the commonly purchased rifles and pistols. So it stands to reason that standard capacity magazines would be ubiquitous. Proving common use is effortless.
How survey is written makes all the difference. I remember a survey a few years ago in which thousands of scientists were asked if the Earth went through warming cycles or not. 90% agreed that warming cycles happen and ever since we have had a new doomsday cult centered on, global warming
That's probably true, but are you sure that you aren't taking the results out of context?
It should be obvious to anybody who has seen a graph of atmospheric temperature over time, that the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has always been changing.
The key point in support of climate change isn't that "climate has always been exactly X temperature before the industrial revolution"; the key point is, "at no point in time beforehand have CO2 levels risen above what they are today". Given the effect that CO2 has on the atmosphere, the conclusion most (but not all) scientists have drawn is that the climate is warming faster due to the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 which we put there, and which we can take away.
Ownership of the firearm for self defense is use.
A gun is only used when it is fired or being pointed at somebody who believes it is loaded. Otherwise it's just a paperweight.
@classreductionist people buy firearms all the time for self defense it doesn't matter if they actually have to fire it. I have mine on me right now. I'm using it.
We have the right to bear arms. Every single citizen. Regardless of what BS anyone pushes, anyone who is a citizen can hold a weapon.
“The right to bear arms shall no be infringed.” What is so hard to understand about that?
That was written back when everyone had muskets and flintlocks. You know? The type of weapon that can be fired like 1 time per 3 minutes.
@@charlesmiv3842theres a ton of debunkings of that argument here on UA-cam. Do some research. Come to the dark side
@@charlesmiv3842 "Arms" is generic for a reason. It included pikes, muskets, cannons, knives, pistols, clubs, axes, etc. Muskets were what the people used to defend their rights. Today people use ARs. Tomorrow they will use ray guns. Because while "arms" change, tyranny doesn't.
@@charlesmiv3842 Its the year 2030, the new Teslabot IG-88b Assassin Droid brigade is activated.
Equipped with the latest tech:
E-11 Blaster Rifle
DLT-20A Blaster Precision Rifle
Pulse Cannon
FlameThrower
Grenade Launcher
Vibroblades
Heavy armor plating
Program:
Eradicate all humans to save the earth from global cooling and ice age (since global warming is losing it's pizazz, lets go back to the future! I mean back to the 70's ....ice, ice, maybe?)
Audio warning device spouts loop of: " Bad boys, bad boys, Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when the droids come for you? "
Better keep your powder dry, and have a brace of spare muskets!
So, by your logic,@@charlesmiv3842, the 1st Amendment isn't applicable to anyone using a computer to facilitate communication to another person within the U.S.
Do you agree with that?
the use is,...use for all lawful purposes.
We have the right to abolish the government cupcake... Stfu...
Are you aware that the Second Amendment applies to more than gun?
Can't have people out there defending themselves...
I have 13 years of graduate research and a SURVEY is called self report and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH. There is no peer-reviewed research from this professor or his study. He is paid to have an opinion and that says it all.
It makes no difference if there common use because any gun control is un constitutional
GUN OWNER HERE
First about the "preambles". MANY of the gun owners I know and shoot with regularly would not have answered the questions without those preambles. Gun owners have become paranoid about the "government coming for their guns" for what turns out to be quite reasonable reasons (more on that later).
THE most popular rifle by far these days is the AR15, and it's not popular because it's a military "weapon of war". It's popular because:
It's a proven design, a rifle with a very long and well established reputation for reliability if purchased from a reputable manufacturer (read as NOT made in China, or from a manufacturer you've never heard of).
Due primarily to the high sales volume it's one of the cheapest, not only to buy, but to maintain and repair.
Replacement parts for worn out or damaged parts are readily available.
Few, if any, gunsmiths don't know how to work on AR15 type rifles.
Clearing jams is simple and straight forward with AR15's.
Rifle safety courses for those about to buy their first rife are taught, if you didn't bring your own rifle, on rented AR15'S.
Most AR15's these days come standard with what's known as .223 Remington Wylde barrels. These are hybrid barrels designed to shoot both .556mm NATO Standard rounds, and .223 Remington rounds safely with no measurable decrease in accuracy. That said you can also buy AR15's with barrels dedicated to .223 Remington rounds that are NOT certified to shoot .556 NATO Standard rounds.
.556 NATO Standard rounds and .233 Remington rounds are by FAR the cheapest and most readily available caliber of ammunition currently on the market.
