Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Top 10 MYTHS About GUNS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2024
- Firearms are a controversial topic worldwide, and while you’ve probably taken a side in the debate, there may be some assumptions you’re making that color your decisions. So I’m going to help you by going over some myths about guns on both sides of the fence, because it’s always better to knowledgeably argue your subject than to proclaim ignorance.
→Subscribe for new videos every day! www.youtube.co...
Help us translate our videos: www.youtube.co... - Learn more why you might want to help: support.google...
Find more lists at: www.toptenz.net
Entertaining and educational top 10 lists from TopTenzNet!
Subscribe to our Facebook: / toptenz
Business inquiries to admin@toptenz.net
Other TopTenz Videos:
Top 10 Reasons to INCREASE Gun Regulation in the US
• Top 10 Reasons to INCR...
Top 10 WEAPONS and Weapon Systems That FLOPPED
• Top 10 WEAPONS and Wea...
Text version: www.toptenz.net...
Coming up:
10. Suppressors (aka Silencers)
9. Semi-Automatic Firearms
8. Assault Weapons
7. Stand Your Ground
6. Magic Bullets
5. Self-Harm
4. It’s Easy to Buy a Gun
3. You Need a Big Gun
2. Gun Control and Crime Rates
1. The Second Amendment
Source/Further reading:
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
www.gpo.gov/fds...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
www.firearmsand...
www.atf.gov/pub...
web.archive.org...
en.wikipedia.or...
www.dailykos.co...
upload.wikimed...
www.geek.com/w...
www.toptenz.net...
• SilencerCo: Silencer S...
media.defense....
cdn.pixabay.co...
modernrifleman...
upload.wikimed...
• 3D Glock Semi- Automat...
upload.wikimed...
upload.wikimed...
upload.wikimed...
upload.wikimed...
upload.wikimed...
www.toptenz.net...
c1.staticflick...
upload.wikimed...
www.toptenz.net...
upload.wikimed...
tishreenonline....
![Mary J. Blige - Breathing (feat. Fabolous) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/snMHObq-6E0/mqdefault.jpg)
Gun and suppressor owner here, thanks for taking an objective and honest look at guns, there has always been a lot of misinformation about guns/suppressor/machine gun laws in the US.
and they did it in the simplest way possible, god this makes all thos long winded gun debates look like nothing more then kids fighting on a playground
.22LR rifle using subsonic ammunition with a supressor. The only sound was the mechanical action. The type and volume of sound was no different if there was a round chambered or it was empty. I personally experienced this in the late 1980s.
Brotein92 but its called a silencer under NFA
Alex the terms are interchangeable, yes they are legally referred to as silencers because that is what Hiram Maxim called them when he originally designed them but suppressor is a equally viable name for them used by many companies in the firearms market, for example "Rugged Suppressors".
OPT Wood The fps of subsonic .22 LR is about 1,100. Compounded with the reduction of the suppressor, you would have to be close to the person and intent on committing murder. There are commercial pellet guns that shoot at 1200 fps and are just as quiet.
Well reasoned and thought out. I'm a gun owner, shooter, hunter, etc. I liked the fact that you described a gun as a tool and emphasized the responsibility of exercising that right.
It's nice to see he understands what any sane person has to explain 15,673 times: Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. If guns alone killed people, gun stores, gun shows, hunting camps and shooting ranges would be the most dangerous places on the planet. If legally owned guns were so dangerous, where I live would be more dangerous than Fallujah, while countries like Honduras and El Salvador would be utopian. The opposite is actually true. Well, not exactly the opposite. Gun laws have no bearing whatsoever on actual violence. Peace and prosperity do, but that's another kettle of fish......
@@thatguy22441 In England it's virtually impossible to buy a handgun. Knife violence in London is out of control. Food for thought, that.
It makes you think in a whole different way
@@Gladiamdammit that's cultural diversity for ya, working wonders in london😂
@@Gladiamdammit Haven't they banned/aren't they banning knives as well in the UK? If you can't own a gun, and can't own a knife, I guess you'll have to rely solely on your hand-to-hand capability, which the vast majority of the population lacks pretty much anywhere you go. Even here in the States, the police *might* be there in 10 minutes under prime circumstances, but you'll be dead, kidnapped, raped, etc. long before anyone shows up to do anything but react to what already happened, therefore making the appeal of owning a firearm for personal defense much higher for those of us who have that mindset.
This was the most factual unbiased video I’ve ever seen on this topic
He got alot of it right except a larger round delivers more kenitic energy but but doesn't have to over penetrate that depends on the design of the specific round.
e fred like?
e fred ok how about list three things?
@e fred I have learned that I definitely want to listen to Simon more than you.
@e fred yeah my 135 iq doesn't always work. 💀
I am immensely impressed with how well thought out and presented this was. As a gun owner I view videos with titles like this as a bit sketchy. After watching this though and seeing and hearing the sheer amount of information presented to show both sides I am wowed.
Always remember. Sticks and stones may break your bones but hollow points expand on impact
Lol, thanks for that. And the mashed potatoes
@@LouisianaJesse Yeah, taters, to be sure. As I don't drink, I owe my belly to taters.
@@LouisianaJesse o poo opoooooooopoooooooooooooopooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9oo9oooooo99oòooòòòòòò o 9ò òòpò999o9o9o I 9ooo9o I oo 9lk nonnoonono9oononoo up
Hmmmmm...
Mom never told me that one...
That is BRILLIANT!
I often find problems with the facts on TopTenz, but I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised at their objectivity on this divisive issue. One of the few unbiased voices I've seen on this topic.
Maybe he is unbias but half truths are just as bad as lies
You’ll never unsee:
Assault Weapon was confused with Assault Rifles by this dude.
Again.
Paul Lewis lol he was clearly referring to the legal definition
But the thing is that legal definitions don't always mean what they're defining, its kind of like a different language.
Wow a non native American who understands 2A better than half the people born here
Sad
@@MASTEROFEVIL very
He's a really big history buff. He understands the history of our country, I can't say the same for others in our country
But not quite all the way. His quoting of the Second Amendment omits two commas.
@@SandBoxJohn because thats correct .-.
I love how you made clear that the 2nd was so we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Too many think that a militia is for defense of the nation and so they argue that we have a national guard and therefore do not need weapons ourselves. Thank you for making that clear. However, it doesn’t hurt for foreign enemies to understand that, beyond our military and national guard, we have a monster stockpile of private weapons to take on anyone foolish enough to invade. “A gun behind every blade of grass”.
I'd say it was written to protect the citizenry from all threats, foreign and domestic. Foreign threats could be a military invasion and domestic threats are a potential tyrannical government and common criminals.
Also don't forget that a well regulated militia is appointed as such by the state. Doesnt mean a group of guys with guns can call themselves a militia and everything they do is automatically legal.
Many argue that the first clause demonstrates that the amendment applies to what we today call the national guard. However, this ignorance can be dispelled with one simple question:
Where else in the constitution do the words "the people" refer to a government body?
Well...my problem with the SC's (Heller) decision definition of "militia"
Is that I can't differentiate it from "gang"
Beyond.."I'm part of a militia...but you're part of a gang"
And I'm not keen on gangs with guns
@@justsomedudeyouknow8372 militia is armed civilians they do not have to be legally appointed by the state.. Otherwise how the HELL does one protect themselves from a tyrannical government if they don't have the governments permission lol
Although not 100% accurate, this is probably the most unbiased portrayal of guns in the United States I've ever heard. Very well done. 👍
what wasn't accurate?
@@coolbeans6148 the part about the 45 in an apartment complex. 45 has a larger caliber, but it is slower and has less penetration than some smaller calibers like 9mm.
He also said that L.A. was in a state with max gun laws. I live in California, and the laws here are crazy strict.
@@Cahje93 LA is Louisiana
@@Cahje93 LA is a state, L.A. is a city.
For anyone wondering the AR in the AR-15 stands for Armalite* Rifle which is the company that first manufactured them. It has nothing to do with Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle.
Just some friendly information :)
Lol I didnt know that severely misinformed and brainwashed people were thinking AR meant assault rifle until about a year ago. I laughed and then realized things have really gotten bad...
Sea Beans finally someone who is smart and looks stuff up
Sea Beans the news says AR stands for assault rifle so who do I believe the media that has a agenda, reason to make the public think one way over the other, flat out lies by putting out information without research & makes money out of death, tragedies & unthinkable catastrophic events or should I believe someone I don’t know in social media that has nothing to gain out of telling the truth because he/she is informed in facts? 🤔this is such a hard decision that could be very easily made with a little research.
It's also worth noting that the AR15 was. Civilian weapon before the military took the design and made it full auto.
*Armalite
At the time a subsidiary of the Fairchild corporation, employer of Eugene Stoner. The patents and designs were later sold to Colt, hence the Colt AR-15, M16 and M4. The latter two, I believe, being registered Colt trademarks, or for some other reason unavailable to other manufacturers.
Simon " there are no such thing as magic bullets"
Me: my blender says otherwise 😂
I'm a nurse. Trust me, there ARE magic bullets but you need to remove the foil wrapper before inserting.
