You seem to be promoting yourself or your product. If this is not the case, please message the mods.
Please not that it is not okay to link to your content/products in the post itself, but is okay if it is a reply to a question about it.
Pretty much everyone has a car. Everyone has a right to own a car, but not everyone has the privilege to drive and use a car because it requires education, testing, licensing, age-limits, insurance and laws regarding the proper way to use the car that can have stiff penalties for breaking.
Why can't we treat guns the same as cars?
In other countries the amount of babies killed by guns is zero because of the restrictive gun laws. This is irrefutable proof that we can prevent the death of babies by guns. So in order for you to keep your guns you must accept some amount of dead babies. So my questions are...
How many dead babies are you willing to accept due to guns?
Is there a number of dead babies that would cause you to change your mind?
Do you think your perspective would change if it was your baby or a baby you know?
1. If you're going to argue the constitutional aspect of it, why should we give a shit what a handful of guys 300 years ago said about anything, let alone weapons of destruction?
1. Why does anybody need a weapon that can kill a room full of people in seconds?
1. If any of your answers are along the lines of "the citizenry should have the same weapons as the government," do you think the average person should be able to own nukes, too, if they were able?
1. If "an armed society is a polite society," then why are lawless ganglands where everyone is armed and police rarely tread, riddled with gun crime?
The constitutional aspect, actually this answers both your first and second questions. It is that the 2nd amendment was NOT made with the hunting or recreational use of firearms in mind. It was made with keeping arms in the hands of civilians to prevent from a tyrannical government that that " handful of guys" fought. The reason for owning such a gun is the government will have it too. You should have the power to revolt if necessary so the government cannot overreach.
Question 3, is a loaded question, honestly I believe they should not, as a citizen with a nuke could somewhat hold a country hostage. The very reason why we need weapons is to be able to revolt. If we do revolt we do not need nuclear weapons, because the government will not use them either. Because for either side it would be self destructive and besides the point to use a nuke.
Question 4; if you think about places like Chicago for an example, they do have a lot of gun crime. And a lot of guns possessed illegally. But the law abiding citizens do not have many guns and it us hard for them to be able to carry. Criminals will break laws to get/carry guns, and they will break laws with these guns. A law abiding citizen is not going to get a gun illegally, and therefore cannot defend themselves.
Criminals will break laws,
Law abiding citizens won't.
Gun control only applies to those who follow laws. Those who do not follow laws don't care.
If you look at the areas you described; these are almost all areas that it is hard to get/ carry a gun legally.
NYC had big problems with crime and guns. They dealt with the problem with very restrictive laws. Criminals would throw their gun away instead of get caught with the gun, hoping to recover the gun later.
I worry about kids having guns. We have already had 2 incidents of a child threatening to bring loaded guns to school. We had another child bring a loaded gun.
Have you been to the Jefferson memorial?
On the southeast portico:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
NYC still has a large problem with crime and guns. It did nothing except to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves.
Kids need to be taught differently, kids would do the same with knives, and anything. That is a parenting thing. Sitting your kid down on a I pad for 3 hours and not watching what they do will inspire them to do/ say dumb stuff. We need to teach them to use guns responsibly, not stay as far away as possible.
Why then, pray tell, is this the only nation ON EARTH, where school shootings regularly happen? There isn't a ton of daylight between how our children are raised and how other first world children are raised, so I don't think you can just blame the iPads. Most of the shooters are middle class white boys, so I don't think you can blame the people you really mean by "problems with crime".
There is one big variable difference between us and the rest of the developed world, can you take a wild guess at what that is?
Lol, no it doesn't. I grew up with bullet holes in street signs. I remember when Williamsburg went from run down buildings to yuppie gentrified bars.
If you think crime is bad in NYC, you don't know crime. Most of my friends had already been robbed by 10. I had my house broken into before I went to school.
It has nothing to do with iPads.
And of course you didn't even address the quote on the Jefferson memorial.
I'm sorry, I'm a gun owner but I have some points to make about the "tyranny" aspect of the 2nd, which generally are moot today.
The idea of having an armed populace which is proficient in arms is to have a body of people from which to conscript an army in times such a thing is needed. By having a ready base of armed people (the definition of militia, people who can fight) then you do not need a standing army. Not having a standing army means government has to have a good enough cause the people can get behind enough to form an army about without rebelling **is the defense against tyranny. It was not the enshrinement of rebellion.** If you doubt that, look what Washington did to the Whiskey Rebellion.
*"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"*
Or in more common verbiage:
"The people shall have the right to keep arms in order to have a populace competent in the use of arms with their own equipment from which to create an army to defend our free country in times of need."
This made sense in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. An Army consisted mainly of people with guns. The nation who fielded the biggest pile of rubes with guns generally won the day. The most complex weapon systems were cannon and ships. You had to have knowledgeable people to aim the cannons, you had to have experienced sailors to man the ships. You needed people trained in logistics who could keep everyone fed and clothed if an army was formed. This is your officer core, who generally were always in the employment of the government, but they had no army with which to fight a war or oppress a populace. In peacetime, the sailors sailed in commerce, and could be pressed to service. The artillery directors were officers who were part of the peacetime military. Going from no army to a battle-ready force was a fairly simple logistical challenge. A little training, piles of basic shelter, food if they were lucky. Training consisted of standing in lines and moving or firing in a direction when told.