Hunters prefer AR15's because it's considerably lighter and easier to control and carry over rough terrain than old-timey wood and steel rifles that can be exhausting to carry and keep from getting tangled in brush.
Hunters and competition shooters prefer the AR-15 because most reputable manufacturers make them with built in, calibrated, "picatinny rail mounts" for modern optics (sighting systems). Modern optics have come a very long way since the days of "iron sights", and 4x "Weaver scopes", and pretty much ALL optics these days are designed to be mounted on picatinny rails. Not only that, calibrating instructions for dialing in the accuracy of the optics when initially mounted are all based on the assumption that they are being mounted on the ubiquitous AR-15 firing either .556mm NATO rounds, or the slightly more accurate and costly .223 Remington rounds, with variations of instructions for other similar rifles and different calibers available online.
AR-15's have become the default STANDARD AMERICAN RIFLE FOR CIVILIAN SHOOTERS, to the point where pretty much any rifle accessory you may want to buy, from gun vaults, to slings, to TSA approved gun travel cases, are built around the dimensions of an AR-15 with between a 16" and 24" barrel length.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on, with reasons that SANE, perfectly NORMAL, LAW ABIDING, fellow Americans settle on purchasing AR-15's for perfectly clear headed sane reasons that have nothing at all to do with defending themselves against "Black Helicopters" or being prepared for "The End Times". But this short list should suffice to give you reasons to believe that the 11 MILLION of us that own AR-15's are NOT any danger at all to you, your readers, or anyone else.
AFOREMENTIONED "REASONABLE REASONS" that gun owners are paranoid about the government is "coming for our guns":
Well, for one thing the government IS coming for our guns, they're just being sneaky about it. All guns eventually wear out. All of them. And right now, although the laws recently adopted in Chicago grandfather in currently owned AR-15's, IF and only if they were registered with the government within the allowed time limit, (which has now expired), you could legally own THAT gun, but once it has worn out to the point where it can no longer be repaired so that it's still safe to shoot, YOUR DONE. That's it. YOU WILL NEVER EVER BE ABLE TO OWN A SIMILAR RIFLE LIKE IT EVER AGAIN, PERIOD. And there's more to it than the New York Times will tell you. Many states and even local municipalities are "redefining" who is considered a "gun manufacturer" to INCLUDE GUNSMITHS, and "updating" zoning laws so that only huge multinational corporations with deep pockets can afford to operate under the new zoning laws for gun manufacturers due to requirements like having explosion proof wiring throughout the facility that no simple gunsmith could ever hope to afford to implement. These new laws are in fact being used to make it impractical to legally own a firearm by closing down gunsmiths. And even if you go to school the become a gunsmith yourself, you STILL won't be able to do your own gun repair, because you're now legally a "gun manufacturer" and so violating the zoning laws if you work on repairing your own rifle in your own home.
Corporate media, LIKE THE NEW YORK TIMES, consistently conflates mass shootings due to GANG WARS, with mass shootings due to a students who shoots up their classmates, even though both the causes and possible solutions bare almost no commonalities, and the number of mass shootings by gangs VASTLY out numbers all other gun crimes committed.
This is getting long so I'm going to end it here, but I will leave this with ONE LAST POINT. The Second Amendment lays out a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT, not a privilege, a RIGHT. And I'd say that if you're as outraged as I am about the Supreme Court taking away a woman's RIGHT to control the care of her own body, but not at all concerned about other peoples RIGHT to bare arms, then whether or not you care to admit it, you are in fact a hypocrite.
To get around gun rights? You sure about that?
I caught that too
From our cold dead hands
I mentions many scholars have ties to the gun lobby, I would reason there are even more that have ties with the anti-gun lobby.
Why is he so reluctant to talk about his work? Because he doesn't want to be stalked and harassed by NYT reporters?
As one who follows 2A case s very closely I can assure all readers that the amicus brief in question plays a very very insignificant role. The supreme Court has laid out specific tests that go back to the national firearms act of 1932. Plainly put, there is no there there.
Wow. Did he do any research ? Bruen reaffirmed Heller. It did not create a "new test." The common use test came from Caetano.
Just because you don't brandish or fure your weapon doesn't mean that you are not using it. Much like a fire extinguisher.
*Skew the data??? The New York Times wouldn't know anything about that!!!* 🤣😂🤣
(Sarcasm)
Those pesky "rights". This is heinous and disgusting..
GenZ here all I have to say is shall not be infringed!!
What makes you think you can come uo with a conclusion that will prevent you from having to use force on gun owners to reach your goals?
