Research and science should be guiding public policy, not the other way around. No matter your political stance, the NRA lobbying against the pursuit of knowledge and saving lives is inexcusable. Not every solution involves banning guns; heck, the best solution likely doesn't involve banning guns. I think we need to give the CDC what they need and then judge based on the peer reviewed studies that come out of this.
Michael Moccio: "...the NRA lobbying against the pursuit of knowledge and saving lives..." Source please. This sounds like something that came from a news organization or political group that eschews research and science.
Reach41 what does that have to do with the evidence presented? There are links to outside sources in the description, just like any video that claims to be somewhat serious should do.
In 2013 Obama ordered research via the cdc and coincidentally didn't make a big announcement about the results. Annual estimates of defensive uses of firearms (not necessarily discharging) were from 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year. This would've been an important study to include in this segment
Yes, crazy these people who don't think untrained people should have the right to have guns 😂 this whole debate is quite ridiculous from a European perspective
I'm not sure what you're trying to say entirely, but know the second amendment was designed to allow Americans to protect themselves from any corrupt law enforcement or military. Secondly, shooting a gun releases the same chemical in your brain as falling in love or riding a roller coaster. It sounds weird, but It's a certain kind of fun to shoot down a range or whatever. If you have to relate it too anything, think about it more as a favorite toy that a weapon of mass destruction.
I couldn't agree more. I would say I don't know how American's don't realise how silly they look to us, but we know how ignorant they are to the rest of the world.
Elijah Dage I understand that guns can be fun and I don't have a problem with people shooting guns under controlled circumstances like on a shooting range. But it's obvious that selling guns which are designed to injure or kill to literally everybody who pays is a stupid idea. I mean look at the data shown in the video, no wonder that in the US there's so much gun violence😂
In America there are roughly 325,000,000 people. On average about 33,000 people a year die by firearms. Roughly 20,000 of those deaths are suicides, and the rest of that figure is made up of intentional homicides, self defense, and accidental discharges. The majority of the actual gun homicides are committed by criminal factions killing each other with unregistered firearms exchanged illegally on the black market. According to the CDC, up to 3 million American citizens use firearms for self defense every single year. According to the ATF and FBI, the gun homicide rate dropped by over 1/3 since 1993 while gun ownership more than doubled amongst law abiding citizens. Mr and Mrs John Q taxpayers make up the majority of legal gun owners, and they aren't the ones committing 80% of gun homicides, its gang members, outlaw bikers, and drug cartels.
Research is definitely necessary. How are you supposed to solve a problem if you don't understand it? I might be biased, I'm a researcher myself, though in an entirely different field.
I would encourage you to do more research. 500,000 to 3,000,000 lives are saved every year by the presentation or use of firearm. That includes thousands by AR-15's alone. Here's a study from Obama: www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf Also, over 18 years the US gained 200 million new firearms and over the same period of time, gun deaths dropped by 51%. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Great video. The problem with "gun violence" is it doesn't take into account and separate suicide and gang related shootings as their own issues that need research with the correlated mental health and criminal/social/economic issues as the main contributing factors. To address the gang and inner city issues you have to look at the devastating policies of criminal justice practices, public education disparity, stifling urban taxation and the social family unit breakdown from public assistance. That would lead into a deep look at the political issues that cause these...and the exposure that the side that always says it is trying to champion the correction to these causes ....actually causes them. Which is ironic since they use this to bolster their gun control argument. Hypocrisy.
@@EuropeanQoheleth not in the least. but then again, my goal is to keep my rights, not take someone elses away. not to mention i dont have to lie or misconstrue facts to support me position. theres that.
There's definitely more research and regulation needed to solve this problem. I think more education about guns and gun violence will help, although we need to do something with the NRA first.
Dorupero Understood, but it seems to be obvious that most of the problem doesn't require any research to solve, as the causes are crystal clear. So why isn't the big issue being addressed? The NRA hasn't got anything to do with high crime in the inner cities, so, other than using it as a diversion for political reasons, how is it that we have to "do something" about them first?
2:54 funny hhow you leave out the commas in the 2nd amendment to try and change its meaning. yeah, no anti gun lobby propaganda here... 3:04 the highly flawed kellerman study has been debunked for DECADES. one of it many flaws was that "researchers" included firearm brought into a home by criminals as part of the data showing that having a firearm in the home increased the danger to homeowners or occupants. if you cant see the problem in that methodology i suggest you go take several stats classes. there is no such thing as "gun violence". guns are inanimate objects with no will, or motivation to act on their own. there is only violence where the PERPETRATOR CHOOSES a gun and violence where they CHOSE another implement.
I believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. I don't support gun bans. I also believe this is a good, fact-based video. We can find solutions to reduce gun deaths in the United States while keeping our 2nd amendment rights intact, but only if we let good, peer-reviewed, and reproduceable science lead the way. I think part of that is going to have to include a focus education along with increased legal accountability and responsibility for gun owners. If you want to own a firearm, you should be trained in its use, safe storage, and legally accountable if you neglect your responsibilities.
MikeGamerGuy thanks for watching and appreciating the video and our effort to keep the issue rooted in research rather than politics. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Thank you for this. I've had people argue that the CDC hasn't been blocked or even worse I've had people argue that the CDC should be allowed to research guns because they're not a disease. This is such an uphill battle...
Considering this is such a controversial subject, I think we should make a special effort to emphasize that this video is not an argument for or against stricter gun laws in the US. Rather, it is about what we do and don't know about gun violence, and if anything, is an argument for more research.
Dan that’s right - we are steering clear of politics on this show and focusing on the research (or in this case, the lack of it) around topics that tend to get polarized and misunderstood.
You know what In Iceland literally everybody has a gun but still it's one of the most peaceful countries in the world and Japan has had only 1 gun homicide in 2016
I would love more research to see if "crazy" people or mentally ill are responsible. Seems like that reasoning and also bullying are the easy explanations for all the shooters.
It's definitely necessary. We don't have to take away guns from everyone, but not everyone should have guns. How to determine that needs to be researched.
