@@KBosch-xp2ut you're joking, right? Please tell me you aren't that stupid that you don't get his point? I haven't even listened to the video yet and I know his point.
First of all, do these people really think that all the US military will side with govt? Like we don't have thousands of retired Navy seals living as common citizens. Tens of thousands of retires military, SWAT forces and other people. Also, 150M Armed citizens over 50 states VS let's say 1M strong army. It's almost impossible to stop everyone in every state
@zz That's what gun nuts are actually saying. I would say, that's not a great idea. You shoot at a cop, you have just signed your death warrant because they have a lot more guns than you do. Remember Waco?
@@HuckleBerry476 When someone says “We need guns to defend ourselves against tyranny.” what is he actually saying? He’s saying “If the police try to enforce a law that I don’t like I want to own a gun so that I can shoot them.” I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, however if you shoot at a cop your life expectancy is about zero.
Using Europe as an example of “trust the gov’t they’ll keep you safe” has got to be the most historically numb example I’ve ever heard of. Gov’ts acting for the common good at the expense of the individual is the most universal truth throughout human history.
Absolutely. And this has been shown not only during the 20th and 21st centuries but in the 18th century when King George tried to infringe the gun rights of the colonists at Lexington and Concord.
@@ericmiller4845 I'm saying that the US has done terrible stuff, and you have guns, so what good did they do? In fact, the people who are pro-gun are usually the ones supporting such acts. Your naive view that the government does these things without support of the people is just too simplistic.
@@hobbso8508 No NRA member has used a gun to kill people for the fun of it. Blaming the NRA for punks who shoot up schools is like blaming the Pope for Priests who abuse young boys.
@Jimmy James The Constitution and BoRs "codify" our creator endowed, unalienable rights into Supreme Law. Words on paper do not "guarantee" nor "protect" anything.
I love how people who have never owned a gun think they can tell others how they don't need them. It is also legal for the private citizen to own things like cannon. It is regulated heavily but legal.
I don't understand your argument. Why do you think people need to have owned a gun before they can have an opinion on gun control. If the only people allowed in the debate, are gun owners. It would be a pretty one sided debate, don't you think!!
@frank franklin I own a high end .22 air rifle, as my being on a mild anti depressant, prohibits me from having a fac (firearm certificate) in the UK. I'm also a member of a gun club where I can use their .22 rim fire bolt action rifles. Other members of my club have .22 AR-15's and some lovely 1st and 2nd world war rifles like a Lee Enfield mk 4 .303 rifle. We can't have semi autos above .22 but can have bolt action rifles with full calibre rounds. So I personally have some experience of what an AR is capable of. Even though they are .22 they still have the same functionality as any other calibre. The big difference between our countries is that our guns are strictly for sport and not defense. AR's are incredibly easy to use and to me a semi auto rifle, will always be far more deadly than a fully automatic assault rifle. I disagree that you need any of this experience to have an opinion though. Anybody who has lost a loved one to gun violence has more right to an opinion than anybody!! My experience with an AR tells me that it would be an incredibly effective tool for any maniac, wanting to take out as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time!!
@frank franklin I'm well aware that handguns are used in most killings. That's why all handguns are illegal in the UK, and rifles aren't! I'm 49 so have used all kinds of rifles and handguns before they were banned in 97. My dad used to take me to the gun club but I wasn't super interested at the time so can't remember what guns they were. I kept my membership though and occasionally still go for a pling. I've used .22 AR's and .303 Lee Enfield's so I do have some experience of how they perform. I actually like guns and would love to have a go of a 5.56 AR or a Glock 19 but I'm more than happy to pay that price so my kids and grandkids can go to school without worrying about being killed. We used to have mass shootings too but since bringing in strict gun control after Dunblane. They stopped!! Don't feel bad for me having to live somewhere like this. Honestly, nobody gives a shit. Nobody even thinks about guns. Personally I much prefer fishing!
@@joshualocicero6799 why is it that people think it matters what catridge holds what. Why can't it just be established that having a gun that can fire "efficiently", as in to fire multiple bullets without needing to pull the trigger again, is a bad thing in the hands of any person that is not in the military as there may be more recorded handgun deaths but the type of gun that can find many shots at once is the chosen weapon for mass shootings.
@@explosivebest3703 machine guns are effectively banned to most people the nfa made it so you need to pay a tax stamp plus go through rigorous background checks etc takes up to over a year to get full autos short barrel shotguns short barreled rifles and supressors. Youre also registered and cant transport it from your state without previous permissions from the atf. The hughes ammendment banned production and sale of full autos after 1986 so any still around are pre 1986 and have gone up extremely in value 10s of thousands of dollars so its basically rich people who have them. What is being discussed isnt machine guns its semi auto rifles which means one pull of the trigger gives one shot the gasses from the shot help aid in the chambering of a new round and spend the previous casing. It however takes a release of thw trigger and pulled again to fire another. This is almost all modern firearms. This is the law now im sorry i cant dissagree more with your statement on military being the only ones who should have well anything. I dont see how its anyone's business what people own i dont even agree with the laws i just explained. Also almost forgot handguns are used in most mass shootings not rifles
Yes. He used the argument that protected the woman’s choice to kill a baby. But our argument is that the child who shouldn’t have to bear the consequences of the mother has rights as well. And is backed my basic science that when an egg is fertilized that it has its own unique genetic makeup. But here’s another big issue with his argument. He framed abortion as a protective system against having the unexpecting mother carry out a baby to term at the cost of her future. But with most abortion cases/ In almost every example the woman had consented sex. What could of protected that woman from her future falling apart is waiting til marriage. But ten buck says the man who defended himself with his gun didn’t ask a guy to rob him.
If you own a gun that you can use to take a life. You can't be pro life or else you would seek the knowledge and ability to defend yourself without killing. I say that same to pro choice anti gun people. You can't be willing to take a life to Save another but damn someone to do the same because it involves a gun.
@@murphy9924 When you attack others you accept that they may defend themselves and that such defense may cost you your life. A baby in the womb has done no such thing and because it cannot speak for itself others do. Being pro-life doesn't require that you protect the lives of those who actively attempt to do you harm. Your argument also means that women and the elderly/disabled/weak should either accept what comes to them, because they cant effectively defend themselves against a physically superior opponent without a gun, or they aren't pro-life. It's nonsense at best.
@@holdmeclosertonydanza22 he also said if you're pro gun then you must be pro abortion cause "u gotta be consistent" lmao he said he wasn't a crazy liberal who's scared of guns but using liberal talking points and every cliche argument in the book. He says" you are already restricted" so we need more restrictions?
I live in a high crime area, I carry concealed, my state also allows unlicensed carry conceal as well as open carry. There have been probably over 20 instances where I have identified a shady looking individual who looks like a mugger or someone fixing to commit a crime as I am out walking, and I just simply lift my shirt enough to expose my concealed gun and walk with my hand resting near it. And that simple act has always for me been enough to cause the person to give me a bigger berth as they walk by me. Do I know for certain they would have mugged me? No, but neither did I threaten them. I even nod to them as I pass and acknowledge their presence, and they often do the same. I will however add that there have been many times where I have seen in the news afterwards, mug shots of individuals who have committed violent crimes by stabbing someone while mugging them, and I recognized the individual as someone I had walked past in that manner. The victims from what I have seen have all been unarmed and mostly women
Take this with a grain of salt as my area isn't high in crime(with in my area i'm close 30 min drive the a city that's been on the murder capital of the US many years tho), I'm not showing anyone shit someone looks shady I'm not personally showing a gun because that's an escalation. That is just in my area so yours might need to show that I'm ready to defend and that wouldn't be an escalation in the context that i see it. However, just because of what you said I don't think your in a "high crime"(more so the " my state also allows unlicensed carry conceal as well as open carry" meaning your not in a part of the US that accounts for 70-85% of X deaths) area or your one of the few people that arm themselves in a high crime inner city. I also love how everyone was like we are cool with solving the X(where most pew pew X happens) but didn't address that X, X rate is highly concontrated to inner cities that have a high poverty right they clearly don't want to help out with the violance that takes up 85% of the problem they just want to feel safe or push something.
This could be considered brandishing, which in some states is threatening. It would be unwise to assume that these "shady" individuals who "look like muggers" indeed are muggers, and then brandish a firearm (potentially illegal) and instead just avoid the individual altogether.
Yes, protect yourself at sll times. But I personally would not advertise that I am armed by lifting my shirt. Where I am from, people can later ambush and take the gun.
@@katashi222I wholeheartedly agree. You want to keep your concealed firearm invisible as possible. You could be arrested for banishing your firearm. Play it safe. KEEP YOUR FIREARM CONCEALED.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms' - Samuel Adams “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” - George Mason “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee “The best way we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton. The worst offenders in the world of genocide are far left communist regimes. The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia all enter in the genocide club and rank among the most genocidal regimes in human history. Perhaps if you don’t resist a genocide, your chances of death are almost certain. And if you do choose to resist, you’ll need something sterner than rocks and empty bottles. Firearms, at the very least, provide a fighting chance against the very real possibility that your government decides your group is the next Ukrainian kulaks - or against the far more tangible threats to your daily existence, like street crime or home invasions.
@@1911GreaterThanALL the right to have a gun for freedom as you call it existed and was valid in the 18th century during the colonial era. Actually it was supported and justified because of imperialism colonialism. Keep your guns to keep black people and in the case of other colonies. Such as India African countries to control the native or local populations. And in Haiti which was a French colony you had the Haitian Revolution where black slaves rose up. So many white people where afraid of that happening in north America. Thomas Jefferson was a famous example of the reaction to the Haitian Revolution. It was justified for imperialist colonial reasons in America and the West. But other European countries moved on and are living in the 21st century America is still stuck in the 18th 19th century or 20th century. No gun control no Metric System of measurement
1:06:16 Unless I misunderstood this guy earlier, wasn’t he saying that he doesn’t think we can/should limit handgun ownership? Banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines will have ZERO effect on suicides. In typical anti-gun fashion, he’s conflating two unrelated issues to justify his authoritarian position. Don’t be fooled by this tactic. It’s intentional.
When someone says "I grew up hunting and have owned guns", it's a tactic to try affirm they aren't anti gun. Make no mistake, these people are strongly anti gun.
I grew up hunting since I was 8. I also served in the 82nd as an airborne infantryman. And I support the 2A. I would like funding for public schools to teach firearm safety and handling from late Grammer school on. Thus far I've built two of my daughters their own ARs
Beware anyone that uses emotions to suppress a right that's how WW2 was started. Also how i don't want to say the word but people being mean to another group of people.
But whose facts are they? I hears numerous flaws in his statement.. people with guns in their house are more likely to get hurt with it. Maybe true if the person is an idiot and untrained. But if the bad guy comes into hurt the gun owner would you rather call 911 or have a gun? Your right to protect yourself is a far better choice
I really do not understand how so many people are willing to give up the rights that prevent them from being just another serf. just voting away the rights that cannot and should not ever be taken away. once those rights are gone we will never get them back, and then light of liberty will not reignite.
The first gentlemen comes out and is very respectful and thoughtful with his presentation. Then the second just used nothing but blind emotion of "guns bad" and clearly has zero firearms knowledge (cartridge that holds 100 bullets) to try and make people feel bad enough to not support their rights.
The fact that he said “... cartridges that can hold one hundred bullets” shows how little he knows. You can manipulate data all you want but at least know the terminology of what you arbitrarily want to ban. Sorry you don’t think you’re responsible enough as an adult to have a firearm in the house that is safely stored away from children.
yeah that guy certainly lost the debate. here is a simple way to defeat the magazine capacity restriction argument. it places an arbitrary limit on it which can be lowered again at any time. the current arbitrary number in states with restrictions is 10, but Oregon is now trying to limit it to 5. there is already a magazine capacity limit of 5 in Canada and many other countries. its just an arbitrary number, so there is nothing stopping them from lowering it to 1 round per magazine. imagine this, every magazine holding more than 10 rounds disappears magically. after that a horrific high casualty mass shooting is committed using 10 round magazines. the "we have to do something" emotional people would certainly demand that we ban 10 round magazines.
Yeah he’s stupid and doesn’t know what he’s talking abt. Hell, our president doesn’t even know this. They pretend to be so knowledgeable on these things but have no idea.
@@ravikothari87 There is no such thing as a 100 bullet cartridge. Other straw mans made specifically due to ignorance of the law or ignorance of firearms. This guy is a FUDD.
I hate how the second guy got up there and started catogorising people and strawmaning the other side. Immedatly he says all gun owners want to increase gov to deal with terrorisim but not gun deaths but by no means is that a universal belief of gun owners. He seems much less concerned with providing points and data and is happy to slander the other side
As a new gun owner I'm just going to put my 2 cents in What we need is less gun control and more gun discipline we need classes like how we used to have in the fifties you would have rifle clubs and gun clubs where kids could go with their parents and learn and understand the value and the privilege of owning a firearm as well as shooting one Laws don't stop criminals But good gun sense can prevent good people from becoming criminals
Bottom line, good people are not the problem. .001% of the population do not dictate what the 99.999% can or cannot do. They need to deal with the problem, THE CRIMINAL.
@@michlblacksmith all laws are obsolete in stopping said law from being broken. It’s against the law to speed, steal, kill, rape ect but it still happens. Laws don’t STOP nothing, they deter and ofcourse punish those who offended it. To make it simple, you can have a million gun laws and it won’t stop a criminal from using a gun to murder if he has his mind set on doing such because he is going to ignore any law.
If you think outright outlawing or destroying every single firearm would make this world a more peaceful place, there's thousands of years before firearms were ever invented that would say otherwise.
Our founding fathers didn't write the 2A because they had crystal balls - they wrote it because they were all good (and honest and intelligent) historians.
@@TeranRealtor or maybe it's because they fled an ocean to get away from a tyrannical government that restricted every aspect of their lives and they saw the repercussions of a government that had complete control of its citizens.
@@2amichaelj No. They did not write the 2A because they saw ONE EXAMPLE of a government that became tyranical. They wrote it because they were honest and studied historians - who knew that ALL governments eventually go to tyrannical rule. If the need to break away from King George III was the only example they thought of - then it would have been the exception to the rule, and would not justify the 2A. What a good historian understands, is that EVERY civilization in history needed a 2A. (and so does every civilization in the future.)
National studies have shown that if a home owner purchases a snow blower they are 87% more likely to have snow in their driveway at some point than those that didn't own one. Apparently people from Florida understand this simple fact. They are smart enough not to go near these devices that statistically cause snowy driveways and walks. This analogy is just as ridiculous as this gun grabber making a point about people with a gun in their home being four times more likely to be involved in a shooting...................To his point, if you are an inner city gang banger that owns a firearm (illegally), you are probably 92% more likely to be involved in a shooting.
@@nickysantoro9194 The point that you apparently didn't get is that often statistics don't don't prove anything ....especially when someone is pushing their agenda.
This guy is poison to our kids he is literally lying. His stats are like saying the person decapitated in a car accident died of covid. That's why he uses certain words like homicide not murder they are different. Anti gunners love to lie.
Aside from keeping a tyrannical government in check, another point the 2A community should hit on more is self reliance; taking responsibility for ones own safety. Like what they said with the southern border, there isn’t a guarantee that you will get police protection 100% of the time. We see that with the border and we saw it with covid when people were legitimately concerned that police would not be able to respond to every call. Laws are all well and good but there is always a chance some outside event could hinder the government from enforcing them, and no amount of legislation can change that simple fact.
But when has the U.S. had to keep a tyrannical govt in check with guns? If we did it through violence then citizens would loose because the govt has tanks and missiles and nukes. So we never want to get to that point to begin with. Instead, we have to use votes and representatives to do that, which requires no violence.
The whole 'tyrannical government' idea is a laughably weak excuse to justify gun ownership. People eat up propaganda and media manipulated news. Governments dont need to be a tyranny, people are easy enough to manipulate with lies and hate, you dont need to make them fear when they fear each other. Murdoch medias propaganda pieces are a fantastic example, people eat up Sky News opinion pieces.
I don't view it as "taking responsibility" for my safety, I'm not responsible for my safety. If something bad happens to me, it's not my fault unless I did something to cause it. I see it more as "if I don't have help, I'm on my own". I don't force anyone to attack me.
@@denverlilly3669the point is that if anyone is responsible for your safety, it’s you. The only SOMEWHAT reasonable alternative is that no one is responsible for your safety, including yourself. Which seems to be what you’re saying. But clearly if your safety is in absolutely any case good, then in that case there is a responsibility on someone to preserve that good. So ultimately the only thing that makes sense is to say your safety is your responsibility
gun use only saves lives from people with guns, take the guns away from the public then there is no reason to have them. the year you commented this there were more mass shootings in the US than there are days in a year. Blindly denying these facts to keep hold of your toys is selfish and irresponsible.
@@cramo12345 There are much more instances of guns being used in self defense than guns being used in crimes. Blindly denying these facts to strip innocent people of their rights is selfish and irresponsible.
@@NeilBraski why would you need a gun for self defence if the other person doesn't have a gun. not only that guns are the most popular way of suicide. banning all guns will reduce mass shootings, murders, armed crime, suicides and kidnappings. Take Australia , a quote from the guardian. "Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following (though there was one mass shooting involving seven members of one family at Margaret River in Western Australia in May 2018)." In the US there were 417 mass shootings in 2019 alone. that's 1.14 a day! A mass shooting is classified by a shooting that kills 5 or more people, thats a minimum of 2085 innocent people that could be saved but you wont let it because you are still hung up on your 229 year old constitution. The majority of other developed nations have had the intelligence to modify and implement safe guards. The only country to have higher gun crime incidents in the world is brazil and per capita you are 20th in the world out of 193 country's. If you don't see this as a problem there is something seriously wrong. It's not your constitution that's stopping gun prohibition its the amount of money your country makes from them. it's the same as big tobacco.
I have to correct the record on what has been by far the most destructive mass shooting event in America. That occurred in the area of Wounded Knee, (December 29, 1890), the slaughter of approximately 150-300 Lakota Indians by United States Army troops.
Also don't forget about Black Wallstreet. The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 killed hundreds of residents, burned more than 1,250 homes and erased years of Black success.
1:20:20 I wish someone would tell him that assault weapons are already de facto illegal, and have been since 1934. The first assault weapons didn't even exist in 1934 (though the prototypes did), but the Firearms Act of 1934 already covered them when assault weapons came into existence. An assault weapon is a weapon that support an assault. Typically, the type of assault being consider is "fire and movement" or "fire and maneuver." Those weapons are select-fire, box magazine fed in an intermediate cartridge size (the intermediate cartridge didn't even exist until 1943 with the German 8mm Kurz which is a shortened 8mm Mauser full-powered rifle cartridge. The reduced length leads to less powder, but retains the same mass bullet. This results in reduced recoil for better controllability and the cost of reduced velocity and effective distance). In WW1, there was already experimentation with an assaults' like this via "Walking Fire." It never took off, but was a prototype for fire and movement. And so were the weapons that supported Walking Fire. Namly the Browning Automatic Rifle, the Thompson submachine gun (which DID exist then, but was too new to even see them reach French shores), the Bren etc. Either way: select-fire (but aside from the Thompson, all used full powered rifle cartridges, which is what hampered their effectiveness in Walking Fire). Point of all this is: select-fire weapons are already HEAVILY controlled. Not a single assault weapon has EVER been used in a mass shooting (in the US at least). Instead, what are used are weapons that LOOK like assault weapons, but don';t function the same way. And that's what this guy is complaining about. Someone sold him a false bill of goods. He's what's referred to as a Useful Idiot. Someone that doesn't know their outrage is being harnessed to be directed against someone other than where he thinks he's directing his outrage. Simply put; Those that want to ban semi-automatic rifles are "hollowing out" the term "assault weapon" to retain its emotional impact and then calling something that is not an assault weapon an assault weapon so that emotional impact can be brought to bare on it.
Adam Lanza fired 154 rounds in 10 minutes, or 15.4 rounds per minute, or 1 round every 3.9 seconds. These are not amazing numbers. The military's M16 rifle fires as much as 800 rounds per minute... nearly 52x more rounds per minute than Adam Lanza fired.
If you can fire, drop, reload 26 x 30 round magazines and 1x20 round magazine in a minute, then sure, theoretically you could fire an M16A2 rifle or an M4 at that cyclic rate of fire but having been to combat 4 rimes and serving for 23 years I Damn well know that is impossible. And please don't quote the specs to me because i know them by heart.....by comparison, the M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) has a cyclic rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute, and this is a machine gun is belt or drum fed......a.little common sense
Maybe because there is an inherent danger that comes with owning a nuclear weapon that could wipe out an entire nation. Rather, just having a semi-automatic rifle for defense and sport poses little to no risk statistically. We brought the might of the American military to Afghanistan (roughly the size of Texas) and we were not able to control that country full of armed citizens with rifles.
This is not a true statement. What were the rules of engagement the past two administrations (16 yrs)??? This is a good example of spinning the facts and both sides do it. The supreme court has been consistent on this subject. The words restricting and controlling have two different meanings.If you want to control you will have to change the constitution and their is a process to do so.
@@lucashenry6281 of course we aren’t going to use the full force of the military. That’s the point. Smdh. You think the military is going to use its full force on its own citizens and even worse its own land? Facts are the military is and always will be gimped by the citizens and that’s not spinning the facts.
The average gun enthusiasts actually have more training than the average officer, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, there is no gun show loop hole background checks are required
I’ll save you the time of having to watch the whole debate, Guns are good mmmkaaay... No for real though, 1) •annual gun deaths in USA approx. 35,000 (half are suicide) 2) •annual number of innocent lives saved due to a gun being used in self defense in USA between 100,000 and 2+ million (variance due to victims not always reporting) 3) •Do the math, you decide.
Im on your side but the cdc study didnt say lives saved its defensive uses. Cant get figures for lives saved thats impossible to argue without an alternate reality
@@rayensabandar8392 I'm not saying those cases don't happen when I'm saying is its defensive uses which means that it could be used as when no lies were actually in danger or it's hard to prove that they were in danger
@@joshualocicero6799 well, in the real life, you don't really need to prove if I'm in danger, if you feel like you are in danger, you are allowed to "show" the weapon, when you feel like you're in danger then straight up shoot someone, that's a criminal offense. But, I wouldn't want to risk anyone's life based on "can't prove" so guns are not usefull
@@rayensabandar8392 your comment made no sense. Its defensive uses you cant prove its lives saved and thats not really relevant to show that guns are needed
4 ปีที่แล้ว +2
Guns are essentially a deterrent... whether it's against a criminal or a tyrannical govt now you know why this gun control narrative is coming from politicians
50:07 - I'm so tired of these people comparing owning guns to "cars" or driver Lic. When it comes to bearing arms, free speech, practicing your religion, etc....NONE OF THAT should resembled ANYTHING Like getting a drivers lic or plates for your car! To put driving privileges on the same level as the Constitution shows the ignorance!!!!!
amen to that. it angers me so much seeing sheep advocate for that. requiring a license to own a gun nullifies the 2A. it becomes a privilege rather than a right. if we ever concede that ground its the end of the gun culture. licenses are expensive and a massive hassle to obtain and the gun control policy makers know this. they know it gets rid of gun ownership over time. in some states like CT that pass a law requiring a license to get a gun many people that owned guns sold them just so they wouldn't have to deal with the expense and hassle of getting a gun license. if gun owners dont want to go through the process then would-be new gun owners certainly wont. ive talked to CT friends that like guns but cant afford to get a gun license. thats what tyrants have done to kill gun culture in the UK, AU, most of Europe etc. some anti gun people will frame the argument like "oh i want the license and training to be free and the process to be easy" but no licensing law has ever been proposed like that. every one of these laws are expensive and a huge hassle with super long wait times.
Like anyone with a license can borrow your car. Imagine someone allowed to borrow your handgun. I'm not even ok with all the laws for cars I think those are oppressive in themselves. I couldn't imagine paying a yearly tax on a gun I bought years ago. Its comparing apples to crayons, not similar in any way.
Go ahead and make the comparison You can’t say guns kill 5000 or whatever if you don’t talk about the 10,000 killed by cars What has proven to kill more people including kids And make the same comparison in those countries like Australia that they love to bring up . And I don’t haul things or pull a wagon but I do own a truck, I don’t need one but it is a legal right as much as a vehicle is a right They can’t win using that argument
It should be noted we have a right to travel, so in theory we shouldn’t be required to have a drivers license to begin with but we all know licenses stop all bad drivers from causing accidents right?
The first speaker starts out with a straw man. The state is insane you can't own a gun at all, it's just placed restrictions on the types of guns. He's mixing apples and oranges right out of the gate
Can anyone explain why a country with the strictest gun law like Jamaica has TEN times higher homicide rate than USA? While USA is below world average in homicide rates.
second guy talks about how much his argument is based on science and then provides no science. It is very hard to listen to a debate when the left side is all about feelings and anecdotes.
I'm an English teacher in France and in about a month I'd like my students to interview American people on gun culture and gun control in the US. The interview would last about 30 minutes. Contact me if you'd be interested.
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year? • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT! • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths. • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good: • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital! • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed. Those are all facts. Facts don't care about your feelings. Now have an actual honest debate.
I agree with a lot of what you said but wouldn't people be more focused on gun deaths because it's a crime committed against you completely out of your control? Obviously if someone gets behind the wheel when they're drunk and kills an innocent driver in a car accident, the victim has no choice just like in the case of someone being robbed and shot by a criminal, but in the case of death from drug overdose or heart disease (brought on by an unhealthy diet), those tragic results are brought on by choices and actions made by those people themselves and are avoidable. These are two different causes of death, homicide vs poor choice you made yourself which lead to poor quality of life/health. So while I agree that violent gun related deaths are not the main cause of deaths in America, I just don't see the goal being: reduce the most deaths in America according to the cause of the highest number of fatalities. It's more an issue of crime and how to stop that crime from happening (which is arguably impossible as we don't live in an ideal utopia and never will because humans will always do f'd up shit to each other)
Ok, I’m 2:30 and it’s already bias. The moderator starts with what people can do bad with guns, but doesn’t give an example what people can do good with guns. So the moderator already set the mood that guns are bad. What a surprise. 🙄 Edit: so he does but no specific example and of course throws hunting in there as a reason.
@@dickcastle well do you think that we should keep the 1st Amendment then, that sentence is just as old as the 2nd Amendment. Same with Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Just because it's old doesn't make it any less invalid.
@@dickcastle Amendments can be Amended, to be exact Amendments can be added but not taken away. That's the reason why later in the 1920s they passed a Amendment to re-legalize alcohol. So if there is major universal consensus to change it there is a process for it. But I'm personally against Amending any of the original 10 Amendments. Because they are the Founding Amendments, also known and inalienable rights, meaning they are not granted by the government, they are something we've had because we are human. Also, I highly doubt alot of people would support it. Also to further it there will be more people who would actively resist it. So unless your in favor of a civil war then it's unlikely something that could realistically happen.
Perfect example of people who have no clue about firearms thinking they’re qualified to talk on the issue. No, they’re anti gun and will not compromise ever. Complete waste of time.
So, who counted how many times Michael Shermer said: ""WE" are not gonna take your hand guns" or "That's not what "WE"want to do". Why does he keep saying "WE"?
These last 2 shooters both obtained their guns legally, by passing background checks, as were every major shooting in the last few years. (Vegas shooter, UVA Tech shooter, Colorado movie shooter, Amish school shooter, Navy Base shooter, Dallas sniper.... Sandy Hook,....all guns obtained legally. There is no way to predict human behavior. And people who are intent on doing harm can obtain guns illegally.
Every country that took away pew pews there violent crime went up including homicide and wape even in Australia which libs love to use as an example, Australia had a 5-10 year span (before mandatory buy back) which crime was dropping as soon as they took the pew pews that Gap shrunk..... Meaning they where better off with them
When a person starts I’m gun guy and say’s he had a revolver and shotgun I’m already skeptical of him. And he was just using emotions, listen to him yell.
I don't know if anybody else sees a difference between the two speakers, but one of these speakers keep saying the word conservatives while the other did not pick a side. Just saying it's something to pay attention to. This is not a left or right issue, you need to be worried about people who keep presenting a situation like this as a left or right issue. The second gentleman is so irrelevant it's actually funny his argument about owning a gun and being shot by that gun is so and so much more likely is like saying you have a pool in your backyard so somebody drowning in that pool is this much more likely I highly recommend everybody in these comments to go read a book called lying with statistics lol. My last point is actually quite simple to understand they always like to bring up hunting, while the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. However, they sure like to make that connection for some reason
Thats called being a terrorist. Terrorists arent american citizens. Those who would give up freedoms to feel safe deserve niether freedom or safety. They put the rest at risk. If you dont wanna protect yourself fine. But dont expect eveyone to follow that idealogy. Look where it got everyone else that listened to dictators. Dead.
Ah yes because the same round out of a semi-automatic rifle somehow loses effectiveness against "bad dudes." What a straw man argument. Only half an hour in and I can't tell which one is halfassing this "neutral" conversation more.
Response to Myth #1. It isn't necessary for me to hold off a platoon of Navy Seals with my personal firearms to have an anti-tyranny rationale for the 2nd Amendment. It is enough that they would ****have**** to send a SWAT team in the first place. And, as the speaker said, it would amount to a Ruby Ridge every weekend. It would be loud, and noticed, and expensive, both financially and politically.
I believe mindfulness is the key. The daily practice of mindfulness in school's , university's, prison system and so on... can help the humanity to deal with emotions. A mindful nation can live in the Haven on earth 🙂👍
here is a simple way to defeat the magazine capacity restriction argument. it places an arbitrary limit on it which can be lowered again at any time. the current arbitrary number is 10, but Oregon is now trying to limit it to 5. there is already a magazine capacity limit of 5 in Canada and many other countries. its just an arbitrary number, so there is nothing stopping them from lowering it to 1 round per magazine. imagine this, every magazine holding more than 10 rounds disappears magically. after that a horrific high casualty mass shooting is committed using 10 round magazines. the "we have to do something" emotional people would certainly demand that we ban 10 round magazines.
Here is another easy way, DEAL WITH THE CRIMINAL, and leave the rest of us alone! .001% of the population do not dictate what the other 99.999% can or cannot do.
government doesnt fix problems it causes problems it brought drugs in urban neighborhood they are of their father satan they are satan helpers look at history history of governments history tell you everything you need to know about them and the evil facism it starts. th-cam.com/video/moBm1wF3aFs/w-d-xo.html when i mention satan it not point to religion it to describe evil system.
I'm not sure why, but it bothers me when someone says " shot BY a gun ", and not "with a gun." It suggests the gun has the ability to think. Also, anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon ; a stick, a rock, a hammer, a shoe, a car, my dog, . . . ( who is well trained to defend our household if I don't get to my gun first ). By the way, before the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan knew American citizens were legally armed, but the number of guns in America was unknown. It makes me think, if the battle of Britain were lost, the British citizens would have given anything to be armed.
We need accountability! Public executions ,firing squads,hangings,electric chair. Swift punishment like the aforementioned would stop 99.9 % of crimes committed with guns. Already over 2,000 gun laws on the books. You can’t legislate sin but you sure can stop the majority of it. And NO more plea bargaining by lawyers !
A mandatory turn in isn't a buy back. You can't buy back what you never owned in the 1st place. Also if I'm not willing to sell it then taking it is theft.
The schools that have guards & allow their teachers to be armed have had ZERO massacres. Side note. The largest school massacre happened in Japan where they don't have guns & he only needed fire.
@@xanderarmstrong6198 I'm having trouble finding that one now but I did find a different one about 8 being killed & over a dozen others stabbed there, maybe I mixed them up or maybe it's suppressed. Gruesome stuff to keep searching for examples of when people also made massacres without arms. Explosives & vehicles also ranks high. What's even more concerning is that every dictator who committed their atrocities took weapons 1st.
@@vashmatrix5769 I think you're probably mistaking this for the arson attack on kyoto animation in 2019, which was extremely lethal, though this type of violence is extremely rare in Japan and this was one of the most lethal attacks on japanese soil since world war 2.
Can we stop comparing country to country and start comparing country to itself? Crime actually rose in the UK after the guns were banned yet they still have less murder so maybe it is a culture thing and maybe, just maybe, guns help prevent crime
@@southtexasprepper1837 UK homicide rate; 1.2/100,000 US homicide rate; 5.0/100,000 Texas homicide rate; 4.6/100,000 So, which ordinary citizens are dying the most? Incidentally, the US has a worse knife homicide rate than the UK, THEN add on the 3rd world level of gun homicides...
@@ratofvengence Honestly???? The issue and debate of gun control is over. Even citizens (left of political center) who are first time buyers of firearms are arming themselves to protect their homes and families. Gun store owners have a hard time keeping the stores stocked because they now have little if anything in stock. Whether it's firearms and/or ammunition, once in comes in, the stock is bought up by people waiting in line outside. Let's also not forget that members of AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" have been seen with weapons (including firearms) during demonstrations and riots. So, you can sit there, quoting statistics all you want. Debate is over. If you have anyone to blame for shutting down the debate, all have AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" to thank for shutting it down. The Pro-Gun Control politicians let these animals loose on Society and not doing anything about it. Even Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby's home (who has been a vocal supporter of "Black Lives Matter") was vandalized by "Black Lives Matter" and graffitied. One reaps what ones sows.
@@southtexasprepper1837 "Honestly????" Yes. You were insinuating 'ordinary British Citizens' are more vulnerable, when it is your own US citizens with over quadruple the homicide rate. "Gun store owners have a hard time keeping the stores stocked because they now have little if anything in stock." Yes, there's a lot of scared Americans right now. "Let's also not forget that members of AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" have been seen with weapons (including firearms) during demonstrations and riots." Oh, so right wing fanatics marching with semi-auto rifles is well and good, but people on the other end of the political spectrum can't be trusted with them? " So, you can sit there, quoting statistics all you want." Damn those inconvenient facts! "Debate is over." It appears not. "The Pro-Gun Control politicians let these animals loose on Society and not doing anything about it." But letting Nazis march is A-Okay? "One reaps what ones sows." Indeed. Many tell me all the guns are to resist oppression. Maybe the oppressed have decided to resist, which is what has many of you scared.
After only 36 minutes in, I find a disturbing trend executed by the “camera-person” : most audience member shots appear to be young, attractive women. Also, Michael Shermer’s slides seem to get short shrift.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
"You're not stopping special forces." I guess the Afghanis never got that memo.
You think Afghanistan is a country to strive to be like? LOL
@@KBosch-xp2ut you're joking, right? Please tell me you aren't that stupid that you don't get his point? I haven't even listened to the video yet and I know his point.
@@KBosch-xp2ut yes
First of all, do these people really think that all the US military will side with govt? Like we don't have thousands of retired Navy seals living as common citizens. Tens of thousands of retires military, SWAT forces and other people. Also, 150M Armed citizens over 50 states VS let's say 1M strong army. It's almost impossible to stop everyone in every state
@@jaytilala7388
LOL. That’s a lovely fantasy.
"300 million guns is a failure of govt"
Good. That's the point. To keep the govt at bay. It's not about hunting. It's not about home defense even.
So you want a gun so that you can kill cops?
@zz That's what gun nuts are actually saying. I would say, that's not a great idea. You shoot at a cop, you have just signed your death warrant because they have a lot more guns than you do. Remember Waco?
Because lose gun laws clearly worked in Third Reich
@@JacobStein1960 How do you conflate owning a gun with the ability to and wanting to shoot a police officer? Idiot
@@HuckleBerry476 When someone says “We need guns to defend ourselves against tyranny.” what is he actually saying? He’s saying “If the police try to enforce a law that I don’t like I want to own a gun so that I can shoot them.” I hate to rain on anyone’s parade, however if you shoot at a cop your life expectancy is about zero.
I thought that was Keanu Reeves in the thumbnail. I clicked the video to hear John Wick's opinion on gun control.
There's a neat idea for a fanfic.
My AR15 is named Juan and I live in a sanctuary state so my AR-15 is safe
Richard Bermudez correction, you’re AR-15 identifies as a non-binary, cisgendered male immigrant from Mexico named Juan.
You’re welcome 😉
It sounds like they're trying to deport Juan. If you let them it's over he not coming back
I have two ARs: Jose and Rico. Jose is Rico's father. KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER!
Mine's names are Hosea and Pablo. I know what you mean.
My AR-15 identifies as blackpowder. Give it the love and respect and reparations.
Using Europe as an example of “trust the gov’t they’ll keep you safe” has got to be the most historically numb example I’ve ever heard of. Gov’ts acting for the common good at the expense of the individual is the most universal truth throughout human history.
Absolutely. And this has been shown not only during the 20th and 21st centuries but in the 18th century when King George tried to infringe the gun rights of the colonists at Lexington and Concord.
I mean, the US has some pretty horrific examples as well. Hitler got a lot of his ideas from the US after all.
@@hobbso8508 I feel like you missed the point of my comment.
@@ericmiller4845 I'm saying that the US has done terrible stuff, and you have guns, so what good did they do? In fact, the people who are pro-gun are usually the ones supporting such acts. Your naive view that the government does these things without support of the people is just too simplistic.
@@hobbso8508 No NRA member has used a gun to kill people for the fun of it.
Blaming the NRA for punks who shoot up schools is like blaming the Pope for Priests who abuse young boys.
I can't even listen to the second speaker. It pains me that he says he's not anti-gun. He's the "Well, I have friends who are black." kind of guy.
so he is a fudd ??
Internet Troll Yes, and therefore anti-gun
@Lum Because its an outright lie meant to mislead people that are on the fence of the argument...
@Lum Also this isn't a debate about guns its a debate about gun laws there is a tremendous difference
@Lum i agree…
He says Handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment... Nope. ALL GUNS ARE PROTECTED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT. END OF DEBATE.
HELL YES!
And, NOT just guns!
@Jimmy James The Constitution and BoRs "codify" our creator endowed, unalienable rights into Supreme Law. Words on paper do not "guarantee" nor "protect" anything.
@Jimmy James Ok. I would say, "See my previous comment," but ...?!
Justin Richardson pussy
I love how people who have never owned a gun think they can tell others how they don't need them. It is also legal for the private citizen to own things like cannon. It is regulated heavily but legal.
As long as it's black powder it's probably fine, and it has to use an old style cap, or flintlock, matchlock,etc.
You don't need to own or even have used a gun to understand them and logically debate about them. Only an idiot thinks you do.
I don't understand your argument. Why do you think people need to have owned a gun before they can have an opinion on gun control. If the only people allowed in the debate, are gun owners. It would be a pretty one sided debate, don't you think!!
@frank franklin I own a high end .22 air rifle, as my being on a mild anti depressant, prohibits me from having a fac (firearm certificate) in the UK. I'm also a member of a gun club where I can use their .22 rim fire bolt action rifles. Other members of my club have .22 AR-15's and some lovely 1st and 2nd world war rifles like a Lee Enfield mk 4 .303 rifle.
We can't have semi autos above .22 but can have bolt action rifles with full calibre rounds.
So I personally have some experience of what an AR is capable of. Even though they are .22 they still have the same functionality as any other calibre.
The big difference between our countries is that our guns are strictly for sport and not defense.
AR's are incredibly easy to use and to me a semi auto rifle, will always be far more deadly than a fully automatic assault rifle.
I disagree that you need any of this experience to have an opinion though. Anybody who has lost a loved one to gun violence has more right to an opinion than anybody!!
My experience with an AR tells me that it would be an incredibly effective tool for any maniac, wanting to take out as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time!!
@frank franklin I'm well aware that handguns are used in most killings. That's why all handguns are illegal in the UK, and rifles aren't! I'm 49 so have used all kinds of rifles and handguns before they were banned in 97. My dad used to take me to the gun club but I wasn't super interested at the time so can't remember what guns they were. I kept my membership though and occasionally still go for a pling. I've used .22 AR's and .303 Lee Enfield's so I do have some experience of how they perform.
I actually like guns and would love to have a go of a 5.56 AR or a Glock 19 but I'm more than happy to pay that price so my kids and grandkids can go to school without worrying about being killed. We used to have mass shootings too but since bringing in strict gun control after Dunblane. They stopped!!
Don't feel bad for me having to live somewhere like this. Honestly, nobody gives a shit. Nobody even thinks about guns. Personally I much prefer fishing!
"What about having cartridges that hold 100 bullets?"
I like how these morons look too politicians as "experts" on anything. These people don't live the and lives we do
And you do?
@@explosivebest3703 yes we do
@@joshualocicero6799 why is it that people think it matters what catridge holds what. Why can't it just be established that having a gun that can fire "efficiently", as in to fire multiple bullets without needing to pull the trigger again, is a bad thing in the hands of any person that is not in the military as there may be more recorded handgun deaths but the type of gun that can find many shots at once is the chosen weapon for mass shootings.
@@explosivebest3703 machine guns are effectively banned to most people the nfa made it so you need to pay a tax stamp plus go through rigorous background checks etc takes up to over a year to get full autos short barrel shotguns short barreled rifles and supressors. Youre also registered and cant transport it from your state without previous permissions from the atf.
The hughes ammendment banned production and sale of full autos after 1986 so any still around are pre 1986 and have gone up extremely in value 10s of thousands of dollars so its basically rich people who have them.
What is being discussed isnt machine guns its semi auto rifles which means one pull of the trigger gives one shot the gasses from the shot help aid in the chambering of a new round and spend the previous casing. It however takes a release of thw trigger and pulled again to fire another. This is almost all modern firearms.
This is the law now im sorry i cant dissagree more with your statement on military being the only ones who should have well anything. I dont see how its anyone's business what people own i dont even agree with the laws i just explained. Also almost forgot handguns are used in most mass shootings not rifles
The "must also be Pro-choice" argument assumes that one doesn't believe the developing child has rights. It's a non-starter the way he frames it.
Bingo, I couldn't find the stop button fast enough when he began that bs.
Yes. He used the argument that protected the woman’s choice to kill a baby. But our argument is that the child who shouldn’t have to bear the consequences of the mother has rights as well. And is backed my basic science that when an egg is fertilized that it has its own unique genetic makeup. But here’s another big issue with his argument. He framed abortion as a protective system against having the unexpecting mother carry out a baby to term at the cost of her future. But with most abortion cases/ In almost every example the woman had consented sex. What could of protected that woman from her future falling apart is waiting til marriage. But ten buck says the man who defended himself with his gun didn’t ask a guy to rob him.
If you own a gun that you can use to take a life. You can't be pro life or else you would seek the knowledge and ability to defend yourself without killing. I say that same to pro choice anti gun people. You can't be willing to take a life to Save another but damn someone to do the same because it involves a gun.
@@murphy9924 When you attack others you accept that they may defend themselves and that such defense may cost you your life. A baby in the womb has done no such thing and because it cannot speak for itself others do. Being pro-life doesn't require that you protect the lives of those who actively attempt to do you harm. Your argument also means that women and the elderly/disabled/weak should either accept what comes to them, because they cant effectively defend themselves against a physically superior opponent without a gun, or they aren't pro-life. It's nonsense at best.
Am I the only person who is pro gun AND pro choice. Rights are rights
“cartridges that hold 100rds” go home you’re drunk 🤦🏽♂️🤦🏽♂️
52:23 what the actual fuck was that supposed to even mean lmao
These people don’t what they are speaking of.
@@internetomatic pretty sure he meant magazines, but he is just an uneducated idiot
@@leogarcia8640 actually he's an OVER educated idiot....these people are the real problem
@@danieleirhart8424 explain yourself please.
I like how the second speaker brought up gang violence, and somehow concluded that gun ownership was the problem, not the gangs. What a clown
Yea I was thinking the same thing, guys a hack.
Second guy: "Gang owners have guns."
Me: "yeah, they're in a dangerous unregulated black market."
Second guy: "Guns are the problem."
Me: ???????
Agreed with some stuff he said but he was out of his mind with some of it.
@@holdmeclosertonydanza22 he also said if you're pro gun then you must be pro abortion cause "u gotta be consistent" lmao he said he wasn't a crazy liberal who's scared of guns but using liberal talking points and every cliche argument in the book. He says" you are already restricted" so we need more restrictions?
He also had to use skewered data, which he had to admit too. Between 50,000 and 4,5m? That shows he was not presenting an honest argument.
I live in a high crime area, I carry concealed, my state also allows unlicensed carry conceal as well as open carry.
There have been probably over 20 instances where I have identified a shady looking individual who looks like a mugger or someone fixing to commit a crime as I am out walking, and I just simply lift my shirt enough to expose my concealed gun and walk with my hand resting near it. And that simple act has always for me been enough to cause the person to give me a bigger berth as they walk by me.
Do I know for certain they would have mugged me? No, but neither did I threaten them. I even nod to them as I pass and acknowledge their presence, and they often do the same.
I will however add that there have been many times where I have seen in the news afterwards, mug shots of individuals who have committed violent crimes by stabbing someone while mugging them, and I recognized the individual as someone I had walked past in that manner. The victims from what I have seen have all been unarmed and mostly women
People dont understand until they live there. Glad you had the right. How about the inept police in these areas.
Take this with a grain of salt as my area isn't high in crime(with in my area i'm close 30 min drive the a city that's been on the murder capital of the US many years tho), I'm not showing anyone shit someone looks shady I'm not personally showing a gun because that's an escalation. That is just in my area so yours might need to show that I'm ready to defend and that wouldn't be an escalation in the context that i see it. However, just because of what you said I don't think your in a "high crime"(more so the " my state also allows unlicensed carry conceal as well as open carry" meaning your not in a part of the US that accounts for 70-85% of X deaths) area or your one of the few people that arm themselves in a high crime inner city. I also love how everyone was like we are cool with solving the X(where most pew pew X happens) but didn't address that X, X rate is highly concontrated to inner cities that have a high poverty right they clearly don't want to help out with the violance that takes up 85% of the problem they just want to feel safe or push something.
This could be considered brandishing, which in some states is threatening. It would be unwise to assume that these "shady" individuals who "look like muggers" indeed are muggers, and then brandish a firearm (potentially illegal) and instead just avoid the individual altogether.
Yes, protect yourself at sll times. But I personally would not advertise that I am armed by lifting my shirt. Where I am from, people can later ambush and take the gun.
@@katashi222I wholeheartedly agree. You want to keep your concealed firearm invisible as possible. You could be arrested for banishing your firearm. Play it safe. KEEP YOUR FIREARM CONCEALED.
YOU CAN NOT HAVE A GUN DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE IN AMERICA that guy just straight up lied
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms'
- Samuel Adams
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
- George Mason
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
- Richard Henry Lee
“The best way we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” - Alexander Hamilton.
The worst offenders in the world of genocide are far left communist regimes. The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia all enter in the genocide club and rank among the most genocidal regimes in human history.
Perhaps if you don’t resist a genocide, your chances of death are almost certain. And if you do choose to resist, you’ll need something sterner than rocks and empty bottles. Firearms, at the very least, provide a fighting chance against the very real possibility that your government decides your group is the next Ukrainian kulaks - or against the far more tangible threats to your daily existence, like street crime or home invasions.
Who cares about 18th century beliefs
@@TheAaronChand sure then care about 2100 i can make my own guns and you can't stop me
@@TheAaronChand The freedom of expression is an 18th century belief. Still don't care about it?
@@TheAaronChand you dont think free speech is important? that is also listed in the constitution
@@1911GreaterThanALL the right to have a gun for freedom as you call it existed and was valid in the 18th century during the colonial era. Actually it was supported and justified because of imperialism colonialism. Keep your guns to keep black people and in the case of other colonies. Such as India African countries to control the native or local populations. And in Haiti which was a French colony you had the Haitian Revolution where black slaves rose up. So many white people where afraid of that happening in north America. Thomas Jefferson was a famous example of the reaction to the Haitian Revolution. It was justified for imperialist colonial reasons in America and the West. But other European countries moved on and are living in the 21st century America is still stuck in the 18th 19th century or 20th century. No gun control no Metric System of measurement
1:06:16 Unless I misunderstood this guy earlier, wasn’t he saying that he doesn’t think we can/should limit handgun ownership? Banning so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines will have ZERO effect on suicides.
In typical anti-gun fashion, he’s conflating two unrelated issues to justify his authoritarian position.
Don’t be fooled by this tactic. It’s intentional.
When someone says "I grew up hunting and have owned guns", it's a tactic to try affirm they aren't anti gun. Make no mistake, these people are strongly anti gun.
those are fudds. worse enemy of 2A.
@@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122 Exactly.
Big facts
I grew up hunting since I was 8. I also served in the 82nd as an airborne infantryman. And I support the 2A. I would like funding for public schools to teach firearm safety and handling from late Grammer school on.
Thus far I've built two of my daughters their own ARs
@@OldSchoolParatrooper good man, I agree. Thank you for your service, sir.
Huemer appeals to facts. Shermer appeals to emotions.
Beware anyone that uses emotions to suppress a right that's how WW2 was started. Also how i don't want to say the word but people being mean to another group of people.
But whose facts are they? I hears numerous flaws in his statement.. people with guns in their house are more likely to get hurt with it. Maybe true if the person is an idiot and untrained. But if the bad guy comes into hurt the gun owner would you rather call 911 or have a gun? Your right to protect yourself is a far better choice
@ronmarvicsin7709 you might have the two mixed up which looks like an easy mistake given their names.
“A republic, if you can keep it” -Ben Franklin
We are in grave danger of losing that republic!
"Stay strapped or get clapped" -thomas jefferson
Shermer’s intro was nothing but superficial tropes and statistical fallacies
"I'm not against guns i grew up with bb guns" i cant tell you how many times I've heard that
I really do not understand how so many people are willing to give up the rights that prevent them from being just another serf. just voting away the rights that cannot and should not ever be taken away. once those rights are gone we will never get them back, and then light of liberty will not reignite.
Liberals wrote the bill of rights...conservatives wanted to stick with the king.
Because they are clueless, think the Govt is here to "take care of them". Nobody takes care of you but YOU!
The first gentlemen comes out and is very respectful and thoughtful with his presentation. Then the second just used nothing but blind emotion of "guns bad" and clearly has zero firearms knowledge (cartridge that holds 100 bullets) to try and make people feel bad enough to not support their rights.
But your hero didn't even know what the f*** a bump stock was bro
I think he knew, he wanted to hear the other guy explain what it was.
Yes, he's a knucklehead.
The fact that he said “... cartridges that can hold one hundred bullets” shows how little he knows. You can manipulate data all you want but at least know the terminology of what you arbitrarily want to ban. Sorry you don’t think you’re responsible enough as an adult to have a firearm in the house that is safely stored away from children.
yeah that guy certainly lost the debate. here is a simple way to defeat the magazine capacity restriction argument.
it places an arbitrary limit on it which can be lowered again at any time.
the current arbitrary number in states with restrictions is 10, but Oregon is now trying to limit it to 5.
there is already a magazine capacity limit of 5 in Canada and many other countries.
its just an arbitrary number, so there is nothing stopping them from lowering it to 1 round per magazine. imagine this, every magazine holding more than 10 rounds disappears magically.
after that a horrific high casualty mass shooting is committed using 10 round magazines.
the "we have to do something" emotional people would certainly demand that we ban 10 round magazines.
Shermer speaks like an idiot.
UK violent crime rate is 2x higher than USA's rate slippery slope indeed. That’s what happens when you make laws based on emotions 🤦♂️
@@anthonyfletcher8053 You make argument for me, thx
A detailed knowledge of how guns work is not necessary. Besides, anyone can make a slip of the tongue.
Twice I've stopped an assault in progress by brandishing my gun.
Ironically you can own your own privately owned armed tank the same with armed drones.
Shhhhhh🤫 please dont let then know
As well as cannons/artillery see "the most armed man in America" or the Dragon man
Yeah he’s stupid and doesn’t know what he’s talking abt. Hell, our president doesn’t even know this. They pretend to be so knowledgeable on these things but have no idea.
I have a friend with a tank. This guy is clueless.
On the pro-gun-presentation i thought this was a nice factual debate. Then Shermer happened. He didn´t even seemed to try to make valid points.
Jaenette Salope In what way?
@@ravikothari87 There is no such thing as a 100 bullet cartridge. Other straw mans made specifically due to ignorance of the law or ignorance of firearms. This guy is a FUDD.
@@1911GreaterThanALL Learn hyperbolic language please.
@@MrMusashiMusashi only when trolling.
Shermer used data. The pro-gun guy used emotional pleading to scary bogey-men invading your castle.
I hate how the second guy got up there and started catogorising people and strawmaning the other side. Immedatly he says all gun owners want to increase gov to deal with terrorisim but not gun deaths but by no means is that a universal belief of gun owners. He seems much less concerned with providing points and data and is happy to slander the other side
As a new gun owner I'm just going to put my 2 cents in
What we need is less gun control and more gun discipline we need classes like how we used to have in the fifties you would have rifle clubs and gun clubs where kids could go with their parents and learn and understand the value and the privilege of owning a firearm as well as shooting one
Laws don't stop criminals
But good gun sense can prevent good people from becoming criminals
Bottom line, good people are not the problem. .001% of the population do not dictate what the 99.999% can or cannot do. They need to deal with the problem, THE CRIMINAL.
_"But good gun sense can prevent good people from becoming criminals"_
or victims.
If laws dont stop crime, then why are republicans so hell bent on making abortion illegal?
So you think all laws are obsolete because people do whatever they want anyway?
@@michlblacksmith all laws are obsolete in stopping said law from being broken. It’s against the law to speed, steal, kill, rape ect but it still happens. Laws don’t STOP nothing, they deter and ofcourse punish those who offended it. To make it simple, you can have a million gun laws and it won’t stop a criminal from using a gun to murder if he has his mind set on doing such because he is going to ignore any law.
If you think outright outlawing or destroying every single firearm would make this world a more peaceful place, there's thousands of years before firearms were ever invented that would say otherwise.
Our founding fathers didn't write the 2A because they had crystal balls - they wrote it because they were all good (and honest and intelligent) historians.
@@TeranRealtor or maybe it's because they fled an ocean to get away from a tyrannical government that restricted every aspect of their lives and they saw the repercussions of a government that had complete control of its citizens.
@@2amichaelj No. They did not write the 2A because they saw ONE EXAMPLE of a government that became tyranical. They wrote it because they were honest and studied historians - who knew that ALL governments eventually go to tyrannical rule.
If the need to break away from King George III was the only example they thought of - then it would have been the exception to the rule, and would not justify the 2A.
What a good historian understands, is that EVERY civilization in history needed a 2A. (and so does every civilization in the future.)
He said that the laws are already there, so does that mean the laws aren’t working😱 Who would’ve thought
REGULATE BULLETS.SIMPLE
@@donaldadams3033 y regulate bullets?
Guns/gunpowder were banned by England in 1774 colonial America!!
National studies have shown that if a home owner purchases a snow blower they are 87% more likely to have snow in their driveway at some point than those that didn't own one. Apparently people from Florida understand this simple fact. They are smart enough not to go near these devices that statistically cause snowy driveways and walks. This analogy is just as ridiculous as this gun grabber making a point about people with a gun in their home being four times more likely to be involved in a shooting...................To his point, if you are an inner city gang banger that owns a firearm (illegally), you are probably 92% more likely to be involved in a shooting.
It's hard to follow your logic. I like snow. Not a fan of snow blowers.
@@nickysantoro9194 The point that you apparently didn't get is that often statistics don't don't prove anything ....especially when someone is pushing their agenda.
Infringe: to limit, to restrict, and to encroach upon. Erase all unconstitutional laws, they are treasonous.
300 million guns is a failure of government? How dumb is that statement. 300 million guns is the success of the constitution. Enuff said.
Nice to see two sides of the argument having equal time to present their opinions.
There should be no argument., The 2 A is simple to understand.
Shame to see one was significantly more qualified than the other. This was like putting Mohammed Ali against Mother Theresa.
This guy is poison to our kids he is literally lying. His stats are like saying the person decapitated in a car accident died of covid. That's why he uses certain words like homicide not murder they are different. Anti gunners love to lie.
Anyone else get offended when they say to close the gun show loophole?
O I'm very offended at that
Aside from keeping a tyrannical government in check, another point the 2A community should hit on more is self reliance; taking responsibility for ones own safety. Like what they said with the southern border, there isn’t a guarantee that you will get police protection 100% of the time. We see that with the border and we saw it with covid when people were legitimately concerned that police would not be able to respond to every call. Laws are all well and good but there is always a chance some outside event could hinder the government from enforcing them, and no amount of legislation can change that simple fact.
But when has the U.S. had to keep a tyrannical govt in check with guns? If we did it through violence then citizens would loose because the govt has tanks and missiles and nukes. So we never want to get to that point to begin with. Instead, we have to use votes and representatives to do that, which requires no violence.
The whole 'tyrannical government' idea is a laughably weak excuse to justify gun ownership.
People eat up propaganda and media manipulated news. Governments dont need to be a tyranny, people are easy enough to manipulate with lies and hate, you dont need to make them fear when they fear each other. Murdoch medias propaganda pieces are a fantastic example, people eat up Sky News opinion pieces.
I don't view it as "taking responsibility" for my safety, I'm not responsible for my safety. If something bad happens to me, it's not my fault unless I did something to cause it. I see it more as "if I don't have help, I'm on my own". I don't force anyone to attack me.
@@denverlilly3669the point is that if anyone is responsible for your safety, it’s you. The only SOMEWHAT reasonable alternative is that no one is responsible for your safety, including yourself. Which seems to be what you’re saying. But clearly if your safety is in absolutely any case good, then in that case there is a responsibility on someone to preserve that good. So ultimately the only thing that makes sense is to say your safety is your responsibility
Not really. People are killing people, not guns.
Right out the gate, citing every gun death but no reference to gun use saving lives... we'r know where this is going.
Yep. These people must be on heroine
gun use only saves lives from people with guns, take the guns away from the public then there is no reason to have them. the year you commented this there were more mass shootings in the US than there are days in a year. Blindly denying these facts to keep hold of your toys is selfish and irresponsible.
@@cramo12345 Why should the actions of the shooters affect an innocent person's right to own a gun?
@@cramo12345 There are much more instances of guns being used in self defense than guns being used in crimes. Blindly denying these facts to strip innocent people of their rights is selfish and irresponsible.
@@NeilBraski why would you need a gun for self defence if the other person doesn't have a gun. not only that guns are the most popular way of suicide. banning all guns will reduce mass shootings, murders, armed crime, suicides and kidnappings.
Take Australia , a quote from the guardian.
"Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following (though there was one mass shooting involving seven members of one family at Margaret River in Western Australia in May 2018)."
In the US there were 417 mass shootings in 2019 alone. that's 1.14 a day! A mass shooting is classified by a shooting that kills 5 or more people, thats a minimum of 2085 innocent people that could be saved but you wont let it because you are still hung up on your 229 year old constitution. The majority of other developed nations have had the intelligence to modify and implement safe guards. The only country to have higher gun crime incidents in the world is brazil and per capita you are 20th in the world out of 193 country's. If you don't see this as a problem there is something seriously wrong. It's not your constitution that's stopping gun prohibition its the amount of money your country makes from them. it's the same as big tobacco.
I have to correct the record on what has been by far the most destructive mass shooting event in America. That occurred in the area of Wounded Knee, (December 29, 1890), the slaughter of approximately 150-300 Lakota Indians by United States Army troops.
Also don't forget about Black Wallstreet. The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 killed hundreds of residents, burned more than 1,250 homes and erased years of Black success.
We have what’s called a second amendment we don’t need gun control.
We do need gun control...follow up shots are important so you need to be able to control recoil
1:20:20 I wish someone would tell him that assault weapons are already de facto illegal, and have been since 1934. The first assault weapons didn't even exist in 1934 (though the prototypes did), but the Firearms Act of 1934 already covered them when assault weapons came into existence.
An assault weapon is a weapon that support an assault. Typically, the type of assault being consider is "fire and movement" or "fire and maneuver." Those weapons are select-fire, box magazine fed in an intermediate cartridge size (the intermediate cartridge didn't even exist until 1943 with the German 8mm Kurz which is a shortened 8mm Mauser full-powered rifle cartridge. The reduced length leads to less powder, but retains the same mass bullet. This results in reduced recoil for better controllability and the cost of reduced velocity and effective distance).
In WW1, there was already experimentation with an assaults' like this via "Walking Fire." It never took off, but was a prototype for fire and movement. And so were the weapons that supported Walking Fire. Namly the Browning Automatic Rifle, the Thompson submachine gun (which DID exist then, but was too new to even see them reach French shores), the Bren etc. Either way: select-fire (but aside from the Thompson, all used full powered rifle cartridges, which is what hampered their effectiveness in Walking Fire).
Point of all this is: select-fire weapons are already HEAVILY controlled. Not a single assault weapon has EVER been used in a mass shooting (in the US at least). Instead, what are used are weapons that LOOK like assault weapons, but don';t function the same way. And that's what this guy is complaining about. Someone sold him a false bill of goods. He's what's referred to as a Useful Idiot. Someone that doesn't know their outrage is being harnessed to be directed against someone other than where he thinks he's directing his outrage.
Simply put; Those that want to ban semi-automatic rifles are "hollowing out" the term "assault weapon" to retain its emotional impact and then calling something that is not an assault weapon an assault weapon so that emotional impact can be brought to bare on it.
Adam Lanza fired 154 rounds in 10 minutes, or 15.4 rounds per minute, or 1 round every 3.9 seconds. These are not amazing numbers. The military's M16 rifle fires as much as 800 rounds per minute... nearly 52x more rounds per minute than Adam Lanza fired.
It will not do that rate for long as it is not intended to fire full auto for more than a few seconds without causing damage to the weapon.
If you can fire, drop, reload 26 x 30 round magazines and 1x20 round magazine in a minute, then sure, theoretically you could fire an M16A2 rifle or an M4 at that cyclic rate of fire but having been to combat 4 rimes and serving for 23 years I Damn well know that is impossible. And please don't quote the specs to me because i know them by heart.....by comparison, the M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) has a cyclic rate of fire of 725 rounds per minute, and this is a machine gun is belt or drum fed......a.little common sense
Glad he brought up Germany. He conveniently leaves out the fact that Germany has over 40 million illegal guns.
No. We have given the government to much power already
Make sure not to make buildings more than one story high so that suicidal people don’t jump off of them.
The second guy in the video sounds like a mega-leftist/liberal . . . Que word was “I believe in science”
Leave my guns alone I’m keeping my guns
Props to anyone who watched the full video.
I made it to 10mins and then saw my way out
Maybe because there is an inherent danger that comes with owning a nuclear weapon that could wipe out an entire nation. Rather, just having a semi-automatic rifle for defense and sport poses little to no risk statistically. We brought the might of the American military to Afghanistan (roughly the size of Texas) and we were not able to control that country full of armed citizens with rifles.
This is not a true statement. What were the rules of engagement the past two administrations (16 yrs)??? This is a good example of spinning the facts and both sides do it. The supreme court has been consistent on this subject. The words restricting and controlling have two different meanings.If you want to control you will have to change the constitution and their is a process to do so.
We never attempted to control Afghanistan though
@@lucashenry6281 sure man. Sure...
@@adambyers8010 we also didn’t use the full force of the military. Facts hurt when you don’t know em
@@lucashenry6281 of course we aren’t going to use the full force of the military. That’s the point. Smdh.
You think the military is going to use its full force on its own citizens and even worse its own land?
Facts are the military is and always will be gimped by the citizens and that’s not spinning the facts.
Dr. Huemer is absolutely brilliant. I love his attitude and philosophy. He would be a great leader.
The average gun enthusiasts actually have more training than the average officer, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, there is no gun show loop hole background checks are required
I’ll save you the time of having to watch the whole debate, Guns are good mmmkaaay...
No for real though,
1) •annual gun deaths in USA approx. 35,000 (half are suicide)
2) •annual number of innocent lives saved due to a gun being used in self defense in USA between 100,000 and 2+ million (variance due to victims not always reporting)
3) •Do the math, you decide.
Im on your side but the cdc study didnt say lives saved its defensive uses. Cant get figures for lives saved thats impossible to argue without an alternate reality
@@joshualocicero6799 saved lives is like when the dude didn't die because he showed that he has a gun, right?
@@rayensabandar8392 I'm not saying those cases don't happen when I'm saying is its defensive uses which means that it could be used as when no lies were actually in danger or it's hard to prove that they were in danger
@@joshualocicero6799 well, in the real life, you don't really need to prove if I'm in danger, if you feel like you are in danger, you are allowed to "show" the weapon, when you feel like you're in danger then straight up shoot someone, that's a criminal offense. But, I wouldn't want to risk anyone's life based on "can't prove" so guns are not usefull
@@rayensabandar8392 your comment made no sense. Its defensive uses you cant prove its lives saved and thats not really relevant to show that guns are needed
Guns are essentially a deterrent... whether it's against a criminal or a tyrannical govt now you know why this gun control narrative is coming from politicians
50:07 - I'm so tired of these people comparing owning guns to "cars" or driver Lic. When it comes to bearing arms, free speech, practicing your religion, etc....NONE OF THAT should resembled ANYTHING Like getting a drivers lic or plates for your car! To put driving privileges on the same level as the Constitution shows the ignorance!!!!!
amen to that. it angers me so much seeing sheep advocate for that.
requiring a license to own a gun nullifies the 2A. it becomes a privilege rather than a right. if we ever concede that ground its the end of the gun culture.
licenses are expensive and a massive hassle to obtain and the gun control policy makers know this. they know it gets rid of gun ownership over time. in some states like CT that pass a law requiring a license to get a gun many people that owned guns sold them just so they wouldn't have to deal with the expense and hassle of getting a gun license. if gun owners dont want to go through the process then would-be new gun owners certainly wont. ive talked to CT friends that like guns but cant afford to get a gun license.
thats what tyrants have done to kill gun culture in the UK, AU, most of Europe etc.
some anti gun people will frame the argument like "oh i want the license and training to be free and the process to be easy" but no licensing law has ever been proposed like that. every one of these laws are expensive and a huge hassle with super long wait times.
Like anyone with a license can borrow your car. Imagine someone allowed to borrow your handgun. I'm not even ok with all the laws for cars I think those are oppressive in themselves. I couldn't imagine paying a yearly tax on a gun I bought years ago. Its comparing apples to crayons, not similar in any way.
Go ahead and make the comparison You can’t say guns kill 5000 or whatever if you don’t talk about the 10,000 killed by cars What has proven to kill more people including kids And make the same comparison in those countries like Australia that they love to bring up . And I don’t haul things or pull a wagon but I do own a truck, I don’t need one but it is a legal right as much as a vehicle is a right They can’t win using that argument
Dd Stanfield worldwide deaths by cars (not including debilitating injuries) is over 3,000 deaths per day.
It should be noted we have a right to travel, so in theory we shouldn’t be required to have a drivers license to begin with but we all know licenses stop all bad drivers from causing accidents right?
The first speaker starts out with a straw man. The state is insane you can't own a gun at all, it's just placed restrictions on the types of guns. He's mixing apples and oranges right out of the gate
The Second Amendment Shall NOT, be infringed
You have the right to arm bears
Can anyone explain why a country with the strictest gun law like Jamaica has TEN times higher homicide rate than USA? While USA is below world average in homicide rates.
second guy talks about how much his argument is based on science and then provides no science. It is very hard to listen to a debate when the left side is all about feelings and anecdotes.
I'm an English teacher in France and in about a month I'd like my students to interview American people on gun culture and gun control in the US. The interview would last about 30 minutes. Contact me if you'd be interested.
I'm interested.
This guy made so many arguments that had nothing to do with gun control
There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - better known as gun violence.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100.
Still too many?
Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.
All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths. Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths?
All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide). Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers!
So what is the point?
If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides ................ Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.
Those are all facts. Facts don't care about your feelings. Now have an actual honest debate.
I agree with a lot of what you said but wouldn't people be more focused on gun deaths because it's a crime committed against you completely out of your control? Obviously if someone gets behind the wheel when they're drunk and kills an innocent driver in a car accident, the victim has no choice just like in the case of someone being robbed and shot by a criminal, but in the case of death from drug overdose or heart disease (brought on by an unhealthy diet), those tragic results are brought on by choices and actions made by those people themselves and are avoidable. These are two different causes of death, homicide vs poor choice you made yourself which lead to poor quality of life/health. So while I agree that violent gun related deaths are not the main cause of deaths in America, I just don't see the goal being: reduce the most deaths in America according to the cause of the highest number of fatalities. It's more an issue of crime and how to stop that crime from happening (which is arguably impossible as we don't live in an ideal utopia and never will because humans will always do f'd up shit to each other)
Ok, I’m 2:30 and it’s already bias. The moderator starts with what people can do bad with guns, but doesn’t give an example what people can do good with guns. So the moderator already set the mood that guns are bad. What a surprise. 🙄
Edit: so he does but no specific example and of course throws hunting in there as a reason.
Comparison of a heterogeneous large population to a homogenous smaller population? Apples and oranges.
Wow first guy had way better points! Lol
People act as if history isn't real and none of those terrible things governments have been responsible for could happen again
Always weird how the entire gun control argument depends on the misinterpretation of 2a
It's weird that were conducting modern society based on a 250 year old run-on sentence
@@dickcastle well do you think that we should keep the 1st Amendment then, that sentence is just as old as the 2nd Amendment.
Same with Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment.
Just because it's old doesn't make it any less invalid.
@@noticedruid4985 i think it should be "amended". amendments can "amend' weird i know
@@dickcastle Amendments can be Amended, to be exact Amendments can be added but not taken away.
That's the reason why later in the 1920s they passed a Amendment to re-legalize alcohol. So if there is major universal consensus to change it there is a process for it.
But I'm personally against Amending any of the original 10 Amendments. Because they are the Founding Amendments, also known and inalienable rights, meaning they are not granted by the government, they are something we've had because we are human.
Also, I highly doubt alot of people would support it. Also to further it there will be more people who would actively resist it. So unless your in favor of a civil war then it's unlikely something that could realistically happen.
@dickcastle do you believe 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states would even begin to agree on your proposed amendment?
Perfect example of people who have no clue about firearms thinking they’re qualified to talk on the issue. No, they’re anti gun and will not compromise ever. Complete waste of time.
So, who counted how many times Michael Shermer said: ""WE" are not gonna take your hand guns" or "That's not what "WE"want to do".
Why does he keep saying "WE"?
To answer the title - NO.
These last 2 shooters both obtained their guns legally, by passing background checks, as were every major shooting in the last few years. (Vegas shooter, UVA Tech shooter, Colorado movie shooter, Amish school shooter, Navy Base shooter, Dallas sniper....
Sandy Hook,....all guns obtained legally. There is no way to predict human behavior. And people who are intent on doing harm can obtain guns illegally.
Every country that took away pew pews there violent crime went up including homicide and wape even in Australia which libs love to use as an example, Australia had a 5-10 year span (before mandatory buy back) which crime was dropping as soon as they took the pew pews that Gap shrunk..... Meaning they where better off with them
Dude your being hoodwinked. Do research on either the incidents or firearms to fully understand.
No. That’s not how a bump stock works. The recoil does assist with pulling the trigger but each round still needs a trigger to be pulled to fire.
Michael Shermer just lost the vast amount of respect i had for him.
When a person starts I’m gun guy and say’s he had a revolver and shotgun I’m already skeptical of him. And he was just using emotions, listen to him yell.
Actually I know quite a few repeat drunk drivers with permanently revoked driver’s licenses still driving on a regular basis.
give it up for the hispanics everybody
I don't know if anybody else sees a difference between the two speakers, but one of these speakers keep saying the word conservatives while the other did not pick a side. Just saying it's something to pay attention to. This is not a left or right issue, you need to be worried about people who keep presenting a situation like this as a left or right issue. The second gentleman is so irrelevant it's actually funny his argument about owning a gun and being shot by that gun is so and so much more likely is like saying you have a pool in your backyard so somebody drowning in that pool is this much more likely I highly recommend everybody in these comments to go read a book called lying with statistics lol. My last point is actually quite simple to understand they always like to bring up hunting, while the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. However, they sure like to make that connection for some reason
Having a teenage daughter would be a great reason to have a gun
Private citizens have already been forking out cash to buy old fighter jets. They just take the weapons off.
And apparently just one jet can take down an entire skyscraper even without any weapons attached. 😮
Thats called being a terrorist. Terrorists arent american citizens. Those who would give up freedoms to feel safe deserve niether freedom or safety. They put the rest at risk. If you dont wanna protect yourself fine. But dont expect eveyone to follow that idealogy. Look where it got everyone else that listened to dictators. Dead.
Ah yes because the same round out of a semi-automatic rifle somehow loses effectiveness against "bad dudes." What a straw man argument. Only half an hour in and I can't tell which one is halfassing this "neutral" conversation more.
Response to Myth #1. It isn't necessary for me to hold off a platoon of Navy Seals with my personal firearms to have an anti-tyranny rationale for the 2nd Amendment. It is enough that they would ****have**** to send a SWAT team in the first place. And, as the speaker said, it would amount to a Ruby Ridge every weekend. It would be loud, and noticed, and expensive, both financially and politically.
I believe mindfulness is the key.
The daily practice of mindfulness in school's , university's, prison system and so on... can help the humanity to deal with emotions.
A mindful nation can live in the Haven on earth 🙂👍
Why do anti-gunners say cars, not automobiles? That number would go up when you add trucks, suvs'.That number would go up.
It’s like saying that hammers build houses not Carpenter’s
Answer: no. I saved you 1.5 hours. You're welcome.
here is a simple way to defeat the magazine capacity restriction argument.
it places an arbitrary limit on it which can be lowered again at any time.
the current arbitrary number is 10, but Oregon is now trying to limit it to 5.
there is already a magazine capacity limit of 5 in Canada and many other countries.
its just an arbitrary number, so there is nothing stopping them from lowering it to 1 round per magazine. imagine this, every magazine holding more than 10 rounds disappears magically.
after that a horrific high casualty mass shooting is committed using 10 round magazines.
the "we have to do something" emotional people would certainly demand that we ban 10 round magazines.
here's an easier way: shall not be infringed
Here is another easy way, DEAL WITH THE CRIMINAL, and leave the rest of us alone! .001% of the population do not dictate what the other 99.999% can or cannot do.
government doesnt fix problems it causes problems it brought drugs in urban neighborhood they are of their father satan they are satan helpers look at history history of governments history tell you everything you need to know about them and the evil facism it starts. th-cam.com/video/moBm1wF3aFs/w-d-xo.html when i mention satan it not point to religion it to describe evil system.
If everything the second guy said was true... Many of his statements weren't..... Then I'd still be against gun laws.
Is he saying that if the army comes for us we should just accept it?
I wouldn't.
I'm not sure why, but it bothers me when someone says " shot BY a gun ", and not "with a gun." It suggests the gun has the ability to think. Also, anything used to assault someone is an assault weapon ; a stick, a rock, a hammer, a shoe, a car, my dog, . . . ( who is well trained to defend our household if I don't get to my gun first ). By the way, before the Pearl Harbor attack, Japan knew American citizens were legally armed, but the number of guns in America was unknown. It makes me think, if the battle of Britain were lost, the British citizens would have given anything to be armed.
We need accountability! Public executions ,firing squads,hangings,electric chair. Swift punishment like the aforementioned would stop 99.9 % of crimes committed with guns. Already over 2,000 gun laws on the books. You can’t legislate sin but you sure can stop the majority of it. And NO more plea bargaining by lawyers !
100%
Shermer: "It's the guns that cause all this death!!" . . . yep! . . . and it is spoons that make Rosie O'Donnell fat! . . . LOL!!!!
That guy looks like Keanu Reeves’ scrawnier, older, less beautiful haired long lost brother
A mandatory turn in isn't a buy back. You can't buy back what you never owned in the 1st place. Also if I'm not willing to sell it then taking it is theft.
The schools that have guards & allow their teachers to be armed have had ZERO massacres.
Side note. The largest school massacre happened in Japan where they don't have guns & he only needed fire.
Can I ask for a source on the Japanese school massacre?
@@xanderarmstrong6198 I'm having trouble finding that one now but I did find a different one about 8 being killed & over a dozen others stabbed there, maybe I mixed them up or maybe it's suppressed. Gruesome stuff to keep searching for examples of when people also made massacres without arms. Explosives & vehicles also ranks high.
What's even more concerning is that every dictator who committed their atrocities took weapons 1st.
@@vashmatrix5769 I think you're probably mistaking this for the arson attack on kyoto animation in 2019, which was extremely lethal, though this type of violence is extremely rare in Japan and this was one of the most lethal attacks on japanese soil since world war 2.
@@xanderarmstrong6198 evil will always find a way.
Dr. Shermer, I can't even watch you now, and I still like your other opinions, but this is (and I'll tread lightly) Blasphemous!
At 29 min, he says you can't own tanks! But you can! And you can own fighter jets too!
Facts and idiots don't realize that
go to youtube and listen to 911 calls of people that have criminals breaking into their house.
As soon as he said "I used to shoot birds with my stepdad" we knew what was coming lol
Lol o yeh. Classic fudd boomer
Can we stop comparing country to country and start comparing country to itself? Crime actually rose in the UK after the guns were banned yet they still have less murder so maybe it is a culture thing and maybe, just maybe, guns help prevent crime
You have over quadruple the UK homicide rate. It isn't working.
@@ratofvengence Tell that to the ordinary British Citizens that are being attacked with knives, machetes, and hatchets.
@@southtexasprepper1837
UK homicide rate; 1.2/100,000
US homicide rate; 5.0/100,000
Texas homicide rate; 4.6/100,000
So, which ordinary citizens are dying the most? Incidentally, the US has a worse knife homicide rate than the UK, THEN add on the 3rd world level of gun homicides...
@@ratofvengence Honestly???? The issue and debate of gun control is over. Even citizens (left of political center) who are first time buyers of firearms are arming themselves to protect their homes and families. Gun store owners have a hard time keeping the stores stocked because they now have little if anything in stock. Whether it's firearms and/or ammunition, once in comes in, the stock is bought up by people waiting in line outside. Let's also not forget that members of AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" have been seen with weapons (including firearms) during demonstrations and riots. So, you can sit there, quoting statistics all you want. Debate is over. If you have anyone to blame for shutting down the debate, all have AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" to thank for shutting it down. The Pro-Gun Control politicians let these animals loose on Society and not doing anything about it. Even Olympia Mayor Cheryl Selby's home (who has been a vocal supporter of "Black Lives Matter") was vandalized by "Black Lives Matter" and graffitied. One reaps what ones sows.
@@southtexasprepper1837 "Honestly????"
Yes. You were insinuating 'ordinary British Citizens' are more vulnerable, when it is your own US citizens with over quadruple the homicide rate.
"Gun store owners have a hard time keeping the stores stocked because they now have little if anything in stock."
Yes, there's a lot of scared Americans right now.
"Let's also not forget that members of AntiFa and "Black Lives Matter" have been seen with weapons (including firearms) during demonstrations and riots."
Oh, so right wing fanatics marching with semi-auto rifles is well and good, but people on the other end of the political spectrum can't be trusted with them?
" So, you can sit there, quoting statistics all you want."
Damn those inconvenient facts!
"Debate is over."
It appears not.
"The Pro-Gun Control politicians let these animals loose on Society and not doing anything about it."
But letting Nazis march is A-Okay?
"One reaps what ones sows."
Indeed. Many tell me all the guns are to resist oppression. Maybe the oppressed have decided to resist, which is what has many of you scared.
Suggested Title: John Wick defends gun rights.
After only 36 minutes in, I find a disturbing trend executed by the “camera-person” : most audience member shots appear to be young, attractive women. Also, Michael Shermer’s slides seem to get short shrift.
he is probably a simp.
I noticed that most angles it zoned in on were of people falling asleep or looking at their phones lol