Articles, Blog

Maybe I’m Wrong About Guns: A Live Debate

Hello, and welcome to
“Maybe I’m Wrong About Guns,” a live debate where we try
to think through a thorny, divisive issue while,
at the same time, trying to keep an open mind. Welcome to those of you
who are joining us here in Vice’s Brooklyn
headquarters, and welcome to those of you
joining us on Facebook live. My name is Krisnha Andavolu, and you may know me from
such shows as “Weediquette.” And you might be thinking
to yourself, “What’s the weed guy doing
trying to talk about an issue as complex and as grave
as gun violence in America? And furthermore,
what’s the point of debating? What difference does
any of this make?” So before I introduce
our debaters, Chelsea and Maj, I wanted to take a second
to try to explain where I’m coming from,
what we’re trying to do today. Gun violence in America
is a seemingly intractable issue with a complex history
and tragic real-life stakes. It’s something that’s often cast
in black-and-white in the media. And I believe that the answers,
or people’s opinions, really, lie somewhere in between,
in the gray. So, I’m hoping to take this
opportunity to understand the strong opinions that we have
to understand what we can do and what we should do
to decrease gun violence and gun deaths in America. So in a sense, this debate, this
event is a kind of experiment. I want to know if we can
make media that emerges from a self-inquisitive
point of view, where you and I recognize that even though
we walk into this room with a set of pre-formed
opinions and lived experiences, that perhaps, possibly, maybe,
there’s more to this story, and we might gain more insight if we’re willing to inhabit
the reasoning of others. So, why then a debate? Why pit arguments
against each other? Doesn’t that sort of just feed
into the us-versus-them mentality of politics today? I don’t think debate
has to be that. I think this debate is about
activating our brains to consider viewpoints that
might not conform to our own. So in service of that,
we’re gonna track how people’s minds are
changing through this debate. We’ve devised a format,
or it’s our format, frankly, where before each topic,
we’re gonna take a tally of how the audience
feels about the topic. We’re gonna debate two tonight. And at the end of that topic, we’ll re-tally
what people think. So you’ll vote twice —
at the beginning and at the end of each topic. And in the meantime,
we’ll also field questions from Facebook comments. And we’ll take those questions
and put it to our debaters. So, please, ask questions,
interrogate the sources, fact-check if you can, and question everything
that’s put out in front of you. We’re hoping this to be
interactive, live, informative, civil, and useful
to sort of understanding where we are today
and where we want to go. And a second kind of motive is to understand
that our voices matter, that our opinions matter, and that we can exercise those
voices and opinions by voting. So next Tuesday is
National Voter Registration Day, and we at Vice
are gonna do everything we can to inform our audience
and inform as many people as we can about
how to register to vote, what are the issues
that are at stake, including gun violence
in America, and getting people out
to the polls come November. And so we have two
really great debaters who’ve been kind enough
to join us. To my right is Chelsea Parsons. She’s the Vice President —
Let me get the card — of Gun Violence
Prevention Policy at the Center For
American Progress. Tell me a bit about yourself,
Chelsea. Yes, thank you for having me,
for being here. I lived in this neighborhood
18 years ago. I’m very excited
to be back. Mm-hmm. As you said, I run
the Gun Violence Prevention Policy Program at the Center
for American Progress, which is a DC-based
progressive think tank that focuses on
a wide variety of issues that really have
a real-world impact on people’s
lives every day. So I have been in this role
doing this work for about 5 1/2 years, starting right
after the shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary School. And to my left
is Maj Toure. He is a gun-rights education and rights activist
from Philadelphia who founded an organization
called Black Guns Matter. Maj, tell me a little bit
about yourself. All right, well, first,
thanks for having me. Appreciate y’all
for coming out. Basically, you know,
we started seeing some of the same problems with trauma,
some of the same problems going around the country
before this — you know, making music. I would see, you know, guys
have simple possession charges. They’re going to jail
not because they did something unlawful with a firearm,
but they just had the firearm. They were missing
the information — guys that had never been
convicted of a crime before, ever, right? And now they have a felony
in their jacket. You know, they got that, you know scarlet letter
on them and things like that. So we created
an organization where we give
free firearm safety, conflict resolution,
de-escalation, and just some more healing
for some of the issues that are going on
in urban America, especially around firearms. So we started
the organization. We’ve gotten everybody
involved in mental health — You know, stability
is a better way to say it, voting, you know,
and a lot of the — you know, the early issues
that you were saying, even with marijuana,
things like that. ‘Cause all of these things are
related, you know what I mean? So, you know,
we started it. We’re crowdsourced, and we’ve
been to about 50 cities, giving these free classes
around the country. Great. Well, thanks again
for both of you for joining us. So we’ll dive right in. The way this is gonna work
is I’m going to assert a statement,
make an assertion, and that statement you will
either agree or disagree with, and then our debaters
will debate on the “agree” or “disagree” side. So the first statement
reads as such. Excuse me. “Because criminals don’t
follow laws, stricter gun laws
won’t lessen gun violence.” So, we will open up
the polls for voting. If you agree
with this statement, leave a comment on the
Facebook Live page, “#agree.” If you disagree with this
assertion, “#disagree.” So again, the assertion is, “Because criminals
don’t follow laws, stricter gun laws
won’t lessen gun violence.” So, Chelsea, if you’ll
please kick us off. I disagree.
Oh, I’m — Okay, I’m sorry,
one more thing. So we’ll leave the polls open
for a couple minutes, and then we’ll come back
to the poll at the end
to see what the results are. So, Chelsea, please — I think
you can stand up if you like. Can I sit?
You can sit. Do your thing.
Okay. Thank you. All right, and you’re
timing me? Great.
Yes, you have five minutes. So, I disagree. We know that gun laws
are effective at helping
reduce gun deaths, and we know this for
a couple of different reasons. The first is if you take
an international comparison. Compare the United States with other high-income
nations around the world, you’ll see that on every measure
of gun violence, whether it’s homicide,
suicide, the United States
far outranks our peer nations. So the gun-murder rate
in this country is 25 times higher
than in peer nations. Young people
in this country are 82 times more likely
to be murdered with a gun than their peers
in other countries, right? And so we know that we aren’t a more violent
culture, generally. We don’t have more violent
media and movies and video games, right? We don’t have more —
higher rates of mental illness than our other countries,
but we have a lot more guns. And we have gun laws that are
substantially weaker than the laws
of other countries. The second way that we know
that gun laws can be effective at reducing gun violence
is actually a comparison within the United States
from state to state. So federal law
sets the floor when it comes
to certain aspects of gun laws. But states are free to legislate
in this area, as well, and there’s a wide variety
from state to state when it comes to gun laws. You have states that have very,
very strict laws in place, states like New York, and then you have places
like Louisiana that have very few regulations
on firearm ownership. And what we know is that
when you compare states that have stronger gun laws to states
that have weaker gun laws, rates of gun deaths are higher,
generally speaking, than the states
that have weaker laws. And so we did some research
a couple years ago looking at data
from the CDC and FBI and found that the 10 states
with the weakest gun laws collectively have an average
rate of gun violence that’s three times higher
than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws. And so there’s something at play
there that I think suggests that gun laws can be effective
at reducing gun violence. The other example
that I’ll point out which I think
is really powerful is the specific experience
of one kind of law that was repealed in Missouri
but implemented in Connecticut. And it’s a law called
a permit to purchase. So it’s a requirement that
before you’re allowed to purchase a handgun, you first have to go through
a background check and obtain a permit
to be able to do so. Missouri had this law
in place, repealed it, and gun murders in the state
went up 25% as a result. On the flip side,
when Connecticut implemented this kind of law,
gun murders fell 40%. And so there’s a lot
of evidence that suggests that certain kinds
of stronger gun laws can be effective at reducing the rates of gun deaths
in this country. And the other thing I’ll say
about the argument that we shouldn’t
have gun laws because criminals don’t follow
the law is that that argument can be made about
any kind of law, right? We don’t say that we shouldn’t
have speeding — you know, speeding limits
or stop signs because people will always
run through them or people
will always speed, right? Laws are in place to set
expectations for conduct and to set kind of norms
for behavior, right? And so I think that
it’s important that we have laws in place that do that
with respect to guns. And that just because
a particular kind of law won’t be 100% effective
100% of the time doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t
try to make policy that can have an impact at reducing rates
of gun violence in this country. The last thing I wanted to say
on this particular point is that when
we’re talking about how can we reduce gun violence
in this country, I think we too often —
the debate focuses only on laws. We need to make more laws and
more laws and more laws, right? And I think that there’s a huge
other piece of this, which is looking
at programmatic approaches to address different types
of violence and gun violence, right, to talk about local
violence-intervention programs, right, that really deal with and help address
root causes of violence. You know, talking about programs
and educational opportunities around the issue of suicide. 2/3 of gun deaths
in this country are suicides, and so if we’re just
focusing on laws, we’re missing other parts
of smart policy and smart ideas for how
we can address gun violence and reduce gun deaths
in this country that don’t necessarily rely
on Congress or state legislators or local lawmakers
to enact more laws to do that. So, in my final seven seconds,
I would just say that, you know, I disagree with the premise
that we shouldn’t try to enact laws
to reduce gun violence simply because they won’t always
be followed or effective. Okay.
Thank you, Chelsea. And, Maj,
your opening statement. Yeah, I agree
with the premise. -You agree with the premise.
-Absolutely. For one, you know,
you got places like — I know she
brought up, you know, a few states
and things like that, but the biggest example we have
of places that I’ve been to. I’ve moved to Chicago
for a month and a half to do
conflict resolution. They have every law. They have
all of the gun laws. Their homicide rate
is through the roof. You know what I mean?
So, no, I do agree with that. If I’m the bad guy,
I don’t care about the rules. That’s it.
It’s like rules against murder. Like, whether it’s a knife,
a gun, a bat, hands, all those
different things. There’s rules there already.
That’s number one. Number two, you know,
just like she said, you know, towards the end of — you know,
around the seven seconds left, she said, you know, we have to find out
more productive approaches. That means that more laws
are not working because we need something
more productive. If this was working and we keep
making more of them, then we would see a drastic
decline, and we are not. Right? So there’s some — there’s some
heavy weight behind, like, you know, some of the work
that we’re doing with Black Guns Matter, as well as
Walk the Talk America, which is focusing
on the mental-health component and making sure
that the gun community is heavily involved
in addressing, policing our own. “Hey, 70-year-old granddad
that was in several wars, hey, dementia’s
kicking in.” Maybe we should
talk to them about, “Hey, let me clean
your guns this weekend. Hey” — Coming up
with productive ways of getting those firearms — just like you take the keys out
of your 70-year-old granddad’s, you know, hands ’cause,
“Granddad, you have dementia.” You know, things of that. So those are more
productive avenues. But as far as, like,
you know, like, saying, “If we continue
to add more laws,” because no law’s
gonna be completely 100%. At a certain point,
the sun is gonna stop. We’re used to it.
We’re contingent upon it. You know, we’ve consistently
been around it, you know, but at a certain point —
It’s — It’s a star. It’s gonna go away. So it’s not 100%, even though you’ve placed
your entire thing around it. I think that the key component
here is we can — we can throw stats out. Stats is cute, and —
and I like stats. You know, math is math
sometimes. The problem is if we put
so much leverage on that to the point where
we are also utilizing tools to stop people’s
personal rights — We live in America. I don’t —
I don’t live anywhere else. You know, we’re talking about
these other countries and things of that nature,
that’s not where I live. I live in North Philly. I’m concerned about the person
that is experiencing the trauma from the ignorance
around that firearm. So if that means — You know, Wilmington got with the CDC
in 2013, and they did a study. And they showed exactly, “These are the people
that are doing the same — those small amount of guys,
bad guys, that are doing the crimes, and they keep doing
the same crime. How can we adjust?
How can we help them socially? How can we help them
financially? How can we help
get them jobs?” Then that’s a solution. But to add another rule
on to that scenario doesn’t solve it for a person
that already feels as if, you know — or a group of people
that already feel like — “This trauma.
I can do this. It’s cool.
I’m not gonna get caught. I got bail money,”
things of that nature. So, no, I agree. If I’m the bad guy,
I do not care about more rules. And, you know,
