Articles, Blog

Facts Over Feelings: Gun Control Works


I want to take a little bit of time to talk
about the reality of whether gun safety regulations work to reduce not just gun violence but violence
more generally because the right has a lot of really concise and neat sounding talking
points. I’ve said before, the right has the advantage on framing George Lakoff has written
about this. Uh, abortion is murder, so it should be illegal. That is a really simple
talking point. And the left position on abortion is not the opposite of that. It is nuance
that is complex and on guns, the right has guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
More guns would make a safer a gun. Free zones are the problem because only good guys follow
the rules and the bad guys will bring guns into gun free zones, more guns, less crime.
People will find a way to do the killing even without a gun. So banning guns are making them harder to
access, doesn’t do anything. Now there are actually a whole host of ways to think about
this and all of them point in one direction, which is actually gun safety rules and restrictions
do work. There was a really good post on our subreddit by a user named not stylistic say
on, and some of their ideas are in this segment. Now, one argument that’s common is it doesn’t
matter what you make illegal people will get it if it’s a good way to kill people. Has
anybody heard of a mass killing via grenade? Grenades are easy to detonate. They have a
big blast radius. You don’t have to be nearly as accurate as you do with a firearm yet there
are no mass killing incidents involving grenades. Well, why not? It turns out there’s really
strict regulation of grenades. They’re really difficult to get. Another example, m four and ar 15 rifles are
very similar. Different barrel sizes. The [inaudible] has a a some firing modes, three
round burst and fully auto firing options, but all else being equal, m fours are harder
to get. They’re more expensive. The mass shootings are overwhelmingly Ar, fifteens and never
m fours. Wow. What a shocker. What about just in general, fully automatic weapons, fully
automatic weapons would do a ton of killing in a mass shooting, but they aren’t used because
you need to jump through all sorts of legal hoops to get them. They’re really expensive.
So the laws do work. The guns that are more difficult to get and more expensive aren’t
used in mass shootings. So then some people will bring up, well the real problem is handguns
and individual homicides, not mass shootings and the types of firearms used within them.
It’s really a distraction. You can kill one person in many, many different
ways. And it is difficult to stop a determined person from killing one other person. But
the success of mass shootings or mass killing events is much more dictated by the firepower
and the destructive nature of that fire power that’s available. And if you zoom out and
you look at studies across many countries, the theme, the arc is homicide rate goes down
when gun restrictions are made law. But it’s gotta be taken seriously. It can’t be just
one law. There’s a study published by Oxford University press. What do we know about the
association between firearm legislation and firearm related injuries? What we learn is
that it usually takes a pretty major legislative overhaul. It’s not just background checks
alone to see significant changes, restricting access to guns and their purchase is associated
with a reduction in firearm deaths. This tells us that just passing background
checks is likely to have only a very small effect. What we need is a combination of 100%
universal background checks. Yes, restrictions on the most deadly weapons requiring permitting
and licensing for guns. I’d like to see mandatory insurance policies for gun owners as well
and Elizabeth Warren is proposing a lot of this stuff and I’ll get to that a little bit
later. When you look at countries like South Africa and Australia, even when you look within
states in the United States that have made changes, the results are very clear, but in
the end, none of this matters because on this issue the facts don’t matter. They are well
funded. On the pro gun side. They’re well-equipped to dismiss any study and to tell you that
you’re a bad person for wanting this stuff and you’re against freedom. And in the end,
in addition to these changes legislatively, there has to be a cultural change. I’ve been talking about this for years. At
this point, we need to stop being a culture where so many people want so many guns. We
need to stop being a culture where so many people see guns as a tool to solve problems,
be the societal, political, cultural, personal. We need to stop being a culture that raises
so many radicals and extremists, but we also need to do all of these other things which
any other civilized country would have done if they were in our position, which countries
like New Zealand so quickly did once they suffered a mass killing event like this. So
the policies work, but they don’t work individually. They need to be a package of policies. But
the culture is a big part of this and so many other things relate to this. None of which,
none of which the pro gun fetishist American right wing connected to the very well funded
a gun lobby is willing to even consider. Let me know what you think. I’m on Twitter at
d pacman. I hope you’ll follow me there. I hope you’ll follow the show on Twitter at
David Pakman show and I hope you’ll join me this evening. 6:30
PM eastern time for a live stream on twitch at twitch.tv/david
Pakman

