I normally like Penn and Teller. But this episode of Bullshit was really poor. It is typical, macho, constitution-humping American gun-propganda that we've come to expect here in Europe. Fact is many countries with stricter gun laws, such as the UK and Norway, have far less crime because we don't let people have guns just because they want a precautionary armament. This issue is a complex one and one of the more morally grey ones Penn and eller have ever handled. 30 minutes just isn't enough.
@IscinPostremo Correlation does not equal causation. Ignoring such facts like different gun laws in different areas of the US, that crime in the UK is one of the highest in Europe and the shooting that took place in Norway not long ago, just because there's higher crime and less gun control somewhere does not mean that these two are then causal. It's of course conceivable but you haven't in any logical way established it.
If stricter gun laws did correlate with lower crime than how would you explain countries like Mexico, Thailland or Brazil.
Also you imply gun control or prohibition prevents people from obtaining guns, which is plain wrong. I'm fairly certain grenades are not up for private citizens to own, yet that didn't stop a guy in Belgium, not too long ago, from lobbing them at people.
I think the strongest argument they make is the political argument.
If you're going to have a constitutional government of limited power, then you by definition cannot trust that government to enforce those limitations upon itself. Law is useless when it isn't enforced by a neutral party, and no agency can be neutral in regards to questions dealing with the limits of its power and jurisdiction.
Keep in mind no one has a reason to need a gun besides the police. If you have a problem just call 9.1.1 and a cop will show up in a fraction of a second to help you, becase all cops are superman. That's why they're cops.
I personally don't mind people using guns for protection. They make me feel uncofortable but that's probably the reason why I don't own one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people as the saying goes.
@GodotheInfantry I have a hard time anyone will even be concerned about it unless it affects them directly. No revolution was ever fought on principle.
I have a ccw, and I carry single, day. I have yet to have, an accidental discharge, I have yet to have an accidental anything, I keep it on my and never touch it. I don't go looking for trouble, if it happens, if I'm there then I will try and end the threat.
accidental death is mother natures way of thining out the herd. the kid who swallowed too many marbles dies not grows up and reproduces. world is full of idiots because of child safety. die ignorant fuc ks die!
A Nation where most pepole have a gun. in this nation hovewer, there are victims who don't have guns. they end up dead.
A nation where nobody but the order has guns. in this nation, everyone can calmly walk down the street, alltrought a little unsafe when lonely... they don't need to fear getting shot.
@linuslillen01 That would be beautiful if it worked. Criminals will always find ways to get guns and use them against the law abiding populace. Even without guns, they still have a variety of weapons to choose from. If someone moves towards me with the intent to take my property or possibly kill me, I have a gun at my side to defend myself.
@linuslillen01 USSR, 1940 Germany, Cambodia, China, North Korea. Unarmed nations, where you are never safe. That have killed 150 million people between them. America, 10k gun deaths a year. Yeah, make your choice.
@creativeidhere these countries are dictatorships with heavy troubles.
especially the USSR. it had multible nationalities, damaged infrastructure and unmotivated pepole. if the US had that countrys trouble, it wouldn't even last a WEEK.
And to be fair, Hitler made Germany a flourishing and a quickly developed nation and made it to a potential superpower! problem: September 1939. he screwed up Germanys future.
the US is diffrent to these: it's a untroubled nation. or at least less than normal.
Take any city bus and tell me you feel comfortable knowing all of the people on that bus had the power to kill you with the slip of a finger. Lets cross reference the number of people who will suffer some sort of mental illness in there life time with the every one has a gun. If every woman had a gun then the men would just over power them to get the gun to use against them. One wouldn't need to bring a gun to a rape. One would be provided for you.
@Aorr2384 If nobody on the bus had a gun, everyone still could potentially kill you. Except for maybe the 80 year old granny. If the 80 year old granny had a gun, would she be the one you'd be afraid of shooting you?
Assuming you're a man, I'd love to see you "overpower" a woman and simply take the gun from them. Not betting money on that one. And hey, even if you could get the gun from her, how would that be any different if the woman had no gun at all?
@jordanromaker there was an incident in Canada where a man on a bus was suffering from mental illness. Access to guns and gun culture in Canada is not the same as it is in the USA. He had a knife and attacked the person next to him and killed him. The other people on the bus ran away. Had he had a gun he would have killed more. Its hard to have a massacre with a knife. Sure you can kill one or two people but not like a crazy guy with the right gun.
@Aorr2384 I live in Canada, so I'm aware of our gun culture, and I'm familiar with the incident. It was a tragic story. Unfortunately, crazy people are going to do crazy things no matter what, and it simply doesn't do at all to speculate that it would have been worse had he a firearm on him. Maybe if would have. Or, maybe if everyone else on the bus was armed too, the whole thing could have been avoided entirely.
@Aorr2384 It's funny to me how people always want to cite the bad things they think might happen or could happen, yet conveniently ignore all the situations would could be helped by it. There are far too many deaths that occur as a result of drunk driving, yet we don't ban cars OR alcohol out of fear of what might happen if they're abused by the wrong people.
@jordanromaker If a person is walking down the street and I walk up behind them and grab them they will not have time to reach for a weapon. If the person is holding the weapon and turns and shoots me then my mother has just shot me for trying to give her a hug she wasn't expecting. Carrying a gun is a dangerous way to deal with ones own insecurities.
@Aorr2384 Also....well, I don't know about you, but as for myself, I don't very much think I would sneak up behind anybody for any reason and grab them, even endearingly or as a joke, if I knew they were packing heat and overly jittery. I wouldn't do this either if the person was holding a pair of scissors. I guess sharp office supplies ought to be banned, too.
@Aorr2384 I agree that shooting without looking or understanding a situation is dangerous, but this is not even close to a common example. I myself don't like the idea of being told I'm not allowed to defend myself because some people are too quick on the trigger any more than I'd appreciate being told I wouldn't be allowed to have life-saving surgery because some people don't make it through the procedure. The risks are outweighed by the benefits.
I don't like how alot of Americans seem to fetishize guns as symbols of liberty/freedom. It would seem odd if the French were obsessed with guillotines.
It's insane that people oppose guns. The common man in the street is dumb, it's as simple as that. We get spoon fed shit from media, and think we are making our own choices, when we are really basing our decision on one sided arguments from the common media. A gun is in reality less dangerous than a car. But of course no one sees that connection, as they have been spoon fed shit the whole time, and think they sit on all of the facts. It's amazing this world still stands somewhat upright.
I'm not bringing down mentally unstable people, we should do all we can to help them, but what should be outlawed is misuse of weaponry. As stated above, that's near impossible unless you've got a psychic manning the counter at the firearm store. I want to be able to defend myself, friends, and family if something happens to them, and if that means I have to shoot who, or whatever the assailant maybe, then fine. And I surely don't want them to starve in a dire emergency. This is just my opinion.
You would have to go out a shoot a deer, pheasant, squirrel or something to survive. It's when lunatics get a hold of guns is when it's dangerous, and that's a shame. I could understand having to shoot someone out of self-defense, but when murderers, dumb asses, and drooling psychopaths get their mitts on guns is when all hell breaks loose. There's no way to tell or question the sanity, or know how someone is going to use a firearm when you sell it to them. My point is guns are more of a gamble.
A gun, like any weapon, is only as dangerous as the person wielding it. Guns have given us food, protection, and contributed numerous other things since their invention. What would you do if you if you and your spouse and children about to be horrendously mauled by a bear in the woods on a hiking trip? Such a large, powerful animal can't be bought down without regular means of force. What if you were staying in cabin over the winter, and your car froze over?
Get rid of all guns- no gun deaths. That's what my country is like. Paranoid the government will conspire to take over its people? Hmmm maybe that should have been in their conspiracy nut debunking episode.
@Bretski17 "getting rid of guns (making them illegal) people wouldn't have any? drugs are illegal, yet there are billion dollar drug industries, and drugs are easy to get. same with guns. the criminals will be more secure knowing their victim can't defend themselves.
@11bHOOAHH nah, I meant have them illegal in the first place. I understand that it's impossible to get of all guns now, especially when your country has borders to other countries.
@przechuj2217 Hitler was put in power using democratic means, would the jews have been better off with the means to defend themselves from the government in Germany?
Guns are not the issue. In the Dark Ages only royalty and soldiers could own any weapons what so ever. Hunters had special arrows that could only break bones in small animals like squirels. Read Mark Twain's A Coneticut Yankee in King Aurther's Court an it will explain it. Note none of the films will substitute for reading it. Why should the majority of a country obey the will of the minority? That is the opposite of a democracy and would give the Founding Fathers a really bad headache.
Gun control advocates are not interested in truth nor reality. Gun control advocates have an attitude of intellectual superiority based upon their intrinsic idealism which rejects abject reality in favor of what their fear esteems as necessary change.
