Did the last assault weapons ban work?

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2024

ความคิดเห็น • 211

  • @omarluatia736
    @omarluatia736 6 ปีที่แล้ว +49

    It sounds like this guy got all his info from a buzzfeed article.

  • @MegF142857
    @MegF142857 5 ปีที่แล้ว +49

    "Buy back" for Australia is disingenuous. It was a confiscation and not voluntary.

    • @1776concernedcitizen
      @1776concernedcitizen 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      "Buy back", implies that they owned it before you did. A free man owns property and must protect it as well as his family's lives. How? With a firearm. Preferably as deadly accurate and with as many rounds as possible. Yes, something like an AR-15 / AR-10 with many standard capacity magazines.

  • @johnf.kennedy4650
    @johnf.kennedy4650 4 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    The Australian buyback was a confiscation. Threatening people with legal action if they don’t surrender Their property is called Confiscation.

  • @1776concernedcitizen
    @1776concernedcitizen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +33

    I remember that ban. I wanted an AK 47 and couldn't purchase a true copy because of the ban. I had to buy one with a thumbhole stock. I don't think it accomplished anything but requiring buyers to buy unwanted stocks.

    • @jasonryan1286
      @jasonryan1286 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Basically the ban contributed to climate change, due to the increase in wood to make the furniture.

    • @Averagegunenthusiast
      @Averagegunenthusiast 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      I thought it was a 2 feature test meaning you can have 1 feature like the pistol grip as long as it didn’t have other ones.

    • @1776concernedcitizen
      @1776concernedcitizen 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Averagegunenthusiast it was based on 3 features, so you could only have two for an import. A detachable magazine and a muzzle break, as well as a pistol grip. The importers issued a 5 round magazine, welded on muzzle break and a hideous thumbhole stock. Every purchaser immediately ditched the stock, grinded off the weld to remove the muzzle cap, purchased a muzzle break they liked and a pistol grip. The bayonet lug was another feature that importers had to saw off. It was all a silly and costly exercise in stupidity that accomplished absolutely nothing.

    • @RichardTClark396
      @RichardTClark396 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The last one the rammed through was illegal and so is this they have all broken their oaths and need to be removed.

  • @bldlightpainting
    @bldlightpainting 6 ปีที่แล้ว +83

    Today's Firearm Lesson:
    The AR-15 rifle is NOT an "assault rifle", or even one of the most powerful rifles today. In fact, the .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge that most AR-15 rifles are chambered in is about the lowest powered rifle cartridge there is.
    The AR-15 rifle operates similarly to all other semi-auto rifles and pistols, so there is really nothing special about this firearm among thousands of other gun designs. Which is why this is the most popular sporting rifle today, as hunters, sportsmen, collectors, self-defense advocates and competition shooters alike love this rifle for its lightweight, modularity, precision, and low recoil. Not bad for a rifle designed in the 50s.
    A true "assault rifle" is a selective-fire (operates from at least two firing modes, ie. 3-round bursts and full-auto) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge (between a pistol and a rifle) and a detachable box magazine, NOT a "clip."
    Examples include the STG 44, AK-47, M16, M4 etc. However, there are semi-auto versions of these rifles available.
    The term "assault rifle" is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which means "assault rifle" in English), as the name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or STG 44 to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies. And still, today firearm ignorant folks are using the term "assault weapon" to spread fear among the masses to further their agenda of banning these tools.
    Military grade selective-fire or full-auto weapons (assault weapons) have not been used in criminal acts in the US in a very very long time. They are mostly owned by governments, law enforcement agencies, and a few wealthy people, however, they are highly regulated.
    What you see being used today (sometimes in mass shootings) is common sporting rifles that "look" like their military grade counterparts. But they are not true "assault weapons", nor do they operate like them.

