Why we disagree on guns - General

Searched around and couldn't find a thread on this. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqAGF_OOZ0A[/media]

As a matter of due course, I checked the guy's YouTube channel. He's definitely decidedly right-leaning, and has such gems of video titles such as: - "CNN cuts interview feed after Refugee Crime Statistics are mentioned" - "Is Bernie Sanders a 'fascist' collaborator?" - "What Milo and Martin reveal about the far left" - "Feminist senator tries to bait military general, he responds accordingly" - "The mainstream media are reporting on a 'Russian hack,' but is there any evidence?" Note I did not watch these videos, I am only commenting on their titles. Similarly, he seems to have very little videos that criticize conservative politics. The closest I can find, by title, is "Tomi Lahren is silly," which, given how extreme Tomi is, feels to me like a severe underplaying of the circumstances. Just before anyone starts getting into any heated discussions. I think it's always worth checking the apparent politic slant of a creator, and taking that into context when watching videos like this. I happen to agree with his sentiment that gun control laws aren't the right answer, and are trying to cure symptoms when we should be focusing on the cause. But I'm also acutely aware of the apparent conservative bias in this video, especially seeing as he almost always refers to liberals in a semi-derogatory way. Stay educated, and keep an open mind, my friends.

Hey I get that you're afraid of getting your guns taken away But just talk about it in polidicks or something instead of making a bunch of pro gun video threads

[QUOTE=notlabbet;53150856]Hey I get that you're afraid of getting your guns taken away But just talk about it in polidicks or something instead of making a bunch of pro gun video threads[/QUOTE] I posted these to see the responses rather than to convert others or to debate others. I'm keeping an open mind and just want to see what others have to say.

i watched this at work with cc on, so i can't hear this guys fucking voice, but he sounds like a dickhead. his main point, we need to look at the culture when we look at legislation for gun control. yeah sure. why is the video 8 mins long? the video is just him shitting on the left while trying to talk like a smart cunt like he's above the emotional, irrational left. i ain't american so take what i say with a grain of salt but i think the people getting worked up over their 2nd amendment right being attack are holding back sensible legislation that actually makes a difference. guns are fun, but they aren't toys and there's no sensible reason for someone to own excessive firepower just for fun at the range. you want home defence, yeah cool you can get a pistol or maybe a shotgun to protect your property from dangerous invaders. you need it for hunting, yeah there's plenty of firearms you can use that are fair. in australia people who need guns to shoot animals for work can get a rifle to shoot animals. if you need a rifle or pistol for competitive shooting, you are more than likely able to get one. if you need one because you're on rural property and need it for pests and farming reasons, you can definitely get one. the difference over here is, you need a reason to own the gun. there's a 28 day waiting period, no matter what reason you need the gun and, most importantly there is an extensive background check.

He actually largely agrees with the back half of your post, if you pay attention to the video. He makes the claim that rifles and shotguns are in the extreme minority of gun-related crimes - pistols, far and away, are the most common used in gun crimes. And the vast majority of gun crimes are crime-gang related. With that premise, he makes the argument that pro-control focus on banning rifles, including the iconic AR-15 which always gets targeted, is trying to solve a problem that, while it might technically exist, is such a small part of the larger problem as a whole. He doesn't explicitly make the argument, but the implication is that if you [b]have[/b] to enforce gun control on a type of firearm (such as an outright ban) to reduce gun-related crime, then going after rifles like the AR-15 is barking up the wrong tree. Controlling pistols would be far more effective at reducing gun-related crime, because pistols are used in far more gun-related crimes. To be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that. I'm simply stating that is the implied argument he makes in the video. I agree that his constant shitting on liberals is uncalled for, but he's not as far off-base from where you stand as you posit.

People are dying in America and all people like this guy want to do is put their fingers in their ears and shout tired lines like "facts don't care about your feelings!" over and over. He is right to an extent. He says that banning guns won't stop these problems, then tries to prove it by explaining why banning attachments and specific guns won't stop these problems. Which is correct but is kind of like saying renewable energy won't stop global warming, then trying to prove it by explaining why your solar powered porch lights won't stop global warming. Yes, taking away your guns will solve this problem. If nobody had high powered semi auto or automatic weaponry then this couldn't happen. Banning specific attachments and guns is a half measure. The problem is that the USA doesn't want to ban their guns, because somehow people have it in their heads that the 2nd amendment is more important than human lives. Ultimately, what we're looking at is another uniquely American pro gun hot take that [I]differentiates [/I]itself by cherry picking facts so it can act with an air of smug superiority when it says its opinions are based on [I]the facts™[/I].