The CDC found roughly the same numbers of defensive gun uses. Firther, Bruen does away with means testing - the number of defensive gun uses is not needed to justify the right to keep and bear arms.
There’s no question whatsoever that semi autos and standard capacity magazines are in “common use”. They are the majority of firearms and magazines sold.
The “in common use” test dates to Heller, not Bruen.
This guy needs to go back to school.
Confirmed: you can't people who want you disarmed.
If we were just a little less diverse, there wouldn’t be a gun issue.
AR-15’s have standard capacity magazines. They come standard with 30 round capacity. Furthermore the AR-15 is a small caliber and almost every single hunting rifle with a wood stock that nobody thinks is scary is much more powerful. Firearm education would do more to stop gun violence then gun control laws.
Why would this guy or any other person want to take firearms away from citizens? It's a right. People don't need to justify a right. That doesn't mean they have the right to disarm somebody because they don't like guns. If they don't like guns, don't buy one. And btw, 20 and 30 round magazines aren't high capacity. They're STANDARD capacity.
•Cloaked in mystery * William English is just the newer improved gun usage studies like the ones performed by Gary Kleck, Mark Gertz who have stated they have no political interest as criminologists and even the CDC who have all done studies that are consistent with English’s bigger study.
I for one am glad we are blessed with Justices who can read plain English as written at the time of the founding and the founders strong beliefs of liberty for all.
Respect the constitution
Yes, but it can be interpreted in many ways. For example how is one person synonymous with a Militia?? Pretty Liberal interpretation of that wording wouldn't you agree?!!! Not to mention there no written description of what arms or which arms...there no good use in hunting with military style weapons. The arguments go on and on. Why would you want a semi-machine gun anyway? Fetish, Fear, or ??what??
@@joseflemire4284 Why can't "military style weapons" be used for hunting?
Like when they overturned Roe v. Wade despite decades of case law? So they can flip the 2nd Amendment same way? Face it, can't trust anything. Keep sending those checks to the NRA. $$$$$
@joseflemire4284 a huge amount of people use ARs for hunting. But it isn't about what you wish people to have that's why there is the bill of rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. See that. It doesnt say the right of the militia. It says the right of the people. Sikilar to the forst amendment. Congress shall make no law regulating free speech. The government cannot force you to quarter soldiers etc... the bill of rights is a list of things that the government cannot die or must obey.
The bolt action rifles today Were the WWI and II military weapons
Of the day .
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. !!!!!
This is what a hit piece looks and sounds like.
The New York Times, with their soft voices, quiet 'hmm' occasionally inserted, and scary words like "assault weapon" "dark money" "high capacity magazine"
Interestingly enough, the New York Times enjoys unrestricted use of the First Amendment, and has armed security, but can't see the value of the first amendment?
The irony is that he has published articles regarding ethics and the "regulatory state" and lists "ethics" as one of his areas of interest.
Less than two minutes in, we have our first --- let's say, error. The standard is whether a firearm is in common use FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES, not just for self defense. Also, that standard was set by the Heller decision in 2008, not Bruen. But lower courts (along with activists, pundits and journalists) have been ignoring that part of the decision ever since, which is part of what made the Bruen decision necessary. Now people can't ignore the standard any more, so they try to distort it into something that's easier to argue against.
The AR15 and other weapons both rifles and pistols, that have magazines holding more than 11 rounds, are correctly called STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINES, NOT TERMED HIGH CAPACITY, that is a mistake. The terms, hi cap mags, assault weapons, and any other similiar terms and phrases, are termes that politicians use and have the media use so as to paint the items in question in a bad negative light. And fhere is no way anybody can deny that. If you think you can deny what I said, lets hear it.
Really doesn't matter. Americans will keep their natural right to own firearms regardless of what is done. This goes beyond some ruling to survival. Disagree, then don't get one, but nothing can stop those who want to protect their own.
Where does the times get its funding?
Considering it sold its soul to become the DNC's version of _Pravda_ by lying non stop, a gradually diminishing pool of foolish people. I think a rich leftist billionaire like Gates or Soros will buy it eventually and keep it on life support like Bezos did the Washington Post.
I didn’t know
That there weren’t only anti-gun lobbyists! Right On!! FairPlay!🎉
Hopefully one doesn't ever need to use one's gun for self defense ideally.
This is comical. Two lefties working on how to get around the rights given to us in the constitution.
I think you’re conflating liberals with leftists. Two distinct groups.
Leftists like guns just as much as conservatives do.