I just think it’s — You know, it’s a violation
of people’s rights. It’s a violation of people’s
rights, to continue to add more restrictions to people
that are not the bad guy, that want to protect themselves
from the bad guy. Just ’cause I live around
a bad guy, I’m — I’m, like,
cool with the killer? Like, I’m supposed to just
be okay with it? No, I want the means — the most effective means
to defend my life, my loved ones,
and things of that nature. You know, so I think
we’re hamstringing. I get when people that have more
of an anti-gun perspective because they’re, you know,
moving more after the trauma and the fear
or their unawareness of what a firearm
actually is. But, you know, those people tend
to move in a way that violates other people’s rights,
as opposed to just the — the guys or the girls
doing the bad things. Our job is to find solutions
that we can, you know, limit the trauma
as well as preserve and protect, you know,
the human right to self-defense. Okay.
And so, you guys all voted how you feel before both
Chelsea and Maj started. And we’re gonna ask you to vote
again after they are finished debating this topic to see
if minds have been changed. So now that we’ve done
these opening statements, I’ll push it back to you,
Chelsea, for two minutes to offer
counter arguments to what Maj was talking about. Yeah, except first,
I want to point out places where we agree. Sure. So, I absolutely agree
with the point that we need
to do much more and invest a lot more —
we’re talking about money — investing
in community-based programs that are helping people deal with the trauma
of living in neighborhoods that experience high rates
of gun violence. And that is something
that has not happened. We know that there are a lot
of programs that are really effective at helping
in a lot of these communities. I also agree with the need
to really engage — and this is something
that shouldn’t be me engaging. Like, I love that
you do this, right? It — You know, engaging
with gun owners and gun dealers and gun ranges about
looking for signs of people who are in trouble, right, who kind of need
some intervention, who may be kind of heading
into a period, you know, of having
suicidal impulses, right? And so, kind of, that is
a really big part of this, and it’s something
that I know that there is increasingly
more effort going into that. And there’s
a lot of programs, kind of partnerships
between gun dealers and suicide
prevention advocates, which I think are really
smart and important. You know, the other —
what I would say is, you know, you mentioned Chicago, and I think the Chicago example
really, to me, highlights the need to not
just have states dealing with — with this. You know, a lot of the guns
that end up being used on the street in Chicago
come from Indiana, right? And so there — we have
this movement of guns around the country from states
that have weaker laws to states with stronger laws. And so part of I think what
we need to do and part of the — I think we need
to put more focus in these conversations
on the gun industry itself, on the fact that we have
an industry with dealers and manufacturers
and importers that it’s almost entirely
unregulated at this point because the federal
agency responsible for that can’t really do it. And so I think
there needs to be more — we’re talking
about more laws. I-I’m not just talking
about laws that impact
an individual gun owner, but I think we need
to look at the… Chelsea, I’m gonna have to
cut you off here. …industry, as well.
Gotcha. So, Maj, what are your
counter-arguments? I think we got to stop telling
states what states should do with the people
that live in that state. It’s nothing —
You know, I think we — There’s a great book called
“Please Stop Helping Us,” right? And what we’re running into
is people saying, “Oh, there needs
to be inter– intervention on this area,
this area.” Okay, if you’re
from the communities, a community-based thing
that you have to stop having this savior complex
of coming into communities, telling people how
to solve their things. I think as we get —
especially on the federal level, I’m not a fan
of more government. I’m not a fan of
people saying, “Oh, you should continue to do
more of those things because we as big government
say so.” I disagree with that. I also… Yeah, there are — there are
things that are being done, but there’s other organizations
that they know that we have
the data that shows, “These are the people —
the bad guys — that are doing the thing,”
you know what I mean? One, instead of even putting
more money up, you can just keep those guys
there and rehabilitate them. It’s, like, simple, you know? As opposed to, again,
letting them back outside because if they haven’t
be rehabbed — Now, I think a lot of times,
the reason why that’s not happening is because
big organizations that say they’re gun-violence-
prevention organizations also have stock in a lot
of prisons, you know? So, I think there’s a — there’s
a-a huge contradiction there. And, you know, stop letting — let the communities deal
with the communities. Stop trying to tell
other communities that you are not from, that you are not in,
that you are not a part of, how to fix their problems,
you know? So — So that whole,
“The guns are coming from everywhere else,”
thing — a gun is a gun. I don’t —
I ain’t worried about the — the bullet
with my name on it. I’m worried about the bullet
with no name on it. You feel me?
So I think it’s — You know, it’s —
it’s a bit of a contradiction, but there’s areas where
organizations like hers and mine can work together
to set a much better precedent. Well, I’m happy to hear
that there is some level of agreement
between you guys ’cause I think
that’s the thing — the one thing I think
we all agree on is that gun-violence deaths
can go down and should. So, with that, I think we’ll
turn to some audience questions. So, you guys on Facebook have
left a ton of comments on — on the live stream. And I’ll start the first one
to you, Maj, and I think it’s
an interesting question because we are talking
about the 2nd Amendment, right? If — If we think
about the gun debate, you can’t ignore a foundational
right in our Constitution. So, Ori Rav asks,
“Can we be intellectually honest and believe that
the founding fathers had the foresight to understand what guns would be
capable of today?” See, yeah. They — There were full-auto
machine guns then. There were?
Yes. You got the Puckle gun,
you got the — I mean, there’s —
they got to do — That person doesn’t know
anything about guns, you know what I mean?
Mm-hmm. And so a lot of times,
what happens is we think that because, you know,
that there weren’t belt-feds and things of that nature
back then, we go, “Oh, well,
they didn’t mean…” Well, under
that same logic, they didn’t mean that freedom
of speech — they didn’t know you were gonna, like,
use these sweatshop phones. They didn’t know we were
gonna have those, so does my freedom of speech
stop here when I’m Tweeting something that I want
to talk about? See, that’s a — that’s another
contradiction, you know? So, y-yeah, I do think
that they had the foresight. I think that those guys,
with their contradictions — this is a black man in America
saying this — with those
clear contradictions — freedom,
equality for all men, oh, yeah, slavery,
too, right? So I think there’s
a contradiction there, but those documents as-is, I do think that when you
isolate it to the 2nd Amendment, you know, I do think
that there was some foresight because some of those things
were already in existence. Right?
You know, and if not, again, the things that we’re talking
and communicating with now would not be applicable
under the 1st Amendment. So… But there are constraints
on the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment
isn’t absolute. When it’s in
the public interest to — calling “fire” in a theater
is sort of the classic example. That’s against the law. It’s prosecutable.
So — You still have the free–
See, this is the thing. You have the freedom
to do these things. Talk about foresight,
those founding fathers doubled down
on that Bill of Rights. Those are things that are not
granted by government. Those are things that,
“Hey, guys, if you guys get stupid in 200 years,
right, double down on this. This is not something that
your government gives you. This is your God-given, inalienable right
to express yourself.” So, yeah, freedom of expression
of freedom of choice does not mean freedom
from consequence, but it’s still a freedom
that you innately are born with. Mm-hmm.
And so, to you, Chelsea, we have Tim Soderholm
who’s asking, “What is your ‘simple
safety feature’ for guns?” What is my simple safety
feature for guns? Um… I don’t know that I absolutely
understand that question. I think when I am thinking about
and talking about how — how do we make laws
that can have the impact of making gun ownership
or making, you know, kind of, guns safer
in this country, right? We have 300 million guns
or so in private hands
right now at best count. You know, I think
it’s a matter of having laws
and policies in place that make the ownership of
those guns as safe as possible. So part of that is, you know,
considering what are the weapons that we think should be
available to civilians at this point
in our country. Part of that is, you know,
what are the responsibilities that we ask of gun owners
when they choose to own guns, when it comes to
carrying those guns, when it comes to
storing them at home, when it comes to trying
to prevent against theft. Can you give us
some specific examples? Yeah, so, for example,
gun theft is a huge problem. This is — I don’t know
if this is something that comes up in your classes,
but gun theft is on the rise — both theft from gun stores. ATF said robberies at gun
stores are up 175% over the last couple years, and thefts from
individual gun owners. Particularly, people are
having their guns stolen out of their cars
very frequently. This happens a lot in Atlanta
outside of stadiums, right? Guns get stolen. So, a gun is a weapon,
and it’s a durable good, right? So if a gun gets stolen,
there’s 20, 30 years of that gun being able
to be used by whomever to — perhaps for criminal purposes,
perhaps to kind of, you know, target
particular neighborhoods, right? And so I think it’s
really important if we’re going to have an
individual right to bear arms, which we have
in this country — the Supreme Court has found
that to be true, right, that has to come with
some responsibilities to help make sure
that those guns aren’t being stolen
at such a high rate, right, that they’re not ending up in
places where they shouldn’t be. And so those are the kinds
of things, when I’m thinking about safety, that I —
that I try to focus on. And I’ll do one last question
from the audience, and I’ll pose it
to both of you. Mykey Wolf Kemper asks, “Are the bullets
not gonna be spoken of? Really?” Which is to say we’ve been
talking about guns. We’ve been talking
about gun laws. But bullets
are pretty important, too, given that they are
the actual projectile device that causes harm. So I’ll start with you, Maj.
Like, what about bullets? Well, see, again,
you got to tie into it. So, for example, everybody’s
had this media-mass thing about, like, hollow points. Like, me, personally,
I carry hollow points. Hollow points are
self-defense rounds. They do not over-penetrate,
right? But mass media and a lot
of politicians that are either, “A,” unaware of what — the ballistics of what
a hollow point actually does ’cause they don’t shoot or don’t
know anything about firearms, they’ll say, “Those are illegal,
right, in most states.” Y’all’s state,
you have a slave state, especially in the boroughs
that you guys are in, right, in regards
to the 2nd Amendment. They’ll say,
“You cannot have hollow tips.” And they’ll tell you
to get full metal jacket. Full metal jacket
actually over-penetrates. So let’s say the guy’s coming
to rape you and you’re a young woman
and you want to — you know,
you’re a lawful citizen because they said that
hollow points are unlawful. You have
full metal jackets. You defend your life
from the guy trying to rape you, and that round
goes through that person and then hits the innocent
girl behind him. Now, you were trying
to defend your life, but the politicians said,
because they don’t know about ballistics, they say,
“You need to have FMJ — full metal jacket —
that over-penetrates.” See, these are the type
of contradictions, because we’re on polar opposites
a lot of times, and there’s people
that are aware of that in positions
of power that just — It’s about making
the public unaware and not as informed
and powerful as possible in regards
to defending theirself. Chelsea,
what do you think? Yeah, I am looking for agreement
all over the place. So I am gonna agree with you
on the point that we do have way too many
policymakers who are writing bills about guns
that don’t know anything about the mechanics of firearms,
which is a really big problem. And — And, you know,
I do a lot of work with — with legislators,
and, you know, they’re very well-meaning people
who want to have a bill. Like, “I need a gun bill,”
right? And, you know, a lot of — There is a definite need
for more education for folks who are trying to make policy
about the mechanics of firearms to know more
what they’re talking about. You know, the — the place
where I often talk about ammunition
is in the context of high-capacity magazines. So, this is something
that we talk about a lot. You know, these are often used in the very high-profile
mass shootings. When you have
high-capacity magazines, which usually is defined
as 10 or more rounds, I tend to talk about them
like kind of 30 or more rounds, right? Those are what enable
assault rifles to be particularly deadly in these
kinds of mass shootings, right? Because you have a person —
often somebody who actually doesn’t know a whole lot about
guns to begin with — who is able to fire a lot
of rounds very, very quickly without having to reload. And what we know is that
in a lot of these cases, when they do have to stop
and reload is when somebody
is able to intervene. And so, you know, it — it is one of the things
that we advocate for is to have more restrictions
on magazine capacity for this purpose of trying
to reduce the lethality of some of
these shooting incidents. Okay.
And so now we’ll move on to sort of final statements
about the assertion that because criminals
don’t follow laws, stricter guns
won’t lessen gun violence. So I believe —
Wait, you have
something to say. You go first.
Yeah, so, just real quick. Okay.
All right. Go ahead.
So, your — your definition of a high-capacity magazine
at 10 rounds or more — my Glock have —
I can carry 16 in it. That’s standard. That’s a made-up term,
like “gun violence,” like “assault rifle” —
those are made-up terms. That’s not —
An assault is an action. My gun does not get up
and start assaulting people. So when you —