There are magic bullets (if they work). The military has some that supposedly kill people around corners.
@@kimberlainodriscoll4781 LOL!
But "Black Talons" and other "Cop Killer" bullets fired from "Ghost Guns" on "Full Semi-Automatic" kill millions of Americans every day.
WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!
@@johncipolletti6139 Yeah they are called ATGM's and they aren't secret. We also have these big 'ole bullets called JDAMS that you can guide onto a target with a laser.
As a gun owner ... i really enjoyed a nonbiased review! Thank you for keeping it real!
He was spot on about a rifle having a pistol grip, flash suppressor and magazine not effecting the way it actually operates.
In California each of those features add immense explosive killing power with each trigger pull and mental thought, I know, I'm from there. End sarcasm, but really they butchered the AR 15
I mean extended mags means more shots before reloading therefore more potential victims so there's that
@@Hurricayne92 Takes an experienced shooter only a second to put in a new magazine.
Think about it, a British RUclipsr knows more about firearms than any California politicians, or most US politicians, for that matter. I fear for the future of this country.
@@Hurricayne92 Capacity doesn't make nearly as much difference as training and experience. Give a big game hunter a bolt-action rifle (capacity 3+1) and about 500 meters of standoff and he'll rack up one hell of a body count.
The deadliest attack in the US was carried out with a truck bomb made of ammonium nitrate. The deadliest attack in a school was carried out with dynamite (which is easier than most people think to make). Until the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting, as well as most gun murders, was carried out with handguns. Rifles of any description (semi-auto, bolt-action, lever-action, single-shot) account for around 5% of people murdered by firearms. Blunt objects kill more people than all manner of rifles. In fact, you're more likely to be beaten to death by an unarmed assailant than you are to be murdered by ANY rifle of any description.
Even when you factor in suicides (which is what nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths are), poor dietary habits and obesity kill more than ten times as many people as firearms. You don't hear people talking about "common sense food control." Medical errors kill many times more people than firearms but we don't hear people advocating "common sense doctor control."
"Knowledgeably argue your subject." We need more of that Mr. Whistler. Keep educating the masses. Well done dude
Someone did their research, very well done.
Not really. His understanding of ammunition and ballistic is pretty flawed.
One thing they miss is how easy it is to convert a semi auto assault rifle to fire in full auto. You can buy a bump stock attachment that will cost less than $50 in almost any state in the US. It is what the guy in Vegas used to shower bullet onto the crowd, killing 58.
@@jbarton1541 sigh... no bump fire is not full automatic. You don't need a special stock, you can do it with many semi-automatic weapons. It also significantly reduces accuracy...
When something happens people want more laws. There are more than enough laws, they just aren't enforced properly
Agreed. It seems more laws go after legal gun owners. But repeat offenders who use illegal weapons get slaps on the wrist. If you use an illegal weapon in the commission of a crime it should be an automatic 10 years added, minimum.
@@Charlie_Rowe How are you using "illegal weapon" ? A felon is not allowed to possess any firearm, so if you mean that, then fine, but honestly it's no different from them committing crime crime repeatedly regardless of weapon. If you mean "illegal weapon" to mean a weapon that's banned by NFA or whatever, then those aren't used in crime in any significant number. The big lie of gun control is that "they're only trying to take away weapons of war", when it's handguns that are used in all of the crimes, and they're use VASTLY more often to prevent crime than commit it. And that gun control works, that's the other big lie .... it doesn't.
@@Meton2526 Yes, I mean weapons that are illegal for them to be in possession of or are acquired by illegal means. The NFA has numerous things I disagree with as well as numerous local statutes that limit what a person can legally possess, but it is the law of the land. But, again, I follow the law. A criminal who carries anything is by definition not going to care about capacity limits or a tax stamp or whatever other rules we are required to obey.
I second your comment. As it strands, "crime is already illegal. murder is illegal and so forth. More laws are clearly NOT helpful. (having so many as it stands, showing little to no real impact on deterring motivated criminals)
Best video on the topic I personally have ever seen, it doesn't take a side just portraits facts. Thank you sir.
Wow this was surprisingly unbiased
Plainsville Productions Right? I fully expected this video to piss me off, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Personally I'm not the biggest gun fan but I understand why some people may want one. I also think there should be reasonable rules and regulations with guns. So it's nice to see an accurate unbiased discussion about how we would address gun issues . Not just the far right and far left screaming at each other.
I think that moreso than left vs right, gun politics are an urban vs rural kind of issue. Whenever people push for the feds or the states to be the primary engines for gun legislation, you end up with people fighting over whether the entire land should be treated like it's the center of a major city, or if it should be treated like a sparse wilderness region where you pretty much have to look after yourself because the nearest police station is 20 miles away and cell phone coverage is still spotty.
For instance, I live in PA and I have a fondness for firearms. I would NEVER take a gun into Philadelphia, even if it were legal. A gun in an area with that many people is just trouble waiting to happen imo, especially if you're a bad shot. I could see if you had some training to handle a weapon with that many people around, say if you have some military experience, but guns pose a higher risk in those kinds of areas for mere casual enthusiasts such as myself. It just requires some more competence and responsibility, especially when so many people are passing through your personal space and can potentially pickpocket your gun and use it against you if you aren't wily.
On the other hand, if you go out to the deepest regions of the northern parts of the state, owning a firearm is as sensible as owning a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit (btw, if you claim your gun is for self defense and you don't own those as well, you're a damn punchline). It's not just to keep away the bad people. There's 600+lb bears and shit out there - seen them myself when I used to spend summers and winters over in that neck of the woods. And there's plenty of space that you can just shoot stuff from your porch without even having to worry about the neighbors hearing it. It's still important to know your target, but there is a huge difference between shooting into the woods at the crack of dawn, and shooting down a sidewalk at 7PM on a busy street Friday night.
I think that, at the very least, our society needs to work on educating people better about firearms in general. There are so many lies and myths that are propagated by films that lead the otherwise uninformed to make poor decisions. For instance, I think that the country would be a much better place if they just took a single day of health class to teach people the concept of trigger discipline and general gun safety. Not with the intent of telling kids that the guns are good or evil, but simply to address the objective fact that guns exist, and when poorly handled they can be incredibly dangerous (one of my favorite gun videos on youtube is one where they show you how to unload and clear the most common types of automatic weapons - the intended audience being non-combatants who may end up in warzones [ie Peace Corps volunteers and press correspondents] and encounter a loaded weapon).
Kind of like the sex ed portion of health class: the point should not to be encourage or discourage the kids from having sex - the point is that sex is something that definitely happens, and without education kids are more liable to make life-hindering decisions that could get them unintentionally pregnant or infected. Or like the alcohol awareness segment of health class: it's not to teach kids to be alcoholics or teetotalers, but to give them information that hopefully helps them to avert alcohol-related mistakes.
I'm also a gun owner, but from Canada. We have our issues, (every country does). I'm not sure of the right way to write firearm laws, but I am pretty sure everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong, (maybe a lot of each. This is a very complex issue and quite frankly I wouldn't even know how to approach it. But there is one thing I do know, gun violence isn't about guns. America is a great country with a capital "G". Unfortunately everyone believes they deserve their piece of the pie, but many people don't realize that pie doesn't belong to them. They have to pick their own apples, grow their own wheat and make their own flour. America is opportunity not a gift horse. If that was taught a little bit better to the people, well America would have colonies on Mars and half a dozen other worlds in our solar system and the rest of the world would finally have to admit they are pretty damn good.
Yes - pleasantly surprising. Was the "Gunshow Loophole" mentioned somewhere in there? If so, I missed it. That pesky "Gunshow Loophole" is another huge myth perpetrated by the anti-gunners.
"The top three cities, New Orleans, LA, and Detroit, are in states with a lack of gun control."
Bruh… California has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, and at least two of those three cities have strict gun laws on the books, with the local politicians attempting to increase those restrictions
You must have inhaled too much lead in poorly ventilated range. The chart doesn't say Los Angeles, it says "... New Orleans, LA; Detroit, MI; St. Louis, MO...". In other words, New Orleans Louisiana, Detroit Michigan, and St. Louis Missouri. In fact, Los Angeles is about #50 with a rate of about 6.5 firearms homicides per 100,000 versus
Houston at about #28 with a rate of 11.2 per 100,000
Dallas at #14 with a rate of 14.5 per 100,000
St. Louis at #1 with a rate of 64.5 per 100,000
San Francisco is about #60 with a rate of 4.5 per 100,000
In fact, the worst city in CA is Oakland at about #13 with a rate of 18 per 100,000
Do you know what LA means there? 😂
Chicago
I'm an American, and I know you say you live in the Czech Republic. Some of my favorite and personally owned firearms are made by CZ. They're a high quality product.
They're pretty much the only company today that makes/markets a high quality but low price SxS.
The CZ75 is probably the best handgun ever made. I like Glocks, but a CZ75 will be here long after the polymer has turned brittle and crumbled away.
Theres a saying at my local range that goes : " how do you know someone uses a cz? Trust me theyll tell you." Lol
As a rooting tooting southerner with carry permits in multiple states, I must say your across the pond analysis is excellent.
You do know that you can only have a permit in the state that you reside in but that permit may or may not be reconized in other states.
@@TheStevehuff "you can only have a permit in the state that you reside in"
that's not true, a lot of states offer non-resident permits.
"but that permit may or may not be recognized in other states"
that is completely true, and only slightly irritating to navigate around when traveling cross country.
It’s called reciprocity. I have carry permits in just 2 states but they are honored in 39 states. This means I can legally conceal carry in all of those 39 states.
@@TheStevehuff My Ohio Concealed Handgun License allows me to carry across most of the entire USA except for a couple of states
Gotta admit. You threw a curveball. I was expecting leftist propaganda. You served a refreshing plate of unbiased fact.
Propaganda mean education, your dislike for it could explain your moronic remark. This is not a right left issue, it a common sense issue, something missing from many claiming to be rightwing on this issue.
@@realitymatters8720 information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. That is the definition of propaganda like saying banning AR-15 will sovle our problems like the left says. he is saying the man approached this in an unbiased manner informing both sides of this arguments and yes it is a common sense issue people on the right understand that they are upset because the left is acting without common sense about how they approach this problem
Wow. What a well crafted piece of propaganda. The final conclusion is that your right to defend against a tyrannical government, rests upon the decisions of that government to decide what is excessive and legal. Pure propaganda.
@@wesleypipelayer7627 when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government. This is straight from the declaration of independence. Now for me to craft propaganda I would have to be pushing a certain idea and what idea is that because you have no idea what my stance on situation is, so calm down keyboard warrior.
Shawn Shakoor .... calm down? Really Shawn shakoor? Did you understand a single thing you even said? If you had, maybe you’d understand the irony. Again I say..... what a well crafted piece of propaganda. I agree with most all of it, expect the conclusion. Basically saying “You have all the rights in the world, as long as your tyrannical government grants it to you”. Go back to Europe and beg for your rights. Can’t believe how brainwashed most Americans really are. You’re doing a great job.
A clarification on assault rifles: An assault rifle is a select fire (fully automatic) rifle in an intermediate cartridge i.e. 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. The "assault weapons" ban has nothing to do with the function of the rifle or caliber, only unrelated features like a threaded barrel, a bayonet lug, and a collapsable stock.
Exactly. Whereas the "assault weapons ban" defined what an "assault weapon" was under that law that made up definition has no correlation with what an actual assault weapon is. Which is, as you pointed out, a fully automatic firearm. It is the same as if the US Congress passed a law stating that the sky is green, yes according to that law the sky is green but reality hasn't changed and the sky is still actually blue.
You forgot a couple things, selective fire (which now includes 3rd bursts as well as automatic) the intermediate cartridge and last a detachable magazine. An M-14 meets the criteria but it's a full size cartridge (7.62) and is considered a battle rifle. Still illegal without licensing as an automatic weapon.
For public consumption add its scary looking, though at close range I would be more scared of a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun than a 5.56 pointed at me.
There are limitations on weapons firing from an open bolt since the ATF thinks they are easier to convert to machine guns...as an example of other factors which cause bans on individual weapons.
An assault rifle is a weapon with select fire semi to full automatic. "Semi automatic assault rifle" is an. Oxymoron. BOTH, Semi and FULL Automatic capabilities are required in order to be an "Assault Rifle".
Correct, referring to an AR-15 as an “assault rifle” is about as worthless as referring to it as a “defense rifle”. It’s a semi-automatic rifle, that’s it. It is a term borrowed from military arms to scare the ignorant masses and pass more gun control.
Before it became a controversial issue, I was always told in my early military days, that an "assault weapon" or more specifically an "assault rifle" was a rifle with semi-auto and full auto capability. The basic idea being that a team of infantrymen are firing and maneuvering towards an objective. Some troops shooting to keep the enemy pinned down, while others rush forward. Then they rushing troops stop, commence firing while the other guys rush forward, like leap frog.
During this phase, they are using semi-auto.
Once they reach the objective (bunkers, buildings, trenches), they go from the "fire and maneuver" phase, into the "assault" phase, using the full auto capability of their rifle to clear the objective (hose it down, kill everyone).
Large caliber, semi-auto rifles, OR , large caliber semi-auto & full- auto rifles, are "Battle Rifles".
Intermediate caliber, semi-auto AND full-auto capability rifles, are "Assault Rifles"
Intermediate caliber, ONLY semi-auto rifles are "Carbines" or PDW's (Personal Defense Weapons)
The application of the term "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" being applied to carbines and PDW's back in 1994, was a political move to ban certain rifles based on looks.
Dano Armstrong so many on the pro-gun side claim that there is no assault rifle definition, it was made up. I agree with you basically, but it is more than merely being selective fire. It also included the intermediate power cartridge and a higher magazine capacity. M-16 uses a lower powered 5.56 NATO round as opposed to the WW2 .30-06 round. The infamous AK-47 using the 7.62x39 mm round instead of the Russian 7.52x54mm round. I have military books from the early 1970s using the above description and that is also what we learned in Army Basic Training. Thanks for your service.
@@jmpetersrn Thank you for the additional info. You are correct, that is why the M-14 (even with select fire) was a "battle rifle", not an assault rifle, due to the 7.62 x 50 cartridge. Now days, federal government agencies list the M-4 as a PDW (Personnel Defense Weapon) .
@@danoarmstrong2597 Carbine has nothing to do with caliber. It has everything to do with general size dimensions. Originally a typical rifle was designed around line fire techniques (imagine civil war/revolutionary war/Franco-Prussian war). By having longer rifles it was easier to stack up men in the line, with the barrels of the men at the second or third line not blowing the ears entirely off the of the people in front of them.
As artillery/Calvary/support engineers did not fire in massed lines, the need for extra barrel length was not needed. So shorter/handier rifles were developed. There's a whole array of names for the various lengths (Dragoons being halfway in-between rifles and carbines). That was the status of carbines for a large number of years.
Rolling up to WW1 - a number of countries realized that carbines (especially with full length rifle cartridges) tended towards excessive recoil and blast. Also, they realized that full length rifles were no longer needed as modern smokeless powder, machine guns, and rapid firing artillery, rendered line formation combat a suicidal proposition. Once most countries came to that realization, they would split the difference between the carbine and the rifle and come up with a more standardized short rifle. Examples of this can be seen with the SMLE (short magazine lee enfield), or the Springfield '03. Even with a short rifle, there still were groups that benefited from carbine length systems.
As far as the carbine using an intermediate cartridge, the primary one that people think of is the M-1 Carbine from WW2. The primary goal of that carbine was to fill the roles previously filled by the full power carbines or pistols. It was giving people like truck drivers or roles were combat was unlikely a better option than a pistol. Learning how to shoot a pistol effectively at range is really difficult. But a handy low powered carbine is a great slot filler.
That form of a carbine is really unique. Most carbines before this point in time (there are a few exceptions), ran the same ammo as the rifles.
So that brings us back to the M4 Carbine in US service (and other countries) - it's running the same ammo as the M16 rifles. It's just designed to run with a collapsible buttstock and a shortened barrel. By doing that they've reduced the length of the m16 by approximately 10" or 250mm. Which is really useful when the vast majority of time you're functioning out of vehicles.
PDW's on the other hand is a much more recent sort of concept. The primary role of PDW's fall into two main camps, either they're primarily used for crews of vehicles (tanks, helis, airplanes), for a more compact emergency personal defense weapon. Secondarily, they are commonly used by body guard/secret service people. They're needs are compact, quick reacting, rapid fire devices with the ability to defeat modern body armor. Typically PDW's due to constraints are smaller cartridges than rifles/carbines. VZ.61 would count and it's running .32 ACP. FN's P90 is clearly a PDW with a 5.7x28mm round.
I would say the term "assault rifle" came/comes from the German Sturmgewehr 44. "Sturmgewehr" translates to "storm rifle", so "assault rifle" isnt that far off. The STG44 was the FIRST selective fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. Magazine size, IMHO, was/is not a contributing factor to the nomenclature seeing as many submachine guns used magazines that held more than 30 (32rnd Sten, 71rnd PPSH-41, etc.). Therefore, I think that the only characteristics that should determine whether or not a rifle is an "assault rifle" should be the type of round it fires (specifically an intermediate round) paired with select fire capability.
Also I love this video because it covers both sides REASONABLY. it doesn't lean towards any side and purely exists to provide information and to educate people, rather that to sway people towards any one side of the debate.
I felt like it leaned to the pro gun side. It disproved things that people against guns propse but didnt really counter arguments of the other side.
Bestari maybe because the foundation of the anti-gun platform is one of emotional-based arguments, skewed statistics, and idiotic debate?
He still lied about things, he blatantly lied and said Los Angeles doesn't have strict gun laws.
@@bestari5555 It leans to the pro gun side because the facts lean to the pro gun side. And I'm saying this as a liberal. And a gun owner.
@@spikedwk I am sure he meant Louisiana. (LA.)
When discussing the first and second amendments, it is important to remember that the bill of rights ( the first 10 amendments ) are all restrictions on the government. People always bring up the "yelling fire in a crowded room" is not covered by the 1st amendment, But doing so will get you in trouble. The purpose of the 1st amendment was so that people could criticize the government or politicians without fear of being arrested. Political prisoners have always been a big problem in corrupt countries and the founding fathers were very Leary about abuse by the government. That is why the first and second amendments were first and second. The first to protect the public from being silenced by an overbearing government, and the second to make sure the public could stand up against a government that was trying to become overbearing.
I had similar concerns to the last point as well. I've studied this for many years and believe this is the crux of the gun control argument: limitations of defined rights invalidate them. Without overstating the point that half of all SCOTUS majority decisions are partisan, destructive and defy the document they are to uphold, typically using precedent as an excuse, I've come to the conclusion that any limits on the constitution are impossible to justify and counter the plain language already defined. The infamous, "fire in theater" excuse is a poor one, as speech ( expressing an opinion, particularly a political one ) cannot be confused with a call to action. Even so, saying "I smell fire" to your partner in a theater is insignificant, yelling "I smell fire" to a crowd, could likewise be protected, even if the results are unpredictable. This is because the agency is upon the individual. One man is not responsible for others with agency becoming a group behaving like sheep. I think the Nurenburg trials were a definitive example of this, even under a military structure. This unlimited 2A interpretation does incur some consequences though, as it completely removes any distinction between the citizen and the military in terms of access to arms.
@@broken4096 Well in terms of the historical context that's actually the intent of the constitution's framers as they called upon the people to be the military in terms of war. People were still owning canons and local ordinances had to be instituted regarding times with which they could be fired because of overall noise complaints. The US navy at the time also largely ran on privateers (merchant vessels equipped with weapons) to fight back in whatever capacity. So in all instances the distinction between the civilian and military in terms of arms was nonexistent. There's also the other context of the well-armed people needing to be equally armed as the military. Because otherwise it's really really hard to fight back. Much of that is why the gun control advocates ridicule the idea of standing up to the US military because of that difference in equipment (forget about 20 years of war in the middle east as well however as they're done literally that). So in context... there should be no practical difference between military arms and civilian arms.
Leery, with 2 e's
Also, what if you're in a crowded theater and a fire actually does break out, are we all just supposed to sit there and clam up?
The answer to "why do you need a gun?" Is 2020. Anyone else watching in June 2020?
The proper answer is, "In a free country, I don't have to explain my 'needs' to anyone else."
@@Dutchball I agree but alot of people dont get it so using an example like this helps drive home the point.
Hopefully all the new/first time gun owners get a little range time and take the personal responsibility to learn basic safety. I have a feeling that people who can repair drywall will have a bump in business through the rest of the year.
@@Shadowshael definitely! In my case when I bought mine all the ranges were closed. I've yet been able to go to a range however, I grew up around firearms and have been extensively drilled on handling and safety. But that's not something everyone had access to.
I've been watching, closely, how fast all the AR-Platform PCCs and PDWs are going out of stock. I own a wide variety of firearms, but have taught all my friends and family to shoot using a pistol caliber carbine. I go this route because they're practically idiot proof, and they're not as intimidating to new shooters as handguns or full power rifles.
YOU CAN'T FIND PCCs ANYWHERE right now... Makes me feel both vindicated in my teaching methods, and a bit concerned about WHO is purchasing all of them. 🤔
This was the single most even, well researched, and unbiased piece on guns I have ever seen. Well done indeed.
Really?? I stopped it at 1:10 because they had already made a factually incorrect statement. Suppressors don't decrease muzzle velocity. In fact, they frequently result in a marginal INCREASE in velocity.
There is misinformation in this video.
Oh Gage I was wrong. Apparently bubbiesdad cares too. You two should hit some parties together. I bet you would rip it up together.
@@gagewesterhouse9558 "it can also work by reducing the speed of the bullet" is the quote. And he is correct, some suppressors (not many, but some) are designed to reduce the speed of the bullet.
@@mattmatt516 really? I'd like to see some links.
Finally someone who isn't completely biased and gives actual facts
The nerdiest Gamer Yea but even then, he's still wrong with quite a few things in there.
Wallie L Such as?
S&W M19 lol he won’t respond because he doesn’t have anything
S&W M19 the most obvious one is the blatant lie about L.A. gun laws.
I would argue that his statement about the AR-15 being an overpowered tool for self-defense is one of the things he got wrong. With the average home invasion taking place with 2 - 4 assailants. Only 20 - 30 percent of rounds hitting a target in a dynamic firefight, as well as the fact that the average person can survive 4 shots to the chest (as long it's not the heart) at an 80 percent survival rate. With enough adrenaline they can continue to attack you. Having 30 rounds of 5.56/.223 would be a better and more appropriate tool for self-defense in a home.
2:53 "Many gun rights activists say that there is no real definition of an assault but they would be totally incorrect... "
Then proceeds to incorrectly define an assault rifle as a civilian version of a military weapon based on a Ban that wanted to get rid of all rifles.
He specified that is was defined by that law, which is true. The fact that it was purposely defined vaguely and inaccurately in the law, is not relevant to the fact that is was defined.
@Edgar Miller Depends on your target. An intermediate cartridge is perfectly suitable for deer, and the ease of use, lower recoil, and higher portability of an AR-15 style rifle may make it a superior option to a full sized rifle, depending on terrain.
Not that it's relevant, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural inalienable right, and the 2nd amendment was protecting the liberty to exercise that right against a tyrannical government, where you need a weapon that can effectively kill your enemy.
Also an assault rifle is a weapon with a detachable magazine, in an intermediate cartridge, that can fire either fully automatic or with a mechanically limited burst, intended for effective use between 100ish and 700ish yards (or meters.) That burst was only added to aid with lack of training, since a fully automatic weapon is mechanically simpler, and in the hands of a trained and disciplined individual is strictly superior. The M16A2 modification to the original M16 replaced automatic control with a 3 round burst since the infantry in Vietnam were mostly conscripts that lacked the professionalism, and so required a mechanical limiter to prevent mag-dumps as a fear response.
"Assault weapon" is a nonsense term that only has a definition as part of the "assault weapons ban" that defined anything that could be forced into the bill and passed. It has no definition as part of weapon-smithing or military categorization, and is strictly a vague and now ambiguous (since the sunset,) political meaning.
@@Meton2526 100% accurate...
@Edgar Miller you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. AR-15 rifles are used for predator hunting, hog hunting, varmint shooting and other types of shooting sports. Any firearm is a "man killer" and an AR-15, while meeting the arbitrary visual definition laid out in the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon capable of full auto, burst or semi-auto fire. The AR is a semi-auto only.
"You wouldn't use a 30 pound sledge hammer to pound in a nail for the family portrait".
Well Simon, you haven't met me or my construction friends, have you?
Innovate, overcome, conquer. 😂🤣✌
You must spend a ton of money at Lowe's or Home Depot for new drywall... lol
@@DarkEagle-vx9hd its all about precision and finesse 😉👍👍
@@sirraf23 Now ya got me curious... if I bring the beer if I can watch! On a side note, I had a job for just 2-3 weeks busting up wood crates,10 hrs a day. I was exhausted every night, but lost 25 lbs and gained a half inch or more on my biceps. Who needs free weights when you have a sledgehammer?
@@DarkEagle-vx9hd lol exactly.
Innovate, Compensate, Obliterate
"You wouldn't use a 30-pound sledgehammer to pound in a nail for a family portrait" I laughed when imagined it.
I also laughed, because I've actually done exactly that!
Me too! 😂
Trump my grandpa did that once, but not intentionally.
That's how I wake up every morning, driving tacks with my 30 lb sledge. I use it to start my truck also, the 30 lb sledge. I also use it to open walnuts, my 30 lb sledge.... 30 lb..... sledge. 30...... lb......sledge......
Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer
I came here expecting a video on how "guns are LOUD!" and other easy misconceptions...
What I found is probably the single best, unbiased account of the firearms debate I've ever seen...
Well done folks, well done.
LynnLeFey1 He said "easy misconceptions", as in they are just well known misconceptions, not that they aren't misconceptions.
See that word 'other' in that sentence? It may not be what he meant, but the sentence connects 'guns are loud' WITH 'misconceptions'. Not saying it was the OP's intent. Just the way it reads.
14:17, Actually, no, the 2nd Amendment has a very clear directive in it that is not in the first: "Shall not be infringed."
If you don't know what that means, in this case, "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on."
The 1st Amendment doesn't have this directive, but the 2nd Amendment does, and that cannot be justly ignored.
ALL gun laws that limit a citizen to keep AND BEAR (keep: to own and be in possession of, and bear: to carry on one's person) arms (arms: armaments, be it ANY weapon, armor, or related accoutrements such as holster, laser, cleaning kit, etc), also limit that person's ability to form a well regulated (organized and competent) militia (civilian combat force, NOT under any government jurisdiction/authority, with the purpose of securing their own community - with or without government cooperation), are an infringement on our rights, and therefore UNLAWFUL under the supreme law of the land, aka "the Constitution."
Federal, state, and local jurisdictions (even private citizens) MUST all abide by the Supreme Law. All are subject to it, none are exempt, though many violate the Supreme Law in practice (and they will eventually get their comeuppance if they keep pushing us). Also note that our first 10 amendments CANNOT be repealed or changed, as they are clearly labeled as "inalienable rights," which means just that, that they can not be made different or gotten rid of; they are permanently protected. Amendments can be added that don't alter the first 10, and only those that are added may be changed or repealed, so long as they don't mess with the first 10.
I know some lawyers may say I'm wrong because that's not how the law is practiced, but I posit that just because one practices something incorrectly (and illegally) doesn't make it correct.
Exactly! At 14:14 the guy says "should not be infringed". WRONG. It is clearly written "Shall not be infringed". HUGE difference between should and shall.
GREAT, according to this idea, I can own a fully functional TANK! And when they invent a functional version... A RAILGUN, nothing says personal defense like a supersonic weapon. Also, how about tactical nuclear tipped weapons? My personal defense is very important to me. :eyeroll: all things need some sort of reality check.
gsekse “this idea” was made LAW a couple of centuries ago and hasn’t been removed. The growing tyranny over the last century has been able to persuade enough people to think as you do.
@@jacka55six60 So.. you vote YES to anyone owning all of what I listed? Cool, you need to think that over a bit.
gsekse you should definitely be allowed to own those. In fact, the founding fathers would agree in saying you should. Now, unless you’re a billionaire, probably not going to happen though
As the proud owner of a fully semi automatic bolt action muzzle loading AR-47 with 30 caliber clipazines, I salute you
Pansy! Too weak and scared for the AR-48? Think the standard issue chainsaw attachment will frighten you too much? Or is it that the only ammo it takes is the dreaded "child-seeking", heat seeking rounds? Get a grip!
As a side note, I thought they discontinued the bolt action fully semi automatic model?
@@frankphillips6001 You're right, they cancelled the bolt action fully semi automatic model, now they only come with the muzzle loader add on. Haha!
@@byronhenry6518 and here I've been trying to become proficient in operating the bolt with one hand, the ram rod with the other while anticipating the need for a future lever action with my teeth.
You can never load a single round enough times! Regardless of the size of your clipazine.
But I tell you, you will one day regret not having the chainsaw attachment.
I actually own a couple AR-47's. It's a common name for a 7.62x39 AR-style rifle.
clipazines...love it.
I haven't shot a gun in hours
El Gordo I haven't shot a gun in years
LVL100 COLONEL I meant I have never shot one
Lemmy Koopa King well shit i suppose hes dead press f to pay respects
hi person! soon once I become president I will make sure that football coaches aren't the highest paid
Last time I shot a gun was Thursday. It was a full auto G36. I found a place in Tennessee that rented machine guns (Bud's Gun Shop, right outside of Knoxville, exit 407 on I-40). It was incredibly fun, as I hadn't shot full auto since i got out of the Marines 10 years ago. That being said, the criticisms of the G36, namely about heat, are valid.
Isn’t everything so much better without political bias?
Hell yeah! I for sure was rolling my eyes at the first of the video. By the end, I'm nodding at their ability to only present facts. Well done to @TopTenz!
NO! This is America, let's fight about it!! 🤣 jk
Yes
Meh. Personally I think things are better without people.
HELL YEAH BROTHA
When people ask me “Why do you have to own 3 AR-15’s?”, and my answer is always “Because I can”..
Hell yeah. I'm about to buy my 4th handgun. My liberal friends get the same answer.
Sounds like the sort of belligerent answer you get from a four year old...and before you start the name calling, I'm a gun owner.
Tacohead Makenzie The 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee your right to own firearms, it guarantees your right to NOT have to explain to anyone including the government WHY you own firearms. Just because someone owns them doesn’t mean they know everything about them, or what our rights actually are. Kinda ironic that you throw an insult out there and get defensive expecting an insult back. 9 times out of 10 that means you’re not trying to have a conversation, you just wanted to say how you felt without having a civil debate, much more like an actual four year old..
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Have-Tos and Needs.
@ I own several AR's, each a tool for a different task. The beauty of the platform is the adaptability; barrel length, stock choice, caliber, optic type.
There are actual US politicians that say “full semi automatic” 😂 and hi capacity ammunition !!!😂 😆
That was a retired army general to make it worse.
That would be Joe Biden
There are actual US politicians who are morons.
Thanks for not turning this video into a left-wing rant.
Really. I’m pro gun and after watching many of his videos I was surprised it was this fair and unbiased.
... next
Australia has had strict gun control since the mid 1990’s.
For some reason, I don’t know why, but there has been a VERY BIG drop in gun related crime.
@@rosssmith4638 Why does it matter if violent crime is gun related? If someone stabs one of your family members or rapes them, are you really going to be relieved that "at least they didn't use a gun"?
Notice your statement is a false statement with a qualifier? Once you add the qualifier "gun related" a false statement now becomes a true statement. This is how they can manipulate statistics to fit a narrative and people like you doesn't even question it.
Just like lumping in suicides & self defense killings into the homicide statistics in order to skew the results. If you compare murder only your narrative falls apart.
Then it must be a right-wing pro-gun rant. See I can make blanket statements too, goddamn deplorable.
He is very right about one thing, guns are tools and should be used as one.
indeed... but unfortunetly its a tool of death. Guns replaced crossbows, crossbows replaced bow and arrow's, bow's replaced spears....
Humans will never stop finding better or more effecient ways of killing.
They were made for defense use and hunting until someone figures it out they can also be used offensively.
@@spokanetomcat1 They are designed solely for killing. You don't see a gun marketed as just disabling an opponent. Not to mention every gun shot wound has to potential to be fatal.
@@christianbarrett3040 Again it is a tool. This tool can be used to be fatal. So are cars just to name another.
@@spokanetomcat1 All tools are designed with a specific use in mind. In this case it is a tool designed strictly to kill something. A car is designed as a mode of transportation but can be misused to kill people. You example completely ignores intended function and use of the tool.
300-600$ "and it's easy to spend more" too true.
I laughed so hard when he mentioned that. Among avid deer hunters, you get made fun if your rifle scope didn't cost at least twice as much as the gun did.
Myth: Guns kill people
Fact: People kill people
Blaming guns for gun crimes is akin to blaming forks for the obesity epidemic
It is too my fork's fault! How dare you imply I should exercise any personal responsibility!
Or blaming cars for human error acciidents
Actually it's the _bullets_ that kill people, and guns just make it a whole lot easier to _deliver_ 'em. It's why mass murderers don't choose a knife or sword. On the other hand, overeating doesn't 'require' a fork (cue the Subway and Burger King ads).
@e fred Is that why the _Driver_ is required to have insurance and held responsible for any damage their rolling 'tool' does?
@Bruh Moment When's the last time a gun magically jumped off a rack and shot someone? I'll answer that for you, NEVER. People kill people, inanimate chunks of metal and plastic don't. If humanity disappeared suddenly, what do you think guns would do? I'm betting they'd just sit there, undisturbed and harmless. Take your short-sighted, politically motivated bigotry elsewhere. I suggest somewhere filled with your IQ level such as The Church of Scientology or the Flat-Earther Society.
Normally I just watch your videos and I enjoy them. What I normally don’t do is comment. I find this to one of your most middle ground, honest, and best videos ever. The subject matter is a bit controversial in some circles, but your explanation was fair and honest. Thank you!
In todays polarized world, it is extremely refreshing to see such an unbiased and fact based video. Subscribed!
I hope he comes to the States and spends a day on a range. That's so much fun that it turns anti-gun people into pro-gun people in just a few hours.
Actually I would say it had a slight pro-gun bias, more based on what he skipped and what he included. (barely mentioned private sales while implying it is hard to buy a gun -- I was in and out in 20 minutes last time I bought a pistol and did a single piece of paperwork)
.
But he didn't shy away from addressing Assault "Weapons" either, and made the point that I try to make when discussing it as well. They didn't say "Assault Rifle" -- they said "assault weapon" and it has a very specific LEGAL definition. An Assault Rifle is always NFA. The terms are two totally different things and trying to use one to ridicule the other does not make the other definition less legally binding.
.
The judge won't care if you don't think your rifle was an "assault weapon" because its not selective fire. He could care less what your definition of "Assault Rifle" was if you were arrested for waving around a "Assault Weapon" by its clearly defined legal definition.
Unbiased that's a fact but you didn't have his facts straight. Shall not be infringed!
@@brianmenzies7007 Explain it to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is what matters.
"People who own guns are more likely to use them than people who don't."
And someone with food is more likely to eat than someone without food, I wonder why that is...
Did you know that %100 of shark attacks happen in water?
I was thinking the same thing.
People who are dead, are more likely to remain dead, while people that are alive are more likely to remain alive more than the dead person is.
I feel the point he made was lost on you. Owning a gun means you're more likely to be part of a negative statistic associated with a gun, eg killing someone.
@@DunkdaHunk I think you missed that this comment is clearly a joke and isn't a serious statement. Gee, really, having an item your basing statistics on makes you more likely to end up doing something with that item that adds to negative statistics on it, no way lol
While I can't give this a perfect 100%, I can say that this is by far the best and most balanced presentation on the subject that I have seen on RUclips.
I used to have the typical English concept of guns, which is that gun ownership on the level of the USA is purely frivolous, stupid and dangerously selfish. Though I have not exactly flipped my opinion 180 degrees something happened that forever affected my opinion. I was at the Ascot races selling hats when I got into a conversation with an American as is quite common when selling old English merchandise like top hats and such, and he explained to me that American gun laws date back to the fight for independence from England and the civil war that came after. Given what has been happening in Europe and specially mainland UK in the last few years his next statement will sit with me forever. An armed citizenry is the final line of defense against tyranny.
It makes a lot more sense now doesn't it? Also the USA is massive it could take 30 minutes for police to just get to my home, it's our culture as well every person I know owns a gun there everywhere and theres hardly ever a issue
Tyranny which you are inching ever closer towards. CCTV everywhere including in dressing rooms would never fly in the US. Compelled speech would not either. But it does in the UK, cause who's gonna stop them. Not to mention as you well know, stabbings in the UK are incredibly common and you can't stop a car thief in your driveway like you can in my state (without putting yourself in extreme danger) thanks to the castle doctrine. Also guns are fun when practicing SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE techniques.
Now, if we could all just agree on what "tyranny" means.
tHE uk AND eUROPE ARE IN DIRE NEED OF A 2ND AMENDMENT.
Don't forget, it's your government who necessitated us having the 2nd Amendment
I take issue with #3 - the reason for hunting medium and large game, with higher-powered rounds *is to ensure the animal’s swift & humane death,* even after a less optimal shot placement.
Well he did clarify saying that you wouldn't break down concrete with a basic hammer as well. Much more about having something appropriate, but a lot of folks really overestimate how much power they need. I've seen whitetail taken down by a single .25ACP out of a pistol - and so stepping up a little bit is fine but I think it's more the idiots of the world that think you need a .460 Weatherby to hunt turkeys or something insane lol
I thought this was weakest point he made and could have addresses why gun owners have multiple guns.
First, where is the evidence people typically buy more gun than they need? He is right you need to buy the right caliber for the job at hand but what is the right caliber? This varies wildly based on the individual, geography, laws, game, ........Lord knows we cant agree on that.
Not everyone can afford to cover every situation.
What is a reasonable caliber or gun type for me may be inadequate for someone half my size.
Hunting deer in VT is different than Hunting deer in TX.
So i think he missed an opportunity to answer the question “why do we need multiple guns”.
@@YoBoyNeptune that is why I hear the 450 bushmaster is getting so popular.
@@drownsinkoolaid4203 but the thing is if you miss by an inch that deer will run off and hav a slow painful death, we want to put it down as fast as possible with as few shots as possible, I would rather use a .50 BMG round than 20 .22 LR rounds, the .50 will just kill the animal so much faster decreasing the amount of suffering it has to go through.
@@demgainz2216 Uh, yeah, that's what I said :P stepping up a little is fine for your intended purpose, 30-06 I'd say is overkill for deer hunting but I'd recommend it any day over .22 LR. As I said, more the few people who make big deals about needing ridiculous power for basic hunts, my example being a 460 Weatherby for basically anything other than idk an elephant or something haha
I could quibble about a few points, but overall a well-balanced presentation.
So, I'm about as strict on the Second Amendment as you can get. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hence, virtually all of the 20,000+ firearm laws are inherently unconstitutional because they infringe upon the right to keep and/or bear arms.
My response for dealing with criminals is to focus on the cause of criminal activity and not on the inanimate object they choose to abuse.
My response for self-defense is to basically use common sense. Take away all the "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat." If you are a firearm owner and your life is threatened by a criminal, I expect you to do everything in your power to protect yourself and those around you.
If it's better for you to retreat or stay put, do so according to your best judgement in the situation. The law shouldn't be dictating that; rather, the given situation should dictate the appropriate course of action.
Stand your ground laws are a response to people being convicted of murder because they choose to shot someone instead of running away and getting shot in the back.
You have to codify (make laws) to prevent say an anti gun DA from throwing an 80 year old double amputee in jail for murder because they choose to not try running away.
The issue is common sense isn't...
thanks for making this video non-political! Keep up the great top tens!
Sean Noyes Actually it unintentionally was slanted toward the right. I am a 2A supporter and because conservatives argue with fact and logic instead of emotions and opinions TopTenz inadvertently went a little right.
Liberals that think a "No Gun sign" will keep out criminals should watch this video!
Stacy Smith lmao at the end he's like if u have a solution to poverty problem plz tell and I'm like CAPITALISM!!!!
@@dylannelson7946 I agree but a little more detail is needed: how business licensing impoverishes poor blacks for example.
The only problem I have with this video is the “big gun” myth. A .22 is a tiny little bullet and could easily go through multiple drywall walls. A 12 gauge shotgun is a “bigger gun” and if loaded with bird shot, wouldn’t be able to penetrate even half as many barriers as a “small caliber” bullet. Also, many tests have been done and because a 5.56 round (AR15 round) is designed to tumble in the body, it actually penetrates through walls far less than a 9mm, .45 acp, etc. due to the fact that the projectile is often diverted up or down once it comes in contact with a barrier as opposed to even a small caliber handgun projectile that will continue to travel in a straight line until it starts to drop obviously due to deceleration.
Carson Todd pretty sure yo just validated my argument. I wasn’t making an argument for which is better for personal defense. I was pointing out that the size of the gun doesn’t make it more or less power when it comes to barrier penetration. I use a Glock 19 and an AR for home defense. I think you may have read my previous comment wrong
This is 100% false. While .223/5.56 does often tumble with 55 grain loadings, those projectiles will almost always have better penetration characteristics than mainstream handgun projectiles. 62 grain projectiles in 5.56, which are only slightly less common than 55 grain ammo will not tumble. The M855 loading is widely popular and contains a mild steel penetrator *specifically* designed to *increase* penetration.
T N, I think there's several "ifs" regarding how much more or less a 12ga round will penetrate something compared to a small bullet.
At really close ranges, a shot shell would act more like a slug. Beyond 30 feet, it would start to look more like a BB gun being fired hundreds of times.
J O obviously. All I was saying is the actual physical size of the firearm doesn’t dictate how powerful the round it shoots is. A 10/22 is larger than a .44 magnum revolver but obviously the .44 magnum is more powerful. That’s the point I was trying to make
Arthur White:
1) It's ".223", not "2.23"
2) Drywall will not break up any bullet regardless of speed. It is simply too light and fractures easily upon impact.
Still the best video covering the topic three years later.
I was with you right up until you forgot what "shall not be infringed" means.
Not bad for a brit though 👍
He lost me when you said the first amendment doesn’t cover shouting fire in a crowded theater. A video dedicated to debunking common misconceptions just parroted a common misconception lmao
@@jasonporter5912 Mr. Justice Holmes said that Freedom of speech does not include the right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic. Gun control advocates usually leave out the parts about whether there actually is a fire.
This was an astonishingly well-researched, informed, and balanced video. Not what I was expecting, frankly (no offense intended). Kudos! 👍
His English accent is mainly to do with it.
Jack , I was on the defensive too when I started watching.m, but it was very objective and the facts presented very clearly.
I was expecting a Brit to be highly anti-gun. Whatever his views, it was a balanced presentation.
There is too such a thing as a Magic Bullet! It's a blender that sold through infomercials about 10-15 years ago.
KamiNoBaka fair play
KamiNoBaka well said lol
I have to agree ... I know a few women that own a sex toy called a 'magic bullet' ... Whistler has got this one wrong hahaha.
That thing is responsible for more deaths than any magic gun bullet.
Dealers use those blenders to mix drugs, which kill tens of thousands every year.
😂😂😂
“The AR15 is far more dangerous than any weapon and should be banned.”
Meet my M1A and semi auto shotgun.
If people think the AR-15 is something they should meet our M1's and AR-10's
@@sparkplug1018 AR10's are way safer. approximately 30% safer, in fact. It's in the name, after all!
my semi auto 12gauge is legit the stuff of nightmares
What? No FAL love?
[Sad Rhodesian noises]
@@DarnedYankee I'm crying😂
"Limited within reason" in itself hard to do, my definition of within reason could be vastly different than yours, my neighbors, and definitely different than a politician looking to become the new absolute ruler of the country.
It's why it says shall and not should. And there is reasons it's the 2nd, one is not more important then the other and both are equally as important. Here is the 1st my freedom of speech and here is the 2nd which protects my first.
Most of the 'reasonable' limitations are actions like recklessly firing within an inhabited area, loaning a firearm to a drunk or felon and the like. Never taking a firearm out of the house or being forbidden to have ammunition are not reasonable.
The government officials who may be the targets for anti-tyrannical activities, should NOT be the ones deciding what limits are reasonable.
My within reason involves restrictions on personal howitzer size and grenade payload, people say that's stupid but if the government needs overthrowing I'd feel better knowing that the people were almost as well armed as the military
It's so nice to see a FACTUAL video about such a controversial issue, wherein the facts are presented without a bias undertone in either way. Great Job :)
Hollow point bullets are designed to slow down post impaction with a target, the mushrooming is an effect
+ Accutronitis I don't think it misses the point at all. Bullets are meant to kill, not just give you an owie. Hollow points equal less collateral damage. There is no such thing as more dead. I don't think we are in disagreement I just wanted to elaborate on your point.
Shanockdotcom
The thing is, logical thought is itself biased in favor of gun rights, at least as far as the typical gun control arguments go.
Yes, hollowpoints are designed to mushroom and cause more damage than an FMJ zipping through-and-through. People use them for self defense for all the same reasons cops use them. Minimizing collateral damage is one of those reasons.
The other main reason is that if you are in a situation that justifies deadly force, you need to stop someone immediately if not sooner. Even a solid heart shot can leave a determined attacker 10-15 seconds of mobility. That's a very long time for someone shooting a gun at you or charging you with a knife to give you a fatal wound. He'll probably die before the ambulance arrives, but so will you. And that's the very thing you were trying to avoid when you shot him. He needs to be stopped, completely and immediately. Hollowpoints make that more likely
podmonkey2501 agreed, but there are times I look around at people and think, I hope they know how to keep these tool out of reach of children. Even though chemicals found under the kitchen sink and swimming pools kill way more children each year. It is a great responsible, being a gun owner, I just hope some of these people I see understand that. Also, there is the fact that being human, no matter how responsible you are, you can still make mistakes. My wife and I are gun owners and she told me that an officer in our area had forgotten to unload his service pistol about 5 months ago. A young child got a hold of it and killed himself. Even the best trained can forget how dangerous firearms can be in the wrong hands. I did not wish to hear any more details and my wife only slightly knew the mother. All I wish to say is please, know where and in what condition your firearms are in. Also, if you have young children or children over, who are uneducated about firearms, keep them out of their reach.
This is the best explanation of the 2nd amendment ever, and coming from a British person it is even greater. Cheers from Mexico.
Truvak T I’m so confused by your comment lmfao
very well done. I own a few of the "highly regulated" items and they require a lot of paperwork and a ATF backround check each time. last one took 11 months.
Funny enough, lots of people who got their first firearm during the latest events were confused that those items weren't as easy to get as they assumed. I've heard that refrain from lots of gun store employees over the last few months. Lots of that has to do with the assumption that literally no effort or documentation goes into purchasing a firearm.
I think my favorite story involving people who made a whole lot of assumptions about how the laws work involved a journalist who was working for the Chicago Tribune (I don't know if he's still there). He was trying to make a point about how easy it is for the gang members to get firearms. And so he set out to buy a gun in one of the stores near Chicago. He conveniently forgot that he had criminal domestic violence charges in his past. He basically got immediately turned down and kicked out of all of the stores.
In spite of the fact that the system (while imperfect), stopped someone who couldn't legally purchase a firearm. He still wrote a whiny article saying that it still is too easy.
Correction - Chicago Sun-Times reporter Neil Steinberg
Thank you for being honest and accurate
Stand your ground applies anywhere the law is applying to. Castle doctrine only applies to the home. They are 2 very different things
They're correlated and historically intrinsically linked. Stand your ground is castle doctrine for the streets.
You are correct sir. Stand your ground and make my day are both derived from called doctrine.
Joshua Ford castle doctrine also applies to your car
@@thewolfshark5914 Is some states but not in others.
In Florida the castle doctrine also extends to your vehicle, carjacking and such
strong Second Amendment advocate here and I highly appreciate your non-biased factual representation of the truth
I lean more on the gun control side but definitely can appreciate this video. Very educational and addressed both sides arguments in a tasteful way.
Davin Gros i
Talks about the Revolutionary War, but shows pictures of the Civil War
Andrew Iorga, I noticed that, too, but I guess photographs of the Revolutionary War are rare. 😎
@@brookeking8559 true, but he could always use the many contemporary sketches or illustrations made of the Revolutionary War
Andrew Iorga, yes, of course. I was making a joke. Perhaps he or his producer did, too.
People sometimes take jokes seriously when they should not. My 80-year-old dad recently picked up a takeout pizza my US Navy CPO brother-in-law ordered over the phone in Charleston, South Carolina. The cashier asked if Dad were a veteran because they offer a discount to veterans and military. Dad said that he was picking up for his son-in-law who is active duty and then added jokingly, “although I’m a Civil War veteran,” because he was near where the Civil War started. She responded seriously, “Wow, I’ve never met a Civil War veteran before.” LOL
Was the camera invented in the 1700's though?
This is extremely well put together, I am impressed.
10) Bravo. Thank you.8) You are wrong about gun rights advocates saying there isn't a definition for assault rifle. The legal definition in the so-called "assault weapons" ban is wrong. To be an assault weapon, it MUST have select fire ability. An AR-15 or semi-auto AK is not an assault weapon (and I have heard news agencies refer to an SKS as an assault rifle when it was never an assault rifle as it never had select fire).
3) You talk about apartments, yet deride .45. 45 acp is much slower than a much smaller 9mm, and is LESS likely to penetrate than a smaller, faster caliber. It goes back to ammo choice.... you need to make sure you have the right choice of ammo for your desired application. As for deer, .30 caliber (7.62mm) is about perfect whether you use .30-06, .308, .303 British, or 7.62x54r. It takes the deer down quickly without much damage to the meat. I personally hunt with .30-06 because I know the drop (such as you have to aim 8" high at 300 yards and 25" high at 400 yards), and this is what I have used for years. Going to a smaller, faster caliber would be an exercise in figuring out my drops again, and have to find a new spot as the bullet would travel further than a .30-06 on a miss. 1) Actually not bad... but the founding fathers would not agree about limitation. 2nd amendment limitation has gone along with the erosion of our other Bill of Right Amendments such as the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments. The so-called Patriot act dealt a huge blow to all of those.
Although I did nitpick some, not a bad video, especially for a Brit :). If you are ever in the US and come to Kansas, I would be happy to take you shooting since I doubt you get much opportunity in the UK. I am saddened that you guys have to jump though major hoops just to own a working SMLE or Webley.
I liked your video on the Webley. When are you going to do one on the SMLE?
I will some day. Right now I have a SMLE III*, a NO 4 MK1, and a Jungle Carbine (as well as a couple Martini Henrys). I haven't decided whether to do separate videos, or lump them into one once I obtain some Long Lees.
Milsurp Mike Your definition of assault weapon is literally thr opposite. What you were describing was an assault rifle. To count as an assualt rifle, it requires selective fire. Most assault weapons are semi-auto.
Semiauto rifles are not assault rifles. The US military definition states that it must have select fire capability.
Yes I do agree but as a Massachusetts man I say our version of the m4 is semi auto but the AK-47 world wide has full auto tune simply hold the trigger and you empty the clip or mag. But the revolver doesn't make sense as it is different from a rifle revolvers shoot slower than all semi auto and full auto guns
Well done! Thanks for doing the homework and being objective.
Justin Keys u mean thanks for doing MY homework right? look out debate class
justAguyDs That is so cheaty! Hope you do well we need more conservative views expressed in academia!
Wow, this is a brilliant video. Almost no bias, all facts, and accurate. Super rare and awesome to see.
Well informed and knowledgeable. Especially for a Brit!
Critical thinking and rejecting bias are valued in the UK, my friend! We watch Fox News etc. for its comedy value, not as a source of information.
As a proud 2nd amendment supporter, I have to say: well said.
Hey, I’m the 100th like
110
330
As a proud gun owner I have to say... WE NEED MORE GUNS
Fyrom will never BE US amen
it's been 37 years now and not one of my 26 firearms have harmed anyone. but they have helped feed my family
Amazing how that happens, right? If you believe Bloomberg and them, all those guns in my closet would jump up, load themselves, and start indiscriminately spraying bullets at children, cops, and everyone else. Funny how that never seems to happen in real life.
isnt 26 slightly excessive lmao
Its Sevii No. Not at all.
Its Sevii not at all.. different applications. hunting.. sport shooting.. home protection.. collectibles.. etc..
ahh ok so ur not using half of them fair enough
I love Simon so much. Actually understands what he is talking about
People who own guns are more likely to use guns than people who don't have guns...well...duh
Kinda like saying people who go swimming probably drown more often than people who don’t. 👍🏻
People with food are more likely to eat than people without food...
Why do you own an AR-15? What you you so afraid of?
Not a damn thing....
Ethnic Shitposter have you ever walked in the ghettos or Newark new jersey. Have you ever read a history book of mankind. Have you ever seen reality, not reality TV but reality itself. Go tell your statement to those who loss a close relatives life and wished they had a means of protecting them. Go and you will find your answer.
You missed the joke. " not a damn thing" as in he's not scared of anything because he has his ar-15
nooooooo way
Ar-15? You're afraid of body armor, hogs, anything stronger than a deer and anything over 600 yards
depends on the body armor, ever heard of green tips? and if 1 doesn't stop the grizzly that's chasing you, the next 4 will.
Just like to note that although Michigan doesnt have strict gun control laws, Detroit as a city does
Same with St. Louis MO
@None of your Business 337 Well, since the Detroit police are going to enforce Detroit's laws it kind of does. Sure, you can sue them later in state court, as long as the city agrees to be sued.
Why do you need a gun? Answer: Spring 2020
Exactly correct
Yes, but nobody should have to explain a _need_ for a gun. That said, I need my guns because I'd look silly with an empty holster; and what am I supposed to do with all that ammo?
Just wait till summer, Mike.
Deplorable Mike, happily the Constitution has a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Needs.
When someone buys a big screen television. I don't ask them why they need such a big screen.
I think you should have mentioned that another thing elucidated in Heller is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
One of the biggest things I would like to clarify is that the Constitution doesn't grant rights; it's law of the People restricting Government. rights are self evident and endowed by our creator, so the Amendments don't grant us anything, rather they restrict government powers. But because of endless politics the Government essentially says "I get to decide if this law restricts me or not? okay! the answer is of course it doesn't." and thus firearm restrictions, cops confiscating property and claiming it's "evidence" even if you haven't committed a crime, government spying on people without warrants etc.
Actually it lays out firmly what the government can not do to we the people. That’s why some folks wrk fly define it as “negative rights” as they have a government 1st view of the world.
i would interpret it as to prevent the government from taking away the right of a human to self preservation, something all people in all countries have but few actually protect..
Yes, the most fundamental human right is the right to self defense. In the United States that right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The United States has never been a country. Each state is in fact it's own nation.
The Constitution grants rights. Obviously, the Constitution is a piece of paper, and nothing more. But the US Courts have by and large faithfully upheld those rights.
10 facts about PTSD please!
Lemmy Koopa King it ain't pretty bub
When someone buys a big screen television. I don't ask them why they need such a big screen.
TV/Guns. TV. Guns.
The difference could be them wanting a better quality picture and surround sound or hunting a goddamn bigfoot.
Maybe you should ask. There are some interesting characters out there.
@@manbeast I see your point...... and
My point was... why do little babies that are afraid of guns ask gun owners, why do you need a gun, why do you need such a big gun, why are you carrying a gun are you expecting trouble.....
It's really none of their business as it is none of my business why they are exercising their constitutional right to purchase a large screen television.
Wow, an Englishman saying reasonable and honest things about guns. I'm surprised and pleased.
This is actually pretty accurate. What I find interesting is the politicians and others who ask "Why do you need an AR-15?" The simple answer is that the Second Amendment is known as the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs.
The 2nd says "well regulated militia". Politicians are able to make whatever regulations they deem fit, even such as requiring that gun owners actually be part of a militia...
@@steverichardson8080 Simon explained above a militia can be formed without goverment knowlage, so the point is pretty mute
@@steverichardson8080 Actually not any regulation, the regulations, according to the supreme court, must not be considered arbitrary or capricious.
Ask the Roof Koreans why would you need one
Ex gf asked me why I need an AR15. I asked her why she needs 80 pairs of shoes.
Excellent video, Simon! I live in the USA and am very anti-gun control. I think you provided a very logical argument for both sides and I personally appreciate you pointing out the fact that gun control has never been correlated with lower crime rates. Very educational video. Keep it up! Big fan of the channel btw, dude.
TopTenz There needs to more videos like yours to show people the truth about firearms and ownership in American. Very well done sir, thank you for doing your homework and not including any misleading information. Subbed.
TopTenz No It is you guys that deserves a BIG THANK YOU! Although you missed the point that #1 is why you would need the AR-15 in #5. Even in this unbiased format you still covered more info BOTH, debunking liberal crap confirming 2A activists argument. Although not intentional it happened that way because instead of using logic and facts, liberals want to govern with emotions and opinions!
I sort of fall in the middle after some research I did because on the one hand I found that tight gun control didn't affect crime rates in, say, Mexico, but I also found with our less restrictive gun laws we still had more deaths by regular means (pummeling, strangling, that kind of thing) than by the accursed assault rifle.
Well to be fair part of the reason gun control doesn't work in the US is different states have different gun laws, and we don't exactly have state by state boarder check points, I'm not saying that would significantly change the results, I'm not sure I'm saying it'd make a difference at all... I only know that I'm saying it's a point of contention that was overlooked.
For example most guns found in Chicago that have been used in crimes, have originated elsewhere, a third from Indiana.
Thank you, Simon. Love all your vids, especially the historical ones. You would be a better curriculum here in the U S. than the one we currently have that trains kids to take aptitude tests.
As someone that survived the Columbine shooting (shown in your video), I can confidently say that the majority of people that survive mass shootings tend to see the need to purchase/own/carry firearms. Very well done video, Simon!
Los Angeles does NOT have a "lack of gun control," quite the opposite actually. Other than that, great video.
MIKE FORCE well, L.A. has a surprising amount of guns for such strict laws ;-)
I think he means New Orleans, LA, as in Louisiana.
He was saying NOLA, Detroit, and St Louis.
There were dozens or misstatements in this video, some facts, but lots of misleading misstatements. Sloppy language.
No, not really. Yes a couple errors yes, but if you have ever tried making youtube videos, you know already small mistakes are unavoidable.
The second also says "the people," that's the noun used throughout the US Constitution to mean the average Joe, the entire point of it being that we're in charge of the gov.
Well said. I'm constantly saying we need to remind our government that THEY work for US ... also, I think it's high time we downsized the "company payroll" a bit and eased the bloat of our ever growing government that cannot seem to understand the basics of budgets. Whoops ... sorry ... there I go ranting ... ;)
@@CeltKnight agreed. A government shutdown should never exist. If there's enough employees to have to lay off the "non essential" employees until a budget is passed, the gov is too big, and we are spending too much money.
I'm waiting for the feds to show up at my door.. OPS.. I'm working.. They'll get no response. haha
C ELOWSKI
Don't worry, they'll wait, they get paid by the hour.
@@CeltKnight I have an idea. instead of the gov't collecting more taxes and cutting from essential services like the military, we cut Congress's $174,000 per year pay in half and use the yearly savings of about 46.5 million dollars to help pay off debts. That would also discourage life long congress people.
I watched this out video out of curiosity, but I could not have said it better.. very neutral and unbiased..
Well done, I was impressed with the fact it was almost totally accurate and almost completely unbiased.... Well done again
Terrific presentation ..... Was expecting a somewhat slant towards gun control, but you've kept it balanced!
Taking the definition of what an "assault rifle" is from a *gun control* bill is kinda like getting your information from a source with a heavy bias, don't you think?
Most gun rights advocates would probably define an assault rifle by the military definition. A rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge (5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm, etc.) that is capable of select fire. Meaning it can fire semiautomatic in addition to full auto and/or burst fire. Since civilian rifles are semiauto only, they do not meet the definition of an assault rifle. And as demonstrated earlier in the video, there is a big difference between semiauto and full auto.
Other than that little nitpick, this video was well done. Thanks.
EscpdFrmPsykward Legally speaking he is right about the name.
The gun control bill was refering to Assault *Weapons*, which are all about the cosmetics.
Keichwoud357 : Not really. If pistols grips and rails were purely cosmetic, then SOCOM 16'S and Ruger Minis would have not been replaced by ARs and AKs. Not to mention that the main difference between "civilian" and "assault" rifles are selectors switches. The term Assault Rifle dates back to WW2 with the STG 44.
You idiots are just as dumb as Leverage when it comes to terms.
George Cadenas Assault RIFLE is a genuine term. Assault WEAPON is when a gun has "military style" features. A pistol grip might make a rifle easier to handle, but sticking a pistol grip on a rifle does not magically make it more "deadly".
Keichwoud357 : It makes it more deadly because it makes it more efficient to the operator.
I live in Texas, I can legally buy any firearm in cash from someone's trunk in a parking garage. Literally done it, 100% legal, no registration either. Scary honestly
One quibbles. The Army had a legal definition before Diane Feinstein changed it in the ‘94 law.
During the American Revolutionary War, we used assault muskets to stop British oppression.
In ww1 the British had excellent infantry firing a minimum of 15 accurate shots per minute so the germans used artillery because it wasn't the 19th or 18th country.
The Americans also fought dirty, they actually AIMED!
A common whine among gun control advocates is that civilians shouldn't have weapons better than those of the military...for those that had them, during the Revolutionary War a soldier with a Kentucky Rifle (rifled barrel, 100-150 yards) could kill 2-3 Redcoats by the time they were in range to fire the Brown Bess (unrifled, 50 yards).
Here in Finland we have the highest rate of gun ownership in Northern Europe, however only 5% of all our violent crime is gun crime.
Nikolai Puumalainen if the US sent to Finland the 12% of our population which commits the majority of our murders you'd have the same problem we do. Subtract that 12% and the murder rate in the US falls right into the middle of the statistics for Western Europe.
You are also a depressed bunch of junkies.
Finland is also one of best places to live according to the happiness index
Thank you! for clarifying what US gun culture is really all about. You only forget to point out only criminals have guns in a gun -free zone.
You were very fair and explained so much that most people involved in gun control debates never bother to understand.