This destructive agenda always revolves around them, providing a soapbox for their I-am-god-like opinions which they have deluded themselves into erroneously believing is both statistically correct and is emanating from a superior, educated mind.
Chicago is the number one most worst city yet they have supposedly the safest gun laws.
as well Chicago has the number on most listened to police radio also so i say screw the gun laws i don't trust the police to do there job right, if i have an intruder in my house ill get the job done faster and will keep more idiots out of the jails they so desperately whine about filling up so fast.
This video suggests that rapists, for example, are deterred in a nation where women are more likely to be carrying a gun. But is this really true? I've live in the UK where, since the mid 90s, almost no average citizens have carried guns. I know that Wikipedia isn't exactly a decisive source, but it says that the USA's rape rates were significantly higher than the UK's per capita in 2008 and 2009: see Wiki Rape_Statistics. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
@s0567840 It shouldn't be anyway around. Not every state allows you to carry a weapon. There are also different types of gun permits and concealment laws, which aren't mentioned in the video. Go check out DC and its crime and gun laws if you really wanna to see some scary numbers. They outright banned gun concealment, but that didn't stop gun related crime.
Besides, you are comparing statistics to a fictional idea that isn't implemented.... and that doesn't work.
Whilst it may be true that guns are nessecary to preserve the freedom of the people, gun owners need to be certain that the gun is in a secure location on their person or in their house to ensure no accidents occur.
I'm disappointed with P&T with this one. They assume "gun control" means "totally disarm evewryone" and that's simply not the case. Many like to point to Switzerland as an example. Yes they have many guns in private hands, and low shooting deaths, but the pro grun crowd ignores the fact that said owners have STANDARDS they're held to for safe handling. *THAT* type of "gun control" works.
@BlameRepublicans But that's not what the gun control advocates want. Don't believe me? Go to the Brady Campaign website (the people behind the gun control movement) and read about their goals. A lot of it has to do with trying to ban guns completely (by trying to ban assault weapons, which have no fucking meaning--a pistol with a forward grip is considered an assault weapon to them), to criminalizing gun ownership (felony charge for anyone carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school).
Ive got some food for thought for the gun control guy, the closest police station to my house is 23 miles of dirt roads away, and we do have crime, recently there has been burglaries and one account of felony theft...of a tractor, a $700,000 tractor. Now someone who is willing to break into my house and steal something is just irrational enough to harm me or my family, what happens if i cant keep a gun in my house? Police aren't availible... he's living in a padded dream world.
Why do you assume *any* form of gun control would mean you can't have one? Many nations have some common sense regulations that save lives & at the same time would still allow for you to have your weapons. Why do you see it in such black and white terms? B/C you are allowing fear to corrupt your sense of logic.
@BlameRepublicans i did not assume anything, it was pointed at the gun control advocate who wants to get rid of all weapons. I know you could have gun control laws that limit magazine capacities, or rate of fire, or types of weapons sold. I would still rather be in a free state where with some paperwork we can own any reasonable gun, including full auto and suppressed. The people who buy them legally are not the ones you have to worry about.
I want to go up to the gun control guy's house, knock on his door, make my hand into a gun shape, and say "bang". And then explain how I just killed him and am now robbing his house.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.” 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." Most people think militia is an army, but they are two different words with different meanings Militia is of the community in defense of that community, and army is pay soldiers. The framers knew this and that is why they use militia. Every man in the community that could serve in militia had to it was an honor
The biggest flaw in this argument is that the constitution is outdated. It was written at a time where your "guns" had >10 shots per minute at the hands of an skilled marksman and a laughable range. They weren't nessecarily more dangerous than a two-by-four for gods sake!
If you allowed people running around with those things, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever.
@DeadEnd2109 The 2nd amendment was designed to be a deterrent to tyranny so the level of the weapon technology is inconsequential. If anything the more powerful the weapons are the more valid the 2nd amendment is.
Is the 1st amendment outdated because of the advent of telephones and the internet?
@crazypants88 But the 2nd amendment does nothing of the kind anymore. At this point in time, it only gives people the ability to possibly shoot each other.
I am no expert on gun control laws, so I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that you are allowed to even posses PRGs, Anti-Tank mines, have an flak system installed on your property or posses any other form of military grad equipment or vehicles, which would be essencial for you to actually fight a tyranic regime.
@DeadEnd2109 I wouldn't say it does nothing of the kind, it does give people in most of the US the legal right to carry arms, not just hunting rifles and pistols but assault weapons too. There have been examples of militia like forces taking on world empires, Afghans fended off the Soviets and the Vietnam war saw the Viet Cong victorious. People can shoot each other without having the legal right to own a gun. Gun crime is rampant in many places that place heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
@crazypants88 In both cases you mentioned the milita was heavily supported by other countries with arms and logistics. An example for the opposite is Libya, where the revolutionary forces where crushed until NATO intervened and destroyed a great deal of Gadaffis air and armored ground forces.
A criminal doesn't care if he is allow to carry a gun. But if he can assume that you have one, he is much more likely to shoot you. If you want to be save, wear kevlar.
@DeadEnd2109 Yes I'm aware of that and there's no reason that rebels in a 2nd US civil war couldn't get help from a third party. Whether that help is to the extent NATO helped the Libyan rebels or just gun runners supplying the rebels with weapons.
So if a criminal knows gun ownership is common place, he'll much more eagerly use his guns? That's the opposite of what we can deduce through logic would happen AND what criminals themselves say what would happen.
If more people are armed then there are more people to take down a person that's shooting people. Criminals by and large realize this.
@crazypants88 Yes, I believe that. Pretend for a moment, you are robbing a store. Would it make you more or less jumpy and therefore more likely to shoot someone, if you were aware of the fact that there very well might be a shotgun under the counter or a pistol under the shirt of one of the customers?
It wouldn't prevent any muggings or robberys, but it would prevent many people from getting killed just because some jumpy crackhead thought he caught a glimps of a barrel.
@DeadEnd2109 Also I think you're right about gun laws not allowing military grade weaponry. That is an inconsistency with the people that decide the law, not the amendment itself. In my mind you should be able to own these kinds of weapons. It seems to me to be just inviting tyranny and abuse if all the military weapons belong to one side.
Switzerland is a terrible example for effectiveness of gun control laws. The country has an unemployment rate of 2.8%m 6.8% of the population is considered poor (not to be confused with the US version of poor people ofc). Much money = low crime rates.
But if you have a country with very high crime rates (like the US), how can it be helpful to fighting this crime if you can walk into a store armed and have to yet commit a crime until you shoot the store owner in the face?
@DeadEnd2109 No one claims that poverty doesn't play into crime rates but that's still completely irrelevant of the fact that Switzerland has low crime rates and high gun ownership rates. If you look at the wealthiest countries in the world you see Germany in the top 10, yet they have more crime then Switzerland, shouldn't it be the opposite if your assertion were true?
@crazypants88 Germany's unemployment rate is also twice that of Switzerland. Also in Germany a much higher percentage of people life in urban areas, which is a big factor too.
On a side note, while it is hard to find up to date numbers, the amount of gun related crimes isn't really that low for Switzerland (in 2002, 63 murders with a population of 7 mio.; Germany 269 at a population of 81 mio.), definitly not in comparison with their total number of crimes/murders.
@DeadEnd2109 Fair enough Income per capita is a better measure of people's general wealth than GDP.
But in that scenario I can again point to country that's wealthier than Switzerland and has higher crime rate. Luxembourg and the US. The US has varying gun laws BTW, the places with the strictest unsurprisingly have the highest gun crime.
I never meant to imply there would be no crime in Switzerland, but it is undeniably lower than many of it's neighbors.
This is the expected mentality of a country founded by a bloody rebellion. Freedom means being allowed to kill the higher ups. And America is a gratuitously warlike nation too. So it's also okay to kill those lower than you for conquest.
There's a word for these types: barbarians. You've all reached the point of no return. Guns are so ubiquitous that everybody needs one. In America, every man, woman and child must be in constant fear of their lives to need guns all the time. You are not #1.
@Hama8382 Why doesn't gun control reduce crime? You really don't understand? Gun control keeps people from being able to **buy guns through the official process**, i.e. in gun stores. Criminals don't care; they buy on the black market, and these are untraceable. Therefore, anti-gun laws don't do a damn thing for stopping crime because cartels and gangs still become armed en masse even if previously disarmed in a police raid on their cache. Do you still not understand how this works?