@@mytmouse57these people really don't care about the differentiation, they ultimately want everyone not on their team under the dirt. This is something the liberals in all their ridiculous idealism fail to grasp and the reason why the actual left needs to take leadership on these issues.
There are no gun issues there are people issues there always will be there are people that are just not wired correctly or simply have no regard for life be their own or someone else’s you just going to have to deal with it. Guns have been a huge part of American culture since our founding
I already left a comment on Spotify. I am here to tell the Times, I don’t appreciate your clearly biased reporting. As someone living in NY state, if you don’t like guns, don't own a gun but stop trying to disarm everyone else. A right taken away is probably not going to come back. Consider all the existential problems facing us (national debt, war, expanding authoritarianism) and ask yourself if you want to live through those with no real way to defend yourself.
How often due you use life insurance? 😂
Comment section passed the vibe test, all gun laws are infringements and fully automatic weapons are also protected by the 2nd amendment
Fully automatic weapons have been thankfully banned since the 1930s.
It is completely disingenuous, bordering on lying, to say that the Bruen decision created a new test or for the first time found that Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home.
First, Americans do not need to be "given" rights, neither by the Constitution, nor by the courts. This is made clear by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration of certain rights within the Constitution _SHALL NOT_ be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." In short, we have a right to do anything that isn't explicitly restricted by law. The constitution places powerful restrictions on what laws may be passed. We did not "receive" the right to bear arms from the Bruen decision. We always had it. The 2nd amendment itself, makes it clear that it is a right that cannot be infringed upon. What actually happened here, is the court explained slowly to activist legislatures, that the constitution actually says what it says and means what it says.
Second, Bruen did not create a test. It examined critically the two-part test being employed by the lower courts to justify upholding flagrantly unconstitutional laws. That two-part test asked first if the law violated the 2nd amendment, which the lower courts found that it did indeed do. It then asked if the government had "a legitimate interest" in regulating the behavior restricted by the law. Obviously, the lower courts when determined, in the second part that the government did have "a legitimate interest".
What the Bruen decision determined is that the two-part test was one part too many. It simply held that neither legislatures nor courts can arbitrarily decide that constitution need not apply, because _they believe_ that something is important. Bruen examined the test being applied and removed the unconstitutional second step. It did not create anything. Bruen simply recognized rights we already had, and explained slowly to those in favor of civilian disarmament that they actually have to follow the constitution, whether they like it or not.
A path exists to legally restrict gun rights. An amendment can be passed which revises the 2nd amendment to allow more restrictive laws. The problem is that gun controllers are currently unable to convince enough Americans to go along with that. Well, that's just too bad. You don't get to pick and choose when the Constitution matters and when it doesn't. If you want to restrict the right to bear arms, go about the difficult work of convincing enough Americans to go along with it. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will have no choice but to continuing doing their job. Lying about the Bruen decision is not going to convince anyone to go along with anything.
The Federalist papers might help you understand what the founding era thought about bearing arms. You should read them out sometime.
Thank you, New York Times Podcasts. It's good to hear you squirm a bit when we in the 2A Rights space have some data to help our cause.
Are y'all going to tackle any of the surveys / statistics that "Everytown" or "Giffords" has backed over the decades?
"In common use" does not say anything about "self defense."
Anyone who knows anything about magazine capacity has to find this interview hilarious.
The reframing of history is ludicrous.
At about 16:50 there is talk about the survey being funding/conducted by a pro gun advocates.
Does that matter? Why would it matter?
It looks like to me that people are pro gun, now in your country that may not be the case.
But in the usa, its important to note that the only important thing is the constitution, and 2a says it shouldnt be infringed.
What is a problem, is the people committing violent crimes, the tools they use dont have any relevance in reality.
If gun advocates are overturning unconstitutional laws, thats a good thing.
Your legal analyst misstated the Bruen test. There is no requirement for self defense the test is lawful purposes. Heller was specific changed on legal self defense and the ruling contains dicta on that point. Anti gun rights groups have tried to reframe the right limiting it to self defense when the correct standard is legal use. So whole the second amendment doesn't mention hunting it hunting is one protected use of the right as hunting is legal. Similarly target shooting our just to maintain a collection are all protected aspects of the right among others.
How often do you use your automobile insurance? If it's not used frequently (define that), then you don't need automobile insurance.
NYSRPA v Bruen was actually an update to DC v Heller 2008. Being an obvious antigun "journalist", you obviously didn't do much research.
