I appreciate the effort here a great deal. You're going to get nailed on a few very minor inaccuracies though: 1 - Presser v Illinois in 1886 ruled that it was an individual right, based on ability to serve in the militia and not the regulation of the militias themselves. Basically overruling the previous opinion. 2 - US v Miller was about whether a sawed of shotgun counted as a military weapon, which it wasn't and therefore able to be prohibited (title ii actually only taxes short shotguns rather than outlawing then entirely, and Miller has evaded the tax) 3 - according to the military definition of assistant rifles, an AR isn't one. It must be fully-automatic, and therefore banned by the 1986 amendment of the Gun Control Act. The Clinton administration changed the definition to fit what they wanted to regulate 4 - it's called a flash suppressor, not hider. It does not completely conceal muzzle flash, and is more designed to minimize muzzle rise for quicker sight acquisition All and all, not too bad - in fact, overall quite good overview. But with such a touchy subject, there's bound to be a lot of haters in the comment section. Best of luck
Presser v Illinois decided that the states can regulate militias, it said nothing about individual rights to won a firearm in fact it referred to Cruikshank in which the individual right to own a firearm was not recognized.
United State vs Cruikshank actually ruled that Congress had no right to restrict gun ownership but the individual States did. Thus the idea that there was no individual right. The problem with this interpretation (in 2017) is individual States where not bound by the Bill of Rights until after ratification of the 14th Amendment.
It's easy to appear biased when public opinion has drifted so far from objective reality. Most people probably don't realize that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives rights to individuals is relatively new. New does not mean wrong, but it does give legitimacy to California's policies, as much as I loathe them.
@@Asdf-wf6en The people is not explicitly collective nor individual. I don't think you realize that. Collective speaks of state militias, and individual speaks of private citizen armament. The Supreme Court did not offer a ruling based on an individualist interpretation of the 2A until 1939 with US vs Miller.
@@jorelldye4346 Are you seriously trying to argue that "the people" actually means the state? You know the supreme court can be wrong about things, Dred Scott is a pretty good example of that.
As a gun advocate, I think this was pretty balanced. As other commentators have pointed out, the firearm technology really hasn't changed much in 200 years. Lewis & Clark dispatched for the West Coast with a semi-automatic rifle - so this notion that a guy like Jefferson or Madison wouldn't know what was coming is ridiculous. But, in truth, the real problem is pistols. Especially small caliber pistols used by criminals. Also, I hope your team focuses heavily on the problem of straw buyers as the actual source of where criminals and other undesirables acquire guns. The ATF can attest to this. It's not theft or any other issue nearly as much as it is the ease of circumventing background checks with a straw buyer and illegally transferring the gun.
As a person who appreciates firearms this was a really good job at talking about the facts and asking good questions. Neither pro or against. Idk how i've missed this years ago.
When talking about militias it is important to realize what that meant now vs then. In the revolutionary war, a militia did not fall under the command of any federal or state authority. The militia soldier had to follow the commands of their elected officers only. A militia as a whole could participate in a battle, or not. It was totally the choice of the officer in command of that militia. If they wanted to walk away in the heat of battle, they could. No government authority could legally compel them to stay. The national guard, on the other hand, fall under the authority of the State Governor until they become federalized. Federalized guardsmen fall under the authority of the Department of Defense and the US President, just like any other active duty soldier. A National Guard soldier *must* follow the legal orders of the Governor or the President. National Guard are closer to a federal reserve than they are to the militias of the US Revolution.
10 U.S.C. § 311 Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The reason why the Supreme Court initially didn't apply the second amendment to the States is because it was specifically withholding power from the federal Congress not the States. That later changed with the incorporation doctrine. The second amendment is an individual right. People are the only things which have rights states have powers. It clearly states the right of the people.
Handguns are the biggest killers, Assault Rifles or 'Sporting Rifles' as most people should say get a bad rap but don't kill anywhere near as many people as handguns do.
Tech Showdown Cars are the big killers. We have more legally owned guns per capita in this country than cars yet cars kill vastly more people per year in America than all guns types combined.
I despise this argument. I do understand that vehicles do kill a lot of people; which is why it is well regulated. But it screams to me of a false equivalency. It equates a tool designed for mobility, to a tool designed to kill things. The fact that there is enthusiastic excitement over a future of self-driving cars should be an indicator as not to compare it with gun ownership, as it is too damn easy to say: "Okay, let's regulate it like we do for cars." Licenses, insurance, random police stops, aptitude testing, fines for not being up to code, removal of ownership if deemed unfit to use (mentally or physically), gradation of licenses (to what you are allowed to drive), demerit points... Are you sure this is the argument you want to make? Please, if you're going to compare it to something, stick with knives.
Mustbe Aweful now that you bring up the random stops, demerit points and other punishments that come with car regulations. They do sound like stuff I'd want to be applied to weapons such as guns. Those preventions and punishments sound rather safe to me.
Well done.👍👍 I think you stood firm in your objectivity, while using emphasis on certain point to keep the audience interested. I'm excited for next weeks show. Again well done!
Hey everyone. In the last section, I meant to say "Assault weapon" but said "Assault rifle" when discussing the AR-15. Mea culpa. Added a correction to the video info. Everything else stands.
Great video. My only issue is that it is not mentioned what assault rifle is - and that so called assault weapons only have a legal and not technical definition.
I really appreciated your explanation of semi-auto vs full-auto and why the ar-15 is so popular. Please excuse some of my fellow gun owners, they are extremely sensitive when a firearm term is used incorrectly on the internet.
i really look forward to the rest of the series. When you start wading between deaths by Rifles, shotguns, exotic or historical weapons, then on to small arms and suicide numbers.
The Bill of Rights did not limit State governments until after ratification of the 14th amendment. You could say allot of what we define as individual rights did not exist in the US because the individual States were not limited by the Bill of Rights.
THANK YOU for knowing automatic from semi-automatic weapons. It's very helpful to understand the difference because there is a lot of confusion in the general public. Excited for part 2!
So far I like the way simple checkable facts were presented. I support the use and possession of arms of any kind any place by any responsible person. Thanks for the video.
I really appreciate how you slowly and articulately explained gun technology and history, as well as gun rights political history. While this episode is more political then scientific, it is really necessary context and I appreciate you giving it.
Amazingly, a concealed gun advertisement preceded your excellent presentation. I gave the first talk on handguns at the Harvard School of Public Health in 1982. The professor who let me do so organized and taught in the only all universally required course in the MPH program. It was a course on public health hazards. Some of the hazards were rather forgettable. At the end, he stated that he had not realized that handguns were a problem. I really do not think that we have made much progress since. Bohdan A Oryshkevich, MD, MPH
Didn't know it was possible to have a gun conversation and for the likes and dislikes to not be close to 50/50. Such a great and fair video grown up conversations about such a controversial topic. Thanks. Look forward to the next one.
Just want to say thank you for the end, helping to clarify that the AR15, while 'scary' looking, is in fact NOT a machine gun, and hence not an 'assault weapon' in the strictest sense of the term. I won't lie, as an avid firearms enthusiast with a CCW, I was a bit worried about the content here - but damn if you didn't cover both sides well. You're absolutely correct, we (Americans) have been arguing this very thing for centuries. Looking forward to what you may add to the conversation, Doctor :)
great video! i love you guys, and as a shooting sports enthusiast, i can see the effort you guys went to to be as accurate and approachable in your primer as possible, great work, full points. i wish more people would look fair-mindedly at these things when they talk about firearms, and while im not an american, i can appreciate to some extend the contentious nature of merely describing a firearm and its function, its hard to please either side of the debate, and so i respect that you make no effort to add input or demonize shooting sports, while also clearly saying that the 2nd amendment is not so "cut and dry" as it's supporters would like people to think.
I thought this was balanced and well stated. You touched on the post civil war era being about capacity and stopping power but I wish you had gone into more detail. Especially since you ended it with the EXTREMELY relevant fact that while "assault weapons" are a side show circus, the real problem is.....next weeks episode. 90% of the public don't really realize the difference in power between a 22 rifle, a 9mm pistol, AR-15 and a 30/06 rifle. The 22 is accurate at moderate distances and possibly lethal if you are unlucky, the 9mm is accurate over very short distances and very lethal, the AR-15 is very lethal at almost any distance and the 30/06 will blow a hole in you from any distance and you will die with almost certainty. The pistol is to be feared because it can be conceled but at 20 yards I'd rather be taking shots from it over all the other guns I mentioned in a heartbeat.
I applaud you and the crew sir for attempting to take on this discussion. We will likely never resolve all or any of the issues involved but we can not continue to ignore them and hope to educate folks about the thorny details involved. I can almost hear the thundering herd of comments rushing to fill the space below like a flash flood down a steep mountain canyon already.
I think you guys did a great job explaining Fully vs Semi Automatic. A lot of people don't understand basic gun rhetoric and it confuses the conversation and discussion between the pro-gun and anti-gun supporters.
There were prototype firearms that shot multiple rounds when the constitution was signed, and the founding fathers knew about them. Most of the founding fathers were avid firearms enjoyers and knew this technology would get better. Also, Thomas Jefferson was if you had the money, you could buy warships.
Spot on with the exception of categorizing the AR15 with the M4. The Department of Defense defines an assault rifle as: "“Assault rifles are short, compact, select-fire (i.e. both semiautomatic and full-automatic) weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." (Joint Publication 1-02), the key phrase being 'select-fire. Was pleasantly surprised to hear Dr. Carroll reinforce that those scary-looking ARs aren't all that scary.
I honestly expected this to be worse, I just wish it covered some of the pre constitution experimental guns, like the belton flintlock repeater, which were known to Congress at the time.
Appreciate HCT confronting this topic despite the highly controversial nature. I'm sure you guys will get a lot of hate mail about these videos, but I'm glad for the opportunity to become better educated about such an important issue.
As an outside observer, based on what I've seen, the biggest reason why "debates" on the 2nd amendment end up going nowhere is because guns rights advocates harp away on the phrase "shall not be infringed," while those in favor of reasonable regulation harp away on the breadth and definition of the term "arms" and "well-regulated militia." I have no personal stake in this matter--heck I'm not American and our constitution does not have an overt right to bear arms, only a right not to have property taken away without due process of law. But I do find the "debate" highly amusing because none of the participants even agree as to the basic premises. And there can be no debate between those who deny premises.
Well, your not wrong - this is unfortunate for us American people. I would love to have an actually discussion regarding policy with someone who disagrees with me, but the near religiosity of how people cling to the wording in the constitution is a problem.
While there were a few things I could nitpick in the vid, the overall points made are presented well. It'll be interesting to see how they cover handgun crime (by far the most prevalent among gun crime).
On the bit about the sawed off shotgun - the ruling also stated that it was because those weapons did not see modern military use. Now automatic weapons, vertical grips, short barrels... These are all common things that do see military use. Many of them are regulated in states or by the ATF despite them being primarily nothing but ergonomic features (For example - barrels are heavy). Overall a good job though!
I appreciate the unbiased and very informative video! I came from a rural, profireams population and now am in a more populated, generally antifirearm population. Its obvious to me that more compromise on both sides is needed; and that if gun owners are truly responsible, we must make reasonable sacrifices in liberties to minimize the negative public health effects of our hobby. I think the other side needs to recognize that firearms can be owned with minimal safety risks with the correct controls and are not exclusively owned with intend to use at any point on another human - Ex. I was taught growing up to never point a firearm at a person unless in the very unlikely event of last resort defense, so I never thought of our family's firearms as a civilian weapon, but rather a piece of sporting equipment that demanded a high amount of respect. Whew, sorry for the rant, but I wanted to try to be somewhat specific.
If you want to restrict/ ban guns please read and answer my questions. If your point focuses on the well regulated militia part of the sentence my question is "In your opinion what makes up a militia?"
What pisses me off about the debates are how it has become so polarized that people who would be called "moderates" - people who believe in the individual right to own firearms, but also agree that there can be laws that restrict them in some ways - are decried by both sides. I get called a "gun nut" by people who dislike guns, and "a gun grabber" by those who are gun enthusiasts. Also, *THANK YOU* for fully defining semi-automatic vs. automatic, and "assault rifle" (and why the term "assault rifle" is a silly definition for banning.)
AR-15 is not a assault rifle. Assault rifles are rifles that can switch between full auto and semi auto. The commercially sold AR 15 cannot do that. Especially with the ban of bump stocks. It is a “sporting” rifle.
Why do so many people put punctuation after the end quotation mark if I learned all the way through school that punctuation always goes inside the quotes?
All the recommendations on this video are super creepy conspiracy theories and gun porn videos w/ a couple of documentaries sprinkled in, lol. Thank you for talking about guns as the health concern they are. I'm looking forward to this series, guys.
I'm not american and I have no horse in this race but the AR-15 is objectively not an assault rifle, it was defined as an "assault weapon" a far wider term that is confused for assault rifle in the video.
Like the healthcare system videos, I hope people see this as a chance to learn a bit about what both sides perceive in the issue and not go into the dedicated binary lanes for the topic. There *is* a middle ground, it requires you learning from the opposition to think of it.
Yall should bring in the Forgotten Weapons guy, Ian, I think he's done a great job of maintaining a high degree of technical accuracy, relevant detail, and excited centrism, all without being strongly opinionated on the realities and possibilities of legislature. I think he'd probably be excited to increase the accuracy of knowledge on the subject outside of enthusiastic gun owners and gun haters. I'm not as educated as he but my understanding is that certain terms for the banning of weapons work on a point system, at least N of these features, not any or all of these features, which is an important distinction in my eyes.
Malitia refered to an individual or small group of private individuals in the time of the constitutions' writing. The meaning has evolved, the meaning of legal documents should stay the same despite the change in language.
You did forget that some "auto" capabilities were in guns of the era that the Constitution was written. There are even documents that show some of the founding fathers admiring the technology.
As a non-american, I find it fascinating how dedicated american culture is to following the intentions of the founding fathers. In my opinion the will of the people that are currently living in a country should decide what laws, regulations, etc should be in place.
Kristian Welsh that would be an easy way to lead into a dictatorship or autocracy, as a leader can say they have an easy fix... Oppress others. The documents give the government a guideline not to cross...
Kristian Welsh If 51% of the people in the U.S. decided tomorrow that they don't want national elections anymore should the government capitulate? If there isn't anything above the government than the people in power can do whatever they want. That's why the U.S. has a constitution, rules that everyone has to follow regardless of their standing in the country. These rules can and have changed in the past but it is an incredibly high bar that needs to be reached to change them. Since that bar is so high people spend a lot of time dissecting and debating the current rules because for better or for worse we are stuck with them. Sorry if that sounded a little dramatic but the rules are there so dramatic things like that don't happen.
Its not so much the founding fathers, as it is the founding documents. People use the founding fathers to talk about intent or they really meaning the documents. Americans are quite concerned with respecting these documents, as they are often seen as the only way to prevent pure democracy. And, in a way democracy is seen as fragile, weak, and potentially dangerous ( two wolves and a lamb).
IMO it's a lot like religion. Politicians preach that someone who's dead and therefore beyond reproach is saying whatever the politician is actually saying
Kristian: The will of the people? That's exactly the problem. The will of the people means tyranny. This is why there are certain things the government is not allowed to do no matter how many people might want the government to do those things. This is the very reason the USA is a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy.
Thank you for this discussion on what is surely a medical issue. I wonder if there has been much research on the causality of readily available guns and decreased public health. It seems too late. There are way more guns than people in the States. It is unlikely that anyone would need a semi-automatic weapon for hunting.
I love this already. Even though its more left leaning, I appreciate a serious look at what actually causes gun deaths, and what can be done to stop it. None of this useless "But AR-15 looks bad" or "we should let all guns go on sale with no background check" nonsense. I can't wait to hear your ideas for what could practically be done to help lower gun deaths in the United States, especially from your medical perspective.
@@nickcarncross6137 the facts he presented are apolitical, but the manner in which he talks about the issues, the jokes he makes, etc, are clearly from a broadly left of center perspective on things. The manner in which things are presented can also be biased, along with what specific topics a channel chooses to cover. A person can cover only facts but, if they only choose facts that tend to be discussed by one side of the political spectrum, they are still displaying a bias in one direction or the other. Same with how they choose to present those facts. Most of the jokes this channel makes are actually pretty far left on the spectrum, with several (equally pointed) barbs at things the left has also failed to do. The topics discussed are generally social issues (which tend to be topics the political left cares about more), with a perspective that is choosing to address more social consequences than personal or fiscal ones (again, a more left leaning perspective). I wasn’t condemning the channel. It’s just a more left leaning perspective and humor than I’m typically used to, is all. I was acknowledging how well done these videos are, and how their cutting humor doesn’t betray a respect for the facts they are presenting. While I’m sure the humor isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, and the political perspective might be one that others choose to avoid, but I appreciate the honesty of emotion, even if some jokes make me uncomfortable. He presented the truth, and has been unabashed about his perspective and emotions on the issue through the way he designed his presentation.
Nah, the jokes are literally responses to nonsense that do not follow the facts. Either you're saying a right of center perspective is put of touch with reality, or you don't like the jokes because they hurt your feelings.
@@nickcarncross6137 that’s a shallow and stupid way to view things. The video, and it’s creator, clearly have left leaning beliefs. The humor is fairly biting, and only occasionally more than I’m comfortable with. Finally, being occasionally uncomfortable with a handful of jokes doesn’t mean my feelings are hurt. Next time you want to publicly admit you don’t know how to understand and have nuanced conversations, don’t waste so many words.
Probably better in Crash Course History but what the founders though of as a "militia" and our current understand may have diverged significantly. I don't know if that observation is important to the current political and public health debate but the history isn't lost. The founders discussed and recorded their understanding what militias were and how they imagined they fit into society. There is ample primary evidence in the record. On the off chance that anyone cares, here's an expert's view: www.jstor.org/stable/1919295?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Calling them ASSULT RIFLES is like calling you daily driver a VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CAR even though the likelihood of that being the case is like a drop of water in your local swimming pool
The assault rifle definition given in this video is generally considered a "California" assault rifle. The term assault rifle is any Fully Automatic firearm, chambered in an intermediate round (ie. 5.56x45 or 7.62x39) and able to accept a detachable magazine, generally used by Infantry. The term assault weapon (which I find to be rather superfluous because its definition is matching to that of a Sporting Rifle) was coined in a few different court cases (ie. 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban) where it is denied as, "a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon a bayonet mount a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor a grenade launcher" The two terms are not interchangeable mainly due to the difference between two words, "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" This is my biggest gripe and I understand the video is only 8:46 but I do wish that channels would stop posting these incorrect terms. Watch channels like 'The Gun Collective' with their shows like 'The Legal Brief' with Adam Kraut. They have very solid and researched information about legal terms and laws surrounding firearms and Adam Kraut is a Lawyer who specializes with Gun related cases. Please go give them a watch and build your opinion with at least some aid from a legal source and with as much information as possible.
The type of gun argument becomes irrelevant if the other side has access to them. As a European, I can understand the fear of getting screwed over by the federal government (or EU here) and not being able to use relevant weaponry to fight back. My point is, that it's not entirely unlikely that privately owned firearms would be necessary for a state (or country in our case) to fight or resist. If privately owned weapons are restricted to near useless types in the face of an actual army, then that flies in the face of the constitution for you guys. The messy thing with civil wars is that nobody but the largest body with the most weapons decides who's the "proper militia". In Texas I assume that, that would be the population itself and not a "state sanctioned" militia. So, it becomes obvious how interpreting the 2nd amendment can be extremely difficult and that sticking to "it's just for militia's" is not always the right call.
The problem is that "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" were used interchangeably. The anti-gun laws used the made-up term "assault weapon" and focused on cosmetic things like collapsible stocks and pistol grips, which DOES NOTHING to actual firearm other than making life a bit more comfortable for the user.
I just really hope that your next videos focus on why people are killing each other with guns and not just blaming the gun. The gun is a tool and unlike a disease it will not do anything if just left to sit. the gun itself is not the health issue. But thanks for the mostly unbiased looks at history and function of firearms, it's very informative especially for inexperienced people likely to see this video.
I gotta say I love your vids, but I get the impression that we wouldn't agree on much when it comes to this topic. Nonetheless, I give you kudos. I can tell you have a genuine desire to keep your personal bias out of the picture. I hope this series continues. I can imagine people on both sides of this issue might learn a couple of things.
As someone who is a gun owner and has diagnosed chronic depression, I can tell that this series is going to be absolutely FUN.
I appreciate the effort here a great deal. You're going to get nailed on a few very minor inaccuracies though:
1 - Presser v Illinois in 1886 ruled that it was an individual right, based on ability to serve in the militia and not the regulation of the militias themselves. Basically overruling the previous opinion.
2 - US v Miller was about whether a sawed of shotgun counted as a military weapon, which it wasn't and therefore able to be prohibited (title ii actually only taxes short shotguns rather than outlawing then entirely, and Miller has evaded the tax)
3 - according to the military definition of assistant rifles, an AR isn't one. It must be fully-automatic, and therefore banned by the 1986 amendment of the Gun Control Act. The Clinton administration changed the definition to fit what they wanted to regulate
4 - it's called a flash suppressor, not hider. It does not completely conceal muzzle flash, and is more designed to minimize muzzle rise for quicker sight acquisition
All and all, not too bad - in fact, overall quite good overview. But with such a touchy subject, there's bound to be a lot of haters in the comment section. Best of luck
The Cynical Historian Thanks for the great additional info.
"is more designed to minimize muzzle rise for quicker sight acquisition" Isn't that a compensator?
The Cynical Historian damn you should be in my English class 😂😂
Presser v Illinois decided that the states can regulate militias, it said nothing about individual rights to won a firearm in fact it referred to Cruikshank in which the individual right to own a firearm was not recognized.
United State vs Cruikshank actually ruled that Congress had no right to restrict gun ownership but the individual States did. Thus the idea that there was no individual right. The problem with this interpretation (in 2017) is individual States where not bound by the Bill of Rights until after ratification of the 14th Amendment.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!
I recommend everyone read "The Federalist Papers" to get a better idea on what the Founders intensions were.
"If all men were angels, no laws would be necessary" James Madision, The Federalist Papers
Although I think I can determine your political leanings, I want to applaud you on your neutrality during this video. Very well-done.
It's easy to appear biased when public opinion has drifted so far from objective reality. Most people probably don't realize that the interpretation of the 2nd amendment that gives rights to individuals is relatively new. New does not mean wrong, but it does give legitimacy to California's policies, as much as I loathe them.
@@jorelldye4346 It's pretty obvious that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
@@Asdf-wf6en The people is not explicitly collective nor individual. I don't think you realize that. Collective speaks of state militias, and individual speaks of private citizen armament. The Supreme Court did not offer a ruling based on an individualist interpretation of the 2A until 1939 with US vs Miller.
@@jorelldye4346 Are you seriously trying to argue that "the people" actually means the state? You know the supreme court can be wrong about things, Dred Scott is a pretty good example of that.
@@Asdf-wf6en I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so that isn't my purview. But I am building a new AR here soon.
As a gun advocate, I think this was pretty balanced. As other commentators have pointed out, the firearm technology really hasn't changed much in 200 years. Lewis & Clark dispatched for the West Coast with a semi-automatic rifle - so this notion that a guy like Jefferson or Madison wouldn't know what was coming is ridiculous.
But, in truth, the real problem is pistols. Especially small caliber pistols used by criminals.
Also, I hope your team focuses heavily on the problem of straw buyers as the actual source of where criminals and other undesirables acquire guns. The ATF can attest to this. It's not theft or any other issue nearly as much as it is the ease of circumventing background checks with a straw buyer and illegally transferring the gun.
Very interested in the rest of this series. Thanks for covering!
Thank you for taking on this subject. Really interested in what you have to say on the next one!
As a person who appreciates firearms this was a really good job at talking about the facts and asking good questions. Neither pro or against. Idk how i've missed this years ago.
Can't wait 'til next week!
I applaud you sir. Thank you for getting (to the best of my knowledge) everything right.
This was a long-overdue educational video. I hope this series goes out far and wide.
Seems like a nice very comprehensive video, Cant wait for part two! glad that more people are getting educated on guns
When talking about militias it is important to realize what that meant now vs then.
In the revolutionary war, a militia did not fall under the command of any federal or state authority. The militia soldier had to follow the commands of their elected officers only. A militia as a whole could participate in a battle, or not. It was totally the choice of the officer in command of that militia. If they wanted to walk away in the heat of battle, they could. No government authority could legally compel them to stay.
The national guard, on the other hand, fall under the authority of the State Governor until they become federalized. Federalized guardsmen fall under the authority of the Department of Defense and the US President, just like any other active duty soldier. A National Guard soldier *must* follow the legal orders of the Governor or the President.
National Guard are closer to a federal reserve than they are to the militias of the US Revolution.
10 U.S.C. § 311
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The reason why the Supreme Court initially didn't apply the second amendment to the States is because it was specifically withholding power from the federal Congress not the States. That later changed with the incorporation doctrine. The second amendment is an individual right. People are the only things which have rights states have powers. It clearly states the right of the people.
It is so rare and valuable to see people talking about guns in such a fair and complete way. Thank You!
Handguns are the biggest killers, Assault Rifles or 'Sporting Rifles' as most people should say get a bad rap but don't kill anywhere near as many people as handguns do.
Tech Showdown should add how.22 rimfire is also used in high numbers, yet California decides to attack centerfire rifles
Tech Showdown Cars are the big killers. We have more legally owned guns per capita in this country than cars yet cars kill vastly more people per year in America than all guns types combined.
I despise this argument. I do understand that vehicles do kill a lot of people; which is why it is well regulated. But it screams to me of a false equivalency. It equates a tool designed for mobility, to a tool designed to kill things.
The fact that there is enthusiastic excitement over a future of self-driving cars should be an indicator as not to compare it with gun ownership, as it is too damn easy to say: "Okay, let's regulate it like we do for cars." Licenses, insurance, random police stops, aptitude testing, fines for not being up to code, removal of ownership if deemed unfit to use (mentally or physically), gradation of licenses (to what you are allowed to drive), demerit points... Are you sure this is the argument you want to make?
Please, if you're going to compare it to something, stick with knives.
Mustbe Aweful now that you bring up the random stops, demerit points and other punishments that come with car regulations. They do sound like stuff I'd want to be applied to weapons such as guns. Those preventions and punishments sound rather safe to me.
...and pencils misspell words (?).
Thank you for making an accurate and informative video on the topic!
Thank you for coving this topic. You are very brave.
I like you guys, i have feeling this channel will go far
Kudos for taking on such a hard topic.
Cool series. Very crash course-y
Thanks hank for the suggestion
Well done.👍👍 I think you stood firm in your objectivity, while using emphasis on certain point to keep the audience interested. I'm excited for next weeks show. Again well done!
THANK YOU for this unbiased & factual presentation!! A+ work!
I really love the effort to put things into context. Nice work! Looking forward to seeing the topic develop
Hey everyone. In the last section, I meant to say "Assault weapon" but said "Assault rifle" when discussing the AR-15. Mea culpa. Added a correction to the video info. Everything else stands.
Great video. My only issue is that it is not mentioned what assault rifle is - and that so called assault weapons only have a legal and not technical definition.
Well done for trying to tackle this topic.
I really appreciated your explanation of semi-auto vs full-auto and why the ar-15 is so popular. Please excuse some of my fellow gun owners, they are extremely sensitive when a firearm term is used incorrectly on the internet.
my fav channel
i really look forward to the rest of the series. When you start wading between deaths by Rifles, shotguns, exotic or historical weapons, then on to small arms and suicide numbers.
The Bill of Rights did not limit State governments until after ratification of the 14th amendment. You could say allot of what we define as individual rights did not exist in the US because the individual States were not limited by the Bill of Rights.
Thank you for bravely discussing this topic.
This was interesting, thanks
THANK YOU for knowing automatic from semi-automatic weapons. It's very helpful to understand the difference because there is a lot of confusion in the general public. Excited for part 2!
Great job. Got a little flummoxed at the end, but you know your stuff and have looked at the history rationally. Thanks for adding your perspective.
So far I like the way simple checkable facts were presented. I support the use and possession of arms of any kind any place by any responsible person. Thanks for the video.
I really appreciate how you slowly and articulately explained gun technology and history, as well as gun rights political history. While this episode is more political then scientific, it is really necessary context and I appreciate you giving it.
Amazingly, a concealed gun advertisement preceded your excellent presentation.
I gave the first talk on handguns at the Harvard School of Public Health in 1982. The professor who let me do so organized and taught in the only all universally required course in the MPH program. It was a course on public health hazards. Some of the hazards were rather forgettable.
At the end, he stated that he had not realized that handguns were a problem.
I really do not think that we have made much progress since.
Bohdan A Oryshkevich, MD, MPH
Didn't know it was possible to have a gun conversation and for the likes and dislikes to not be close to 50/50.
Such a great and fair video grown up conversations about such a controversial topic. Thanks. Look forward to the next one.
I am a gun toting moderate and this was actually a very fair and informative video. Kudos.
Just want to say thank you for the end, helping to clarify that the AR15, while 'scary' looking, is in fact NOT a machine gun, and hence not an 'assault weapon' in the strictest sense of the term. I won't lie, as an avid firearms enthusiast with a CCW, I was a bit worried about the content here - but damn if you didn't cover both sides well. You're absolutely correct, we (Americans) have been arguing this very thing for centuries. Looking forward to what you may add to the conversation, Doctor :)
Love you guys
great video! i love you guys, and as a shooting sports enthusiast, i can see the effort you guys went to to be as accurate and approachable in your primer as possible, great work, full points.
i wish more people would look fair-mindedly at these things when they talk about firearms, and while im not an american, i can appreciate to some extend the contentious nature of merely describing a firearm and its function, its hard to please either side of the debate, and so i respect that you make no effort to add input or demonize shooting sports, while also clearly saying that the 2nd amendment is not so "cut and dry" as it's supporters would like people to think.
I thought it was a great video and very insightful.
I thought this was balanced and well stated. You touched on the post civil war era being about capacity and stopping power but I wish you had gone into more detail. Especially since you ended it with the EXTREMELY relevant fact that while "assault weapons" are a side show circus, the real problem is.....next weeks episode. 90% of the public don't really realize the difference in power between a 22 rifle, a 9mm pistol, AR-15 and a 30/06 rifle. The 22 is accurate at moderate distances and possibly lethal if you are unlucky, the 9mm is accurate over very short distances and very lethal, the AR-15 is very lethal at almost any distance and the 30/06 will blow a hole in you from any distance and you will die with almost certainty. The pistol is to be feared because it can be conceled but at 20 yards I'd rather be taking shots from it over all the other guns I mentioned in a heartbeat.
That was very interesting on guns and health care .
I applaud you and the crew sir for attempting to take on this discussion. We will likely never resolve all or any of the issues involved but we can not continue to ignore them and hope to educate folks about the thorny details involved. I can almost hear the thundering herd of comments rushing to fill the space below like a flash flood down a steep mountain canyon already.
I think you guys did a great job explaining Fully vs Semi Automatic. A lot of people don't understand basic gun rhetoric and it confuses the conversation and discussion between the pro-gun and anti-gun supporters.
I liked this video. Even though I zoned out a little; I learned more about guns in these few minutes than my entire 21 years of life.
There were prototype firearms that shot multiple rounds when the constitution was signed, and the founding fathers knew about them. Most of the founding fathers were avid firearms enjoyers and knew this technology would get better. Also, Thomas Jefferson was if you had the money, you could buy warships.
Spot on with the exception of categorizing the AR15 with the M4. The Department of Defense defines an assault rifle as: "“Assault rifles are short, compact, select-fire (i.e. both semiautomatic
and full-automatic) weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges." (Joint Publication 1-02), the key phrase being 'select-fire. Was pleasantly surprised to hear Dr. Carroll reinforce that those scary-looking ARs aren't all that scary.
It would be nice if you linked your sources of information
I hope this gets shared and seen by lots of people this is such an important topic no matter what side you are on
I honestly expected this to be worse, I just wish it covered some of the pre constitution experimental guns, like the belton flintlock repeater, which were known to Congress at the time.
Appreciate HCT confronting this topic despite the highly controversial nature. I'm sure you guys will get a lot of hate mail about these videos, but I'm glad for the opportunity to become better educated about such an important issue.
As an outside observer, based on what I've seen, the biggest reason why "debates" on the 2nd amendment end up going nowhere is because guns rights advocates harp away on the phrase "shall not be infringed," while those in favor of reasonable regulation harp away on the breadth and definition of the term "arms" and "well-regulated militia."
I have no personal stake in this matter--heck I'm not American and our constitution does not have an overt right to bear arms, only a right not to have property taken away without due process of law. But I do find the "debate" highly amusing because none of the participants even agree as to the basic premises. And there can be no debate between those who deny premises.
Well, your not wrong - this is unfortunate for us American people. I would love to have an actually discussion regarding policy with someone who disagrees with me, but the near religiosity of how people cling to the wording in the constitution is a problem.
So i cant find part 2
While there were a few things I could nitpick in the vid, the overall points made are presented well. It'll be interesting to see how they cover handgun crime (by far the most prevalent among gun crime).
Looking forward to this series. Glad you're talking about this.
On the bit about the sawed off shotgun - the ruling also stated that it was because those weapons did not see modern military use. Now automatic weapons, vertical grips, short barrels... These are all common things that do see military use. Many of them are regulated in states or by the ATF despite them being primarily nothing but ergonomic features (For example - barrels are heavy).
Overall a good job though!
I appreciate the unbiased and very informative video!
I came from a rural, profireams population and now am in a more populated, generally antifirearm population.
Its obvious to me that more compromise on both sides is needed; and that if gun owners are truly responsible, we must make reasonable sacrifices in liberties to minimize the negative public health effects of our hobby.
I think the other side needs to recognize that firearms can be owned with minimal safety risks with the correct controls and are not exclusively owned with intend to use at any point on another human - Ex. I was taught growing up to never point a firearm at a person unless in the very unlikely event of last resort defense, so I never thought of our family's firearms as a civilian weapon, but rather a piece of sporting equipment that demanded a high amount of respect.
Whew, sorry for the rant, but I wanted to try to be somewhat specific.
I've not shot anyone so, no, I don't need to compromise. I'm not part of the problem. Yours is a dangerous way of thinking.
@@Anon54387 totally agree
Appreciate you talking about this sensitive topic. Hopefully we can all have a civil conversation...just probably not here in the comments section.
If you want to restrict/ ban guns please read and answer my questions.
If your point focuses on the well regulated militia part of the sentence my question is "In your opinion what makes up a militia?"
The first machine gun was patented in 1718 by James Puckle more than 50 years before the construction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
What pisses me off about the debates are how it has become so polarized that people who would be called "moderates" - people who believe in the individual right to own firearms, but also agree that there can be laws that restrict them in some ways - are decried by both sides. I get called a "gun nut" by people who dislike guns, and "a gun grabber" by those who are gun enthusiasts.
Also, *THANK YOU* for fully defining semi-automatic vs. automatic, and "assault rifle" (and why the term "assault rifle" is a silly definition for banning.)
AR-15 is not a assault rifle. Assault rifles are rifles that can switch between full auto and semi auto. The commercially sold AR 15 cannot do that. Especially with the ban of bump stocks. It is a “sporting” rifle.
Why do so many people put punctuation after the end quotation mark if I learned all the way through school that punctuation always goes inside the quotes?
All the recommendations on this video are super creepy conspiracy theories and gun porn videos w/ a couple of documentaries sprinkled in, lol.
Thank you for talking about guns as the health concern they are. I'm looking forward to this series, guys.
I'm not american and I have no horse in this race but the AR-15 is objectively not an assault rifle, it was defined as an "assault weapon" a far wider term that is confused for assault rifle in the video.
Like the healthcare system videos, I hope people see this as a chance to learn a bit about what both sides perceive in the issue and not go into the dedicated binary lanes for the topic. There *is* a middle ground, it requires you learning from the opposition to think of it.
I'm from the United kingdom so this is very educational and interesting to me.
Do you have some science proved sources to read more about it?
Yall should bring in the Forgotten Weapons guy, Ian, I think he's done a great job of maintaining a high degree of technical accuracy, relevant detail, and excited centrism, all without being strongly opinionated on the realities and possibilities of legislature. I think he'd probably be excited to increase the accuracy of knowledge on the subject outside of enthusiastic gun owners and gun haters. I'm not as educated as he but my understanding is that certain terms for the banning of weapons work on a point system, at least N of these features, not any or all of these features, which is an important distinction in my eyes.
A topic so controversial and complicated they need to spend a whole episode setting up the back story.
Malitia refered to an individual or small group of private individuals in the time of the constitutions' writing. The meaning has evolved, the meaning of legal documents should stay the same despite the change in language.
So what defines a "well regulated" individual? Would that person need to pass a background check? A safety and proficiency test?
Well regulated meant well equipped and in good order.
You did forget that some "auto" capabilities were in guns of the era that the Constitution was written. There are even documents that show some of the founding fathers admiring the technology.
As a non-american, I find it fascinating how dedicated american culture is to following the intentions of the founding fathers. In my opinion the will of the people that are currently living in a country should decide what laws, regulations, etc should be in place.
Kristian Welsh that would be an easy way to lead into a dictatorship or autocracy, as a leader can say they have an easy fix... Oppress others. The documents give the government a guideline not to cross...
Kristian Welsh If 51% of the people in the U.S. decided tomorrow that they don't want national elections anymore should the government capitulate? If there isn't anything above the government than the people in power can do whatever they want. That's why the U.S. has a constitution, rules that everyone has to follow regardless of their standing in the country. These rules can and have changed in the past but it is an incredibly high bar that needs to be reached to change them. Since that bar is so high people spend a lot of time dissecting and debating the current rules because for better or for worse we are stuck with them. Sorry if that sounded a little dramatic but the rules are there so dramatic things like that don't happen.
Its not so much the founding fathers, as it is the founding documents. People use the founding fathers to talk about intent or they really meaning the documents. Americans are quite concerned with respecting these documents, as they are often seen as the only way to prevent pure democracy. And, in a way democracy is seen as fragile, weak, and potentially dangerous ( two wolves and a lamb).
IMO it's a lot like religion. Politicians preach that someone who's dead and therefore beyond reproach is saying whatever the politician is actually saying
Kristian: The will of the people? That's exactly the problem. The will of the people means tyranny. This is why there are certain things the government is not allowed to do no matter how many people might want the government to do those things. This is the very reason the USA is a constitutional republic and not a direct democracy.
He didn't preach. I'm impressed.
Thank you for this discussion on what is surely a medical issue. I wonder if there has been much research on the causality of readily available guns and decreased public health. It seems too late. There are way more guns than people in the States. It is unlikely that anyone would need a semi-automatic weapon for hunting.
This was well done but I have to admit you "definition" of assault rifle is only actuate in some sates in others you are competly mistaken
2:20 even though the Texas constitution like almost every other State constitution specifically stated citizens can keep and carry guns.
I love this already. Even though its more left leaning, I appreciate a serious look at what actually causes gun deaths, and what can be done to stop it. None of this useless "But AR-15 looks bad" or "we should let all guns go on sale with no background check" nonsense. I can't wait to hear your ideas for what could practically be done to help lower gun deaths in the United States, especially from your medical perspective.
what about this was left leaning? it was a strictly factual approach. minus the part where he called AR-15S "assault rifles."
@@nickcarncross6137 the facts he presented are apolitical, but the manner in which he talks about the issues, the jokes he makes, etc, are clearly from a broadly left of center perspective on things.
The manner in which things are presented can also be biased, along with what specific topics a channel chooses to cover. A person can cover only facts but, if they only choose facts that tend to be discussed by one side of the political spectrum, they are still displaying a bias in one direction or the other.
Same with how they choose to present those facts. Most of the jokes this channel makes are actually pretty far left on the spectrum, with several (equally pointed) barbs at things the left has also failed to do.
The topics discussed are generally social issues (which tend to be topics the political left cares about more), with a perspective that is choosing to address more social consequences than personal or fiscal ones (again, a more left leaning perspective).
I wasn’t condemning the channel. It’s just a more left leaning perspective and humor than I’m typically used to, is all. I was acknowledging how well done these videos are, and how their cutting humor doesn’t betray a respect for the facts they are presenting.
While I’m sure the humor isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, and the political perspective might be one that others choose to avoid, but I appreciate the honesty of emotion, even if some jokes make me uncomfortable.
He presented the truth, and has been unabashed about his perspective and emotions on the issue through the way he designed his presentation.
Nah, the jokes are literally responses to nonsense that do not follow the facts. Either you're saying a right of center perspective is put of touch with reality, or you don't like the jokes because they hurt your feelings.
@@nickcarncross6137 that’s a shallow and stupid way to view things.
The video, and it’s creator, clearly have left leaning beliefs. The humor is fairly biting, and only occasionally more than I’m comfortable with. Finally, being occasionally uncomfortable with a handful of jokes doesn’t mean my feelings are hurt.
Next time you want to publicly admit you don’t know how to understand and have nuanced conversations, don’t waste so many words.
Probably better in Crash Course History but what the founders though of as a "militia" and our current understand may have diverged significantly. I don't know if that observation is important to the current political and public health debate but the history isn't lost. The founders discussed and recorded their understanding what militias were and how they imagined they fit into society. There is ample primary evidence in the record. On the off chance that anyone cares, here's an expert's view: www.jstor.org/stable/1919295?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Excuse me, but the gatling gun appeared in 1961? Your dates might be off there
Best of luck with this video Dr. Hope you don't get too much hate mail from it.
Does this apply to the whole American continent?
Calling them ASSULT RIFLES is like calling you daily driver a VEHICULAR HOMICIDE CAR even though the likelihood of that being the case is like a drop of water in your local swimming pool
The assault rifle definition given in this video is generally considered a "California" assault rifle. The term assault rifle is any Fully Automatic firearm, chambered in an intermediate round (ie. 5.56x45 or 7.62x39) and able to accept a detachable magazine, generally used by Infantry.
The term assault weapon (which I find to be rather superfluous because its definition is matching to that of a Sporting Rifle) was coined in a few different court cases (ie. 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban) where it is denied as,
"a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:
a folding or telescoping stock
a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
a bayonet mount
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
a grenade launcher"
The two terms are not interchangeable mainly due to the difference between two words, "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic"
This is my biggest gripe and I understand the video is only 8:46 but I do wish that channels would stop posting these incorrect terms. Watch channels like 'The Gun Collective' with their shows like 'The Legal Brief' with Adam Kraut. They have very solid and researched information about legal terms and laws surrounding firearms and Adam Kraut is a Lawyer who specializes with Gun related cases. Please go give them a watch and build your opinion with at least some aid from a legal source and with as much information as possible.
Not here to voice gun control opinions. Just wanted to say I really liked this piece and hope you keep making more on this topic.
If you notice the people’s rights not the government right to bear arms is protected.
In the early days people could own war ships.
I appreciate the neutrality of this video. Just straight facts. Thank you
Damn health triage. You opened up a can of worms with this one.
The Gatling Gun was patented in 1862 NOT 1961. I believe you misspoke.
The type of gun argument becomes irrelevant if the other side has access to them. As a European, I can understand the fear of getting screwed over by the federal government (or EU here) and not being able to use relevant weaponry to fight back.
My point is, that it's not entirely unlikely that privately owned firearms would be necessary for a state (or country in our case) to fight or resist. If privately owned weapons are restricted to near useless types in the face of an actual army, then that flies in the face of the constitution for you guys. The messy thing with civil wars is that nobody but the largest body with the most weapons decides who's the "proper militia". In Texas I assume that, that would be the population itself and not a "state sanctioned" militia.
So, it becomes obvious how interpreting the 2nd amendment can be extremely difficult and that sticking to "it's just for militia's" is not always the right call.
The problem is that "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" were used interchangeably. The anti-gun laws used the made-up term "assault weapon" and focused on cosmetic things like collapsible stocks and pistol grips, which DOES NOTHING to actual firearm other than making life a bit more comfortable for the user.
They had revolver and repeating fire arms when the 2nd amendment was written they were just really expensive
I just really hope that your next videos focus on why people are killing each other with guns and not just blaming the gun. The gun is a tool and unlike a disease it will not do anything if just left to sit. the gun itself is not the health issue.
But thanks for the mostly unbiased looks at history and function of firearms, it's very informative especially for inexperienced people likely to see this video.
I gotta say I love your vids, but I get the impression that we wouldn't agree on much when it comes to this topic. Nonetheless, I give you kudos. I can tell you have a genuine desire to keep your personal bias out of the picture. I hope this series continues. I can imagine people on both sides of this issue might learn a couple of things.