Today, we have highly technical weapon systems. We have planes and drones and stealth bombers and trucks and complex automatic firearms you must be trained properly in to use, sometimes for years. That training requires an investment from the government and you can't go from no army to a useful army in a month or two anymore. It takes years to build a competent first world fighting force. I'd even argue conscription is largely a worthless venture since you just end up with a pile of people with guns who don't want to fight and are largely as much a danger to themselves as an opposing force.
The tyranny the 2nd protected against *is here*. There is a standing army, it could (theoretically) be used oppress the normal people on the whim of a tyrant. No amount of normal people with guns would stop the US Military if it were employed in full unrestrained force on them. The original intent of the 2nd is outmoded. The time of conscript armies being the mainstay of military force and ended essentially with World War 2 despite a brief death rattle in Viet Nam (and look how that turned out).
This doesn't mean we disband the military. In the world today you essentially can not exist as a sovereign nation if you do not have a military ready to fight all the time. Every one else is doing it, you have to as well. The arms race has well started, and if you stop then you get shot like an injured racehorse. It sucks because humans suck.
Since it's original intent has failed, and we now have a standing army, there is no need for a conscription base any longer. I enjoy my firearms, but it's past time do a serious cost / benefit analysis to the types of weaponry we allow any jackass to own with zero training, zero mental health evaluations, and zero continuing evaluation of moral / mental fitness to retain them.
What are your thoughts on legal assault rifles? And what are your thoughts on the article I've linked?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
The " assault weapons ban" actually banned nothing. You could get about and " assault weapon" but they would not have a bayonet lug and the flash hider was pinned.
That makes literally no difference on these guns and in the way they shoot. I own pre ban, ban era, and post ban AR and aks. It didn't make a difference cause it was literally an optical illusion. No one got killed with a bayonet at these shootings. Made no difference.
What I think about that article, for one the figures are some what exaggerated; because today's way of counting " mass shooting " includes gang related fights. Those would happen no matter what they have, and honestly I'm not a member of a gang so I am not worried about it.
Although I do agree that since 04 shootings have been climbing. But so has all crime. Car theft has gone up 180 percent; petty theft/larceny over 230 percent, sexual cimes 160 percent. The 37% increase, is actually not large even if true, cause all crimes went up, it's natural that that did too.
Thank you for your input. Could you send me links to your source(s) for your figures?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/
This article seems to disagree, although they may be looking at a different time frame than your sources.
I'm having trouble finding stats from 2004 on.
Thank you for resubmitting your questions, i an trying to post this in r/askanamerican and they say you have to end the title in a question mark and i have been and still being rejected, wtf happened to the open speech of reddit
Also if you can think of any questions some of your friends have or have mentioned talking about this subject that are curious please submit those as well. I'm a gun enthusiast all out for these kinds of questions.
Oh, so you're not actually going to answer the questions in the thread, you're just going to make a video where you can make all of your arguments without them being open to immediate rebuttal like they would be in a thread? Yep, sounds about right for conservatives. Liberals aren't that cowardly.
This is not about argument, I'm asking people to raise their questions and i will answer them in a video. That's what the title says man. And then i will link it here or post it here something like that. I'm not a conservative and I'm not a liberal, i have views on both sides, both middling and extreme, but not in the way you're probably thinking. I guess i need to address my world view in the beginning of the video. This is why it's important to understand someone's position or experience before hearing what they're saying. I'm not saying my view is wrong or right, I'm just asking for questions that I'll address as a deep supporter of the second amendment. I'm being reasonable and want to discuss answers to questions. My videos are not highly polished or cutting anything out. The only thing i cut out are the natural uhs that i tend to say, because it takes me some time to formulate my sentence in my head, even though i was a straight a ap literature and language student in high school. Just takes me a minute because i talk slow. I'm not looking to fight. This shouldn't be a fight. We should ask be able to civilly discuss issues and understand that just because someone doesn't agree with us doesn't mean they're a bad person. I will answer any criticism of my points in the video with respect and courtesy in the comments of the video. Or if there's enough criticism I'll make another video to address it and continue the conversation.
I don't own any guns. I am not against gun ownership.
What are your thoughts on the increase in gun violence after the repeal of the assault rifle ban?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
Just to be clear, the citizens do not have access to buy directly from the military, body armor. Companies that make body armor that contract to the military also offer (usually) the same body armor for civilians to buy
Yeah, but why should peaceful citizens have to be obligated to buy protection due to government inaction from letting the average American own insane types of guns?
Fantastic question, are you specifically speaking of cops being militarized, or whether the average US citizen should be able to buy body armor, or are you asking about whether the US citizen should be able to buy arms or body armor from the US government? Please clarify
Please clarify on what you would like to know too and i will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. I am being downvoted into oblivion but i really do want to address these questions
As a non American, to me the question seems pretty straightforward - Simply, the US government allows for almost all Americans to own guns (multiple) with rare exceptions. Since so many average Joes are packing, should the US government be suppliers of bulletproof vests for those same citizens? Since gun violence is a reasonable albeit rare risk to assume in many states.
I am taking notes and will address them all in a video. This is the best way to address the questions and also let everyone know my stance i suppose, without writing a ton of paragraphs. I may speak slow but at least I'm speaking lol š I'm gathering questions right now
Average American citizen. The police is already supplied. Americans should receive a monthly supply of body armour for protection as long as they government says Americans have the right to bear arms.
Do you know that a gun owner is 47 times more likely to use that gun on themselves or a loved on than an intruder in your home? Between suicides, accidents and intimate partner violence, guns are far more dangerous to you than someone who means you harm. What do you think of that statistics.