Highly trained law enforcement should have and the public shouldn't. Works very well in other countries. Trying to keep track on who is mentally stable when mental health isn't static would be a logistical nightmare and not worth the risk. Especially when it might not even be the owner that is at risk of using the gun improperly. Another European rant... Sorry it just seems very simple across the pond
Funny how it works so well in Europe (and Australia) but would take a repeal of one of the original amendments to make it work here. Also, there's so much Russian money in the NRA that they can afford to put the politicians in office to keep things status quo. The thing is, "right to bear arms" has excluded tanks, machine guns, mortars, bombs, rockets, etc. I don't see why it can't also exclude assault rifles or even clips that hold more than six shells. We don't need a "well-armed militia" anymore. It's not the 18th/19th century! Also, in order to drive a car, you must have 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training to get a license, then have that license renewed every 3 to 5 years. Seems like if we're going to have guns available to the public, they should be trained and licensed. There are a few that will drive without a license ... but just a few. I think the same would be true for gun owners in time. You and others make a great point ... but in order to see change, we're going to have to get politicians in office that avoid super-pac money ... esp. NRA money ... and that's going to take a lot of us getting to the polls and voting these "here for money" congressmen out. Oh yeah ... that reminds me ... Congress ... the baboons would like you to change your name. These days, they find your use of it an insult. Now the sloths and clams have yet to reply, so maybe you could change your name to "bed". More like what we've got these days.
Scripts, Clips, Series & Flicks "Also, there's so much Russian money in the NRA that they can afford to put the politicians in office to keep things status quo." Where'd you get that? As you know,, the NRA has little influence in places like Chicago, Baltimore or Los Angeles. Liberal lawmakers have free reign with gun laws in such places, with the strongest gun regulations in the country, but sections of them remain some of the most dangerous places on earth. So scapegoating the NRA isn't part of a solution, it's just tossing red herring into the piraña tank.
Scripts, Clips, Series & Flicks I agree and not everyone should have the right to speak and voice their opinions or vote we just need a way to determine who should be able to vote and who should have a right to speak their mind. Better yet not everyone should be free from unlawful search and seizure and not every needs the right to avoid self incrimination we just need someone to grant access to these right to people they deem worthy.
I used to be very moderate on the gun issue till I actually stared carrying one for self defense and doing research and now I'm no compromise pro gun. All you have to do is look at liberal states gun laws and how they have not done jack shit to prevent gun crime, BUT they sure prove the pro gun people correct when it comes to gun confiscations by deranged leftists. I used to laugh at pro gun people, thinking their claims were insane, but now I fully support them. If the heavily biased CDC was to be allowed to do research I'd guarantee you that they'd say ban all guns. It should also be noted that regulating cars is NOT the same as regulating ones constitutional rights. The CDC is biased because the anti gun groups funded by elitist billionaires like Bloomberg have a vested interest in disarming We The People. Taking away cars doesn't suit the overlords of this nation's political agenda. You can't rise up against the government with cars, you can with guns.
I am impressed with your point of view, presentation and persona (and clicked 'Like') I am pro 2nd amendment, pro gun and don't like liberal points of view that assume we don't need to protect ourselves. But you made me realize that it would be a good thing to engineer guns to be safer, for instance AI that would act as gun safety, similar to fingerprint recognition for triggers, but extending to situational context. We also need to legalize more non-lethal solutions, and protect them from lawsuits. As you point out though, change will be difficult in the current political climate.
We can have simple changes that don't trample on anyone's rights. You may not agree with everything here but I honestly don't want to take anyone's guns away. Just sensible reform. 1. 30 day waiting period for first hand gun purchase. 0 day waiting period for future purchases. Allows time for full background check and allows time to cool off and will help prevent suicide. 2. Eliminate gun show loophole. Mandatory background checks. 3. Require insurance on all high powered rifles. You have car insurance, have this too. 4. Allow CDC funded research. 5. Repeal the law preventing manufactures from being sued for faulty equipment. 6. Your bazooka and AK-47 are already banned. You don't need them. Ban the AR-15 too. 7. Gun safety laws like safe storage, etc. 8. Ban from ALL mentally ill people and especially domestic violence abusers. 9. Require a license and training. You need this for a car. Why not a gun?
If you look at true statistics and not cherry picked ones. It will show gun violence is not a huge problem. Banning certain weapons will only cause an influx of gun sales.
No research is required because statistically guns and gun owners are only slightly less benign than bottled water. Gun Death is a sub-fractional cause of harm/death per capita with less than .038% of gun owners ever committing even a non-violent crime with a firearm. In a population of 330,000,000 Americans of which 120,000,000 are Gun Owners, 600,000,000 guns, 8,000,000,000 Detachable Magazines and 12,000,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition there are only 250,000 injuries and 50,000 deaths(mostly suicides) in the worst year on record. Gun Control is based on clickbait, media hype and intentional disinformation that goes to great lengths to avoid the average American getting any real sense of scale or statistical relevance regarding this issue. For guns to be a valid public health emergency at least 1 in 100 would have to cause some sort of injury but it's not even close to that. 600 million guns and 120 million gun owners would cause 60 million injuries and 6 million deaths of they were as dangerous as energy drinks or plastic surgery but instead the worst year on record measured "gun death" in the tens of thousands(not millions). Less than 1% of guns or gun owners are involved in any sort of criminal misuse or injury accidents involving firearms. This makes guns and gun owners statistically safer than hospital waiting rooms, energy drinks, hybrid/electric vehicles, swimming pools, plastic surgery, OTC pain relievers, cross fit classes per-capita. There are more so-called assault weapons than iPhones in the United Stated and they have been widely available since around 1920 with no real issues until the introduction of SSRI medications in the late 1980s. 80-90% of firearms homicide perpetrators and victims have a prior criminal arrest records(NIJ 1997-2017) but less than 10% of them were convicted due to soft courts and lazy prosecutors. Of the 10-20% of firearms homicide victims that do not have a prior criminal arrest records the greater plurality resided in a household with someone who did have a prior criminal arrest record and was directly or indirectly responsible for the circumstances leading to the innocent person's death. There are fewer that 3,000 firearms homicides per year that involve perpetrators and victims who were not engaged in criminal enterprise within the last 10 years and had nearly identical age, race, criminal history and socio-economic backgrounds.
I am a huge gun fan and member of the NRA but think the data should be reviewed from an unbiased organization. If you own a firearm, you have responsibilities to keep the firearm from kids or anyone else that does not own it. Training is respect for the tool. I still think the second amendment stands, we are Americans! Freedom isn’t free!