    • @raxstinejrogers9944
      @raxstinejrogers9944 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      BLD Lightpainting that analogy is all good the main focus of long guns is the amount of ammo (meaning) rounds per second, which is how so many are killed in literally seconds... So your manifesto on assault rifels is pretty much pointless. That said, sport or not no kid under the age of 21 needs to own, or purcahse that style of weapon, if you have a family memeber with interest in using it for shooting, or hunting. Go out purcahse it you keep it under lock, and key, and only allow the use of the weapon with a responsible person present. Gun ownership comes with a high amount of responsibility. If you can't buy a beer, you can't purcahse a weapon either. Period ☝️

    • @seanking4552
      @seanking4552 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      BLD Lightpainting Do you even own a gun? Bro 5.56 travels 2 to 3 times faster than a 9mm or a 45. There is a HUGE difference in impact velocity, and aerodynamics (including rifling and green tips). I’m decently pro gun but ya don’t “need” a 30-50 round, 6ft of concrete piercing, highly modifiable gun to protect ya home

    • @2AFREEDOMTX
      @2AFREEDOMTX 6 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Raxstine J complete and utter bull shit from ignorant people wtf why would I own a gun for protection of my home and family jus to lock it up......hold on bad guy let me unlock and load my gun so I can shoot you for robbing me or harming my family .......oh u have 20 friends outside .......that is why the fuck I need a god damn high capacity mag.......oh the U.S. government want to take my guns and they r coming with 40 guys and true assault weapons .....thats why the fuck I need a damn high capacity mag.....lets be honest they r waging war against the right to have guns.....look at Australia and Canada and 50 other countries u morons

    • @jacobw446
      @jacobw446 6 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      A Leaver action Rifle (winchester) can shoot just as fast as a Semiauto. The 2nd Amendment has little to NOTHING to do with hunting, or "target shooting". Those are just secondary functions. It has to do with defending the citizenry from the government

    • @imtrash1894
      @imtrash1894 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Sean King the parkland shooter used 10 round clips plus i mean you can 3d print magazines

  • @IAngelofFuryI
    @IAngelofFuryI 12 ปีที่แล้ว +49

    Have you read the 2nd Amendment? You have know idea what you are talking about. It has nothing to do with hunting. It was meant to put us on a EQUAL footing with the military when it came to small arms.

    • @BrickTamlandOfficial
      @BrickTamlandOfficial 7 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      have you read the 2nd amendment? are you currently enrolled in a well-regulated militia?

    • @Kohstie
      @Kohstie 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      IAngelofFuryI lol, the mentality that we need to be prepared to go to war against the government. Jeeeze, what little faith you have in our democracy or the institutions the founding fathers put into place.

    • @richardrodriguez1742
      @richardrodriguez1742 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      tony, the left has taken over most of our institutions 9 circuit court, public education etc, they do what they want when they want, look at the crazy laws being passed in california, all to control the masses through their court system. You are no longer living in a free and prosperous United Sates, we are falling from within.

    • @joelellis7035
      @joelellis7035 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Brick Tamland have you read the militia act? Yes, you are.

    • @jacobw446
      @jacobw446 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      "well regulated" in 1792, was the same thing as "well regulated watch". It merely meant "put into good working order". It did not mean that the government could tell the citizens what guns they could own!
      "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
      - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
      "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
      - Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
      You will notice that he does not say anything about a militia.

  • @edzaslow
    @edzaslow 2 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    Most murders with guns are committed with pistols, not rifles, by a wide margin. Actually, very few murders are committed with rifles. Mass shootings, even in the U.S., are very rare events.

    • @t0kigh02t7
      @t0kigh02t7 9 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Exactly and columbine shooting happened in 1999 the Clinton AR ban expired in 2000

  • @dylanlafreniere3479
    @dylanlafreniere3479 3 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    “Ban assault riffles and scary looking weaponry” the people who preach about bans truly don’t understand what they are saying. Personally I say we should ban all cars and vehicles build after the modal T. Why would anyone need a car that drives over 40 Mph, are you such a bad driver that you need surrounding air bags and a seat belt? You should be save enough with a horn clearly when someone hears “beep beep” they will surely move out of your way and let you pass. “ personally I don’t know why you need a car, counties around the world that use bicycles have a low car accident rate.” However motorized scooter accident have spiked.
    Do you get the point?

  • @optimusmikey
    @optimusmikey 9 ปีที่แล้ว +54

    I will not surrender my arms, I will not register them, I will not get a license for them. Australia is also the least populated continent on the Earth

    • @BrickTamlandOfficial
      @BrickTamlandOfficial 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      voted for stein. so not liberal.

    • @waldospec751
      @waldospec751 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Brick Tamland still a gun grabber though.

    • @JalenRose02
      @JalenRose02 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Big Mike you're the one is snowflake banning guns won't change anything it only make it worse

    • @jakemccalla8152
      @jakemccalla8152 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Still a moron.

    • @jacobw446
      @jacobw446 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Snowflake socialist.. NO better than a liberal.

  • @dasboot9471
    @dasboot9471 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Benefit of no second amendment? Sounds like a detriment to me.

    • @marryson123
      @marryson123 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      They just having to make the 2nd amendment sound like a bad thing.

  • @kainable8769
    @kainable8769 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Not reload automaticly, chamber the next round automaticly.

  • @xlinkkaisaintsrow2365
    @xlinkkaisaintsrow2365 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    we didn't have a school shooting in 1996 the Port Arthur shooting targeted tourists and bystanders. Also New Zealand has no mass shootings in 20+ years despite continued availability of semi auto long arms and with the right endorsement can have 30 round mags and free standing pistol grips. Good licencing and vetting makes a real difference than just banning stuff.

    • @FlatRangeOperator
      @FlatRangeOperator 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      crazy right after you posted that comment there was a mass shooting in NZ
      they used it as an excuse to ban all semi-auto weapons

    • @rancosteel
      @rancosteel 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Every citizen in Switzerland owns a military rifle supplied by the government, but we never hear about crazy people over there. One of the main reasons Hitler didn't mess around with them was because every citizen was a marksman sniper.

    • @xlinkkaisaintsrow2365
      @xlinkkaisaintsrow2365 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well you can forget about licensing now.

    • @MarkyMark2177
      @MarkyMark2177 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Mass shootings aren’t everything genius

  • @polyscient
    @polyscient 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    3:58 I wouldn't call Australia's lack of a second amendment "a benefit".

    • @urbanmeyer9725
      @urbanmeyer9725 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      neither would anyone else with a brain

    • @basketofdeplorables4253
      @basketofdeplorables4253 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      there is also the fact that rights do not come from words on paper.

  • @James225
    @James225 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    All 4 categories of violent crime were already on a downward trend from roughly 92/93 prior to the ban which continued until it hit a low in 2014, ten years after the ban ended. So 21 years of crime reduction, only half of which were during the ban. During that same period, firearm purchases were on a steady incline trend.
    Funny how the "more guns, more deaths" argument quickly falls apart when you start looking at the actual science and research. And let's not mention Vermont which has very lenient firearm laws, one of the highest rates of firearm ownership in the US, and 3rd lowest violent crime rate out of all states.
    Your argument is easily refuted by the empirical evidence.
    Bye...

    • @no-sway3709
      @no-sway3709 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      "[T]he weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban"
      -USDOJ

  • @brandonmckittrick2822
    @brandonmckittrick2822 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Fully automatic weapons were banned for civilian ownership in May 19, 1986. It was called the Hues Amendment. So civilians like you and I can own fully automatic weapons that were manufactured and registered for civilian ownership before May 19th 1986.

  • @dondidykes6664
    @dondidykes6664 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Ar type guns are no more dangerous than any other

  • @ryanecho1
    @ryanecho1 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Can we push to legalize production and sales of automatic weapons to citizens?

    • @TrueMohax
      @TrueMohax 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      ryan e
      Yeah, that's a recipe for disaster. I'm pro gun, but I don't see how automatic weapons would be any better then semi-auto if there is ever a time we need to defend our country.

    • @redtra236
      @redtra236 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      LMGs are effective weapons, and the criminals still use automatic weapons either way so yeah I support it. It's also not even hard to convert a lot of guns to full auto.

  • @drolds6522
    @drolds6522 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Sounds about right, first one was a joke, second one would be even funnier. Would start a second civil war!

  • @diablo4166
    @diablo4166 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The RIGHT of the PEOPLE

  • @petejohnson8397
    @petejohnson8397 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Put the gun issue aside for a minute. SOMEBODY needs to teach the person being interviewed that normal conversations do not need to be phrased like you are on Jeopardy

  • @Rick-wn5oh
    @Rick-wn5oh 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Around 2% of all gun related deaths in the country are caused by rifles. And AR-15's account for small fraction of that. Maybe .5%. And it's the most common rifle in the United States.

  • @engineersalltheway
    @engineersalltheway ปีที่แล้ว

    My brother in Christ. Outlawing weapons and “coupling” that law with a buy back program is in fact compulsory confiscation.

  • @kennethbowers2897
    @kennethbowers2897 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Assault weapon is just a political term. Many of you may be surprised to know that during World War II when Adolf Hitler was presented with a rifle many may know of, dubbed it the "Sturmgewehr 44" or "Storm Rifle" for political propaganda purposes only because Adolf Hitler thought the word sturmgewehr sounded mighty and tough. so in a sense the term assault rifle doesn't have a real term because that's where it is derived from much like the term assault weapon which is just a made-up political term. However you could see the similarities between the two "Sturmgewehr" and "Assault Weapon" are *political* names to describe something.

  • @1911GreaterThanALL
    @1911GreaterThanALL 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    The answer to it being effective is No due to the fact that assault weapons are no longer assault weapons if certain cosmetic or ergonomic features are removed.

  • @FireForEffect1533
    @FireForEffect1533 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Did the last assault weapons ban work? To people completely ignorant of weapons or the crime statistics of the time, yes. The US has become significantly less violent since 2004.

  • @InSidious1805
    @InSidious1805 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Stopped paying attention when the talking sweater said “press the trigger”

  • @hahandroo
    @hahandroo ปีที่แล้ว

    Look how much the Washington Post has changed. No way they would show this in 2023

  • @duncanmcocinner5939
    @duncanmcocinner5939 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Columbine happened during the last awb in america

  • @meanolduncleeli904
    @meanolduncleeli904 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Odd… I kept thinking one of them was about to shift into opinion journalism, but they just carefully talked about an important topic.

  • @young9534
    @young9534 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Columbine happened during this time

  • @normanspurgeon5324
    @normanspurgeon5324 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The interviewer is using so many cryptic, poorly defined terms that the conversation makes no sense. The interview-ee is not much better. Worthless talk, with no purpose.

  • @wev2344
    @wev2344 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    If the news reports are try, this latest shooter should have never been issued a gun of any kind. What’s the purpose of a background check if it missed a detail that should have led to stopping the sale. Yet, he bought two guns. Should have been denied.

  • @TruthSeekerNotAlphabetSoup
    @TruthSeekerNotAlphabetSoup 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    2019 comparison of deaths between Firearm related homicide:All Firearm deaths:All Vehicle deaths:All Suicides:Drug-induced deaths:Abortions is as follows
    2 : 4 : 4 : 5 : 7 : 63
    (per 10,000. i.e. 70,000 drug-induced deaths roughly)
    Obviously there will be some overlap between suicides and firearms but people always want to talk about the total firearm toll not just the homicide toll.
    Those curious about the total lives lost from these causes from 1996 to 2019 In the order of Firearm related homicide:All Firearm deaths:All Vehicle deaths:All Suicides:Drug-induced deaths:Abortions:Total death toll is as follows
    311,100 : 788,901 : 964,587 : 884,884 : 951,328 : 19,146,266 : 60,388,803
    that's roughly 3 : 8 : 10 : 9 : 10 : 192 : 604
    But yes let's continue the narrative that guns are the problem.

  • @squidtower
    @squidtower 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Australia is a great example and the police state they lived under during the pandemic for 2 plus years.

  • @basketofdeplorables4253
    @basketofdeplorables4253 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    "no second amendment" as if rights come from words on paper

  • @1911GreaterThanALL
    @1911GreaterThanALL 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    1. Wright St Bikie murders 8 October 1999 Adelaide, Australia 3d/2i
    2. Monash University shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne 2d/5i
    3. Oakhampton Heights Shooting 20 March 2005 Hunter Valley, New South Wales 4d
    4. 2011 Hectorville siege 29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia 3d/3i
    5. Hunt family murders 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5d
    6. Wedderburn shooting 23 October 2014 Wedderburn, Victoria 3d
    7. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis 15-16 December 2014 Sydney, New South Wales 3d/1i
    8. 2017 Brighton siege 5 June 2017 Brighton, Melbourne 2d/3i
    9. Osmington shooting 11 May 2018 Osmington, Western Australia 7d
    10. Melbourne triple shooting 1 March 2019 Melbourne 1d/2i
    11. 2019 Darwin shooting 4 June 2019 Darwin, Northern Territory 4d/1i
    12. Melbourne nightclub shooting 14 April 2019 Melbourne 2d/4i

  • @rolandgonzales9096
    @rolandgonzales9096 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The most telling is that the number of casualties per incident went down and that's really what we're all talking about

    • @JohnnyBoyCali
      @JohnnyBoyCali 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Not true. The evil, coward who attacked the kids at Virginia Tech, used a handgun, not a rifle and he took the lives of 32 defenseless people.

  • @DeeDee-vo1xt
    @DeeDee-vo1xt 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Numbers basically went from 3-1 wow

  • @ronaldferreria6364
    @ronaldferreria6364 ปีที่แล้ว

    GUN OWNERS SHOULD HAVE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS..ASSULT RIFLE AND HIGH CAPACITY MAGS WILL STAY INN

  • @mattgeiger9988
    @mattgeiger9988 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    They should have banned those standard clips 🙄

  • @spongeintheshoe
    @spongeintheshoe 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    How about we just require a license to use or buy _any_ guns?

    • @thepitpatrol
      @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      That would be a great idea....if it was constitutional.

    • @spongeintheshoe
      @spongeintheshoe 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thepitpatrol The Constitution specifies a _well-regulated_ militia.

    • @thepitpatrol
      @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@spongeintheshoe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If you don't want guns repeal the ammendment.

    • @spongeintheshoe
      @spongeintheshoe 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thepitpatrol "No restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever" is a very specific interpretation of a very vague statement. Specifically, one that gets a lot of people killed.

    • @thepitpatrol
      @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@spongeintheshoe there are 400 million guns in the United States. You are going to disagree with this but I don't think we have a gun problem. We have a heart problem. Years ago we took God out of the schools and for that matter out of life. Moms didn't stay home and raise kids, dads are gone, kids spend hours on devices doing anything they want. I grew up in a community where it was not unusual for all of us kids to have our own gun by the 5th or 6th grade. We walked the road side, picked up coke bottles and sold them to the store to by ammunition. We carried deer rifles in our truck to school in the back glass. Nobody thought of shooting someone else. This isn't a problem with guns. It is a problem with people.

  • @teotats532
    @teotats532 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    What 1996 school shooting in Australia I’m constantly hearing about an event that never happened.

  • @2005NewBalanceSneaker
    @2005NewBalanceSneaker 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    So basically gun control is stupid

  • @Sparky-ce9yy
    @Sparky-ce9yy 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    You don't need to watch the video the answer is... No

  • @thepitpatrol
    @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Both of yall seem like gun guys.

  • @carlosdavidnavarrete3317
    @carlosdavidnavarrete3317 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    This is nonsense.

  • @Thatguy01984
    @Thatguy01984 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    yeah it'd be difficult lol...that darn 2nd amendment gets in the way every time😊

    • @spongeintheshoe
      @spongeintheshoe 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah. It would probably be best if we repealed it.

    • @thepitpatrol
      @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@spongeintheshoe that is a valid argument. If you want to repeal it go through the process. But until them, it is a right.

  • @lost1mc
    @lost1mc 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    No.

  • @xeronicus
    @xeronicus 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    In a word? No

  • @thepitpatrol
    @thepitpatrol 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    No

  • @cjm9860
    @cjm9860 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    No, no it didnt

  • @Northeastbaseball
    @Northeastbaseball 7 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Columbine. Enough said.

    • @BrickTamlandOfficial
      @BrickTamlandOfficial 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      aurora
      sandy hook
      orlando
      vegas
      texas
      hmmmmm

    • @richardrodriguez1742
      @richardrodriguez1742 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      all done by democrats (leftist)

    • @jacobw446
      @jacobw446 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Most mass shootings are done by handguns.. not rifles, and certainly NOT BY SO CALLED ASSAULT RIFLES!

    • @suf3117
      @suf3117 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Brick Tamland so by your logic why not ban hand guns?? I literally hope you know there have been more killings last year with knifes/blunt objects/ and even firsts and feet than assault rifles. ARs are only responsible for 2 percent of gun crime. So why not ban hand guns??

    • @redtra236
      @redtra236 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      And North Hollywood shootout with actual full auto weapons

  • @dondidykes6664
    @dondidykes6664 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    No gun. Control laws work