@shady9321 all I know is that there are way more crimes and homicides in the US than in all european countries combined... and guess which of these have gun control laws... ;)
@Hama8382 Switzerland has extremely relaxed gun control laws and has one of, if not the single most lowest crime rates in Europe - because everyone is armed and the criminals know it. Norway was a classic case where it's chalk full of disarmed zones, which allowed for the Breivik incident to happen - because no person was allowed to be armed at all. Same things can happen in England because civilians and most cops don't carry guns. The Switzerland situation is like Texas, they're always packing.
@Hama8382 Strangely enough the European nation that has one of the lowest crime is the one with the highest gun ownership rates: Switzerland.
Correlation does not automatically equal causation, the fact that countries with strict gun laws have does not mean that strict gun laws caused them. If they did why don't some countries that have strict gun laws have comparable crime rates? Like Mexico, it has very strict gun laws, yet very high gun crime rates.
@Basetornado That's really some fallacious logic. So if I switch a light switch off and on before I leave a room because I believe otherwise my house will burn down, does then the fact that my house hasn't burned down yet prove that this OCD like behaviour is working? No, correlation doesn't equal causation. Norway has a pretty strict gun laws, that didn't stop Breivik from obtaining guns and then massacring people who were unarmed because it was illegal to carry a gun in public.
@Volkovic7013 I'd be glad to. If they aren't complete, total morons, they would have figured out that on their own. Obviously they ARE bad parents. Problem is, they find it far easier to blame someone or something else than to look in the mirror and see the real perpetrator.
Is Canada a bizzaro world where violent crime is higher in rural areas, where guns are a plenty, than in urban areas? The city in Canada with the highest murder rate is Winnipeg, Manitoba (and not Toronto or Montreal: they just have more people) a city with only 700,000 people in the prairies? Something is not right with this picture.
If you say you support gun control, you're saying you support using the violence and guns of the state to exercise property rights over MY property. 99% of gun owners would only ever use arms in self defence, but someone who supports gun control laws supports the use of violence against anyone, violent or not who choose to own guns. Intolerable hypocrisy...
history can teach us a lot about the mistakes made in the past. Its sad how people today still believe in meaningless cause. Gun Control is absolute bullshit and its something the MEDIA! and the POLITICIANS need to stop supporting
Guns aren't the problem in the states , its the brains
p.s Have all the guns stopped the massive erosion of freedoms seen over the last ten years ? Nope. Have the militias ( and teaparty types ) risen up against the government ? Nope . So exactly what freedoms are these guns protecting ?
People want guns because they like them , its makes weaklings and idiots feel important , fine have them but at least be honest.
@Govanmauler Well the guns are only the tools to deter tyranny, if there's no will to use the tools, then it's not the fault of the tools, it's the fault of the people.
Guns help thousands of people protecting themselves every year in the states.
@Govanmauler Guns are only the tools to deter tyranny, it's still up to the people to actually rise against their state. So it's fault of the people not the gun.
Also guns help thousands of people to protect themselves every year in the US
@Govanmauler Some people want guns to feel important, immature and sociopathic people. I have my gun so I can shoot someone if they break into my home, It's legal in my State. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Really...? P&T support removal of gun control laws because it'll mean citizens are more capable of violently overthrowing their government? Is this not a joke?
@H7C I mean imprisoning them, killing them en masse that sort of thing. Not necessarily shooting people but having the means to defend yourself will undoubtedly make a state think twice before trying to commit the next holocaust. And if they do come after them they could shoot them. That's how the U.S.A. was formed, by overthrowing their government with guns.
Men who only ever saw single-shot muskets wrote something, therefore I have the right to an assault rifle with a 200 round magazine. Yeah, that makes perfect sense (rolls eyes).
What gives you the right to say something like that? The internet hadn't been invented yet when the Bill of Rights was written, therefore the first amendment doesn't apply here.
@Wintermute01001 I'm on the fence in this issue, however your reasoning is flawed.
Your founding fathers (If you are American) had flintlock technology against flintlock technology. Semi- automated and fully automated weapons should be fair game against other weapons of equal caliber.
@Wintermute01001 If you were nuked, you wouldn't be able to return fire anyway >.<. Besides, you need a lot of resources and preparation to launch nuclear weapons as well as an authorization code from the government.
To another point, a nuclear attack would be a military offensive or the work of terrorists. Fire arms are meant to protect you from thugs and other hostiles that are after petty things like money and so on.
@Wintermute01001 Oh and by the way, firearms for citizens were for defence in a threatening situation. If they were threatned seriously, i'd assume the attacker would be in close proximity to you. If you "launched a nuke" somehow, you'd actually hit yourself and everyone else in your entire state!
When they said firearms, i'm sure they meant it within reason. Like a musket, rifle or dueling pistol. They didn't condone Cannons for citizens for crying out loud.
@Wiinajamizzi Actually you should look into the independent militias that were founded in with little to no state control they had cannons as well it was all a matter of what you could afford.
@jddrafts Interesting; however if they were independent militas, thats a whole new playing field. I thought we were talking about day to day protection for the citizens.
Taking up arms to fight for your country due to lack of an already existing defence force or state control, is totally different to concealing a weapon to protect yourself.
Cannons aren't practical for protection anyway. It would take ages to load clean and fire the thing. An assailant would already be upon you before then.
@Wiinajamizzi The milita is divided into two types organized and unorganized, the unorganized consists of every able bodied male between 16 and 40 who is not already in military service, if groups of them want to get together to form their own militas stoping them would violate their rights to freely associate. As such until they harm someone let them and how else besides independent militias will we defend ourselves on a low tax level with no income tax.
@Wiinajamizzi In the early 1800s when there was not a conflict going on the US army consisted of roughly 800 men independent militias both at the state level (no federal authority over them without the govenors permission) and private ones funded by private citizens rather like a neighborhood watch existed they were left alone unless they attacked people. After all we have the right freely associate and the right to keep and bear arms there is no reason we cant to both.
I'm not proposing a ban of guns in the US. Sadly, the US have created a shitty mess they can't get out of anymore
But let's not pretend about who's to blame. You're afraid of criminals carrying guns and you need to protect yourself. But the only reason they got their hands on guns is because there are so many guns going around. Guns start off as legal and then get stolen.
If it were possible to sweep all the guns off streets and houses, that would be the real solution to protecting yourselves
@darkmater4tm Except criminals could still get their hands on guns through the black market, leaving the law abiding people legally prohibited from arming themselves in kind. All you'd accomplish is make the citizenry much more defenseless against criminals.
The law regarding narcotics fits under what you propose for guns, why are their any illegal drugs then? If it worked at all like you claim, shouldn't there be absolutely no drugs around?
@crazypants88 If that where the case, law abiding Europeans would be having a very tough time. But we are not. Offer an alternative explanation please.
Where I come from, a murder done with a gun (other than a hunting rifle) is automatically assumed to be organized crime, because it usually is. That's not guesswork. And it says a lot.
Guns make killing much easier and thus more likely. Where I'm from, we get mugged with knifes, ironfists and keys. I'd take that every time over guns.
@darkmater4tm No my explanation stands fine, just because the population isn't prone to crime doesn't invalidate in any way that guns are indeed available to criminals through the black market.
If you want an example of a country with strict gun laws yet seething with crime and armed to the teeth, look at Mexico.
@crazypants88 pt1 What makes a population so prone to violence, if not the constant threat of violence against them? How did this circle begin? Your explanation isn't complete yet.
pt2 Your arguments go against "Gun prohibition will end ALL crime", which is not my point. Crime will continue to happen with any means available. However, as I already said, guns make killing easier and more likely. Piece it together. My point is to lower mortality rates. Guns in urban areas serve no other purpose
@darkmater4tm That threat exist regardless of any law regarding guns. Drugs are straight up illegal yet there's a multi-billion dollar industry. According to your argumentation it shouldn't exist. The fact that it does leaves a giant hole in your argument. Again, look at Switzerland, it has high gun ownership rates and very low crime rates, even when compared to European countries. So obviously high gun ownership rates don't do what you say.
@crazypants88 As for Switcherland, people there are issued exactly one military rifle and a specific number of bullets, all registered. And they are supposed to keep them locked, not carry them on the streets. You can't mug people with a military assault rifle.
That is a long way from people carrying small guns around their everyday life. If you mug a Swiss, neither the criminal nor the victim will pull out a rifle out of their pants
@darkmater4tm Actually you can carry them if you have a permit for it and you can sell them to whoever, it's your responsibility that the person you sell to doesn't go Virginia Tech on somebody.
I never said or even implied you were saying gun prohibition will end all crime. I'm merely argued that restricting access to guns will do virtually nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns and will only work as a barrier against citizens who want guns as a self defense tool.
@crazypants88 I see the hole in my theory, but I have yet to hear of a better one. You're taking the easy way out in too many places. You say americans are prone to violence but don't ask why. You assume that the existence of a black market means that the same percentage of criminals will be armed. You assume that all killings are deliberate and would have happened regardless of the means available.