100 thoughts on “Facts Over Feelings: Gun Control Works

  1. The thing the Right-wing doesn't seem to understand is that criminals are like electricity: they take the path of least resistance. Guns are stupid easy to get and make crime stupid easy to commit. Grenades are super hard to get and thus make crime much more difficult to commit. Which is why basically every crime committed with explosives are homemade bombs.

  2. I’ve been active duty military for 18 years. Nobody is going to use their guns to overthrow our government. Nothing sold at bass pro shops is going to take out a tank or drone. But they like to use that as a 2nd excuse.

  3. 50% of American gun murders occur in 2% of our counties, and 50% of American gun murders are perpetrated by 4% of the population. Until we craft gun laws specifically to affect those areas, and that demographic, gun violence will not decrease. Rifles of all kinds, semi-automatic included, account for less than 3% of annual gun murders. 

    As someone playing Clue would say, the solution to the Whodunnit is "the African American male under the age of 35, in the inner city, with the cheap handgun."

  4. We have tons of gun control here in Canada and shootings are going up year by year plus stabbing's, last few years it really out of hand. Few years ago shootings were rare.
    You guys have had tons of guns for years but only since the 90's mass shootings have became an issue. Plus not saying mass shooting aren't a problem, in perspective more kids are killed by parents in one year than all mass shooting combined. Your more likely be killed by yourself or a loved one than a stranger. Gun control may or may not have an effect but what really needs to be fixed is the underlining issues, if people want to kill they will find a way. Also sometimes there are no solutions to problems sometimes you just got to accept that there's always gonna be murder, rape, war, extreme violence, etc.. of course you want to work to limit it as much as possible but the cost of freedom sometimes comes at a penalty.

  5. About half households in Switzerland have gun. But there is no much gun violence over there. Why? Because Swiss don't fetish their guns.
    p.s. I'm Canadian by the way. Many people have guns here. But they were all obtained through strict laws. We too don't fetish our guns.

  6. Gun nut cowards are incapable of using facts and logic. Their hysterical emotions about guns are more important than facts. ALWAYS

  7. The biggest hurdle with people pushing for gun control, is that we strictly have an amendment in the Constitution which explicitly says the people have the right to bear arms. People try to interpret it in many ways but that is the main difference between us and the rest of "civilized society" as you put it.

    The definition of an "assault weapon" is shaky at best, downright laughable at worst.

    Some lawmakers go off emotion alone, when they see a scary black military-looking rifle. The people writing the legislation for these weapon bans, actually do not know what they are talking about and need to be educated on the difference between different types of firearms.

    The truth is, actual "assault weapons" or "assault rifles" have been essentially banned since 1934 with the Nation Firearms Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act and 1986 with the Firearm Owners' Protection Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
    Both of these legislations have outright banned new sales of fully-automatic weapons. They are still able to be purchased but the 1986 FOPA caused their price to skyrocket and the only ones you are able to purchase now are those made before 1986 and go through even more extreme paperwork with the ATF to obtain them, making their costs in the tens of thousands of dollars.

    What most politicians mean without realizing it, is that they want a semi-automatic rifle ban, which is quite concerning and is an extremely hot topic of debate concerning its constitutionality. Any ban of this kind would likely be challenged in the Supreme Court and lose.

    It is my opinion that the founding fathers included the 2A as the second highest priority, only after the first (freedom of speech, etc) because they wanted an armed citizenry. Militias made up of everyday citizens with personal long firearms ensured the freedom of the American colonies. They stood up and fought for the liberty they sought after.