I liked how you assume the researchers are biased. Also, unless you want to review the data before it is published, that is already how research works. Being able to review is an essencial part of research. If you think their conclusions is wrong, and you have good quality research proving it, you can publish it. All public funded research should be fully public, including the data. If it is not, then you should fight for it to be. Then you can do your own research and prove their conclusions is false. That way, instead of having censorship, like that the NRA promotes, you have a scientific debate that actually advances knowledge, and not ignorance.
Jason: I agree. There are problems that could stand to be addressed, but they won't get addressed by politicians or extremist political positions. Research will be ignored by those people.
Rodrigo Barbosa We know the data is biased because , the left forgets to talk about genocide when the govt starts pushing out more and more gun control
And when that freedom needs to be purchased from someone else, the government will issue firearms to those who volunteer to buy that freedom with their blood. If you need to purchase freedom from the government with guns, you've already lost. That freedom is bought at the ballot box.
It the first minute he changed from gun homicide. To gun deaths. This disingenuous. Because there is a difference and it's important. The total number of gun deaths includes Suicide, self defense and justified police shootings, and then homicide number is a very small percentage of that. Notice he made a Distinction in the difference of wealth countries. Because when you look at the stats of unwealth countries. They actually have more gun violence. Compared to the US.
Nice video, Highlights probably the most important aspect of this debate. I can't imagine more guns ever meaning more safety, and if the CDC published research showing that guns are safer to keep under certain conditions, I still wouldn't want to move to the USA! It would be fantastic to see a video on GM in agriculture, this is something that hasn't been explained very well to the public, and hence has widespread opposition. I'm actually going to take an exam on this topic today so wish me luck!
Logically thinking, if you allow guns, people will buy guns and it's safer to go everywhere with guns for self-defense. However if guns are outlawed, less people will use guns for violence because guns are illegal and so people do not need to defend themselves by buying guns.
@@AboveTheNoise it's too much to link all cdc gun articles and other sources as well. you'll have to combine all the separate studies. overall gun owner ship has risen exponentially according to cdc. They also report that gun deaths are about same. Studies showing 80% of gun violence is gang/drug related and mostly gang on gang related. Mist of is pistol not rifle. Cdc also reports most gun violence is in poverty addresses with high density populous. So what is being shown is more legal ownership has a direct result to gun violent crimes being reduced. And rifles such as Armalite rifles (at-15) account for 3% or less of all gun crimes. This isn't addressing suicide which isn't a factor as most suicides are by drugs not guns. But rifles would be even less of all gun deaths. Then all gun deaths in total not even averages but at max would still not total car deaths or drug deaths. Comparing other countries is also a null and non point. But if you did, UK has sharp rise in violent crimes overall while America drops. Home invasions in the use 9+% of the time nobodies there where as half the time in the UK someones home. UK had less gun crimes b4 the ban than America per capita. After the ban they had a spike of violent crime. Australia didnt see much Gunn crime b4 ban and after the ban it remains similar to preban. All in all you got to look att all data broadly and sumize the answer. Which is gun regulation negatively affects millions of gun owners and non owners. Such as the over 2 million lives saved by gun discharges not law enforcement per year versus the 350k killed by gun crime.
@@KeithLburns Hi Keith, More than debating gun control regulation or the direct causes of gun deaths, this Above the Noise video explores the barriers to collecting scientific data on the ways guns affect public health and welfare. As the source list accompanying the video shows, the CDC and other publicly funded agencies have been prevented from conducting gun research in a way that didn’t apply to other things that kill (or used to kill) Americans, such as cars, common household goods and unsafe food-handling practices. See this NPR article (www.npr.org/2018/03/25/596805354/cdc-now-has-authority-to-research-gun-violence-whats-next) from the source list, which outlines the information presented in the video. As Mark Rosenberg at the CDC pointed out, researching how lives can be saved in car crashes didn’t lead to cars being banned. Likewise, the video doesn’t take a stand on any policy that might arise from researching gun safety. Rather, it points out the factors that prevented this kind of research from being conducted. Thanks for watching!
@@AboveTheNoise I know it had in the past but only because of certain articles that were biased. The were encouraged and are today encouraged to make unbiased reports. They do all sorts of gun research
@@KeithLburns It's true that the current administration, under considerable political pressure, authorized a funding bill last March for the CDC to allow more research on gun violence. That money, however, needed to be appropriated by Congress -- which wasn't likely as long as Congress was Republican controlled. However, since the majority went to the Democrats, a new CDC report was released in December 2018 shows that "Gun deaths in the U.S. have reached a record high...According to the research, 39,773 people were fatally shot in 2017, a figure that has grown by more than 10,000 people since 1999. CDC data going back to 1979 shows that last year had the highest rates of gun deaths in nearly 40 years." time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/
500,000 to 3,000,000 lives are saved every year by the presentation or use of firearm. That includes thousands by AR-15's alone. www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf Also, over 18 years the US gained 200 million new firearms and over the same period of time, gun deaths dropped by 51%. www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Here is a fun fact, Sweden low gun violence higher gun ownership then USA. So banning guns is probably not the answer here is another fun fact Also gun violence in USA has declined while gun sales have sored, so banning guns just is not the answer. It is the people who have guns that is the problem to solve if you want to solve gun violence, sure ban guns for all you want you will instead see other forms of violence increase. Maybe less lethal but you have also disarmed all the good people in your country so now they cant even try to stop it. There have been tons of research into gun violence, and almost no single study concludes that banning guns is the answer to the problem.
Citizens of America have Second Amendment rights because they live and breathe - not because government officials have chosen to bestow them with such, as some sort of privilege.
Cant believe a black guy presenting a video about gun violence didn't once bring up the fact that the police are responsible for more gun violence in America than any other demographic.
imo Knowing is so 20th Century. We-Americans-are much more into opinions than facts/knowledge/whatever. Why bother with research, studies, facts and figures when we can all "feel" about it. The NRA...don't get me started. imo
"Why isn't there more government funded research on the government further restricting the rights of its citizens?" I think the title answered its own question....
Comparing car crashes to gun violence is absolutely ridiculous. One is intentional, the other one is not (for the most part). I'm half that guy's age and I already know this. What kind of researchers do they have over there?
While we agree that car crashes and gun violence are of course unique phenomena, the comparison is more about how research can impact a public health problem. There is a parallel when it comes to the role good research can play in understanding a problem and designing solutions to address it that are based on facts, rather than business interests or political agendas.