I know you didn't say those, but this is what I get out of what you say.
@darkmater4tm Because I don't know why that is, look at the crime rates, Americans, whether it be the entire population or just sub-sections, do commit a lot of crime, when compared to other comparabæe nations. Most of it's rooted in the drug war. It could be that more homogeneous population are less prone to crime than heterogeneous ones, correlation seems to point to that. Regardless restrictions on guns will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns,
...even you admit that to a degree, it will only prevent those that follow the law.
Look at the drug trade, it's a perfect parallel to what you propose. The state restricts or outright bans x, unsurprisingly the black market offers x and subverts the ban or the restrictions, the same will and does happen with guns.
They do happen regardless of the means available. Did no one get killed before the invention of guns? Obviously not.
@crazypants88 There is a problem in that analogy. Manufacturing guns is more complicated than growing plants. The black market gets it's stock by stealing legal guns. In the US, building a weapon stock is the equivalent of breaking into a few houses. To aquire guns in other countries, one has to disarm cops and guards or raid military storehouses. This is much harder, to the point that gun dealers may opt to import illegal guns from the US than build a stock locally.
@darkmater4tm Sure but not all drugs are just the plant, some are processed from plants, some require lab equipment and chemistry education that's undoubtedly comparable to the engineering knowledge that's required to manufacture guns. It's far from impossible. Illegal guns don't seem to have much problem getting into the hands of criminal even outside of the US. In Oslo not long ago, there was a shooting with a pistol and a father just shot his daughter and himself in Denmark.
@crazypants88 You don't need engineering knowledge to manufacture guns. You need reasonable experience with machines and make a few calculations because of the weight of the bolt and the springs you are using etc etc.
Let's face it, an illegal gun is probably a compact SMG or even a machine pistol, not a complex assault rifle with machined parts and gas operation.
@DeathAdder187 Yeah engineering was not probably not the word for it. My point was is that it requires a certain know how and equipment, something that some popular drugs also require.
If the demand was high enough you could undoubtedly produce assault rifles illegally.
@crazypants88 Popular drugs require a little more than skill in a machine shop that can be practiced by anyone. You don't need fancy equipment to build guns if your designs are simple.
Assault rifles would make good money but there are problems: criminals prefer concealable guns and that use ammo that is cheap and available, like pistol calibers. You need to machine some parts with expensive equipment to make a assault rifle. The operation of the rifle would need more knowledge.
@crazypants88 some drugs are indeed harder than others to make. It's no coincidence that the most popular drugs are also the simplest to make. Furthermore, chemical processing is easier to scale to meet various demands. On the other hand, makeshift guns would still have to be put together one by one. The cost and supply of makeshift guns would be nowhere near where it is now, thanks to mass supply to a legal market.
In fact I agree with everything you said. That's why I think a restriction or a ban on guns will just increase the demand of black market guns to the point where it's profitable to make illegally manufactured guns.
Basically criminals will be armed regardless of any law, citizens generally wont.
@darkmater4tm "Manufacturing guns is more complicated than growing plants"
Manufacturing guns is not that hard. You can make the receiver, pistol grip, a magazine with any capacity you wish (inside reasonable limits), a smooth bore barrel (or try to build tools for rifling barrels), springs and a bolt from common materials. There are also recipes for hardening the steel and give it a good finish.
Best part? It's actually easier to make full auto guns than semi-auto.
@darkmater4tm You clearly never saw the "24 hour AK pistol" (bending sheet metal from a washing machine) or any of Luty's designs (steel tubing, drill holes and solder).
@darkmater4tm contd. Cars also making killing easier, so why aren't people killing each other with cars left and right. No there's plenty of areas with high gun ownership rates and lower crime rates, look at Switzerland.
You'd not prefer to be able to protect yourself and NOT get mugged, that's what a gun offers.
@crazypants88 as for "If they know you aren't, they don't need to kill you", if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that many deaths that happen during robberies happen because the criminal felt threatened by the victim. So they shoot them to be safe.
Criminals will do their thing either way. If they expect you to be armed, they will bring theirs and shoot you before you reach for yours. If they know you aren't, they don't need to kill you. There are much fewer preemptive kills in, say, Europe. Freely carring guns will only stop psycopaths, which wouldn't have guns in the first place, because only organized crime can find guns in countries with strict laws.
I normally like Penn and Teller. But this episode of Bullshit was really poor. It is typical, macho, constitution-humping American gun-propganda that we've come to expect here in Europe. Fact is many countries with stricter gun laws, such as the UK and Norway, have far less crime because we don't let people have guns just because they want a precautionary armament. This issue is a complex one and one of the more morally grey ones Penn and eller have ever handled. 30 minutes just isn't enough.
IscinPostremo 3 days ago
@IscinPostremo Correlation does not equal causation. Ignoring such facts like different gun laws in different areas of the US, that crime in the UK is one of the highest in Europe and the shooting that took place in Norway not long ago, just because there's higher crime and less gun control somewhere does not mean that these two are then causal. It's of course conceivable but you haven't in any logical way established it.
contd.
crazypants88 2 days ago
@IscinPostremo contd.
If stricter gun laws did correlate with lower crime than how would you explain countries like Mexico, Thailland or Brazil.
Also you imply gun control or prohibition prevents people from obtaining guns, which is plain wrong. I'm fairly certain grenades are not up for private citizens to own, yet that didn't stop a guy in Belgium, not too long ago, from lobbing them at people.
crazypants88 2 days ago
@IscinPostremo
I think the strongest argument they make is the political argument.
If you're going to have a constitutional government of limited power, then you by definition cannot trust that government to enforce those limitations upon itself. Law is useless when it isn't enforced by a neutral party, and no agency can be neutral in regards to questions dealing with the limits of its power and jurisdiction.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 day ago
go guns !
delljack2 4 days ago
Keep in mind no one has a reason to need a gun besides the police. If you have a problem just call 9.1.1 and a cop will show up in a fraction of a second to help you, becase all cops are superman. That's why they're cops.
Stabsnipers 4 days ago
I personally don't mind people using guns for protection. They make me feel uncofortable but that's probably the reason why I don't own one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people as the saying goes.
P.S. I own a sword ^_^
lordkremlore 1 week ago
Guns didn't stop the NDAA.
PktMma 2 weeks ago
@PktMma The revolution is coming. Enacting the NDAA may be the spark.
GodotheInfantry 1 week ago in playlist Penn and Teller Bullshit: Gun Control
@GodotheInfantry I have a hard time anyone will even be concerned about it unless it affects them directly. No revolution was ever fought on principle.
PktMma 1 week ago
A need to defend yourself against the police, sounds like it should never happen, but it has! What a great country we live in! e_e
shrikechan 3 weeks ago
I have a ccw, and I carry single, day. I have yet to have, an accidental discharge, I have yet to have an accidental anything, I keep it on my and never touch it. I don't go looking for trouble, if it happens, if I'm there then I will try and end the threat.
isamtator 3 weeks ago
accidental death is mother natures way of thining out the herd. the kid who swallowed too many marbles dies not grows up and reproduces. world is full of idiots because of child safety. die ignorant fuc ks die!
liragon 3 weeks ago 5
the US can choose two nations:
A Nation where most pepole have a gun. in this nation hovewer, there are victims who don't have guns. they end up dead.
A nation where nobody but the order has guns. in this nation, everyone can calmly walk down the street, alltrought a little unsafe when lonely... they don't need to fear getting shot.
It's your country americans. you choose.
linuslillen01 3 weeks ago
@linuslillen01 That would be beautiful if it worked. Criminals will always find ways to get guns and use them against the law abiding populace. Even without guns, they still have a variety of weapons to choose from. If someone moves towards me with the intent to take my property or possibly kill me, I have a gun at my side to defend myself.
dgrims89 3 weeks ago
@linuslillen01 USSR, 1940 Germany, Cambodia, China, North Korea. Unarmed nations, where you are never safe. That have killed 150 million people between them. America, 10k gun deaths a year. Yeah, make your choice.
creativeidhere 1 week ago
@creativeidhere these countries are dictatorships with heavy troubles.
especially the USSR. it had multible nationalities, damaged infrastructure and unmotivated pepole. if the US had that countrys trouble, it wouldn't even last a WEEK.
And to be fair, Hitler made Germany a flourishing and a quickly developed nation and made it to a potential superpower! problem: September 1939. he screwed up Germanys future.
the US is diffrent to these: it's a untroubled nation. or at least less than normal.
linuslillen01 1 week ago
@creativeidhere and you forgot to mention Israel.
the reason these countries outlaw guns is more likely to prevent an uprising. makes sence, dosen't it?
linuslillen01 1 week ago
Take any city bus and tell me you feel comfortable knowing all of the people on that bus had the power to kill you with the slip of a finger. Lets cross reference the number of people who will suffer some sort of mental illness in there life time with the every one has a gun. If every woman had a gun then the men would just over power them to get the gun to use against them. One wouldn't need to bring a gun to a rape. One would be provided for you.
