Taking Aim at Gun Misconceptions | Grayson Lynch | TEDxUniversityofTulsa
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Grayson presents four of the most common misconceptions about guns, and argues that the correct way to deal with issues related to firearms is to have informed debates, not continually spread misinformation.
Grayson Lynch is a 22 year old business student at TU. He has had a lifelong love for guns. This passion for guns lead him to Murray State College in Tishomingo Oklahoma, where he earned an Associates degree in the Applied Science of Gunsmithing. Having formal training on gunsmithing theory, technology, and practices, he is passionate about stopping the spread of misinformation about firearms.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Guns are safe... people are ruthless.
So everybody even ruthless ones should have the right to own a firearm; maybe it should be a privilege.
@@MrPegasus9 Even if you didn't make it legal for ruthless ones ruthless ones can get them regardless. How do you think they get them? They steal them from gun stores.
@@1911GreaterThanALL I don't disagree with you but you have to start somewhere.
Except for the random guns that have gone off by themselves without the person pulling the trigger. Rare, but it has happened.
Dummycrats say, different
What part of shall not be infringed is so damn hard to understand
@Your Kidding Apparently your not one of them, considering you couldn't come up with any real argument so you went straight to the insults.
@Your Kidding You led with the insults, dont try to play the victim
well when 85 people are killed by a gun everyday in America maybe that right should be infringed
What part of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." don't you understand?
@@GuillermoLG552 The part where it says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
What is said here under most circumstances is correct with exception to brandishing. An unintentional showing of your firearm does not define brandishing. Brandishing is when an individual shows a firearm to another person in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner.
Basically pointing the muzzle in the general direction of the person. Aka Flagging
Finally, someone went on Ted to address this, too bad it's hardly viewed.
Literally everyone knows this stuff and I'm pro gun control.
This isn't a ted talk it's a patronising attempt at talking to gun control advocates like children.
@@tomwithey711 "literally everyone" knows this, except literally all of the American left, and basically everyone in Europe.
@@tomwithey711 That is because when you look at the gun control group they normally have no idea what they are talking about. We know this because they use made up terms like assault rifle or assault weapon, don't know the difference between guns and call to implement laws that already exist and already do not work.
Civilians may own Assault Rifles they must comply with the NFA of 1934 and the further amendment to the NFA in the form of the GCA of 1968.
THANK YOU!!!!! Dear lord I’ve been saying this forever.
yes but the HOOPS AND HOOPS you have to jump through is so much that its not worth it
@@Psychosurgeonpls
Completely agree, it should be as easy as any other weapon system. I can own a Gatling gun…why not full auto without the registration!
abolish the NFA
His audience is the non-gun person. While I understand and agree, the intended audience doesn't need the nuance. For the most part and for most intents and purposes, they (the fun guns) are illegal for a substantial number of people (think NY & CA) by law and many others by cost (there's a Thompson Submachine gun for $65,000 on auction right now).
People of the gun should try to teach others the basics. If I quote 24500 PC to someone, *I've lost them,* they think an AR has magical heat-seaking bullets that shoot 30 rounds per second from a 30 caliber magazine clip.
There is a law against making a law about carrying firearms it’s called the bill of rights.
Sandmanofamarillo I hate to say it but it does not. The 2nd amendment allows for civilians to own (not carry or use) guns up to military standards. Open carry is a privilege
Josh Jones what does bear mean?
Your Kidding yes. See hillsdale university for a complete breakdown of the founding fathers reasoning for the 2nd amendment. The few opposing of this objective topic are very ill-informed.
@@JonesFilms the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep and bear meaning own and carry.
That's not what 2 says. "Congress shall make no law" is 1A.
I was in the military for 26 years I would not want to have an AR 15 in combat I would rather have a fully automatic A.R. 15 but there is no such thing a fully automatic A.R. 15 is called an M4 rifle people need to get the terminology right and they are 15 it’s not the right weapon a have for a soldier. If you notice this picture which is my profile picture that is me in 1979 so yes I was in the army and I will dispute that with anybody
And by the way are used to teach soldiers how to use her weapons and firearm safety so I know what I’m talking about
the Colt/Armalite AR15 was fully automatic. it was sold to military and police as the AR15. My dads M16 was also stamped AR15 as they ran the same receivers.
"AR" or "AR15" today is used as a generalized term encompassing all stoner type AR15 based rifles. That is why the industry has really pushed the moniker "Modern Sporting Rifle".
But there are plenty of registered FA AR15s they were in production for almost 30 years before the 86 FOPA. Furthermore any AR on the market today can be legally converted to FA with a RDIAS and/or lighting link.
AR with an m203 or shotgun attached.
Your Kidding stand in front of me with a weopon and threaten me. You’ll figure out if it’s a toy or not.
@@krrrruptidsoless don't forget about the AR with the chainsaw bayonet
"Assault weapons" are defined however the particular state defines them...I don't know of any states that use the military definition at all. Regardless, citizens CAN own "assault weapons" (automatic rifles like the M16) depending on the state they live in. There are heavy federal restrictions, but there is NOT an outright ban.
The act of 1986 did not ban civilians from owning military-defined "assault rifles". It said that they could not purchase any new ones made after 1986. If the gun predates 1986, and there is no state restriction, fully automatic guns can be (and are) privately owned, traded, and used still today.
Also no new ones get made so they are expensive. There is a 200 dollar tax stamp. Two forms must be sent with fingerprints and signatures from cops / federal gun dealers to the federal government. There is a 6 month waiting period.
yes but they are very hard to get and incredibly expensive. almost no one owns them
The M16 is not a fully automatic rifle. It is a select-fire rifle.
No, assault weapon is a political term used to demonize semi automatic rifles in prog commie states.
@@tzipporahv3619 originally it was fully auto. They switched it to select after realizing that spray and pray wasn't as efficient as aiming.
A short barrel rifle is a carbine... And then even smaller is a pistol simple. Not sure of the technical specs. And the you have it wrong you can own an automatic but you have a type 3 license, $200 tax and an expensive weapon to boot. The was only 1 real assault rifle and that was the German STG 44. Sturmgewehr 44. Which directly translates to Assault Rifle made in 1944. It fired a 7.93x33. Cartridge. This rifle inspired the AK-47 or Avtomat Kalashnikova 1947. Unlike Heavy gun (artillery) and Planes, gun often get an abbreviation of the inventor/manufacturer of the firearm and a year or sequential number. The AR-15 is put into to weapons we know today, the M-4 (police/swat) and the M-16 (Military). But people often forget the M1 Garand, M1A1 Carbine, M1903 springfield sniper rifle, the K98 (German Rifle), Moss Nagat (Russian Bolt-Action Sniper rifle used to re take Stalingrad. The problem I see most often with Gun Control advocates, seems to be miss-information, or lack of education.
he seems really damn nervous
Because hes talking to sheep
He probably was unsure how people would react to his talk. Also talking to customers at gun shows is so much different than talking to a quiet audience. I can only imagine what's going through his mind.
@@Joe-yr1em Naw... he's wrong.
Militia is "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency:"
Current US gun law has nothing to do with a well regulated militia. This kid believes the lies he's spreading. Corporation don't care about making their product better. They care about "sales", and work with planned obsolescence.
He is speaking in public which isn’t an easy thing to do. I feel criticizing this is what discourages others from public speaking.
That was informative. As a Canadian, I never quite understood U.S. gunlaws. This dude did a great job.
Thats bc Canadians are actually worth about 71% of an American.
He did, but left out a huge issue, “Well regulated militia.” Not his fault, he only has a short amount of time to talk.
If you think that video was "informative" .. in any sort of practical manner .. I've some great real estate opportunities for my Canadian friend in Florida, down here in 'Merica!
@@13tredekka lived there, done that. Florida's not for me.
Most people barely do, Even some of the gun enthusiasts
Thank you
The 150 in f150 is for pay load not the model... I love gunzzzzzz
Yeah that wasn't the best comparison.
But what he meant that like the 150 in F150, the 15 in AR15 doesn't mean anything in specific. It designates a class of payload/towing, not that it can haul 150 or tow 150 of anything.
16", not 16 1/2"
"Guns don't kill by themselves"
See Remington
Word
"in short civilians are not allowed to own assault rifles"
not true, and he left out the part that all pre may 1986 machineguns that were already registered are still transferable.
Exactly
Yeah, but not your average citizen can afford the outrageous price tag on them.
Zach Carr that’s point they don’t wanna the average blue collar man being able to have arms that would be effective
I think he meant any civilian. You can own a automatic weapon if you get an automatic weapons permit
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.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Go read all of it not just what suits you.
@@aidankennedy6330 thats the entire text of the second amendment
"A well regulated militia"
@@jakevancecastaneda3748 What it means:
Because we need a well regulated militia, a standing army, something that the colonists rebelled against (see 3rd Amendment), to protect the new nation against external threats (of which there were many) the right of the people (note that it is not the right of the militia) to keep (to own) and bear (to carry) arms.... shall not be infringed.
@@jakevancecastaneda3748 Yes, well regulated. If you look at other texts from the period, you'll see that the phrase, "well regulated", meant "in good working order". It did not mean "big, potentially tyrranical government can legislate a right".
What a good point
The presenter seemed quite nervous and hesitant. TED presentations, especially controversial subjects, really need to be delivered with confidence and utilizing very professional aspects of delivery and public speaking. Having said that, I commend the speaker for tackling a controversial subject likely with an unsympathetic audience in front of him.
God given rights allow you to protect yourself which means that any weapon any opponent can bring towards you you are allowed to own yourself
No, it actually says to turn the other cheek in the bible like Jesus. Don't lie about your book now bud
@@Kamingo170 Who said that their god is the Christian one? The right to self defense is sanctified by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, among others. He's not lying about a book, you're lying (or mistaken in your assumptions) about what their comment actually said. Have a good day.
@@Kamingo170 You don't understand the full context behind turn the other cheek.
After the first sentence, I tuned out
I think he could possibly be a fudd
Only thing worse than a Boomer Fudd, is a Millienal Fudd.
Oh yes
The ATF is watching!
Thank you and good luck with your instituting.
Civilians can own assault rifles or any other machine gun. It has to be a pre-1986 transferable, you have to submit passport photos, fingerprints and pay a $200 tax for a National Firearms Act tax stamp, complete an ATF form 4 and submit to a background check. Once that's done, you can take your machine gun home. Same thing with suppressors, SBRs and SBSs. Or you can manufacture them yourself on a form 1. But if you try to form 1 a machine gun, the ATF will just refuse your money and refuse to give you a tax stamp, even though the courts have said that there is no legal reason you cannot form 1 your own machine gun. Probably the first and only time in US history where the government refused to take extra tax money. I'd also point out that the courts have also said it is unconstitutional to impose a tax on a constitutional right....
The background check takes about a year, you can't just buy one and take it home. Besides, even the cheapest ones cost tens of thousands of dollars.
yessir! I'm boutta kill that debate in class tomororow.
Be a gunsmith and make your own Auto.
And that includes sound suppressers.
Good and cogent explanation of some misconceptions.
Some misinformation in this but good overall.
So confused, but I can tell the room is dead silent...no laughing matter
Jesse Ortega
What are you confused about?
Class III weapons are NOT illegal but they must have been manufactured prior to May of 1986(Reagan)as well as a Class III license must be obtained w/permission from you're local chief of police w/a 8-10 month wait/BG check and $200.00 tax fee submitted w/application!
"Shall not be infringed"
infringement means. the action of limiting or undermining something
What do you mean by limiting?
serving to restrict or restrain; restrictive; confining. Grammar. of the nature of a limiting adjective or a restrictive clause.
What do you mean by restrict?
put a limit on; keep under control.
What does it mean to regulate?
under the control of authority. : to make rules or laws that control (something).
It's unconstitutional for the government to regulate firearms
I done this in response to Sheila Jackson Lee statement: "nothing in the Second Amendment says we cannot regulate"
Absolutely
Actually, it is unconstitutional NOT to regulate the ownership of firearms.
@@MJB0625 how did you arrive to that conclusion?
@@MJB0625 The Second Amendment doesn't give the right it recognizes a natural right. And the Constitution is a guideline for what the government can and cannot do not what people can do.
Any existing constitutional amendment can be repealed but only by the ratification of another amendment. Because repealing amendments must be proposed and ratified by one of the same two methods of regular amendments, they are very rare.
In the history of the United States, only one constitutional amendment has been repealed. In 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment-better known as “prohibition”-banning the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
So if they want to pass laws that infringed upon the rights that are protected by the constitution. They would have too rewrite it in order too do so. And I ask this question why has no one proposed something to replace it if you want to have gun control? Because as of right now its unconstitutional to regulate civilians firearms. Here's why
(A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State,) that's a statement for one that is emphasizing the importance of one and well regulated at the time basically meant well maintained
Maintained: 1 to keep in existence or continuance; preserve; retain
2 to keep in an appropriate condition, operation, or force; keep unimpaired:
Regulate: in a 1755 dictionary
1 To adjust by rule or method. 2 to direct
And the first definition when Googled: 1 control or maintain (the rate or speed of a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
(the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed)
it specifically points out the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
And
"Shall not be infringed" as stated in my original comment.
The state and now the federal government can regulate/maintain the militia but not the citizens firearms.
"Well regulated militia". Militia (definition): a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency:
Please go understand history and words. Current US gun ideology is a fraud committed by the NRA.
Most people in the USA don't understand their own history, government, or constitution. Apparently you're one of them.
Only 13 thousand views. What a shame.
Yeah, honestly I wish more people would watch this
@@yuhboijosiah8083 people are so uneducated and they want to be right. They dont care about facts and just want to be happy. Sheep. Be prepared Josiah. The world might end soon.
@@bradleysmith4630 You never know Bradley, you never know
@@yuhboijosiah8083 I'm leaning towards it.
Wow you read it said and missed the part that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms
If somebody asks you what an "Assault Rifle/Weapon" is, it is because they want to know what side of the gun control debate you are on. Grayson is technically correct, but misses the point that dictionaries will have two definitions, the second one is commonly used to refer to military style semi-automatic rifles. Gun Proponents will use this ambiguity to belittle their opponent in a debate.
Incorrect. The M4/M16 (military) do have three settings on the safety selector switch; safe, fire, and auto. The auto is not automatic it is a three round burst for every trigger pull. Automatic is when the firearm fires continuously so long as you continue to hold the trigger down and you don't run out of ammunition.
@@owenflorence9588 true. I do apologise I was referring to models currently in use. I.e last 30 years
@ProgramKing true but that's typically only use in Special Operations not line units. Most are single or burst. I have been out for a while so I guess I can't talk on the subject because I don't know what is currently in use. Either way semi auto is more effective
(The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.
Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:
The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong.
The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners.
The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.)
I’m just going to leave this here:
The M16 was based off the AR-15, so the AR-15 isn’t a military style gun, the M16 is a civilian styled gun....
No, see during testing phase for America's next assault rifle Armalite came up with the AR-15 (select-fire assault rifle) and when it was adopted by the military they got rid of the company's name and gave it the military designation M-16. Later on Colt bought Armalite and created a civilian version of the M-16 for sport shooting in semi-automatic with a 5 round magazine that they branded the Colt AR-15. As said in the video, the AR-15 is an M-16 inspired semi automatic rifle.
@Paladin JN01 civilian use came later. The AR-15 was adopted and turned into the M-16 and when Colt bough Armalite they designed a civilian semi automatic line of rifles intended for sporting use that they named the Colt AR-15
@Paladin JN01 I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything. Just, from what I can tell, the civilian sector AR-15 came after the military AR-15 (which adopted the military designation of M-16) so it's a civilian rifle copying the look of the M-16, not the other way around.
@Paladin JN01 I am pro-gun. Its an odd thing for me to say honestly because its basically saying yes I support the US Constitution 😅😅. We should probably all be pro gun to some degree if we value our liberty.
@Paladin JN01 definitely not NRA-fudd. I am pro-gun to the point where I do not sugar coat something that is our right as Americans. The right to bear arms is to defend the free state against an overreaching government; not for hunting, and while I am ok with those who committed violent crimes or are not mentally healthy being denied the right to own firearms, I think every other able bodied American should be allowed to own a firearm.
based
Pretty sure assault rifles also have a setting for burst fire, which is 3 rounds per trigger pull.
This is wrong. While a burst shot or ‘burst fire’ as you called it is something the military uses it is absolutely not something a civilian has.
some do, some don't and it's not always 3, sometimes it's just 2. more than 1 round is no longer semiautomatic anyway
@@thebigragu9952 No it is not wrong. It is the military classification of an assault rifle (one that has select fire either in bursts or fully automatic.) Civilian semi auto version that fire as fast as you can pull the trigger do not fit the military classification and have always been sold to the civilian market.
@@robo2901 2020 called it wants its response back
This must be aimed at a younger audience
Lol, aimed…..
He is wrong about Civilians not being able to own Assault Rifles, but he contradicts himself by later saying they have been regulated since the 1950's. Regulated...not banned.
@Paladin JN01 not according to the constitution or the supreme court.
@@callsignjoker2686 the founding fathers and every constitutional scholar disagree with you.
@@callsignjoker2686 the 2nd amendment was never about self defense. It was always about the defense of the state using a militia. You're conflating two separate arguments.
@@callsignjoker2686 negative. The militia is an organized fighting force with state appointed officers, comprised of the people, to put down insurrections, rebellions and defend the state and country. If it was to fight against a tyrannical federal government than why would the constitution give congress the power to call forth the militia. Anyway, this is all mute as the reason for the militia has been gone for well over 100 years with the federalizing that resulted in the National Guard and the increase in size of the standing military.
@@callsignjoker2686 right...in order to form well regulated militias in which the states would appoint the officers and oversee the training. Why do you think so many of the founders referred to untrained militias as basically an armed mob and on numerous times called up trained state militias to break them up and confiscate their firearms. We can go in a circle all you want, but the history is clear here. It wasnt even until recently that the supreme court (stacked with radical judges brought up under the NRA's radical interpretation of the 2nd amendment) that they even say that there is some individual right to self defense within the 2nd amendment. And a weak ruling it was leaving much open to lower courts for interpretation.
There's so many misconceptions in this talk. He could've done a far better research in particular in the legal part.
Several misquotes or misspoken ideas thrown out to the uninformed. The first misquote was the term "legal" weapon. The second ammendment was quite focused to use the word arms. Arms is intentionally kept general(not vague) in the second ammendment. Please understand that many things become arms to combat tyranny. As a US Citizen you can keep and bear any and all arms, so dont let the tyranical bastards keep them from you. Legal arms is an infringement. It is a made up label. Dont chain you own freedom!
16 and 1/2 inch rifle barrel? Huh? Gunsmith? I don't think so.
16" for the total barrel length is a minimum, so 16.5 is including other pieces that are included in barrel length total. Yeah, hes a gunsmith. Hes using the legal technical term for the entire barrel apparatus, as in, not just the tube at the end.
I feel like this guy just learned everything he knows about firearms and the law from reading a Wikipedia article about an hour before he spoke.
"Why would any company want to make a product that is unsafe...?" *cough cough* Philip Morris International *cough cough* British American Tobacco.
@Billy Bob yeah I see it a much larger problem.
And they're paying heavily for that, aren't they?
So his point stands.
@@paolung But they still operate (quite profitably btw) and they still continue making the same products.
unless they have a class 3 license
His premise is flawed. Tobacco, GM, EXXON, Dupont, 3M all make products that are knowingly dangerous. Also Winchester arms has several outstanding recalls regaurding thier 870 shotgun
So should we outlaw lettuce because it has been recalled?
Guns are safe because Samsung phones get on fire. Blunt logical fallacy.
So much cringe
When you can't win the statistics debate on gun deaths (i.e. # of guns are directly related to larger amounts of homicides, suicides, and mass killings), switch the subject or debate to a subject you can win, "gun safety". Lol!
Really would of been nice to have someone speaking who's actually had some "life experience" with this topic to "convey knowledge", & "security conveyed" in the knowledge that he knows what he's talking about . This guy is way too young to convince the audience that he's had plenty of life experience connected with this topic to put them at ease to listen to the knowledge offered.
To me this information was really not useful. I’m still against the right to own a gun.
1:15 he’s talking about more advanced safety mechanisms, but gun manufacturers are using them and are actively fighting making them necessary. It’s an example of here’s what you want to hear statement that has no accuracy to what’s actually happening
safe = not deadly...
+khyre Edwards - Cars are deadly, knives are deadly, chainsaws are deadly, swimming pools are deadly, aspirin is deadly. Your statement is simply hoplophobic.
A tool is considered safe so long as it does not malfunction in such a way as to spontaneously result in the injury of the user or bystanders. By that standard, which is applied to any other tool in common usage, firearms are safe.
On the rare occasion, a design flaw is discovered in a firearm, just like in cars. If that flaw in the design of a firearm is discovered to either result in unintended discharge or the failure to discharge when properly operated, only then is the firearm considered unsafe per the standards for any other tool.
Unlike with cars, firearms manufacturers respond with dizzying speed to notify customers that a design flaw has been discovered. A couple of years ago, Springfield Armory discovered that one model resulted in three unintended discharges (of the hundreds of thousands of units sold). They immediately stopped all production on that model. They informed all retailers to stop selling that model. They contacted every single purchaser who registered the purchase with the company. They issued press releases to ensure that all potentially impacted customers were notified of the flaw. Springfield halted production and sales for three months as they focused on a redesign. They then refitted each firearm which had been returned for repair by end customers FIRST, then refitted all inventory returned from retail distribution, and only then resumed production.
Cars result in the injury and death of far more people due to malfunction than do firearms. Cars result in the injury and death of far more people due to recklessness, negligence and criminality than do firearms. I'll step out on a ledge and guess that you consider them safe, and even safe enough to carry the people you care for.
Michael Hendricks None of those things have the primary purpose of killing people. All of these things have regulations, all have immediate recalls and changes when the public finds out that they are causing deaths and injuries. Toyota recalled and fixed thousands of cars because a few may have been broken. Aspirin has child safety locks, warnings, and a poison control number on the bottle. ( maybe the NRA can stop fighting laws that mandate safe storage in locked containers, and inform the public of dangerous gun practices like Tylenol has to for Aspirin.
A guns only purpose is to kill things so it cannot in any universe be called safe. We could have "safer" ( less lethal) guns. Smaller bullet capacities, ban lead bullets, make them "smart", limited access, registered, etc. But for some reason people do not want them to be safe
khyre Edwards In every single case of accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm the stats have been less and less per year. Please research it on your own. You state that none of the things mentioned were made to kill. Let me ask you, which one of those same things save 250,000 to 2.5 million people a year from violent crime?
khyre Edwards with more gun then there are people in this country why does the murder rate keep going down? The arguments continue to be between actual gun owners that respect and know proper use and safety of the tool, and the uninformed anti gun person repeating talking points. Point to a single gun control law that reduced crime.
The assault weapons ban decreased gun violence. Laws that ban sells of fire arms to domestic abusers reduce violence. Laws banning automatic weapons reduced the crime rate. I don't think you thought your comment through, it was very broad and open ended, is your argument really that there has never been a single gun law that has reduced crime? Laws limiting a felon from owning a firearm has lowered the crime rate. Laws banning guns from public places have reduced the murder rate. Laws requiring a background check reduces the crime rate. The crime rate going down over time is the result of several factors, some of which are more laws. Some of it is a result of changing norms - such as it is no longer thought to be okay to have family picnics at a lynching. Some of it may be a reduction in use of lead in homes. Some of it may be due to the fact that it is much easier to be caught, we have a 70% clearance rate for murder rather than a 35% - 50 %. There is also the possibility that we are not counting all murders - police officers kill people but those are not counted, the military kills people and those also do not count. Maybe the violence has simply shifted.
the answer to assault rifles/semi automatic's is simple. Permit's and a set magazine capacity limit as well as the same thing with hand guns want a high capacity mag? keep them locked up at gun clubs or make them title 2 items. behold a majority of mass shooting are cut in half and fire arm enthusiasts can keep collecting and shooting them.
I'll keep my guns how I want thanks.
you say that now till dems take over in november and decide to enforce there way of thinking which will most likely be a ban
How does mag caps protect anyone? In Canada their handguns are capped at 10 rounds but criminals don't care, all they have to do is remove a pin. Also what is high capacity? It is very subjective as its up to someone to decide and could mean something completely different to someone else. If guns had to be locked up at clubs it creates a one stop shop for thief's, police forces have had their firearms stole when in storage so what makes you think that storing them at a range will prevent anything?
tell me why a semi automatic rifle needs 30 rounds over ten-five also tell me how gun crime is in canada
A semi-automatic rifle doesn't need anything as its a object not a living creature. Its not a matter of need, I don't need a lot of things in life. Where i draw the line is if my want is hurting someone. It doesn't matter if a mag is capped at 10 or 5 because that mag is normally a 30 round mag that is capped to that amount of rounds, all a criminal needs to do is remove that pin and its not as if its hard to make mags as well as anyone who has access to a 3D printer could print a 30 round AR-15 mag. Gun crime, gun homicide and gun suicides in Canada is following the same trends around the western world their in decline, currently America is in the lead for the fastest rate of decline when adjusted for every 100,000 people.
The right to bear arms and use them stupidly
Well, you can't ban stupidity.
Ask yourself this. If you were a beat cop who was the first responder to an active shooter situation, which would you rather have to deal with: a crazy guy with a pistol that is only accurate at short range, with an ammo capacity of six rounds or a crazy guy with a semi-automatic civilianized assault rifle with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds that can quickly be replaced with another, and another, and another and so on, that is accurate up to a few hundred yards?
Let's keep in mind that the mass-shooter is occupied with, hmm I don't know, maybe mass-shooting?
I can have my semi automatic pistol hold 60 rounds
a pistol can hold as many ammunitions as a rifle. you just don't know anything about gun.
I probably knew about them before you were born, jackass.
If there's a mass shooter with an ar15 , I want to fight on the same level as a civilian. I also carry a handgun everywhere I go.
That is without a doubt the worst ted talk I've seen in my life...
SAFE. He starts with a lie. Definition of Safe, free from harm or risk. The number one and sole purpose of a gun is to cause harm.
Depends on what you're doing with it. I know plenty of people who shoot firearms for competition and sport. I know plenty more that hunt with them. I carry one everyday and I've used mine in self defense.
Hmm. So, by that argument, all baseball bats are made to kill. After all, they're just clubs, and clubs are designed to be weapons.
Yeah we should ban knives! Knives are made to do damage... we just don’t specify what
Things that aren't safe based on this definition alone: Cars, tools (both power and non), chairs, pillows, forks, phones, cups, super glue, computers, ceiling fans, parking meters, televisions, RC cars, a roll of toilet paper, I mean in all reality, it's everything. Everything is unsafe.
Christopher Lorentz everything is an assault weapon if you try hard enough
...las vegas cough cough you can use any rifle, semi auto , full auto, single shot, bolt action, blunderbuss, or flintlock, and you can still assault anyone, anywhere. worst ted talk ever
A Chaps damn right!
You can use trucks, bombs, knives.. you missed the point of the video. He’s just trying to informed the misinformed. These are common misconceptions perpetrated by the media and movies.
And that doesn't make it an assault rifle. Assault Rifle is a specific class of weapon. :v
Las Vegas was a fake there was no muzzle fire from any windows,yet there were flashes from different points in the sky surrounding the building.