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;53150909]He actually largely agrees with the back half of your post, if you pay attention to the video. He makes the claim that rifles and shotguns are in the extreme minority of gun-related crimes - pistols, far and away, are the most common used in gun crimes. And the vast majority of gun crimes are crime-gang related.[/QUOTE]forgot to mention that, i think last time i checked if you ignore the gun crime from pistols, the gun crime statistics for america stack up fairly evenly with other countries with strict gun control.

this guy is basically the right wing version of vice

Oh God. Its 1791L. This man constantly pulls out appeal to authorities and sources that are either unsourced or linked to unsourced claims. He did several videos about how Net Neutrality is bad and it showed just how little he does on his research. Whether this video suffers from that is another story, but you should really [I]really[/I], take his claims with the smallest grain of salt possible. [editline]22nd February 2018[/editline] He is very much a youtuber who does everything he can to misquote, pull out singular moments of singular people and then extrapolate it outward to a larger context(even if its faulty at best) and constantly rags on the mainstream while using independent sources that are almost universally worse.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;53150883]i watched this at work with cc on, so i can't hear this guys fucking voice, but he sounds like a dickhead. his main point, we need to look at the culture when we look at legislation for gun control. yeah sure. why is the video 8 mins long? the video is just him shitting on the left while trying to talk like a smart cunt like he's above the emotional, irrational left. i ain't american so take what i say with a grain of salt but i think the people getting worked up over their 2nd amendment right being attack are holding back sensible legislation that actually makes a difference. guns are fun, but they aren't toys and there's no sensible reason for someone to own excessive firepower just for fun at the range. you want home defence, yeah cool you can get a pistol or maybe a shotgun to protect your property from dangerous invaders. you need it for hunting, yeah there's plenty of firearms you can use that are fair. in australia people who need guns to shoot animals for work can get a rifle to shoot animals. if you need a rifle or pistol for competitive shooting, you are more than likely able to get one. if you need one because you're on rural property and need it for pests and farming reasons, you can definitely get one. the difference over here is, you need a reason to own the gun. there's a 28 day waiting period, no matter what reason you need the gun and, most importantly there is an extensive background check.[/QUOTE] The thing that gets me about the "just use a pistol or a shotgun" argument is that pistols (and iirc, even shotguns) are responsible for far more firearm deaths in the US than the 'assault weapons' everyone focuses on; rifles are just used for these super high profile mass shootings the media loves to blow up. A handgun is easily concealed or easily grabbed in a moment of passion ergo if you're going to murder someone with or commit suicide with a gun, you're probably going to use a handgun, is my understanding. I agree that we need more gun control, it just feels like a lot of the people advocating for gun control either don't really know what they're talking about or are advocating for things that either don't really make sense or wouldn't make that big of a difference compared to some other avenues of attack. Granted, I think the Las Vegas shooting could only have been done in the way it was with a semi-auto rifle. To say nothing of the video in the OP, I get a strong feeling I wouldn't get anything out of his content as someone who leans pretty liberal most of the time

Its more volume and scale than anything else, pistols are yes, more likely to commit violence but they don't take part in the multi-death shooting sprees because they have a far smaller volume of ability to inflict mass harm. Does that negate the argument? No; but there is a grayness to it.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53152415]Its more volume and scale than anything else, pistols are yes, more likely to commit violence but they don't take part in the multi-death shooting sprees because they have a far smaller volume of ability to inflict mass harm. Does that negate the argument? No; but there is a grayness to it.[/QUOTE] I don't think anybody's saying semi auto rifles aren't probably better for mass shootings, but it's strange that people regularly say things like "you only need a handgun to protect yourself, a handgun is fine" when a handgun is so much more likely to kill a person. Like IMO, a death is a death either way, the fact that a killing isn't a super high visibility doesn't mean those lives are [I]worth[/I] less. There's this obsession with protecting the public from semi auto rifles when they're far more endangered by handguns. There's clearly a problem with people unfit to have rifles gaining possession of them too, don't misunderstand me as saying nothing should be done about the recent mass-killings with semi-auto rifles- I'm just saying. It's another example of gun control measures feeling kinda like feel-good measures and less like a measured discussion of how to save lives while stepping on the rights of law-abiding citizens as little as possible. Otherwise we would be talking about handguns too, and not just the big scary military rifles that're on the news. I think the media treating shooting coverage like it does, seemingly [I]eagerly [/I]breaking down literally exactly what happened for days at a time like it's some kind of grand event is a big factor of why that is.

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;53150837]As a matter of due course, I checked the guy's YouTube channel. He's definitely decidedly right-leaning, and has such gems of video titles such as: - "CNN cuts interview feed after Refugee Crime Statistics are mentioned" - "Is Bernie Sanders a 'fascist' collaborator?" - "What Milo and Martin reveal about the far left" - "Feminist senator tries to bait military general, he responds accordingly" - "The mainstream media are reporting on a 'Russian hack,' but is there any evidence?" Note I did not watch these videos, I am only commenting on their titles. Similarly, he seems to have very little videos that criticize conservative politics. The closest I can find, by title, is "Tomi Lahren is silly," which, given how extreme Tomi is, feels to me like a severe underplaying of the circumstances. Just before anyone starts getting into any heated discussions. I think it's always worth checking the apparent politic slant of a creator, and taking that into context when watching videos like this. I happen to agree with his sentiment that gun control laws aren't the right answer, and are trying to cure symptoms when we should be focusing on the cause. But I'm also acutely aware of the apparent conservative bias in this video, especially seeing as he almost always refers to liberals in a semi-derogatory way. Stay educated, and keep an open mind, my friends.[/QUOTE] For that I find that the related channels a good indicator [t]https://i.imgur.com/AZjVwcG.png[/t] Oh boy

I don't get how anyone can argue that gun saturation in the US are just a "symptom", sure they're not the sole cause of shootings (inequalities, poverty and shit institutions come to mind) but they absolutely [I]are[/I] a cause. This is basic prisoner's dilemma shit, the more guns are widespread, the more you need one to defend yourself, and the likelier you are to use it when put in a difficult situation. Just look at how twitchy US cops are. They're a lot more aggressive than in other countries because they can potentially get killed in a matter of seconds, and this is a direct consequence of how widely available guns are which [I]does[/I] ends up getting innocents killed.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53153307]I don't get how anyone can argue that gun saturation in the US are just a "symptom", sure they're not the sole cause of shootings (inequalities, poverty and shit institutions come to mind) but they absolutely [I]are[/I] a cause. [B]This is basic prisoner's dilemma shit, the more guns are widespread, the more you need one to defend yourself, and the likelier you are to use it when put in a difficult situation.[/B] Just look at how twitchy US cops are. They're a lot more aggressive than in other countries because they can potentially get killed in a matter of seconds, and this is a direct consequence of how widely available guns are which [I]does[/I] ends up getting innocents killed.[/QUOTE] So this argument is that the more guns there are, the more people will carry guns as defense, therefore, there will be more self-defense shootings as a result. Where do you see anything in America, related to the topic of gun violence, that relates to self-defense shootings?

[QUOTE=Revenge282;53153363]So this argument is that the more guns there are, the more people will carry guns as defense, therefore, there will be more self-defense shootings as a result. Where do you see anything in America, related to the topic of gun violence, that relates to self-defense shootings?[/QUOTE] Read the text beneath what you bolded? Cops shoot suspects to safeguard their own lives, even when they can't confirm they have a weapon, due to the associated risk.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53153371]Read the text beneath what you bolded? Cops shoot suspects to safeguard their own lives.[/QUOTE] Twitchy cops have nothing to do with gun violence in this context. That's poorly trained police not handling situations the way the (should) have been taught. That's also the most far-fetched reason for a gun control topic that you could have picked over the things that are actually relevant to the thread topic like mass shootings, gang violence, homicides, etc.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;53153384]Twitchy cops have nothing to do with gun violence in this context.[/QUOTE] Yes it does have something to do with it? Do you see European cops doing the same shit on the regular? [QUOTE]That's poorly trained police not handling situations the way the (should) have been taught.[/QUOTE] So I assume [I]you[/I] know how such situations should actually be handled? In a way that minimizes risk and leads to the same amount of innocent deaths as in other countries? It doesn't have anything to do with police having to deal with such situations [I]far[/I] more often than their foreign counterparts, right? [QUOTE]That's also the most far-fetched reason for a gun control topic that you could have picked over the things that are actually relevant to the thread topic like mass shootings, gang violence, homicides, etc.[/QUOTE] How so? All I see is a gun supporter who's bothered by an argument and handwaves it as irrelevant here.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53150948] 1. largely ignorant of the subject they're trying to tackle 2. are willing to lie, [B]mislead and misconstrue facts [/B] 3. have a proven track record of writing godawful, clumsy and ineffective legislation. 4. put most of the blame on the class of firearm with the smallest body count. 5. Only give a shit about the "gun debate" when its about a scary looking gun they know they can ban to squeeze ez politcal points off of their ignorant voter base while not actually helping anyone.[/QUOTE] Not going to drop my any of personal opinions here except for this one line, because holy dick it pisses me off when I see "there's been 300 skool shootin's this year alone (2018)!" from news pages and gun control groups that pop up on fp but when you actually look at the specific shootings they list, almost every single one bar the big ones like the florida shooting are actually either just firearms discharges NEAR schools / campuses with no deaths (and often few if any injuries), or gang related shootings that are technically on campus. The problem with that last one is campuses actually often technically extend past the grounds of the buildings owned by the college like here in Albany NY where a big chunk of the city is so littered with the various SUNY schools that the entire area is just considered the campus for said schools. Bonus ducks because its situated within a fairly close distance of the hood. The one perfect example which of course I can't find right now is that one page that was posted here with a big old map of all the "school shootings" that have occurred in 2018. It even noted in the fine print which markers were actual shootings and which ones were just firearm related incidents. IIRC it was posted in January after whatever the one big thing was back then.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;53150948]1. largely ignorant of the subject they're trying to tackle 2. are willing to lie, mislead and misconstrue facts 3. have a proven track record of writing godawful, clumsy and ineffective legislation. 4. put most of the blame on the class of firearm with the smallest body count. 5. Only give a shit about the "gun debate" when its about a scary looking gun they know they can ban to squeeze ez politcal points off of their ignorant voter base while not actually helping anyone.[/QUOTE] i didn't say it was the sole obstacle, both sides are stubborn. but neither are willing to give up an inch and america has a long road ahead of it to tackling gun violence.