    I don't see it as a stretch that the founding fathers would want us to uphold those values that gave us the United States of America in the first place. An unarmed populace is easy to dominate by tyrants both foreign and domestic.

    I do believe there should be some lines drawn as to what a single individual can own by themselves though. Mainly what is defined today as "destructive devices" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device
    These include most explosives and unnecessarily destructive weapons. I do not consider semi-automatic rifles to be destructive devices under any context. In my opinion, they are the musket of modern times.

    I'm unsure how I feel about licenses, permits and insurance policies for guns.
    On one hand, I can see the benefit of making guns similar to automobiles (to which I make comparisons to frequently) in the sense that they require a license to operate, permit and/or registration to own and possibly even insurance to protect against misuse. I'm not instantly opposed to the idea though, depending on its implementation.

    Where do you find the good balance between not going against the 2nd amendment to allow law-abiding citizens to opportunity to purchase weapons as they wish but also prevent those who shouldn't have them from getting them?

  8. The argument for gun control is strictly about feelings. The mantra "think of the children" is an appeal to emotion. If gun control worked, Brazil would be much safer than the US. The fact is, crime and murder is strictly related to standards of living, not firearm accessibility. However, "progressive" liberals will overlook this comment to push their agenda of violating a human right to feel safer.

  9. David you make some good arguments here and I agree with most of them but when you say'' gun fetish ''your going to lose support from normal law abiding folks who own guns.

  10. The difference is that banning guns like in Australia or wherever else would inspire a terrorist movement the likes of which America has never seen before, if not outright civil war. Doing it would confirm all the conspiracy theories that say the Left wants to disarm the country, so that x or y agenda can be imposed without any worry. It would also indicate that the Left had enough political power to bring in things like limits on free speech and constitutional positions on any number of policy issues that the Right utterly despises.

    And all of this would happen because many Americans feel their freedoms are vastly better protected by themselves than by state authorities, and it isn't like there's a lack of evidence to support that view. We leftists ourselves point them out every day. The government of the United States does not work for the people in the way that it proclaims, and we all know it.

    At best, you'd get an extremely expensive situation with arms dumping, small scale terrorism, and huge resources wasted trying to fight both to little success in the short to medium term. It would be another war on drugs. At worst, you'd get large scale terrorism against elements of society that are perceived to support the bans, states refusing to cooperate for any number of reasons, no one's lives being saved at all etc etc.

    This has all come about because Americans no longer want to compromise. They don't see the other side of politics as opponents or intellectual rivals, but as actual enemies, both of themselves and of liberty/equality/whatever. You need to compromise on this, find some way of letting people keep weapons while keeping them off the streets. That is in fact possible, to boot.

  11. I bet all the white guys with AR's would develop wet panties if suddenly all the black guys turned up with AR's peacefully slung over their shoulders. 
    Maybe nobody should have them. They're only intended for killing people: not self-defense, not target shooting, not hunting. Efficient killing of people.

  12. So why are places with the strictest gun laws like Chicago, also the places with the most gun related violence? Why do places like Brazil have so many more gun deaths per capita with their stronger gun laws in place? Why does a country like Switzerland have so many guns yet so few homicides?

    The answer is simple. It's not guns that are the problem. The problem is in socio-economic disparity and poor education levels. Those two things chart perfectly with murder and other violent crimes, while the number of firearms and types does not.

    This is no different than the War on Drugs: Let's make it extra illegal to possess, or sell it rather than address the underlying issues that drive the problem (which ironically, the drug problems are also driven by socio-economic disparities and poor education levels).

    Why is no one ever talking about this fact? Time and time again, studies have shown this to be true but everyone just glazes over it in favor of their political flavor of the week superficial solutions.

  13. Here in the UK we have strict gun laws.Most police don't have guns. You don't have a right to own one, without a good reason.
    Death by firearms in UK approx: 2 per 1,000,000, in USA 125 in a 1,000,000. Gun laws work.

