This is a horrible, tired talking point
A viewer asked how to debunk the tired old talking point of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a defense against reasonable gun safety legislation, in the wake of the recent shooting at a high school in Florida.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts in a reply!
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Way to go, Dave. You're really making Uncle Rahm proud!
btw, actual quote.
I do not know what is more sad, your whiny caller pleading for your help "Dave, please help me to beat their unbeatable argument! I can't think of one on my own!"
.....or your laughable advice "Well my boy, their argument is dumb so it doesn't count. "
The only problem is that you go in for the next two minutes PROVING that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Your analogy about cars proves exactly that point.
If you were truly being honest, you'd admit that "stricter gun laws" are not your true goal, but rather the outright CRIMINALIZATION and CONFISCATION of all guns in America.
You state "We have decided as a society that devices that can be used to harm others should be regulated" There are already laws in every state and federal laws that regulate guns. Minors are not permitted to own or purchase guns. Guns are not allowed on or near school property. It is illegal to shoot a person unless in self defense (in many cases, it's illegal to even brandish a firearm).
Did any of these laws prevent this person from using guns to commit a crime? NO! Could more laws have prevented him from figuring out a way to do what was in his heart? NO!
If you truly were a thinking person, you wouldn't just respond with the knee-jerk reaction of "More Laws, Stricter Laws" and actually try to get to the root cause.
For instance, there have been guns in America since the founding of the nation, yet these school shootings are a relatively recent occurrence (I can't find any examples of student mass shootings in the 50's, 60's 70's or even the 80's). So what has changed (other than Trump)? If you really wanted to investigate something, investigate that. Investigate what has changed!
However, I fear you are just playing the tune that your liberal leaning audience wants to hear. After all, you too probably have a mortgage to pay.
no, my goal is not the confiscation of all guns. There is absolutely no evidence you could point to that would justify your assertion. It is just slippery slope propaganda.
Sure there is. The real "slippery slope propaganda" is that more gun laws could have somehow prevented this tragedy and others like it.
This young man already broke numerous laws perpetrating this PREMEDITATED crime. I challenge you to name one (rational) law that could have been passed that could have prevented him from committing this criminal act. Any law (short of confiscation and criminalization of gun ownership) could have been easily circumvented by this young man intent on completing his deadly mission.
Obviously, you have no interest in investigating the true root causes of these violent acts. That is the one, true way, to prevent these kinds of acts from ever happening again.
what is your goal exactly? what gun laws do you propose?
I love how he proceeded to list off a bunch of regulations of drivers, not cars. That was hilarious.
"Dont respond" - yeah you totally debunked it! What a joke.
it's more of a defense mechanism than a defense.
It's intellectually dishonest to name the video as a debunking of the statement and then basically only making a weak argument against it.
Whiney Loser: How do I argue with reason?
Pakman: Run Away! Run Away!
Only in America...
This comment has received a 3.13 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @suffragator.
you can use bots to upvote comments too?
Depends on the bot, some allow it some dont...
cool, maybe I will try that sometime.
This comment has received a 0.98 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @suffragator.
@davidpakman
Guns are Guns ... should be placed ONLY in the hands of the police not to be sold to individuals.
@josteem
Gosh, brilliant, and the 350,000,000 guns that have been sold to individuals already? When the cops need an armed citizen to save their lives who will be there for them?
Liberal logic: Cops are racist violent thugs - only They should have guns...
I honestly think your obsession with guns is a disease... This statement makes the same sense as saying, nuclear weapons ain't for killing, Americans kill Japaneses or North Koreans kill Americans...but nuclear weapons that potentially can destroy the entire world are a good thing.... Come on!!!!
I can't really disagree
I've always liked this retort: "Yes, and lawnmowers don't mow laws, people do. But you can mow lawns a hell of a lot more effectively with a lawnmower."
I haven't heard that one before, it's not bad
Being effective is a good thing though
No sir.
Guns kill people.
It is the guns that tempt your temper.
A disarmed man can't kill even when angry to kill.
Power shouldn't be much in people's hands.
Agree 👍🏼 I am anti-Gun supporter !
@musemeza
@josteem
Why do you want people to be slaughtered in their own homes and defenseless against criminals?
I have yet to see a gun kill someone all by itself - in fact, I have a gun and it has been sitting on a shelf for 15 years. It is loaded. It is clean. It is ready. Damn, that gun must have some serious self-control!
Also, using your incredibly infallible 'logic' please define DISARMED - if you mean a man with no arms, you would still be wrong. What about knives? I could easily and quickly kill a lot of people with a knife. Put the knife on a shelf, it is simply a dust collecting object. Totally harmless. How about cars? Do cars kill people, or do the idiotic, foolish drivers kill themselves and others? Ya, the drivers do the killing.
Only an absolute fool would say that guns kill people. With a person, the gun is an utterly inanimate object completely unable to do anything, other than collect dust.
@musemeza, you really have no clue, do you?
Knifes ultimate purposes are cooking, eating and eventually, killing.... Cars ultimate purposes are travelling, transportation, driving, and eventually also killing in the rare case of an accident... Guns ultimate purpose are solely killing...sorry mate, but your point makes no sense at all...
ROFL, here in America people murder other people using hands and feet twice as often as they do using rifles of any kind. So twice as many are killed here by people using their bare hands as are killed by people using rifles. So you should not have the power to defend yourself?
Did you get that statistic from the NRA?
No, I don't know any NRA statistics, that comes from the FBI, I'm not surprised you were ignorant about that. Here are some more fun government statistics:
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@funbobby51/the-gun-debat-in-7-charts
The source of your statistics is your own steemit acc ? XD
You are hilarious!
His source is FBI stats. Try reading them
The NRA surely wont portrait guns in a positive light. They fight against gun rights since decades. I dont like guns, but im a liberal, and as such have no patience for people like the NRA who want to deny felons, the "mentaly ill" or substance users their rights.
This is such a stupid argument. I's right up there with "If gun violence goes down, knife violence goes up" Which is actually something I heard people say!
Because if someone has a gun in a fight doesn't make any difference, right?
I'm okay with that tradeoff for now
Guns and knives can be used by violent people to kill people. But there is a difference:
@josteem
Yes indeed, a woman with a gun can defend herself from a whole gang of rapists, isn't that good? Or should stronger people be able to prey upon the weak?
So while an armed woman in most cases would just point the gun at the rapist to scare them away, the rapists are less likely to hesistate. And in a state where everybody can own a gun, so can the rapists.
They are easy to use, just point and shoot, the rules for gun safety are very simple and American gun owners are more responsible than ever before, despite more guns than ever before, at the same time the number of guns went way up the number of fatal gun accidents went down. The number of accidental fatalities is at an all time low, not just in rate but also in number. In other words we have fewer deadly gun accidents now than we did when the population was half as much.
Nope, she shoots one or two and the rest run for their lives. Women are smart, they can figure these things out. It's sad you are pushing that ugly sexist lie that a woman is likely to be shot with her own gun if she chooses a gun for defense.
If you are being raped you probably won't be very reluctant to kill the rapist. Will you?
Criminals, like rapists, are not allowed guns, try telling them that though, they will have guns whether they are allowed to or not. Disarming their victims won't change that.
Fatalities. What about accidents? I couldn't find any numbers on that, so citations would be welcomed.
It's maybe hard to believe, but we don't live in the world of minority report. Nobody knows beforehand, if you are going to be a rapist or not. Even if rapists aren't allowed guns all across the USA (I'm not going to look it up, so I'll just concede that point), anyone can become a rapists at any time. And until they are, they can legally own a gun in most of the USA.
the number of accidents is irrelevant and confusing, who cares? What is important is how many people die, that is very easy to count and for everyone to agree on the definition. Fatal gun accidents are at an all time low, about 71 times as many people are killed in car accidents annually.
She is prepared, she has a gun. Why would it be better for her not to have a gun?
Your concerns are hypothetical, I read a real story about a young woman who was an adept gun operator but her college forbade guns, so she got raped in a situation where she could have easily defended herself, in a parking garage, and then her rapist killed his next two victims after her. If she was allowed to be armed she could not only have prevented her rape but also saved their lives.
If you were alone in a parking garage and some strange man or men approached you and you were armed you wouldn't put your hand in your purse and grasp your gun?
Of course a rapist does not need a gun, they just need a victim to not have one. And that is what your plan achieves.
This is pretty much how everybody outside of the USA and Afghanistan sees it. XD
I have not heard that one, but here is an argument I like to point out. As the number of guns owned by Americans has gone up and the number of places where they can legally carry them has increased from a handful of states to all 50, gun homicide rates have fallen to historical lows. So more guns and more people allowed to carry them has correlated with far fewer gun homicides. What do you think about that?
Corelation does not equate to causation, as I'm sure everybody knows by now, it's one of the most repeated phrases on the internet.
Same goes of course in the other direction, just because America has a problem with gun violence, doens't mean necessarily, that an over abundance of guns is the problem.
Just that having more guns around will make it more easier for people, who want to, to access guns, meaning a spike in gun violence would be expected. Whereas making it easier to attain a gun, when there is already an overabundance of guns around, isn't likely to change anything.
Also the guns in the USA aren't equally distributed. There are some gun collectors for instance. The number of guns gowing up, doesn't mean the number of gun owners does go up.
"Corelation does not equate to causation, as I'm sure everybody knows by now, it's one of the most repeated phrases on the internet."
Gosh, that's probably why I said "correlation" and not "cause" huh? We can't tell from that correlation if the loosening of gun laws caused the reduction in homicides that we see but we can conclude from the nature of the correlation that the reduction in gun laws did not cause gun homicides to increase as anti civil rights people claimed it would.
I don't know that America has a problem with gun violence. you have not demonstrated that.
Exactly, that is your theory, but we can see in real life that the opposite happened. That's why the correlation where as guns go up gun homicides go down is so important. We made it much easier for people to get and carry guns and instead of a spike, like your theory predicts, there was a crash. Therefor your theory is wrong.
Yeah, that's another popular theory of the anti gunners, that fewer and fewer people actually own guns, they just own a lot more each, that could be possible.
But would that explain all the entry level guns being bought and the record numbers of people taking beginner gun safety classes? Are they opening all these gun megastores to cater to a smaller and smaller number of gun buyers?
No, in reality the polls of how many people own guns do not measure how many people own guns, they track how many people ADMIT they own guns to researchers, something which fluctuates relative to the political climate.
25 years ago, when gun homicide rates were at their peak only a handful of states allowed concealed carry, now all 50 states do many without even requiring a permit, and gun homicides are at record lows.
"I don't know that America has a problem with gun violence. you have not demonstrated that."
Really. You didn't provide ANYTHING in terms of prove for all the claims you made. And you expect ME to prove something that is that well known? The charts on gun violence all accross the USA are through the roof compared to any other of the industrialized nations. The only two European nations with a higher homicide rate (homicide, I'm not even talking about gun violence alone) are Lithuana and Russia. The USA is by far the least safe of all the western nations and that's despite that your country is basically a giant no mans land compared to Europe, where the poplation density is a lot higher. 31% of all mass shoutings worldwide happen in the USA.
To debate, IF the USA has a gun violence problem is to put it generously: retarded.
We can debate WHY the USA has a gun violence problem, though.
And I'm not going to give you sources, just google it. It's such a well known thing that it is insulting of you to suggest, I'm in the burden of proof here.
"where as guns go up gun homicides go down is so important"
There. That's exactly what I meant. Where is your citation on that?!
"Yeah, that's another popular theory of the anti gunners, that fewer and fewer people actually own guns"
I never said that though. And can you explain to me what exactly an "anti gunner" is supposed to be in your world view?
"they track how many people ADMIT they own guns to researchers"
The polls are annonymous. They don't really have an incentive to lie. And even if you have a few liers in there, it'd be a stretch to claim, that it's common to lie in this instance.
"25 years ago, when gun homicide rates were at their peak only a handful of states allowed concealed carry, now all 50 states do many without even requiring a permit, and gun homicides are at record lows."
Even if that would be true, which you would have to demonstrate, as you suggested I do with the gun violence in the USA, how the fuck would you be able to derive anything from those numbers? If it's legal to buy a gun in any state, and you don't have any state-to-state borders, everyone can get a gun any time they want.
Becouse People kill People, they schould have a hard Time getting guns. Guns are the easyest way to kill someone.
Easier than running them over with a truck? Why are trucks so much more effective?
We will always need good people with guns to protect us from bad people with guns just as we needed good people with bow and arrow to protect us from bad people with bow and arrow. Before that we needed good people with spear and sword to protect us from bad people with spear and sword. The frame of mind that thinks this will ever change is called idealism. If you are an idealist you will likely reject that history as a blueprint for the future. If you are a realist you will prepare for the threat by developing countermeasures and training people to repel attackers. Another way to determine whether you are an idealist or a realist is that an idealist will post a sign that says "No guns allowed". The realist sees the sign as an advertisement to a killer as to where he can achieve the highest possible body count. Where do you stand?
They live in a fantasy realm where the sign is all the protection children need.
There is nothing wrong with idealism. It has it's place along with realism, analysts, and pragmatists. Where we disagree is which thinking style should deal with which circumstance or condition.
Can we agree that the gun free zone signs have failed, at least in this case?
That's my point. Gun-free zones only keep law-abiding gun owners from carrying their legally licensed guns in gun-free zones. Law breakers carry their guns anywhere they want to. Logic is the realm of a realists mind. Emotion is where the mind of an idealist dwells. The realist says that there are good people with guns and bad people with guns. The idealist says that all people with guns are bad.
agreed, I think the idealist watches too much scripted TV and movies where guns are always a plot element. So anytime they see one it is only used for violence to advance the plot in some way. In real life most guns sit in a safe all the time and never advance any dramatic plots.
My guns are not in a safe. They are at the ready. Idealists are best to tell us how we SHOULD live, how we SHOULD act, how we SHOULD think. A realist doesn't care how others live, act or think as long as they don't tread in his space. A realist usually recognizes the limits of his control...because he is a realist. It is when an idealist is in a position to force others to obey their will. Then we have a problem. The dominate thinking style of a person, in my experience, transcends political affiliations, gender, race, anything.