P&T I declare BULLSHIT!
Aorr2384 1 month ago
@Aorr2384 If nobody on the bus had a gun, everyone still could potentially kill you. Except for maybe the 80 year old granny. If the 80 year old granny had a gun, would she be the one you'd be afraid of shooting you?
Assuming you're a man, I'd love to see you "overpower" a woman and simply take the gun from them. Not betting money on that one. And hey, even if you could get the gun from her, how would that be any different if the woman had no gun at all?
jordanromaker 1 month ago
@jordanromaker there was an incident in Canada where a man on a bus was suffering from mental illness. Access to guns and gun culture in Canada is not the same as it is in the USA. He had a knife and attacked the person next to him and killed him. The other people on the bus ran away. Had he had a gun he would have killed more. Its hard to have a massacre with a knife. Sure you can kill one or two people but not like a crazy guy with the right gun.
Aorr2384 1 month ago
@Aorr2384 I live in Canada, so I'm aware of our gun culture, and I'm familiar with the incident. It was a tragic story. Unfortunately, crazy people are going to do crazy things no matter what, and it simply doesn't do at all to speculate that it would have been worse had he a firearm on him. Maybe if would have. Or, maybe if everyone else on the bus was armed too, the whole thing could have been avoided entirely.
jordanromaker 1 month ago
@Aorr2384 It's funny to me how people always want to cite the bad things they think might happen or could happen, yet conveniently ignore all the situations would could be helped by it. There are far too many deaths that occur as a result of drunk driving, yet we don't ban cars OR alcohol out of fear of what might happen if they're abused by the wrong people.
jordanromaker 1 month ago
@jordanromaker If a person is walking down the street and I walk up behind them and grab them they will not have time to reach for a weapon. If the person is holding the weapon and turns and shoots me then my mother has just shot me for trying to give her a hug she wasn't expecting. Carrying a gun is a dangerous way to deal with ones own insecurities.
Aorr2384 1 month ago
Comment removed
jordanromaker 1 month ago
Comment removed
jordanromaker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aorr2384 Also....well, I don't know about you, but as for myself, I don't very much think I would sneak up behind anybody for any reason and grab them, even endearingly or as a joke, if I knew they were packing heat and overly jittery. I wouldn't do this either if the person was holding a pair of scissors. I guess sharp office supplies ought to be banned, too.
jordanromaker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aorr2384 I agree that shooting without looking or understanding a situation is dangerous, but this is not even close to a common example. I myself don't like the idea of being told I'm not allowed to defend myself because some people are too quick on the trigger any more than I'd appreciate being told I wouldn't be allowed to have life-saving surgery because some people don't make it through the procedure. The risks are outweighed by the benefits.
jordanromaker 1 month ago
@Aorr2384 if i was your mother i would have strangled you in the crib.
articulatebonehead 3 weeks ago
I don't like how alot of Americans seem to fetishize guns as symbols of liberty/freedom. It would seem odd if the French were obsessed with guillotines.
195ashes 1 month ago
31 dislikes at this point....seek mental health counseling.
dsrtdawg1 1 month ago
7:31
lorndarken 1 month ago
It's insane that people oppose guns. The common man in the street is dumb, it's as simple as that. We get spoon fed shit from media, and think we are making our own choices, when we are really basing our decision on one sided arguments from the common media. A gun is in reality less dangerous than a car. But of course no one sees that connection, as they have been spoon fed shit the whole time, and think they sit on all of the facts. It's amazing this world still stands somewhat upright.
Smennyboy 1 month ago
jackie mason youre on my list of heroes. well said
nateman79 1 month ago
I'm not bringing down mentally unstable people, we should do all we can to help them, but what should be outlawed is misuse of weaponry. As stated above, that's near impossible unless you've got a psychic manning the counter at the firearm store. I want to be able to defend myself, friends, and family if something happens to them, and if that means I have to shoot who, or whatever the assailant maybe, then fine. And I surely don't want them to starve in a dire emergency. This is just my opinion.
galaxywarper92 1 month ago
You would have to go out a shoot a deer, pheasant, squirrel or something to survive. It's when lunatics get a hold of guns is when it's dangerous, and that's a shame. I could understand having to shoot someone out of self-defense, but when murderers, dumb asses, and drooling psychopaths get their mitts on guns is when all hell breaks loose. There's no way to tell or question the sanity, or know how someone is going to use a firearm when you sell it to them. My point is guns are more of a gamble.
galaxywarper92 1 month ago
A gun, like any weapon, is only as dangerous as the person wielding it. Guns have given us food, protection, and contributed numerous other things since their invention. What would you do if you if you and your spouse and children about to be horrendously mauled by a bear in the woods on a hiking trip? Such a large, powerful animal can't be bought down without regular means of force. What if you were staying in cabin over the winter, and your car froze over?
galaxywarper92 1 month ago
Get rid of all guns- no gun deaths. That's what my country is like. Paranoid the government will conspire to take over its people? Hmmm maybe that should have been in their conspiracy nut debunking episode.
Bretski17 1 month ago
@Bretski17 "getting rid of guns (making them illegal) people wouldn't have any? drugs are illegal, yet there are billion dollar drug industries, and drugs are easy to get. same with guns. the criminals will be more secure knowing their victim can't defend themselves.
11bHOOAHH 1 month ago
@11bHOOAHH nah, I meant have them illegal in the first place. I understand that it's impossible to get of all guns now, especially when your country has borders to other countries.
Bretski17 1 month ago
its so simple. people die from guns. end guns.....and how do u do that....use guns.....Oh wait! ....
lovetownsend 1 month ago
@przechuj2217 Hitler was put in power using democratic means, would the jews have been better off with the means to defend themselves from the government in Germany?
jddrafts 1 month ago
Guns are not the issue. In the Dark Ages only royalty and soldiers could own any weapons what so ever. Hunters had special arrows that could only break bones in small animals like squirels. Read Mark Twain's A Coneticut Yankee in King Aurther's Court an it will explain it. Note none of the films will substitute for reading it. Why should the majority of a country obey the will of the minority? That is the opposite of a democracy and would give the Founding Fathers a really bad headache.
drnogood59 2 months ago
Gun control advocates are not interested in truth nor reality. Gun control advocates have an attitude of intellectual superiority based upon their intrinsic idealism which rejects abject reality in favor of what their fear esteems as necessary change.
This destructive agenda always revolves around them, providing a soapbox for their I-am-god-like opinions which they have deluded themselves into erroneously believing is both statistically correct and is emanating from a superior, educated mind.
ILLUDICHRIS 2 months ago in playlist Penn and Teller Bullshit: Gun Control
Chicago is the number one most worst city yet they have supposedly the safest gun laws.
as well Chicago has the number on most listened to police radio also so i say screw the gun laws i don't trust the police to do there job right, if i have an intruder in my house ill get the job done faster and will keep more idiots out of the jails they so desperately whine about filling up so fast.
giant648 2 months ago
Illinois is the state that has absolutely no carry option for citizens.
That means it's the safest state, right?
That means I can walk through the bad areas of Chicago at night, right?
Notwilber3 2 months ago
This video suggests that rapists, for example, are deterred in a nation where women are more likely to be carrying a gun. But is this really true? I've live in the UK where, since the mid 90s, almost no average citizens have carried guns. I know that Wikipedia isn't exactly a decisive source, but it says that the USA's rape rates were significantly higher than the UK's per capita in 2008 and 2009: see Wiki Rape_Statistics. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
s0567840 2 months ago
@s0567840 It shouldn't be anyway around. Not every state allows you to carry a weapon. There are also different types of gun permits and concealment laws, which aren't mentioned in the video. Go check out DC and its crime and gun laws if you really wanna to see some scary numbers. They outright banned gun concealment, but that didn't stop gun related crime.
Besides, you are comparing statistics to a fictional idea that isn't implemented.... and that doesn't work.
RelixKondor 2 months ago
Whilst it may be true that guns are nessecary to preserve the freedom of the people, gun owners need to be certain that the gun is in a secure location on their person or in their house to ensure no accidents occur.
darkman1362 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you are american and you are anti-gun. i shit in your mouth
sphinx129 2 months ago
as the saying goes....DON'T THREAD ON ME!
northsuzi 3 months ago
@northsuzi Tread ;)
crashedsky 2 months ago
@crashedsky sorry for the misspelling forgives...?
northsuzi 2 months ago
Awesome. These guys get it right just about every single time. Thanks for posting this!
