Why we disagree on guns

Why we disagree on guns


Every gun-related massacre brings out the
most predictable and primitive reactions to what is and should be a very nuanced policy
discussion. In one outrageously boisterous corner you have the hysterical elements of
the left demanding the immediate implementation of gun regulation that would, by every metric,
fail to prevent each and every tragedy that has provoked their indignation.
In the other corner, you have a reflexively partisan conglomerate of gun-rights’ aficionados
who clutch their rifles, thinking the more they repeat slogans like “molon labe”
and “from muh cold dead hands” the stronger they make their case. In fact, it does the
opposite. At its core, the gun control debate is a matter
of culture — this is why it represents the flashpoint for so much political debate.
This culture gap can only be narrowed through a sincere investigation of the facts — and
the facts happen to align all on one side. First and foremost, the policy prescriptions
that progressives adamantly insist upon would have done absolutely nothing to prevent the
most recent tragedy in Texas nor any other. As is the case with many of the left’s empathetically
driven policies, they amount to knee jerk reactions to issues that necessitate a bit
more thought than “ban them!” To the disbelief of many casual news consumers,
Senator Rubio explained that no measure yet proposed would have stopped any of these tragedies.
The natural response would be to scoff and perhaps point to a shadowy NRA mega-donor
ventriloquist pulling the strings of their Senator Puppet. How could it be that not one
of the recent massacres could be prevented by government regulation?
The Washington Post then confirmed that reality did in fact align with Rubio’s statements.
Not a single mass shooting would have been prevented by the commonly cited regulations
of “closing gun loopholes” or banning “high-capacity magazines.”
What’s important to understand is that 2/3rds of gun deaths are by suicide, but they’re
lumped in with homicide to sensationalize the matter. Instead of making that important
distinction, they use the catch-all phrase of “gun deaths” to misleadingly make a
case for vaguely-defined “gun control” measures. Even while the same measures they
propose are already the law in California, which is where three of the last five mass
shootings took place. Unless, of course, we banned so-called assault rifles at the federal
level. This brings in to question what, exactly would we do with the 5 million rifles already
in circulation. Although progressives would like to think
a buyback program would look like Australia’s, it simply wouldn’t. The United States is
a country in which there are more guns than there are people, with a history and tradition
steeped in skepticism of government and the rightful enshrinement of arms as a bulwark
against such a pernicious force. Not to mention mass shootings “were too rare in Australia
for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both
Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related
crimes or deaths.” “Nobody should be allowed to have weapons
of war,” is repeated ad nauseum. And yet, the overwhelming majority of gun-deaths aren’t
in the extraordinarily rare vain of a mass-shooting by assault rifle. They are by the humble Glock,
used primarily by and against young, gang-affiliated men.
When considering the facts of the matter, you begin to understand that guns aren’t
the problem, but rather the culture of criminality afflicting certain communities — the
reasons for which are no doubt nested in a larger debate about the War on Drugs, culture,
etc. But if the so-called epidemic is almost entirely centered around suicides and hand-guns,
why is it that the AR-15 is always getting the brunt of the blame?
The reasons are primarily cultural, as the NRA understands. But instead of bridging the
divide and shedding light on progressive ignorance, it inflames. It should be said on the outset
that the NRA has done excellent work in the defense of the 2nd Am., but in fashioning
itself as a cultural extension of Trump or the Republican Party, it does itself and the
2nd Am. a disservice. Yes, the vast majority of those positively predisposed to guns lean
right. This is largely due to the aforementioned cultural reasons — for a person in Texas
it isn’t particularly uncommon to see someone carrying a handgun on their waist, whereas
the exact same sight in somewhere like California would ignite panic. But these cultural phenomenons
are irrelevant to the facs and if metropolitan politicos were presented with such facts,
they might be able to push through their culturally ingrained discomfort and understand the truth
of the matter. But when NRATV fires off something titled
“We’re Coming For You New York Times” it reinforces the precise kind of negative
stereotypes that amp up metropolitan gun hysteria. It’s obviously silly to take these videos
as anything more than cringe-inducing, childish attempts at pandering to the lowest-common
denominator of Republicans, but it didn’t take long for Democrats to do this. It opened
the door for political opportunists to offer a counter-reaction with such absurdly dangerous
propositions like New York Congressman Kathleen Rice’s; that we ought to label the NRA a
terrorist organization. It harkens back to a time where top Democrats
like then-Vice President Joe Biden likened those in the Tea Party to terrorists. In this
instance, they were referring to their hardline stance on spending, but it has been a recurring
theme by many on the left to paint the right as a radical fringe who are just one gay marriage
away from blowing up City Hall. A case study in just how culturally-driven
this debate is would be the progressive argument that we shouldn’t base our immigration policy
on the statistically insignificant occurrences of radical Islamic terror in the US. Meanwhile,
they don’t extend the same logic to gun rights, even while the probability of your
dying in a mass shooting is just as unlikely as if you were to be killed by a terrorist.
Statistics only seem to matter when it suits your narrative
in contemporary politics. When the facts are so evidently aligned with
the NRA’s position, is it wise to play to fears rather than to reverse them? Now more
than ever is a well-reasoned, substantive case for gun rights necessary — and
this can only be done by turning the most silly and fear-driven ignorance of guns on
its head. This is the wiser and more effective path than embodying the caricatures drawn
up by metropolitan progressives. Any policy interventions that have any hope
of solving gun violence in America require a sober, specific approach directed, not towards
gun themselves, but the afflicted behind them. Anything short of that is likely a fear mongering
play at characterizing political opposition as soulless monsters who trade lives for blood
money. In the end, we live in one of the most tranquil
times in history. Though gun ownership has skyrocketed by 50%, violent crime, including
gun-crime, continues to take a nosedive. It’s easy to capitalize on isolated incidents of
tragedy for political gain, but crafting actual solutions takes a lot more thought.