But it enables
an assault if it’s — So does a knife.
So does high cholesterol. I think those might be
out of scope as far as the comparisons —
Not out of scope. So — So take London,
for example. Less guns, knifings
through the roof. But fewer deaths. But back to the — back to
the magazine part, though. Those are the type of terms,
and they’re vague areas. That’s — That’s
someone’s perception. That’s someone saying, “Well, I think you
only need 10 rounds.” Those people probably never been
attacked by two people that are armed that, again,
don’t follow those rules. Okay, so, now, we’ll go —
move on to closing arguments. So as closing arguments
are progressing, we will open up
the polls again. So I encourage everyone in the
audience to vote once more — “#agree,” “#disagree,”
and really answer thoughtfully. Consider to yourself, listening
to what these two have to say, is your mind changed at all? So, Chelsea.
Yep. So, a lot of the time, in these kinds of
conversations and debates, we end up really focusing
on kind of the nitty-gritty and the policy and, you know,
this and the proposal and that. I want to bring it back
just to kind of the human impact
for a second. 96 people are killed
in this country every single day
with a gun. So I think that we would all
agree that that is a problem. And so I think that, you know, kind of coming from
the perspective of this is in fact a problem
that we should try to fix, I think we can do better
in this country. I think that having
strong gun laws in place is part of a comprehensive
approach to doing that. I think that having
strong laws in place should go hand-in-hand with
a local programmatic approach. I think it should go
hand-in-hand with having more robust
oversight of the gun industry. I think it should go
hand-in-hand with having, you know, police reform
and criminal-justice reform and sentencing reform
and all of those things that are all interwoven
and interconnected and all kind of play
into each other. And we can’t — we can’t
address gun violence without also addressing all of
those other things, as well. And so I think that
there’s not one answer and there’s not one law. And we say “background checks”
all the time, and I’ll talk about
background checks, but, like, there’s not one thing
that we need to do that’s gonna fix this problem. But I think that we need
to be thoughtful and have a very
comprehensive approach to looking at all of
the different ways that our current laws
and policies and culture feed into each other
to create the situation that we’re in now where we have
this tremendously high rate of gun death in this country. Okay.
And to you, Maj. And to remind the audience
again, you can vote “#agree” or “#disagree” as these closing
statements are proceeding. So, Maj, to you.
What are your final thoughts? Yeah, we —
we do have a problem. And you know, again,
the number that you gave — 96 people die a day —
you know, I don’t know
if that’s 100% accurate. But there’s a chunk of those,
over 60%, of that is suicides, you know? So we can’t blame the tool
for someone that has, you know, run into a feeling
that we as a society have not assisted
that person in serving that — you know, that citizen
in a manner that helps them feel
in a different space, right? So I think that adding more
rules to some thing where — again, 66% or 65% is an overwhelming majority
of death around a certain thing. So if we ignore kind of, like —
We’re — We’re — We’re — Like you said, we’re kind of
focusing on the gun more so than the social construct,
the mental construct, the spiritual construct. You know, those are all things
that I think have a much bigger impact
than just adding more rules. The other thing, though, too,
is, again, we’re in a space where we are tasked
with balancing fixing the problem,
healing from trauma, limiting from trauma
while protecting rights, not adding more restrictions
to people’s rights to defend their lives. That is the balance. So when we are overwhelmingly
leaning towards more policies, more of those things that,
truth be told, affect more law-abiding citizens
than anybody else, right, we are not —
We’re putting more energy into space that clearly are —
they aren’t working. That is not working. That kid in Parkland got the
police called on him 38 times. Nobody said anything.
Nobody! The sheriff came to his house
a year before that. 38 times. We’re neglecting that. Then when he gets super-extreme,
we blame the tool. That’s not right. And more of the same
is not gonna fix it. We do need a comprehensive
approach that deals with — again, I’m gonna keep saying
this organization. I’m not paid by them at all — Walk the Talk America —
that is literally — This is, what, Suicide
Prevention Month, you know? These are things
that we have to do — shift our gaze just a bit there
so we can balance it out of it. Great.
All right, well, thank you guys for the thoughtful
discussion on this assertion. Again, if you guys
haven’t voted for — on — on this first assertion,
please do. We’ll be closing the polls now. I found it pretty interesting
that there was quite a bit of agreement
between you guys. I think generally speaking,
there is a cleave between a lived experience and a sort of anecdotal
understanding of the — the rights and responsibilities
and under– like, the understanding
of owning and operating a-a firearm. And on the other hand,
sort of population-level data. So in a sense, there —
If I’m gathering correctly from what I’m hearing
from you guys, it’s not just a discussion
about what is right and what is wrong or how —
what right approaches there are, but the very data
that should be used to assess what those
approaches should be. And I think that’s like —
We’re gonna be in the weeds for a long time
if we’re talking about data. Mm-hmm. So, we will have the results
from this first assertion in about 10 seconds. And in the meantime, I’ll —
I’ll plug it again. Like, next week,
Voter Registration Day. I think both of you guys agree
that, like, the more young people vote — you vote your experience,
you vote your life, you vote what you want, and you vote for who
will represent you best. So that’s why we’re doing
this, and — Who are you
voting for? In what? I live in Brooklyn. So, no, you guys has got a
really good governor candidate. Larry Sharpe. Well, let’s put that aside
for a second ’cause we have results. Okay, so this is —
This is pretty interesting. So, we’re putting them
on screen right now. For pre-debate, the assertion, “Because criminals
don’t follow laws, stricter gun laws
won’t lessen gun violence” — before we debated, 56% of
you agreed that that was true. 44% of you disagreed. Post-debate,
there was a big move. 82% agreed with that assertion
while 18% disagreed. So, over the course of our
discussion, people’s minds changed. So we’ll move on.
We’ve got one more. And this is one that, you know,
I got a lot of flack from as far as my own feelings
on the issue, specifically because it relates
two common tools — a car and a gun. They are both wonders
of human innovation that have changed the world
around us for the better or for the worse, however you want
to think about it. But they do —
they represent ingenuity, and something, like, wonderful
about the human race is that we can make shit
and we can make shit cool. So, the second assertion is,
“To prevent gun deaths, we should regulate gunmakers
like automakers.” “To prevent gun deaths, we should regulate
gunmakers like automakers.” And so — Polls are open now,
so please comment with “#agree” if you agree with that assertion
or “#disagree” if you disagree
with that assertion. And do remember that we’ll ask
you this again after the debate. So please vote again then,
as well. All right, so, this time around, we’ll do five minutes again
for opening statements. Maj, you’re up. So it’s —
I’m a little bit — Guns are already regulated
more than cars are. So your — your assertion
would be regulate them less? Not — Not — Yeah! Because they already —
I mean, cars — So, say this again. Cars — Guns should be
regulated like cars are. Well, specifically, it’s — we should regulate gunmakers
like automakers. So we’re not talking
about the consumer. We’re talking
about the industry, as Chelsea brought up earlier. And I think that’s
a key distinction in a sense, ’cause, yes, there are a lot
of similarities between guns and cars
at the consumer level, as in you have to do —
license yourself, you have to go
through classes. But let’s talk about
the industry. Okay, so take the industry,
for example. You can’t even get a Glock in the state of California —
that entire state. I have a friend who has a gun. He has his own
signature gun, right? He cannot even ship his gun
to California because it’s
a standard-capacity magazine — 15, one in the head, right? 16. California’s cap is like 10,
I think, right? That’s — That’s, one, bad
for business in California, the eighth or however
much biggest — largest economy in the world. That’s horrible
for jobs, right? So there’s a gang of regulation
that’s already — that’s a — that’s a manufacturer,
you know what I mean? That’s not at the consumer —
And it does affect the consumer because if I want
that really cool gun, I can’t get it if I happen to
live in California or Massachusetts
or Brooklyn, you know? So I don’t think that —
I think what — Again, the focus needs
to be more on safety, training, and education. Conflict resolution,
de-escalation, not stopping jobs,
not creating re– not blocking more revenue, not blocking people
that can work into a factory and say,
“Hey, I make magazines. I don’t shoot people
for a living. I have a good, well-paying job
close to my home that I can sustain my family on manufacturing something that
every other state in the union has access
to except this one,” you know? So, yeah, I think that — Yeah,
I don’t know about that one. It’s — It’s a loaded
question a bit. Yeah, I think they should
be regulated less because they already
are regulated more than car manufacturers. Well, I mean, you disagree
with the statement. So that — that —
that’s clear. Simple. I over–
I over-complicated it. I’m sorry. But, so, just on the automaker
versus gunmaker front, you offered one example
of a single gunmaker who can’t sell their
equipment in California. Mm-hmm. So, you mean the ability
to manufacture that firearm? Well, you can
manufacture it. You know, just like Chrysler
can manufacture any car that they want. Each state
has different rules that each manufacturer
needs to respect, but car makers
are not limited. I can’t not sell
the 2019 Cadillac in California. That’s already
a more-regulated thing that’s on the manufacturer,
right? But Cadillac is the same
exact car. It can be sold there. That’s a manufacturer limitation
on the gun manufacturer. Mm-hmm.
Not the car manufacturer. So, no,
I disagree with that. Okay, well, you have
two minutes left. Oh, I got —
Yeah, I was gonna say — Yeah, you —
Oh, I got plenty of time! Well, look,
should I ask you — Yeah.
My first — My follow-up to that would be
basically on the federal level, there are federal regulations —
safety-wise, mileage-wise,
collision ratings. The federal government’s
quite active in regulating
car manufacturers to meet certain standards
for the public good. That, perhaps, does not exist
for gunmakers. That’s not true!
Tell me. So, for one,
I-I have a friend who owns a company
called Daniel Defense. They’re a — They’re
a rifle manufacturer, right? Good dude.
Big company. His — There are so many
specifications, and he’s like — It’s called the ATF.
Mm-hmm. Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms. That’s a federal
organization. You smoke a cigarette,
you have a sip of — swig of some liquor,
you have a firearm, you are
federally regulated. Every time
a purchases a firearm, that is a federal form. The 4473 is a federal form. Yes, at gun shows, too. Every lawful purchase is gonna
go through a federal form. Every manufacturer, every FFL —
federal firearms licensee — they have to keep data
up to 21 years. If the ATF, the federal
organization, comes in and says, “Where’s your record
from 19 years ago?” you better present that, or
you’re gonna lose your license. That is a federal licensing.
That’s what — That’s already in place.
Mm-hmm. So, it’s kind of
regulated already. How much — 28 seconds. Yeah, it’s regulated a lot. I don’t know how many times
I can — It’s regulated! All right, well,
you’ll cede the rest of your 20 seconds
over to Chelsea. What do you think? So, first,
I can’t let one thing go, which is you said
a couple minutes ago that, “Oh, you know, guns and — owning a gun and owning a car —
there are a lot of similarities. You have to get a license,
et cetera.” You actually don’t need
a license to buy a gun in almost every state
in this country. So there are a handful of states
where you need to get a license or a permit before you
can even buy or own a gun, but that is not the case
in the whole country. There’s no such thing
as a federal gun license. So, I just — I can’t.
I couldn’t. That — That —
I just need to say that. So — So, I love
this question because, again, as I said before, we often have this conversation
and completely leave out the industry
when we talk about it. And so, you know, the firearms
industry is obviously a huge industry. It’s a billion-dollar industry. And there are some —
just quirks in our system of — of federal laws, in particular, that really allow
the industry to operate without the kind of oversight
that you — that other industries have
to deal with, for example. So, you know, for example,
you mentioned ATF. ATF is one of the most
beleaguered federal agencies in the federal government. It is hamstrung not only
by its budget, which remains
largely stagnant, but by a series
of restrictive provisions that are put on its budget that limit what it is
allowed to do. So, for example, ATF is not
allowed to digitize any of the records of gun sales
that — that you mentioned. Those records
have to stay in — in a non-searchable format
with the gun dealer. So ATF can’t have that
information. ATF is not allowed
to inspect a gun dealer more than once a year. ATF is not allowed
to require gun dealers to do an annual check
of their inventory to make sure that they can
account for all of the guns that are supposed to be
in their inventory. These are things that are just
standard in other industries — you know, pharmaceuticals,
things like that, where you have potentially
dangerous items that are — that are consumer products. ATF is so short-staffed
at this point that most gun dealers
go at least five years without ever getting any kind of
compliance inspection from ATF. And as a result, when ATF
does inspect gun dealers, more than half of them usually
have some kind of violation. And a lot of those
are paperwork violations, and a lot of those are,
you know — are rectified
when they kind of go through and look —
search their inventory and make sure they can account
for all the guns that are sold. But, you know, gun dealers