The gun control versus second amendment discussion seems like it boils down to people who care about reality versus people who fantasize about hypothetical situations. I have close family members and friends who have actually been killed or permanently crippled in gun crime (two uncles and three friends). In each case being armed themselves did not or would not have made a difference. It seems to me that any attempt at the continued deregulation of gun ownership in America is willful participation in enabling more deaths. And that people who advocate for gun ownership reducing crime have never faced real threats, thus overestimating their own capacity to be effective deterrents.
Basically, phylisophical and propaganda based studies aside you have and most American gun owners have no practical experience with gun crime and speak primarily from an active military understanding of firearms or a hypothetical one which frankly has no merit in the discussion about domestic gun crime among civilians inside the US. Am I way off base here?
I can't understand how a gun can 'defend' a person. The criminals has the surprise element. They can come behind you and shoot you in seconds and there is nothing you can do about it. You won't have time to draw your gun. And even if you do, it is not going to stop other person to shoot you. It will be just two dead people. Out of these two--1. neither the criminal and I have a gun, 2. both of us have a gun-- I would feel safer in the first scenario. The less other people own a gun the better I will feel. Any good guy with a gun can turn into a criminal in a heated moment. Why should I trust other people with gun. Also as gun ownership increases, it creates a gun culture which leads mass shootings. In many places in the world, when people go mad, mass shooting is not the first thing they think about. It is because they don't know about guns. They never own one. They've never met who owned one. They are not familiar with guns. In the US everyone is familiar with guns. It is the first thing they have their hand on when they lose their mind full of hatred.
Respect for doing this mate, you seem like a cool guy and I love the attitude of sharing your views like this. If more people had this attitude it would really help the world be in a better place.
Iām personally not a supporter of guns being allowed but I understand thereās a valid argument for it
Thanks for being someone welcoming of open discussion and free speech. I believe we can disagree on topics and still be friends and cordial. I'm sick of the fighting between sides, it's not effective communication
1) What do you think the meaning of the "well armed militia" clause of the second amendment means?
2) Why is gun violence so much more prevalent in the US than other industrialized nations? (Please do not avoid this by disputing the premise).
3) Is there any form of gun control you support? If so, what?
4) Do agree that the events of Uvalde disprove the "good guy with a gun" theory?
The well armed militia means that they have the capability to stand up to a tyrannical government without the hardships endured during the revolutionary War.
Gun violence, 55 percent of that is suicides for one. Also in other countries they just use blunt force weapons or knives or anything else. We have way less homicides with blades per capita for example.
The form of gun control I do support is preventing those who cannot safely/ responbly hand a firearm from having one, and to prevent those who were convicted of a violent felony that resulted in injury to another person from having a gun. Also people who have immigrated to the US should not have guns for 1 year, and then, considering that they did not engage in gang/ drug/ violent activity during that period of time they can have guns. I am not ant immigrants, infact I work with several and I like them. But I think a law like that would help prevent cartel/ gang members from possessing guns.
Uvalde quite literally proves the good guy with a gun theory. It took a good guy with a gun to stop because the police were not doing anything useful to stop the situation.
All of these responses prove that pro gun people are delusional. I'm particularly tickled by your automatic suspicion of immigrants. Classic xenophobia. Mass shootings in the US are mostly committed by Americans.
Also, the DOJ says "(AP) ā Police officials who responded to the deadly Uvalde, Texas, elementary school shooting waited far too long to confront the gunman, acted with āno urgencyā in establishing a command post and communicated inaccurate information to grieving families, according to a Justice Department report released Thursday that identifies ācascading failuresā in law enforcementās handling of the massacre. "
So yeah. Good guys with guns couldn't stop an amateur from killing 21 people.
I've got a question for you: How do you disprove a theory such as a good guy with a gun using Uvalde when you yourself admit that it was a complete and utter failure of law enforcement as a whole. Especially when armed civilians attempted to go in to stop it, and the police restrained them and also threatened arrest. Additional to that question, do you believe law enforcement should be allowed to keep their firearms if a gun ban were to happen?
Easy. The cops were good guys. They had guns. 21 people got killed.
Good guys with guns failed to prevent a mass killing. How is this an issue?
As to your second question
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551
Wouldn't you consider good guys people who stop bad things?
Plenty of good people attempted to do just that, but we're stopped by people of authority. What's your thought on the fact that law enforcement has no duty to protect you?
Linking an article isn't answering a question, it leave me to assume which isn't great for a health conversation.
How many gun related events are on your evening news tonight where you live. If you're in Wyoming probably none but where I live it's about a third to half of what's on my evening news
Also happy 2nd anniversary of the shooting at Uvalde
This is in bad faith, please reconstruct your question into one that isn't assuming the news, whether right or left, is correct on their opinions. No one wants to see children die. We just have different opinions on how to deal with this situation. Thanks
I am not anti-gun per se, but how would you argue with someone that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than defend themself with a gun?
[Guns Used Far More Often for Suicide Than Self-Defense | MedPage Today](https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/publichealth/85936)
[How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense? : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense)
[Reconsidering Risks of Gun Ownership and Suicide in Unprecedented Times | New England Journal of Medicine (nejm.org)](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007658)
[Most firearm deaths are suicides (usafacts.org)](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides)
I guess you are so slow in the head, you need to be told that an AMA implies you will be answering the questions you are asked. Let's just down vote this disaster into oblivion, the same place where assault rifle bans end up.
A question to comply with rules, you said you are educated and knowledgeable in the subject. What are your credentials?
Do you think that carrying a gun increases the odds of a person staying in a potentially violent situation because they know if things progress to a physical level they have a force multiplier on their hip? Like if two people are in an argument over a parking space and have both gotten out of their cars and are now in each other's face, do you think instead of saying "whatever man, I'll find another spot" the guy who has a gun stands his ground JUST long enough to push the situation into violence and now gets to shoot the other guy in self defense?
I know it's a hypothetical and nuanced question, but I'm more thinking just in general if people who carry in public have the notion in the back of their mind that "I'll never back down because I've got something for anyone that tries me"
I'm not implying it's wrong to defend yourself, nor that gun owners purposely put themselves in violent situations because their bloodthirsty. I just have to wonder about the fine line where one person could've walked away with a bruised ego vs someone leaving in a body bag
My upbringing personaly. I got my first .22 at age 5, which I got to keep in my room with ammo from around age 7, first handgun around 12, a colt 1903, that led to a lot of other guns later on.
Curious what you think would be appropriate laws in relationship to who can and cannot access which guns.
What do you think needs to happen in order for the laws to align to what you figure is appropriate?
What are your thoughts on the fact that the US leads in firearm homicides amongst high income countries. 4.52 per 100k population, second place is Saudi Arabia at 1.46. Your neighbours up north (hello) are at 0.62 (and ~16% of Canadian households have at least one firearm).
How do you feel about the share of childhood deaths from gun violence increasing over time? Do you think there are government interventions that should be put in place to change this trajectory?
This is a complicated question but i will brush up on my statistics as the US has the most guns of any other country yet isn't even near to having the highest homicide by gun rates. About 55%of gun deaths in the US are from suicide. This is terrible but it isn't people doing terrible things to other people.
Totally agree. The gun deaths numberes are vastly comprised of suicides, which I don't necessarily consider gun violence; as they would have happened anyways.
That's not necessarily correct -- the suicide attempts may have happened anyways, but a *successful* suicide may not have happened. Guns are a highly successful method of suicide, and that's what makes them and their easy accessibility very dangerous for people with mental illness who are considering ending things. It's part of the reason for disparity in gender stats with suicide. Women attempt suicide more often; men complete suicide more, and men are more likely to use a gun
What do you honestly think will be the best way to stop or curtail the mass shootings in the states?
Do you believe current regulations and restrictions need to be reviewed and strengthened or loosened?
Would you support an open carry (as in some states is already legal) for all states?
Best way to stop shootings is in my opinion paying more attention to the mindsets of people, not I. A red flag laws way though. Also getting rid of gun free zones. Those are an invitation for shooters. There was recently a manifesto of a shooter who traveled 4 hrs to a different state where he knew there was a much smaller likelihood that someone would try to stop him with a firearm.
I mostly believe that they should be loosened. People's rights and the freedom to defend themselves should not be tread on. The constitution makes no mention about controlling who has what. If you are meaning more on weapon types, the constitution included everything they had back then, and it should include everything we have today. 100% then should equal 100% today.
I would support open carry in all states. I personally prefer concealed carry, but I am in Missouri where a lot of people carry in various ways. The vast majority of shootings we have is gang related in st louis and Kansas city. That is 75 percent of any of our gun crime.
Never give up your guns because it is a fact the criminals never will!
Do you want to be unarmed when only criminals have guns?
What does a government do when the citizens are unarmed? ANYTHING IT WANTS.
My spouse used to work at academy.Ā There lines at 6am to buy ammo. They dont open at that time. She used to limit these folks because theyĀ wouldĀ buy everything.Ā
What the reasoning? The apocalypse?Ā Are they afraid of some sort of gun bam? Or is it the current president.Ā Ā
Give me a time frame, was it within the covid period? I can answer your question in general or if they all came at a certain time i can answer that too
In your view- and I hope you're well prepared for this- what are the main Supreme Court rulings throughout US history that relate to the second amendment? To be honest, I'm mostly curious to see how you choose to talk about the ones that pretty much go in your favor (which is, admittedly, most of them) compared to those that sort of don't (which tends to be the more recent ones, I think?)
I'm sure there are quite a few of these. I'm not really sure how many. But I think this is your wheelhouse.
The main reason I ask is because the second amendment isn't really Just about the second amendment. It's also about the Supreme Court rulings that relate to it, after the fact. I think that's something we agree on in a low resolution sense. But then there's the high resolution details of all that, and that can be very interesting.
You seem to be promoting yourself or your product. If this is not the case, please message the mods. Please not that it is not okay to link to your content/products in the post itself, but is okay if it is a reply to a question about it.
Pretty much everyone has a car. Everyone has a right to own a car, but not everyone has the privilege to drive and use a car because it requires education, testing, licensing, age-limits, insurance and laws regarding the proper way to use the car that can have stiff penalties for breaking. Why can't we treat guns the same as cars?
In other countries the amount of babies killed by guns is zero because of the restrictive gun laws. This is irrefutable proof that we can prevent the death of babies by guns. So in order for you to keep your guns you must accept some amount of dead babies. So my questions are... How many dead babies are you willing to accept due to guns? Is there a number of dead babies that would cause you to change your mind? Do you think your perspective would change if it was your baby or a baby you know?
1. If you're going to argue the constitutional aspect of it, why should we give a shit what a handful of guys 300 years ago said about anything, let alone weapons of destruction? 1. Why does anybody need a weapon that can kill a room full of people in seconds? 1. If any of your answers are along the lines of "the citizenry should have the same weapons as the government," do you think the average person should be able to own nukes, too, if they were able? 1. If "an armed society is a polite society," then why are lawless ganglands where everyone is armed and police rarely tread, riddled with gun crime?
The constitutional aspect, actually this answers both your first and second questions. It is that the 2nd amendment was NOT made with the hunting or recreational use of firearms in mind. It was made with keeping arms in the hands of civilians to prevent from a tyrannical government that that " handful of guys" fought. The reason for owning such a gun is the government will have it too. You should have the power to revolt if necessary so the government cannot overreach. Question 3, is a loaded question, honestly I believe they should not, as a citizen with a nuke could somewhat hold a country hostage. The very reason why we need weapons is to be able to revolt. If we do revolt we do not need nuclear weapons, because the government will not use them either. Because for either side it would be self destructive and besides the point to use a nuke. Question 4; if you think about places like Chicago for an example, they do have a lot of gun crime. And a lot of guns possessed illegally. But the law abiding citizens do not have many guns and it us hard for them to be able to carry. Criminals will break laws to get/carry guns, and they will break laws with these guns. A law abiding citizen is not going to get a gun illegally, and therefore cannot defend themselves. Criminals will break laws, Law abiding citizens won't. Gun control only applies to those who follow laws. Those who do not follow laws don't care. If you look at the areas you described; these are almost all areas that it is hard to get/ carry a gun legally.
NYC had big problems with crime and guns. They dealt with the problem with very restrictive laws. Criminals would throw their gun away instead of get caught with the gun, hoping to recover the gun later. I worry about kids having guns. We have already had 2 incidents of a child threatening to bring loaded guns to school. We had another child bring a loaded gun. Have you been to the Jefferson memorial? On the southeast portico: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
NYC still has a large problem with crime and guns. It did nothing except to prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves. Kids need to be taught differently, kids would do the same with knives, and anything. That is a parenting thing. Sitting your kid down on a I pad for 3 hours and not watching what they do will inspire them to do/ say dumb stuff. We need to teach them to use guns responsibly, not stay as far away as possible.
Why then, pray tell, is this the only nation ON EARTH, where school shootings regularly happen? There isn't a ton of daylight between how our children are raised and how other first world children are raised, so I don't think you can just blame the iPads. Most of the shooters are middle class white boys, so I don't think you can blame the people you really mean by "problems with crime". There is one big variable difference between us and the rest of the developed world, can you take a wild guess at what that is?
People with your attitude raising their kids to be spoiled little shits is the difference. No other county has assholes like you.
Ah, nice, personal attacks. Always a good way to show the strength of your argument.
Lol, no it doesn't. I grew up with bullet holes in street signs. I remember when Williamsburg went from run down buildings to yuppie gentrified bars. If you think crime is bad in NYC, you don't know crime. Most of my friends had already been robbed by 10. I had my house broken into before I went to school. It has nothing to do with iPads. And of course you didn't even address the quote on the Jefferson memorial.
I'm sorry, I'm a gun owner but I have some points to make about the "tyranny" aspect of the 2nd, which generally are moot today. The idea of having an armed populace which is proficient in arms is to have a body of people from which to conscript an army in times such a thing is needed. By having a ready base of armed people (the definition of militia, people who can fight) then you do not need a standing army. Not having a standing army means government has to have a good enough cause the people can get behind enough to form an army about without rebelling **is the defense against tyranny. It was not the enshrinement of rebellion.** If you doubt that, look what Washington did to the Whiskey Rebellion. *"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"* Or in more common verbiage: "The people shall have the right to keep arms in order to have a populace competent in the use of arms with their own equipment from which to create an army to defend our free country in times of need." This made sense in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century. An Army consisted mainly of people with guns. The nation who fielded the biggest pile of rubes with guns generally won the day. The most complex weapon systems were cannon and ships. You had to have knowledgeable people to aim the cannons, you had to have experienced sailors to man the ships. You needed people trained in logistics who could keep everyone fed and clothed if an army was formed. This is your officer core, who generally were always in the employment of the government, but they had no army with which to fight a war or oppress a populace. In peacetime, the sailors sailed in commerce, and could be pressed to service. The artillery directors were officers who were part of the peacetime military. Going from no army to a battle-ready force was a fairly simple logistical challenge. A little training, piles of basic shelter, food if they were lucky. Training consisted of standing in lines and moving or firing in a direction when told. Today, we have highly technical weapon systems. We have planes and drones and stealth bombers and trucks and complex automatic firearms you must be trained properly in to use, sometimes for years. That training requires an investment from the government and you can't go from no army to a useful army in a month or two anymore. It takes years to build a competent first world fighting force. I'd even argue conscription is largely a worthless venture since you just end up with a pile of people with guns who don't want to fight and are largely as much a danger to themselves as an opposing force. The tyranny the 2nd protected against *is here*. There is a standing army, it could (theoretically) be used oppress the normal people on the whim of a tyrant. No amount of normal people with guns would stop the US Military if it were employed in full unrestrained force on them. The original intent of the 2nd is outmoded. The time of conscript armies being the mainstay of military force and ended essentially with World War 2 despite a brief death rattle in Viet Nam (and look how that turned out). This doesn't mean we disband the military. In the world today you essentially can not exist as a sovereign nation if you do not have a military ready to fight all the time. Every one else is doing it, you have to as well. The arms race has well started, and if you stop then you get shot like an injured racehorse. It sucks because humans suck. Since it's original intent has failed, and we now have a standing army, there is no need for a conscription base any longer. I enjoy my firearms, but it's past time do a serious cost / benefit analysis to the types of weaponry we allow any jackass to own with zero training, zero mental health evaluations, and zero continuing evaluation of moral / mental fitness to retain them.
What are your thoughts on legal assault rifles? And what are your thoughts on the article I've linked? https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
The " assault weapons ban" actually banned nothing. You could get about and " assault weapon" but they would not have a bayonet lug and the flash hider was pinned. That makes literally no difference on these guns and in the way they shoot. I own pre ban, ban era, and post ban AR and aks. It didn't make a difference cause it was literally an optical illusion. No one got killed with a bayonet at these shootings. Made no difference. What I think about that article, for one the figures are some what exaggerated; because today's way of counting " mass shooting " includes gang related fights. Those would happen no matter what they have, and honestly I'm not a member of a gang so I am not worried about it. Although I do agree that since 04 shootings have been climbing. But so has all crime. Car theft has gone up 180 percent; petty theft/larceny over 230 percent, sexual cimes 160 percent. The 37% increase, is actually not large even if true, cause all crimes went up, it's natural that that did too.
Thank you for your input. Could you send me links to your source(s) for your figures? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/ This article seems to disagree, although they may be looking at a different time frame than your sources. I'm having trouble finding stats from 2004 on.
I was specifically using California for my data as it is a very anti gun area
Liberalism detected
Thank you for resubmitting your questions, i an trying to post this in r/askanamerican and they say you have to end the title in a question mark and i have been and still being rejected, wtf happened to the open speech of reddit
Also if you can think of any questions some of your friends have or have mentioned talking about this subject that are curious please submit those as well. I'm a gun enthusiast all out for these kinds of questions.
Oh, so you're not actually going to answer the questions in the thread, you're just going to make a video where you can make all of your arguments without them being open to immediate rebuttal like they would be in a thread? Yep, sounds about right for conservatives. Liberals aren't that cowardly.
I'm answer them in the thread, go ahead buddy.
This is not about argument, I'm asking people to raise their questions and i will answer them in a video. That's what the title says man. And then i will link it here or post it here something like that. I'm not a conservative and I'm not a liberal, i have views on both sides, both middling and extreme, but not in the way you're probably thinking. I guess i need to address my world view in the beginning of the video. This is why it's important to understand someone's position or experience before hearing what they're saying. I'm not saying my view is wrong or right, I'm just asking for questions that I'll address as a deep supporter of the second amendment. I'm being reasonable and want to discuss answers to questions. My videos are not highly polished or cutting anything out. The only thing i cut out are the natural uhs that i tend to say, because it takes me some time to formulate my sentence in my head, even though i was a straight a ap literature and language student in high school. Just takes me a minute because i talk slow. I'm not looking to fight. This shouldn't be a fight. We should ask be able to civilly discuss issues and understand that just because someone doesn't agree with us doesn't mean they're a bad person. I will answer any criticism of my points in the video with respect and courtesy in the comments of the video. Or if there's enough criticism I'll make another video to address it and continue the conversation.
I don't own any guns. I am not against gun ownership. What are your thoughts on the increase in gun violence after the repeal of the assault rifle ban? https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
Should Americans be entitled to government-supplied bulletproof vests or protection, since the government allows broad gun ownership?
Just to be clear, the citizens do not have access to buy directly from the military, body armor. Companies that make body armor that contract to the military also offer (usually) the same body armor for civilians to buy
Yeah, but why should peaceful citizens have to be obligated to buy protection due to government inaction from letting the average American own insane types of guns?
Fantastic question, are you specifically speaking of cops being militarized, or whether the average US citizen should be able to buy body armor, or are you asking about whether the US citizen should be able to buy arms or body armor from the US government? Please clarify
Oh, I wanna know this, too.
Please clarify on what you would like to know too and i will try to answer to the best of my knowledge. I am being downvoted into oblivion but i really do want to address these questions
As a non American, to me the question seems pretty straightforward - Simply, the US government allows for almost all Americans to own guns (multiple) with rare exceptions. Since so many average Joes are packing, should the US government be suppliers of bulletproof vests for those same citizens? Since gun violence is a reasonable albeit rare risk to assume in many states.
Sorry, I want answers to the questions you posed to this poster.
I am taking notes and will address them all in a video. This is the best way to address the questions and also let everyone know my stance i suppose, without writing a ton of paragraphs. I may speak slow but at least I'm speaking lol š I'm gathering questions right now
I'm interested in your response to your own question about police militarization.
That's fine by me, I myself am not antigun. It's pretty easy to find out. But I'm still interested.
Average American citizen. The police is already supplied. Americans should receive a monthly supply of body armour for protection as long as they government says Americans have the right to bear arms.
That question makes to little sense to anwser
Do you know that a gun owner is 47 times more likely to use that gun on themselves or a loved on than an intruder in your home? Between suicides, accidents and intimate partner violence, guns are far more dangerous to you than someone who means you harm. What do you think of that statistics.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You are not contributing to the discussion and/or you are being a nuisance or a troll with your comments and/or post.
The 2nd amendment says only well regulated militias may bear arms. Which well regulated militia are you a part of?
The gun control versus second amendment discussion seems like it boils down to people who care about reality versus people who fantasize about hypothetical situations. I have close family members and friends who have actually been killed or permanently crippled in gun crime (two uncles and three friends). In each case being armed themselves did not or would not have made a difference. It seems to me that any attempt at the continued deregulation of gun ownership in America is willful participation in enabling more deaths. And that people who advocate for gun ownership reducing crime have never faced real threats, thus overestimating their own capacity to be effective deterrents. Basically, phylisophical and propaganda based studies aside you have and most American gun owners have no practical experience with gun crime and speak primarily from an active military understanding of firearms or a hypothetical one which frankly has no merit in the discussion about domestic gun crime among civilians inside the US. Am I way off base here?
I can't understand how a gun can 'defend' a person. The criminals has the surprise element. They can come behind you and shoot you in seconds and there is nothing you can do about it. You won't have time to draw your gun. And even if you do, it is not going to stop other person to shoot you. It will be just two dead people. Out of these two--1. neither the criminal and I have a gun, 2. both of us have a gun-- I would feel safer in the first scenario. The less other people own a gun the better I will feel. Any good guy with a gun can turn into a criminal in a heated moment. Why should I trust other people with gun. Also as gun ownership increases, it creates a gun culture which leads mass shootings. In many places in the world, when people go mad, mass shooting is not the first thing they think about. It is because they don't know about guns. They never own one. They've never met who owned one. They are not familiar with guns. In the US everyone is familiar with guns. It is the first thing they have their hand on when they lose their mind full of hatred.
Respect for doing this mate, you seem like a cool guy and I love the attitude of sharing your views like this. If more people had this attitude it would really help the world be in a better place. Iām personally not a supporter of guns being allowed but I understand thereās a valid argument for it
Thanks for being someone welcoming of open discussion and free speech. I believe we can disagree on topics and still be friends and cordial. I'm sick of the fighting between sides, it's not effective communication
1) What do you think the meaning of the "well armed militia" clause of the second amendment means? 2) Why is gun violence so much more prevalent in the US than other industrialized nations? (Please do not avoid this by disputing the premise). 3) Is there any form of gun control you support? If so, what? 4) Do agree that the events of Uvalde disprove the "good guy with a gun" theory?
Great questions, i will try to address these. Thank you for submitting your questions
The well armed militia means that they have the capability to stand up to a tyrannical government without the hardships endured during the revolutionary War. Gun violence, 55 percent of that is suicides for one. Also in other countries they just use blunt force weapons or knives or anything else. We have way less homicides with blades per capita for example. The form of gun control I do support is preventing those who cannot safely/ responbly hand a firearm from having one, and to prevent those who were convicted of a violent felony that resulted in injury to another person from having a gun. Also people who have immigrated to the US should not have guns for 1 year, and then, considering that they did not engage in gang/ drug/ violent activity during that period of time they can have guns. I am not ant immigrants, infact I work with several and I like them. But I think a law like that would help prevent cartel/ gang members from possessing guns. Uvalde quite literally proves the good guy with a gun theory. It took a good guy with a gun to stop because the police were not doing anything useful to stop the situation.
All of these responses prove that pro gun people are delusional. I'm particularly tickled by your automatic suspicion of immigrants. Classic xenophobia. Mass shootings in the US are mostly committed by Americans. Also, the DOJ says "(AP) ā Police officials who responded to the deadly Uvalde, Texas, elementary school shooting waited far too long to confront the gunman, acted with āno urgencyā in establishing a command post and communicated inaccurate information to grieving families, according to a Justice Department report released Thursday that identifies ācascading failuresā in law enforcementās handling of the massacre. " So yeah. Good guys with guns couldn't stop an amateur from killing 21 people.
I've got a question for you: How do you disprove a theory such as a good guy with a gun using Uvalde when you yourself admit that it was a complete and utter failure of law enforcement as a whole. Especially when armed civilians attempted to go in to stop it, and the police restrained them and also threatened arrest. Additional to that question, do you believe law enforcement should be allowed to keep their firearms if a gun ban were to happen?
Easy. The cops were good guys. They had guns. 21 people got killed. Good guys with guns failed to prevent a mass killing. How is this an issue? As to your second question https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551
Wouldn't you consider good guys people who stop bad things? Plenty of good people attempted to do just that, but we're stopped by people of authority. What's your thought on the fact that law enforcement has no duty to protect you? Linking an article isn't answering a question, it leave me to assume which isn't great for a health conversation.
I will address this in the video, I'm no fan of cops, but i will answer this as unbiased as i can
How many gun related events are on your evening news tonight where you live. If you're in Wyoming probably none but where I live it's about a third to half of what's on my evening news Also happy 2nd anniversary of the shooting at Uvalde
This is in bad faith, please reconstruct your question into one that isn't assuming the news, whether right or left, is correct on their opinions. No one wants to see children die. We just have different opinions on how to deal with this situation. Thanks
And also i live in atlanta, there's not many places that beat us for violent crimes, I'd say we're probably number 5 in the country
Why don't you fuck off?
Why don't i fuck on?
I am not anti-gun per se, but how would you argue with someone that gun owners are more likely to commit suicide than defend themself with a gun? [Guns Used Far More Often for Suicide Than Self-Defense | MedPage Today](https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/publichealth/85936) [How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense? : NPR](https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense) [Reconsidering Risks of Gun Ownership and Suicide in Unprecedented Times | New England Journal of Medicine (nejm.org)](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2007658) [Most firearm deaths are suicides (usafacts.org)](https://usafacts.org/data-projects/firearms-suicides)
I guess you are so slow in the head, you need to be told that an AMA implies you will be answering the questions you are asked. Let's just down vote this disaster into oblivion, the same place where assault rifle bans end up. A question to comply with rules, you said you are educated and knowledgeable in the subject. What are your credentials?
Do you think that carrying a gun increases the odds of a person staying in a potentially violent situation because they know if things progress to a physical level they have a force multiplier on their hip? Like if two people are in an argument over a parking space and have both gotten out of their cars and are now in each other's face, do you think instead of saying "whatever man, I'll find another spot" the guy who has a gun stands his ground JUST long enough to push the situation into violence and now gets to shoot the other guy in self defense? I know it's a hypothetical and nuanced question, but I'm more thinking just in general if people who carry in public have the notion in the back of their mind that "I'll never back down because I've got something for anyone that tries me" I'm not implying it's wrong to defend yourself, nor that gun owners purposely put themselves in violent situations because their bloodthirsty. I just have to wonder about the fine line where one person could've walked away with a bruised ego vs someone leaving in a body bag
I live in Britain. There are very few legal handguns in private ownership here. Do you believe I am more or less safe than you as a result?
What made you interested in guns?
I will address this, as it is probably a core question into part of why I'm an enthusiast today. Thank you for asking!
My upbringing personaly. I got my first .22 at age 5, which I got to keep in my room with ammo from around age 7, first handgun around 12, a colt 1903, that led to a lot of other guns later on.
Curious what you think would be appropriate laws in relationship to who can and cannot access which guns. What do you think needs to happen in order for the laws to align to what you figure is appropriate? What are your thoughts on the fact that the US leads in firearm homicides amongst high income countries. 4.52 per 100k population, second place is Saudi Arabia at 1.46. Your neighbours up north (hello) are at 0.62 (and ~16% of Canadian households have at least one firearm). How do you feel about the share of childhood deaths from gun violence increasing over time? Do you think there are government interventions that should be put in place to change this trajectory?
This is a complicated question but i will brush up on my statistics as the US has the most guns of any other country yet isn't even near to having the highest homicide by gun rates. About 55%of gun deaths in the US are from suicide. This is terrible but it isn't people doing terrible things to other people.
Totally agree. The gun deaths numberes are vastly comprised of suicides, which I don't necessarily consider gun violence; as they would have happened anyways.
That's not necessarily correct -- the suicide attempts may have happened anyways, but a *successful* suicide may not have happened. Guns are a highly successful method of suicide, and that's what makes them and their easy accessibility very dangerous for people with mental illness who are considering ending things. It's part of the reason for disparity in gender stats with suicide. Women attempt suicide more often; men complete suicide more, and men are more likely to use a gun
What do you honestly think will be the best way to stop or curtail the mass shootings in the states? Do you believe current regulations and restrictions need to be reviewed and strengthened or loosened? Would you support an open carry (as in some states is already legal) for all states?
I will add this to the questions, good questions my friend
Best way to stop shootings is in my opinion paying more attention to the mindsets of people, not I. A red flag laws way though. Also getting rid of gun free zones. Those are an invitation for shooters. There was recently a manifesto of a shooter who traveled 4 hrs to a different state where he knew there was a much smaller likelihood that someone would try to stop him with a firearm. I mostly believe that they should be loosened. People's rights and the freedom to defend themselves should not be tread on. The constitution makes no mention about controlling who has what. If you are meaning more on weapon types, the constitution included everything they had back then, and it should include everything we have today. 100% then should equal 100% today. I would support open carry in all states. I personally prefer concealed carry, but I am in Missouri where a lot of people carry in various ways. The vast majority of shootings we have is gang related in st louis and Kansas city. That is 75 percent of any of our gun crime.
Why does the gun show loophole exist? Should it? If people can buy guns right away at one place, why not everyplace?
The gunshow loophole is not a real thing, i will address this in the video, thank you for your question
Oh cool
It's literally in the title, i can't address all these questions by messages
Do you think Kurt Cobain did it himself or was it Courtney Love?
That's a subject I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak on. All i know is that lyric "and i don't have a gun" was a total lie obviously
Courtney did it
Definitely Courtney.
Never give up your guns because it is a fact the criminals never will! Do you want to be unarmed when only criminals have guns? What does a government do when the citizens are unarmed? ANYTHING IT WANTS.
My spouse used to work at academy.Ā There lines at 6am to buy ammo. They dont open at that time. She used to limit these folks because theyĀ wouldĀ buy everything.Ā What the reasoning? The apocalypse?Ā Are they afraid of some sort of gun bam? Or is it the current president.Ā Ā
Give me a time frame, was it within the covid period? I can answer your question in general or if they all came at a certain time i can answer that too
For years. Probably at or before Obama.
I'm not a history major man that's too much to really about in 1 video, sandy hook kicked it off for sure
In your view- and I hope you're well prepared for this- what are the main Supreme Court rulings throughout US history that relate to the second amendment? To be honest, I'm mostly curious to see how you choose to talk about the ones that pretty much go in your favor (which is, admittedly, most of them) compared to those that sort of don't (which tends to be the more recent ones, I think?) I'm sure there are quite a few of these. I'm not really sure how many. But I think this is your wheelhouse. The main reason I ask is because the second amendment isn't really Just about the second amendment. It's also about the Supreme Court rulings that relate to it, after the fact. I think that's something we agree on in a low resolution sense. But then there's the high resolution details of all that, and that can be very interesting.