  14. These men enacted strict gun control, and then murdered over 262 million unarmed people.

    "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
    – Joseph Stalin

    "One man with a gun can control 100 without one"
    – Vladimir Lenin

    “Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
    – Fidel Castro

    "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”- Mao Zedong

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
    – Adolf Hitler

    "On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
    – Benito Mussolini

  15. When it comes to guns on Joe Rogan, Dan Crenshaw said that we leftist are the ones who put feelings before facts on guns! Was I fed misinformation?!

  16. I like how they go from saying it doesn't work, to saying it works so well because criminals in the UK use knives instead of guns. Btw when they talk about knives are they saying it would be better if the criminals shot people instead of stabbing them?

  17. Same tired arguments David, I'm disappointed as I expect more from you. And again, you use the term gun fetishists. You're using it either as an ad hominem attack, you're talking about a very small sexual niche, or you are confused. Why sink that low to name call? There is a balance between liberty and security and many of us don't want to give up certain freedoms for supposed security. The dead don't trump our rights.

  18. It definitely works…in countries that don't have corrupt governments with destructive foreign policies that result in civilian deaths and other war crimes.
    Don't New York and Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? …

    …no gun-related crimes in those areas. Nope.

    Pakman, you are an establishment tool, and it is nauseating.

    I don't own a gun, but law-abiding citizens should not be inconvenienced with compromises to the Second Amendment

  19. Mass shootings are overwhelmingly handguns. I think you mean public shootings. The problem is private owners aren’t going to register their guns. So, it is better to just frisk and make ppl go through metal detectors.

  20. It's not good guy with a gun vs bad guy with a gun …. in many more instances its regular ass guy bad temper. Without a gun this results in a fist fight, with guns it results in 2 families losing someone they care about, one to the grave and the other to a cell

  21. Very thorough, thought-provoking piece! THIS is what we need more of! You are eligible to be Senator Pakman. ⚖️

  22. Guns don't kill people. It's impossible to be killed by a gun. We are all invincible to bullets, and it's a miracle.

    Guns don't kill people. We are all immortal souls living temporarily in shelters of earth and meat.

    Guns don't kill people. Blood loss and organ damage do.

    Guns don't kill people. People kill guns.

    If you say guns kill people one more time, I will shoot you with a gun, and you will (coincidentally) die.

    A list of things that kill people: 1) Conceivably anything, 2) not guns.

  23. MAGA NRA Supporter: Yeah but in Terminator 2, when they were in the computer lab, T800 had a mini gun and shot up all those cop cars.
    Gun Control advocate: Yeah but the fatalities in that scene was 0.0

  24. Ya broken families have nothing to do with mass shootings right? Its irrelevant to the discussion that most of mass shooters didnt have a reliable father figure at home. Lmao lefties always gonna left

  25. I was waiting for the arguments refuting "only good guys follow the law" and "gun free zones are the most dangerous because no good guys have guns" . I would also like to know how Switzerland manages when they have a massive amount of guns and very low violence.

  26. While it may be the case gun regulations decrease gun homicides, I still find it a preferable idea to use different kinds of regulations. As advanced as we are in AI, ie GAN, we should be able to produce AI that is really good at differentiating between someone who's about to hurt you, and someone who's not(i.e an innocent person). So, why not install these in guns, require the state buying-back of dumb guns or upgrade the existing dumb guns of those customers for *free*(aka government-funded). Then, we get rid of all existing gun background checks and weapon restrictions once all have been made smart.

    If all weapons were literally incapable of being used on innocent people, why regulate them further? Let anyone have them at that point.

    Furthermore, I would say this would be more appealing to right-wingers potentially, first because I'm suggesting getting rid of all current regulations, and second:

    They want to be able to have guns for what? Self-defense, hunting, potentially if the state becomes tyrannical. So, design the guns to be allowed to fire only in those situations. AI can easily do this. If that's what you want the guns to be used for, why object to restricting it so that it's impossible for them to be used on innocent people? Unless of course, that's actually what you want the gun for….