XxOceanViewxX 3 months ago
John Doe lol
meantism 3 months ago 3
Anyone else look at their door when the gang member said he could shoot you while you were watching this?
thorsday121 3 months ago
We better remove the requirement for driver's license and all traffic laws or else I'll have no car in which I can drive to work.
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago
I'm disappointed with P&T with this one. They assume "gun control" means "totally disarm evewryone" and that's simply not the case. Many like to point to Switzerland as an example. Yes they have many guns in private hands, and low shooting deaths, but the pro grun crowd ignores the fact that said owners have STANDARDS they're held to for safe handling. *THAT* type of "gun control" works.
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago in playlist Penn and Teller's Bullshit
@BlameRepublicans But that's not what the gun control advocates want. Don't believe me? Go to the Brady Campaign website (the people behind the gun control movement) and read about their goals. A lot of it has to do with trying to ban guns completely (by trying to ban assault weapons, which have no fucking meaning--a pistol with a forward grip is considered an assault weapon to them), to criminalizing gun ownership (felony charge for anyone carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of a school).
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
The Brady people don't represent all pro-gun control Americans.
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago
@BlameRepublicans No, but they are the people that are doing the most to get retarded gun control legislation passed.
DeadFishFactory 3 months ago
Ive got some food for thought for the gun control guy, the closest police station to my house is 23 miles of dirt roads away, and we do have crime, recently there has been burglaries and one account of felony theft...of a tractor, a $700,000 tractor. Now someone who is willing to break into my house and steal something is just irrational enough to harm me or my family, what happens if i cant keep a gun in my house? Police aren't availible... he's living in a padded dream world.
snowyphil65 3 months ago
Why do you assume *any* form of gun control would mean you can't have one? Many nations have some common sense regulations that save lives & at the same time would still allow for you to have your weapons. Why do you see it in such black and white terms? B/C you are allowing fear to corrupt your sense of logic.
BlameRepublicans 3 months ago
@BlameRepublicans i did not assume anything, it was pointed at the gun control advocate who wants to get rid of all weapons. I know you could have gun control laws that limit magazine capacities, or rate of fire, or types of weapons sold. I would still rather be in a free state where with some paperwork we can own any reasonable gun, including full auto and suppressed. The people who buy them legally are not the ones you have to worry about.
snowyphil65 3 months ago
I want to go up to the gun control guy's house, knock on his door, make my hand into a gun shape, and say "bang". And then explain how I just killed him and am now robbing his house.
tumortim666 3 months ago
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.” 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." Most people think militia is an army, but they are two different words with different meanings Militia is of the community in defense of that community, and army is pay soldiers. The framers knew this and that is why they use militia. Every man in the community that could serve in militia had to it was an honor
badaboomrock 3 months ago
The biggest flaw in this argument is that the constitution is outdated. It was written at a time where your "guns" had >10 shots per minute at the hands of an skilled marksman and a laughable range. They weren't nessecarily more dangerous than a two-by-four for gods sake!
If you allowed people running around with those things, I'd have no problem with that whatsoever.
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 The 2nd amendment was designed to be a deterrent to tyranny so the level of the weapon technology is inconsequential. If anything the more powerful the weapons are the more valid the 2nd amendment is.
Is the 1st amendment outdated because of the advent of telephones and the internet?
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 But the 2nd amendment does nothing of the kind anymore. At this point in time, it only gives people the ability to possibly shoot each other.
I am no expert on gun control laws, so I might be wrong about this, but I don't think that you are allowed to even posses PRGs, Anti-Tank mines, have an flak system installed on your property or posses any other form of military grad equipment or vehicles, which would be essencial for you to actually fight a tyranic regime.
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 I wouldn't say it does nothing of the kind, it does give people in most of the US the legal right to carry arms, not just hunting rifles and pistols but assault weapons too. There have been examples of militia like forces taking on world empires, Afghans fended off the Soviets and the Vietnam war saw the Viet Cong victorious. People can shoot each other without having the legal right to own a gun. Gun crime is rampant in many places that place heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 In both cases you mentioned the milita was heavily supported by other countries with arms and logistics. An example for the opposite is Libya, where the revolutionary forces where crushed until NATO intervened and destroyed a great deal of Gadaffis air and armored ground forces.
A criminal doesn't care if he is allow to carry a gun. But if he can assume that you have one, he is much more likely to shoot you. If you want to be save, wear kevlar.
(I have YT limits)
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 Yes I'm aware of that and there's no reason that rebels in a 2nd US civil war couldn't get help from a third party. Whether that help is to the extent NATO helped the Libyan rebels or just gun runners supplying the rebels with weapons.
contd.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 contd.
So if a criminal knows gun ownership is common place, he'll much more eagerly use his guns? That's the opposite of what we can deduce through logic would happen AND what criminals themselves say what would happen.
If more people are armed then there are more people to take down a person that's shooting people. Criminals by and large realize this.
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 Yes, I believe that. Pretend for a moment, you are robbing a store. Would it make you more or less jumpy and therefore more likely to shoot someone, if you were aware of the fact that there very well might be a shotgun under the counter or a pistol under the shirt of one of the customers?
It wouldn't prevent any muggings or robberys, but it would prevent many people from getting killed just because some jumpy crackhead thought he caught a glimps of a barrel.
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 Also I think you're right about gun laws not allowing military grade weaponry. That is an inconsistency with the people that decide the law, not the amendment itself. In my mind you should be able to own these kinds of weapons. It seems to me to be just inviting tyranny and abuse if all the military weapons belong to one side.
crazypants88 3 months ago
Sucks that the majority of people that respect the right to own guns don't respect the right to smoke a harmless substance
CrossCreed4800 3 months ago
Switzerland is a terrible example for effectiveness of gun control laws. The country has an unemployment rate of 2.8%m 6.8% of the population is considered poor (not to be confused with the US version of poor people ofc). Much money = low crime rates.
But if you have a country with very high crime rates (like the US), how can it be helpful to fighting this crime if you can walk into a store armed and have to yet commit a crime until you shoot the store owner in the face?
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 No one claims that poverty doesn't play into crime rates but that's still completely irrelevant of the fact that Switzerland has low crime rates and high gun ownership rates. If you look at the wealthiest countries in the world you see Germany in the top 10, yet they have more crime then Switzerland, shouldn't it be the opposite if your assertion were true?
crazypants88 3 months ago
@crazypants88 Germany's unemployment rate is also twice that of Switzerland. Also in Germany a much higher percentage of people life in urban areas, which is a big factor too.
On a side note, while it is hard to find up to date numbers, the amount of gun related crimes isn't really that low for Switzerland (in 2002, 63 murders with a population of 7 mio.; Germany 269 at a population of 81 mio.), definitly not in comparison with their total number of crimes/murders.
DeadEnd2109 3 months ago
@DeadEnd2109 Fair enough Income per capita is a better measure of people's general wealth than GDP.
But in that scenario I can again point to country that's wealthier than Switzerland and has higher crime rate. Luxembourg and the US. The US has varying gun laws BTW, the places with the strictest unsurprisingly have the highest gun crime.
I never meant to imply there would be no crime in Switzerland, but it is undeniably lower than many of it's neighbors.
crazypants88 3 months ago
Give me mah sledgehammer!
Poodleinacan 4 months ago
This is the expected mentality of a country founded by a bloody rebellion. Freedom means being allowed to kill the higher ups. And America is a gratuitously warlike nation too. So it's also okay to kill those lower than you for conquest.
There's a word for these types: barbarians. You've all reached the point of no return. Guns are so ubiquitous that everybody needs one. In America, every man, woman and child must be in constant fear of their lives to need guns all the time. You are not #1.
RedDaVincy 4 months ago
@RedDaVincy
I'm not a U.S. citizen, but even I can see that you've made a lot of sweeping generalisations:
A country founded by bloody rebellion adopts a national mentality of murder and conquest?
I'd say that's pretty close to being a non sequitur.
Did a bloody rebellion fuel Britain's empire building?
It's a small point, but America is not a nation.
Every human being on this planet has the right to defend themselves and feel safe, it''s not a 2A right; It's an unalienable right.
PinkoCommyCoulter 3 months ago
I want to marry Suzanna Hupp and have George Washington be the minister.
richardplug 4 months ago
I do not understand how people could possibly claim that gun control does not reduce crime...