96 thoughts on “Why we disagree on guns

  1. You failed to mention the millions of times every year where guns are used to STOP a crime which doesn't take in to account the ridiculous number of times when flashing a gun was all that was needed. Guns save more lives then they take and that's even including the suicide numbers.

  2. AR15s arent weapons of war.

    They're sporter rifles, and have been sporter rifles since their inception.

    M16s and M4s came afterwards, as a modified AR15 capable of automatic fire.

  3. First of all: I love the USA and have ambitions to migrate there in the near future. I am politically right and agree with the US Republican party on almost all accounts except the gun laws. Please help me understand:

    Guns in The Netherlands are legal but only with severe background checks and constant inspection from the Government on how you are dealing with these guns (safe storage etc.). Also; if you don't go to a shooting range every now and then, your right to own a gun is taken from you (as for when background checks don't come out positive or when the inspector thinks you are not responsible enough to own a gun). We have had no (mass) shootings in my 22 years of being alive. Have been seeing a lot of those at schools in my lifetime in the USA, how can you otherwise explain this discrepancy if you claim that it has nothing to do with guns and them being legal? From someone growing up outside this gun loving culture, this is incomprehensible.

    It scares me to migrate, live there, and lose one of my kids to a guy that had just bought a gun at the local gun store. It might prevent me from coming to the USA at all, and I would really regret that at the same time…

  4. the crazy thing is Security Theater is incredibly dangerous, it creates a sense of security that has no ability to actually deal with a situation when it arises. Also, I refuse to adhere to the opinion or solutions from people who live in small white rooms and have never been knifed or shot at. What I will listen to them is their art and opinions, I'd like to know what they think and what they like to do, their research and what they find interesting, but I'm going to listen and act on the advice given from people who are knifed, shot a, and bombed at, chased by and giving chase to violent people who want to destroy any form of life that is against their own. When it comes to violent actions, peaceful words and new hairstyles will do nothing while the flesh is being shredded into a million parts. When someone laughs and blows the brains out of a child or person, you'll have nothing left in that moment to retort or scoff at.

  5. Politics aside, can we all agree that there are too many mass shootings? And without using word like Liberals, Conservatives, Trumptards, and Snowflakes I would love to hear everyone’s opinion on a rational measure to prevent or reduce these violent crimes.

  6. Gun control in America would result in huge numbers of gun owners, many owning large arsenals of guns, simply refusing to comply and being criminalized in the process.

    There is nothing to be achieved, with laws that are unenforceable.

  7. The problem is, nobody on the other side cares about facts. We've tried fact based argumentation and it hasn't yet worked. Thus the move to more emotion-driven rhetoric, such as Dana Lasch's use of phrases like "cold, dead hands".

  8. The NRA initially lobbied for background checks. They want people to be safe, and being able to defend yourself is paramount to that.

  9. It doesn’t matter what kind of weapons. Hand gund, riffles etc.
    Ban them for everyone but Hunters and Sport shooters. Nobody needs weapons.
    Especially for „selfe defens“
    I hate americans !
    Weapons are for killing. So… ban them there is no reason that everybody can buy them. „Its a right“
    Shut up!
    What if i am getting robbed ?
    Then shit happens but nobody needs to die or get shot.
    DONT @ ME !!!!!!!!

  10. 8:05 – OOF… A graph just proved that an increase of gun sells, leads to less gun homicides.
    That how i see it so come at me bro… Prove me wrong

  11. The second amendment is a right. The government wants those rights. My home protection is 9mm hand guns along with carbine types (as well as my go-to-bag) along with 223. I have magazines around the house to allow for a retreat or a forward advance at my choice. One must be prepared. Most home invasions are by multi-individuals who are drug infused (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpv9tJwjmAk). With illegals and the drug trade, criminals are looking to support their efforts. They are moving out of the hood. On the road in the dark hours I have gone to a gun for protection. All I needed was to touch or pickup the holster and the bad guys retreated immediately. They saw my demeanor and the look of confidence in my eyes. They are not stupid. Predators do not go after those who will do them harm. Unfortunately, they move on to those who don't care about protecting themselves or their family.

  12. I like you dude, have a subscribe. You say evidently the same way I say it, most people say it like evidintly lol.

    I know that's not a good reason to subscribe but ur videos are well made af and you present some great points too, that's a good reason 😀

  13. "If the federal government banned assault rifles, what would we do with the 5 million rifles already in existence?"

    Probably 1776.

  14. I feel the NRA has become a corrupt organization that places their need to stay in business over truly protecting our rights. I kind of put them on par with anti virus software companies. They need the threat to persist so they can keep raking in the cash.
    With that being said I am one of those "cold dead hands" people. I believe as long as I do not harm or put anyone else in danger, I should be able to own whatever type and however many firearms that I want. I also feel that what firearms I have is none of the government's, or anyone else's business.
    I refuse to apologise for my views nor are the likely to ever change.

  15. Clutch my rifle? No no ill draw a bead on your forehead and knock your ass down before you get within a 100 yards

  16. people just care about the mass shootings, not gang deaths or suicide. That's really what liberals are trying to prevent, another mass shooting, at least from a popular perspective. I'm not talking about those in government.

  17. 5 million “assault” weapons? That’s not even close. I bet that’s not even half of simply the AR. There are other types too. Any semi auto rifle with a decent sized clip…add millions more. It makes the argument for banning even MORE ridiculous.

  18. Some of the firearm statistics you showed were wrong. There were more gun related homicides than terrorism related homicides from 2001 to 2014. It doesn't matter whether you account for suicide or not, guns do cause more deaths than terrorism does.

  19. The 2nd Amendment is the lynchpin of the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If we let the government repeal or scale back the 2nd so much so as to make virtually useless, then what is to stop the government later doing the same to other amendments? They will just become a Bill of Convenient Privileges.

  20. Governments’ ability to protect you and/or criminal’s compliance with the law seems to be the false premises most, if not all anti-gun arguments are derived from. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, and governments shouldn’t be charged with the health and safety of every man, woman, and child in its borders. It will always be immoral to limit freedom and access to tools of self-defense where a prohibitive law against an immoral action would have been sufficient.

  21. How about “foreign policy”? How many times have foreign states attacked the US in the last 50 years? How many times have we gone to war? And so, why is the military budget ever increasing, despite a total lack of threats? That’s the ultimate in fear mongering propaganda, upon which both parties agree

  22. Where are the left wingers protesting for the ban of all guns ??? I have yet to meet one …. the right is so delusional they love making up enemies where there are none

  23. Here is another great video with facts about gun statistics…

    Media hype up questionable gun control study – Mass Shooting Study is a myth
    https://youtu.be/lXGgI2E5JUw

  24. No thinking America believes the gun massacres happen spontaneously .
    The left has already said the use “any means necessary”, to get rid of guns, and I believe them.

  25. I think one thing I'd like to point out is whenever a homeowner uses a gun to defend themselves the NRA is always quick to the draw to spotlight it, saying this is what we stand for. (I myself am pro-guns to clear uo any misconceptions) my problem however with the NRA is in the instances like for example in Minnesota, an active shooter was present and as a result a good man with a gun, who happened to be african American, tried shooting the attacker. Unfortunately, the police didnt know and accidentally shot him believing he was the suspect. But for some reason, the NRA stayed extremely quiet about it, no word trying to celebrate the man for trying to do good, no words of sympathy for the man hoping he recover soon and for unfortunately being shot by mistake. Absolutely nothing. My main issue with the NRA is they are supposed to be a group who stands up for gun rights for everyone in the nation, however its pretty obvious how overly partisan they are and as a result demonize more left/liberal who also support gun rights.
    (Now before you say "but if youre liberal ,you want to take our guns away", first off, gun rights shouldnt be a partisan issue, unfortunately now it is, due to idiots spouting stuff to demonize liberals as a bunch of failed art school graduates complaining about nothing, of course this only happens if you look at thr more extreme side of the spectrum. I for one am not an extreme/radical liberal. Im open to compromise and look at policy, not political party)

  26. It's always perplexed me that the same people say we should legalize drugs because of all the negative effects of its illegality. Also say we should make guns harder to obtain. One would imagine the negative effects would be just as strong or perhaps worse.

  27. Get rid of the FBI and you'll get rid of most of the fake mass shootings, they are involved every damn time.

  28. Were it that these anti-Constitutional Leftists dedicated that energy toward the safety of children, the isolation of the angry bastards that wish to do us harm and the want of criminals and the insane to have illegal and legal weapons, maybe I would believe them in earnest. Otherwise it is just Fashionable Empathy.

  29. You know Im starting to think that leftists actually completely lack any and all ability to empathize and that they can only sympathize . They can't see things from the perspective of someone who is superior at physical violence at all. This is why in the musket ad you review in the beginning, they show the guy stopping in close range after firing the single shot to reload, instead of charging with the bayonet after he missed his target. Because ya know also that would reveal the fact that knives are a thing too and would contradict the point of the anti gun ad.

    Its like they think that battles used to be two mobs of men standing on opposite sides only staying in one spot and reloading their muskets while standing still. Its to be expected from people who do not have the warrior gene though that they wouldn't know musket battles used to be (for the most part), only one round of shots then everyone charging in with bayonets and most causalities were bayonet casualties until firearms improved in capability.

  30. Leftists say people on the right only respect strength when in reality its actually that leftists don't respect strength at all so they label anyone who respects strength as someone who only respects strength as a convenient form of dismissal. They don't respect strength because they have none and are jealous of people with strength. People who exhibit strength will obviously respect strength because they have it and know its importance.

  31. Lock up your guns, folks! We would hate for them to escape and exterminate all of humanity! 😑

    Terrorists have brains; guns do not.. We'll be banning hand before long.. 🙄

  32. I love when people say, "It's not uncommon to see someone carrying a gun in Texas". I haven't seen one in at least a year. But then again, we have concealed carry here. So it's not that common to see them. Criminals beware.

  33. Thank you Carlos Maza for making an excellent case against the foul tactics of your own faction, without even being aware of it. If I ever run into you, I hope you give me a side-quest.

  34. Possibly my favorite type of dissenting content creators… 1791L. Good work… though… this comment was made 1.2 years after the video came out.

  35. i see your point but by disregarding suicide statistics, are you saying that gun-related suicides are not important? death is still death and suicide is made so much more accessible and immediate with guns. here in australia, suicide is a lot more difficult to execute due to the effort of finding methods which may buy crucial time for a person to change their mind. the accessibility of guns makes suicide so much easier and can be done so fast, at an impulse.

  36. You really don’t understand gun culture. Many People will actually die if any confiscation efforts ever take place.

    And it will be moral for people to resist.

    My right to self defense is the right to kill you if you try to oppress me.

  37. Preventing mass shootings and gun related deaths aren’t the same thing. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Mass shootings by American domestic terrorist are usually done by folks getting their guns legally. THAT CAN BE PREVENTED with common sense gun laws that incorporate mental health screenings and training (like getting a drivers license). Street violence by in large is happening by illegal guns. Suicide is a mental health issue. Totally different issues 🤦‍♂️

Leave a Reply

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