are really the point at which guns leave the — the — they leave
the stream of commerce and enter into civilian
and private hands, right? And so it’s really important
that the gun dealers are being held
to a high standard, are making sure that they are
on alert for straw purchases, right, that they are filling out
all the forms accurately and doing background checks
all the time, you know, they — they are following
best practices, making gun locks available
and all of these things that they are required
to do under federal law. And so that aspect, I think, of regulation of
the gun industry is not as robust, certainly,
as we would want it to be. The other quirk
in the federal law is that guns are not regulated
for safety by a government agency. Guns are actually
specifically — specifically excluded
from the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission. And so there’s no federal agency that is testing firearms
before they come to market, that is looking
for safety defects and that’s issuing
mandatory recalls. And so the industry’s actually
expected to police itself when it comes to the safety
of firearms that are being sold. And so you have a situation
where you have firearms that have safety bugs that — there have been instances
of guns that will fire when dropped,
for example, and we really have to rely on
the manufacturers themselves on kind of an honor system to be alerting consumers
to that and issuing recalls. And that’s another area
where I think guns and the gun industry
is treated very differently from other similar industries,
including the car industry. So again, I think that — I think it’s
an interesting analogy. I think it’s a useful
starting point. You know, I don’t think that’s
it’s a complete one-to-one, you know,
“Yes, absolutely. Every regulation
on the car industry should be put on
the gun industry.” But I do think that it’s —
that it’s kind of an interesting jumping-off point
for this conversation. And the other thing that I —
that I would say is that, you know,
in the car industry, you have a lot of incentives
to innovate. And I just don’t think
that those same incentives — incentives to innovate
are present in the — with respect to gunmakers,
right, and so you have — Everybody loves to talk about
smart gun technology, right, but there are burdens
in place on the industry that are actually preventing
innovation in that space, and so I think that’s
another area where, you know, we just need
to do more work. Mm-hmm. So, Maj, how do you respond
to what Chelsea’s talking about? No real shooter is gonna
tell you they want a smart gun. That’s — That’s where
the market’s gonna decide that. Smart gun
technology is trash. It’s trash. It’s just what it is. And I don’t want to —
I don’t want to have a glitch in something that my life
is depending upon, or my children
in the house, in a moment like when
my iPhone freezes sometimes. I don’t want my trigger
to freeze at that point. I think that — that —
the responsibility of safety is the responsibility
of manufacturers, dealers, distributors, owners,
consumers — all of that. People that — the worst thing
that I hate — hate. I chose that word
very carefully — is people
that are irresponsible with their right
of firearm ownership, right? And I think that it —
it is good that we police
our own — ourselves. Again, I’m not a fan
of adding more government. I think that there’s a certain
level of you know when you’re trained
and informed in these things, and that translates up —
you know, up the pyramid. So for example, if me,
as a firearm owner, or anyone, as a firearm owner,
you know your situation. Your child should not
have access to that firearm. You should look into
lock boxes. You should look into
gun safes. These are things
that are standard, period. The danger is when we start
telling people what they have to do
from the government. That is a danger. That’s a danger. I think that we have to be,
you know, socially conscious, responsible citizens
in that regard. And again, that translates,
you know, up — you know, upstream. I don’t think that any — just the market
will respond differently. The gun that you’re talking
about is the SIG P320 with the drop,
and it — you know, and they immediately
called them back, not with a mandate —
“Hey, you can get the upgrade. We can fix that
and those things.” Now, I think it’s bad business
because, one, the Internet’s gonna light those guys
on fire for some time. “I’m not get– If you got a SIG
in the bay next to me, if you got that P320,
please get away from me.” And the market suffers, period. You know, I think
there’s a thin line — We can’t say we’re a —
we’re an open and free society when we keep asking for more,
you know, enslavement or people telling us what to do,
which are just humans like us. Just humans.
It’s not a special set of brains that these particular government
agencies or agents have. They’re humans, prone to failure
just like all of us. With that being the case, I don’t think
that gun manufacturers, not for a moral reason,
but for a financial reason — I don’t think
it’s in their best interest to make non-safe products, no different from cars,
you know? A car makes a mistake,
Ford has — “Okay, hey, guys,
we’re recalling these.” Even if those regulations
are in place from the transportation authority,
you know, on the national level, there’s still a quirk
that happens, and when that does, we, as the
responsible car manufacturer, bring those back —
“Hey, bring that back. We’ll fix that.
We’ll take care of that,” right? Even if we catch it
before a fatality — “Hey, guys, this was wrong.
We need to fix this.” I think that’s just
good business, and I think we got to kind of
let the market decide in those spaces, as opposed
to asking for more masters. And before I turn it to you,
Chelsea, for a rebuttal, I encourage everyone
in the audience on Facebook to please ask questions. We’ll have 10 minutes
after Chelsea’s response to field questions from Facebook to kind of push us further
because I think we’ve — we’ve gotten to a really
interesting point, I think, in this discussion,
as it’s a — it’s a jumping-off point
to talking about what the industry is
and how free markets can regulate the way
that industry behaves. But then perhaps,
how it might fail. So, Chelsea, to you. Yeah, I mean —
and the other — I like the guns-versus-cars
analogy, too, when you pull it back
a little bit, not just from a focus on
the industry actors, but pulling it back to looking
at what did we do in this country to address
car-accident fatalities, right, because we did something. You know, 20 years ago,
we made a decision that — that there were far too many
car-accident fatalities that were happening and that we
needed to do something about it. And what we did was
we looked at it from a public-health
perspective. And again, we took
a comprehensive approach to — to addressing the problem. So part of that was laws. So you had DWI laws
and seatbelt laws. Part of it was looking at
the safety of roads themselves. And so you had, you know,
new regulations with respect to barriers and guard rails
and things like that. We had some culture shift,
right? So you had, you know,
groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving
and other groups really trying to shift cultural norms so that now it’s really not
culturally acceptable to drive while you’re drunk or to have
your kids in the back seat without seatbelts on. And so we did all of
those things together, and we put in
some research dollars into really figuring out
and looking really specifically at what interventions will help
reduce the number of people who die in car accidents
every year. And we had really
good results for that. So from 1999 to 2016, gun —
or, sorry — car-accident deaths
went down 16%. And if you look at —
I do this sometimes, but if you track gun deaths
and car-accident deaths on the same chart,
you see cars go like this, and you see guns
kind of go like this, right? And so, to me, that says
we should take the example of how we approached
car-accident deaths and figure out
how does it make sense to apply that to gun deaths,
as well, to try to get to
that same kind of result? When we talk
about the industry, and I’m surprised you haven’t
said these three letters yet, but the industry has
a very effective lobbying arm — the National Rifle Association. Perhaps it’s not a lic–
a lobbying arm? We can debate that, as well. But you called them “quirks” earlier as far as why the ATF
is constrained in the way it is. Can you elaborate on that?
What do you mean by that? Well, so, okay. They’re —
They’re not quirks. I mean, they’re very purposeful
provisions in the law, many of which were enacted at the urging of
the National Rifle Association. And so I mean — That’s —
That’s right, and it is funny we got this far
without kind of mentioning them. It’s kind of
amazing, actually. I don’t like to lead
with the NRA. But I think that — I mean,
it’s a huge factor, right? And I think that you have — you have an organization that,
you know, really has become a very strong
political organization. It certainly has arms of the
organization that do programming and that are, you know,
for sportsmen and recreational gun owners
and all of that, but it has a huge lobbying arm
that has a ton of money that invests
very heavily in campaigns and in elections
and in lobbying lawmakers to, at this point,
do nothing to address the gun-violence problem
in this country. And so, you know, that is a very
real part of the dynamic in terms of this debate
that we’re having. Mm-hmm.
And so, I mean, Maj, what is your sort of thoughts on
is the NRA somehow — The NRA is responsible
for my lineage having the means
to defend themselves from racist Klan members. That’s what the founding
of that organization was for. Let’s be very clear.
All gun control is racist. Let’s be very clear
about that, okay? How?
Well, all of America, at a certain point, was a Constitutional
carry country. Then black people fought
against enslavement to get their own
liberation. Then come the gun laws.
Look it up. That’s the origin
of gun control. Everything else is
a subsidiary of racism gun control
incorporated. One of the major reasons why
that happened for black people to protect themselves
was the creation of the NRA. That’s number one.
Most people say these things — Well, no, but the NRA
was in favor of California — You’re talking
about the Mulford Act. Yes, I am.
Right. Tell me about that.
And then after that, Ronald Reagan
and that ilk were removed. There was a coup
at the NRA. Everybody should read into
John Lott. Everybody should read —
pick up some stuff on, you know,
the — the things — that entire regime
was ousted, literally, right? At that time, they were focusing
more on sporting and hunting, and that regime
was removed, right? And we can fast-forward
it a bit. We can talk about my friend
from Philadelphia Shaneen Allen, who went across
the bridge in Jersey — single mom — was being held
in New Jersey, had a — had a license to carry,
had a firearm, went to jail. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars in legal fees the NRA paid to support and
get her out of that situation. I know the things that,
for whatever reason, the NRA don’t want
to talk about. I don’t know why. But I think they should
highlight it more. I know about Otis McDonald
in Chicago, when that racist practice
of gun control in Chicago was trying to stop
Saturday night specials. Black people — Which were
cheap revolver firearms that they can
protect themselves — I know that the NRA
got behind him. It’s interesting
’cause in a sense, it’s like a lot of — you’re saying a lot
of African American people don’t know their —
Also, real quick. I want to just
make this clear. I have never received
a dime from the NRA. You should — You guys,
if you’re watching, you should give me
a million dollars to continue
doing this work. But with that being the case,
the facts are the facts. And if you’re missing
the core components of that — So, we’re gonna move on
to closing statements. But I got — I do want to
kind of address this idea ’cause you’re bringing it up,
but is gun control racist? So, I —
Yes. So, this is what I’m gonna say
about this is that I disagree that all gun
control is racist, right? However, I totally agree
that many of our current laws — criminal laws, some of
our gun laws absolutely were, and are, discriminatory
either by design or as applied. And I don’t think that
we can have a conversation about gun-control policy
in this country without acknowledging that
and without being very cognizant about how do we make policy in
that context trying to do good without exacerbating
all of those other factors that I mentioned earlier, right,
all of the other parts of the criminal justice system
that are deeply damaging to people of color
in this country, right? So — And I think that that’s
something that folks on my side often don’t acknowledge
and gloss over and try to kind of push past. And so I think
it’s very important, and I — and I completely agree
on that point. But the other thing is that
it is also true that the burden of gun violence
in this country falls very, very heavily
on people of color. And, you know, more than 50% of
murder victims in this country are African American. And many, many times,
lawmakers and policymakers don’t care about those deaths
and they don’t acknowledge them and they don’t pay attention
to them and they only pay attention
to Parkland and to all these other
shootings, right? And that is also unacceptable. And so that’s kind of
where I come from, which is let’s take
both of those things as true. How do we do better? And I think that part
of doing better is some of our
system of laws. And we can agree
or disagree on that. And I think
part of doing better is being much more invested
in solutions coming from the community
and in giving voice to solutions coming
from the community, right? Like, I have a fairly
big platform where I work. I try to lift that shit up
every time I can, right, because the people in Congress
need to know about the kids in Hartford who, with $200,000,
have completely changed different parts
of that neighborhood, right? And so I think — That’s where
I come from on this issue, and that’s where I think
if we really sit down and kind of, like, just do it
and hash it out and do the work, I think we can get to a place where we can start
to make change and we can start to make our —
all of our communities safer without continuing
to exacerbate all of that other shit
that the criminal-justice system has been perpetuating
for decades. Okay. Okay. Okay, so, we got one more
Facebook question, and then we’ll go on
to closing arguments. Let’s see. Yeah, here’s a good one
from Brandon Bloom. “To both Maj and Chelsea,
what should be done about citizens’ ability to make firearms,
unbeknownst to the government?” I think the — Are we talking
about 3-D guns, probably? We’re talking about 3-D
printing, I’d bet. I want to hear what you have
to say about 3-D-printed guns. I think that,
first of all, thank you
for acknowledging that. There are people that are
gonna watch this that have no idea that
someone from your background is gonna understand
and respect the trauma that people from my hood across
America are going through. So thank you for that. Yeah, it’s nobody’s business.
It’s nobody’s business. If I make a knife
in my house and nobody gets stabbed,
we’re good. If I make a 3-D gun,
printed gun, and I have the right
to protect my life in my home, or my life generally, right,
it’s nobody’s business. Where you have a problem
with me is when you do
an irresponsible thing with that tool that makes it
harder for that community, that creates more trauma
for my — my hood, and it makes it harder
for gun owners across America because that person
is splashed as, “Look at this crazy guy
with the printer in the back Xeroxing guns out.” Right? So to me, as long as
you’re responsible — I — A person generally carries
a firearm the same reason that a good
law-enforcement officer does — to protect the good people
against the bad people if and when it comes, you know,
pop off that way, right? So as far as the 3-D-
printing-gun thing, I’m just — Yo, if some people
might not have the means. Guns are not cheap! Like, good ones.
Right? So with that being the case,
if there’s something that is gonna be more respective
of individual rights, personal, human right of self-defense,
personal property, and respecting those things,
I’m all-in for that liberty. You lose me completely —
You lose me completely when you are irresponsible
with your rights. I’m not one of those
guys that’s, “2nd Amendment
is my carry permit and all” — No!
There needs to be a balance, a holistic approach
to this situation. I’m gonna be in control of me
and my property. You’re gonna be in control
of you and your property, and that includes the 3-D guns
that you’re Xeroxing ’cause you still need
to get bullets. And those are not,
like, plastic. You know, so, that’s
my position on that. Chelsea, what do you think
about 3-D guns? Yeah, so,
I’m gonna acknowledge something that some of my peers
are probably gonna get upset at me about. I think we got
a little hysterical about the 3-D-printed-gun
thing recently. Hmm. It is still very expensive
to get the kind of 3-D printer that would be necessary
to print a fully functional, 100% plastic 3-D gun. So I’m gonna —
I want to be reasonable and admit that kind of thing. On the other hand,
I think it is — there is a prospective risk,
right, and I think the reason
that I get concerned about 3-D-printed guns — and we know technology’s only
gonna get better and cheaper. So, I mean, there will
come a time where it’s not prohibitively
expensive to get a printer and make one of these guns —
is the fact that these guns are gonna be un-traceable…
Mm-hmm. …and that they’re gonna be
un-detectable so that you can get them
through security. They’re an assassin’s gun. There was a journalist in Israel
who did an experiment, which I think is probably
not smart, of sneaking a 3-D-printed gun
into Parliament to make the point
that it could be done, right? And so those are the concerns about the potential harm
of this technology and why we’re
talking about it — why we should be talking
about it now in terms of kind of
how can we pre– how can we kind of
have this innovation and encourage innovation,
but at the same time, making sure we’re not
creating risks down the road that are going to be
out of our control. How? With the 3-D-printed guns?
Yeah. So, my pitch has been
it’s not new laws. I don’t have a new law for this,
although there is legislation. I support
the legislation, no. But what I have been arguing
is that we need to have
the tech industry, the manufacturers of the 3-D
printers, step in and say, “Is this an intended use
of this technology?” And if it’s not, are you willing
to put some software controls in place
that will prevent people from being able to
make fully functional firearms? And the analogy here
is that you cannot use PhotoShop to make
counterfeit money. It won’t let you. And so I think that we should
look to the industry to innovate and say, “Hey, we don’t intend
for these printers — for this technology
to be used for this purpose. So we are going to innovate
a way to kind of prevent that future harm
from coming to fruition. Okay, very interesting.
Do you have a quick response? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, one, okay, you can have
the fully printed gun, right? Bullets.
There’s things — they are encased in that shell
for its metal. It’s — It’s —
It’s some sort of metal. You cannot have — Even if he got the gun into
Parliament, there’s no bullets. Bullets go through
metal detectors. Bullets are —
rounds are metal. It’s an explosion that happens
when that firing pin hits that, ignites it, explosion
with the gunpowder, sends the round out,
the shell a different way. That has to be encased in metal. It has to, period. So, the concept of,
“Oh, we can make these guns, and they’ll just be able
to be un-detectable.” That’s not true.
That’s not accurate. That’s scientifically
inaccurate, right? There’s an explosion
in those rounds. So when we’re talking about
ammo and bullets and things like that,
that’s — that’s the thing. And also, again, stop asking
for more enslavement from the federal government. This has never
been a good thing for innovation,
for money, for — Well, no, it’s been a good thing
for mileage standards in cars. Okay. Cool. With that being the case,
I am not a fan of ask– It’s blocking innovation, and when we have a conversation
about now saying, “Can we get tech companies
to block somebody from expressing” —
Well, okay, so let’s — We’re gonna move on
to final statements. Yeah, yeah.
‘Cause I think you go first. So — Is that right?
Does he go first? I actually can’t remember.
Yeah, take it — Take it away. Okay, so,
the closing statements. All I’m saying, y’all, man,
is just firearms are a fundamental part
of American history, right? And if I, as a black man
in America, can say that as this is
where it’s helped us, and these are some of the areas
that it has harmed us, we have to find that balance
between figuring out how we can maximize
on the protection. I do not trust
our government. I’m pretty sure most of
the viewers and the people, you know, whether you like
this current regime or not, I’m pretty sure a lot of people
are going, “Eh…” So, if you’re asking
for more restrictions on the American citizens, not the people doing
the wrong things — If you’re asking for more
restrictions on the citizens, you’re actually not asking for
more — for less gun ownership. You’re ask– kind of, like, asking for a monopoly
of those firearms to go in a certain group
of people’s hands, like the government. That has never, like, worked out
well for the citizens of whatever government
in human history. In human history.
Right? So you can’t, on one hand, say,
“Oh, we need more restrictions. We need more of these things.
But we also have a regime” — Some people are, like,
anti-Trump, right? Okay, so,
if he’s the Hitler guy, why would you give the monopoly
of firearms to the Hitler guy? It’s a contradiction. This place was founded on
the principles of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, of, “This is the Constitution. We declare our independence from a completely
tyrannical situation, and we have firearms
to defend these beliefs,” and these list of things,
these amendments, right,
these Bill of Rights — these things are here
to make sure that we remember that this is not
a government-given thing. That’s it. So when you don’t have the means
to defend yourself from a government that can
potentially be tyrannical, all of your other beliefs
do not matter. If I’m Muslim,
if I’m Christian, if I’m Islamic,
it does not matter. if you do not have the means
to defend your value systems and your beliefs,
you don’t have any. So be a little bit more mindful
about some of the things. Find more productive —
please reach across the aisle to people that you think would
have nothing in common with you, and as you’re seeing,
we have kind of a lot in common on a lot of different issues
’cause nobody’s asking for or agreeing with more
trauma, you know? And before, Chelsea,
your closing argument, I’ll remind people
that the polls are open for this last assertion,
this last topic. So, if you agree,
“#disagree,” hashtag — If you agree, “#agree.” If you disagree, “#disagree.” So, Chelsea, please,
take us home. Yeah, I mean, I-I’m gonna do
one more stat, and I’ve really
limited myself tonight. So I just want everybody
to appreciate that. Just to highlight, again,
the — the problem, right, the reason that we’re here. So, guns are currently
the leading cause of death in this country
for young people, second only to drug overdoses. And that’s only because
drug overdoses, which is a subject of
a whole other show, right, have spiked dramatically. And so, like, we are losing way too many people to —
to gun deaths. And, you know, there’s —
We can do a lot better. And so that’s —
that’s why I think we’re here. That’s why I think, you know,
there’s so much passion on each side of this
because, you know, we all care
a lot about this country and about kind of
what’s happening in it. You know, the 2nd Amendment
has come up, and the 2nd Amendment
is in the Constitution and it is part of
this conversation and — and part of
what we’re talking about. You know, at the same time,
you know, Justice Scalia himself said,
in the Heller decision, “It’s not an absolute right, and it is subject
to reasonable restrictions to help ensure that all of
our communities are safe.” And I think that is —
that’s where the real meat of this conversation is —
is where can we — where can we work in that space to try to figure out places
where we can do better? And so — so, that’s kind of
what I offer here. And — And look,
I think we’ve tried the, “Let’s have as many guns as we
possibly can in our country and in our community,”
approach, right? Like, 300 million-plus guns. We’ve done that. I feel like it’s not working
very well. And so I think that we should
try maybe something else. And so that is — that is where
I come from on this issue. Mm-hmm. So, yeah, that’s, in a sense —
Polls are still open. Please do vote. We’re gonna close them
very soon. And as we wait for the results
of that poll, what I think I’m hearing in a sense is, like,
you’re trying to operate in a space where
reasonable restrictions, as Scalia had mentioned, can be applied
for the public good. But you’re coming from
a position where there are
no reasonable restrictions. Is that fair? No, that’s not.
Okay. That’s not where
I’m coming from at all. I’m saying that we have
already been restricted, and we’re not —
we’re adding more restrictions but not solving the thing. If 66% of people are killing
themselves with firearms, the issue is not the firearm. The — The — The stat game
that’s being played is, “Okay, we’re gonna
ignore this 66% that has a serious
mental issue. We’re gonna ignore that. We’re gonna keep in there,
you know, when a law-enforcement officer
shoots the bad guy. That’s in there as those
30,000 deaths a year, too. We’re gonna leave —
We’re gonna totally not talk about the millions
of times firearms are used to prevent death.” That’s another little,
tricky part that’s not
in the conversation. So we do have restrictions
already there. Most law-abiding gun owners
are restricting themselves, de-escalating,
and those things. What we’re not trying is —
I hear we say it. We say, “Oh, we need to try
something else. But trying to push for more
restrictions on the firearm, when clearly, the issue
is a mental-health issue, is another contradiction.
So… And I’ll put it to Chelsea.
Is — Is mental health
a contradiction? So, and thank you. And the polls are closed now,
but we’re still waiting. Yeah, and just to talk about
the suicide point for a second, and again,
I agree that, you know, there’s 2/3 of gun deaths
are suicides, right? And so, like, that —
you got to — that is — we need to focus
there, too, right? What we know is that firearms
are the most lethal method used when people attempt
suicide, right? So 85% of suicide attempts
with a firearm result in death. All of the other methods
that are used — there’s only a 5%
lethality rate. And so what we know is that suicide
is often an impulsive act. It often is not the product
of a lot of planning. And so if somebody has access
to a gun in that moment, they’re much more likely
to end up dead than if they don’t
have access to a gun. And the other thing that we know
is that most people who survive a suicide attempt don’t later
go on to die by suicide. And so that is — I don’t have an answer to how we
kind of really deal with that, but those are the dynamics
at play when we’re talking
about gun-related suicide. And so I do think that,
you know, there is a mental-health
aspect of that, but access to the most
lethal method is a really big part
of that conversation. Okay, great. Well, it looks like
the polls are in. So, pre-debate,
22% of the audience agreed with the assertion
that we should regulate gunmakers like automakers —
automakers. And 78% disagreed. After the debate,
not a big change, but it went from — it went to 25% agree
and 75% disagree. So, Chelsea, you won that round,
so to speak. But I think I am heartened by how much common ground
we found today. And I’d like to thank
everyone on — on Facebook,
here in the audience for participating in it
because this is an issue that feels like it
isn’t gonna go anywhere. It’s been an issue
since I was a teenager, and it most likely
will be an issue, which is to say, like,
when people die before it’s time for them to die, so to speak, biologically, like,
we can do things about it. And we are a technologically
advanced, rich nation who has done
fantastic things in the past and potentially can do
fantastic things in the future. And to one point that I’ll
come — that you brought up ’cause I think it’s interesting
is if the government is tyrannical,
or if our belief is that the government
is tyrannical, bottom line — we elect those people. And we can talk about sort of
voter irregularities or the ways that voting works,
and that’s — that, again,
is an issue for another day, but we still can vote
as citizens of this country, which will bring me
to the final point, of course, which is that Tuesday —
National Voter Registration Day. National Voter
Registration Day, yes. So, if you’re not registered
to vote, register. If you are registered to vote,
turn up on election day because I think it only takes
two minutes to register, and there’s plenty
of resources on Vice to direct you
to how to get there. So thank you all for coming,
and thank you to both debaters for the civil,
open-minded discussion. And we’ll hope to do something
like this again in the future. Thanks. Please clap. [ Applause ]

100 thoughts on “Maybe I’m Wrong About Guns: A Live Debate

  1. Watch 'Maybe I'm Wrong', a series exploring discussions about gun laws currently enacted in America:

  2. If a person really wants to kill themselves they don't need a gun to do it and they want you they'll use whatever means necessary

  3. Listen woman you cannot buy a handgun from one state and travel to another if you live in in in a different state I can't go to New York or Philadelphia and purchase a handgun and take it out the store and roll I have to if I'm going to buy a handgun in another state I have to have that firearm pay for in the state of Philadelphia and shipped by that guns dealer to my FFL in my state and then pick it up from my FFL you don't know what you're talkin about

  4. Yes they were they also had automatic weapons back then as well if you look in the history of firearms you will see that and people I eat Americans were able to buy those things without any restrictions thank you very much they were expensive and if you had the money you could buy them but you could buy them none the less without having to jump through hoops with any kind of organization in order to purchase them

  5. If you call fire if you yell fire in a theater it's a call to action so that's why that's restrictive speech anything that gives a call to action with a negative reaction that's where draws the line short of that freedom of speech is just that freedom of speech so you can't use that argument because it's only calls to action in a negative sense you can use that same analogy for firearms

  6. I do I know the answer to that question Chelsea let me help you stop vilifying guns to push your narrative and actually teach people about gun safety and violence prevention

  7. Chelsea let me help you out love you cannot legislate evil out of this world you have good people you have bad people and then you have evil people in this world that

  8. The weapons that should be available to the country is any weapon that law enforcement on any weapon that the military on that's the weapons that should be available to the public why because it's a constitutional right to have it

  9. You can't tell me what I can or cannot have in my home you can't tell me how I'm supposed to store it in my heart if as long as I teach my children about gun safety and violence prevention then I'm straight

  10. Chelsea who steals guns who steals God shall see criminals by definition do not obey the law because they're criminals

  11. Then maybe you ought to look at changing the laws to allow responsible gun owners to carry the firearm wherever they need to go as long as they have a concealed carry license you think then guess what it wouldn't be stealing firearms from Cars because the gun owner would have his firearm on him at all time and let's put another one out there let's just say hypothetically speaking there was a group of individuals that decided to walk into a stadium and try to shoot people up well you got responsible gun owners in there they have their phones on them they might get a couple of people but in the end it would be bad for the criminal

  12. What about bullets are you a fool come on man it it takes bullets to feed a firearm what is there when you want to regulate bullets that's not within the Constitution that that's within the Constitution I'm sorry was in the Constitution man that would be considered you restricting my rights to be able to respectively use my firearm come on man think people think

  13. To all the politicians out there that are trying to pass all this gun control tell you what why don't you take a second why don't you go to an FFL or gun dealer that's what an FFL gun dealer go to a gun store go through the hoops and fire I'm pretty sure it's some of you will be shocked amazed and surprised at the fact that you will get denied because of something that is on your record that you totally forgot about then you'll understand why we say there's no need for any more gun-control we have it

  14. It's called Mass hysteria you want to vilify Firearms so that the Crowder the masses of people that aren't gun owners and that don't know about Firearms are completely unaware and ignorant to the fact that we already do have gun laws in place maybe if we enforce them and we make better judgment calls on who gets released and who doesn't from prisons then maybe just maybe a lot of these e unnecessary deaths will stop maybe just maybe a lot of these unnecessary murders. And maybe just maybe if we stop pussyfooting around the issue of school shootings a lot of these school shootings are done because you are at you have a child that's being bullied and no one goes all the way back to that that situation because it defeats the purpose of the big government's narrative about vilifying firearm

  15. Oh do you mean standard-capacity magazines Chelsea every AR-15 every AK-47 was built on the platform of a 30 round magazine that is a standard capacity magazine now if you want to talk about 50 round drums that's a high-capacity mad if you want to talk about a hundred round drums that's a high capacity magazine with 30 rounds is a standard capacity magazine for any of your AR-15 platforms for any of your AK-47 platforms now when it comes to 308 and 308 platform which is an AR-10 is built off of a 10-round platform so and the majority of people who hunt with an AR that is chambered in 308 hunt with a 5 round magazine so I mean you're not you're not hitting the marks love

  16. We the people cannot own anything that is an assault rifle you know why I'll tell you why because the government stop that years ago we cannot own fully automatic firearms

  17. I e you Chelsea you don't know a lot about firearms because if you did you would know for fact that an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle we the public can own them thanks for the NFA really appreciate a guy's Stellar job I'm being facetious with the last part

  18. Chelsea you just sat there and talked to the people about government that doesn't know anything about firearms and clearly you don't either because a semi-automatic firearm I don't care whether it's a rifle or handgun one pull of the trigger one round comes out fully automatic assault rifle would be select fire which means it can fire with one pull of the trigger one round comes out you flipped you click the select button one pull of the trigger 3 Rounds come out you flick it again one pull of the trigger you can empty the whole magazine come on come on you yourself don't know anything about Firearms but you cuz you're talkin crazy

  19. Unless you're stupid or have a death wish I don't care what kind of firearm anybody has if you think for one second that I'm going to intervene when somebody stops to reload cuz it only takes a fraction of a second to do that I'm going to try to come at this cat and Tackle him and I don't have a firearm on me know I'm going the opposite direction I'm not going to put my life at risk without having an equalizer to stop the threat that's that's foolish

  20. Then try to fix it using actual Common Sense Chelsea I tell you what let me help so an individual gets caught and put a criminal let's put it like that somebody that has a record all right has felonies on your record he gets caught with a firearm know what that leads to 5 years in prison with three years served all right so he's going to get three years chopped off a sentence he's going to go back to prison he's going to do two years he's going to be back out on the street he's going to do maybe three years and be back out on the street how does that help anybody

  21. So answer that question first second why don't we start an acting stiffer laws in the realm of penalties gay if your criminal you know you're not supposed to have a firearm that's fine you get caught with a firearm you caught with a firearm in the commission of a crime that that's pretty much why you have it let's do 25 years off rip okay let's do that see what happened 25 years no reduction for good behavior no reduction for being a model prisoner because in case you haven't noticed people and start to do the good behavior thing so they can get released early so that they can continue on with their criminal sprees let's go ahead and start giving them 25 years Straight Talk you've got to do the full 25 years maybe that'll stop another individual from carrying a firearm that is a criminal maybe it'll stop that revolving door of I've already had 10 felonies let me add one more because they don't care

  22. Maybe it should be a better situation as far as reforming prisoners before they get released you know when people come home from war they don't even have well they're just now starting to have a debriefing. Which basically it reactivates that individual into the world okay they've been at War for a mini for many years many months however you want to call it they have a period of adjustment with a come home you know I'm saying it go through courses they try to re-acclimate that individual into the world now didn't happen back in the day that's why you had a lot of bad situations happening but now we figured hey this is what we need to do for our soldiers that we turned into killing machines for the greater good of the United States of America and their Fellowship Group which is the other countries that we are allies with to help okay so what makes it any different for individual to go to prison you have to understand an individual that wasn't such a bad person can go to prison and become an evil person because they feel like they're wrongfully accused what was unjust with the sentence they received see the it goes hand-in-hand it goes both ways not only can the government create a rogue agent when it comes out of military police Federal Bureau of Investigation United States Marshal you can create an evil citizen by overcharging them for the crime. So what are you do you create this evil maniacal son of a gun that was payback or you create this individual that is that that just is not going to be a victim anymore by police or anybody else so therefore they have created now that stuff Persona that for the outside world that they had to create on the inside world within Prison Walls and this is what you have man so you want to start something to help or to benefit the communities how about you start doing Rehabilitation or decompression moments where an individual gets react limited to what the world is they going to see things that they didn't see before they went in when they come out the behaviors is different between prison life and actual populous let's that's bridge that Gap so that we don't have a repeat offender how about that

  23. Here you go again Chelsea talking about background checks like we don't have any we've got background checks if you ever went to try to purchase a firearm you would know that so again how in the world can you cuz you just got finished saying that there are a lot of lawmakers and politicians that want to create a bill and know nothing about Firearms you fit in that narrative because you yourself don't already know that there's already background checks and when it comes down to me wanting to sell a firearm to a friend of mine that I've known for years that I know would never harm anybody unless they were trying to harm them that's my right to do so that's my personal property that I'm selling for myself to a friend so you can't regulate my personal the selling of my personal property it's just the same as if I want to sell a car I can sell my car to a friend of mine I don't need big government involved in me selling something of mine to a friend of mine that's overreaching

  24. I find it funny that you talk about a high rate of gun deaths in this country I can remember back in the 80s when I was a young kid when I was watching police shoot people in Philadelphia on the Streets of Philadelphia every day every 3 minutes there was a shooting from a police officer to a innocent civilian black kid and nobody had anything to say about it nobody had anything to say about it but you let these school shooting star happening and you let people start shooting up concerts oh we got a gun problem now we've had a problem with people see you're under the impression that it's the gun's fault it's not the guns fault for doing what its job is and that's to actually far a projectile at a high velocity is speed to stop or kill whatever is in his path it's not the guns fault it's the people's fault so certain people like I said in this world are evil personified you cannot legislate evil away the only way to deal with evil people is by putting them in a pine box in the ground because with evil people in this world there is no reconciliation with them there is no reform that you can put them through there is no courses that you can give them they are manipulators by definition and they will manipulate the situation just to get back out on the street and do it again you cannot legislate evil out of the people you can't do it that's God you're trying to perform God's work when you don't have God's power T only individual that can stop an evil person with a gun stew people me or God that's it

  25. Tell him how it is bro you keep doing what you doing man you're on the right track they they they lose it because see they don't want to utilize the resources that it takes to actually get what you're saying they they they they don't see it as it's a simplistic fixed as you're doing right now but that's what it is it's a simplistic fixed instead of vilifying firearms teach people that Firearms are nothing but a tool to help stop an intruder or save a life in extreme circumstances when it comes down to other tooth there for hunting to feed your family which is what our forefathers did yams ago so you're on the right track bro and I'm with you and anything in my power that I could do to help your organization please reach out to me if you see this

  26. And how about that I was waiting on somebody to bring it up see here's the thing nobody did anything with this kid and partner 38 times police were called on you nobody did it say okay then you've got what happened when the kid was in the school and the police showed up they said outside and they waited for the next County to come over and deal with the threat what is that say Man

  27. Hey Chelsea this one's for you when you looked at the polls to say 80% agree and 20% disagree I want you to understand something America is waking up 2 games and your lies and understanding what's going on see what you don't understand is for every trauma victim when you try to stand up on a dead body of their loved one and preach gun control and this and that they're already contemplating on purchasing a firearm for themselves to make sure that doesn't happen again see what you don't get is America starting to wake up and understand that though police and I love y'all y'all do a tough job but your responders see that works an intruder breaks into your home you run into the bathroom with your phone you lock the bathroom door I've never heard of a steel door on the inside of any home which means you normally have a front door and a back door that's a steel door if they breach that still adore the rest of your doors in your home is wood or plyboard which means easy to kick in any easier to penetrate so are Intruders break into your home you have nothing to defend yourself with except for candlestick

  28. see again as I was saying the police are responders so when you look at the grand scheme of things 7 Minutes takes no time at work 7 Minutes takes no time at the movie theater but when it comes down to your life 7 minutes is a long time if your response time in the inner city is 7 minutes that's a long time to beg for your life before the police show up and then on top of that they're going to surveil the area before they come in and out coming in guns blazing willy-nilly like the movies they're going to assess the situation from outside and leave your dumb behind in there with the assailant so when you look at the grand scheme of things when you level the playing field or you stacked against the deck and gun owners hands as opposed to the criminals hands yeah if I've got two people that break into my home I got two options I go ahead and I grabbed my phone and I can start shooting well one thing or two things are going to happen they're going to scramble to get the hell out of my house or they going to take a position to still think they have Superior Firepower while I'm doing what I'm doing with my handgun my wife is is is pulling her a r out of the closet and she going to start dumping when I when I see that I'm going to grab my arm and I'm going to start dumping so you see by the time the police get there either they going to catch the criminals bloody they going call the meat wagon scoop the dead carcasses up out of my house and take them out of here or they going to show up and it's going to be a hail of gunfire and a blood trail see what I'm saying police or responders man

  29. See Chelsea when people hear the truth they understand what the situation is maybe government should take a page out of my man's book and start being truthful with the constituents what do you think

  30. Let me stop you right there buddy a car that is something that is a privilege okay a firearm is a god-given right it is a tool to help protect and defend your life there's a difference pal

  31. Know how many people would die if that was the case how many innocent people would die if that was the case

  32. Dear Americans
    Please keep your guns very close to you!
    I am from the Philippines and the only people that have guns are terrorist and drug cartels while innocent civilians have no guns to defend themselves.

  33. No answers lie "in between" the truth or our Constitution. The fact is THERE IS NO RIGHT TO OWN A GUN IN THE CONSTITUTION. That's the only Constitution we have.

  34. How many murders or Mass murders happen at gun ranges??? When everyone holds the button. There are rules there, but everyone has the button…. Even mentally unstable ppl put ear plugs in to save their ears while mass murdering……

  35. Why is this lady trying to pass more UNCONSTITUTIONAL law? Any federal gun laws are a violation of the Constitution. Her argument is weak.

  36. His argument is strong, keep speaking truth! Exactly right. Black guns do matter because they are a TOOL no better or worse than the person using them

  37. When we removed God from schools and America we lost His protection. Our rights are given by GOD NOT GOVERNMENT. They cannot be taken away by government passing laws without DUE PROCESS lady.

  38. If only this were in front of the real Congress because it is 100% true and one of the best gun control speeches you'll ever hear.
    Thanks for doing this debate!

  39. Why are they comparing driving (not a right but a privilege or commodity in a free society) to the God given right to bear arms? Apples and oranges. She just wants more government control. How ignorant and ILLEGAL for the federal government to do so

  40. I love when he brings up the puckle gun as evidence for an automatic rifle in the 1770s and then says 'that person doesn't know about guns'. He should read up on who used the puckle gun and how many were produced.

  41. "Assassians guns" she is fucking uneducated and works purely on emotion. Wow 3d printed gun into parliament? But no bullets wow

  42. I have never had to get a background check when I purchase a car. I have however gone through a background check when purchasing a handgun.

  43. Gang on gang violence and drug related homicides also inflate the numbers. How many of those weapons were legally acquired by the offender?

  44. I'm 18 minutes into this video and this lady is literally talking in circles. She makes a point she agrees with. Then when she goes to elaborate, she explains why her point doesnt even work lol

  45. The overt and covert racism with lawmakers and politicians is a criminal justice issue. Not a gun rights issue.

  46. Maj is absolutely right about gun manufacturers already being heavily regulated. I work in the gun industry and we already have so many regulation and rules. And laws change state by state all the time and it hurts business so much when one state all of a sudden decide to make something illegal. If anyone knows of regulations in the car industry which compares, please let me know cause I can't think of any for the most part

  47. Lots of people like to talk about white People shooting up places but no one wants to talk about my people black and Spanish people killing each other daily in mass shooting around the nation. Democrats want your vote. They don’t care about you.

  48. Guns aren’t the problem, society is. Guns have been around forever, but these mass shooting are fairly new. Not to long ago, kids would bring guns to school for gun clubs. Guns used to be something that the family could enjoy and have fun with. What changed in society?

  49. If 'Gov't guns" means making sure the military keeps its own war weapons which should be used for war only, (and the govt seems to think war is just good business) and if trying to find peace with the police and the gov't means less deaths, that should be what is important. Not keeping the street wars going by arming everyone with a gun because no one wants to trust anybody. Being paranoid is not helping the people or the govt of ANY country.

  50. If gun controls reduced gun crime then why is it that she only focuses on high income countries? I thought we were seeing the effects of gun control not gun control and money? We have a higher homicide rate even if you discounted firearms from those statistics entirely. That right there proves to me we have more criminally minded people or mentally defective people committing crimes.

    It is even more curious why she only compared firearms laws between states but doesn't compare like states and their poverty level. If according to her only developed nations are comparable then it would seem like comparing similar income rates and gun controls would make more sense if we confine ourselves to her logic.

  51. This is how the Democrats get their socialism and communism they have to D arm the population get rid of the Second Amendment that’s the only way socialism and communism could ever exist in this country because We The People don’t have anything to fight with second amendment says we the people have the right to Bear arms against a tyrannical government and install a new one in and that’s what’s happening today it makes me sick that these anti-gun people what happens if someone breaks into your house at three in the morning you have a wife and three kids to kids this guys in your house ready to do you harm would you have to defend yourself are you going to sit there and let him overcome your husband tie them to a chair while he rape your wife or your kids God for bid that ever happened and you have nothing to defend and protect your family I never want that to happen to anybody but in today’s society where were going with these Democrats they’re off the cliff they want to take your guns so how are you going to defend your family you’re going to sit there and watch them get raped be killed and in your last should own a firearm you’re gonna wish you had a gun in your house to literally put a bullet in his head if you had to I’m not calling for violence but if you have to protect your family and your back is against the wall you have nothing else you can do to save yourself that’s the only option your left foot and it’s a bad option it sucks but at least your family will be alive and you’ll be alive I’m a God loving person 10 Commandments say that our show not killBut it also says and I for an eye God bless you all please think twice

  52. Don’t blame the gun manufacturers that is the saddest road to go down that has nothing to do with the conversation to gun manufacturers or supplying the dealers which go through a background check to sell a gun to a person very hard license to get second war on most every state as a background check they check you too you’re 14 years old the people that lie on their permit application don’t get arrested like they’re supposed to They let them walk out the door for lying which is a criminal act why doesn’t the ATF go to that person’s house in a rush them

  53. Trust me if guns are taken away I'll use 2 pipes a end cap bolt and a dremel tool and can make you a slam fire shotgun that costs about 5 bucks and can be disposed of easily leading to criminals having a sense of relief because can't be traced and no big deal tossing away.

  54. Also black powder reproduction pistols 6 shot can be modified to shoot modern cartridges with a Mason conversion kit as long as the gun is made of modern metal and no brass not to mention you can order them online and sent to your house since black powder guns are not considered guns and no background checks. These liberals are stupid a work around is always around plus a new black market opens when anything is banned like alcohol and marijuana leading to more murders since it's street value grows when banned.

  55. I have to say, this was a really professional debate and I want to see more controversial issues discussed on this platform. I would love to see you get @AlexEpstein to debate any of the mainstream Climate Change activists or scientists on the costs/benefits of Fossil Fuels as it relates Climate Change and Human Flourishing.

  56. Guns don't cause murder/suicide. Japan had virtually ZERO guns, and nearly double the suicide rate the US has. Their suicides are lethal despite not having guns.

  57. (Part 1)
    "You're more likely to be killed by a gun in the U.S. because of our lack of laws."
    Really? The actual chances are far lower than you may be led to believe. If the statement is implying that the chances of a civilian being killed are high due to the ubiquity of legal firearms, let’s see if we can substantiate that implication by perusing the publicly available information.

    There are around 30,000 gun-related deaths per year by firearms.

    The U.S. Population is 329,366,637 as of August 27, 2019. Do the math: 30,000/324,059,091 = 0.00009108. Thus, 0.009% of the population die from gun related incidents each year. This is known as being statistically 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, and a law-abiding citizen need not be afraid of.

    • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified — once again, something a law-abiding citizen need not be afraid of.

    • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.

    • 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

    Technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Yes, but let’s look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

    • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago (Estimated to be over 1,100 this year)

    • 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.

  58. (Part 2) Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? Yes, but statistically speaking, being shot is not nearly your biggest concern. According to the FBI’s report, there were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation. Therefore, you are 23,484% more likely to be the victim of a violent crime that doesn’t involve you being shot to death than being “a law abiding citizen that is killed by a gun in the US.”

    How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad, and especially when it is in the commission of a crime, but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, and 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–Inexcusable!

    • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

    • 35,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide and all other types of incidents).

    • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are MUCH less likely to get shot in the worst areas of Chicago than you are to die from malpractice in a hospital!

    • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease.

    So, what is the point? If the anti-gun movement would focus their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save nearly 14 times the number of lives lost annually from all gun-violence deaths. A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.) 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?

  59. (Part 3)

    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 governments have done throughout history, by trying to disarm the populace. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed citizenry makes a very tractable populace.

    Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly enumerated 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.” We now know what they’re trying to do, rule the defenseless.

    It’s not about coming together and agreeing upon the facts. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because the authoritarian Progressive Left does not care about the facts — in fact, they're vehemently against them. They appeal to the emotions of people who are ignorant about the reality of firearms. It has become all about winning the political struggle to overtake the other side.

    The gun debate is about getting rid of traditional American views of individualism and self-reliance, and replacing it with the spurious facade of security. As Benjamin Franklin warned 262 years ago, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

  60. Laws dont stop criminals .
    Lets try enforcing the laws on the books( nics doesnt prosecute hundreds of thousands of applicants who are convicted felons that apply to get a gun etc eyc etc)

  61. Lady doesnt know her guns . 30rnd mag is a standard mag . assault rifle is a select fire weapon which are illegal already unless you under go a vetting process , massive tax stamp , and a long waiting period.
    Ar does not stand for assault rifle it stands for armalite rifle .
    Please before you make talking points get informed . 99% of people who own guns dont have select fire rifles.

  62. Suicides and justifiable homicides should not be used for your statistics VICE. Your numbers would drop to about 11,000 to 13,000 per year!

  63. Gun Rights is a given for me. It's not negotiable because of the foundation being the 2A was about power and who wields it……. but that was complete fail when he suggested that automatic rifles were invented, and on the Founder's minds, when the 2A was written. I'm sure there were concepts and people trying to figure it out in the 1770's, but the Founder's had no true concept of multi-fire rifles. That's what made WW1 so different. If we want to win this debate we have to be intellectually honest an not make the same logical fallacy arguments the left makes when they suggest the 2A was about only muskets. By the way, he wins the debate hands down, but that statement was embarrassing.

  64. If the 3rd world war will leave…no human beings, would you own a firearm &
    let your family members own one to fight the armed intruders in home invasion
    & this coming conventional war to fight foreign troops?

  65. How many laws do we need exactly? Some say there are 20,000 laws on the books now. Will 40,000 gun laws work? 100,000 gun laws? At what do you call INSANITY? At what point do you say the ability of HUMANS to be devious and evil is INNUMERABLE? Therefore, we need to ACT to LOCK UP for OBSERVATION ANYONE who VERBALIZES or POSTS SERIOUS VIOLENCE, expresses REAL or IMMINENT violence.

  66. No I don't think it's the same
    Solution, to compare automobile
    Manufacturers regulations 2 gun
    Manufacturers regulations… it's apples to oranges.

Leave a Reply

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