Above The Noise Sorry. Maybe I was too aggressive in my opinion. But I lack the imagination to understand what type of research they might do. There is so much statistical evidence from other countries, that I don't understand what other evidence would legislators need. Meanwhile, people get killed. Not to mention that buying the "we need evidence" idea opens the door for false research. Which I'm sure will happen in such a corrupt industry. But hey, it's their country. As far as I know, the second amendment doesn't even talk about the individual right to bear arms. It's about forming militias, not arming individuals.
What is wrong with your video is that you have played into the hands of false statistics. I was hoping you might be above such tactics. What is the actual firearm violence in America if you take out the Democratically controlled cities of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, and Oakland. Next take our the people that commit suicides with firearms...the could just as well jump off a building...then take out the fact that 72% of firearm shootings are drug related.......then where does America then fall in the violent list of the industrialized nations? Big Bad NRA...where was your mention that it was the first Civil Rights organization in America by reminding the country that Blacks in the south could also own guns as they were be murdered by Democrats. Any idea of how many firearms the NRA gave to Blacks to protect themselves against Democrats and their organization the KKK? It is times like this that our founders wanted to protect us from government. Above the noise.....let's truly be "above" the noise and offer coverage that does not share your "noise".
Show me a source that says those statistics in the video are false. You are drawing the wrong conclusions from this video and have fallen into the trap of assuming that correlation == causation. To imply that democrats are violent and that drugs cause people to be violent is presumptuous and demeaning for no good reason. Imagine if the CDC hadn't been able to do research on car related injuries back in the '50s due to automotive lobbyists spouting "freedom of movement" or some other nonsense and were forced to regulate cars without proper research. Rather than implementing effective and reasonable regulations that actually work like seat belts, air bags, and texting laws we would be having dumb laws like "no driving in a rural environment" because driving death rates are 2.4x higher compared to in cities. My point is, well and proper research is the only way that we can find and fix the actual problems in accordance with guns, just like we did with cars rather than lowering ourselves to patchwork legislation. No more of being an armchair scientist and drawing sensationalist/political inaccurate conclusions from things like "I was hoping you might be above such tactics. What is the actual firearm violence in America if you take out the Democratically controlled cities of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, and Oakland".
That last bit cracked me up. Gun safety should be researched like car safety. LOL. There's one problem: A car is designed to carry you from point A to point B, a gun is DESIGNED to kill humans...unlike cars that only do that as a side effect.
True. Guns and cars obviously have very different purposes. But the larger point we trying to make was that research about car safety resulted in a lot of lives saved.
Above The Noise no. You're not getting my point. Something that was designed to kill is inherently not safe. Making it "safer" would defeat it's purpose. Making a car safer makes sense.
I would like to know how many deaths from non natural causes per capita there are in multiple different countries, I believe that study would greatly help us to find the root of this issue when compared with how many gun deaths there are in the united states. My hypothesis would be that there would be a similar trend among high income countries. This would hopefully dissolve both extremes and lead to the conclusion that we need to focus on people instead of guns in particular. I really feel like far too much of this data only relates to guns and not to something more general. I must admit I am not well versed in this issue so I'd love to hear any rebuttals.
You can't "hope" to come to a conclusion you like. The solution is simple: do research on gun violence. The whole subject reeks of anti-vaxx movement. Lobbying to close research instead of asking for proper research is way too stupid.
0:09 The peaceful meal was already doomed with those dead animal parts on their plates ;) Please do a video about the ethics of animal agriculture. Thank you for all the awesome content, keep it up!
What? There is a ton of research. You are ignoring most of it. Like the fact that most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. Or the fact that guns prevent somewhere between 10 and 300 times as many crimes as guns are used in.
I would love to, but for some reason I cannot paste links. Anyway the NY Times did a good article on Oct 8th 2015 on the subject, and most of the statistics I refer to come from the CDC, so you can refer to their site for the numbers. Even the Brady Campaign, the most anti gun group in the states, list the statistics showing that suicides far out number homicides when referring to firearm deaths. Truly sorry I can't link the articles or stats, must be a UA-cam thing.
Research and science should be guiding public policy, not the other way around. No matter your political stance, the NRA lobbying against the pursuit of knowledge and saving lives is inexcusable. Not every solution involves banning guns; heck, the best solution likely doesn't involve banning guns. I think we need to give the CDC what they need and then judge based on the peer reviewed studies that come out of this.
I think most researchers would definitely agree. Thanks for the comment!
Michael Moccio: "...the NRA lobbying against the pursuit of knowledge and saving lives..." Source please. This sounds like something that came from a news organization or political group that eschews research and science.
Reach Take some time yourself and read the description of the video. It cites sources there.
Ekki. It's an entertaining video, but it presents facts in a way that might tend to confuse. I don't think it's deliberate, like so many are.
Reach41 what does that have to do with the evidence presented? There are links to outside sources in the description, just like any video that claims to be somewhat serious should do.
In 2013 Obama ordered research via the cdc and coincidentally didn't make a big announcement about the results. Annual estimates of defensive uses of firearms (not necessarily discharging) were from 500,000 to 3,000,000 times a year. This would've been an important study to include in this segment
Spain, Italy, greece, Portugal are high income countries? What a joke.
Look at who’s killing who. Then that’s the issue that needs to be fixed.
Yes, crazy these people who don't think untrained people should have the right to have guns 😂 this whole debate is quite ridiculous from a European perspective
I'm not sure what you're trying to say entirely, but know the second amendment was designed to allow Americans to protect themselves from any corrupt law enforcement or military. Secondly, shooting a gun releases the same chemical in your brain as falling in love or riding a roller coaster. It sounds weird, but It's a certain kind of fun to shoot down a range or whatever. If you have to relate it too anything, think about it more as a favorite toy that a weapon of mass destruction.
I couldn't agree more. I would say I don't know how American's don't realise how silly they look to us, but we know how ignorant they are to the rest of the world.
The Navy Seal in this vid makes sense ua-cam.com/video/G0TzzzVT2AE/v-deo.html
Elijah Dage I understand that guns can be fun and I don't have a problem with people shooting guns under controlled circumstances like on a shooting range. But it's obvious that selling guns which are designed to injure or kill to literally everybody who pays is a stupid idea. I mean look at the data shown in the video, no wonder that in the US there's so much gun violence😂
In America there are roughly 325,000,000 people. On average about 33,000 people a year die by firearms. Roughly 20,000 of those deaths are suicides, and the rest of that figure is made up of intentional homicides, self defense, and accidental discharges. The majority of the actual gun homicides are committed by criminal factions killing each other with unregistered firearms exchanged illegally on the black market.