    And Third:
    They love their property. If a thief is required to have hacking skills to use your gun, wouldn't you want that? Right now your dumb gun can easily be used against you as soon as that criminal gets access to it. Do you really want it to be stolen and used against you? If not, then requiring a thief to have additional skills(hacking skills) to use your gun would decrease the chances of that happening.

    I'd also suggest the idea that the gun requires some sort of biometric from its owner to be used. So, fingerprint, facial +body recognition through GAN(And yes, it can even learn to recognize you when you're bloodied and really need it, way before you even get to the gun since I get your concern it could take time before it recognizes you, which can mean life-or-death in a self-defense situation.) or some other biometric. Not only does this provide protection for the owner to ensure someone else doesn't use it, but it would be helpful to police in gun homicide/suicide investigations.

    Smartphones, cars, homes, watches etc, are all things already. Why are we lagging with making smart guns? When the owner goes crazy dumb, the smart gun will take over and refuse to fire.

  27. I'm extremely pro gun and this is probably the best anti gun argument I've ever heard. But it's not without it's flaws. I am absolutely for some restrictions like his example of grenades, rocket launchers things like that but a ban on AR-15 I can't get on board with. I've heard it's a weapon of war but i own one and it's certainly not a weapon of war. I've heard it's not a common hunting gun but I've only ever used it for ferral hogs and a have a short barrel AR for home protection. One aspect of the gun argument that has me extremely confused and maybe one of you wouldn't mind sharing your thought but how could you only want the government to have high powered rifle's but not the citizens? That's incoherent at least in my mind. Can anyone rationalize this?

  28. A whole generation of right-wing, anti-gun control folks will have to die off before we can change the culture. Another problem is the amount of guns that are already owned by Americans. The United States owns the largest percentage of guns per capita in the entire world. New gun laws will do nothing to correct this issue. Furthermore, the mindset of many Americans that are anti-gun control is that they would rather die fighting what they perceive to be their enemy, rather than give up the right to own as many guns as they please. As I have heard many of them say, "The government will have to pry my guns from my cold, dead hands before I will give up my rights to freedom". They believe the Second Amendment should give them unlimited access to as many guns as possible, with little to no restrictions.

  29. David, there are over 400 MILLION guns in your country. You’ve got more guns than all the men, women, and children combined. We here in Aus didn’t need to hunt down QUITE that number of firearms. The toothpaste is out of the tube, mate. Pandora’s box is open. The only viable solution you’ve got is to change gun culture in America.

    Teach people to actually lock up their firearms in safes; 80% of mass shooters get their weapon from friends or family…
    Stop making guns symbols of masculinity; Guns are TOOLS, and nobody posts FaceBook profile photos with their dremmels or power saws.
    Finally, maybe stop bullying and traumatizing children to the point where they grow up believing that shooting up the place is the answer…. I dunno. It might help.

  30. This is an interesting video that raises a ton of key issues, however instead of focusing on what the right is doing wrong why not focus on state specific regulation that would have a real impact on gun cultures in those states rather than overbearing gun laws that don’t fit specific states well. For example, Texas has a significantly different gun culture than say California so why use the same laws to govern both states. Also, we need a major push to enforce the current laws which would have prevented the parkland shooting had the police chief actually responded to the red flags presented to him, and I feel that focusing on that is much more impactful than simply applying broad gun regulations that have failed in the past, for example in prohibition taxes were put on guns to keep them out of the hands of criminals like Al Capon however he ended up being able to afford weapons like the Thompson even though normal citizens couldn’t.

