First pro-gun video I have seen that makes me go, “Huh, maybe they are right?”
(It’s not a long video, worth a look)
What do you think?
I have to say I like it. Especially since he’s a Reds fan.
Amen. He is smart and articulate guy.
I have to admit part of the reason why I respect this more than most pro-gun rants I have heard is this guy doesn’t fit the stereotype of the right-wing, pro-gun, nutbag that I have been previously exposed to. He is articulate, black, and not spouting stupid about how wonderful guns are. He is matter of fact and to the point. I think people on both sides of the debate could take a clue from this guy on how to express your point of view.
I wonder why more people haven’t commented on this?
I agree, this is an excellent argument, by a very articulate guy.
I am pretty strongly anti-gun, but honestly I don’t see anything approaching a simple solution to the deplorable situation of mass shootings in the US. The more I read and think about the different arguments, the more hopeless it seems. Morally and logically, it seems completely backwards to respond to a gun problem with more guns. But practically, as the guy in the video says, I think this would be a reasonably workable short-term solution.
But I do wonder what is different between the situation in the US vs in Europe for example. Europe does not have concealed carry, and with the very notable and sad exception of the Norway attacks, does not have mass shooting. What is their secret?
Give it time - it’s hardly a left-wing conspiracy. I only noticed it when you bumped it, since it was originally posted late at night in my time zone.
I’ll watch the video when I get home from work.
It isn’t?
:dubious:
OK, I won’t go there…
Meh, he is right on some things but I disagree on others.
I am nonplussed by calls for more gun control measures, but the idea of placing armed guards in schools is anathema to me.
+1. I will listen to anyone who proposes ideas about anything, but I typically characterize the pro-gun side as only arguing what we shouldn’t or can’t do. Also, he didn’t once mention Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
I would love to live in the world he describes where criminals aren’t glorified but heroes are. I’m not sure how we could achieve that goal, but as a starting argument I think it’s great. I think he’s somewhat optimistic about the idea that shooters would give up as soon as they start facing return fire, especially those involved in the most horrific shootings, but I’d be interesting in someone doing some studies on it.
It is not aesthetically pleasing, but it would probably be effective.
The thing is, we already have enough guns. According to a survey on Wikipedia (guns per 100 residents):
United States 88.8
Serbia 58.2
Yemen 54.8
Switzerland 45.7
The US leads the world in guns per capita. 50% more than the next runner up - Serbia!
We also lead the Western world in gun deaths per capita (around 10 per 100,000), on par with Colombia, Panama, Brazil and Chilie. Not as bad as Mexico (25) or Honduras (46) or El Salvador (50) though.
So really what this says to me is that we have a shit-ton of guns but having them doesn’t seem to make us any safer. I’d be curious to hear a rational argument that we should be the most well armed society on the planet.
you mean the noisiest, screechiest examples of a demographic don’t actually represent the entire demographic? Say it ain’t so.
One of the things that’s bothering me about the proposed assault weapons ban is that in my view, it will do essentially nothing to reduce or eliminate gun violence in America as the ban targets weapons that are so rarely used in gun homicides (although they are in the public eye right now for obvious reasons) as compared to handguns, which are far and away more utilized in murders than all other types of guns combined.
It just feels like a political “we gotta do something” maneuver so politicians will pat themselves on the back and convince themselves that they have done “something” when in all likelihood, it won’t accomplish squat.
This guy doesn’t really sound any different to me.
Oh except I haven’t yet heard the argument that people are being victimized by being FORCED to learn the INTIMATE DETAILS of these psychopath’s lives. That’s a new one. I ain’t been forced to learn nothin.
Here are some interesting stats on mass killings.
Interestingly, they consist of less than 1% of all murders.
I agree particularly about his points about the coverage of the shooters themselves rather than the shooting as a localised tragedy, as I posted here. It also makes sense that gun-free zones are not any sort of solution for these types of crime, a sociopath isn’t going to turn up geared up for a shooting only to see the signs and go home. If he knows that his blaze of glory will end only with glory for the gun-toter who puts him down and that his name will be quickly forgotten then what’s in it for them?
I think there’s little doubt that the infamy and notoriety that these monsters achieve through their sickening acts is part of the reason they do what they do. The gun is just a more efficient tool for enabling their sick fantasies to be achieved without a lot of effort on their part. The underlying cause is their mental illness, delusions of grandeur, whatever. And the media feeds that.
I wonder why the media makes the various shooters (in)famous but barely mentions the names of the people who stopped shooters?
Well, he is insane.