According to the CDC, up to 3 million American citizens use firearms for self defense every single year. According to the ATF and FBI, the gun homicide rate dropped by over 1/3 since 1993 while gun ownership more than doubled amongst law abiding citizens.
Mr and Mrs John Q taxpayers make up the majority of legal gun owners, and they aren't the ones committing 80% of gun homicides, its gang members, outlaw bikers, and drug cartels.
I love this channel because it provides FACTS as they are without insinuating what to do, what should be done bla bla bla. I hope it remains so
Thanks, Jaskaran! Much appreciated!
Research is definitely necessary. How are you supposed to solve a problem if you don't understand it?
I might be biased, I'm a researcher myself, though in an entirely different field.
Thanks for this perspective.
I would encourage you to do more research. 500,000 to 3,000,000 lives are saved every year by the presentation or use of firearm. That includes thousands by AR-15's alone. Here's a study from Obama:
www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf
Also, over 18 years the US gained 200 million new firearms and over the same period of time, gun deaths dropped by 51%.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Great video.
The problem with "gun violence" is it doesn't take into account and separate suicide and gang related shootings as their own issues that need research with the correlated mental health and criminal/social/economic issues as the main contributing factors.
To address the gang and inner city issues you have to look at the devastating policies of criminal justice practices, public education disparity, stifling urban taxation and the social family unit breakdown from public assistance. That would lead into a deep look at the political issues that cause these...and the exposure that the side that always says it is trying to champion the correction to these causes ....actually causes them.
Which is ironic since they use this to bolster their gun control argument.
Hypocrisy.
Well you're not wrong
1:04 How is Switzerland not a high income country???
Good catch. That's a graphical error on our part. I think it's because it wasn't included in the study - but we should've made that clear.
"researchers were cherry picking data to chip away at the 2nd amendment"
@@thurin84 Oh and you're objective I bet?
@@EuropeanQoheleth not in the least. but then again, my goal is to keep my rights, not take someone elses away. not to mention i dont have to lie or misconstrue facts to support me position. theres that.
There's definitely more research and regulation needed to solve this problem. I think more education about guns and gun violence will help, although we need to do something with the NRA first.
Dorupero If we remove all the shootings in high-crime inner cities from the numbers, there isn't a lot left to study.
Reach41 I'm just referring to what the video talks about. Like the seatbelt, research makes it more clear of what can be done.
The secondary problem to this solution is that the US rarely legislates using evidence based data.
Michael S. Exactly. The big move now is to ban "assault rifles". But less than 2% of gun crime uses rifles of any type.
Dorupero Understood, but it seems to be obvious that most of the problem doesn't require any research to solve, as the causes are crystal clear. So why isn't the big issue being addressed? The NRA hasn't got anything to do with high crime in the inner cities, so, other than using it as a diversion for political reasons, how is it that we have to "do something" about them first?
2:54 funny hhow you leave out the commas in the 2nd amendment to try and change its meaning. yeah, no anti gun lobby propaganda here...
3:04 the highly flawed kellerman study has been debunked for DECADES. one of it many flaws was that "researchers" included firearm brought into a home by criminals as part of the data showing that having a firearm in the home increased the danger to homeowners or occupants. if you cant see the problem in that methodology i suggest you go take several stats classes.
there is no such thing as "gun violence". guns are inanimate objects with no will, or motivation to act on their own. there is only violence where the PERPETRATOR CHOOSES a gun and violence where they CHOSE another implement.
I believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. I don't support gun bans. I also believe this is a good, fact-based video. We can find solutions to reduce gun deaths in the United States while keeping our 2nd amendment rights intact, but only if we let good, peer-reviewed, and reproduceable science lead the way. I think part of that is going to have to include a focus education along with increased legal accountability and responsibility for gun owners. If you want to own a firearm, you should be trained in its use, safe storage, and legally accountable if you neglect your responsibilities.
MikeGamerGuy thanks for watching and appreciating the video and our effort to keep the issue rooted in research rather than politics. Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Thank you for this. I've had people argue that the CDC hasn't been blocked or even worse I've had people argue that the CDC should be allowed to research guns because they're not a disease.
This is such an uphill battle...
Thanks for watching, Mike!
Blame Chicago... and St. Louis... and Detroit... for the high af numbers.
All i can say is that ignoring a problem never solved anything. More research!
Good point!
Considering this is such a controversial subject, I think we should make a special effort to emphasize that this video is not an argument for or against stricter gun laws in the US. Rather, it is about what we do and don't know about gun violence, and if anything, is an argument for more research.
Dan that’s right - we are steering clear of politics on this show and focusing on the research (or in this case, the lack of it) around topics that tend to get polarized and misunderstood.
the very fact it refers to the debunked 1993 kellerman study as if it were valid identifies it as a biased source.
You know what In Iceland literally everybody has a gun but still it's one of the most peaceful countries in the world and Japan has had only 1 gun homicide in 2016
Smartinator Plus Switzerland is an ok example none of these other nations are a perfect analogy.
I would love more research to see if "crazy" people or mentally ill are responsible. Seems like that reasoning and also bullying are the easy explanations for all the shooters.
Good question!
Good point!
You want to save lives. First fix the social economical problems that cause the violence in the 1st place.
It's definitely necessary. We don't have to take away guns from everyone, but not everyone should have guns. How to determine that needs to be researched.
Highly trained law enforcement should have and the public shouldn't. Works very well in other countries.
Trying to keep track on who is mentally stable when mental health isn't static would be a logistical nightmare and not worth the risk. Especially when it might not even be the owner that is at risk of using the gun improperly.
Another European rant... Sorry it just seems very simple across the pond
Funny how it works so well in Europe (and Australia) but would take a repeal of one of the original amendments to make it work here. Also, there's so much Russian money in the NRA that they can afford to put the politicians in office to keep things status quo. The thing is, "right to bear arms" has excluded tanks, machine guns, mortars, bombs, rockets, etc. I don't see why it can't also exclude assault rifles or even clips that hold more than six shells. We don't need a "well-armed militia" anymore. It's not the 18th/19th century!
Also, in order to drive a car, you must have 40 hours of behind-the-wheel training to get a license, then have that license renewed every 3 to 5 years. Seems like if we're going to have guns available to the public, they should be trained and licensed. There are a few that will drive without a license ... but just a few. I think the same would be true for gun owners in time.
You and others make a great point ... but in order to see change, we're going to have to get politicians in office that avoid super-pac money ... esp. NRA money ... and that's going to take a lot of us getting to the polls and voting these "here for money" congressmen out.
Oh yeah ... that reminds me ... Congress ... the baboons would like you to change your name. These days, they find your use of it an insult. Now the sloths and clams have yet to reply, so maybe you could change your name to "bed". More like what we've got these days.
Good point. Thanks for the comment.
Scripts, Clips, Series & Flicks
"Also, there's so much Russian money in the NRA that they can afford to put the politicians in office to keep things status quo." Where'd you get that?
As you know,, the NRA has little influence in places like Chicago, Baltimore or Los Angeles. Liberal lawmakers have free reign with gun laws in such places, with the strongest gun regulations in the country, but sections of them remain some of the most dangerous places on earth. So scapegoating the NRA isn't part of a solution, it's just tossing red herring into the piraña tank.
Scripts, Clips, Series & Flicks I agree and not everyone should have the right to speak and voice their opinions or vote we just need a way to determine who should be able to vote and who should have a right to speak their mind. Better yet not everyone should be free from unlawful search and seizure and not every needs the right to avoid self incrimination we just need someone to grant access to these right to people they deem worthy.
I agree with Veteran Navy Seal Dom Raso about firearms.
I used to be very moderate on the gun issue till I actually stared carrying one for self defense and doing research and now I'm no compromise pro gun. All you have to do is look at liberal states gun laws and how they have not done jack shit to prevent gun crime, BUT they sure prove the pro gun people correct when it comes to gun confiscations by deranged leftists. I used to laugh at pro gun people, thinking their claims were insane, but now I fully support them. If the heavily biased CDC was to be allowed to do research I'd guarantee you that they'd say ban all guns.
It should also be noted that regulating cars is NOT the same as regulating ones constitutional rights. The CDC is biased because the anti gun groups funded by elitist billionaires like Bloomberg have a vested interest in disarming We The People. Taking away cars doesn't suit the overlords of this nation's political agenda. You can't rise up against the government with cars, you can with guns.
I am impressed with your point of view, presentation and persona (and clicked 'Like') I am pro 2nd amendment, pro gun and don't like liberal points of view that assume we don't need to protect ourselves. But you made me realize that it would be a good thing to engineer guns to be safer, for instance AI that would act as gun safety, similar to fingerprint recognition for triggers, but extending to situational context. We also need to legalize more non-lethal solutions, and protect them from lawsuits. As you point out though, change will be difficult in the current political climate.
Thanks for watching with an open mind. We need more of those these days.
We can have simple changes that don't trample on anyone's rights. You may not agree with everything here but I honestly don't want to take anyone's guns away. Just sensible reform.
1. 30 day waiting period for first hand gun purchase. 0 day waiting period for future purchases. Allows time for full background check and allows time to cool off and will help prevent suicide.
2. Eliminate gun show loophole. Mandatory background checks.
3. Require insurance on all high powered rifles. You have car insurance, have this too.
4. Allow CDC funded research.
5. Repeal the law preventing manufactures from being sued for faulty equipment.
6. Your bazooka and AK-47 are already banned. You don't need them. Ban the AR-15 too.
7. Gun safety laws like safe storage, etc.
8. Ban from ALL mentally ill people and especially domestic violence abusers.
9. Require a license and training. You need this for a car. Why not a gun?
Paul Gardner
No
No
No
No
No
No
Thanks for this, Paul. What would you suggest?
If you look at true statistics and not cherry picked ones. It will show gun violence is not a huge problem. Banning certain weapons will only cause an influx of gun sales.
1:30 but is the deaths aince 1968 a total or is separate from the deaths from war. if it's a seperate the it would show very different results.
Good question. It's the number of gun-related deaths WITHIN the U.S. since 1968 (so not including war deaths).
No research is required because statistically guns and gun owners are only slightly less benign than bottled water.
Gun Death is a sub-fractional cause of harm/death per capita with less than .038% of gun owners ever committing even a non-violent crime with a firearm.
In a population of 330,000,000 Americans of which 120,000,000 are Gun Owners, 600,000,000 guns, 8,000,000,000 Detachable Magazines and 12,000,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition there are only 250,000 injuries and 50,000 deaths(mostly suicides) in the worst year on record.
Gun Control is based on clickbait, media hype and intentional disinformation that goes to great lengths to avoid the average American getting any real sense of scale or statistical relevance regarding this issue. For guns to be a valid public health emergency at least 1 in 100 would have to cause some sort of injury but it's not even close to that. 600 million guns and 120 million gun owners would cause 60 million injuries and 6 million deaths of they were as dangerous as energy drinks or plastic surgery but instead the worst year on record measured "gun death" in the tens of thousands(not millions).
Less than 1% of guns or gun owners are involved in any sort of criminal misuse or injury accidents involving firearms. This makes guns and gun owners statistically safer than hospital waiting rooms, energy drinks, hybrid/electric vehicles, swimming pools, plastic surgery, OTC pain relievers, cross fit classes per-capita.
There are more so-called assault weapons than iPhones in the United Stated and they have been widely available since around 1920 with no real issues until the introduction of SSRI medications in the late 1980s.
80-90% of firearms homicide perpetrators and victims have a prior criminal arrest records(NIJ 1997-2017) but less than 10% of them were convicted due to soft courts and lazy prosecutors. Of the 10-20% of firearms homicide victims that do not have a prior criminal arrest records the greater plurality resided in a household with someone who did have a prior criminal arrest record and was directly or indirectly responsible for the circumstances leading to the innocent person's death.
There are fewer that 3,000 firearms homicides per year that involve perpetrators and victims who were not engaged in criminal enterprise within the last 10 years and had nearly identical age, race, criminal history and socio-economic backgrounds.
nra should realize this research will mean more gun owners duh
I am a huge gun fan and member of the NRA but think the data should be reviewed from an unbiased organization. If you own a firearm, you have responsibilities to keep the firearm from kids or anyone else that does not own it. Training is respect for the tool. I still think the second amendment stands, we are Americans! Freedom isn’t free!
I liked how you assume the researchers are biased.
Also, unless you want to review the data before it is published, that is already how research works. Being able to review is an essencial part of research.
If you think their conclusions is wrong, and you have good quality research proving it, you can publish it.
All public funded research should be fully public, including the data. If it is not, then you should fight for it to be. Then you can do your own research and prove their conclusions is false.
That way, instead of having censorship, like that the NRA promotes, you have a scientific debate that actually advances knowledge, and not ignorance.
Thanks for this thoughtful perspective, Jason.
Jason: I agree. There are problems that could stand to be addressed, but they won't get addressed by politicians or extremist political positions. Research will be ignored by those people.
Rodrigo Barbosa
We know the data is biased because , the left forgets to talk about genocide when the govt starts pushing out more and more gun control
And when that freedom needs to be purchased from someone else, the government will issue firearms to those who volunteer to buy that freedom with their blood. If you need to purchase freedom from the government with guns, you've already lost. That freedom is bought at the ballot box.
It the first minute he changed from gun homicide. To gun deaths. This disingenuous. Because there is a difference and it's important. The total number of gun deaths includes Suicide, self defense and justified police shootings, and then homicide number is a very small percentage of that. Notice he made a Distinction in the difference of wealth countries. Because when you look at the stats of unwealth countries. They actually have more gun violence. Compared to the US.
Nice video, Highlights probably the most important aspect of this debate. I can't imagine more guns ever meaning more safety, and if the CDC published research showing that guns are safer to keep under certain conditions, I still wouldn't want to move to the USA! It would be fantastic to see a video on GM in agriculture, this is something that hasn't been explained very well to the public, and hence has widespread opposition. I'm actually going to take an exam on this topic today so wish me luck!
Thanks for the suggestion. We'll add it to our list! And good luck on your exam!
Logically thinking, if you allow guns, people will buy guns and it's safer to go everywhere with guns for self-defense. However if guns are outlawed, less people will use guns for violence because guns are illegal and so people do not need to defend themselves by buying guns.
Cause and effect, right?
If guns are outlawed, the criminals would still have them. That is why they are called criminals.
Cdc has been publishing research and the research is pretty solid in how guns really don't cause much difference.
Can you share a link to the research you are referring to? Thanks!
@@AboveTheNoise it's too much to link all cdc gun articles and other sources as well. you'll have to combine all the separate studies. overall gun owner ship has risen exponentially according to cdc. They also report that gun deaths are about same. Studies showing 80% of gun violence is gang/drug related and mostly gang on gang related. Mist of is pistol not rifle. Cdc also reports most gun violence is in poverty addresses with high density populous.
So what is being shown is more legal ownership has a direct result to gun violent crimes being reduced. And rifles such as Armalite rifles (at-15) account for 3% or less of all gun crimes. This isn't addressing suicide which isn't a factor as most suicides are by drugs not guns. But rifles would be even less of all gun deaths. Then all gun deaths in total not even averages but at max would still not total car deaths or drug deaths. Comparing other countries is also a null and non point. But if you did, UK has sharp rise in violent crimes overall while America drops. Home invasions in the use 9+% of the time nobodies there where as half the time in the UK someones home. UK had less gun crimes b4 the ban than America per capita. After the ban they had a spike of violent crime. Australia didnt see much Gunn crime b4 ban and after the ban it remains similar to preban.
All in all you got to look att all data broadly and sumize the answer. Which is gun regulation negatively affects millions of gun owners and non owners. Such as the over 2 million lives saved by gun discharges not law enforcement per year versus the 350k killed by gun crime.
@@KeithLburns Hi Keith,
More than debating gun control regulation or the direct causes of gun deaths, this Above the Noise video explores the barriers to collecting scientific data on the ways guns affect public health and welfare. As the source list accompanying the video shows, the CDC and other publicly funded agencies have been prevented from conducting gun research in a way that didn’t apply to other things that kill (or used to kill) Americans, such as cars, common household goods and unsafe food-handling practices. See this NPR article (www.npr.org/2018/03/25/596805354/cdc-now-has-authority-to-research-gun-violence-whats-next) from the source list, which outlines the information presented in the video. As Mark Rosenberg at the CDC pointed out, researching how lives can be saved in car crashes didn’t lead to cars being banned. Likewise, the video doesn’t take a stand on any policy that might arise from researching gun safety. Rather, it points out the factors that prevented this kind of research from being conducted. Thanks for watching!
@@AboveTheNoise I know it had in the past but only because of certain articles that were biased. The were encouraged and are today encouraged to make unbiased reports. They do all sorts of gun research
@@KeithLburns It's true that the current administration, under considerable political pressure, authorized a funding bill last March for the CDC to allow more research on gun violence. That money, however, needed to be appropriated by Congress -- which wasn't likely as long as Congress was Republican controlled. However, since the majority went to the Democrats, a new CDC report was released in December 2018 shows that "Gun deaths in the U.S. have reached a record high...According to the research, 39,773 people were fatally shot in 2017, a figure that has grown by more than 10,000 people since 1999. CDC data going back to 1979 shows that last year had the highest rates of gun deaths in nearly 40 years." time.com/5479993/gun-deaths-us-cdc/
Kick the NRA out of Congress and give all their money to the CDC for all the gun research they can handle.
CDC researchers would probably support that!
Cdc found that 2 million americans use guns in self defence each year...
Doesn't the NRA financially support a good portion of the people in Congress? Doubt this is happening anytime soon.
President Obama ordered the CDC to conduct a study in 2015. Look at the results.
500,000 to 3,000,000 lives are saved every year by the presentation or use of firearm. That includes thousands by AR-15's alone.
www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf
Also, over 18 years the US gained 200 million new firearms and over the same period of time, gun deaths dropped by 51%.
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Here is a fun fact, Sweden low gun violence higher gun ownership then USA. So banning guns is probably not the answer here is another fun fact Also gun violence in USA has declined while gun sales have sored, so banning guns just is not the answer. It is the people who have guns that is the problem to solve if you want to solve gun violence, sure ban guns for all you want you will instead see other forms of violence increase. Maybe less lethal but you have also disarmed all the good people in your country so now they cant even try to stop it.
There have been tons of research into gun violence, and almost no single study concludes that banning guns is the answer to the problem.
0:26 *I fall in the LATTER camp!* 😁😁🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍🏽👍🏽
Citizens of America have Second Amendment rights because they live and breathe - not because government officials have chosen to bestow them with such, as some sort of privilege.
So your telling me all these laws are being passed without research?
Cant believe a black guy presenting a video about gun violence didn't once bring up the fact that the police are responsible for more gun violence in America than any other demographic.
imo
Knowing is so 20th Century.
We-Americans-are much more into opinions than facts/knowledge/whatever.
Why bother with research, studies, facts and figures when we can all "feel" about it.
The NRA...don't get me started.
imo
Ha!
Indeed
Ah, yes. The left has virtually no facts to back itself up and is running purely on irrational emotional responses.
As is the right, Call Me Astaire.
Both are full of beans in these kinds of comment "discussions".
imo, of course.
Hmmm....... Saying a conspiracy because their position was threatened by evidence........ Hmmmmm...... Where have I heard of that before?
0:28
Who in there right mind allowed their child to swing around an assault rifle?
Ones who want to teach their children the importance of firearm safety at a young age.
Thanks for nice video, and i havent seen in yet.
"Why isn't there more government funded research on the government further restricting the rights of its citizens?" I think the title answered its own question....
Comparing car crashes to gun violence is absolutely ridiculous. One is intentional, the other one is not (for the most part). I'm half that guy's age and I already know this. What kind of researchers do they have over there?
While we agree that car crashes and gun violence are of course unique phenomena, the comparison is more about how research can impact a public health problem. There is a parallel when it comes to the role good research can play in understanding a problem and designing solutions to address it that are based on facts, rather than business interests or political agendas.
Above The Noise Sorry. Maybe I was too aggressive in my opinion. But I lack the imagination to understand what type of research they might do. There is so much statistical evidence from other countries, that I don't understand what other evidence would legislators need. Meanwhile, people get killed. Not to mention that buying the "we need evidence" idea opens the door for false research. Which I'm sure will happen in such a corrupt industry. But hey, it's their country. As far as I know, the second amendment doesn't even talk about the individual right to bear arms. It's about forming militias, not arming individuals.
What is wrong with your video is that you have played into the hands of false statistics.
I was hoping you might be above such tactics. What is the actual firearm violence in America if you take out the Democratically controlled cities of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
Next take our the people that commit suicides with firearms...the could just as well jump off a building...then take out the fact that 72% of firearm shootings are drug related.......then where does America then fall in the violent list of the industrialized nations?
Big Bad NRA...where was your mention that it was the first Civil Rights organization in America by reminding the country that Blacks in the south could also own guns as they were be murdered by Democrats. Any idea of how many firearms the NRA gave to Blacks to protect themselves against Democrats and their organization the KKK?
It is times like this that our founders wanted to protect us from government.
Above the noise.....let's truly be "above" the noise and offer coverage that does not share your "noise".
Show me a source that says those statistics in the video are false.
You are drawing the wrong conclusions from this video and have fallen into the trap of assuming that correlation == causation. To imply that democrats are violent and that drugs cause people to be violent is presumptuous and demeaning for no good reason.
Imagine if the CDC hadn't been able to do research on car related injuries back in the '50s due to automotive lobbyists spouting "freedom of movement" or some other nonsense and were forced to regulate cars without proper research. Rather than implementing effective and reasonable regulations that actually work like seat belts, air bags, and texting laws we would be having dumb laws like "no driving in a rural environment" because driving death rates are 2.4x higher compared to in cities.
My point is, well and proper research is the only way that we can find and fix the actual problems in accordance with guns, just like we did with cars rather than lowering ourselves to patchwork legislation. No more of being an armchair scientist and drawing sensationalist/political inaccurate conclusions from things like
"I was hoping you might be above such tactics. What is the actual firearm violence in America if you take out the Democratically controlled cities of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, New York, Los Angeles, and Oakland".
His shirt doesn't look right.
That is so annoying!!!!
That last bit cracked me up. Gun safety should be researched like car safety. LOL. There's one problem: A car is designed to carry you from point A to point B, a gun is DESIGNED to kill humans...unlike cars that only do that as a side effect.
Good point, but the research methodology used to study cars can certainly be applied to guns, right? Statistics are statistics no matter the topic.
True. Guns and cars obviously have very different purposes. But the larger point we trying to make was that research about car safety resulted in a lot of lives saved.
Above The Noise no. You're not getting my point. Something that was designed to kill is inherently not safe. Making it "safer" would defeat it's purpose. Making a car safer makes sense.
But isn't the point of having a gun to increase your own safety?
I would like to know how many deaths from non natural causes per capita there are in multiple different countries, I believe that study would greatly help us to find the root of this issue when compared with how many gun deaths there are in the united states. My hypothesis would be that there would be a similar trend among high income countries. This would hopefully dissolve both extremes and lead to the conclusion that we need to focus on people instead of guns in particular. I really feel like far too much of this data only relates to guns and not to something more general. I must admit I am not well versed in this issue so I'd love to hear any rebuttals.
I agree. Lets ban people!
It's a good question, and well worth investigating. Let us know what you find!
You can't "hope" to come to a conclusion you like. The solution is simple: do research on gun violence.
The whole subject reeks of anti-vaxx movement. Lobbying to close research instead of asking for proper research is way too stupid.
What can we do to get the federal government to fund gun violence research?
David Shi
They do lmao
Barely. They need to repeal the Dickey Amendment.
Good question, David. It's all about the funding decisions that Congress makes.
0:09 The peaceful meal was already doomed with those dead animal parts on their plates ;) Please do a video about the ethics of animal agriculture. Thank you for all the awesome content, keep it up!
Thanks for the great suggestion (and for watching so closely)! We'll add it to the list.
Above The Noise
What? There is a ton of research. You are ignoring most of it. Like the fact that most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides. Or the fact that guns prevent somewhere between 10 and 300 times as many crimes as guns are used in.
Thanks Mark. Can you send links to study that support this?
I would love to, but for some reason I cannot paste links. Anyway the NY Times did a good article on Oct 8th 2015 on the subject, and most of the statistics I refer to come from the CDC, so you can refer to their site for the numbers. Even the Brady Campaign, the most anti gun group in the states, list the statistics showing that suicides far out number homicides when referring to firearm deaths. Truly sorry I can't link the articles or stats, must be a UA-cam thing.
4:10 cars purpose is way different of a gun's purpose