  31. 'FRAUD IS THEFT WITH A SMILE' =MAINSTREAM MEDIA CRYING, B-TCHING on GUN CONTROL &  UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AMENDING the CONSTITUTION; it's ALWAYS the "LONE WOLF" 1 CRAZY DUDE:   JFK murdered by elaborate PLOT, a VERY Small group of megalomaniac sociopath MASTERMINDS, but NO, it's the '1 LONE WOLF' who somehow pulled it off alone; 9-11-2001, etc. (They Have a LONG RESUME, SAME 1 GANG, you already know who).
    "When we use logic they use emotions.
    When we use emotion, they use lies."
    ~Thomas Jefferson (MAGA BITCHES)

  32. We Need Metal Detectors IN ALL Our Schools, IMMEDIATELY! Has Anyone Noticed, that MOST of the mass shootings in the last 20 years have occurred in Schools!! Colleges Included!

  33. Trump says he’s soo rich, then pay for a set of metal detectors for each school nationwide!! Show our country you know what matters, Our Children!! Right Now most of our country is seriously questioning whether or not Trump has any clue what is important to us Americans!!! ➡️🤬Trump

  34. Americans have had easy access to guns since our founding, access to guns did not change, we did. Ask yourself why our society changed so much to the point our youth are gunning down their peers. If you are intellectually honest you will agree with most if not all of these reasons:
    1. The removal of our moral compass in schools and society
    2. Teaching our children life is an accident and there is no real meaning or purpose
    3. Broken Families
    4. Drug abuse
    5. Violence in movies and video games
    6. Children being put on psychotropic drugs
    7. Children living on their phones and being socially isolated

  35. I have noticed the increase of mass shootings from hate follows the increase of social media. Before social media these people were mostly self isolated. Nobody wanted to hear their trope. Now they can find like minded people 24/7 in their own bedroom. People like them who Troll each other to mass murder and show them how. That is one major issue to address right now.

  36. Or how about just ban guns? Austrlia had a mass shooting in 1996. They banned guns after and there hasn't been one since

  37. I was a cop in a city with some of the most strict gun laws and basically the highest crime rate in the nation. Furthermore, seeing how this country voted for Trump and half the country is just going along with it I have no faith that this country will not end up with a totalitarian government that oppresses the people. There bill of rights is an acknowledgement that government should not be trusted to do what's right and we the people must maintain the ability to keep the government in check. Hence the second amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I believe nationwide restrictive gun laws may offer some temporary public relief in the short term but Trump has shown how quickly people can be borderline ready for civil war not to mention one day there US shores will be breached in war. It has not happened yet but it is inevitable.

  38. truth is, people are just still riding this macho cowboy fantasy; they dont even know the NRA has them brainwashed like suckers. it's never really about "freedom" and the second amendment. it's a $50B INDUSTRY! that's why they have so much money to lobby in congress

  39. can we please do more than just CRIMINAL background checks? You should need a LICENSE to own a gun and one of the requirements for that should be a safe mental health history. You should have to get a psychiatrist to vouch for your mental state.

  40. "You never hear about mass killings with grenades", ever heard of the Oklahoma City Bombing? 3x the body count of Las Vegas shooting using improvised explosives.

  41. I think you have out proved your point. Killings will occur regardless of the bans, and unfortunately is something you can not prevent. You are as partisan as the otherside. You've ignored the overwhelming statistic of crimes prevented with private weapons, and have not shown all facts surrounding gun control (Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis). You've mischaracterized most pro-gun supporters by saying they dont listen to facts. Very unimpressive segment. I'm really hoping you can argue against actual facts presented from the other side next time.

  42. I love how intellectually backward you can be david. You are the same person that prob says not all muslims are terrorists or not all back people commit crimes and they shouldn’t be punished for the few violent people of their communities but gun owners you spin on your heels because thats fine for your politics. You love to play off how the “right” are one note caricatures and break down the arguments against gun control into sound bytes like the left doesnt do the EXACT same thing. And lets be real the lefts position on abortion isn’t nuanced or “complicated” its simple abortions for all regardless of the circumstances. And now you are doing the same it boils down to let me punish the lawful because of the few who commit wanton violence. But to the matter at hand: “facts over feelings” fact: the 94 assault weapons ban didn’t change any crime stats, hell columbine happened when it was in effect. hence when in 2004 it was brought back up it ended because the statistics proved that it changed nothing. Fact: the NFA has been in effect since the 30s and hasn’t kept automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals. and fact: places like Illinois California and even here in Massachusetts haven’t prevented gun crime because say it with me now. Law is not designed to be proactive it is designed to RETROactive meaning until a crime is committed and proven to be committed law enforcement cannot commence. Another fact is statistics prove that violent crime drops when the public has access to weapons. So no gun control solves and changes nothing other than to disarm the populace or turn many of them into potential criminals.

  43. So I mean, just throwing the typical talking points around has been done for like, decades now?

    What's a plan to get the ball rolling, assuming I agree we should? How would we even bring this into reality? What's the start?

    Everyone's gangsta until we ask "Ok, so then what's the plan?"

  44. At least you're being honest, David, in saying that it boils down to cultural attitudes/opinions towards firearms (in general). The point is, American attitudes don't mirror what you're desiring. America has civil liberties (not only the 2A) that other countries in the "civilized" world can only envy — many of which are in the First Amendment. I personally hope that what makes us, as Americans, stays unique. I don't care about other countries that water down their freedoms or trade 'em away in a heartbeat (purely out of emotional fear).

    You can either choose freedom, or safety in slavery. Freedom is a spectrum.

  45. Trump for prison in 2020.I prefer presidents who are not criminal's. 🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒🔒

  46. I’ve had this debate before, what about gun collectors, I never had a good argument against it. Except they shouldn’t have bullets.

  47. Ok David, pro gun guy here. A lot of the things your saying I could get behind except the insurance. I fear if insurance was mandated anti gun groups would pressure insurance companies not to carry gun insurance and the few that did would have to charge more than the average American could afford.

  48. Dave Chappelle said it best in his new special. If we want stricter gun legislation, all the black people have to buy guns

  49. "restrictions on the most deadly weapons" is the state saying they want to make sure the people are more easily subdued. People defend combat capable firearms because combat is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Pointing out the fact that most gun death is common murder with basic weapons is not a distraction. The distraction is the mass shootings, and the goal is to disarm you.

  50. If we put aside our feelings and look at the facts, it's clear that when people have guns a tyrannical government cannot rise.

  51. There have been many mass killing caused by explosives the fact that grenades are banned did not stop them from happening.

  52. 4:23 – I can not believe David had the gall the says that. You're a bad person for wanting this stuff. You mean like calling a person a "child murder" and saying that they are the same as the shooter themselves? Is that the type of behavior you are referring to?

  53. the bottom line is, the psychopathic military & police will NEVER give up THEIR guns. The people MUST be able to defend themselves FROM their oppressive government! If you don't see where this is heading, YOU WILL SOON. History shows us what happens to a population once their government disarms it's citizenry. Total tyranny sets in & the people CANNOT defend themselves FROM THEIR PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALLY INSANE WAR MONGERING GOV!

  54. Watching David: brings up “right wing talking points”. Addresses none. makes blanket statement about gun laws working, provides no sources.
    Watching Steven crowder: presents news, makes claim, immediately provides sources on screen with links

  55. Obviously firearm legislation will reduce firearm related injuries, but will firearm legislation reduce overall related injuries? Here's an article from CNN ​https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/15/asia/new-zealand-gun-control-intl/index.html talking about the gun suicide rates in Australia dropping 80% since the gun buyback programs, and here are articles from Lifeline in Australia https://www.lifeline.org.au/about-lifeline/lifeline-information/statistics-on-suicide-in-australia and the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/australias-rising-suicide-rate-sparks-calls-for-national-target-to-reduce-deaths talking about how overall suicides are up over the last 10 years.