Hama8382 4 months ago
@Hama8382 Why doesn't gun control reduce crime? You really don't understand? Gun control keeps people from being able to **buy guns through the official process**, i.e. in gun stores. Criminals don't care; they buy on the black market, and these are untraceable. Therefore, anti-gun laws don't do a damn thing for stopping crime because cartels and gangs still become armed en masse even if previously disarmed in a police raid on their cache. Do you still not understand how this works?
shady9321 4 months ago
@shady9321 all I know is that there are way more crimes and homicides in the US than in all european countries combined... and guess which of these have gun control laws... ;)
Hama8382 4 months ago
@Hama8382 Switzerland has extremely relaxed gun control laws and has one of, if not the single most lowest crime rates in Europe - because everyone is armed and the criminals know it. Norway was a classic case where it's chalk full of disarmed zones, which allowed for the Breivik incident to happen - because no person was allowed to be armed at all. Same things can happen in England because civilians and most cops don't carry guns. The Switzerland situation is like Texas, they're always packing.
shady9321 4 months ago
@Hama8382 Strangely enough the European nation that has one of the lowest crime is the one with the highest gun ownership rates: Switzerland.
Correlation does not automatically equal causation, the fact that countries with strict gun laws have does not mean that strict gun laws caused them. If they did why don't some countries that have strict gun laws have comparable crime rates? Like Mexico, it has very strict gun laws, yet very high gun crime rates.
crazypants88 4 months ago
come to australia where we learnt from our 35 dead mass shooting and now have much better and tighter gun laws and as so far no repeats
Basetornado 4 months ago
@Basetornado That's really some fallacious logic. So if I switch a light switch off and on before I leave a room because I believe otherwise my house will burn down, does then the fact that my house hasn't burned down yet prove that this OCD like behaviour is working? No, correlation doesn't equal causation. Norway has a pretty strict gun laws, that didn't stop Breivik from obtaining guns and then massacring people who were unarmed because it was illegal to carry a gun in public.
crazypants88 4 months ago
Tell the family of the 4 year old who was killed by a 3 year old, they should have locked their shit up properly and not been bad parents.
Volkovic7013 4 months ago
@Volkovic7013 I'd be glad to. If they aren't complete, total morons, they would have figured out that on their own. Obviously they ARE bad parents. Problem is, they find it far easier to blame someone or something else than to look in the mirror and see the real perpetrator.
TimothySmithMIPM 3 months ago
@TimothySmithMIPM Thats the truth, blame is easier then accepting responsibility
Volkovic7013 3 months ago
Is Canada a bizzaro world where violent crime is higher in rural areas, where guns are a plenty, than in urban areas? The city in Canada with the highest murder rate is Winnipeg, Manitoba (and not Toronto or Montreal: they just have more people) a city with only 700,000 people in the prairies? Something is not right with this picture.
Mikodite 4 months ago
@Mikodite Well 90% of canada is rural lol the great wilderness. Dont get shot by a grizzly bear
Volkovic7013 4 months ago
@Volkovic7013 I support the right to arm bears lol
hummerskickass 4 months ago
@hummerskickass Worry about those bears, they are crazy lol
Volkovic7013 4 months ago
at 8:23 why dose 1 person have a mp 40
mojoismydog77 4 months ago
@mojoismydog77 Because it's a bad ass sub-machine gun
ekmad 3 months ago
@ekmad yes I don't deny that but this is about America.
mojoismydog77 3 months ago
If you say you support gun control, you're saying you support using the violence and guns of the state to exercise property rights over MY property. 99% of gun owners would only ever use arms in self defence, but someone who supports gun control laws supports the use of violence against anyone, violent or not who choose to own guns. Intolerable hypocrisy...
murf69 4 months ago
history can teach us a lot about the mistakes made in the past. Its sad how people today still believe in meaningless cause. Gun Control is absolute bullshit and its something the MEDIA! and the POLITICIANS need to stop supporting
trooperburger123 4 months ago
isnt encouraging / inciting the overthrow of the government high treason?? which is the usa still carries the death penalty??
hardman476 4 months ago
lol, do you have an idea what where thinking? that was a rhetorical question do'n answer... PULL!!!
supersonicsaiyan1 4 months ago
Thanks for posting these videos. Sorry you have to deal with a lot of Bullshit in the comments.
yoshaki 4 months ago
As soon as Jackie Mason spoke, I instantly pictured Rabbi Hyman Krustofsky... >.<
Coldphoenix89 4 months ago
I didn't know George Washington was 9 feet tall.
TheCAHADA 4 months ago
A person shot someone at a gunshow in my city.
redelman43199 5 months ago
@redelman43199 what city was it?? you live in africa?
MrRipzor 4 months ago
@MrRipzor Actually that was in Columbus, Ohio. But authorities were quick to stop the shooter and nobody died.
redelman43199 4 months ago
@redelman43199 yeap authorities could be quick when they stand behind you :)))
lexousa 4 months ago
very good show :)
Gmansters 5 months ago
Guns aren't the problem in the states , its the brains
p.s Have all the guns stopped the massive erosion of freedoms seen over the last ten years ? Nope. Have the militias ( and teaparty types ) risen up against the government ? Nope . So exactly what freedoms are these guns protecting ?
People want guns because they like them , its makes weaklings and idiots feel important , fine have them but at least be honest.
Govanmauler 5 months ago
@Govanmauler Well the guns are only the tools to deter tyranny, if there's no will to use the tools, then it's not the fault of the tools, it's the fault of the people.
Guns help thousands of people protecting themselves every year in the states.
crazypants88 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Govanmauler Guns are only the tools to deter tyranny, it's still up to the people to actually rise against their state. So it's fault of the people not the gun.
Also guns help thousands of people to protect themselves every year in the US
crazypants88 5 months ago
@Govanmauler Some people want guns to feel important, immature and sociopathic people. I have my gun so I can shoot someone if they break into my home, It's legal in my State. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
1978atcarroll 5 months ago
Guns aren't the problem in the states , its the brains
Govanmauler 5 months ago
@Govanmauler Lack of guns isn't the problem in the UK, it's the idea of the government as a nanny.
1978atcarroll 5 months ago
@1978atcarroll Aint gonna argue with that ,howevwer two wrongs do not a right make
Govanmauler 5 months ago
@Govanmauler dont you mean (make a right)??? please learn to spell
MrRipzor 4 months ago
@MrRipzor A - thats not a mistake I wrote it that way intentionally
and
B - Even if it was incorrect ( and again , it isn't ) that would be grammar not spelling.
No prizes for guessing in which counrty you got your schooling !
(p.s There is a typo in " however " but I guess that's too long a word for you)
Govanmauler 4 months ago
That is one badass George Washington re-enactor!
DRUM57IX 5 months ago 32
Really...? P&T support removal of gun control laws because it'll mean citizens are more capable of violently overthrowing their government? Is this not a joke?
H7C 5 months ago
@H7C It's not like there's a lack of examples of states going after their own citizens or subsections of them.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 What do you mean by "[go] after their own citizens"... and is shooting people the only way to resolve whatever you're talking about?
H7C 5 months ago
@H7C I mean imprisoning them, killing them en masse that sort of thing. Not necessarily shooting people but having the means to defend yourself will undoubtedly make a state think twice before trying to commit the next holocaust. And if they do come after them they could shoot them. That's how the U.S.A. was formed, by overthrowing their government with guns.
crazypants88 5 months ago
Men who only ever saw single-shot muskets wrote something, therefore I have the right to an assault rifle with a 200 round magazine. Yeah, that makes perfect sense (rolls eyes).
Wintermute01001 5 months ago
@Wintermute01001
What gives you the right to say something like that? The internet hadn't been invented yet when the Bill of Rights was written, therefore the first amendment doesn't apply here.
generic7527 5 months ago
@Wintermute01001 I'm on the fence in this issue, however your reasoning is flawed.
Your founding fathers (If you are American) had flintlock technology against flintlock technology. Semi- automated and fully automated weapons should be fair game against other weapons of equal caliber.
Wiinajamizzi 5 months ago
@Wiinajamizzi By that reasoning, private citizens should be allowed to own nukes.
Wintermute01001 5 months ago
@Wintermute01001 If you were nuked, you wouldn't be able to return fire anyway >.<. Besides, you need a lot of resources and preparation to launch nuclear weapons as well as an authorization code from the government.
To another point, a nuclear attack would be a military offensive or the work of terrorists. Fire arms are meant to protect you from thugs and other hostiles that are after petty things like money and so on.
Wiinajamizzi 5 months ago
@Wintermute01001 Oh and by the way, firearms for citizens were for defence in a threatening situation. If they were threatned seriously, i'd assume the attacker would be in close proximity to you. If you "launched a nuke" somehow, you'd actually hit yourself and everyone else in your entire state!
When they said firearms, i'm sure they meant it within reason. Like a musket, rifle or dueling pistol. They didn't condone Cannons for citizens for crying out loud.
Nukes... don't make me laugh.
Wiinajamizzi 5 months ago
@Wiinajamizzi Actually you should look into the independent militias that were founded in with little to no state control they had cannons as well it was all a matter of what you could afford.
jddrafts 1 month ago
@jddrafts Interesting; however if they were independent militas, thats a whole new playing field. I thought we were talking about day to day protection for the citizens.
Taking up arms to fight for your country due to lack of an already existing defence force or state control, is totally different to concealing a weapon to protect yourself.
Cannons aren't practical for protection anyway. It would take ages to load clean and fire the thing. An assailant would already be upon you before then.
Wiinajamizzi 1 month ago
@Wiinajamizzi The milita is divided into two types organized and unorganized, the unorganized consists of every able bodied male between 16 and 40 who is not already in military service, if groups of them want to get together to form their own militas stoping them would violate their rights to freely associate. As such until they harm someone let them and how else besides independent militias will we defend ourselves on a low tax level with no income tax.
jddrafts 1 month ago
@Wiinajamizzi In the early 1800s when there was not a conflict going on the US army consisted of roughly 800 men independent militias both at the state level (no federal authority over them without the govenors permission) and private ones funded by private citizens rather like a neighborhood watch existed they were left alone unless they attacked people. After all we have the right freely associate and the right to keep and bear arms there is no reason we cant to both.
jddrafts 1 month ago
I'm not proposing a ban of guns in the US. Sadly, the US have created a shitty mess they can't get out of anymore
But let's not pretend about who's to blame. You're afraid of criminals carrying guns and you need to protect yourself. But the only reason they got their hands on guns is because there are so many guns going around. Guns start off as legal and then get stolen.
If it were possible to sweep all the guns off streets and houses, that would be the real solution to protecting yourselves
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Except criminals could still get their hands on guns through the black market, leaving the law abiding people legally prohibited from arming themselves in kind. All you'd accomplish is make the citizenry much more defenseless against criminals.
The law regarding narcotics fits under what you propose for guns, why are their any illegal drugs then? If it worked at all like you claim, shouldn't there be absolutely no drugs around?
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 If that where the case, law abiding Europeans would be having a very tough time. But we are not. Offer an alternative explanation please.
Where I come from, a murder done with a gun (other than a hunting rifle) is automatically assumed to be organized crime, because it usually is. That's not guesswork. And it says a lot.
Guns make killing much easier and thus more likely. Where I'm from, we get mugged with knifes, ironfists and keys. I'd take that every time over guns.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm No my explanation stands fine, just because the population isn't prone to crime doesn't invalidate in any way that guns are indeed available to criminals through the black market.
If you want an example of a country with strict gun laws yet seething with crime and armed to the teeth, look at Mexico.
contd.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 pt1 What makes a population so prone to violence, if not the constant threat of violence against them? How did this circle begin? Your explanation isn't complete yet.
pt2 Your arguments go against "Gun prohibition will end ALL crime", which is not my point. Crime will continue to happen with any means available. However, as I already said, guns make killing easier and more likely. Piece it together. My point is to lower mortality rates. Guns in urban areas serve no other purpose
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm That threat exist regardless of any law regarding guns. Drugs are straight up illegal yet there's a multi-billion dollar industry. According to your argumentation it shouldn't exist. The fact that it does leaves a giant hole in your argument. Again, look at Switzerland, it has high gun ownership rates and very low crime rates, even when compared to European countries. So obviously high gun ownership rates don't do what you say.
contd.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 As for Switcherland, people there are issued exactly one military rifle and a specific number of bullets, all registered. And they are supposed to keep them locked, not carry them on the streets. You can't mug people with a military assault rifle.
That is a long way from people carrying small guns around their everyday life. If you mug a Swiss, neither the criminal nor the victim will pull out a rifle out of their pants
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Actually you can carry them if you have a permit for it and you can sell them to whoever, it's your responsibility that the person you sell to doesn't go Virginia Tech on somebody.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm contd.
I never said or even implied you were saying gun prohibition will end all crime. I'm merely argued that restricting access to guns will do virtually nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns and will only work as a barrier against citizens who want guns as a self defense tool.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 I see the hole in my theory, but I have yet to hear of a better one. You're taking the easy way out in too many places. You say americans are prone to violence but don't ask why. You assume that the existence of a black market means that the same percentage of criminals will be armed. You assume that all killings are deliberate and would have happened regardless of the means available.
I know you didn't say those, but this is what I get out of what you say.
contd
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Because I don't know why that is, look at the crime rates, Americans, whether it be the entire population or just sub-sections, do commit a lot of crime, when compared to other comparabæe nations. Most of it's rooted in the drug war. It could be that more homogeneous population are less prone to crime than heterogeneous ones, correlation seems to point to that. Regardless restrictions on guns will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns,
contd.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm contd.
...even you admit that to a degree, it will only prevent those that follow the law.
Look at the drug trade, it's a perfect parallel to what you propose. The state restricts or outright bans x, unsurprisingly the black market offers x and subverts the ban or the restrictions, the same will and does happen with guns.
They do happen regardless of the means available. Did no one get killed before the invention of guns? Obviously not.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 There is a problem in that analogy. Manufacturing guns is more complicated than growing plants. The black market gets it's stock by stealing legal guns. In the US, building a weapon stock is the equivalent of breaking into a few houses. To aquire guns in other countries, one has to disarm cops and guards or raid military storehouses. This is much harder, to the point that gun dealers may opt to import illegal guns from the US than build a stock locally.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Sure but not all drugs are just the plant, some are processed from plants, some require lab equipment and chemistry education that's undoubtedly comparable to the engineering knowledge that's required to manufacture guns. It's far from impossible. Illegal guns don't seem to have much problem getting into the hands of criminal even outside of the US. In Oslo not long ago, there was a shooting with a pistol and a father just shot his daughter and himself in Denmark.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 You don't need engineering knowledge to manufacture guns. You need reasonable experience with machines and make a few calculations because of the weight of the bolt and the springs you are using etc etc.
Let's face it, an illegal gun is probably a compact SMG or even a machine pistol, not a complex assault rifle with machined parts and gas operation.
DeathAdder187 5 months ago
@DeathAdder187 Yeah engineering was not probably not the word for it. My point was is that it requires a certain know how and equipment, something that some popular drugs also require.
If the demand was high enough you could undoubtedly produce assault rifles illegally.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 Popular drugs require a little more than skill in a machine shop that can be practiced by anyone. You don't need fancy equipment to build guns if your designs are simple.
Assault rifles would make good money but there are problems: criminals prefer concealable guns and that use ammo that is cheap and available, like pistol calibers. You need to machine some parts with expensive equipment to make a assault rifle. The operation of the rifle would need more knowledge.
DeathAdder187 5 months ago
@crazypants88 some drugs are indeed harder than others to make. It's no coincidence that the most popular drugs are also the simplest to make. Furthermore, chemical processing is easier to scale to meet various demands. On the other hand, makeshift guns would still have to be put together one by one. The cost and supply of makeshift guns would be nowhere near where it is now, thanks to mass supply to a legal market.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Oh yeah I'll agree with that.
In fact I agree with everything you said. That's why I think a restriction or a ban on guns will just increase the demand of black market guns to the point where it's profitable to make illegally manufactured guns.
Basically criminals will be armed regardless of any law, citizens generally wont.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm "Manufacturing guns is more complicated than growing plants"
Manufacturing guns is not that hard. You can make the receiver, pistol grip, a magazine with any capacity you wish (inside reasonable limits), a smooth bore barrel (or try to build tools for rifling barrels), springs and a bolt from common materials. There are also recipes for hardening the steel and give it a good finish.
Best part? It's actually easier to make full auto guns than semi-auto.
DeathAdder187 5 months ago
@DeathAdder187 Nobody said it's impossible. Simply put, making a usable gun is nowhere near as easy as watering a plant and rolling it's leaves.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm You clearly never saw the "24 hour AK pistol" (bending sheet metal from a washing machine) or any of Luty's designs (steel tubing, drill holes and solder).
DeathAdder187 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm contd. Cars also making killing easier, so why aren't people killing each other with cars left and right. No there's plenty of areas with high gun ownership rates and lower crime rates, look at Switzerland.
You'd not prefer to be able to protect yourself and NOT get mugged, that's what a gun offers.
crazypants88 5 months ago
@crazypants88 as for "If they know you aren't, they don't need to kill you", if you knew anything about the subject, you would know that many deaths that happen during robberies happen because the criminal felt threatened by the victim. So they shoot them to be safe.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Whats your point? The same happens with melee weapons
crazypants88 5 months ago
First time I disagree with B&S
Criminals will do their thing either way. If they expect you to be armed, they will bring theirs and shoot you before you reach for yours. If they know you aren't, they don't need to kill you. There are much fewer preemptive kills in, say, Europe. Freely carring guns will only stop psycopaths, which wouldn't have guns in the first place, because only organized crime can find guns in countries with strict laws.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago