@KamekoBruns Of course he is. tThe guy hates the first and the second. I'm pretty sure we both know how he feels about the 10th. I wonder how many other amendments he hates.
@SovereignStatesman need to be legal nor a tank so yeah there are weapons I think should be regulated and restricted handguns should be accepted rifles of all kinds and mags machineguns if you can get the tax stamp and hell if I was in power I would push to allow new automatic weapons come on the market why not that would bring the price down and make it abit easyer without getting rid of the restriction but w/e your just gonna be a jackass so why bother explaning.
@SovereignStatesman How am I a hypocrite? Im logical retard Just because alot of people in my particuler choice of party is anti gun does not mean I am. Just like not all republicans are anti gay tho most are im logical, I know people have the right to defend themselves and would not want to take it away it's just self defence do I think fully automatic weapons should be legal not not to everyone I think restrictions should be in place backround checks etc and sorry no a rpg does not
So basically if there is an intruder in your house with a fucking shotgun and a pair of pistols shouting ''IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!'' and you manage to catch him by surprise and kill him before he shoots the living shit out of you, you'll be going into prison.
That's pretty much how it works. Laws are pretty fucked up -.-
How is this story a good example of why guns should be legal? Someone was shot dead! I don't know what the intruders intentions were, but no crime in my mind warrants execution without trial! It is good to have the option to defend oneself, but why can't there be less deadly means of doing so? Rubber bullets, small caliber hand guns comes to mind to name a few. The goal should be to neutralize the threat until help arrives, not shoot to kill!
@Kebabkladd Do you expect people to take risks with their lives or with the lives of their family? Imagine if your awoken in the dead of night and find there is someone who you don't know in your home. You have no idea of who they are or their intentions or what they armed or even armed at all. They could be there to steal your TV or there to kill your entire family. You wanna take that chance or expect ohters to do so?
Perhaps she should have come out and poured them a coffee and fed them cake. Then they can discuss exactly why they broke into her home and how she can compromise with them. Then after words they'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But if it's my home and someone breaks in, not only will I shoot them dead but I'll stick their heads on a pike in my front yard as a warning to all future intruders.
@NoamTube I'm a very liberal oklahoman who owns guns. The woman is actually suffering a lot from the event. It turns out that taking a life can be really traumatic. I think you do a disservice to the cause of gun ownership when you say blood thirsty things like that.
It's not "blood thirsty" when I'm referring to an intruder in my home. You come in my home uninvited, you're in for a world of hurt. Any man would do the same to protect his family. Though I pray it never happens but if it does, I'll just shoot them in the legs for you. Compromise? It'll be a whole clip but at least they'll just be begging for the sweet release of death instead of being dead.
I noticed that some commenters have argued that it is more dangerous to have a gun in your house because, statistically, it is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else.
To them, I would ask: what percentage of the people who accidentally shot themselves or a family member ever took a course in proper firearms handling or a hunter safety course?
It's a two way street. You can have people able to commit murder and defend themselves, or you can have people commit murder (albeit with a knife) and people unable to defend themselves, especially if they are considerably weaker.
Also, different people have different attitudes. Guns are more laxed in a laid back area and have low gun crime rates, where guns are more limited it tends to have more crime.
The UK has a very dense population. THAT accounts for it's crime rates. One could even look at the safest states. Those states usually have the least dense populations. Gun rights should be based on Necessity vs. Desired Use, not about crime rates.
...policy on ammunition. The Swiss government regulates ALL sales, use, and distribution of ammunition throughout the country (which is also likely a factor in the low crime rates, not the gun rights.) As far as the UK, the statistic that is usually used is their gun crime homicide rate. The UK has low gun crime homicide because guns are illegal, but the violent crime rates in the UK are some of the highest in the world.
...also a country with low crime rates. Neither cases take into consideration population. Switzerland has roughly 7.8 million people according to their census. They don't have the gun rights for crime control, if they ever went to war, every citizen would have to be a part of the militia. The low crime rates in Switzerland have much more to do with population density. Besides, I doubt that opponents of gun rights would agree with the Swiss government's...
...Where people will point out that the United Kingdom has strict gun control and low crime rates (and may I point out that the only people you will find in the UK with handguns legally are MI-6 and the Queen's "secret service" bodyguards, police do not carry guns except in special circumstances.) On the other hand, the opponents of gun rights will use Switzerland as an example, a country where assault weapons are government mandated and training is required by law...
I've actually studied gun rights cases extensively. Crime rates are virtually unaffected by the use or lack of gun control. It comes down to population density. The denser the population, the heavier the crime rate. Both sides are wrong in the debate in assuming that either decision is going to affect crime rates. Criminals are criminals, killers are killers, neither need guns to commit crime. Many proponents of gun rights use the UK as an example...
@tblbaby he is a libertarian. Liberals call his economic policies and his views on firearm laws right wing extremist. The fact of the matter is he is very pro-limited government on all sides. Another interesting fact was that he was one of only 4 Congressmen to endorse Ronald Regan on his first run for President while many of your longtime Republicans such as Rick Perry endorsed Walter Mondale.
@tblbaby Actually myself and other vets I know are very fond of Ron Paul. I have yet to hear him call us "mass murderers of millions". As for his defense policies, yes, he is pro-getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and I think he is right because our politicians are more concerned with nation building there and that is not the Military's role. He is also for cutting Foreign Aid which is in fact being used against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is not a shrill liberal nut, he is
@SovereignStatesman Not true. We did not start WWI or WWII. Lincoln's war is known here as the War of Notherner Aggression. I do not believe that the US is necessarily the bad guy in the world as I have seen countries neglect freedom and individual liberty alot worse than what has happened here. Still, the Constitutional violations done by corrupt politicians, parasitic nanny-statists, and the other con-artists are inexcusable.
@CommunistCritic Actually they lost money from that deal. But since you wanted to ask about the company's involvement there were only TWO companies with the capabilities of handling the contract that Halliburton was doing, Halliburton and Schlumberger*(spelling) and Halliburton was the only American Company on the list. Why on earth should we give the contract to a non-American Company when it is AMERICAN BLOOD BEING SHED TO SECURE THOSE FIELDS?
@SovereignStatesman I agree with you on that one. I hope Ron Paul does get the nomination because I don't want to have to choose between the two Obamas in 2012 (Either Gingrich vs Obama or Romney vs Obama)
@Ilikemustard Yeah but Brevik shot up a labour party camp so even if they did not have any restrictions on ownerhip and carry of firearms it is very unlikely they would have actually had anyone there armed.
@Ilikemustard Okay, you are right, there are some liberals with firearms. I do know that it is mostly liberals that want to tell everyone else they can not have them though and a lot of liberal institutions do prohibit the carry of firearms on their property. I guess I can not say that simply because they are liberal does not mean that they won't carry but being a Labour party camp I just do not see them allowing the carry of firearms on their property with their political stances as a party.
What gave that bitch the right to shoot another human being DEAD for stealing something from her? That's not appropriate self defense, that's called MURDER.
@SovereignStatesman Haha and you call me a moron? Yeah let's just shoot anyone who steals, seems like a good punishment for stealing. Let's hand out guns to old ladies so they can shoot anyone who happens to visit them unexpected. That sounds like a safe way to do things. MORON.
@TWSceptic Ah, and how was the woman suppose to know that was all the intruder was going to do? Moreover, that thug got what he deserves. He broke into someone's home knowing there is a possbility he could be shot and he did it anyway. You know it is not that hard, don't want to get shot then don't break into someone else's home. What I have to ask you is why do you care more for the intruder than you do for the woman and her child?
They act like the woman was trying to punish the thugs for breaking in, rather than just trying to protect herself and her baby; so they say shit like "whaaaa, they didn't deserve to be SHOT just for STEALING!" as if they knew that's all the thugs were gonna do.
These milk-toast liberals are complete idiots who want to tie the hands of the victim to make the world safe for the criminals-- from a safe distance in their fantasy-world, of course!
Actually they are the PRODUCT of natural selection; i.e. they are sheep who follow the herd, while natural selection randomly picks off those who STRAY from it as they are devoured by predators.
That's why they don't want individuals being armed, since they equate all arms with predators-- and believe that all defense should come from following the herd.
So no matter how many times you explain it to them, or how logically, they'll continue to follow the herd.
Another point is that regardless of statistics,the most important point is the principle of the matter.Gun rights = Personal freedom and civil liberties.Taking these away destroys the very idea of a free society and leaves the citizenry open to oppression,crime and violence without a fair recourse or means to defend themselves,as well as hunt,target shoot and enjoy life.
It is my belief that people have the right to defend themselves & their property using whatever means they deem necessary.The idiot entered her home illegally,and got what was coming to him."If you outlaw guns,only the outlaws will have them".I believe that freedom depends on the gun rights of citizens(famous dictators took weapons from people before they oppressed them) and there is absolutely no good reason as to why people should not be able to own firearms for hunting,defense and recreation.
the woman won't get charged with the murder, or even manslaughter, you want to know who will get charged with murder/manslaughter, the one she didn't hit. It may seem weird, but you a friend of yours dies in an attempted robbery, you committed the crime, therefore, you are responsible for everything that happens,
In the UK here it is almost impossible for a person to legally have a gun, other than a shot gun. Yet gun crime is going up. More and more people get shot every month.
Taking peoples rights to defend themselves only serves those who do not obey the law.
@Lamicktin Well when the idiots decided to enter her home with out consent and put her in a position of feeling threatened they got what was coming to them. Think before you act because the outcome can be bad.
I don't see any reason to withhold guns from people in general. Not that this solves any of society's problem. With or without guns, people still commit violent crime. So in the big picture it makes little odds. However I favour the freedom to personally choose over a state regulation. I still probably wouldn't have one but I don't think that should stop others. There is also the argument that governments want you totally physically helpless against there force.
Lee, it doesn't matter if you emphasize this much repeated argument to the Left, they don't listen to us "Right Wingers" and "bigots", they have highly idealistic beliefs engraved into their minds by Leftist Indoctrinators; they see what they want to see, criminals often have guns and kill people so take away the guns and problem solved, that's all they want to see, reality doesn't matter to the Left, CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!!!! A piece of paper isn't going to stop them, but a gun will!!
I think America needs guns because some people need them cause they live in actual houses.Those houses are very easy to break in.Europeans live in flats and they have strong metal doors,it's hard to break into those unless you have a giant Thor hammer...that's why we don't use guns as much as americans,or at least one of the reasons why we don't carry a gun.
Lee, your explenation of gun laws and rights really remind me of the money wasted on Anti-piracy measures.
Anti-piracy only serves to hurt the legit consumer, and more often than not serves to further fuel piracy. I stand by that statement and apply the thought process to many things.
2nd amendment, thank God we have it. Statistically the states with the most gun permits have the lowest firearm related crimes/homicides. Also with gun ownership at an all time high homicide is now no longer in the top 10 reasons for deaths in America.
are you really trying to convince people with this? of course the gun saved that woman's... ehh, something (we don't really know what would have happened without the gun, do we? or what if she lived in a country with gun restrictions?). i'm sure someone could easily point to that other case, where that one guy legally bought a gun and shot that other guy in the face. single events like these are meaningless if you want to make a point for or against gun laws.
@SovereignStatesman non sequitur? where? i was merely pointing out that single events like the one he mentions in the video are meaningless, just as a contrary event would be (for example, someone legally purchasing a gun and shooting someone else in the face with it wouldn't be a valid argument in favour of gun laws).
ever since some guy decided to make a video about logical fallacies, people keep throwing them around like crazy... tiresome.
What video? I know what logical fallacies are, fuckwit, and I call 'em as I see 'em.
I explained clearly (though not clearly enough for you, fool); and likewise it doesn't matter if it's a single example or a million. Gun-LAWS won't stop law-BREAKERS, that's a big "no duh."
@SovereignStatesman i never said they did. you're pulling the whole thing out of your ass. so no, you couldn't have seen any logical fallacy, because i never even expressed my opinion on the matter.
@SovereignStatesman that's an opinion about the strategy HTWW chose to bring his point across. it's not an opinion about gun laws (wich you thought it was, because you clearly jumped to conclusions after reading my comment). it cannot be a non sequitur (like you so happily announced), because it doesn't even have a clearly stated premise.
also, someone who's so well-versed in the arts of argumentation (as you surely think you are) should know better than to throw around insults every sentence.
Yep, and 1 out of 3 cops gets STABBED in his first year of duty.
Guess you'll have to ban knives next?
The police also do random DNA sweeps of citizens; for example a girl got raped, so they summoned 1200 men who fit the profile and forced them to submit to DNA-checks to make sure it wasn't them.
@SIESTUPENDO I see your point bringing this to it's natural conclusion it's clear that the best thing to do is deport everyone cause if there are no poeple no people will die. Thats a reality that you cannot argue.
It's also a self-fulfilling sophistry, since they can't DEFEND themselves with guns either.
So all the murders and other crimes, foreign and domestic, private and public sector, must be attributable to that as well.
Some 200 million murders in Europe, Asia and Africa took place in the 20th century ALONE due to the people being unarmed. But libs think they "don't count."
Obviously none, since criminals are MORE likely to attack when there are no guns on either side, and penalties are higher against using a gun in a crime.
@SovereignStatesman You are putting Europe in the same bag as Africa and Asia?? I understand therfore that you dont have a clue of geography... I didnt know that in Africa, the little 9 y/o soldriers were "unarmed". Compare the amaunt of murders there are knowdays in Europe to the ones that happen in the US...
@SIESTUPENDO Those 9y/o child soldiers are not bearing arms because they have a right to, they are being forced to by either their government or by the rebels that kidnapped them. And you would be shocked to find out that many africa countries like many European countries have prohibitive gun laws. You want to bring the US into it, the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of murders in the US take place in areas with prohibitive firearm laws.
@CRTV1982 in fact hitler used gun restration then gun sezure to take away the Jews guns then the could not resist or rise up in arms against the Nazis so off to the concentration camps they went
@jonthefire Well, that was my point in a round about way. Gun Control is one of the Pillars of Totalitarianism and Mass-Murder. Hell, even in the US mass-murderers apparently like disarmed victims too. Klebold (one of the Columbine shooters) was very active with his mother in the Million Mom March and opposed Right-to-Carry Laws.
I definitely believe in some gun rights, i.e. making sure that the person isn't crazy, has taken valid training, etc, but to restrict them completely or even substantially is just nonsense. Take a look at the statistics of any given area where guns are restricted and the gun crime rate will almost inherently be greater. Just look at Washington D.C. when handguns were banned.
You scarred me pretty good Le when you said you supported Liberal gun rights at 0:36 I'm pretty sure my heart skipped a beat there. I don't know what got into me for that half second I thought you were against gun rights glad I continued watching to see this wasn't the case.
This is lunacy of the American right wing and every other sane individual in the world recognizes this drivel that is spewed onto the american people keeping them in a perpetual cage. It is truly sad.
@CommunistCritic If you don't like guns then don't get them. Obama is a total failure. If he didn't get you, he got the economy. Ignorance is sad. Look outside and tell me what you see.
@KnoxSUX I see poverty. Obama is a sellout. Do you think he represents anything half-socialist? He sold himself to the corporations, big business, and special interests and I wish he never even was equated to real Socialists.
WTF how can anyone think this is right. Sure someone breaks into my house but that doesn't give me a right to kill them. Now if they actually try to kill you then sure but killing some thief is just plain murder and not self defense.
@ziongite because committing home invasion is a violent crime and if you take any firearms training you will learn the reality of how fast violent attacks happen, that's why the law recognizes by the time you "figure out" if the knife wielding stranger(s) smashing your door down knowing someone is home from your screaming "go away, I'm calling the police, I have a gun" you and/or your precious loved ones are already dead. Google 21 foot rule.
@ziongite What fucking fantasy world are you living in? One does not BREAK INTO someone's house with a knife if they're not intending to do harm. Did you know most thieves actually don't take weapons with them? They wait until everyone has left the house before they break in. Get with the program man, these guys broke INTO her house while she was AT HOME with a KNIFE. There was definitely some form of harm intended here, he just got unlucky cause she probably wasn't properly trained in arms use.
@ziongite We are allowed to defend our homes by law. If we are threatened, or our homes are broken into we are allowed to defend ourselves. It's called Self Defence. Sure we don't know what would have happened but by law she had the right to defend herself, her child, and her home.
@minimandy7 Like many, you are well meaning but wrong. You don't have the right to defend your home. You have the right to defend YOURSELF! Let me make this distinction extremely clear for you. You are not your home. You need to understand that defending your home is merely an extension of your right to defend yourself. When you get this confused, it is easy for the "law" to take away your rights when you leave your home.
Well the federal courts have decided that you have the right to defend yourself-- just not the right to the MEANS.
So according to the Supreme Court, you can use any LEGAL object, like a stick,or a stone,or another non-weapon, but that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't really MEAN that!, ho ho of course not! It means thatright belongs to the STATES!"
Yep, the federal courts have spoken, the bastards.
@dlstb you have the right to protect your property also. A cop told me this, and a lawyer. after my car was broken into. I told the cop next time i was bringing my gun out to the car. He just said don't get shot.
@weseyedwalk If you took the hardline stance that a person's property and wealth is a representation of their life, then you would understand that when I say a person has the right to protect themselves, I also extend that right to their property. Moreover, I believe that you have the right to protect others as well. And I wouldn't ask any cop for permission to exercise self defense.
@dlstb Well you are correct, I agree with you, when you put it that way. I'm just tired of the left trying to take away our 2nd amendment. As far as I'm concerned they are trying to dismantle the constitution. They are our enemies because they want to enslave us to their will, their control, their power. Fuck that. America is the land of the free and home of the brave. My grandfathers didn't fight in for nothing.
Taking our guns away will actually increase crime. Ever see what happened during the Great Depression, when they passed the law that made alcohol illegal? Organized crime increased drastically. Alcohol was made illegal at the time to help reduce crime.
I'm a liberal for gun rights. I live in Australia and guns are all but illegal. It doesn't stop bad people from having guns, only good people and that is very dangerous.
@LEpicFails913 If "all but illegal" you meant, "they are legal", then you're right. But I suspect you didn't mean that. You can own guns in Australia if you're over 18, get a gun license and you have a "secure" place to store them. What's more dangerous is having a weapon in your house which is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else.
@urcritic "What's more dangerous is having a weapon in your house which is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else."
You are referring to the 1986 study by ER doctor Arthur Kellerman, why you think a 27yr old "study" is relevant now is ridiculous, especially one that was debunked or rejected by every major criminologist, the justice department and anybody with any concern for their credibility. He refused to release the data for years which is very uncommon!
@ilovenh1 It's not the only study - space is limited in these comment fields. Also see: Branas, C. (2009) American Journal of Public Health, Nov 2009. Hemenway, D. (2011)American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. You've been bombarded by gun lobbies' propaganda which try to block gun ownership research because they don't like the results. Kellerman did release the data eventually... so just because it may not have been done immediately doesn't change the results.
@urcritic Yeah he used reverse causation, less than 1,000 people in only three different areas, surveyed felons with long & violent criminal records & grouped them together with law abiding citizens, included crimes where NO GUN was used at all but had a gun present in the house like grandpas non-functioning war relic in the attic & left out all firearm self defense events that took place in the front/back yard, driveway or anywhere outside the actual house yet on their prop.
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
@urcritic Dude, Brana's study is not even scientific. And Kellerman's Study, that one was THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED. You are citing two federally funded hatchett jobs that just on number of cases alone do not qualify for scientific and if you look at the methodology on how they were conducted then there is no way you could call either Brana or Kellerman anything but hacks.
@urcritic And Brana's Study is also not scientific. I have not seen the raw data on Brana's or Hemenway's but I am willing to bet that they used the SAME methodology that Kellerman used. I am still waiting for them to release their data and methoology so we can finally see for a fact. And, Kellerman's study was discredited for more than just his inital refusal to release his raw data and methodology. It was discredited because his "study" was actually not a study at all.
@SovereignStatesman for a tax system that makes sense, not praying the problems away but fixing them. oh and im a atheist so any religiose shit I hear from the right just makes me wanna punch them so no just because I like to shoot at shit with a beautiful rifle and vote for people who use logic and reason to lead not what "feels good" or what "god wants" does not make me a hypocrite so go fuck yourself.
@SovereignStatesman Um no likeing guns and being Liberal does not make me a hypocrite it makes you stupid for thinking all Liberals are anti gun why should I be a conservative retard anyway I disagree and hate the majority of them for everything they are for social politics for foreign policy, gay rights, abortion, education, for unions, for universal healthcare,
this channel is a haven for liars, i see. like the guy whose family was "slaughtered by islamic extremist". cool story dude, but you need more dragons.
I bet the men broke into this home PRECISELY b/c they read about here being a widow. This is why they call guns "EQUALIZERS."
I once read an article by Thomas Sowell where he claimed shot guns were better for personal protection in the home. He actually was small arms instructor in the army. Thomas Sowell knows everything. Rather then ask, "What is the best thing to do?" One should just ask, "What would Thomas Sowell do?"
I can accept the fact that the UK has a lower murder rate than the US, if that is true. But can you imagine how high the murder rate would be in the US without gun rights? I submit that it would be much higher. And the murder rate in the UK, should private gun ownership be allowed, would be much lower than it is now. But there's no way to prove it, it's just my best guess.
The fact that there are 41 dislikes of this video (at this time) is proof positive that Mental Disease (aka Leftism) is alive & well amongst YouTube watchers!
I hate guns, they only kill! omg install cameras in ur house if u want a gun. If someone breaks into your house don't winge because you cannot shoot them ffs! just wait it out n take the hits, let them rob you and then later in court they'll suffer the consequences in full supported by evidence: DNA or witnesses.
Having guns be legal is only good in the short term. Yes, everyone who owns one is safer than those who don't, but at the same time, there are a LOT of legal gun owners who shoot & kill people unlawfully as well. Granted not at a higher rate, but if we outlawed guns period and increased punishment for those owning it, we may see less murders after a hundred years or so so in the long run, it may be great but a lot of innocent people will die to achieve this. OTOH, murder is population control.
@PhantomLyric Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Pol Pot agree, banning guns from the public's hands in the name of public safety is a great way to start the crackdown.
@SunSunSuperFun wow, really? Imagine similar public oppression from modern developed governments to those under 100 years dead leaders, I cannot. they didn't even have computers ya archaic history mong!!
@SunSunSuperFun That's good for them. Fuck me for being able to see the benefits from both sides of the argument. Just because those men agreed with the idea does not negate the validity of it. As we know, there are countries who ban private gun ownership and have a very low murder rate compared to ours. No, correlation does not imply causation, however the idea should not be discounted. Accepting things the way they are is like saying "if you can't beat them, join them."
@PhantomLyric "murder is population control" on top of being WRONG on your "theories", you think just like every Sociopathic dictator that ever cursed the face of this planet !
Education+ethics = discipline/SELF CONTROL, no need for DICTATORS OR MURDER! ! ! !
@ilovenh1 Shut the fuck up... Death, period, is population control. Murder, Sickness, Suicide, Homosexuality, all of them aid in controlling the population. In the past 50 years our population has DOUBLED. We are growing exponentially. That means, in 25 years there will be an estimated 14 BILLION people in the world. So death, as sad as it is, is needed. No, I don't "think just like every other sociopath," I'm just looking at the silver lining. Fuck you.
@PhantomLyric No YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE! JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEATH, RAISING SOCIETY *UPWARDS* BY GIVING THEM THE TOOLS TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS AND * M U R D E R * IS THE VERY REASON GUN OWNERSHIP IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PREVENT MANIACS LIKE YOU FROM COMMITTING YOUR VERSION OF A "FINAL SOLUTION" OR TAKING YOU DOWN *HARD* WHEN YOU TRY!
THANK YOU FOR PROVING THAT POINT SO CLEARLY!.... PSYCHO ! ! !
@PhantomLyric That's right, make up some excuse because you can't make a rational argument for your own point, just man up and admit your wrong or at least that you didn't think through enough or something! I could at least respect you for that ! You are sad and pathetic.
For everyone who says the United States has less violent crime than countries with gun control, that is because Europe and the United States have different definitions of violent crime, the United States figures only include aggravated assault.
@CommunistCritic Actually dude, the UK does have more violent crime, same as Sweden. I know this because I have lived in the UK and have friends in Sweden.
How on earth is he out on bail? It is my understanding that he'd be charged with felony murder for his friends death. As an accomplice of a crime involving the death of another person, no matter if they are victim or suspect, you can be charged with felony murder.
I guess the 'intruder' figured out he picked the WRONG HOUSE to break into..RIGHT ON!
RavensRevengeoo7 6 days ago
@KamekoBruns Of course he is. tThe guy hates the first and the second. I'm pretty sure we both know how he feels about the 10th. I wonder how many other amendments he hates.
thebackbencher666 6 days ago
If you don't kill the intruder he will come back and sue you later for a stubbed toe.
Intruders will be shot. Survivors will be shot again. My favorite sign.
xxNephlimxx 2 weeks ago 10
@SovereignStatesman need to be legal nor a tank so yeah there are weapons I think should be regulated and restricted handguns should be accepted rifles of all kinds and mags machineguns if you can get the tax stamp and hell if I was in power I would push to allow new automatic weapons come on the market why not that would bring the price down and make it abit easyer without getting rid of the restriction but w/e your just gonna be a jackass so why bother explaning.
GUNS4MIKE1234 2 weeks ago
@SovereignStatesman How am I a hypocrite? Im logical retard Just because alot of people in my particuler choice of party is anti gun does not mean I am. Just like not all republicans are anti gay tho most are im logical, I know people have the right to defend themselves and would not want to take it away it's just self defence do I think fully automatic weapons should be legal not not to everyone I think restrictions should be in place backround checks etc and sorry no a rpg does not
GUNS4MIKE1234 2 weeks ago
So basically if there is an intruder in your house with a fucking shotgun and a pair of pistols shouting ''IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!'' and you manage to catch him by surprise and kill him before he shoots the living shit out of you, you'll be going into prison.
That's pretty much how it works. Laws are pretty fucked up -.-
cedry 3 weeks ago
How is this story a good example of why guns should be legal? Someone was shot dead! I don't know what the intruders intentions were, but no crime in my mind warrants execution without trial! It is good to have the option to defend oneself, but why can't there be less deadly means of doing so? Rubber bullets, small caliber hand guns comes to mind to name a few. The goal should be to neutralize the threat until help arrives, not shoot to kill!
Kebabkladd 3 weeks ago
@Kebabkladd Do you expect people to take risks with their lives or with the lives of their family? Imagine if your awoken in the dead of night and find there is someone who you don't know in your home. You have no idea of who they are or their intentions or what they armed or even armed at all. They could be there to steal your TV or there to kill your entire family. You wanna take that chance or expect ohters to do so?
ZM7241994 3 weeks ago
@Kebabkladd
Perhaps she should have come out and poured them a coffee and fed them cake. Then they can discuss exactly why they broke into her home and how she can compromise with them. Then after words they'll hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But if it's my home and someone breaks in, not only will I shoot them dead but I'll stick their heads on a pike in my front yard as a warning to all future intruders.
NoamTube 3 weeks ago 15
@NoamTube I'm a very liberal oklahoman who owns guns. The woman is actually suffering a lot from the event. It turns out that taking a life can be really traumatic. I think you do a disservice to the cause of gun ownership when you say blood thirsty things like that.
Ninjaculation 1 week ago
@Ninjaculation maybe it was uncalled for, but hes still not the one who broke into someones house and tried to rob/hurt them.
Fyreguy16 1 week ago
@Fyreguy16 yeh i didn't say you shouldn't kill to protect your family.
Ninjaculation 1 week ago
@Ninjaculation
It's not "blood thirsty" when I'm referring to an intruder in my home. You come in my home uninvited, you're in for a world of hurt. Any man would do the same to protect his family. Though I pray it never happens but if it does, I'll just shoot them in the legs for you. Compromise? It'll be a whole clip but at least they'll just be begging for the sweet release of death instead of being dead.
NoamTube 1 week ago
@NoamTube "not only will I shoot them dead but I'll stick their heads on a pike in my front yard"
Just sayin, you don't have to desecrate the corpse. I was going to say you are trying to be john wayne, but really this is ganghis kahn shit.
Ninjaculation 1 week ago
@Ninjaculation
I was going more for a Vlad the Impaler look. But I'll take ole' Gengy.
NoamTube 1 week ago
@Kebabkladd You are defending a man who breaks into a house while carrying a large knife, with a woman and baby inside. Seriously?
Rozmic 3 weeks ago
@Kebabkladd "Someone was shot dead"
Yeah, a pyscho was shot dead. I'd rather have that instead of him being in prison eating tax payer money or going back out into society.
"execution without trial"
Actually justifiable homocide. And what if the woman didnt use the gun? You wouldn't here this story, just another statistic.
"The goal should be to neutralize"
That's your opinion. You can defend your home any way you want but do NOT regulate the way I do it.
GauntBilly 2 weeks ago
The more restrictions, the more people abuse them. Hmmmmm. Kinda the same situation you have with drugs.
ElLapiz24 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
"When every second matters... the cops are just minutes away"
AbsolutelyMadeinUSA 4 weeks ago
I noticed that some commenters have argued that it is more dangerous to have a gun in your house because, statistically, it is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else.
To them, I would ask: what percentage of the people who accidentally shot themselves or a family member ever took a course in proper firearms handling or a hunter safety course?
JaminKoehn 4 weeks ago
Those Gunphobics!
nnlamb25 1 month ago
It's a two way street. You can have people able to commit murder and defend themselves, or you can have people commit murder (albeit with a knife) and people unable to defend themselves, especially if they are considerably weaker.
Also, different people have different attitudes. Guns are more laxed in a laid back area and have low gun crime rates, where guns are more limited it tends to have more crime.
Snagprophet 1 month ago
Hey everybody, just shut the fuck up.
Cimmantti 1 month ago
Comment removed
JosiahSCooper 1 month ago
Im a liberal for guns. I hate how most of my fellow liberals are in cosistant, saying drugs should be legal but guns shouldent, Both should be
TheInfamousCanadian 1 month ago
@TheInfamousCanadian a fellow canadian who believes this as well here. the word liberal has been butchered to death by social democrats.
Reghedable 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Why the hell would someone mark this as spam?
JMB129 1 month ago
The UK has a very dense population. THAT accounts for it's crime rates. One could even look at the safest states. Those states usually have the least dense populations. Gun rights should be based on Necessity vs. Desired Use, not about crime rates.
rufuguru 1 month ago
@rufuguru "The UK has a very dense population. THAT accounts for it's crime rates."
That's a double-meaning LOL
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
...policy on ammunition. The Swiss government regulates ALL sales, use, and distribution of ammunition throughout the country (which is also likely a factor in the low crime rates, not the gun rights.) As far as the UK, the statistic that is usually used is their gun crime homicide rate. The UK has low gun crime homicide because guns are illegal, but the violent crime rates in the UK are some of the highest in the world.
rufuguru 1 month ago
...also a country with low crime rates. Neither cases take into consideration population. Switzerland has roughly 7.8 million people according to their census. They don't have the gun rights for crime control, if they ever went to war, every citizen would have to be a part of the militia. The low crime rates in Switzerland have much more to do with population density. Besides, I doubt that opponents of gun rights would agree with the Swiss government's...
rufuguru 1 month ago
...Where people will point out that the United Kingdom has strict gun control and low crime rates (and may I point out that the only people you will find in the UK with handguns legally are MI-6 and the Queen's "secret service" bodyguards, police do not carry guns except in special circumstances.) On the other hand, the opponents of gun rights will use Switzerland as an example, a country where assault weapons are government mandated and training is required by law...
rufuguru 1 month ago
I've actually studied gun rights cases extensively. Crime rates are virtually unaffected by the use or lack of gun control. It comes down to population density. The denser the population, the heavier the crime rate. Both sides are wrong in the debate in assuming that either decision is going to affect crime rates. Criminals are criminals, killers are killers, neither need guns to commit crime. Many proponents of gun rights use the UK as an example...
rufuguru 1 month ago
@JMB129 So basically you are condoning thievery now?
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982 No way. I was posting a quote from someone else and being sarcastic about it.
JMB129 1 month ago
@tblbaby he is a libertarian. Liberals call his economic policies and his views on firearm laws right wing extremist. The fact of the matter is he is very pro-limited government on all sides. Another interesting fact was that he was one of only 4 Congressmen to endorse Ronald Regan on his first run for President while many of your longtime Republicans such as Rick Perry endorsed Walter Mondale.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@tblbaby Actually myself and other vets I know are very fond of Ron Paul. I have yet to hear him call us "mass murderers of millions". As for his defense policies, yes, he is pro-getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and I think he is right because our politicians are more concerned with nation building there and that is not the Military's role. He is also for cutting Foreign Aid which is in fact being used against our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is not a shrill liberal nut, he is
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Not true. We did not start WWI or WWII. Lincoln's war is known here as the War of Notherner Aggression. I do not believe that the US is necessarily the bad guy in the world as I have seen countries neglect freedom and individual liberty alot worse than what has happened here. Still, the Constitutional violations done by corrupt politicians, parasitic nanny-statists, and the other con-artists are inexcusable.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic Actually they lost money from that deal. But since you wanted to ask about the company's involvement there were only TWO companies with the capabilities of handling the contract that Halliburton was doing, Halliburton and Schlumberger*(spelling) and Halliburton was the only American Company on the list. Why on earth should we give the contract to a non-American Company when it is AMERICAN BLOOD BEING SHED TO SECURE THOSE FIELDS?
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982
You mean in Iraq?
That's why it's a negative-sum game that only helps the miltiary-industrial complex.
RON PAUL 2012!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman I agree with you on that one. I hope Ron Paul does get the nomination because I don't want to have to choose between the two Obamas in 2012 (Either Gingrich vs Obama or Romney vs Obama)
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@Ilikemustard Yeah but Brevik shot up a labour party camp so even if they did not have any restrictions on ownerhip and carry of firearms it is very unlikely they would have actually had anyone there armed.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982
I personally know liberals living in the USA that carry firearms.
Ilikemustard 1 month ago
@Ilikemustard Okay, you are right, there are some liberals with firearms. I do know that it is mostly liberals that want to tell everyone else they can not have them though and a lot of liberal institutions do prohibit the carry of firearms on their property. I guess I can not say that simply because they are liberal does not mean that they won't carry but being a Labour party camp I just do not see them allowing the carry of firearms on their property with their political stances as a party.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982
I see your point. At least then it would be their own choice and thereby their own fault for being lambs to the slaughter.
Ilikemustard 1 month ago
@Ilikemustard I thoroughly agree. It should be everyone's choice to choose how, when, and if they will defend themselves.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
What gave that bitch the right to shoot another human being DEAD for stealing something from her? That's not appropriate self defense, that's called MURDER.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
No, you are called a MORON.
They were running off with something, idiot, they were BREAKING IN!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Haha and you call me a moron? Yeah let's just shoot anyone who steals, seems like a good punishment for stealing. Let's hand out guns to old ladies so they can shoot anyone who happens to visit them unexpected. That sounds like a safe way to do things. MORON.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic Ah, and how was the woman suppose to know that was all the intruder was going to do? Moreover, that thug got what he deserves. He broke into someone's home knowing there is a possbility he could be shot and he did it anyway. You know it is not that hard, don't want to get shot then don't break into someone else's home. What I have to ask you is why do you care more for the intruder than you do for the woman and her child?
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982
They act like the woman was trying to punish the thugs for breaking in, rather than just trying to protect herself and her baby; so they say shit like "whaaaa, they didn't deserve to be SHOT just for STEALING!" as if they knew that's all the thugs were gonna do.
These milk-toast liberals are complete idiots who want to tie the hands of the victim to make the world safe for the criminals-- from a safe distance in their fantasy-world, of course!
Kill 'em.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Dude, I honestly wonder how their genes slipped through the cracks of natural selection for as long as they did.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982
Actually they are the PRODUCT of natural selection; i.e. they are sheep who follow the herd, while natural selection randomly picks off those who STRAY from it as they are devoured by predators.
That's why they don't want individuals being armed, since they equate all arms with predators-- and believe that all defense should come from following the herd.
So no matter how many times you explain it to them, or how logically, they'll continue to follow the herd.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman BTW, I just recently uploaded a video on this very topic
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
If you try breaking in, expect to be taken OUT.
People don't feel like waiting to see if you're dangerous or not.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Another point is that regardless of statistics,the most important point is the principle of the matter.Gun rights = Personal freedom and civil liberties.Taking these away destroys the very idea of a free society and leaves the citizenry open to oppression,crime and violence without a fair recourse or means to defend themselves,as well as hunt,target shoot and enjoy life.
fixdeluxe1 1 month ago
It is my belief that people have the right to defend themselves & their property using whatever means they deem necessary.The idiot entered her home illegally,and got what was coming to him."If you outlaw guns,only the outlaws will have them".I believe that freedom depends on the gun rights of citizens(famous dictators took weapons from people before they oppressed them) and there is absolutely no good reason as to why people should not be able to own firearms for hunting,defense and recreation.
fixdeluxe1 1 month ago
I'm a new subscriber and I'm already getting really into your videos! This will be the third video I have seen from you so far. Thanks! :)
Kriskazam 1 month ago
So at what point was the woman legally able to shoot the men? Should it just have been when they walked on her lawn?
DirtyAtreyu 1 month ago
Comment removed
Zeldagigafan90210 1 month ago
@Zeldagigafan90210 correction, the anchor covering it was in Texas.
Zeldagigafan90210 1 month ago
the woman won't get charged with the murder, or even manslaughter, you want to know who will get charged with murder/manslaughter, the one she didn't hit. It may seem weird, but you a friend of yours dies in an attempted robbery, you committed the crime, therefore, you are responsible for everything that happens,
Zeldagigafan90210 1 month ago
In the UK here it is almost impossible for a person to legally have a gun, other than a shot gun. Yet gun crime is going up. More and more people get shot every month.
Taking peoples rights to defend themselves only serves those who do not obey the law.
Gilambesh 1 month ago
I think thats alittle harsh for Breaking and Entering, she didint even warn them.
Lamicktin 1 month ago
@Lamicktin Well when the idiots decided to enter her home with out consent and put her in a position of feeling threatened they got what was coming to them. Think before you act because the outcome can be bad.
TheLiberator55 1 month ago
@TheLiberator55 They still didint deserve it, They didint even hurt anyone.
Lamicktin 1 month ago
I don't see any reason to withhold guns from people in general. Not that this solves any of society's problem. With or without guns, people still commit violent crime. So in the big picture it makes little odds. However I favour the freedom to personally choose over a state regulation. I still probably wouldn't have one but I don't think that should stop others. There is also the argument that governments want you totally physically helpless against there force.
Madkite 1 month ago
Lee, it doesn't matter if you emphasize this much repeated argument to the Left, they don't listen to us "Right Wingers" and "bigots", they have highly idealistic beliefs engraved into their minds by Leftist Indoctrinators; they see what they want to see, criminals often have guns and kill people so take away the guns and problem solved, that's all they want to see, reality doesn't matter to the Left, CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!!!! A piece of paper isn't going to stop them, but a gun will!!
MasterKorinSama 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
I think America needs guns because some people need them cause they live in actual houses.Those houses are very easy to break in.Europeans live in flats and they have strong metal doors,it's hard to break into those unless you have a giant Thor hammer...that's why we don't use guns as much as americans,or at least one of the reasons why we don't carry a gun.
Valandil00 1 month ago
Lee, your explenation of gun laws and rights really remind me of the money wasted on Anti-piracy measures.
Anti-piracy only serves to hurt the legit consumer, and more often than not serves to further fuel piracy. I stand by that statement and apply the thought process to many things.
Radioswim 1 month ago
2nd amendment, thank God we have it. Statistically the states with the most gun permits have the lowest firearm related crimes/homicides. Also with gun ownership at an all time high homicide is now no longer in the top 10 reasons for deaths in America.
weseyedwalk 1 month ago 9
@weseyedwalk >thank god
>god
>mfw
Maper555 1 month ago
@weseyedwalk Yeah and the US is the country with the most gun related deaths in the Western world. But I guess you forgot to mention that.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
Yeah if you don't believe in self-defense, moron.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Self-defense? Did they shoot at her or try to stab her? NO. THey were small time thug. Murder isn't self defense. MORON.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
Yeah well she must not have gotten the memo that they were harmless DUMBASS.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
Maybe she didn't wanna wait and give them the CHANCE, fuckwit!
You're putting the burden on the victim to prove the guilt of the criminal, thus exposing them to danger while you play games with their life!
You fucking ASSHOLE! In real life, you don't have the LUXURY of experimenting.
FYI, the police do NOT have to protect you, so you're on your own!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
I heard about this. I'm glad her and her baby are safe. Like the old saying goes.....If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
JawsJaws 1 month ago
47 people want to be raped and robbed while their baby is being killed.
avenqer 1 month ago
“God made man Sam Colt made all men equal”
nick1364 1 month ago 7
Kill gun grabbers.
Seriously. Plan to end lives of gun grabbers at the first instance of confiscation. Kill them all so their mothers moan like stomped beaten whores.
Wish I could kill them right now so bad. Catch them out in an alley. Make them learn proper respect. Or end their lives.
Premier112 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Premier112
It's much easier to just forbid them from owning any guns, and the resit will take care of itself.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
are you really trying to convince people with this? of course the gun saved that woman's... ehh, something (we don't really know what would have happened without the gun, do we? or what if she lived in a country with gun restrictions?). i'm sure someone could easily point to that other case, where that one guy legally bought a gun and shot that other guy in the face. single events like these are meaningless if you want to make a point for or against gun laws.
Caminacels 1 month ago
Comment removed
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@Caminacels
No, more like stupid non sequiturs don't.
If a guy's going to shoot someone in the face, he won't be stopped by gun-laws, derr.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman non sequitur? where? i was merely pointing out that single events like the one he mentions in the video are meaningless, just as a contrary event would be (for example, someone legally purchasing a gun and shooting someone else in the face with it wouldn't be a valid argument in favour of gun laws).
ever since some guy decided to make a video about logical fallacies, people keep throwing them around like crazy... tiresome.
Caminacels 1 month ago
@Caminacels
What video? I know what logical fallacies are, fuckwit, and I call 'em as I see 'em.
I explained clearly (though not clearly enough for you, fool); and likewise it doesn't matter if it's a single example or a million. Gun-LAWS won't stop law-BREAKERS, that's a big "no duh."
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman i never said they did. you're pulling the whole thing out of your ass. so no, you couldn't have seen any logical fallacy, because i never even expressed my opinion on the matter.
Caminacels 1 month ago
@Caminacels
You really are stupid.
"i was merely pointing out that single events like the one he mentions in the video are meaningless,"
That's an OPINION, moron.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman that's an opinion about the strategy HTWW chose to bring his point across. it's not an opinion about gun laws (wich you thought it was, because you clearly jumped to conclusions after reading my comment). it cannot be a non sequitur (like you so happily announced), because it doesn't even have a clearly stated premise.
also, someone who's so well-versed in the arts of argumentation (as you surely think you are) should know better than to throw around insults every sentence.
Caminacels 1 month ago
Her husband died on Christmas day.
kawnra 1 month ago
@kawnra
Wow she REALLY musta been a bad girl!
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
not even the police in the UK (with few exceptions) are able to use guns.
Azwar3 1 month ago in playlist More videos from HowTheWorldWorks
@Azwar3
Yep, and 1 out of 3 cops gets STABBED in his first year of duty.
Guess you'll have to ban knives next?
The police also do random DNA sweeps of citizens; for example a girl got raped, so they summoned 1200 men who fit the profile and forced them to submit to DNA-checks to make sure it wasn't them.
So much for Brttains "never being slaves...."
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman The Brittish are worse than slaves. They are subjects.
dlstb 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlstb Well then I guess their song isn't lying LOL
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
only could happen in the USA... in a country were you can't find guns, people don't die from it, thats a reality you cannot argue about.
SIESTUPENDO 1 month ago
@SIESTUPENDO I see your point bringing this to it's natural conclusion it's clear that the best thing to do is deport everyone cause if there are no poeple no people will die. Thats a reality that you cannot argue.
666or999 1 month ago
@SIESTUPENDO
It's also a self-fulfilling sophistry, since they can't DEFEND themselves with guns either.
So all the murders and other crimes, foreign and domestic, private and public sector, must be attributable to that as well.
Some 200 million murders in Europe, Asia and Africa took place in the 20th century ALONE due to the people being unarmed. But libs think they "don't count."
And in the Western Hemisphere? Not so much!
I'll live with the guns, thanks!.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman And how many occurred because someone WAS armed?
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic
Obviously none, since criminals are MORE likely to attack when there are no guns on either side, and penalties are higher against using a gun in a crime.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman You are putting Europe in the same bag as Africa and Asia?? I understand therfore that you dont have a clue of geography... I didnt know that in Africa, the little 9 y/o soldriers were "unarmed". Compare the amaunt of murders there are knowdays in Europe to the ones that happen in the US...
SIESTUPENDO 1 month ago
@SIESTUPENDO Those 9y/o child soldiers are not bearing arms because they have a right to, they are being forced to by either their government or by the rebels that kidnapped them. And you would be shocked to find out that many africa countries like many European countries have prohibitive gun laws. You want to bring the US into it, the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of murders in the US take place in areas with prohibitive firearm laws.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@SIESTUPENDO So tell me this, did gun control stop the Nazis from slaughtering the Jewish?
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@CRTV1982 in fact hitler used gun restration then gun sezure to take away the Jews guns then the could not resist or rise up in arms against the Nazis so off to the concentration camps they went
jonthefire 1 month ago
@jonthefire Well, that was my point in a round about way. Gun Control is one of the Pillars of Totalitarianism and Mass-Murder. Hell, even in the US mass-murderers apparently like disarmed victims too. Klebold (one of the Columbine shooters) was very active with his mother in the Million Mom March and opposed Right-to-Carry Laws.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@SIESTUPENDO
I guess those 200 million people died of natural causes then under Hitler Stalin, Mao etc LOL
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
Clear reason why we need the gun rights that are given to us in the Constitution.
JoeyCMarchio 1 month ago
Someone wants attention desperately... shameful....
PhantomLyric 1 month ago
@PhantomLyric Somebody is to big of a PUSSY to stand up for himself and have a HONEST debate like a MAN ! ! !
ilovenh1 1 month ago
I definitely believe in some gun rights, i.e. making sure that the person isn't crazy, has taken valid training, etc, but to restrict them completely or even substantially is just nonsense. Take a look at the statistics of any given area where guns are restricted and the gun crime rate will almost inherently be greater. Just look at Washington D.C. when handguns were banned.
ChuckMcChip 1 month ago
You scarred me pretty good Le when you said you supported Liberal gun rights at 0:36 I'm pretty sure my heart skipped a beat there. I don't know what got into me for that half second I thought you were against gun rights glad I continued watching to see this wasn't the case.
ZombieSurvivalist11 1 month ago
People like Lee Doren act on fear.
Buy guns, or else they will get you.
Vote Republican, or else they will get you.
Obama is a socialist, he will get you.
This is lunacy of the American right wing and every other sane individual in the world recognizes this drivel that is spewed onto the american people keeping them in a perpetual cage. It is truly sad.
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic If you don't like guns then don't get them. Obama is a total failure. If he didn't get you, he got the economy. Ignorance is sad. Look outside and tell me what you see.
KnoxSUX 1 month ago
@KnoxSUX I see poverty. Obama is a sellout. Do you think he represents anything half-socialist? He sold himself to the corporations, big business, and special interests and I wish he never even was equated to real Socialists.
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
WTF how can anyone think this is right. Sure someone breaks into my house but that doesn't give me a right to kill them. Now if they actually try to kill you then sure but killing some thief is just plain murder and not self defense.
ziongite 1 month ago
@ziongite because committing home invasion is a violent crime and if you take any firearms training you will learn the reality of how fast violent attacks happen, that's why the law recognizes by the time you "figure out" if the knife wielding stranger(s) smashing your door down knowing someone is home from your screaming "go away, I'm calling the police, I have a gun" you and/or your precious loved ones are already dead. Google 21 foot rule.
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@ziongite What fucking fantasy world are you living in? One does not BREAK INTO someone's house with a knife if they're not intending to do harm. Did you know most thieves actually don't take weapons with them? They wait until everyone has left the house before they break in. Get with the program man, these guys broke INTO her house while she was AT HOME with a KNIFE. There was definitely some form of harm intended here, he just got unlucky cause she probably wasn't properly trained in arms use.
johnnyf19 1 month ago
@ziongite We are allowed to defend our homes by law. If we are threatened, or our homes are broken into we are allowed to defend ourselves. It's called Self Defence. Sure we don't know what would have happened but by law she had the right to defend herself, her child, and her home.
minimandy7 1 month ago
@minimandy7 Like many, you are well meaning but wrong. You don't have the right to defend your home. You have the right to defend YOURSELF! Let me make this distinction extremely clear for you. You are not your home. You need to understand that defending your home is merely an extension of your right to defend yourself. When you get this confused, it is easy for the "law" to take away your rights when you leave your home.
dlstb 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlstb
Well the federal courts have decided that you have the right to defend yourself-- just not the right to the MEANS.
So according to the Supreme Court, you can use any LEGAL object, like a stick,or a stone,or another non-weapon, but that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't really MEAN that!, ho ho of course not! It means thatright belongs to the STATES!"
Yep, the federal courts have spoken, the bastards.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@dlstb you have the right to protect your property also. A cop told me this, and a lawyer. after my car was broken into. I told the cop next time i was bringing my gun out to the car. He just said don't get shot.
weseyedwalk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@weseyedwalk
Don't even tell a cop anything, they want to punish you not protect you.
SovereignStatesman 1 month ago
@weseyedwalk If you took the hardline stance that a person's property and wealth is a representation of their life, then you would understand that when I say a person has the right to protect themselves, I also extend that right to their property. Moreover, I believe that you have the right to protect others as well. And I wouldn't ask any cop for permission to exercise self defense.
dlstb 1 month ago
@dlstb Well you are correct, I agree with you, when you put it that way. I'm just tired of the left trying to take away our 2nd amendment. As far as I'm concerned they are trying to dismantle the constitution. They are our enemies because they want to enslave us to their will, their control, their power. Fuck that. America is the land of the free and home of the brave. My grandfathers didn't fight in for nothing.
weseyedwalk 1 month ago
We need your ideals in Canada.
MrReznore 1 month ago
Taking our guns away will actually increase crime. Ever see what happened during the Great Depression, when they passed the law that made alcohol illegal? Organized crime increased drastically. Alcohol was made illegal at the time to help reduce crime.
Dorby5826and360 1 month ago
I'm a liberal for gun rights. I live in Australia and guns are all but illegal. It doesn't stop bad people from having guns, only good people and that is very dangerous.
LEpicFails913 1 month ago
@LEpicFails913 Good for you for seeing the truth! I hope you get your freedoms back someday, best of luck Mate!
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@LEpicFails913 If "all but illegal" you meant, "they are legal", then you're right. But I suspect you didn't mean that. You can own guns in Australia if you're over 18, get a gun license and you have a "secure" place to store them. What's more dangerous is having a weapon in your house which is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else.
urcritic 1 month ago
@urcritic "What's more dangerous is having a weapon in your house which is more likely to kill the owner or a family member than anyone else."
You are referring to the 1986 study by ER doctor Arthur Kellerman, why you think a 27yr old "study" is relevant now is ridiculous, especially one that was debunked or rejected by every major criminologist, the justice department and anybody with any concern for their credibility. He refused to release the data for years which is very uncommon!
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@ilovenh1 It's not the only study - space is limited in these comment fields. Also see: Branas, C. (2009) American Journal of Public Health, Nov 2009. Hemenway, D. (2011)American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. You've been bombarded by gun lobbies' propaganda which try to block gun ownership research because they don't like the results. Kellerman did release the data eventually... so just because it may not have been done immediately doesn't change the results.
urcritic 1 month ago
@urcritic Yeah he used reverse causation, less than 1,000 people in only three different areas, surveyed felons with long & violent criminal records & grouped them together with law abiding citizens, included crimes where NO GUN was used at all but had a gun present in the house like grandpas non-functioning war relic in the attic & left out all firearm self defense events that took place in the front/back yard, driveway or anywhere outside the actual house yet on their prop.
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@ilovenh1 I am betting Brana's and Hemenway's studies were done the exact same manner. Kellerman's used about 400 cases and Brana's used 670 something cases. Both already just from those numbers are classed as non-scientific. Kellerman also classed rival gang members as "friends" in his study. Yeah, you may know who your rival gang member is and be acquainted with them but I would not call them a "friend" by any measure.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@urcritic Dude, Brana's study is not even scientific. And Kellerman's Study, that one was THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED. You are citing two federally funded hatchett jobs that just on number of cases alone do not qualify for scientific and if you look at the methodology on how they were conducted then there is no way you could call either Brana or Kellerman anything but hacks.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@urcritic And Brana's Study is also not scientific. I have not seen the raw data on Brana's or Hemenway's but I am willing to bet that they used the SAME methodology that Kellerman used. I am still waiting for them to release their data and methoology so we can finally see for a fact. And, Kellerman's study was discredited for more than just his inital refusal to release his raw data and methodology. It was discredited because his "study" was actually not a study at all.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman for a tax system that makes sense, not praying the problems away but fixing them. oh and im a atheist so any religiose shit I hear from the right just makes me wanna punch them so no just because I like to shoot at shit with a beautiful rifle and vote for people who use logic and reason to lead not what "feels good" or what "god wants" does not make me a hypocrite so go fuck yourself.
GUNS4MIKE1234 1 month ago
@SovereignStatesman Um no likeing guns and being Liberal does not make me a hypocrite it makes you stupid for thinking all Liberals are anti gun why should I be a conservative retard anyway I disagree and hate the majority of them for everything they are for social politics for foreign policy, gay rights, abortion, education, for unions, for universal healthcare,
GUNS4MIKE1234 1 month ago
If a criminal wants to use a gun he's not going to obtain it legally anyways.
fanaticmoron 1 month ago
this channel is a haven for liars, i see. like the guy whose family was "slaughtered by islamic extremist". cool story dude, but you need more dragons.
hollaboutit 1 month ago
I bet the men broke into this home PRECISELY b/c they read about here being a widow. This is why they call guns "EQUALIZERS."
I once read an article by Thomas Sowell where he claimed shot guns were better for personal protection in the home. He actually was small arms instructor in the army. Thomas Sowell knows everything. Rather then ask, "What is the best thing to do?" One should just ask, "What would Thomas Sowell do?"
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
Never bring a knife to a gun fight!
VictorLepanto 1 month ago
I can accept the fact that the UK has a lower murder rate than the US, if that is true. But can you imagine how high the murder rate would be in the US without gun rights? I submit that it would be much higher. And the murder rate in the UK, should private gun ownership be allowed, would be much lower than it is now. But there's no way to prove it, it's just my best guess.
eyeinidas 1 month ago
The fact that there are 41 dislikes of this video (at this time) is proof positive that Mental Disease (aka Leftism) is alive & well amongst YouTube watchers!
welovesarahpalin 1 month ago
I hate guns, they only kill! omg install cameras in ur house if u want a gun. If someone breaks into your house don't winge because you cannot shoot them ffs! just wait it out n take the hits, let them rob you and then later in court they'll suffer the consequences in full supported by evidence: DNA or witnesses.
csmuz 1 month ago
Gun rights and racial profiling..
Since homicides involving firearms have been the leading cause of death for African-American males ages 15 to 19 since 1969..
ALL concealed weapons should either be limited or restricted from Black males.
FranciscoD0MING0 1 month ago
Having guns be legal is only good in the short term. Yes, everyone who owns one is safer than those who don't, but at the same time, there are a LOT of legal gun owners who shoot & kill people unlawfully as well. Granted not at a higher rate, but if we outlawed guns period and increased punishment for those owning it, we may see less murders after a hundred years or so so in the long run, it may be great but a lot of innocent people will die to achieve this. OTOH, murder is population control.
PhantomLyric 1 month ago
@PhantomLyric Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Pol Pot agree, banning guns from the public's hands in the name of public safety is a great way to start the crackdown.
SunSunSuperFun 1 month ago
@SunSunSuperFun wow, really? Imagine similar public oppression from modern developed governments to those under 100 years dead leaders, I cannot. they didn't even have computers ya archaic history mong!!
csmuz 1 month ago
@SunSunSuperFun That's good for them. Fuck me for being able to see the benefits from both sides of the argument. Just because those men agreed with the idea does not negate the validity of it. As we know, there are countries who ban private gun ownership and have a very low murder rate compared to ours. No, correlation does not imply causation, however the idea should not be discounted. Accepting things the way they are is like saying "if you can't beat them, join them."
PhantomLyric 1 month ago
@PhantomLyric "murder is population control" on top of being WRONG on your "theories", you think just like every Sociopathic dictator that ever cursed the face of this planet !
Education+ethics = discipline/SELF CONTROL, no need for DICTATORS OR MURDER! ! ! !
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@ilovenh1 Shut the fuck up... Death, period, is population control. Murder, Sickness, Suicide, Homosexuality, all of them aid in controlling the population. In the past 50 years our population has DOUBLED. We are growing exponentially. That means, in 25 years there will be an estimated 14 BILLION people in the world. So death, as sad as it is, is needed. No, I don't "think just like every other sociopath," I'm just looking at the silver lining. Fuck you.
PhantomLyric 1 month ago
@PhantomLyric No YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP ASSHOLE! JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEATH, RAISING SOCIETY *UPWARDS* BY GIVING THEM THE TOOLS TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS AND * M U R D E R * IS THE VERY REASON GUN OWNERSHIP IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PREVENT MANIACS LIKE YOU FROM COMMITTING YOUR VERSION OF A "FINAL SOLUTION" OR TAKING YOU DOWN *HARD* WHEN YOU TRY!
THANK YOU FOR PROVING THAT POINT SO CLEARLY!.... PSYCHO ! ! !
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@ilovenh1 Yeah I'm psycho and you're the one attempting to caps lock me to death. Go fuck yourself. This is my last response to you, idiot.
PhantomLyric 1 month ago
@PhantomLyric That's right, make up some excuse because you can't make a rational argument for your own point, just man up and admit your wrong or at least that you didn't think through enough or something! I could at least respect you for that ! You are sad and pathetic.
ilovenh1 1 month ago
For everyone who says the United States has less violent crime than countries with gun control, that is because Europe and the United States have different definitions of violent crime, the United States figures only include aggravated assault.
Intentional Homicide rate US: 5.0
Intentional Homicide rate United Kingdom: 1.17
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic No, violent crime includes far more than that. Rape / sexual assault, non-aggrivated assaults and battery, etc., are included.
SunSunSuperFun 1 month ago
@SunSunSuperFun Not on US statistics
CommunistCritic 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic
ilovenh1 1 month ago
@CommunistCritic Actually dude, the UK does have more violent crime, same as Sweden. I know this because I have lived in the UK and have friends in Sweden.
CRTV1982 1 month ago
How on earth is he out on bail? It is my understanding that he'd be charged with felony murder for his friends death. As an accomplice of a crime involving the death of another person, no matter if they are victim or suspect, you can be charged with felony murder.
PhantomLyric 1 month ago