'Prof' is lying, making up sob stories to emotionally blackmail people into agreement, and banking on people being ignorant about guns to know the truth. Thanks for the facts calling out his lie.
The professor did have a point though, if the 2nd amendment specifically states "a militia", then just have that as a requirement before someone can own firearms; that they sign up to a local (state-based or county-based) "militia" and receive basic firearms training as part of that. This means that the state can then call them up if needed (to defend against federal or foreign incursions into the state) and they can use that training to reduce careless firearms related deaths or injuries. A militia is NOT the same as the police force and never should be. The police are a full-time permanent body designed to uphold the law, a militia is drawn from normal people in emergency situations only, when there is a need greater than them performing their normal jobs.
Pheasant shooting on managed estates with captive bred birds is not hunting . You may want to chat with some of your wealthy mates Mr Self . There is plenty of good (rough shooting) hunting in the UK . There is no one coming to help you when you're being robbed , mugged, burgled ,raped , battered or worse either . Never before have we needed defensive weapons like we do now . Criminals don't care about law or rules .
@James Trower Wow, I had to go back to read these comments as it was a year ago! I agree with you about the right, I was just thinking that a possible way to remove the usual argument about the two parts could be to give militia training to all adults, but you are right - reading it today, I would interpret the text now as being two separate parts of the same thought, namely that both the requirement to maintain an organised state militia for the defence of the state, as well as the right of individuals to be armed to defend themselves, should never be infringed.
Arguing that because gun accidents ocurr, firearms should be illegal, is as stupid as saying that swimming pools in private homes should be illegal. Actually, if you have a gun and a swimming pool in your home, your child is 7 times more likely to die by drowning in the pool than by a gun accident. Mr. Hitchens´ point was very well made. By definition, only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Therefore, by outlawing guns for ordinary citizens, you simply ensure that only criminals and the government possess them. I believe that a monopoly of violence in the hands of the State is potentially even more dangerous than criminals with guns versus an unarmed populace. Just look up "democide", the murder of people by their own government throughout history.
So Peter Hitchens makes a solid argument which in my opinion cannot be refuted as it is simply fact, and the guy on the screen opens his response with an emotional argument of a single tragedy that contains no real argument at all, and this is why the debate never ends. People are arguing against facts with emotion.
The fact that Switzerland has the right to bear arms--with firearms being widespread there--and yet has a significantly lower rate of murder by firearms (per capita, etc.) than does the USA should indicate that gun violence in the USA is based rather more on sociological and historical causes than on the the abundance of firearms in the USA.
Will Self completely misinterprets the 2nd Amendment. The founder looks at the right to bear arms as a pre-existing right. The government doesn't give us the right to bear arms nor does it say the government can't take it away. It is a pre-existing right, as Englishmen.
8:15 "Rather than the right to bear arms, the right to arm bears, because that will certainly crack down on your bear hunting habit.", Hmmmm. How about, "The right to arm citizens, because that will certainly crack down on criminals victimizing law abiding citizens."
Why are other countries so worried about America's freedom? If you don't like it then just stay where you are! I can''t imagine living in a country where the government controls every facet of my life. You guys should be looking at your own government and asking them "How come you think I can't be trusted."
This debate is mute and doesn't even need discussion. You can't vote away a God given right. Every person on the planet has the right to protect themselves from tyranny/terrorism of any would be attacker. Just because the UK have tricked their citizens into thinking otherwise doesn't mean the rest of the planet should follow suit. Amendment 2 -Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The reason we have this God given right is because a gun is the last line of defense against a foreign government or our own government if either attempt to subject the populace to tyranny. And, since this is the ultimate purpose of this right it is logical to deduce that we also have the right to have any and all weapons that said governments have. It's also very important to understand that there's no subparagraph a, b, c, d or e that would stipulate an acceptable infringement so all infringement is forbidden. Only a people who wish to have complete and total control over you would ask you to relinquish your means of personal protection.
Tell-Truth-Vision-TV "God given right" ? The 2nd has been violated many times. What about the states that are anti gun ? The NFA and ATF are not constitutional violations or tyranny ? The Patriot Act is not out right tyranny ? The 2nd will never be enacted.
Very good debaters but ruined by a very poor moderator and lack of sufficient time to flush out the issues. The moderator's constant interjections hurt the natural flow of dialogue. He also seemed biased, often interrupting the "right to bear arms" side (or allowing the other debaters to do so) while allowing the other side to speak freely. At one point, the moderator interrupted a speaker in the middle of his explanation so that he could remind the audience how to vote. Shame that such an important topic wasn't given proper attention.
14:27 Goodness gracious, Peter Hitchens is right! Most, if not all, arguments against gun control always lead to hatred of the United States. UK people aren't the only ones guilty of this but Australia as well. They say things like "thank f#ck I live in Australia" and then either wishes death or disorder to the U.S. for having gun rights. Anti gun people from industrialized countries also insult the intelligence that the U.S. is backwards while theirs is advanced and up-to-date with this day and age. If so, how is it that the U.S. has cultivated one of the biggest economies? Even if you're not American (which I am not one myself.. yet) you have to admit all the advanced things the U.S. contributed to the world.
+Jes Simms What america still contributes. create more patents than any one but china... and it is a slim lead when you compare the much larger population.
+Jes Simms SO FUCKING WHAT? for one, guns are nothing but mass wepons of death, and america sucks, so fucking what if the rest of the world hates us, we are a nation of inbreed morons. Obama was right in 2008 when he said that Americans bitterly cling to guns and religion, are you one of those gun fucking ammosexuals who defend the right to bare arms over children right to grow up and live life
Is this really what we have to deal with? No wonder no one takes leftists seriously anymore. Everywhere I go where you guys are nothing has changed. You throw insults and you expect to be convincing? Goodness me, you guys are all the same. Taking sides with bad people just to boost your ego.
+Jes Simms you know gun controls are favored by most Americans, look at the polling data, you are in the minority on this issue, and i say fuck America because of our wars of attrition against the middle east, its not our job to be the world police. not to mention we have the highest prison rate in the world, not even china, a despotist country twice our size has a higher number of prisoners to civilians. and as far as you using the ad homim attack as calling me a "leftist" i am not, i am a center left progressive internationally, far from radical. and according to the polling data, the science i keep going back to, most Americans agree with me. and just because you are most likely a christian Conservative bigoted fuck, to piss you off further, i am going to end with this BERNIE 2016, FEEL THE BERN
Seems like you're the one that is angry. I have not the time nor inclination to be angry at some armchair warrior behind a computer screen. Your comment is full of hasty generalizations for starters. How do you know if the majority of Americans approve infringing the 2nd Amendment? Where is the statistic? How is it measured? What is the population span that it was measured from? Who did it (to ensure credibility. I am not even American and I find your self-hate towards your country disgusting. Europeans did that and now they are in a quagmire that they themselves created. Nobody forces you to stay. If you don't like the USA, leave. There are people out there that would be grateful to take your place.
If Peter Hitchens had spoken first I reckon this video would have many fewer thumbs down. Too many impatient people couldn't be bothered to wait to listen to the opposing argument.
Hitchens should look at drug laws the same way he looks at gun laws. It's the same principal, the governments assuming you're guilty and not responsible over your own well-being. I don't know how hitchens doesn't see his hypocrisy and inconsistency with these two issues
chris smith I am with you 100%. I oppose the *[hideously futile, costly, and counter-productive]* War on Drugs every bit as much as i oppose government over-regulation of firearms. The school shootings are a mental health issue, a weak excuse for new sweeping regulations but background checks ARE important. 9-1-1 is not the best insurance policy, response times are getting worse in most areas of America. Some places an officer won't get their until 20-30 minutes, even more... IMO it's just plain stupid to place your life in strangers' hands like that.
Drugs and guns are not the same at all Using drugs is a personal choice that only directly affects the user, using guns can and does affect many other people...mainly resulting in injury and death
***** drugs in one form or another have existed since the dawn of civilisation and many serve legitimate purpose...but this is my point, using whatever drug be it smoking pot or taking insulin has about the same effect on others as eating pie or chocolate or enjoying a glass of wine...It literally can't have an affect on your neighbours or a stranger in the street....GUNS however are designed and built to affect other human beings, they're whole purpose from the moment they were invented has been to make it easy for humans to kill one another they have no other purpose. Guns are nothing like a recreational drug or even a primitive tool that can be used for hunting or defense they are engineered weapons of war.
Shamelesscritique1 If you really think that drugs only affect the lives of people who use them, you are very naive... either naive or just plain selfish. And i've used drugs in the past (still smoke pot), i am 100% for legalization because i know what the Drug War Racket is doing to put ordinary people down and make drug lords/dealers (especially those trafficking large volumes) FILTHY RICH. Drugs have the ability to destroy lives. If a young girl makes poor decisions and ends up becoming a prostitute, a thief, or even worse for the rest of her life. Her family has to go through a lot, and if she ends up with Hepatitis C or HIV she also becomes a health scare for anyone who may or may not get sexually involved with her. In the larger picture, even if you want to ignore the cost family members have to pay when a loved one becomes a drug casualty, you cannot ignore the fact that drug addicts -- all of them, in aggregate for any given city -- pose an enormous liability to the entire community in which they live. Crime rates rise with the rate of addiction... you really should know that because it is another prime example how the addict isn't the only loser. *Everyone loses* when the number of a city's petty thieves and prostitutes rises. For the most part, the population at large is only affected indirectly... but some are affected directly (family and those who know the addict personally, or will meet the addict in the future) as mentioned. Everyone loses in drug addiction... at the very least all TAXPAYERS because more drugs and more addicts leads to more disease, a higher crime rate, and more dangerous streets for everyone. It also makes police have to use up resources on controlling the porblem as opposed to focusing on non-drug related murders/robberies. The only winners are really the dealers and traffickers. The only other people that can consider themselves winners in the game are those who manage to maintain control over their drug usage and not become an addict... and no i am not talking about smoking weed, hash, or cannabis oil. I am not anti-drug, but i am all for drug education to prevent addiction. Legalization would lower the overall costs associated with drug use, it would cut out the scumbag middle-men, and it would yield drugs of known quality and concentration. Cleaner drugs mean less accidents, less unknowns that could otherwise lead to overdoses. Obviously, the black market that comes with illegal drugs is the primary engine behind all the peripheral crime associated with the drug underworld. Destroy the black market and a lot of the crime problems are avoided. But there will always be a small societal cost for high levels of drug use... and drug addicts' families will always be devastated by [their addicted family member's] drug seeking/addictive behavior. Let's just say being one of the millions of law-abiding gun-owners (the overwhelming majority of which are upstanding citizens who have never and will never kill anyone) does not have the same kind of impact on their communities that drug dealers/drug addicts have. Chicago is an example of a city that has it all wrong. Without drug legalization, Chicago will remain a criminal's Mecca for decades to come. Too many gangs and too high a volume of drugs to be preventing good people from arming themselves. *It's a recipe for disaster when the majority of people with access to guns are criminals!!*
+vegaskiddYeah I can kill with a stick or rock and poison someone with bleach or throw it in their eyes...what's your point exactly? Mine is that weapons specifically designed to kill easily and efficiently shouldn't be equated with or compared to other things that A don't serve that one specific purpose and B are nowhere near as deadly or effective... Example no one grows or buys pot to defend from or inflict harm...even the more dangerous drugs that could possibly be used to commit murder require far more effort and planning than pointing and pulling a trigger...They are not the same...not at all The comment was comparing something that requires nothing more than a twitch of a finger to be dangerous to other "stuff" that is generally or completely harmless to anyone except the user For example it could be argued that a smack addict who uses needles is less of a threat to those around him than a cigarette smoker... As for force or the use of violence it's always going to exist but that doesn't mean we should make it easier or more effortless for people to inflict harm on one another...sure we can debate where exactly that line should be drawn but it's my opinion that weapons meant for war and combat, devices that serve the sole purpose of killing people shouldn't be available in a peaceful civilised society that has laws, policemen and an army Look there are somethings I'm very liberal on and other things I'm very conservative or damn right draconian about...For example when it comes to freedom to make your own choices or treat your own body how you please I'm incredibly liberal but the moment your decisions and actions start to affect others my opinion changes drastically It's called the risk and consent clause...If the risk is yours and consequences are yours alone then go nuts, same with the concent theory, if two people or a group have agreed to whatever (insert controversial issue here) and their choice doesn't affect anyone else...then it's really not anyone's business, not mine or yours or the governments Now when your actions violate the risk and consent clause I believe severe action should be taken, for me it's less about punishment or an eye for an eye or anything like that...it's about removing the threat to others and preventing it from happening again For example dangerous and drunk driving, owning and operating a vehicles is a privilege that you earn and not a right bestowed upon anybody and everybody so when you abuse that privilege it should be taken from you for the protection of others and the good of society as a whole Now I know it sounds controversial to say this but I see personal freedom much the same way, it's not a right it's a privilege usually provided by others, it's paid for with the sweat blood and tears of other people who more often than not sacrifice everything...so naturally when you abuse that privilege it should be revoked. Let me put it this way I think emotion and passion especially hate is a waste of time when it comes to important issues like crime or anything really, logic and reason are more useful and productive, for instance I try not to hate those who are a direct threat or danger to others I try to see them as nothing more than dangerous wild animals in the street and yes I know that sounds ironic or disturbing and weird but here me out, I wouldn't get angry at a lion or crocodile that attacked someone because it's just doing what's in it's nature as all predators do, I'd fear it yes but I wouldn't hate it, I'd just want it removed from the streets as quickly and humanely as possible...For the greater good of society etc When you rid your mind of it's preconceptions and learn to remove emotion from the equation, gain control your passions and beliefs reality becomes clear and you will see it's very different from what you thought
I don't understand this assumption that gun bans will reduce the bad things without effecting the good things that happen with guns. The deterrent effect of armed, or potentially armed, victims is huge. That effects the entire pattern of violence. It reduces home robbery rates, it reduces random assault etc. If you ban or highly restrict guns yes, you do reduce impulsive uses but you also tell violent criminals that their potential victims are not armed.
shananagans5 But evidence shows that people who own guns are much more likely to die by them. Also, if that were true, those crimes would be much more common in the UK, which is not the case.
***** Those crimes are much more common. Look at rates of index crime before & after the mid 90s handgun ban. Read Cohen & Felson: Suitable Target Theory On Crime. They are well known criminologists & they predicted the shifts in violent crime patterns with astonishing accuracy. You see that same pattern shift in Chicago with their gun ban in the 60s. You also see it in DC & NYC with their bans. It's a well known criminology theory.& it's a very good predictive tool. It also works well with more petty stuff. Crack down on shoplifting & fraud goes up. Install cameras & security & that store is no longer a suitable target for shoplifting but those cameras & security aren't effective at detecting bad checks or ID theft. End result is shoplifting decreases, fraud increases. If you pass gun laws & actually do manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, you make it harder to do a drive by on a rival gang but you also make it easier & less risky to attack the single woman down the street.
***** "But evidence shows that people who own guns are much more likely to die by them" That is not true, however, it is true of knives as a weapon. The UK has always favored the knife over the gun when it comes to crime. (Ireland being the exception to that rule)
A well regulated militia = A militia made up by free civilians; with sufficient arms, that is able to mobilize on short notice. It does not mean a government regulated militia or army. Regulated ment something else back in the seventeenth-hundreds.
A professor that presents all gun deaths as accidental results of being careless with something dangerous and seems to not understand that a militia is formed from volunteers of the public and they will need to bring their own weapons or they will not have any if the public is forming a militia to fight a armed foreign force sent by the government.
One thing I hate about comparing the UK stats vs. USA stats re: gun crime is the UK does not report gun crime as we do! They only report a GUN CRIME when they have the person who committed it!
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. and our courts proved it
It's not about the right to hunt at all over here. It's about self defence and it's one of our rights period. There doesnt have to be a reason because of this right. This is because we are the greatest nation on earth. Stay on your side of the water where you have to show i.d. to buy a knife.
America hold onto your guns and the rest of the rights that you currently still have. Nobody can tell you what you can and can't do to protect your family and yourself.
Technically the bill of rights only states that the government cannot take the rights on the paper. Meaning you have the right to fight and defend yourselves. It doesn't specifically say "The right to bear guns*
This was just something reported by the Home Office itself. You'll have to Google it as links aren't so great in RUclips. But here's one quote "The police inspectorate found that one in three decisions to record a violent incident as “no crime” were wrong." Under reporting is fairly common throughout most of Europe as well. Very hard to compare countries when the stats are 'soothed' and when crimes are defined differently from country to country.
Not to be obtuse here as I'm not American and have no real grasp of the intricacies of U.S constitutional law. Does the 2nd amendment only allow a well regulated militia to be armed rather than the common/private citizen? Could it have been misinterpreted. I'm sure this has been tested legally many times and there's bound to be a landmark case somewhere but I'm just curious.
+MykTheOccultist Yeah. It doesn't say "the right of the military (or army, or police, or government controlled militia...) to keep and bear arms". Regulated back then meant something else.
about the introduction: in switzerland, adults aren't "legally obliged to posess a gun". only men who go to the army get one. sometimes. it's possible to do gun-less military service. and we're not obliged to take the gun home afterwards. just sayin'.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States included the right to possess arms in both its medieval and modern interpretations. It literally reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Translated into Spanish, "Being a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to have and bear arms will not be violated"). For supporters of arms control, therefore, it refers only to official entities such as the army, while the advocates of the amendment recognize the right of every individual to possess arms. The truth is that the editors of the Second Amendment followed the second interpretation, emphasizing James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. For James Madison, the purpose of this right is to guarantee the citizen's defense in case the state oversteps (see US Militia Movement). Madison was among the first politicians to recognize that the military can threaten the freedom of the nation. He also noted how European states restricted access to arms by civilians - precisely by securing their power. Alexander Hamilton pointed out its advantages in the face of militia creation. In the United States there is no army but the federal one, so that no state of the Union can have its own army (although in each state there is a branch of the National Guard, under the control of the state governor). But thanks to the right to use weapons, local governments can form militias with better prepared citizens. Thus they do not need an army of their own, and if the federal army exceptionally can not act in any state, their government can take the initiative. Proponents of the right to possess arms also wield the Ninth Amendment. It states that no law can violate rights of previously recognized citizens. That is, as the right to possess arms existed before the Amendment (and before the independence of the United States), it can not be violated. Over time, both the federal government and local authorities (states, counties and municipalities) created various arms control policies. There are records of weapons and their stalls, selection criteria for their buyers (age, mental health, gun experience and criminal history) and some restrictions on certain types. Most of these laws do not violate the Second Amendment, while the rest are discussed. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that no state or local law may restrict the right to possess or bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. That means that not everyone has the right to have War Weapons, if not by Competent Personnel, trained for Drug Trafficking Missions by the International Police, by the US FBI, the training they have may be 5 to 10 years . Trained Personnel who do not have antecedent by portacion of Weapons and Dangerous drugs. Can the Royal Police inspect each College or University, a Judge if it can give such order? If, because the moral duty of the Good Police is to guarantee the Private Security of the Citizens, that can say in a Judgment before the Courts, the Judge is the one who grants the Judgment. Judgment must always exist. If there is no Judgment there are no Guarantees for Citizens. Would you return a Thief like Menem or a murderer who has stolen Millions of Dollars? To whom would return the BIlletera? To a Professor of Mathematics, the Carpenter, the Worker, the Physician, the Royal Police, a Computer Engineer, a Retiree to a Merchant, a Painter to re-name a Sportsman, if the Wallet falls to Sportsman Gago de Boca would return his wallet, he must return it to the act, because the player does sports and can not Arrest without Judgments like Nazis in the Second World War. The ETM, Squad Tactico is intruido for it, has experience in the Manipulation of various Weapons, know what are the Characteristics of each Weapons, as the Expert in Ballistics knows that if a Assassin shoots someone at 5 Centimeters the Aram is analyzed by the Expert in ballistics or the Forensics that have these Faculties, because they did the studies on it. You must return your wallet if you drop a real police officer, you must do this.
The right to possession of weapons consists of the right of any individual to the possession, use and transportation of weapons, for defensive purposes, sporting purposes, hunting (as a means of survival or sport), private or other escort, without prejudice to Other legal activities that could be carried out with them. This right is often associated with the United States of America, where, with few limitations by law, it is fully recognized, and where there are more weapons in private hands than in any other country in the world. In fact, its origins are older and its original interpretation is far from the present one.
Then why does Vermont have a homicide rate of 1.0 (on a par with other countries) even though 70% of people in Vermont own guns and they can carry without a permit? Why aren't the streets of Canada running in blood? They have a lot of guns there.
Minus suicides (60%), accidents, and gang violence, firearms are used in only about 2,200 deaths per year. That's it. For a nation of 300 million, that's 1 death out of every 136,000+ people. If we avoid gang violence, are careful with our firearms, and don't want to commit suicide, that's a rate of .73 per 100,000. To compare, the overall homicide rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000. How can this be? You've all but banned private firearm ownership! Your Olympic shooters have to leave your country to practice. Could it be that violent people will find a way to harm you, even if guns are available only to the police and the worst of criminals? I know, not a fair comparison. But then neither is it when you don't take into account the far more massive and violent gang culture here in the US of which you across the pond are just now getting a taste.
And the homicide vs. car accident argument. We have about the same number of drunk driving deaths as homicides in any given year. No one suggests that we should take the driver's licenses from everyone because 10 to 15 thousand people die in a year from drunk driving accidents, and driving is not a right but a privilege. People put the privilege of driving in a more protected status than our right to keep and bear arms. In one case people dare not treat the innocent the same as the criminal but in another people are all too ready to treat the innocent the same as the guilty. It really is taking away the presumption of innocence.
That has to be one of the greatest ripostes in recorded history! Beautifully witty and very intelligent. If I could upvote this more than once I would do so. My nose is touching the ground as I bow before thee!
James Johnson what are you smoking? there is no right wing in the UK the only right wing party in the UK is the BNP and they are pretty much non-existent now.
James Johnson Tories are centre left. UKIP are centre. UKIP are libertarians. They might be perceived as 'right-wing' if you have been brainwashed by fascist groups like Unite against Fascism, hope not hate, and LibLabCon spokesmen who can't debate them and just shut them down as "racists and homophobes". There hasn't been a mainstream socially conservative right wing party in the UK since the 1950s. Hence the massive cultural revolution since then that has ruined Britain.
I am a happy gun owner. I've never been shot, however I almost been killed in a car. Since 2010's car accident, I have annually studied car related deaths in America. They far exceed gun related deaths. What it comes down to is responsibility and knowing how to operate the instrument the operator is using. I have no intention on banning cars nor guns. Most people that own guns whom I know argue for defense. It takes the police 10-20 minutes to arrive. Parents with children do not have that luxury of waiting for the police nor the time. It's either the innocent get murdered/raped/robbed/taken etc or the criminal gets stopped. I prefer Victim Justice (Justice for the Victims) as opposed to Criminal Justice (Justice for the Criminals) .
I can't even really pick out an argument from Will Self's bumbling, which never seemed to get off the ground. Hitchens was by far the best speaker; he probably wishes he hadn't bothered preparing so well!
Consider whether you were a Lawyer or a Dr in Laws that the Arms be used by Competent Personnel and not by Citizens. The problem is because a Trader has guns, if it does not need it? The Society must be like that of the Demolisho-Man Film, when in the USA there existed the Empire of morality in the year 3500 AD, living Civilization in a kind of Utopian Society Controlled by the Military Forces and the rest without Arms.
I bet when the audience voted the second time they had forgotten the original statement, like the host, and were voting "FOR" & "AGAINST" gun ownership. Regardless, the debate was far too short to make a well-informed decision.
They have to breed birds to hunt. Well, there's a difference. The USA Fish and Wildlife Department sets bag limits on fish and game year by year so that this dearth of supply doesn't happen.
Actually yours is, you said guns had no uses while in reality a gun is a much more useful tool to own then a car. A car will almost never protect your life from harm, while a gun will always be there ready to do so. Your lack of understanding on this may stem from your lack of firearm ownership. You probably never had to defend your life during a crime, if you did you would understand the massive value a firearm has over a vehicle. Pt 1/2
I'm not trying to start any arguments here but, can I ask where you heard that as, like a few other comments I've read, it isn't true. If anything, over reporting is a problem here as air rifles and replicas are counted as gun crimes if used illegally. However,like I said to someone else, most stats that you find concerning gun crimes in the UK, are actually only about either Scotland or England & Wales or N.Ireland, so they seem lower.
Just for food for thought in Russia it is illegal to own any firearm yet 20,000 per year are murdered double what is in USA. Many Studies have shown in my country of Australia that the 1996 gun ban had no or little effect on accelerating the already decreasing rate of violent crime and that crime decreased at the same or slower rate than before the gun ban. Also in 2012 violent crime rose 8-12% overall so the gun bad did nothing.
The problem is that the right to bear arms in the US, is in a different context than many other civilized countries. The US has large violent (must not be named) groups that commit a disproportionate amount of crime. These criminals have easy access to illegal weapons, and therefore there is no point in banning them. The law-abiding citizen is harmed by the prohibition. In the UK, however, the violent crime is not as bad(yet), and therefore makes more sense for prohibition.
What strikes me about the somewhat feverish heights of emotion to which this issue clearly rockets certain people, is this; the idea of a ‘threat’ appears to be extremely finite by definition. Most Americans allow their leaders of commerce and industry to shaft them senseless in the name of ‘the American dream’, indeed most of ‘em become positively misty eyed at the mere suggestion of apple pie etc.
Why does Britain care so much about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Is it because they don't have one? No other country forced them to disarm their own citizens, they did it themselves. Why does the rest of the world want to slice bits out of the U.S. Constitution? If you don't like the way we do things, then don't come here, and stop sending your Piers Morgan's here as well. The Hitchens clan is welcome any time though.
Factually accurate. I wouldn't expect anything less from Peter. If I recall correctly he also coined the phrase “ ..the political disarmament of the law abiding citizenry” in article I read some years back. How true! As for Mr Self, perhaps somebody should tell him that the second amendment was not written for hunters. He should stick to moaning about 4x4 vehicles as he was way out of his depth here.
His reasoning behind that is very simple: The purpose of the right to own a gun is to to preserve freedom, whereas the purpose of the right to take drugs is to pursue hedonistic self-pleasure, therefore the two are not parallels and belief in the freedom of one and not the other is not hypocritical.
What law abiding citizen would want a nuclear bomb? Who would want to spend a billion dollars on one? How many people have a billion dollars laying around? Not many..... If a gun goes off accidentally it would damage a wall, window or god forbid a person. If you accidentally or purposely set a nuclear bomb, everyone in your town or city will die. With a gun you have the chance of saving someone and defending yourself in home invasion.
My argument is actually sound despite the fact that i was arguing against a point you didn't make, me not reading your entire post in its entirety is what makes me look stupid. But on youtube that doesn't make me look stupid, its makes me look like everyone else.
we should all have the right to own and bear arms, I totally agree with what Peter Hitchens was saying, what gives our governments the right to assume my guilt and their inability to trust me! What about the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy target shooting? It is a skill and a sport, I also enjoy archery, the bow and arrow was in its time the most advanced killing weapon even designed. The mention of suicide in this debate is very misplaced and deserves a debate on that subject alone.
But they most likely don't and there are many options to prevent anyone getting in or even entering your garden.The sure thing is that with a gun some people will die and it could be an unannounced familly member or child in a precarious situation.The fear mongering in the media does not help and can cause unwarranted fear that leads to paranoia and needless actions which with guns are fatal.
What are you talkin' about? No one was telling anyone what to do. The first person to stand up said it was aimed at both British and American viewers. This is a debate anyway, therefore it isn't strange at all.
You wont need to fight the entire military or the entire national guard. The thing is that the government would lose a lot of support for soldiers if they turned against the people. Soldiers have family and they will defend their family. Guns cause the government to garner a tremendous force to beat the people. If the people do not have guns the amount of soldiers needed drastically reduces, and the will to fight, for the people, also does.
Very irritating choice of sound in the intro.
People from the future can skip to 0:53
This debate was way too short.
The debate between Wayne La Pierre and George Soros acolyte Rebecca Peters at King's College in London on gun control was pretty long.
Not really, the argument is pretty straight forward and contested. Gun rights must always trump gun control.
Gun Ownership 101: Unload your gun before you clean it
Invoking that level of idiocy to support your argument is laughable
'Prof' is lying, making up sob stories to emotionally blackmail people into agreement, and banking on people being ignorant about guns to know the truth. Thanks for the facts calling out his lie.
The professor did have a point though, if the 2nd amendment specifically states "a militia", then just have that as a requirement before someone can own firearms; that they sign up to a local (state-based or county-based) "militia" and receive basic firearms training as part of that. This means that the state can then call them up if needed (to defend against federal or foreign incursions into the state) and they can use that training to reduce careless firearms related deaths or injuries.
A militia is NOT the same as the police force and never should be. The police are a full-time permanent body designed to uphold the law, a militia is drawn from normal people in emergency situations only, when there is a need greater than them performing their normal jobs.
Pheasant shooting on managed estates with captive bred birds is not hunting . You may want to chat with some of your wealthy mates Mr Self . There is plenty of good (rough shooting) hunting in the UK . There is no one coming to help you when you're being robbed , mugged, burgled ,raped , battered or worse either . Never before have we needed defensive weapons like we do now . Criminals don't care about law or rules .
@James Trower Wow, I had to go back to read these comments as it was a year ago! I agree with you about the right, I was just thinking that a possible way to remove the usual argument about the two parts could be to give militia training to all adults, but you are right - reading it today, I would interpret the text now as being two separate parts of the same thought, namely that both the requirement to maintain an organised state militia for the defence of the state, as well as the right of individuals to be armed to defend themselves, should never be infringed.
Arguing that because gun accidents ocurr, firearms should be illegal, is as stupid as saying that swimming pools in private homes should be illegal. Actually, if you have a gun and a swimming pool in your home, your child is 7 times more likely to die by drowning in the pool than by a gun accident.
Mr. Hitchens´ point was very well made. By definition, only law-abiding citizens obey the law. Therefore, by outlawing guns for ordinary citizens, you simply ensure that only criminals and the government possess them. I believe that a monopoly of violence in the hands of the State is potentially even more dangerous than criminals with guns versus an unarmed populace. Just look up "democide", the murder of people by their own government throughout history.
So Peter Hitchens makes a solid argument which in my opinion cannot be refuted as it is simply fact, and the guy on the screen opens his response with an emotional argument of a single tragedy that contains no real argument at all, and this is why the debate never ends. People are arguing against facts with emotion.
peters hitchens is the man!
The fact that Switzerland has the right to bear arms--with firearms being widespread there--and yet has a significantly lower rate of murder by firearms (per capita, etc.) than does the USA should indicate that gun violence in the USA is based rather more on sociological and historical causes than on the the abundance of firearms in the USA.
Something amazing just happened, for the first time ever, I completely agree with everything Peter Hitchens just said.
What an articulate argument put forward by Hitchens. I've changed my opinion on him.
What a terrible debate format
you'd have to be out to lunch to think now is a time to give up gun rights.
I wish debates of this topic is more commonplace in the UK and longer.
The moderator is very poor.
Will Self completely misinterprets the 2nd Amendment. The founder looks at the right to bear arms as a pre-existing right. The government doesn't give us the right to bear arms nor does it say the government can't take it away. It is a pre-existing right, as Englishmen.
As an American, I find it absolutely amazing that people in London think we really much give a rip what they think about our Constitutional rights.
They think you are idiots. They don't care what you do or don't think.
8:15 "Rather than the right to bear arms, the right to arm bears, because that will certainly crack down on your bear hunting habit.", Hmmmm. How about, "The right to arm citizens, because that will certainly crack down on criminals victimizing law abiding citizens."
Why are other countries so worried about America's freedom? If you don't like it then just stay where you are! I can''t imagine living in a country where the government controls every facet of my life. You guys should be looking at your own government and asking them "How come you think I can't be trusted."
Peter Hitchens is in a totally different league to Self...sublime.
Anti-gun people seem to be hell bent on having absolute control over people's right to own firearms.
This debate is mute and doesn't even need discussion. You can't vote away a God given right. Every person on the planet has the right to protect themselves from tyranny/terrorism of any would be attacker. Just because the UK have tricked their citizens into thinking otherwise doesn't mean the rest of the planet should follow suit. Amendment 2 -Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The reason we have this God given right is because a gun is the last line of defense against a foreign government or our own government if either attempt to subject the populace to tyranny. And, since this is the ultimate purpose of this right it is logical to deduce that we also have the right to have any and all weapons that said governments have. It's also very important to understand that there's no subparagraph a, b, c, d or e that would stipulate an acceptable infringement so all infringement is forbidden. Only a people who wish to have complete and total control over you would ask you to relinquish your means of personal protection.
Tell-Truth-Vision-TV "God given right" ?
The 2nd has been violated many times. What about the states that are anti gun ?
The NFA and ATF are not constitutional violations or tyranny ?
The Patriot Act is not out right tyranny ?
The 2nd will never be enacted.
Very good debaters but ruined by a very poor moderator and lack of sufficient time to flush out the issues. The moderator's constant interjections hurt the natural flow of dialogue. He also seemed biased, often interrupting the "right to bear arms" side (or allowing the other debaters to do so) while allowing the other side to speak freely. At one point, the moderator interrupted a speaker in the middle of his explanation so that he could remind the audience how to vote. Shame that such an important topic wasn't given proper attention.
14:27 Goodness gracious, Peter Hitchens is right! Most, if not all, arguments against gun control always lead to hatred of the United States. UK people aren't the only ones guilty of this but Australia as well. They say things like "thank f#ck I live in Australia" and then either wishes death or disorder to the U.S. for having gun rights.
Anti gun people from industrialized countries also insult the intelligence that the U.S. is backwards while theirs is advanced and up-to-date with this day and age. If so, how is it that the U.S. has cultivated one of the biggest economies? Even if you're not American (which I am not one myself.. yet) you have to admit all the advanced things the U.S. contributed to the world.
+Jes Simms
What america still contributes. create more patents than any one but china... and it is a slim lead when you compare the much larger population.
+Jes Simms SO FUCKING WHAT? for one, guns are nothing but mass wepons of death, and america sucks, so fucking what if the rest of the world hates us, we are a nation of inbreed morons. Obama was right in 2008 when he said that Americans bitterly cling to guns and religion, are you one of those gun fucking ammosexuals who defend the right to bare arms over children right to grow up and live life
Is this really what we have to deal with? No wonder no one takes leftists seriously anymore. Everywhere I go where you guys are nothing has changed. You throw insults and you expect to be convincing? Goodness me, you guys are all the same. Taking sides with bad people just to boost your ego.
+Jes Simms you know gun controls are favored by most Americans, look at the polling data, you are in the minority on this issue, and i say fuck America because of our wars of attrition against the middle east, its not our job to be the world police. not to mention we have the highest prison rate in the world, not even china, a despotist country twice our size has a higher number of prisoners to civilians. and as far as you using the ad homim attack as calling me a "leftist" i am not, i am a center left progressive internationally, far from radical. and according to the polling data, the science i keep going back to, most Americans agree with me. and just because you are most likely a christian Conservative bigoted fuck, to piss you off further, i am going to end with this BERNIE 2016, FEEL THE BERN
Seems like you're the one that is angry. I have not the time nor inclination to be angry at some armchair warrior behind a computer screen. Your comment is full of hasty generalizations for starters. How do you know if the majority of Americans approve infringing the 2nd Amendment? Where is the statistic? How is it measured? What is the population span that it was measured from? Who did it (to ensure credibility.
I am not even American and I find your self-hate towards your country disgusting. Europeans did that and now they are in a quagmire that they themselves created. Nobody forces you to stay. If you don't like the USA, leave. There are people out there that would be grateful to take your place.
If Peter Hitchens had spoken first I reckon this video would have many fewer thumbs down. Too many impatient people couldn't be bothered to wait to listen to the opposing argument.
First thing to do is to get rid of that horrendous opening noise that sounds like a you're standing next to an electrical transformer .
oh my god you have no idea. that music is awesome
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think that is about the wording
Hitchens should look at drug laws the same way he looks at gun laws. It's the same principal, the governments assuming you're guilty and not responsible over your own well-being. I don't know how hitchens doesn't see his hypocrisy and inconsistency with these two issues
chris smith I am with you 100%. I oppose the *[hideously futile, costly, and counter-productive]* War on Drugs every bit as much as i oppose government over-regulation of firearms. The school shootings are a mental health issue, a weak excuse for new sweeping regulations but background checks ARE important.
9-1-1 is not the best insurance policy, response times are getting worse in most areas of America. Some places an officer won't get their until 20-30 minutes, even more... IMO it's just plain stupid to place your life in strangers' hands like that.
Drugs and guns are not the same at all
Using drugs is a personal choice that only directly affects the user, using guns can and does affect many other people...mainly resulting in injury and death
***** drugs in one form or another have existed since the dawn of civilisation and many serve legitimate purpose...but this is my point, using whatever drug be it smoking pot or taking insulin has about the same effect on others as eating pie or chocolate or enjoying a glass of wine...It literally can't have an affect on your neighbours or a stranger in the street....GUNS however are designed and built to affect other human beings, they're whole purpose from the moment they were invented has been to make it easy for humans to kill one another they have no other purpose.
Guns are nothing like a recreational drug or even a primitive tool that can be used for hunting or defense they are engineered weapons of war.
Shamelesscritique1 If you really think that drugs only affect the lives of people who use them, you are very naive... either naive or just plain selfish. And i've used drugs in the past (still smoke pot), i am 100% for legalization because i know what the Drug War Racket is doing to put ordinary people down and make drug lords/dealers (especially those trafficking large volumes) FILTHY RICH.
Drugs have the ability to destroy lives. If a young girl makes poor decisions and ends up becoming a prostitute, a thief, or even worse for the rest of her life. Her family has to go through a lot, and if she ends up with Hepatitis C or HIV she also becomes a health scare for anyone who may or may not get sexually involved with her.
In the larger picture, even if you want to ignore the cost family members have to pay when a loved one becomes a drug casualty, you cannot ignore the fact that drug addicts -- all of them, in aggregate for any given city -- pose an enormous liability to the entire community in which they live. Crime rates rise with the rate of addiction... you really should know that because it is another prime example how the addict isn't the only loser.
*Everyone loses* when the number of a city's petty thieves and prostitutes rises. For the most part, the population at large is only affected indirectly... but some are affected directly (family and those who know the addict personally, or will meet the addict in the future) as mentioned.
Everyone loses in drug addiction... at the very least all TAXPAYERS because more drugs and more addicts leads to more disease, a higher crime rate, and more dangerous streets for everyone. It also makes police have to use up resources on controlling the porblem as opposed to focusing on non-drug related murders/robberies.
The only winners are really the dealers and traffickers. The only other people that can consider themselves winners in the game are those who manage to maintain control over their drug usage and not become an addict... and no i am not talking about smoking weed, hash, or cannabis oil.
I am not anti-drug, but i am all for drug education to prevent addiction. Legalization would lower the overall costs associated with drug use, it would cut out the scumbag middle-men, and it would yield drugs of known quality and concentration. Cleaner drugs mean less accidents, less unknowns that could otherwise lead to overdoses.
Obviously, the black market that comes with illegal drugs is the primary engine behind all the peripheral crime associated with the drug underworld. Destroy the black market and a lot of the crime problems are avoided. But there will always be a small societal cost for high levels of drug use... and drug addicts' families will always be devastated by [their addicted family member's] drug seeking/addictive behavior.
Let's just say being one of the millions of law-abiding gun-owners (the overwhelming majority of which are upstanding citizens who have never and will never kill anyone) does not have the same kind of impact on their communities that drug dealers/drug addicts have.
Chicago is an example of a city that has it all wrong. Without drug legalization, Chicago will remain a criminal's Mecca for decades to come. Too many gangs and too high a volume of drugs to be preventing good people from arming themselves. *It's a recipe for disaster when the majority of people with access to guns are criminals!!*
+vegaskiddYeah I can kill with a stick or rock and poison someone with bleach or throw it in their eyes...what's your point exactly?
Mine is that weapons specifically designed to kill easily and efficiently shouldn't be equated with or compared to other things that A don't serve that one specific purpose and B are nowhere near as deadly or effective...
Example no one grows or buys pot to defend from or inflict harm...even the more dangerous drugs that could possibly be used to commit murder require far more effort and planning than pointing and pulling a trigger...They are not the same...not at all
The comment was comparing something that requires nothing more than a twitch of a finger to be dangerous to other "stuff" that is generally or completely harmless to anyone except the user
For example it could be argued that a smack addict who uses needles is less of a threat to those around him than a cigarette smoker...
As for force or the use of violence it's always going to exist but that doesn't mean we should make it easier or more effortless for people to inflict harm on one another...sure we can debate where exactly that line should be drawn but it's my opinion that weapons meant for war and combat, devices that serve the sole purpose of killing people shouldn't be available in a peaceful civilised society that has laws, policemen and an army
Look there are somethings I'm very liberal on and other things I'm very conservative or damn right draconian about...For example when it comes to freedom to make your own choices or treat your own body how you please I'm incredibly liberal but the moment your decisions and actions start to affect others my opinion changes drastically
It's called the risk and consent clause...If the risk is yours and consequences are yours alone then go nuts, same with the concent theory, if two people or a group have agreed to whatever (insert controversial issue here) and their choice doesn't affect anyone else...then it's really not anyone's business, not mine or yours or the governments
Now when your actions violate the risk and consent clause I believe severe action should be taken, for me it's less about punishment or an eye for an eye or anything like that...it's about removing the threat to others and preventing it from happening again
For example dangerous and drunk driving, owning and operating a vehicles is a privilege that you earn and not a right bestowed upon anybody and everybody so when you abuse that privilege it should be taken from you for the protection of others and the good of society as a whole
Now I know it sounds controversial to say this but I see personal freedom much the same way, it's not a right it's a privilege usually provided by others, it's paid for with the sweat blood and tears of other people who more often than not sacrifice everything...so naturally when you abuse that privilege it should be revoked.
Let me put it this way I think emotion and passion especially hate is a waste of time when it comes to important issues like crime or anything really, logic and reason are more useful and productive, for instance I try not to hate those who are a direct threat or danger to others I try to see them as nothing more than dangerous wild animals in the street and yes I know that sounds ironic or disturbing and weird but here me out, I wouldn't get angry at a lion or crocodile that attacked someone because it's just doing what's in it's nature as all predators do, I'd fear it yes but I wouldn't hate it, I'd just want it removed from the streets as quickly and humanely as possible...For the greater good of society etc
When you rid your mind of it's preconceptions and learn to remove emotion from the equation, gain control your passions and beliefs reality becomes clear and you will see it's very different from what you thought
I don't understand this assumption that gun bans will reduce the bad things without effecting the good things that happen with guns. The deterrent effect of armed, or potentially armed, victims is huge. That effects the entire pattern of violence. It reduces home robbery rates, it reduces random assault etc.
If you ban or highly restrict guns yes, you do reduce impulsive uses but you also tell violent criminals that their potential victims are not armed.
shananagans5 But evidence shows that people who own guns are much more likely to die by them. Also, if that were true, those crimes would be much more common in the UK, which is not the case.
***** Those crimes are much more common. Look at rates of index crime before & after the mid 90s handgun ban.
Read Cohen & Felson: Suitable Target Theory On Crime. They are well known criminologists & they predicted the shifts in violent crime patterns with astonishing accuracy.
You see that same pattern shift in Chicago with their gun ban in the 60s. You also see it in DC & NYC with their bans. It's a well known criminology theory.& it's a very good predictive tool.
It also works well with more petty stuff. Crack down on shoplifting & fraud goes up. Install cameras & security & that store is no longer a suitable target for shoplifting but those cameras & security aren't effective at detecting bad checks or ID theft.
End result is shoplifting decreases, fraud increases.
If you pass gun laws & actually do manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun, you make it harder to do a drive by on a rival gang but you also make it easier & less risky to attack the single woman down the street.
***** "But evidence shows that people who own guns are much more likely to die by them" That is not true, however, it is true of knives as a weapon. The UK has always favored the knife over the gun when it comes to crime. (Ireland being the exception to that rule)
What's the use of having such a short debate? Nobody had enough time to make a useful case. I Agree!!
The English have a history of being serfs.
Americans have the history of being free people.
Guns break down when ur cleaning any gun so how u gonna say he killed his dad by cleaning a gun ?
A well regulated militia = A militia made up by free civilians; with sufficient arms, that is able to mobilize on short notice. It does not mean a government regulated militia or army. Regulated ment something else back in the seventeenth-hundreds.
If "arms" includes rocket launchers and land mines and they are banned, why can't you ban firearms or why can't you buy rocket launchers?
A professor that presents all gun deaths as accidental results of being careless with something dangerous and seems to not understand that a militia is formed from volunteers of the public and they will need to bring their own weapons or they will not have any if the public is forming a militia to fight a armed foreign force sent by the government.
One thing I hate about comparing the UK stats vs. USA stats re: gun crime is the UK does not report gun crime as we do! They only report a GUN CRIME when they have the person who committed it!
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. and our courts proved it
It's not about the right to hunt at all over here. It's about self defence and it's one of our rights period. There doesnt have to be a reason because of this right. This is because we are the greatest nation on earth. Stay on your side of the water where you have to show i.d. to buy a knife.
America hold onto your guns and the rest of the rights that you currently still have. Nobody can tell you what you can and can't do to protect your family and yourself.
Technically the bill of rights only states that the government cannot take the rights on the paper.
Meaning you have the right to fight and defend yourselves. It doesn't specifically say "The right to bear guns*
17:00 that lefty appeal to emotion
feel don't think
Yeah, because 'rightys' never do that. /sarcasm
Peter Hitchens is too real!!
Peter Hitchens is a genius just like his brother:) i love him!
This was just something reported by the Home Office itself. You'll have to Google it as links aren't so great in RUclips. But here's one quote "The police inspectorate found that one in three decisions to record a violent incident as “no crime” were wrong." Under reporting is fairly common throughout most of Europe as well. Very hard to compare countries when the stats are 'soothed' and when crimes are defined differently from country to country.
Not to be obtuse here as I'm not American and have no real grasp of the intricacies of U.S constitutional law. Does the 2nd amendment only allow a well regulated militia to be armed rather than the common/private citizen? Could it have been misinterpreted. I'm sure this has been tested legally many times and there's bound to be a landmark case somewhere but I'm just curious.
...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
+MykTheOccultist Shall not be infringed?
+MykTheOccultist Yeah. It doesn't say "the right of the military (or army, or police, or government controlled militia...) to keep and bear arms". Regulated back then meant something else.
drphillips214 Then firearm use and safety should be taught in schools don't you think? would make sense since it's a right.
19:45 Did he say, educate a frozen chicken?
+misterfunnybones He tried to say "educate your friends and children" but the audio cut.
+L. E. Boyd It would be easier to educate a frozen chicken than try to resolve the gun debate.
about the introduction:
in switzerland, adults aren't "legally obliged to posess a gun". only men who go to the army get one. sometimes. it's possible to do gun-less military service. and we're not obliged to take the gun home afterwards.
just sayin'.
In the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. IF ANY THING ALL AMERICANS AGREE ON OUR RIGHT........ TO BARE ARMS.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States included the right to possess arms in both its medieval and modern interpretations. It literally reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Translated into Spanish, "Being a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to have and bear arms will not be violated"). For supporters of arms control, therefore, it refers only to official entities such as the army, while the advocates of the amendment recognize the right of every individual to possess arms. The truth is that the editors of the Second Amendment followed the second interpretation, emphasizing James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.
For James Madison, the purpose of this right is to guarantee the citizen's defense in case the state oversteps (see US Militia Movement). Madison was among the first politicians to recognize that the military can threaten the freedom of the nation. He also noted how European states restricted access to arms by civilians - precisely by securing their power.
Alexander Hamilton pointed out its advantages in the face of militia creation. In the United States there is no army but the federal one, so that no state of the Union can have its own army (although in each state there is a branch of the National Guard, under the control of the state governor). But thanks to the right to use weapons, local governments can form militias with better prepared citizens. Thus they do not need an army of their own, and if the federal army exceptionally can not act in any state, their government can take the initiative.
Proponents of the right to possess arms also wield the Ninth Amendment. It states that no law can violate rights of previously recognized citizens. That is, as the right to possess arms existed before the Amendment (and before the independence of the United States), it can not be violated.
Over time, both the federal government and local authorities (states, counties and municipalities) created various arms control policies. There are records of weapons and their stalls, selection criteria for their buyers (age, mental health, gun experience and criminal history) and some restrictions on certain types. Most of these laws do not violate the Second Amendment, while the rest are discussed.
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that no state or local law may restrict the right to possess or bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That means that not everyone has the right to have War Weapons, if not by Competent Personnel, trained for Drug Trafficking Missions by the International Police, by the US FBI, the training they have may be 5 to 10 years . Trained Personnel who do not have antecedent by portacion of Weapons and Dangerous drugs. Can the Royal Police inspect each College or University, a Judge if it can give such order?
If, because the moral duty of the Good Police is to guarantee the Private Security of the Citizens, that can say in a Judgment before the Courts, the Judge is the one who grants the Judgment. Judgment must always exist. If there is no Judgment there are no Guarantees for Citizens. Would you return a Thief like Menem or a murderer who has stolen Millions of Dollars? To whom would return the BIlletera? To a Professor of Mathematics, the Carpenter, the Worker, the Physician, the Royal Police, a Computer Engineer, a Retiree to a Merchant, a Painter to re-name a Sportsman, if the Wallet falls to Sportsman Gago de Boca would return his wallet, he must return it to the act, because the player does sports and can not Arrest without Judgments like Nazis in the Second World War.
The ETM, Squad Tactico is intruido for it, has experience in the Manipulation of various Weapons, know what are the Characteristics of each Weapons, as the Expert in Ballistics knows that if a Assassin shoots someone at 5 Centimeters the Aram is analyzed by the Expert in ballistics or the Forensics that have these Faculties, because they did the studies on it.
You must return your wallet if you drop a real police officer, you must do this.
Amitai Etzioni, yet another one attacking our right to self defense. Google him. Accidental?
The right to possession of weapons consists of the right of any individual to the possession, use and transportation of weapons, for defensive purposes, sporting purposes, hunting (as a means of survival or sport), private or other escort, without prejudice to Other legal activities that could be carried out with them.
This right is often associated with the United States of America, where, with few limitations by law, it is fully recognized, and where there are more weapons in private hands than in any other country in the world. In fact, its origins are older and its original interpretation is far from the present one.
Then why does Vermont have a homicide rate of 1.0 (on a par with other countries) even though 70% of people in Vermont own guns and they can carry without a permit? Why aren't the streets of Canada running in blood? They have a lot of guns there.
Minus suicides (60%), accidents, and gang violence, firearms are used in only about 2,200 deaths per year.
That's it. For a nation of 300 million, that's 1 death out of every 136,000+ people. If we avoid gang violence, are careful with our firearms, and don't want to commit suicide, that's a rate of .73 per 100,000. To compare, the overall homicide rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000.
How can this be? You've all but banned private firearm ownership! Your Olympic shooters have to leave your country to practice. Could it be that violent people will find a way to harm you, even if guns are available only to the police and the worst of criminals?
I know, not a fair comparison. But then neither is it when you don't take into account the far more massive and violent gang culture here in the US of which you across the pond are just now getting a taste.
And the homicide vs. car accident argument. We have about the same number of drunk driving deaths as homicides in any given year. No one suggests that we should take the driver's licenses from everyone because 10 to 15 thousand people die in a year from drunk driving accidents, and driving is not a right but a privilege. People put the privilege of driving in a more protected status than our right to keep and bear arms. In one case people dare not treat the innocent the same as the criminal but in another people are all too ready to treat the innocent the same as the guilty. It really is taking away the presumption of innocence.
That has to be one of the greatest ripostes in recorded history! Beautifully witty and very intelligent. If I could upvote this more than once I would do so. My nose is touching the ground as I bow before thee!
If gun accidents are justification to banning guns then by that logic no one should have a car.
"Tearing the US Congress apart" What's this guy smoking
They should have got Alex Jones on here lol
peter Hitchens voice of reason here, will Self just parrots the progressive line
***** no, but the rest of it was reasonable.
So, the right to bear arms won this debate. Finally. These things are usually biased towards the left wing.
James Johnson
what are you smoking?
there is no right wing in the UK
the only right wing party in the UK is the BNP and they are pretty much non-existent now.
James Johnson
Tories are centre left. UKIP are centre. UKIP are libertarians. They might be perceived as 'right-wing' if you have been brainwashed by fascist groups like Unite against Fascism, hope not hate, and LibLabCon spokesmen who can't debate them and just shut them down as "racists and homophobes".
There hasn't been a mainstream socially conservative right wing party in the UK since the 1950s. Hence the massive cultural revolution since then that has ruined Britain.
so because your bias has been adhered to then it’s a balanced debate. yawn.
@@brianwilson49 It's balanced because both sides got to make their case, nothing more.
@@Aristocles22 so your bleating about ‘left wing bias’ is irrelevant then. Thanks.
Weren't the weapons used to kill 130 people in Paris all illegal in Paris?
This video isn't nearly long enough.
I am a happy gun owner. I've never been shot, however I almost been killed in a car. Since 2010's car accident, I have annually studied car related deaths in America. They far exceed gun related deaths.
What it comes down to is responsibility and knowing how to operate the instrument the operator is using.
I have no intention on banning cars nor guns.
Most people that own guns whom I know argue for defense. It takes the police 10-20 minutes to arrive. Parents with children do not have that luxury of waiting for the police nor the time. It's either the innocent get murdered/raped/robbed/taken etc or the criminal gets stopped. I prefer Victim Justice (Justice for the Victims) as opposed to Criminal Justice (Justice for the Criminals) .
I can't even really pick out an argument from Will Self's bumbling, which never seemed to get off the ground. Hitchens was by far the best speaker; he probably wishes he hadn't bothered preparing so well!
Consider whether you were a Lawyer or a Dr in Laws that the Arms be used by Competent Personnel and not by Citizens. The problem is because a Trader has guns, if it does not need it?
The Society must be like that of the Demolisho-Man Film, when in the USA there existed the Empire of morality in the year 3500 AD, living Civilization in a kind of Utopian Society Controlled by the Military Forces and the rest without Arms.
I bet when the audience voted the second time they had forgotten the original statement, like the host, and were voting "FOR" & "AGAINST" gun ownership. Regardless, the debate was far too short to make a well-informed decision.
That is it 'a law made in 1791' 227 years ago and not changed bloody ridiculous. The NRA is all powerful and its all about MONEY nothing else.
They have to breed birds to hunt. Well, there's a difference. The USA Fish and Wildlife Department sets bag limits on fish and game year by year so that this dearth of supply doesn't happen.
Peter nailed it!
Actually yours is, you said guns had no uses while in reality a gun is a much more useful tool to own then a car. A car will almost never protect your life from harm, while a gun will always be there ready to do so. Your lack of understanding on this may stem from your lack of firearm ownership. You probably never had to defend your life during a crime, if you did you would understand the massive value a firearm has over a vehicle. Pt 1/2
Also, my origional argument was sound because cars cause 4 times as many deaths a firearms most years.
I'm not trying to start any arguments here but, can I ask where you heard that as, like a few other comments I've read, it isn't true. If anything, over reporting is a problem here as air rifles and replicas are counted as gun crimes if used illegally. However,like I said to someone else, most stats that you find concerning gun crimes in the UK, are actually only about either Scotland or England & Wales or N.Ireland, so they seem lower.
The military wouldn't never fire on their own people if they took up arms.
whats the tune at the beginning?
So called terrorism, is a call if any, to have a militia in the uk... Not to mention the corruption.
This forum and voting is depressing. May the human species die out sooner rather than later.
Just for food for thought in Russia it is illegal to own any firearm yet 20,000 per year are murdered double what is in USA. Many Studies have shown in my country of Australia that the 1996 gun ban had no or little effect on accelerating the already decreasing rate of violent crime and that crime decreased at the same or slower rate than before the gun ban. Also in 2012 violent crime rose 8-12% overall so the gun bad did nothing.
Some of us understand there is no debate, just a Right guaranteed by the Constitution
The problem is that the right to bear arms in the US, is in a different context than many other civilized countries. The US has large violent (must not be named) groups that commit a disproportionate amount of crime. These criminals have easy access to illegal weapons, and therefore there is no point in banning them. The law-abiding citizen is harmed by the prohibition. In the UK, however, the violent crime is not as bad(yet), and therefore makes more sense for prohibition.
Why would so many people disagree? I don't get it.
The guy saying cars are ok should know that cars kill children way more than guns. And both can be considered accidents.
What strikes me about the somewhat feverish heights of emotion to which this issue clearly rockets certain people, is this; the idea of a ‘threat’ appears to be extremely finite by definition. Most Americans allow their leaders of commerce and industry to shaft them senseless in the name of ‘the American dream’, indeed most of ‘em become positively misty eyed at the mere suggestion of apple pie etc.
The first guy seemed to imply that there was no game left in England due to hunting. Only someone that knows nothing about hunting would believe this.
2nd amendment=defence against tyranny. End of. Semi autos only killed 423 people last year, so it's hardly ever used on crimes
Why does Britain care so much about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Is it because they don't have one? No other country forced them to disarm their own citizens, they did it themselves.
Why does the rest of the world want to slice bits out of the U.S. Constitution?
If you don't like the way we do things, then don't come here, and stop sending your Piers Morgan's here as well.
The Hitchens clan is welcome any time though.
Factually accurate. I wouldn't expect anything less from Peter. If I recall correctly he also coined the phrase “ ..the political disarmament of the law abiding citizenry” in article I read some years back. How true!
As for Mr Self, perhaps somebody should tell him that the second amendment was not written for hunters. He should stick to moaning about 4x4 vehicles as he was way out of his depth here.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
it says it loud and clear.
His reasoning behind that is very simple: The purpose of the right to own a gun is to to preserve freedom, whereas the purpose of the right to take drugs is to pursue hedonistic self-pleasure, therefore the two are not parallels and belief in the freedom of one and not the other is not hypocritical.
What law abiding citizen would want a nuclear bomb? Who would want to spend a billion dollars on one? How many people have a billion dollars laying around? Not many..... If a gun goes off accidentally it would damage a wall, window or god forbid a person. If you accidentally or purposely set a nuclear bomb, everyone in your town or city will die. With a gun you have the chance of saving someone and defending yourself in home invasion.
My argument is actually sound despite the fact that i was arguing against a point you didn't make, me not reading your entire post in its entirety is what makes me look stupid. But on youtube that doesn't make me look stupid, its makes me look like everyone else.
People should have the right to defend themselves it's as simple as that. A person that doesn't have the right to defend themselves they are not free
WHAT IS THE MUSIC AT THE BEGINNING PLEASE!?
got it,, thanks
THEM please tell me!!
the very best - adani
The right to bear arms has little if anything to do with hunting. Are you kidding me?
37 people out of a billion plus not bad.what would the number be if everyone in china carried a gun like in the usa .
Mr Self needs to figure out a way to get to the point.
yet he wants to ban drugs, even though a lot of law abiding citizens use it medicinally and without causing harm???? Nope
we should all have the right to own and bear arms, I totally agree with what Peter Hitchens was saying, what gives our governments the right to assume my guilt and their inability to trust me! What about the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy target shooting? It is a skill and a sport, I also enjoy archery, the bow and arrow was in its time the most advanced killing weapon even designed. The mention of suicide in this debate is very misplaced and deserves a debate on that subject alone.
But they most likely don't and there are many options to prevent anyone getting in or even entering your garden.The sure thing is that with a gun some people will die and it could be an unannounced familly member or child in a precarious situation.The fear mongering in the media does not help and can cause unwarranted fear that leads to paranoia and needless actions which with guns are fatal.
I enjoyed all the speakers but I didn't like the format.
"The right to arm Bears!" love that Mr Will Self!💜
What are you talkin' about? No one was telling anyone what to do. The first person to stand up said it was aimed at both British and American viewers. This is a debate anyway, therefore it isn't strange at all.
This ought to have been at least an hour long.
You wont need to fight the entire military or the entire national guard. The thing is that the government would lose a lot of support for soldiers if they turned against the people. Soldiers have family and they will defend their family. Guns cause the government to garner a tremendous force to beat the people. If the people do not have guns the amount of soldiers needed drastically reduces, and the will to fight, for the people, also does.