Is this the first time in the history of TYT they have actually had someone on their show that isn't ignorant about guns and gun control?? Certainly none of the people who work for TYT have displayed any signs of having knowledge about guns.
I've had interaction with police with my carry firearm and they NEVER had an issue!!! one time when I j walked they just asked if they could secure it and another when I was a passenger in a car crash and was unconscious and the police officer that helped me actually gave my pistol and extra mag to my girlfriend to out it in her purse. the police "fear" of armed citizens is so blown out of proportion.
I SO much appreciate Cenk's thoughtful, polite style of interviewing. I get so weary of interviewers on other channels who interrupt and bully their guests - it was tremendously refreshing to listen to this honest, respectful discussion between two people who disagree on a serious issue. Bravo!
Incredibly fair interview. I'm glad I could hear the other side explained in an incredibly point by point, charismatic way. Agree or disagree, it's just great to hear intelligence taking turns and allowing a healthy give and take.
Andrew Baker agreed, and as an avid debate watcher/listener of all sorts, I can honestly say this is the first time I've seen TYT/Cenk engage in equal/fair/level headed dialogue in an EXTREMELY long time.
It was really interesting to see such a calm, reasonable debate about Firearms from two people who stand on different sides the argument. It was civil and educational and it would be fantastic if everyone could conduct themselves in this way whilst having this debate, regardless of your stance. :)
+Rob Pincus Years ago, I watched a whole lot of your videos (and enjoyed them) and watch TYT daily. Never woulda thunk I'd see Rob and Cenk in the same video!
+Rob Pincus I respect your views on gun safety and I wish that more people were as educated and aware as you are. I live Chicago where 90% of our violence is gun related and I'm a legal gun owner. So I agree with most and understand your talking points. Great interview!
I was worried about you not mentioning the fact that guns are used hundreds of thousands of times a year in self defense instances that don't result in a death. I'm glad you at least touched on it.
Do you know, how often I needed a gun in the 40 years of my life for self-protection? Zero times. I saved the money for a tool to kill other people, which I am supposed to never use, but would be maybe tempted to use, if I had it. If you can not manage your private life without a gun, you are a loser. Your stats is bogus btw. because it can not be proven. Nice try, man. Also you need to post more, because 4 posts after each other is not enough. Maybe 5 posts in a row, is more convincing? Hm? What you say?
There is no debate over what he founders intended with the Second Amendment. Quotes from America’s founding fathers regarding their positions on firearms, the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” - Patrick Henry. “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams. “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” - George Washington “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson. “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason. “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” - Noah Webster. “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” - James Madison. “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin. “A free people ought to be armed.” - George Washington. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson. “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” - George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment. “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” - Richard Henry Lee. “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington.
It's really funny to watch someone without any intellectual capacity ask questions to someone who is so obviously their better. Rob wins. Flawless Victory.
It was a teachable moment, and he took it. I don't consider it a win/lose issue. I think it's a great chance to be an ambassador for the 2nd amendment...and he took that chance.
So much respect for TYT Interviews, Cenk Uygur and Rob Pincus for engaging in a fair and reasonable gun conversation. Conversations and debates like these are constructive and only help us find more similarities than differences between our opposing views.
Those 3400 US child gun deaths represent less than *5 1000ths of 1 percent* (.0046%) of kids in USA. More than double that amount of US children die each year from random unintentional injuries. Compare these two: A child in the USA is more that twice as likely to die from some random unintentional injury than from a gun. Or... a gun death for a US child is less that half as likely as any random unintentional injury. Meaning... *Ordinary life accidents are twice as deadly to USA kids as a gun accident.* Any deaths are tragic, but societally, some accidental death is completely unavoidable, and most cannot be prevented by some societal intervention. They are simply going to take place. It is important to frame concerns with this fact: Total overall death rates for kids in the USA, *by any cause*, have dropped radically since the 1980s. Children are now "safer" from death in USA than they have ever been in this country's history. All the statistically really raise the question "Is there enough of a "problem" with this one issue that a dire need for special attention or more laws exists?" ...5 1000ths of 1 percent... Is that where society and government needs to focus its group attention and resources? Since *over 15 MILLION USA children are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life* maybe *that is where* the time, energy, and money currently being spent on this heart-string tugging, yet negligible issue should be refocused.
Legion Etrangere Thanks. We have lots of problems in the USA that need attention. Sadly, agenda driven political and social "noise" coming from every corner, and delivered through all media types, seems to be distracting us from what really is important. Cheers to you!
Cenk complains that the NRA failed to come out in support of Philando Castile but implies they supported the Bundy ranch militia folks. Reality: within 36 hours the NRA made an announcement in support of gun rights for ALL law-abiding Americans. In part their stement reads: "the NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation" They then called for these "troubling" reports to be fully investigated and once the facts were in, they'd comment further. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Oh yeah, and the NRA NEVER supported the Bundy militia.
An interesting issue that Ron briefly grazed upon, there are some uneducated folks that love to argue that the Second Amendment only covered muskets and that the Founding Fathers never foresaw automatic firearms. In that vein, I'd strongly suggest those folks research the Puckle Gun, a firearm invented in 1718, many decades prior to the Second Amendment.
As a gun owner myself I was shocked that this interview stayed civil. Great job to both of them for being professional. More debates like this need to happen.
Cenk, you're the man. Such restraint in this interview. It was really nice to see two different views allowed to be presented without shouting. This was the best interview you've done my friend.
This is a great interview. Finally I see an educated, articulate and in depth discussion about guns. Rob Pincus did a good job representing those rational gun owners.
Whilst I disagree you with on most of the issues, I too appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation and think the education work you do is very valuable
If you get a chance, check out the comedian Jim Jefferies segment on guns, I think he outlines a good gun restriction argument from someone outside of the American context - at the very least he is entertaining
Well no, he doesn't; he simply jumps to the same tired stereotypes and suggestions we've heard hundreds of times before. Jim Jeffries brought nothing new to the discussion.
Well, Yes, he does, he brings a comedic style to the same points you keep ignoring like you have ignored hundreds of times before. You haven't added anything to the discussion
Here are some key findings from the CDC report commissioned by the boss after Sandy Hook, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013 : 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime: “There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).” 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: “More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.” 7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides: “Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
for every good interview he's conducted he has five that prove him to be a smug douchebag who strawmans opinions he doesn't agree with while also providing a platform for fact free imbeciles to spew their bullshit.
330 million people. 100million plus guns. 505 gun accident deaths per year. That's an astonishingly low number. You're more likely to be killed by a swimming pool, 567 per year. 16,765 deaths by assault how many could have been saved by a gun? How many were saved by guns? Those are year 2000 numbers and they have come down since then but the proportions are the same.
You are astonishingly wrong in your numbers. Where did you get that "505"? From a meme? LOL In 2013 there were over 2700 deaths just in a single city (Detroit) by gun yet you think there are only 505 a year?
Mazzy, You do know there are many forms of death, right? Patrick clearly said there were 505 ACCIDENTAL deaths. This is death as a result of playing with a gun or mishandling a firearm. I am sure there were 2700 deaths in Detroit, but that was a combination of accidents, suicide, homicide and justifiable homicide.
LuckyPhrog46 Nope, that was just crime-related homicides. But the point here is that it is clear the OP is trying to use some random low number (that we still don't know where it came from) to make a non-point that guns "barely" harm people. That is utterly false.
Mazzy, you are clearly pointing out the distinction. You are pointing out "crime-related homicides" vs "Accidental gun deaths" as Patrick clearly pointed out. Yes, "crime related homicides" are much higher than gun deaths that are considered accidental. To clarify, 80% of crime related gun deaths are stemmed from gang activity so essentially if you steer clear of gangs, drugs and bad neighborhoods, hanging out late at night and you don't play with guns and are not suicidal, you virtually have zero chance of being hurt/killed by one.
This is exactly why i love TYT. Two people on the opposite spectrum on an issue. Using facts and grounded philosophy to have a healthy discussion on an issue. I struggle to find this kind of convo anywhere else and i feel alot more educated about Americas feelings on guns (im british so before i just thought everyone was batshit crazy)
Although one thing i think the missed is Limitations on what arms they can have with intent in mind. If the idea is to defend your home why do you need a long range rifle? If your in the middle of the city with no chance of hunting deer should there be restrictions then? The best gun to defend your home (i believe) is a 12 gauge shotgun. So why are R15 assault rifles (not defense rifles) so widely brought and used. Wanted to know his thoughts
Robbie, have you ever fired a shotgun or any gun? I am curious what your experience is and how why you think a 12 gauge is best for home defense. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have any experience to back that up? If so, do you think a woman or disabled person or an elderly person would feel more comfortable shooting a 12 gauge shotgun over an AR?
robbie j I was a Marine. I own shotguns as well as other firearms. First off, just because you are a Marine doesn't mean you know everything and anything about guns. Nor does it mean you should give advice. Nor should anyone just take advice from a Marine just because they graduated boot camp. There are alot of Marines who know nothing about firearms and only shot them once a year out of requirement (believe or not a lot of Marines barely qualify or even fail to qualify with a rifle). I knew guys in the Marines I couldn't trust with a stapler, much less a shotgun. Second, do you think an elderly woman would be better off with a shotgun? Oh wait, you don't know because you have no experience with guns. Not everyone is a full grown male. Not everyone has the same upper body strength or ability to absorb recoil. There is no "one gun solution" for everyone.
I have to say cenk was as calm and willing to hear out the views on guns as I have ever seen him . I would actually watch youngturks more ( even though I disagree 90% of the time ) if he was more like this on his interviews with opposing views . Good video guys and yes both of you cenk
I liked this video just for the fact that both sides talked without it devolving into a shouting match. I wish more news networks were like this. Great discussion!
Cenk, not a fan of you politically, I do disagree with many of your positions. But I love to listen to both sides and there is some commonality. I thought you and Rob did a great job having a civil debate. I could write counter points to little things, but I think the only point that really matters is we talk and hear both sides. Great, outstanding work. Got so much more out of this than the usual 60 second talking heads on the TV news networks that always turns into a yelling match.
It's refreshing to hear reasonable and rational arguments from a person who wishes to own guns for the defense of their personal safety. I'm also impressed that Cenk was willing to allow Rob to articulate his thoughts about the issues of gun safety without interruption. I'm a gun owner with social leanings that don't relate to the so called "2nd amendment crowd" and was taught gun safety from the time I was born, and have always believed that gun training should be taught in school. Yes Cenk, I need to support your network, and you might want to add Rob to you regular table of discussion.
THANK YOU! Good job, Cenk, bringing on a firearms advocate to the show. I appreciated listening to Pincus in a quiet environment. Next, The Young Turks should find a 2nd Amendment advocate for your Friday Power Panel. :-)
Fantastic job Rob. Great interview, and Cenk was surprisingly civil, compared to every TYT video I've ever seen. We need more conversations like this, that stray away from ad hominem and personal attacks that you typically find in gun/anti-gun collaborations. On a secondary note, in regards to Cenk brining up Background Checks, we need to hold the Federal Government accountable for upholding the laws on the books, especially as they pertain to people trying to purchase firearms. Currently, the ATF does not prosecute, to a large extent, people who falsify records on the 4473(the form you fill out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer) to the tune of
This was definitely of the better interviews. Both arguments were said and heard in a rational manner; responded to the same way. Good job tyt on getting the message out without silencing your opponents.
Justifiable homicide isn't the same thing as defensive gun use. A gun can be used to defend yourself without your having to shoot the gun in many cases.
The first question that comes to mind is what the hell does something like this do to a child's psychological development? It's THEIR room that has the gun safe, it's THEIR room that has the reinforced door, and most importantly it's THEIR room that they take pride and ownership of.
That is kinda crazy talk. "their" room is in myhouse... how can they claim "ownership" for something they got by random chance of birth and/or birth order and/or gender. That having been said: Maybe they'll balance out their ego loss on the controlling the aspect of the space we let them use by knowing that their parents care enough to be prepared to protect them. That seems cool.
+Rob Pincus I'm not talking about control or hurt feelings. I'm talking about deep rooted psychological traits that are formed in childhood. These traits are about half of the equation when you look at what shapes who you are as a person, the other half being genetics. But it's a genuine question that I'm asking, the answer would probably be different from person to person with both positive and negative effects. It's interesting to think about, somebody should study it.
+Nova King Yet there are many people including Rob who've stated they either handled firearms at a young age or teach their kids how to handed firearms or both and yet there doesn't seem to be any type of psychological issues. Your assumption is the parents just set a safe up and tell the kids to not touch it because it has a gun in it which goes against the entire view point Rob makes throughout this 49 minute interview. The common sense way to go about it is educate your child so they won't be afraid and won't be stupid on certain subjects and items around the house. If you teach your kid not to drink the household chemicals around the house without "psychological damage" then you can do the same about having a secured and safely stores firearm in their room.
ExVentoPax2 you can't say that there haven't been any psychological "issues" from being taught to handle guns. And what I'm referring to doesn't specifically apply to negative effects or "issues". If you swim a lot as a kid it will in some way shape who you become as an adult. If you mainly draw as a kid instead of swimming it will shape who you become in a different way than swimming would. Now, the significance of what guns do every day in our society is going to raise the stakes when it comes to how much impact it has. Throw into that equation a person who naturally isn't well adjusted or has a predisposition to mental illness and you will see the negative effects amplified. But this is with anything in life, guns are just more blatantly dangerous than most other harmful things. If the individual has good mental health and a supportive group of people in their life, then any negative traits formed shouldn't be an issue. Although many aren't so lucky. The main thing that comes to mind for me is the Bundy ranch people... They are crazy, paranoid, gun freaks. It seems logical that something like this has the potential to lead to someone being more paranoid than an average person.
So basically Cenk had nothing for Rob. Rob took Cenks arguments, refuted them with calm logic and facts, and all Cenk could do was repeat his view and move on. Just because youre scared of guns doesn't mean you can infringe on a more capable persons rights. Like Rob said over and over, education is key. If youre scared of guns, learn how to use it better and get comfortable with it.
The host has shown himself to be very disingenuous in the past, especially with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment. His argument of saying "free speech" is regulated is not valid. If someone yells "fire" it's perfectly legal as long as there's a fire. if not they will be held responsible for the damage, not the words.
I was willing to yield the point that and just get to the part where IF your kids are trying to break into your stuff, it's a parenting issue and it doesn't matter WHERE the safe is in the house.
I agree. Also how many times a day does the average personal unlock their Ipad or phone vs their gun safe, and especially a staged safe for HD. It's a whole lot easier for a kid to watch over your should when you're using your ipad for the 80th time that day on the couch.
This guy needs to realize that even if you are the most perfectly responsible gun owner, a kid can still get ahold of your gun. The kids actions are completely separate from you being responsible or not.
I think Pincus did an excellent job of expressing why gun ownership should not be more restricted than now. I would like to see another expert debate banning configurations of certain guns and the difficulties of the last Brady ban. We should not waste time and money on such a ban again. I am an extreme liberal and a gun owner. We need to enforce the laws on the books. As far as Cenk is concerned, I call on my model rocketry brothers to burn an Apogee in effigy on his front lawn.
You might want to consider quoting the militia act of 1911 and Title 10, section 311, paragraph a which explains the composition of the US Militia. Every able bodied person between 17 and 45 who is not a member of the US Military, Reserves, the National Guard or the Coast Guard, is a member of the militia. The US code is reviewed ever two years. That's well regulated. With regards to suicide. Japan has almost no guns, and no personal right to own a gun. They have 3 times the suicide rate the US does. If someone wants to die, they will find a way.
"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." The above does not say "A well regulated militia is necessary for people to bear arms". It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Hence, people have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia in the event the free state is threatened. So, arms are necessary for the militia and NOT the militia is necessary from arms. I'm pro gun regulations but I disagree with Cenk when he claims(in other videos) that the Second amendment is clear about regulations.
I respect your argument and you do point out well regulated part of the second amendment part but the definition of a militia is legally ordained civilian paramilitary force that is sanctioned by government private citizens with guns and ar15 don't classify as a well regulated militia those are just private citizens with military equipment if they were a militia what bureau do the report to what their chain of command they don't have because they are not a militia. Furthermore I'm not anti gun but the second amendment has out lived it's legislative usefulness it was created to have militia not a standing army if you've noticed we have standing army for well over a hundred years the moment as a nation we decided to have a legally standing army the second amendment should have been abolished or reinterpreted for restrained civilian use.
the only difference is the select fir switch and a different firing pin that you can buy at almost any gun show, or watch a video on how to do it on youtube. (I assume, caution, I would n't do that search if I were you, big brother is watching.)
Damion jackson I was just arguing that Cenk is wrong when he claims that the second amendment is clear about regulation. I'm all for regulations. Secondly, I believe the definition of militia was different back then. Militias were formed to fight the government if necessary.
Wow that had to have been like sitting on a cactus for Cenk to give a guest a fair shot at representing himself in an opinion that was quite the contrary to Cenk's own beliefs.
It's interesting to see the comments on this video. As an actual left winger (Not a "progressive") I thought Cenk got schooled, so it's interesting to see the crowd reaction.
Dood. Both got schooled. It's called being an adult and exchanging ideas. Adults may disagree but they learn from one another. Another word we can describe it as is "Progress", hence being progressive. If you listen to the interview again. They agreed more than they disagreed. I am too, a proud progressive but also consider myself a left winger and to throw a curve ball lol but I won't call myself democrat.
I think they accepted the other persons views more than they actually agreed. But it was nonetheless a civilized conversation and debate. I still stand firmly in believing that handguns or assault rifles should not be available to the general public. I think Rob Pincus was somewhat coherent and had some decent points, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the man. Also, I'm considered far left in the social democracy of Denmark. So I would probably out-left Lenin on any day, lol.
I'm not quite sure I understand the thought process that makes people think you will stop people from killing themselves if you stop access to guns. The suicide rate is higher in Japan than it is in the US.
Nice calm conversation. Good to watch people get the chance to explain thier reasons. On the note of statistics: The argument to not own a gun due to the low number of justified homicides is fundamentaly flawed on the basis that guns always kill in every defensive gun use. Do police kill someone everytime they have to touch thier weapon to de-escalate a situation? I would have liked to see Mr. Pincus more prepared with stats on this, but he did make a good point about undocumented defensive use. this webpage is an invaluable resource: www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm according to research, defensive gun use stats range between 700,000 - 2.5 million / year. Compare that to the 32,000 or so gun deaths/year (suicide included) and it should be obvious you are safer with a gun then without. Remember your mind is your most powerful weapon; knives, baseball bats, hammers, flashlights, and guns are all just tools we use to get the job done.
absolutely love this interview. two people having a sensible discussion, even though they are opposed is what we need in order to make progress. At this point and time, I believe the topic of guns have become so polarized that the only thing to do now is to educate and advocate mental health. people just can't let their guns go.
"Good guy," "bad guy," "evil." He keeps falling back on these simple terms. This dude comes close to sounding reasonable, but he clearly sees a world without nuance.
On the contrary... I see lot of gray area in regard to these issues. But, laws and public policy need to be grounded on principles that sometimes need to be boiled down.
if you have a reason to believe that a maniac with an axe busts into your house and you're still living there with children, you're the worst father i know of...
lol it's an example that we don't live in fairy land. I know you probably live in a gate community where you have security guards in the front gate. But the rest of us live in either suburbia or in the bad parts of town. You can't always be 100% certain that you won't ever experience a home intruder break in.
no, we have virtually no weapons in this country, only police and a few hunters have some. 1 murder by gun in over 2 decades and none other i know of. idiots...
Make em sit a test to show they have been properly educated before issuing a licence to own a gun...just like you have a right to freedom of movement...doesn't mean you don't need a drivers licence
May I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, proof of background checks, training, and receipts for fees paid to the government?
Why go to a straw man? in NZ we have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc and we don't need a licence. We also have freedom of movement but we still require a drivers licence, why straw man?
No Strawman. Here in the U.S. we don't need a license to exercise our Rights. And we are working on getting rid of requiring licenses for firearms. That system is too often abused by several states and many local governments. When you require government permission to do something, it's no longer a Right, it's a privilege that can be rescinded at any time, without debate or defense.
Yes you do, you have a right to freedom of movement but still require licence for various forms of transport. There are a number of instances of you requiring a licence, permits or permission before your allowed to exercise your rights be it freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of movement
This comment is way too long, but I've already typed it so there's no point in deleting it lol. Don't bother reading it if it's overwhelming. I wish conservatives were more like this guy. He was decent, respectful, and articulated his points without ridiculous nonsense as, say, a Ted Cruz nut would have. That being said, he's dead wrong and he twists statistics to fit his narrative masterfully. I'll address a few of them but it's likely no one will read this comment so I won't do too many. They aren't in order or anything, they're just the arguments that I thought served the greatest injustice to an intellectually honest exchange of ideas. First, his reference to homicides in the UK. He made the usually conservative talking point, "If the guy is deranged he's going to kill regardless of whether he has a gun". That faux fact is refuted by the fact that the UK has a far lower murder rate than the US, gun homicides aside. If we take gun violence out of the equation entirely, the UK only has a slightly higher rate of knife violence than the US in comparison to overall homicide and gun homicide rates. Put simply, homicide rates are dramatically spiked when a country has an abundance of guns. Knife/melee violence does not go up significantly enough for to compensate for the spike caused by gun violence, and his argument is therefore refuted. It is however understandable, and for that reason I respect our disagreement. I'm only going to critique one more argument because this comment is already far too long. Earlier, Cenk asked what he thought about the, "Well regulated militia" opening for the second amendment, and this guy literally agreed that it was "irrelevent". He continued tossing his word salad, all the while avoiding having to address why the quote, "Well regulated milita" is there in the first place. If it wasn't meant to pertain to firearms, it wouldn't have been there in the first place. He went on to say that liberals were already infringing upon the second amendment. Well, if you consider regulation to mean infringed, maybe that is true. But to infringe upon something does not, or should I say, did not mean to regulate it. The 1826 Webster dictionary (the earliest I could find a database for) lists the definition of 'infringe' as, " 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done." The word 'infringe' simply means to not obey the terms agreed to. And the terms were agreed to in the case of the second amendment as, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State; the right to bear arms shall not be infringe". So from that perspective, as a liberal I could just as easily argue that gun rights activists are infringing upon the 2nd amendment by not fulfilling the terms of our agreement; A well regulated militia. As a constitutionalist, one cannot ignore the first line of the second amendment. Its just... unconstitutional...
Me personally, I have a grape shot cannon mounted on the stairs, a musket, a smooth bore pistol and my powdered wig 😂😂😂😂😂 also a triangular Bayonett just as the founding fathers intended 🤔😂 just making a goof, serious topic. Decent debate
Suicides. First, even with all the gun suicides in the US, we're not even close to the top for rate of suicides (we're about 50). Japan, with some of the strictest gun control in the world, has nearly DOUBLE the US rate - and they aren't even a top nation 10 annually. Why is that? It's because people who are truly intent on committing suicide (as opposed to the VAST majority who are using it as a "cry for help") choose the most lethal way available to them to commit suicide. What that means is that if the most lethal method is not available, they will move on to the second, or third, etc... most lethal method until they find one that is available to them. For example, in 2013 (most recent stats available for the CDC) just over half the 41,149 suicides were committed with a firearm. For those who didn't have access to a firearm, they didn't simply pass on committing suicide, they chose another HIGHLY lethal method. Over HALF of the 20,000 non-firearm suicides were done via hanging/suffocation. The fact is, most suicide attempts are NOT done by people truly intent on committing suicide. They choose least lethal methods (even if they had access to a firearm) - for example slitting wrists, OD on prescription and non-prescription drugs. These make up the vast majority of failed attempts (about 250,000/yr) and are actually classified not as "suicide attempts", but as "self-harm". So let's forget this lie that without firearms, suicide rates would drop off. People using a firearm to end their life are intent on committing suicide, as are those who take cyanide, hang themselves, etc... The 9 out of 10 that Cenk talks about - who miraculously survive their attempt - never were intending to die. Lastly, the whole argument that my rights should be infringed/limited because of someone else's mental illness is absurd.
In the UK almost NO ONE has a gun (except for the odd farmer in the countryside)... And all I gotta say is... living in a country with NO MASS SHOOTINGS is fucking awesome. :)
First: Not true. I've spent time shooting, hunting and teaching gun stuff in the UK. There are lots of guns around. Second: When was the last time you had one of your elected federal officials killed by a gun wielding assassin? A lot more recently than us Yanks, eh? How about guns in France? Yet, they've had mass killings with with and without guns involved. Violence and evil exist... and, the determined will get guns if and where they want to.
The attacks in Paris shed light on the reality of a determined enemy. Last I checked fully automatic AK's weren't legal in France nor the countries surrounding it and yet both were used to kill French citizens at both Charlie Hebdo and across Paris.
No limit on human rights. You indeed CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You just have to realize that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. This is something liberals can't seem to grasp.
Well done Cenk and Rob! We need more of these kind of conversations -- reasonable and respectful despite areas of disagreement. BTW, a response to two studies Cenk cited: 1) 90% of people who survive a first suicide attempt never go on to suicide -- A study just came out calling that statistic into question. These researchers found that 81% of survivors of a first suicide attempt killed themselves within one year. Both the 90% and the 81% seem quite high to me. The study title is: Suicide Attempt as a Risk Factor for Completed Suicide: Even More Lethal Than We Knew. 2) Many people who cite the "if you have a gun in the home you're more likely to be killed by a gun" studies do not realize that in most of the cases (~80%?) in the original study the firearm used was not the firearm in the home. So, the gun in the home was not the murder weapon.
Huh? You should read that study again because it actually *confirms* the 90% number. The study (that ran over a period of 3 to 25 years) identified 1490 residents who attempted suicide. Of those 1490 residents, 48 died on their first attempt. Another 33 died during the study. OF THOSE 33 WHO DIED, 81% died within 1 year after their first attempt. In other words: 94.6% of those attempting suicide did not end up killing themselves. 3.2% died on their first attempt. 1.8% died within the first year after their first attempt (or 81% of the remaining 2.2% who ended up dying) 0.4% died after the first year.
Good debate. No ridiculous hyperbole, no name calling. Both sides made goods points. That being said, I am very glad we have the second amendment since.....HUMANS BE CRAZY!
I must say this was a good and fair interview, Rob did a great job as always and he is a great representative for us gun owners. I dont know much about this other guy but I have watched his 2016 election night meltdown about 500,000 times!
Great civil discussion. I really appreciated the arguments brought up in this interview. I am more agreeable with Rob, but appreciate all views and rationalities discussed.
Please get educated about any type of gun before you buy it legally. Educate yourself about safely storing and operating it. Learn how to correctly clean it.
I liked this debate for the fact that it remained civil all the way through. However, I felt Rob was very intellectually dishonest at times. He tried to sidestep the questions, and when presented with facts and numbers, he went to "theoretically", and "philosophically". This is where things often break down in these debates. When I present you with facts in the here and now, I want an answer based on facts in the here and now. I don't want fantasy land theory or philosophy. We have a real problem, so offer a real solution, or get out of the way of people on both sides who offer real solutions. Just my two "Cenks".
The problem is that you can derail a conversation by obsessing over numbers that have unclear origin, legitimacy or contextual relevance. Statistics are tricky... I don't think discussions should turn into math problems or semantic debates. I am willing to yield that one child dying because a gun owner was irresponsible is too many, so that percentages don't really matter, do they? The question is what do we do to prevent the accident while still allowing ownership and use of guns?
+Rob Pincus The problem is that numbers do matter. The numbers of gun violence in our country versus other developed countries are not ones that have vague origins. If you are going to say that America is different that those sort of countries, I actually agree. I think there are too many guns to get rid of them here. But let's not make moral justifications for guns. The truth is, there is one purpose to a gun. Killing. We as Americans have decided our right to kill one another (justified or not) is more important than the greater good. We are not morally better than those European countries or Australia. Perhaps they are more civilized than us. We have to accept that. THEN your gun debate points make sense and you can say what you have said in your interview, and I would agree. Gun ownership is not the moral high ground, but it is pragmatism in the country we live in today. That I would agree with.
In Australia we had too many rabbits once, you know what we did? we took measures to get rid of em! "America has too many guns to get rid of guns" - I've got a wild idea about how to solve this issue....start....getting....rid....of....guns
You do it gradually overtime, we still haven't gotten rid of all the rabbits, but we work to decrease the numbers - we are not against all rabbits, you can have rabbits, we are against wild rabbits
Nonsense. If you're serious about securing a firearm with the ability for rapid access, you use a biometric safe that opens on fingerprint recognition.
well, reliability too. If those could be overcome each and every new firearm could only be fired by those whos' biometric allows access. Well I am talking about technology of the future. Miniature bioaccess and a reliable system. Today they are neither because of power and size. The NRA should welcome this technology when it matures. Instead, they impede it.
I thought I Was pretty clear that the cop was as likely to have been the one who screwed up as Castille. In fact, I think I may have offered more ways that he could've screwed up.
+Rob Pincus no, you laid out possible scenarios that could justify what happened. we have live video on scene that speaks directly to what happened, and the man is dead. what new information can we expect from trial...I guess whatever story the cops concoct in the meantime.
I think Rob missed a good opportunity to correct Cenk in the part of the discussion concerning the founding fathers and the interpretation of the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalist Papers offer detailed essays on how the founding fathers felt about the meanings and intents behind the various amendments, including the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, James Madison wrote a detailed account of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in which it was debated as to whether the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, or a collective right. It was ultimately decided that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. The "well regulated" line in the 2nd Amendment refers to the importance of an irregular militia (as in, everyone) being capable of fighting for their country should the need arise, and *not* "regulation" as in laws meant to control. The Constitution is a living document, and in the end, it can be changed. Also, the Supreme Court has the power to use its own interpretation of the Constitution to determine how it is applied and enforced. However, there shouldn't be any confusion as to what the original intent of the founding fathers was, because it has already been confirmed and documented for all to see and reference. To deny that, or to say it means something different, is to be misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worst.
The problem is that after the Revolution we stopped having an Army and a Navy, so we needed a militia to protect us. Now we have an Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force.... The role of militia is ow redundant and people who still want guns are trying to do the job of trained professionals.
That is making the assumption that the Army/Navy/Air Force exists to protect the people, rather than exists as a weapons of the government, for the government.
The role of the irregular militia is as relevant now as it was at the founding of America. By simply exercising the 2nd Amendment, We the People have the means to combat a government turned tyrannical, whether it be an invading foreign entity taking power, or our own elected officials gone rogue. The various branches of the military are (supposed to be) public servants, made up of ordinary people who want to serve their country, and have specific roles to fill. We, the irregular militia, have our own role.
I wish we in Mexico could have as much freedom as America to have fire arms. it is not that easy and the biggest gun we can have is a .38 or a 9mm. again not that easy to buy one.
48:19 Well, and when you jump in front of a train, or jump from the top of a building, or a bridge, or even just hang yourself to the ceiling... you're just as dead as with a gun. What's matter is that suicides numbers decrease over the last decades (it's world trend), and the suicide rate per capita in the US is pretty much the same or lower as other countries with very strict gun control laws such UK, France, etc... And it's way lower than countries with complete gun ban like Japan. So it clearly shows that gun control have no impact on overall suicide numbers. It only change the method used, but as already said, there's other methods just as efficient as a gun.
I can agree that education is key if we're going to have guns in our constitution we need to be educated from a young ages were never going to get rid of guns in this country
This is a good interview, though Cenk doesn't ask follow-up questions, such as "you suggest 'gun education' instead of background checks, but how do we mesure it's success", "who decides when one is properly educated" and the like.
cenk asks why we don't trust every country with nuclear weapons, it was already stated, the intent. do you want nuclear weapons to defend against invasion or to prevent a nuclear nation from dictating policy to you, or do you want to wage a righteous cleansing of the non believer? what do you want them for?
![[TH] G2 vs PRX | EDG vs FUT - VALORANT Champions 2024 DAY 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Bkr_qM7dIaM/mqdefault.jpg)
Is this the first time in the history of TYT they have actually had someone on their show that isn't ignorant about guns and gun control?? Certainly none of the people who work for TYT have displayed any signs of having knowledge about guns.
I've had interaction with police with my carry firearm and they NEVER had an issue!!! one time when I j walked they just asked if they could secure it and another when I was a passenger in a car crash and was unconscious and the police officer that helped me actually gave my pistol and extra mag to my girlfriend to out it in her purse.
the police "fear" of armed citizens is so blown out of proportion.
I SO much appreciate Cenk's thoughtful, polite style of interviewing. I get so weary of interviewers on other channels who interrupt and bully their guests - it was tremendously refreshing to listen to this honest, respectful discussion between two people who disagree on a serious issue. Bravo!
Incredibly fair interview. I'm glad I could hear the other side explained in an incredibly point by point, charismatic way. Agree or disagree, it's just great to hear intelligence taking turns and allowing a healthy give and take.
Andrew Baker agreed, and as an avid debate watcher/listener of all sorts, I can honestly say this is the first time I've seen TYT/Cenk engage in equal/fair/level headed dialogue in an EXTREMELY long time.
It was really interesting to see such a calm, reasonable debate about Firearms from two people who stand on different sides the argument. It was civil and educational and it would be fantastic if everyone could conduct themselves in this way whilst having this debate, regardless of your stance. :)
Great interview. I appreciate the respect taken on both sides, even though I far and away agree with Cenk here. It's still a worthy discussion.
Thanks!
+Rob Pincus Years ago, I watched a whole lot of your videos (and enjoyed them) and watch TYT daily. Never woulda thunk I'd see Rob and Cenk in the same video!
+Vamavid crazy times huh? Lol. Great job Rob.
+Rob Pincus I respect your views on gun safety and I wish that more people were as educated and aware as you are. I live Chicago where 90% of our violence is gun related and I'm a legal gun owner. So I agree with most and understand your talking points. Great interview!
Rob, our community is in your debt for the professionalism and articulation you exercised. I am not a bit surprised. Thank you!
Thanks.
I was worried about you not mentioning the fact that guns are used hundreds of thousands of times a year in self defense instances that don't result in a death. I'm glad you at least touched on it.
Do you know, how often I needed a gun in the 40 years of my life for self-protection?
Zero times. I saved the money for a tool to kill other people, which I am supposed to never use, but would be maybe tempted to use, if I had it. If you can not manage your private life without a gun, you are a loser.
Your stats is bogus btw. because it can not be proven. Nice try, man. Also you need to post more, because 4 posts after each other is not enough. Maybe 5 posts in a row, is more convincing? Hm? What you say?
There is no debate over what he founders intended with the Second Amendment.
Quotes from America’s founding fathers regarding their positions on firearms, the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” - Patrick Henry.
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” - Samuel Adams.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” - George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” - Thomas Jefferson.
“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” - Noah Webster.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” - James Madison.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin.
“A free people ought to be armed.” - George Washington.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” - Thomas Jefferson.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” - George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” - Richard Henry Lee.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington.
Rob Pincus seems like a good guy
He is
It's really funny to watch someone without any intellectual capacity ask questions to someone who is so obviously their better. Rob wins. Flawless Victory.
It was a teachable moment, and he took it. I don't consider it a win/lose issue. I think it's a great chance to be an ambassador for the 2nd amendment...and he took that chance.
A solid debate between two people who agree that they completely disagree. Well done Cenk and Rob.
So much respect for TYT Interviews, Cenk Uygur and Rob Pincus for engaging in a fair and reasonable gun conversation. Conversations and debates like these are constructive and only help us find more similarities than differences between our opposing views.
Those 3400 US child gun deaths represent less than *5 1000ths of 1 percent* (.0046%) of kids in USA. More than double that amount of US children die each year from random unintentional injuries. Compare these two: A child in the USA is more that twice as likely to die from some random unintentional injury than from a gun. Or... a gun death for a US child is less that half as likely as any random unintentional injury. Meaning... *Ordinary life accidents are twice as deadly to USA kids as a gun accident.*
Any deaths are tragic, but societally, some accidental death is completely unavoidable, and most cannot be prevented by some societal intervention. They are simply going to take place. It is important to frame concerns with this fact: Total overall death rates for kids in the USA, *by any cause*, have dropped radically since the 1980s. Children are now "safer" from death in USA than they have ever been in this country's history.
All the statistically really raise the question "Is there enough of a "problem" with this one issue that a dire need for special attention or more laws exists?" ...5 1000ths of 1 percent... Is that where society and government needs to focus its group attention and resources?
Since *over 15 MILLION USA children are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life* maybe *that is where* the time, energy, and money currently being spent on this heart-string tugging, yet negligible issue should be refocused.
Man, that was eloquent. Cheers amigo!
Legion Etrangere Thanks. We have lots of problems in the USA that need attention. Sadly, agenda driven political and social "noise" coming from every corner, and delivered through all media types, seems to be distracting us from what really is important. Cheers to you!
StripperLicker
Man, you did it *_again_*! Perfect eloquence. I wish more people like you were delivering the news.
Are you new to english? if you actually want eloquence, go listen to some scholars, not random internet commenters
No, I want you to take advice from scholars on eloquence not random youtube commenters, jeezz, you must be new to english
This guy is absolutely nuts. Shouldered-fired missiles should be allowed? Crazy.
An intelligent conversation about guns. Oh my!
Awesome job Rob. Thanks for "sticking to your guns" and communicating effectively and thoughtfully!
Cenk complains that the NRA failed to come out in support of Philando Castile but implies they supported the Bundy ranch militia folks.
Reality: within 36 hours the NRA made an announcement in support of gun rights for ALL law-abiding Americans. In part their stement reads:
"the NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation"
They then called for these "troubling" reports to be fully investigated and once the facts were in, they'd comment further.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Oh yeah, and the NRA NEVER supported the Bundy militia.
An interesting issue that Ron briefly grazed upon, there are some uneducated folks that love to argue that the Second Amendment only covered muskets and that the Founding Fathers never foresaw automatic firearms. In that vein, I'd strongly suggest those folks research the Puckle Gun, a firearm invented in 1718, many decades prior to the Second Amendment.
Outstanding interview Rob! Great job representing us responsible gun owners! And Cenk, great job keeping the interview professional and civil!
Thanks
As a gun owner myself I was shocked that this interview stayed civil. Great job to both of them for being professional. More debates like this need to happen.
Cenk kept it civil bc unlike his other guests if he tried to go off on him rob would snap his neck. Jk kidding good interview.
+Old Milk3 lol
Cenk, you're the man. Such restraint in this interview. It was really nice to see two different views allowed to be presented without shouting. This was the best interview you've done my friend.
Great interview Rob. Your delivery of our views and rights on the 2nd Am are outstanding. Thx.
This was actually a good interview. First one I've seen from TYT. Bravo Cenk, I mean that genuinely.
This is a great interview. Finally I see an educated, articulate and in depth discussion about guns. Rob Pincus did a good job representing those rational gun owners.
Thanks Much... That was the intention and I appreciated the opportunity.
Whilst I disagree you with on most of the issues, I too appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation and think the education work you do is very valuable
If you get a chance, check out the comedian Jim Jefferies segment on guns, I think he outlines a good gun restriction argument from someone outside of the American context - at the very least he is entertaining
Well no, he doesn't; he simply jumps to the same tired stereotypes and suggestions we've heard hundreds of times before. Jim Jeffries brought nothing new to the discussion.
Well, Yes, he does, he brings a comedic style to the same points you keep ignoring like you have ignored hundreds of times before. You haven't added anything to the discussion
Here are some key findings from the CDC report commissioned by the boss after Sandy Hook, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013 :
1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
who would've thought that Cenk could conduct a serious interview
He has done that repeatedly. Try opening your eyes.
for every good interview
he's conducted he has five that prove him to be a smug douchebag who strawmans opinions he doesn't agree with while also providing a platform for fact free imbeciles to spew their bullshit.
330 million people. 100million plus guns. 505 gun accident deaths per year. That's an astonishingly low number. You're more likely to be killed by a swimming pool, 567 per year. 16,765 deaths by assault how many could have been saved by a gun? How many were saved by guns? Those are year 2000 numbers and they have come down since then but the proportions are the same.
You are astonishingly wrong in your numbers. Where did you get that "505"? From a meme? LOL In 2013 there were over 2700 deaths just in a single city (Detroit) by gun yet you think there are only 505 a year?
Mazzy, You do know there are many forms of death, right? Patrick clearly said there were 505 ACCIDENTAL deaths. This is death as a result of playing with a gun or mishandling a firearm. I am sure there were 2700 deaths in Detroit, but that was a combination of accidents, suicide, homicide and justifiable homicide.
LuckyPhrog46
Nope, that was just crime-related homicides. But the point here is that it is clear the OP is trying to use some random low number (that we still don't know where it came from) to make a non-point that guns "barely" harm people. That is utterly false.
Mazzy, you are clearly pointing out the distinction. You are pointing out "crime-related homicides" vs "Accidental gun deaths" as Patrick clearly pointed out. Yes, "crime related homicides" are much higher than gun deaths that are considered accidental. To clarify, 80% of crime related gun deaths are stemmed from gang activity so essentially if you steer clear of gangs, drugs and bad neighborhoods, hanging out late at night and you don't play with guns and are not suicidal, you virtually have zero chance of being hurt/killed by one.
LuckyPhrog46
By that logic if we pull guns from society there is literally no chance of being killed by one.
This is exactly why i love TYT. Two people on the opposite spectrum on an issue. Using facts and grounded philosophy to have a healthy discussion on an issue. I struggle to find this kind of convo anywhere else and i feel alot more educated about Americas feelings on guns (im british so before i just thought everyone was batshit crazy)
Although one thing i think the missed is Limitations on what arms they can have with intent in mind. If the idea is to defend your home why do you need a long range rifle? If your in the middle of the city with no chance of hunting deer should there be restrictions then? The best gun to defend your home (i believe) is a 12 gauge shotgun. So why are R15 assault rifles (not defense rifles) so widely brought and used. Wanted to know his thoughts
Robbie, have you ever fired a shotgun or any gun? I am curious what your experience is and how why you think a 12 gauge is best for home defense. Not saying you are wrong, but do you have any experience to back that up? If so, do you think a woman or disabled person or an elderly person would feel more comfortable shooting a 12 gauge shotgun over an AR?
TYT had a marine on the desk a month ago. He said a shotgun would be best. I have no experience with guns
robbie j I was a Marine. I own shotguns as well as other firearms. First off, just because you are a Marine doesn't mean you know everything and anything about guns. Nor does it mean you should give advice. Nor should anyone just take advice from a Marine just because they graduated boot camp. There are alot of Marines who know nothing about firearms and only shot them once a year out of requirement (believe or not a lot of Marines barely qualify or even fail to qualify with a rifle). I knew guys in the Marines I couldn't trust with a stapler, much less a shotgun. Second, do you think an elderly woman would be better off with a shotgun? Oh wait, you don't know because you have no experience with guns. Not everyone is a full grown male. Not everyone has the same upper body strength or ability to absorb recoil. There is no "one gun solution" for everyone.
Fantastic job, Rob! I'm proud to know you're out there helping educate the public and representing us Second Amendment supporters.
A WELL RELEGATED MILITIA!!!!!!!
David Warschauer Read the Quotes from our founders I've posted. They clear up any confusion.
I have to say cenk was as calm and willing to hear out the views on guns as I have ever seen him . I would actually watch youngturks more ( even though I disagree 90% of the time ) if he was more like this on his interviews with opposing views . Good video guys and yes both of you cenk
I liked this video just for the fact that both sides talked without it devolving into a shouting match. I wish more news networks were like this. Great discussion!
thanks
Cenk, not a fan of you politically, I do disagree with many of your positions. But I love to listen to both sides and there is some commonality. I thought you and Rob did a great job having a civil debate. I could write counter points to little things, but I think the only point that really matters is we talk and hear both sides. Great, outstanding work. Got so much more out of this than the usual 60 second talking heads on the TV news networks that always turns into a yelling match.
Agreed!
I have enough money, can I buy a nuclear weapon. I promise to educate myself, and be a responsible nuclear weapon owner.
It's refreshing to hear reasonable and rational arguments from a person who wishes to own guns for the defense of their personal safety. I'm also impressed that Cenk was willing to allow Rob to articulate his thoughts about the issues of gun safety without interruption. I'm a gun owner with social leanings that don't relate to the so called "2nd amendment crowd" and was taught gun safety from the time I was born, and have always believed that gun training should be taught in school. Yes Cenk, I need to support your network, and you might want to add Rob to you regular table of discussion.
I've taught in Switzerland... it's not all that magical. And, the basic military training leaves a lot to be desired.
THANK YOU! Good job, Cenk, bringing on a firearms advocate to the show. I appreciated listening to Pincus in a quiet environment.
Next, The Young Turks should find a 2nd Amendment advocate for your Friday Power Panel. :-)
Fantastic job Rob. Great interview, and Cenk was surprisingly civil, compared to every TYT video I've ever seen. We need more conversations like this, that stray away from ad hominem and personal attacks that you typically find in gun/anti-gun collaborations.
On a secondary note, in regards to Cenk brining up Background Checks, we need to hold the Federal Government accountable for upholding the laws on the books, especially as they pertain to people trying to purchase firearms. Currently, the ATF does not prosecute, to a large extent, people who falsify records on the 4473(the form you fill out when purchasing a firearm from a dealer) to the tune of
Rob Pincus is awesome and he's smarter than SchetchyBack
Rob paints a very rosy perspective. But it's not reality. I have no doubt he is a good guy but it's still not the reality the country is in.
I'm glad 'I'm not living in "Your REALITY"
clemssss No, Cenk is unable to accept facts or training that goes against his agenda
This was definitely of the better interviews. Both arguments were said and heard in a rational manner; responded to the same way. Good job tyt on getting the message out without silencing your opponents.
Great interview. This is what we need more of not screaming and yelling just a civil debate.
This is the first real discussion on gun control I've seen on TYT.
Justifiable homicide isn't the same thing as defensive gun use. A gun can be used to defend yourself without your having to shoot the gun in many cases.
The first question that comes to mind is what the hell does something like this do to a child's psychological development? It's THEIR room that has the gun safe, it's THEIR room that has the reinforced door, and most importantly it's THEIR room that they take pride and ownership of.
Nuance is lost on his type. They only see what is wrong in the world. Then they extrapolate bizarre scenarios to justify their perversion.
That is kinda crazy talk. "their" room is in myhouse... how can they claim "ownership" for something they got by random chance of birth and/or birth order and/or gender.
That having been said: Maybe they'll balance out their ego loss on the controlling the aspect of the space we let them use by knowing that their parents care enough to be prepared to protect them. That seems cool.
+Rob Pincus I'm not talking about control or hurt feelings. I'm talking about deep rooted psychological traits that are formed in childhood. These traits are about half of the equation when you look at what shapes who you are as a person, the other half being genetics.
But it's a genuine question that I'm asking, the answer would probably be different from person to person with both positive and negative effects. It's interesting to think about, somebody should study it.
+Nova King Yet there are many people including Rob who've stated they either handled firearms at a young age or teach their kids how to handed firearms or both and yet there doesn't seem to be any type of psychological issues. Your assumption is the parents just set a safe up and tell the kids to not touch it because it has a gun in it which goes against the entire view point Rob makes throughout this 49 minute interview. The common sense way to go about it is educate your child so they won't be afraid and won't be stupid on certain subjects and items around the house. If you teach your kid not to drink the household chemicals around the house without "psychological damage" then you can do the same about having a secured and safely stores firearm in their room.
ExVentoPax2 you can't say that there haven't been any psychological "issues" from being taught to handle guns. And what I'm referring to doesn't specifically apply to negative effects or "issues". If you swim a lot as a kid it will in some way shape who you become as an adult. If you mainly draw as a kid instead of swimming it will shape who you become in a different way than swimming would. Now, the significance of what guns do every day in our society is going to raise the stakes when it comes to how much impact it has. Throw into that equation a person who naturally isn't well adjusted or has a predisposition to mental illness and you will see the negative effects amplified. But this is with anything in life, guns are just more blatantly dangerous than most other harmful things. If the individual has good mental health and a supportive group of people in their life, then any negative traits formed shouldn't be an issue. Although many aren't so lucky. The main thing that comes to mind for me is the Bundy ranch people... They are crazy, paranoid, gun freaks. It seems logical that something like this has the potential to lead to someone being more paranoid than an average person.
So basically Cenk had nothing for Rob. Rob took Cenks arguments, refuted them with calm logic and facts, and all Cenk could do was repeat his view and move on. Just because youre scared of guns doesn't mean you can infringe on a more capable persons rights. Like Rob said over and over, education is key. If youre scared of guns, learn how to use it better and get comfortable with it.
Or just plain ol' don't own any.
The host has shown himself to be very disingenuous in the past, especially with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment. His argument of saying "free speech" is regulated is not valid. If someone yells "fire" it's perfectly legal as long as there's a fire. if not they will be held responsible for the damage, not the words.
Wow. You cannot outsmart your kids?! iPad codes? I call BS.
Remember who we are talking about. They can't do anything without someone else helping them or doing it for them.
Yea I think we all had the same thought when that came out.
I was willing to yield the point that and just get to the part where IF your kids are trying to break into your stuff, it's a parenting issue and it doesn't matter WHERE the safe is in the house.
I agree. Also how many times a day does the average personal unlock their Ipad or phone vs their gun safe, and especially a staged safe for HD. It's a whole lot easier for a kid to watch over your should when you're using your ipad for the 80th time that day on the couch.
Rob Pincus completely and perfectly blows Cenk out of the water on every single point.
No, he did not but he's obviously a smart and dedicated guy and the fact that their discussion was so civil is clearly a plus for all of us.
every point Rob had a better argument and Cenk could not refute, only repeat his initial stance and move on.
Cenk, explain suicide in PRK and Japan
This guy needs to realize that even if you are the most perfectly responsible gun owner, a kid can still get ahold of your gun. The kids actions are completely separate from you being responsible or not.
I think Pincus did an excellent job of expressing why gun ownership should not be more restricted than now. I would like to see another expert debate banning configurations of certain guns and the difficulties of the last Brady ban. We should not waste time and money on such a ban again. I am an extreme liberal and a gun owner. We need to enforce the laws on the books. As far as Cenk is concerned, I call on my model rocketry brothers to burn an Apogee in effigy on his front lawn.
Great intelligent debate. Something that you would never see on Fox News
The Turks insisted that the Armeanians had guns and confincated them.
But all in all, this is a most reasonable interview.
You might want to consider quoting the militia act of 1911 and Title 10, section 311, paragraph a which explains the composition of the US Militia. Every able bodied person between 17 and 45 who is not a member of the US Military, Reserves, the National Guard or the Coast Guard, is a member of the militia.
The US code is reviewed ever two years. That's well regulated.
With regards to suicide. Japan has almost no guns, and no personal right to own a gun. They have 3 times the suicide rate the US does. If someone wants to die, they will find a way.
Great job by Rob Pincus articulating his side of the conversation.
I can't believe I'm giving a "thumbs up" to a TYT vid.
I'm very surprised how civilized Cenk was in this interview knowing his history on this topic.
difference when talking to a educated person vs non educated. not as easy to yell or talk down to. I'm glad they were able to be respectful.
A great, substantive discussion on the topic. Better than I have seen anywhere else
"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."
The above does not say "A well regulated militia is necessary for people to bear arms". It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Hence, people have the right to bear arms in order to form a militia in the event the free state is threatened. So, arms are necessary for the militia and NOT the militia is necessary from arms.
I'm pro gun regulations but I disagree with Cenk when he claims(in other videos) that the Second amendment is clear about regulations.
I respect your argument and you do point out well regulated part of the second amendment part but the definition of a militia is legally ordained civilian paramilitary force that is sanctioned by government private citizens with guns and ar15 don't classify as a well regulated militia those are just private citizens with military equipment if they were a militia what bureau do the report to what their chain of command they don't have because they are not a militia. Furthermore I'm not anti gun but the second amendment has out lived it's legislative usefulness it was created to have militia not a standing army if you've noticed we have standing army for well over a hundred years the moment as a nation we decided to have a legally standing army the second amendment should have been abolished or reinterpreted for restrained civilian use.
and ar 15 isn't military issue. Its a dressed up rifle that looks like a military issued assault rifle.
Tim Arakawa the only real difference is one has a select fire switch.
the only difference is the select fir switch and a different firing pin that you can buy at almost any gun show, or watch a video on how to do it on youtube. (I assume, caution, I would n't do that search if I were you, big brother is watching.)
Damion jackson I was just arguing that Cenk is wrong when he claims that the second amendment is clear about regulation. I'm all for regulations. Secondly, I believe the definition of militia was different back then. Militias were formed to fight the government if necessary.
This is great because Pincus is a cool guy who really knows about the subject.
Thanks.
Rob Pincus
thank you sir.
Wow that had to have been like sitting on a cactus for Cenk to give a guest a fair shot at representing himself in an opinion that was quite the contrary to Cenk's own beliefs.
good interview he actually let rob talk
England used to be the most aggressive nation now it is the USA and this guy is a clear example why!
It's interesting to see the comments on this video.
As an actual left winger (Not a "progressive") I thought Cenk got schooled, so it's interesting to see the crowd reaction.
Anyone who uses the word "progressive" as a derogetory term always seem to think Cenk is getting schooled on any and every subject.
Dood. Both got schooled. It's called being an adult and exchanging ideas. Adults may disagree but they learn from one another. Another word we can describe it as is "Progress", hence being progressive. If you listen to the interview again. They agreed more than they disagreed. I am too, a proud progressive but also consider myself a left winger and to throw a curve ball lol but I won't call myself democrat.
I think they accepted the other persons views more than they actually agreed. But it was nonetheless a civilized conversation and debate. I still stand firmly in believing that handguns or assault rifles should not be available to the general public. I think Rob Pincus was somewhat coherent and had some decent points, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the man.
Also, I'm considered far left in the social democracy of Denmark. So I would probably out-left Lenin on any day, lol.
A gun is a suicide button. Nothing else is a 'click, done'. Even a vehicle requires acceleration.
Oh right. Push and go. Because that's much more difficult.
We've got to ban buildings over ten stories
I'm not quite sure I understand the thought process that makes people think you will stop people from killing themselves if you stop access to guns. The suicide rate is higher in Japan than it is in the US.
5:18 - Nailed it. Guns are here. Deal with it.
Great talk, Rob.
Nice calm conversation. Good to watch people get the chance to explain thier reasons.
On the note of statistics:
The argument to not own a gun due to the low number of justified homicides is fundamentaly flawed on the basis that guns always kill in every defensive gun use.
Do police kill someone everytime they have to touch thier weapon to de-escalate a situation?
I would have liked to see Mr. Pincus more prepared with stats on this, but he did make a good point about undocumented defensive use.
this webpage is an invaluable resource:
www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
according to research, defensive gun use stats range between 700,000 - 2.5 million / year.
Compare that to the 32,000 or so gun deaths/year (suicide included) and it should be obvious you are safer with a gun then without.
Remember your mind is your most powerful weapon; knives, baseball bats, hammers, flashlights, and guns are all just tools we use to get the job done.
absolutely love this interview. two people having a sensible discussion, even though they are opposed is what we need in order to make progress. At this point and time, I believe the topic of guns have become so polarized that the only thing to do now is to educate and advocate mental health. people just can't let their guns go.
Great, patient, polite, balanced interview.
Great job Rob Pincus!
great TYT interview - awesome dialogue and a very educated guest. Great probing and questioning.
"Good guy," "bad guy," "evil." He keeps falling back on these simple terms. This dude comes close to sounding reasonable, but he clearly sees a world without nuance.
On the contrary... I see lot of gray area in regard to these issues. But, laws and public policy need to be grounded on principles that sometimes need to be boiled down.
if you have a reason to believe that a maniac with an axe busts into your house and you're still living there with children, you're the worst father i know of...
+goartist So you have a magic ability to know where crime will and won't happen?
lol it's an example that we don't live in fairy land. I know you probably live in a gate community where you have security guards in the front gate. But the rest of us live in either suburbia or in the bad parts of town. You can't always be 100% certain that you won't ever experience a home intruder break in.
no, we have virtually no weapons in this country, only police and a few hunters have some. 1 murder by gun in over 2 decades and none other i know of.
idiots...
this guy looks like the guy who ran Stark Industries in Iron Man
this is a great civil discussion. we need more of this.
another great interview, both parties were clearly level headed and educated
I agree with Rob gun education is key to proper gun control
Make em sit a test to show they have been properly educated before issuing a licence to own a gun...just like you have a right to freedom of movement...doesn't mean you don't need a drivers licence
May I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, proof of background checks, training, and receipts for fees paid to the government?
Why go to a straw man? in NZ we have freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc and we don't need a licence. We also have freedom of movement but we still require a drivers licence, why straw man?
No Strawman. Here in the U.S. we don't need a license to exercise our Rights. And we are working on getting rid of requiring licenses for firearms. That system is too often abused by several states and many local governments.
When you require government permission to do something, it's no longer a Right, it's a privilege that can be rescinded at any time, without debate or defense.
Yes you do, you have a right to freedom of movement but still require licence for various forms of transport. There are a number of instances of you requiring a licence, permits or permission before your allowed to exercise your rights be it freedom of speech, freedom of religion or freedom of movement
Rob Pincus "Bad guys won't follow gun control laws, but we can educate them".
he didn't say that
This comment is way too long, but I've already typed it so there's no point in deleting it lol. Don't bother reading it if it's overwhelming.
I wish conservatives were more like this guy. He was decent, respectful, and articulated his points without ridiculous nonsense as, say, a Ted Cruz nut would have. That being said, he's dead wrong and he twists statistics to fit his narrative masterfully. I'll address a few of them but it's likely no one will read this comment so I won't do too many. They aren't in order or anything, they're just the arguments that I thought served the greatest injustice to an intellectually honest exchange of ideas.
First, his reference to homicides in the UK. He made the usually conservative talking point, "If the guy is deranged he's going to kill regardless of whether he has a gun". That faux fact is refuted by the fact that the UK has a far lower murder rate than the US, gun homicides aside. If we take gun violence out of the equation entirely, the UK only has a slightly higher rate of knife violence than the US in comparison to overall homicide and gun homicide rates. Put simply, homicide rates are dramatically spiked when a country has an abundance of guns. Knife/melee violence does not go up significantly enough for to compensate for the spike caused by gun violence, and his argument is therefore refuted. It is however understandable, and for that reason I respect our disagreement.
I'm only going to critique one more argument because this comment is already far too long. Earlier, Cenk asked what he thought about the, "Well regulated militia" opening for the second amendment, and this guy literally agreed that it was "irrelevent". He continued tossing his word salad, all the while avoiding having to address why the quote, "Well regulated milita" is there in the first place. If it wasn't meant to pertain to firearms, it wouldn't have been there in the first place. He went on to say that liberals were already infringing upon the second amendment. Well, if you consider regulation to mean infringed, maybe that is true.
But to infringe upon something does not, or should I say, did not mean to regulate it. The 1826 Webster dictionary (the earliest I could find a database for) lists the definition of 'infringe' as, " 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done."
The word 'infringe' simply means to not obey the terms agreed to. And the terms were agreed to in the case of the second amendment as, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State; the right to bear arms shall not be infringe". So from that perspective, as a liberal I could just as easily argue that gun rights activists are infringing upon the 2nd amendment by not fulfilling the terms of our agreement; A well regulated militia. As a constitutionalist, one cannot ignore the first line of the second amendment. Its just... unconstitutional...
Well written.
Me personally, I have a grape shot cannon mounted on the stairs, a musket, a smooth bore pistol and my powdered wig 😂😂😂😂😂 also a triangular Bayonett just as the founding fathers intended 🤔😂 just making a goof, serious topic.
Decent debate
Suicides. First, even with all the gun suicides in the US, we're not even close to the top for rate of suicides (we're about 50).
Japan, with some of the strictest gun control in the world, has nearly DOUBLE the US rate - and they aren't even a top nation 10 annually.
Why is that? It's because people who are truly intent on committing suicide (as opposed to the VAST majority who are using it as a "cry for help") choose the most lethal way available to them to commit suicide.
What that means is that if the most lethal method is not available, they will move on to the second, or third, etc... most lethal method until they find one that is available to them.
For example, in 2013 (most recent stats available for the CDC) just over half the 41,149 suicides were committed with a firearm.
For those who didn't have access to a firearm, they didn't simply pass on committing suicide, they chose another HIGHLY lethal method.
Over HALF of the 20,000 non-firearm suicides were done via hanging/suffocation.
The fact is, most suicide attempts are NOT done by people truly intent on committing suicide. They choose least lethal methods (even if they had access to a firearm) - for example slitting wrists, OD on prescription and non-prescription drugs.
These make up the vast majority of failed attempts (about 250,000/yr) and are actually classified not as "suicide attempts", but as "self-harm".
So let's forget this lie that without firearms, suicide rates would drop off.
People using a firearm to end their life are intent on committing suicide, as are those who take cyanide, hang themselves, etc... The 9 out of 10 that Cenk talks about - who miraculously survive their attempt - never were intending to die.
Lastly, the whole argument that my rights should be infringed/limited because of someone else's mental illness is absurd.
In the UK almost NO ONE has a gun (except for the odd farmer in the countryside)...
And all I gotta say is... living in a country with NO MASS SHOOTINGS is fucking awesome. :)
You think your outside the plausibility of violence being conducted in the rest of Europe? France etc?
Nope. You guys just have bombings and random terrorist attacks on the lone soldier as he walks down the street.
First: Not true. I've spent time shooting, hunting and teaching gun stuff in the UK. There are lots of guns around.
Second: When was the last time you had one of your elected federal officials killed by a gun wielding assassin? A lot more recently than us Yanks, eh? How about guns in France? Yet, they've had mass killings with with and without guns involved. Violence and evil exist... and, the determined will get guns if and where they want to.
The attacks in Paris shed light on the reality of a determined enemy. Last I checked fully automatic AK's weren't legal in France nor the countries surrounding it and yet both were used to kill French citizens at both Charlie Hebdo and across Paris.
damn Pincus, straight to the facts. +1
well done
No limit on human rights. You indeed CAN yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. You just have to realize that you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. This is something liberals can't seem to grasp.
But, you could also say that you can Drive 150 MPH on the highway, as long as you realize you are responsible for your actions... right?
Exactly. You can drive as fast as you want. Just know that there may be consequences. Laws don't prevent crime. They punish people who break them.
Yelling FIRE is a call to action... not just simply words.. it's the call to action that is the problem
+ralfdcat no, its not.
Rob Pincus
Driving isn't a constitutionally protected RIGHT.
Well done Cenk and Rob! We need more of these kind of conversations -- reasonable and respectful despite areas of disagreement. BTW, a response to two studies Cenk cited: 1) 90% of people who survive a first suicide attempt never go on to suicide -- A study just came out calling that statistic into question. These researchers found that 81% of survivors of a first suicide attempt killed themselves within one year. Both the 90% and the 81% seem quite high to me. The study title is: Suicide Attempt as a Risk Factor for Completed Suicide: Even More Lethal Than We Knew. 2) Many people who cite the "if you have a gun in the home you're more likely to be killed by a gun" studies do not realize that in most of the cases (~80%?) in the original study the firearm used was not the firearm in the home. So, the gun in the home was not the murder weapon.
Huh? You should read that study again because it actually *confirms* the 90% number.
The study (that ran over a period of 3 to 25 years) identified 1490 residents who attempted suicide. Of those 1490 residents, 48 died on their first attempt. Another 33 died during the study. OF THOSE 33 WHO DIED, 81% died within 1 year after their first attempt.
In other words: 94.6% of those attempting suicide did not end up killing themselves.
3.2% died on their first attempt.
1.8% died within the first year after their first attempt (or 81% of the remaining 2.2% who ended up dying)
0.4% died after the first year.
You're right, thanks. As I wrote, I thought the number was unrealistically high. This makes more sense.
When I was a kid, my dad taught me to be responsible and respect firearms.
Just the same as when they taught me not to play with matches.
Good debate. No ridiculous hyperbole, no name calling. Both sides made goods points.
That being said, I am very glad we have the second amendment since.....HUMANS BE CRAZY!
That is why I don't want all humans having easy unfettered access to high powered firearms without someone looking at them first.
I must say this was a good and fair interview, Rob did a great job as always and he is a great representative for us gun owners. I dont know much about this other guy but I have watched his 2016 election night meltdown about 500,000 times!
Great civil discussion. I really appreciated the arguments brought up in this interview. I am more agreeable with Rob, but appreciate all views and rationalities discussed.
Please get educated about any type of gun before you buy it legally. Educate yourself about safely storing and operating it. Learn how to correctly clean it.
I liked this debate for the fact that it remained civil all the way through. However, I felt Rob was very intellectually dishonest at times. He tried to sidestep the questions, and when presented with facts and numbers, he went to "theoretically", and "philosophically". This is where things often break down in these debates. When I present you with facts in the here and now, I want an answer based on facts in the here and now. I don't want fantasy land theory or philosophy. We have a real problem, so offer a real solution, or get out of the way of people on both sides who offer real solutions.
Just my two "Cenks".
The problem is that you can derail a conversation by obsessing over numbers that have unclear origin, legitimacy or contextual relevance. Statistics are tricky... I don't think discussions should turn into math problems or semantic debates. I am willing to yield that one child dying because a gun owner was irresponsible is too many, so that percentages don't really matter, do they? The question is what do we do to prevent the accident while still allowing ownership and use of guns?
+Rob Pincus The problem is that numbers do matter. The numbers of gun violence in our country versus other developed countries are not ones that have vague origins. If you are going to say that America is different that those sort of countries, I actually agree. I think there are too many guns to get rid of them here. But let's not make moral justifications for guns. The truth is, there is one purpose to a gun. Killing. We as Americans have decided our right to kill one another (justified or not) is more important than the greater good. We are not morally better than those European countries or Australia. Perhaps they are more civilized than us. We have to accept that. THEN your gun debate points make sense and you can say what you have said in your interview, and I would agree. Gun ownership is not the moral high ground, but it is pragmatism in the country we live in today. That I would agree with.
+Rob Pincus but again thanks for the discussion and your service as a police officer
In Australia we had too many rabbits once, you know what we did? we took measures to get rid of em! "America has too many guns to get rid of guns" - I've got a wild idea about how to solve this issue....start....getting....rid....of....guns
You do it gradually overtime, we still haven't gotten rid of all the rabbits, but we work to decrease the numbers - we are not against all rabbits, you can have rabbits, we are against wild rabbits
Nonsense. If you're serious about securing a firearm with the ability for rapid access, you use a biometric safe that opens on fingerprint recognition.
Another would say, nonsense, the biometric access should be on the gun. The NRA opposes this.
BECAUSE IF BIOMETRICS ON A GUN FAIL, YOU'RE DEAD. IF THEY FAIL ON THE SAFE THERES ALWAYS BACKUP KEY ACCESS. LEARN ABOUT GUNS THEN SPEAK.
What David said. Cost is also a factor.
well, reliability too. If those could be overcome each and every new firearm could only be fired by those whos' biometric allows access. Well I am talking about technology of the future. Miniature bioaccess and a reliable system. Today they are neither because of power and size. The NRA should welcome this technology when it matures. Instead, they impede it.
Because a fingerprint reader is more likely to fail than a 3 or 4 button code.
You gotta love how blue protects blue no matter what! Philando Castille might have done something wrong?!
The something wrong was "not being a cop"!
I thought I Was pretty clear that the cop was as likely to have been the one who screwed up as Castille. In fact, I think I may have offered more ways that he could've screwed up.
+Rob Pincus no, you laid out possible scenarios that could justify what happened. we have live video on scene that speaks directly to what happened, and the man is dead. what new information can we expect from trial...I guess whatever story the cops concoct in the meantime.
Excellent discussion.
Holy shit! Gun nuts are scared as of shit of the world. This guy needs a straight jacket.
I think Rob missed a good opportunity to correct Cenk in the part of the discussion concerning the founding fathers and the interpretation of the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalist Papers offer detailed essays on how the founding fathers felt about the meanings and intents behind the various amendments, including the 2nd Amendment. Furthermore, James Madison wrote a detailed account of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, in which it was debated as to whether the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, or a collective right. It was ultimately decided that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. The "well regulated" line in the 2nd Amendment refers to the importance of an irregular militia (as in, everyone) being capable of fighting for their country should the need arise, and *not* "regulation" as in laws meant to control.
The Constitution is a living document, and in the end, it can be changed. Also, the Supreme Court has the power to use its own interpretation of the Constitution to determine how it is applied and enforced. However, there shouldn't be any confusion as to what the original intent of the founding fathers was, because it has already been confirmed and documented for all to see and reference. To deny that, or to say it means something different, is to be misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worst.
The problem is that after the Revolution we stopped having an Army and a Navy, so we needed a militia to protect us. Now we have an Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force.... The role of militia is ow redundant and people who still want guns are trying to do the job of trained professionals.
That is making the assumption that the Army/Navy/Air Force exists to protect the people, rather than exists as a weapons of the government, for the government.
The role of the irregular militia is as relevant now as it was at the founding of America. By simply exercising the 2nd Amendment, We the People have the means to combat a government turned tyrannical, whether it be an invading foreign entity taking power, or our own elected officials gone rogue. The various branches of the military are (supposed to be) public servants, made up of ordinary people who want to serve their country, and have specific roles to fill. We, the irregular militia, have our own role.
I wish we in Mexico could have as much freedom as America to have fire arms. it is not that easy and the biggest gun we can have is a .38 or a 9mm. again not that easy to buy one.
48:19 Well, and when you jump in front of a train, or jump from the top of a building, or a bridge, or even just hang yourself to the ceiling... you're just as dead as with a gun. What's matter is that suicides numbers decrease over the last decades (it's world trend), and the suicide rate per capita in the US is pretty much the same or lower as other countries with very strict gun control laws such UK, France, etc... And it's way lower than countries with complete gun ban like Japan. So it clearly shows that gun control have no impact on overall suicide numbers. It only change the method used, but as already said, there's other methods just as efficient as a gun.
Surprisingly, saw this linked on TFB.
I can agree that education is key if we're going to have guns in our constitution we need to be educated from a young ages were never going to get rid of guns in this country
This is a good interview, though Cenk doesn't ask follow-up questions, such as "you suggest 'gun education' instead of background checks, but how do we mesure it's success", "who decides when one is properly educated" and the like.
Great point.
Thank you!
I'd be happy to do that. Been running an educational company and certifying other instructors for a long time.
cenk asks why we don't trust every country with nuclear weapons, it was already stated, the intent. do you want nuclear weapons to defend against invasion or to prevent a nuclear nation from dictating policy to you, or do you want to wage a righteous cleansing of the non believer? what do you want them for?
Cenk is totally out of his league here. Rob owned him, made him look so ignorant.