  56. Yes, Beau of the Fifth Column likes to point out that the root of the problem is the association of guns with manliness in much of the country…

  57. Too bad it doesn't work when there's 400 mil guns in the country. When every state has different laws making gun control pointless. The truth is we wont know how effective it is unless the laws are the same everywhere.

  58. Expanding the territory of gun free zones will not stop the killing, people kill people. People have used fertilizer to kill people, people have pushed people onto oncoming traffic and subways, people stab other people, people strangle other people, people run over people using trucks, people hijack airplanes and smash them into buildings where people worked, i can go on. Evil exists, some people outside america really hate us for having been born this way, as americans. If all of america were gun free we would become slaves. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Being armed is essential to being free.

    Roast this post, debate, heckle or whatever you want but just know people kill people.

  59. David, grenades are not designed to kill. They are designed to wound. A dead soldier is dead but a wounded soldier takes two or three to carry them to safety and each injury is four combatants removed from conflict. They are also designed to breech cover that protects from small arms fire. They are not for intertroop combat, stop playing Battlefied and actually talk to someone that has used a grenade. Once you finish doing that compare the murder, assault, rape and gun ownership rates between Montana and Chicago. Your wrong about mass shootings, handguns are must commonly used, because mass shootings involve 4 or more injuries not fatalities. Your such a grifter. I don't want your earphones.

  60. US is so lucky to have to have the 2nd Amendment. You really think the Democrats wants gun control so that they can protect you.

    NO! They want gun control so you can be defenseless when they want to control you.

  61. You want USA to be safe? Start disciplining your kids and start eradicating hate crimes. Cause hate crimes is what made those Racist people commit mass shootings.

  62. Hillary Clinton wants gun control?

    LOL I wonder why?

    Considering the fact that she defended a rapist!

    NO!! WE WILL NOT GIVE UP OUR GUN RIGHTS SO WE CAN KEEP EVIL PEOPLE LIKE HILLARY CLINTON OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE

  63. Hold on David, you just clearly stated that fully automatic & burst-fire firearms aren’t easily accessible for most people (strict laws $ costly requirements to obtain them). But didn’t you and just about every other liberal/democrat anti-gun outlet falsely claim that various past mass-shootings were committed with full-auto “assault rifles” ? Which one is it?

  64. Real quick, you guys dont trust the police or the government, right?

    So you want to hand over your only means of defense, to the people you dont trust?

  65. Disappointed in the lack of research…

    Try the years of sectarian violence in N.Ireland using grenade like devices and IED's…

    UK mainland: Raoul Moat used guns and grenades to kill 2 female police officers, all illegal in the UK doesn't stop people getting hold of these things and for the most part our police officers walk around unarmed and can't defend themselves properly from knife attacks.

    London bridge Islamic Terror attack was just using knives, 48 injured – 21 critically. Police who were already on site were unable to stop them since again unarmed – most police and PCSO's opted to run away.

    Manchester Arena bombing, 800+ injured, 112 hospitalized, 21 killed. Bombs and grenades are banned but doesn't stop someone using them to injure an arena full of children.

    Well over a hundred grenade attacks in Sweden in the last 10 years – the worst in Europe but other European countries also similarly affected… grenades are banned but throughout the EU but doesn't make a difference.

    If you take away guns then they just ignore the law or use something else to kill like a truck filled with rocks/bags of stone for more weight or ignore your ban and get guns and grenades anyway. Here in the UK their busy banning knives, so now I have trouble getting a filleting knife for preparing meat while criminals are walking around with machetes.

  66. "… mass killing with a hand grenade?"
    Well… I don't remember exactly when it happened, but organized crime groups used grenades against each other in Sweden recently. Once, someone chucked a grenade through the window of an apartment belonging to people not related to the gang being targeted, killing a 4-year-old. I don't think the parents or other adults in the house were (seriously) injured, but if there were enough people in that apartment at the time to fit the description of a mass killing, it could have been one.

    But: That was a one-off thing. I'm not aware of it having happened before or since.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *