Would More Gun Control Lead to More Crime? A Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 сен 2018
- Does defensive gun use stop crime? Would more gun control save lives? Those were the topics of a public debate recently hosted by the Soho Forum, featuring Gary Kleck, a criminologist from Florida State University, and Paul Helmke, the former president and CEO of the Brady Center/Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence as well as the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana.
_____
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magaz. .
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
______
Kleck argued that there are at least four times as many defensive gun uses by potential victims as there are by criminals, and that new gun controls would reduce the defensive uses far more than the criminal ones. Helmke questioned Kleck's take on the data.
The debate was held on September 13, 2018, at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated. Comedian Dave Smith, host of the podcast Part of the Problem, was the opening act.
The full resolution read: While laws that prohibit gun ownership would reduce crimes perpetrated by criminals, that benefit would be more than offset by the foregone opportunities for defensive gun use by victims of crime.
It was an Oxford-style debate in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Kleck, arguing the affirmative, prevailed by convincing about six percent of audience members to change their minds.
All Soho Forums are turned into Reason videos and podcasts. Go here for a full archive.
Kleck's research has focused on the impact of firearms and gun control on violence, deterrence, and crime control. He is the author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, which won the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology. He also wrote Targeting Guns (1997) and, with Don B. Kates, Jr., The Great American Gun Debate (1997) and Armed (2001), and, with Brion Sever, Punishment and Crime (2017).
Helmke is a professor of practice at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and he is the founding director of the Civic Leaders Living-Learning Center in Bloomington, IN.
Edited by Todd Krainin.
"Modum" by Kai Engle is licensed under a CC-BY creative commons license.
Fun fact: The state has no obligation to protect the individual. I'll hang on to my guns thank you.
All the usual arguments, however Gary did a great job of debunking the Brady anti gun stats. Also amazed at the number of pro gun questioners at this NYC debate. Thanks Reason for putting this on your channel.
Debate starts at 16:40.
Yeah but dave smith was funny
Ouch! He dismantled the entire anti gun debate in under 3 minutes lmao
I don't know about crime rates going up, but *PERSONAL LIBERTY* rates will plumit O_o
this
-Drug war,
-the right to self defense,
-illegal wire tapping,
- unreasonable search and seizures,
- ability to check your data without warrants
- laws such as cannot film physical abuse, violence and activity in agriculture industry such as the treatment of pigs. Chickens and cows and how they process our meat.
- the right to self organize and form unions without retaliation,
- most private companies now force arbitration laws.
You are right, the ONLY statistics never argued is the reduction of true liberty and freedom. That's way down!
Sad, regardless of your political stance of both right and left, true freedom and even proper capitalism such as anti trust laws and using legal services as an employee are all to shit. But hey it's an oligarchy now so. Government and big business are now in it together and is 1 entity not separate
This should be titled "Gun control advocate destroyed in debate"
But MAN did he have SO MUCH MORE talking time. One guy is "the stats say this" and the other guys says "I've seen different stats and dont care even if your stats are correct"
Just what we need more of.
RUclips captions that say person a DESTROYS person Y
Or person x EMBRASSES person y
Person X "INSERT A WORD IN CAPITAL LETTERE" person y.
TYT does a great job at this there class a professionals
More like “gun control advocate talks about his feelings”
Look at the words through the lens of the time, place and situation within which they were written.
"well-regulated": to maintain according to a set of standards so that something operates or functions properly (such as with a machine or a process). It literally refers to the regularization and maintenance of equipment being used and proper training for tactics being employed, and it has nothing to do with any sort of government regulation.
"Militia": from the Latin term "militium vulgarum," which literally means "like the military, everywhere," or in other words, "capability commensurate to a military, which is present everywhere, or distributed throughout a population." A Militia is a de-centralized, distributed force of armed individuals who maintain weapons and tactics similar to a military force, but unlike a standing military, are not centrally controlled or directed by a government. The Militia is not the military, nor is it a standing army; it is individuals.
That's why many of the more active militias have been labeled domestic terrorists organizations in the last 30 years. Can't have people with guns become organized, unless they are funded by the government that is.
I'm a militia!
ImNotJoshPotter You're goddamn right you are.
You are a militia, but you are not Josh Potter.
James Madison, one of the writers of the second amendment, even stated that the militia is the people. Not government, not military, not police, the people.
He talks about suicides and homicides by gun as costs but this begs the question what happens to suicides and homicide rates if you take guns out of the equation? There is a reason they don't talk about this, because the answer is nothing. Statistics in other countries before and after gun control show virtually no change in suicide and homicide rates. Another thing they don't talk about is that crime rates in general rise significantly after gun control - there is no upside to gun control - none.
more people jumping off of buildings??
Japan's suicide rate discredits gun control.
Benjamin Burkhardt they can but it’s an easier way out yeah? There’s set up time for most others, and generally the longer it takes the more time they get to reconsider
Beo..
Those numbers mean nothing as the US has a much higher population than the UK.
Do one with the *PERCENTAGE* of Murders done by *LEGAL* Gun Ownwers and you will see that you are much safer here in the states *WITH A GUN,* than any other part of the world, with no gun ;-)
@Beobachter Do you know how big the UK really is?
"Counts saying I've got a gun, counts just showing a gun" - does he realise this is an argument as to just how effective having a gun for self-defence really is? That it can prevent you from being a victum of crime and you don't have to shoot it or may not even have to show it. This just shows you this fellow doesn't give a lot of thought to what he is saying.
This debate was kind of boring. Mr. Helmke did not seemed prepared enough to refute Kleck’s stats and only rely on his stats which Kleck refuted quite handily I think. But to give credit where credit is due Helmke and Kleck were gracious and the debate was not a shouting match which too many tribalists tend to do.
Of course defensive gun use will often not involve brandishing or pointing. You don't point a gun unless you intend to fire it, so the fact that it doesn't even come to that 50% of the time is a very good thing. "I've got it. I don't want to use it. Leave immediately."
If we didn't have so many guns we wouldn't have so many gun homicides. The carefully worded language is so sickening. Yes, gun homicides would go down, but would homicides as a whole go down? Statistics from other countries prove that, no, they would not. So the result of gun control would be the following. Congrats, gun homicides are practically nonexistant, but homicides are at the same level they were before and now people can't actually defend themselves so crime vicitimization is up.
He admits he doesn't do any research. Too bad he doesn't otherwise he would know what a joke his 21 times more likely statistic really is. That couldn't be more false if he just pulled that one out of his... right on stage!
1:00:00 The irony to that statement is that just within this year there was a DGU in which a Texan used an AK to defend against 5 assailants.
51:25 there's literally a video of a guy testifying to congress about protecting his store during the LA riots with one of those guns
Former Fort Wayne resident, and I cringed just seeing Helmke's pic. Unfortunately, the masses keep electing those of his ilk.
The question should be: does the state have any ethical right to enforce the ban for guns? If it has - on the base of what philosophy?
Does the state have any ethical right to not allow you to have nuclear weapons?
Machine guns? Rocket launchers? Chemical Weapons? Homemade explosives?
If you say it’s ok for the state to impose bans on those, then I don’t know how you can draw the line at a certain arm or weapon - and say it then becomes unethical.
On top of that, if we’re talking about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, i.e. Being able to defend ourselves if the state should become tyrannical; In that regard, the 2nd Amendment is basically useless. If the state became tyrannical tomorrow, there is not a thing we could do to stop it. A rifle and a few semiautomatic handguns is not gonna stop an Army with tanks, helicopters, missiles, machine guns, WMDs, unlimited ammunition, unlimited resources and unlimited power.
The fact that we would be incapable of defending ourselves from state tyranny is exactly why the argument for the 2nd Amendment needs to stop being peddled. It’s actually doing us a disservice because we’re not thinking about better solutions for that kind of scenario.
People that love guns or who are so worried about state power don’t seem to mind that the government was caught illegally spying on us, in a way that was the definition of tyranny and the antithesis of “Constitutional”. What have we done about it? I think that’s far more disturbing than the state banning guns.
Again, it goes to my point; we currently have no solution for what to do about the state becoming tyrannical. Which is why we need to stop thinking guns will save us, and start thinking of realistic options.
@mr fluffy g Why does that matter with regards to whether the state should be allowed to ban people from having them?
@mr fluffy g So you think everyone should be allowed to have machine guns, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons?
I hid all my guns the government won’t ever find them
You mean you lost them in a boating accident right?
@1:00:00 We aren't "mixing different things" when all those things would be impossible if guns were outlawed. 🙄
Paul Helmke made some of the most obvious appeals to emotion, evasions, misrepresentations, and straw men I've seen so far. Its almost like he knows he's avoiding the Brady Campaign's actual goals.
For all his talk of wanting to reduce gun violence, he offered literally zero substantive policy positions that will actually reduce violence.
Make Peace with a SAA Peacemaker.
"I haven't done the research"
Here are some stats
Two weeks ago, scotus ruled that you do have a right to carry a concealed gun. 4 years later. Fuck yeah!
Every gun law is an infringement
Including the ones that say violent repeat felons shouldn't have access to guns?
If they are dangerous, they should be in prison. Outside of prison, they have access to guns no matter what you say.
Preventing ALL former felons from having guns is bullshit.
@@MilwaukeeF40C
I only agree partially cause some felony charges are non violent drug offenders....so that's an exception I agree.
But if your a violent offender even after prison i would suggest like a 5-10 year ban on firearms. Just because u got released from prison the reciticism rate is not good cause we dont rehabilitate
So they have to prove they are fully integrated peacefully within society. Saying violent offenders can access firearms ASAP Is also not rational.
The ones that will use them for dumb shit get them anyway.
thank you for posting this - much appreciated
This was the first soho forum debate that I listened to. Literally listen in podcast, rather than watch. That introduced me to all the great debates organized by soho forum. Thank you so mucho for that.
I was at this debate! I'm normally much more pro-gun than I am pro gun-regulation but I have to admit that Paul was a much better debater and was probably the nicest, and least hysterical, gun-legislation advocate that I've ever seen speak. I wish issues could be discussed like this more often. Great event. Especially the food and beer!
I think a round table debate with 3 proponents and 3 detractors needs to be revisited and one of the proponents I would choose is Colion Noir.
We don't have more homicides than other countries... Brazil makes the US look like a utopia. I really don't think we will see progress in this debate as long as the left continues to cherry pick evidence that supports their narrative. I've looked at both sides, and I've tried to theorize how things would go in the case of a full prohibition of guns, but I find myself still airing on the side of the Lockean right of self preservation being of utmost importance, alongside the fact that you cannot legislate good behavior.
Bro, you’re comparing one of the richest, most advanced, most progressive countries in the world ... to one of the most impoverished, most crime-ridden places on the face of the Earth.
Look at the rates of homicide/gun violence in well developed countries compared to America’s.
Great debate
He says no one wants to get rid of guns, then provides a laundry lists of problems which might only be solved by getting rid of guns.
When the argument is made for someone not carrying as a college student or a teacher carrying because the need to secure a firearm in the location they are at. Most people don't take thier guns on and off throughout a day, going building to building. Why not just do what every single other person who concealed carry's every day. Put the gun in a holster and wear it discreetly, like millions of people are doing right now, and most who don't carry will never have a clue that person is carrying .
Worried the standard holster isn't enough, holsters used by cops etc. Called level 2 or 3 retention holster that has a locking mechanism to prevent the gun from coming out of the holster without pressing a tab or removing a strap. These absolutely work for keeping a gun secure on body.
Also what is the difference between a school resource officer or police officer compared to the average person who carrys besides being in uniform making you a more likely target by an active shooter? Practice.... That's it. Many cops and SROs have 2 weeks of firearms training in the academy, and have to qualify by hitting a target X amount of times, one time a year.
Depending on the department policy many officers aren't mandated to shoot a certain amount of rounds per month, many do. But plenty of CCW holders and average gun owners shoot just as much as these officers, if not more.
Many people who carry are also doing more advanced firearms training, more recently I'm seeing more CCW holders carrying medical basics like tourniquets and gloves as well as thier firearms. These are people who hope they never need any of that stuff, the same way we never hope to a need our air bags, smoke alarms or fire extinguishers in our lives, but we wouldn't want those things to not be there when we needed them.
Very well put
I'd just like to point out that even the premise of the debate is heavily slanted toward the anti-gun platform, and I would go so far as to say it's a FALSE PREMISE: While laws that prohibit gun ownership would reduce crimes perpetrated by criminals, that benefit would be more than offset by the foregone opportunities for defensive gun use by victims of crime.
It has NEVER been proven that prohibition of ANY kind has ever reduced crime. When there are literally half a dozen other methods of getting a firearm that don't require a background check ... the background check is, by definition, an impotent measure.
That said, even though the premise of the debate is slanted toward the anti side, the pro-firearm side is clearly the winner.
In the Federalist papers number 46 the argument is made that the second amendment is to prevent tyrannical government. Gun grabbers like to parse the second amendment but missed something important. It does not say it necessary to the security of THE state it says a FREE state.
My CHP form didn’t have a spot for “how many guns do you have”. It’s meaningless for the mayors argument
"Blaming guns is like blaming the spoon that got Oprah fat" - Katie Hopkins
That is golden. And valid.
Wow, this guy admitts he doesn't do any research and is not the expert but has no problem spouting out information he admits he is unqualified to know whether it is false information. I don't know all these things, but listen to me, really?
Starts at 17:20
Yes
The affect on crime is not really relevant either way. Guns aren't there to prevent crime, the second amendment doesn't say anything about crime. The purpose of firearms is to give people effective means to resist violence.
Opening argument 17:30 - 25:55
A few points to bring up that are missed in this debate is when they say homicide they aren't making the point that self defense shootings resulting in the death of the attacker, which would be justifiable homicide, this also doesn't differentiate between criminal homicide or police or armed security using force in a justifiable homocide.
When talking about universal background checks, we already have background checks for all FFL dealers (gun store, gun show, etc) anyone who is buying a legal gun from a gun shop or show a ATF 4473 NICS check is done. OR. In states that allow it you can use your liscence to carry to buy a firearm because the permit and matching ID shows they have already been NICS checked as well as state checked.
On the note of magazine capacity, NJ state police showed a magazine change only takes about 2 seconds, that's not going to give you time to stop a bad guy. Another factor to consider is the use of all rifles makes up less than 3% of gun crime, not just modern sporting rifles, (AR15 - AR 10 etc.)
With magazine capacity that's also not talked about is the shooter in Florida used 10 round magazines not evil standard capacity mags.
Final point on gun crime that's was sort of addressed is the deaths of 15 year Olds being higher than other places, I'm going to guess these extremely high numbers happen in areas that have large amounts of gang activities, street dealing and many times kids 15 and under are given the guns to carry as well as drugs because if they get caught the charges are minor compared to an adult with a record carrying that gun. These aspects aren't talked about, criminals using guns to commit violent crimes, many of these deaths are already caused by people who are already prohibited from owning a firearm. And making a 3D printed gun is a project and takes knowledge and experience with firearms and printing with the proper materials. I can tell you the average gang banger will go out and buy a stolen gun on the street for a 1/4 of the price and many hours faster
yes
Paul clearly does not understand the concept of a magazine change. He’s making it out to be some minute long process. A magazine change takes 1 second or less for an experienced shooter and less than 2 seconds for a newby to change the mag.
The pro gun guy cannot refute this stat: 40000 People die in the USA every year by gun. And he didn’t even try to present a plan on how to lower that number.
What idiot threatens they have a gun if they don't? Stinger: "Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash."
Though I'm happy Gary ultimately won, NYC libertarians need to get a bit more serious about gun rights. Best question ever on NYC's insane "may issue" permitting process...
Liberty > Safety
2.4 million number comes from the CDC
Yeah but in the heller decision the court ruled that guns in common use cannot be banned so no banning semi automatic weapons bc that’s dumb as fuck no banning shotguns and no under no circumstances no banning any handguns
Children, accidents? I don' t have any children, and haven't had any accidents. It's not my fault people are stupid. leave me alone.
I don't understand the resolution.
If you believe the second part of the resolution to be true, then you would believe the first part to be false.
The horrors of the past won't be repeated because it's 2018 so it's perfectly fine to repeat the mistakes that led to those horrors.
Any tax or fee on owning or carrying a gun is no different from a Poll Tax on the Right to vote. Any requirement for a class or training to own or carry a gun is no different from a Literacy Test on the Right to vote.
If everyone has a gun, who is the safest?
1:27:57 let it be known that he openly supported something that is now Unconstitutional. This debate aged horribly for this ideologue
I thought that the response to the car question was rather hilarious. He lists the many regulations on cars like they’re good and should be used on guns in the same way. Yet the premise of the question is that cars STILL kill a ton of people. Regulation clearly doesn’t work.
On the topic of suicides, consider these stats which you can Google yourself:
The US:
Population 331m
Annual suicides 48,000
Number of guns 390m
Canada:
Population 38m
Annual suicides 4,500
Number of guns 7m
So the US has about 10 times the population of Canada and about 10 times the number suicides, and this is despite the US having many more guns, so guns don't seem to increase suicides. The are slightly MORE suicides per capita in the US, but only slightly more, and we would expect more than just "slightly more" suicides in the US (if guns really did cause suicides) considering the US has about 55 times the number of gun. So yeah, more guns does not equal more suicides. You'll find the same with homicides.
Now that doesn't mean if you carry a gun your not in a more dangerous profession - you mean like robbing banks? He is practically admitting that he is including those who carry a gun to commit crime - outrageous!
I've not watched it yet but no amount of statistics or utilitarian arguments can convince me that a person doesn't have a right to arm themselves. You'd have to attack the right itself.
Gun licensure like drivers licensure... Hmm.... You can physically operate a motor vehicle without a license, but if you get pulled over, driving without a license, you're in trouble. Similarly, you can physically pull a trigger without a license, but if a cop confronts you, assuming the existence of license requirements, without your license, you are in trouble. So if, before you got confronted by a cop, you committed a crime with your gun, you're in double trouble, because that's an additional law you broke. If you did not commit a crime, yet a cop does find that you used your gun without a license, even if your use was defensive, you are still a criminal. Not sure how people think ideas like this make sense.
at 32:22 now and the against side has only used statistical phasing that is non-comparative to the opposing view. IE it sounds like its supporting his side but the question isnt actually phrased correctly to support it. exampes: "x number of suicides, accidental deaths ect per day in this country, much higher than in other countries." The correct way to ask would be per day per capita. And that only tells you about gun use in general from country to country, has no bearing on the resolution. The key question would be a ratio of accidental + criminal use per defensive use. And compare that ratio to similar countries the largest difference between them being gun laws, to attempt to isolate that variable.
This sounds impossible to do directly, but if you make an index of the other contributing variables they can be corrected for to some degree.
Notice he talkes only in terms of gun suicides, gun homicdes etc, and never compares differences in over all rates, because these rates do not improve with gun control. Sure, in places like London England there are far fewer gun homicides because guns are very difficult to get, but that did not stop London from surpassing New York City in homicides last year.
Why are there more comments than thumbs up or down combined?
How many people are anti-gun AND anti-gun law. After all there would be a human cost to banning guns. The costs of banning recreational drugs has, in my estimation, greatly exceeded the benefits.
To get rid of enough guns to significantly reduce the murder rate, it seems to me that you'd really need to crack some heads.
I've read a lot of Kleck's work and he has been a big factor in solidifying my stance on guns. I cited a number of his studies in my piece on gun violence.
the magazine capacity debate is just dumb. it sets precedent of creating an arbitrary number which can then be lowered even more if they choose. the parkland shooter killed 17 and he used only 10 round magazines... so clearly the 10 round magazines are too deadly, so why dont we limit it to 5? well 5 is too many, so why not limit it to 2 rounds? it makes no sense...
I think we should all compromise on a magazine ban for all magazines capable of holding more than 10,000 rds. Wdyt
An armed populus is necessary for a free society. All other arguments in my opinion are moot.
Stop comparing the US to other "civilized" countries and compare the US with countries with strict gun control. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. One gun store in the entire country. How is that working out for them?
This debate doesn't even take into account just the "idea" of knowing that people own guns saves home robberies. You can never quantify the innumerable value of gun ownership.
Paul Helmke you are shooting numbers but who are coming up with the numbers?
The problem with Kleck's studies is that his estimates are implausibly high. In the age of social media, wouldn't we hear about more of these cases if they were happening at such a high rate? Also, the crime rate today is much lower than it was in 90s. In order to believe Kleck's numbers hold today, if they ever held at all, you would have to believe that there is significantly more unreported crime today than there likely is.
Kleck has debunked that nonsense criticism repeatedly. There are 20 peer reviewed studies that confirm that defensive gun use is common!
I would like to see some recent studies and not ones that are over 20 years old and extrapolate from a handful of data points.
@@pyroseed13 The Roper Center Survey in 2018 is the newest one.
@@pyroseed13 There is nothing inherently wrong with extrapolation, in order to get accurate data from the whole US population you would need to survey 1,000 people. Gary surveyed 5,000 people.
@@pyroseed13 The only potential problem is that Gary's survey UNDERESTIMATED defensive gun use since people who used guns defensively were weeded out. This is called a "censored sample". If someone reports that the didn't use a gun for self defense, they would not be questioned further. If they reported that they did in fact use a gun defensively, they would be asked 19 questions, their responses recorded and they would have to be logically consistent. The 2.5 million defensive gun use number is likely and underestimate and it likely missed people who were of color and or didn't have a phone, both things that lead to severe UNDERESTIMATES.
Guys first point. Throw away the facts and pull out your feelings. Second, nobody wants to take your guns. To bad there are numerous politicians and anti-gun activists writhin the last 2 years that have straight up said they want to take all of the gun out of the hands of private citizens.
All of his arguments against guns could also be applied to things like cars, alcohol, ect. People that abuse them can take and ruin lives. I also love how they screw that 21% by including accidents and suicides. Fix one by encouraging firearm training and safety (used to be done in schools if I recall). The other, if people want to kill themselves guns are not the problem. If they are at that point emotionally they will find a way.
Also the Heller case can be overturned. Isn't that why progressives don't want kavenaugh? Because they might bring up the abortion issue again, with votes to overturn it?
This guy wants cops to have guns, but regular people will "escalate" situations due to itchy trigger finger. According to the stats people that concealed carry are less likely to break the law than police officers.
The "nobody wants to take your guns" part is a myth. There's been more and more gun control proposal from bump stocks to AR-15s (I know it was much more than just them). It isn't new that there would be another talk about gun control from the left. And everyone knew that they will not stop until every gun is banned.
@@killertruth186
I agree with your statement but the right uses your statement as a gateway to allow less regulation or even no regulation for guns which is madness.
I have a strong principal of not banning anything. Regulation and taxation is my belief.
Should one ban automatic guns? No, BUT they should be highly regulated. Knowing and proving you can use the fun properly, such as shooting accuracy, knowing how to clean, and take apart the gun etc. Yearly license, and mental and criminal background check should be mandatory.
At 18 wanting handgun for protection, ok maybe just a simple background check and a basic gun license which is established today. But like driving, u can't just get a license and buy a 18 wheeler. The deadlier the weapon, than stricter license should be used.
I see nothing wrong in that. If u can afford a 10K dollar gun, especially the ones who argue that they "are fun collectors" fine, but u can spend an extra 100$ for a stricter license that acquires training and proper mental and criminal checks.
I'm only 50 seconds into the video and so far everything Paul helmke has said is completely, verifiably untrue...
Before firearms became common women were property, slavery was common, and the world was ruled by the strong at the expense of the weak. It wasn't until everyone could possess lethal force that the idea of equality became accepted. The wheel cannot be un-invented, guns are out there and the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Whatever the cost of having firearms in the world is worth paying for the possibility of freedom. Slavery exists in the world still, there are places where women are still property and to pretend guns are the problem instead of the solution is unintelligent. I'm glad the world no longer operates on the idea that might makes right.
I want literally everyone to have a gun. Every person in the world. I believe that when everyone in the world is armed only then can there be equality in the world.
The pro-oppression side talks a lot about the opinions of scientists.
What he's probably talking about is the media interpretation of scientific papers.
And those are extremely biased in favor of oppression.
But scientists are also often biased in that direction.
So you can't just claim authorities agree with you and ignore explanations of how your misleading numbers where reached.
Love Dave Smith
Ani gun people don't even know what a magazine is vs a clip. It's not both its one or the other! And they don't really look into the laws that are all ready there and what there affect has really been. They don't care they just want are guns f them Come take them!!
Although I’m personally more in favour of gun control I very much appreciate that Reason is willing to show a reasonable and honest debate on the matter regardless of their own bias. We need more of this type of stuff in the media.
People can yak 'till the cows come home. But until statistics and scientific evidence are looked at we are doomed to just talk shows and endless rhetoric that we are ALL sick and tired of.
I am on Gary's side, but next time please get someone who can truly debate the opposing side. Paul's arguments are extremely weak at best. I've heard much better arguments. I would love to forward these debates to my friends and family who are on the opposing side of guns, but not when their side is argued so poorly. I would rather see a pro gun debate where the anti-gun side has a more solid argument (even though they would still lose).
Paul Helmke was the former director for the Brady Campaign, one of the leading gun control agencies in the country.
For a decade or more, he was the face of the gun control movement.
You are seriously looking at one of the best people the gun control movement has to offer. They don't deal in facts, they deal in emotion and horribly skewed if not flat out falsified statistics.
Chicongo.
Nuff said.
Camden, NJ
Gary, IN
Bridgeport, CT
@@RocketmanRockyMatrix Gary, IN reminds me of the music man.
Is that city blacked now?
@@ImNotJoshPotter I am sure that Gary, Indiana was one time a place to visit or even raise a family. Now the city is ranked occasionally in the top 10 most dangerous cities in America. Gary, Indiana was at one time had one the biggest Steele mill industry, until they moved overseas.
Politician v. Statistician.
He's a great speaker, and very animated. But it's just emotion, name-dropping, and generalizations. Where are the overall stats proving this is better? Where are the comparisons between cities with high and low gun ownership, or at least, comparisons to other countries?
Stats can help: at what time where there half as many guns in the USA? Was the violent crime rate at that time half what it is today? If not, then gun counts are unrelated crime counts.
Is Dave ever funny?
When every stat/study has a disclaimer maybe you need new stat/studies. The spin is long and deep on the left.
Ztyt to be there for the interview and you know I am GG g to be gnnn 🥞😘😚🍕😘🥞🍕
Its amusing how horrible the data on this stuff is...on both sides
I agree with Paul that many of the statistics utilized by Gary seem very spurious. I am a gun owner myself, but I have become convinced that strongly increased regulation, based on serious studies of what would be most effective, is in the best interest of our nation.
they only need to enforce the laws already in place;
_"In just three years, Project Exile has startled critics and supporters with a message so strong it makes criminals drop guns. Now everyone from the NRA to the Million Mom March to Congress wants a piece of the action."_
www.styleweekly.com/richmond/in-just-three-years-project-exile-has-startled-critics-and-supporters-with-a-message-so-strong-it-makes-criminals-drop-guns-now-everyone-fro/Content?oid=1390279
The guy that doesn't know statistics seems to love to spout unsubstantiated statistics.
repeal the second amendment
North Korea would love that.
I don't need an amendment to assert my rights.
Bushrod Rust Johnson You do if you don't want the right be taken away from the government and the ignorant.
人無完人
And here is my response to you.
imgur.com/gallery/vkvCP
Yes