This guy is full of the stuff that comes out the south end of a north bound mule. Several surveys starting with Professor Gary Kleck in 1994 have found similar results. Kleck was a criminologist and was not pro private firearms ownership, and thought he would prove firearms are not used in self defense. He was surprised to find that firearms are used to stop a violent crime between 1.5 million and 3 million times annually. He repeated the study with similar results. He didn't cover semiauto rifles with standard magizines or type of weapon used as far as I know. Others have also had similar results. His studies are scientific, repeatable studies. The 100,000 number of defensive uses annually is way lower than any I've seen.
Who pays for the study means little if the results are honest, repeatable and use scientific recognized methods.
Scotus cases you should research include:
DC v Heller 2008
NYSRPA v Bruen 2022
McDonald v Chicago 2010
Caetano v Massachusetts 2016
These people are losing with intellectual arguments in court so they revert to the court of public opinion with 30 minutes long one sided pieces like this here.
If they had any legal standing on constitutional rights they wouldn’t even have to make this video.
Firearms are used 4,567 times a day for self defense? Really? "Liars figure and figures lie." Yeah, that math aint mathing.
Self reported data gonna self report
It is almost certainly inflated if based on self-reporting- at the same time, you're implicitly not going to hear about successful self-defense cases, *especially* if the gun isn't discharged. They can be a very good deterrent, especially with a competent and responsible person using it to *de-escalate* (which is a hallmark of many self-defense cases).
This paper was little to no effect on any arguments. The anti survey people are wasting time going after this paper as if it makes a difference.
I’m doing an in class discussion with my Japanese students a comparison of guns in history and modern culture in America and the same cultural lenses for the sword in japan
Welp, no need to worry about being accused of "both-sidesing" *this* issue! GREAT work, everyone, ten out of ten, no notes!
Sarcasm aside, the *least* you folks *should have* done from a "contextualizing" point of view is make clear that ANTI-firearm groups fund and publish research used in amicus briefs before the Supreme Court with the same level of "questionability" as this one *at a minimum.* Literally *the first* amicus brief Breyer cited in Bruen (in paragraph 7 of his 90+ paragraph dissent) was from the "Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence;" this is completely normal Supreme Court procedure. Hell, in the *first* paragraph, Breyer cited the Gun Violence Archives mass shootings headline statistic, which uses a definition of "mass shooting" so broad that it would capture injuries due to an (in fairness, truly bizarre) *accident* as a "mass shooting" as long as at least four people were injured by bullets or bullet fragments.
Seriously, what is it about firearms that make otherwise rational, intelligent people lose all semblance of either of those two characteristics? Just because the data says something *you* don't want to hear, doesn't mean it isn't good data. That applies to everybody, and we'd all be a *lot* better off if more people remembered it.
I understand that, without looking at the information myself, pretext was omitted in questions in this survey. I can only take the interviewee's commentary at face-value and trust that he is acting in good faith -- but in the examples quoted, his commentary leads me to believe that he's fishing for a specific outcome. If you've ever had to use a firearm for the purposes of self-defense, for example, why would it be necessary to add in a stipulation of when or how often? Once is enough, ever. If a gun has ever saved your life or defused a potentially life-threatening altercation, there's a pretty good chance that having a gun on you for the rest of your life becomes a very credible precaution. Furthermore, most defensive uses of a firearm don't even involve drawing the firearm; if some thug is just looking for an easy target to rip off a phone and a wallet, he's significantly more likely to avoid giving the guy with a Glock on his hip a hard time. Knowing how many crimes are prevented in this way is impossible to account for, but it is still an undeniable factor. If you think I'm just blowing smoke up your ass, feel free to look up how many police stations are robbed at gunpoint compared to gas stations and convenience stores.
This happens on both sides of all issues, not saying its right but it's true. If you are truly worried about that then i would suggest running all other questionable cited studies on any side of any case to ground and filing a report that could be used to help insure proper vetting of reports is done before any relience is put in them by the courts. Be truthful, unbiased and maybe make a change for the better rather than fuel fire to a false narrative of an improper ruling because it is against what you believe is correct. Bruen was decided correctly outside of this survey(which isn't cited in the main opinion of the court).
A lot of handgun owners are skittish types for whom "using a firearm in self defense" involves reaching for their hip as an intimidation tactic against innocent bystanders who may or may not even be paying attention.
Another mugging thwarted! /s
18:50
Hes butthurt there are no oligarchic, mostly Ashkenazi billionaires behind it
nice propaganda NYT
I'm not feeling safer.
Failing to see where the viability of an inherent right depends on a survey/statistics.
“Mysterious” 😂
Mysterious?