The reason that guy and you can't come up with a good response or debunk the old saw about guns not killing people is that is it the truth. The reason it upsets you so is that the truth hurts. That was both pathetic and hilarious. You claimed there was a correlation between legal access and rates of homicide, there is such a correlation but it is the opposite of what you claimed. the more guns Americans own and the more places they are allowed to carry them the fewer gun homicides we see.
https://steemit.com/guns/@funbobby51/my-response-to-daily-opinion-7-gun-laws-in-the-us-need-to-be-revised
It was especially funny how you claimed that guns needed to be regulated like cars and then you listed off a list of regulations for drivers that are not regulations of cars at all. You did a really great job at explaining how drivers kill people not cars so to control that we regulate drivers. Thanks.
Here is the point, gun laws that affect gun criminals, like for example locking away people for long periods who commit gun crimes, are very effective.
But those are never the types of laws you and the caller call for, you want laws that affect legal gun owners and guns, these laws have been tried and fail every single time to have any effect because neither guns nor legal owners are generally the ones committing crimes.
about 1 in 10,000 people is a habitual gun offender, any law that does not target that person, in other words any law that affects what law abiding people may buy or how they can use their guns, has zero effect on gun crime or homicide because they don't affect gun criminals at all.
David, I dont paticularly like guns. However i am a left liberal and obviously that means i take big issue with organisations such as the NRA who constantly attack gun rights. Are you aware that its illegal for convicted fellons, mentaly ill people and users of controlled substances to own guns? Well, first off it doesnt make any sense, mentaly ill people tend to be less likely to be violent than the general public - obviously it depends on the type of "mental illness" which itself is a stupid term but different "mental illnesses" are also more or less common.
Im sorry, but you dont get to deny any rights to anyone wether it "makes sense" or not. Either repeal the second amendment or these age old regulations. There is a reason why you have voting booths in prisons of any democratic nation during elections. And why a right is called a right.
Cars are regulated, and that would be worth opposing if it was a right to drive a car.
I dont know what you are, but from a liberal perspective such restrictions are obviously inacceptable.
Semangat lagi ini bagus postingan anda.dan lebih giat lagi mungkin bukan saya saja yang mengikuti anda mungkin lebih banyak lagi..lanjutkan postingan yang menarik lainnya
Most gun deaths are accidents or suicides...
be it a gun , knife , glass bottle etc in the wrong hands it can harm or kill people or animals , if a person wants to harm someone there will
yup, we are lucky he used a gun and not a semi truck.
I totally believe in it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
The point everybody makes is that if guns are not so easily available, mass killings won't happen.
People can run their cars over crowd. Ban cars?
Some people say kids play video games and get inspired by that. Ban FPS n similar games?
Why do killings happen? It is quite complicated to reach a conclusion which is accurate.
How to stop the shootings? Deploy force everywhere? Neither practical, nor the solution.
Hurt people hurt people. These guys who kill random people hate society. They don't kill anybody, but try to hurt the society.
This is the sickness that cannot be controlled through anti-depressants, counseling, etc.
I don't think it can be completely solved. There will always be people who are unhappy with society.
Banning guns won't help according to me.
seems like not only can it not be controlled by anti depressants, anti depressants seem to cause these mass shootings. Unlike guns many of those drugs are required to have warnings that say "may cause suicidal thoughts or actions" and yet no one on the media sponsored by the drug companies talks about that.
What do anti depressants have to do with any of this? Its true, someone suffering from severe depression wont harm others nor commit suicide as long as it is severe, just to much of a bother to commit suicide in such a case. They do commit suicide when and if they start feeling better. But what does this have to do with guns and why is suicide constantly portraied as a bad thing? Cant we just be happy for the ones that managed to end their own suffering?
it seems like a lot of incidents caused by antidepressants which say in the ads "May cause suicidal thoughts or actions" are being blamed upon guns inappropriately. Suicide is only really portrayed as a bad thing when they are using suicide numbers to bulk up the "gun violence" number. Suicide is fine, but gun deaths are very bad.
Right, they do do that. Im not the biggest fan of guns (though i am liberal and as such support freedoms), but as far as i see it, its someone using something americans have a right to own in order to make use of their right to their own life.
I have suggested in the past we could significantly reduce gun violence if guns were sold with a head sized plastic bag and a zip tie.
I mean to be honest, if it becomes an international story when 15 people die from guns while the on average 500 people killed in hospitals by mistake of doctors per day are ignored, id say guns arent such a big problem.
The funny thing to me is that while US Americans debate this back and forth for decades without coming to a conclusion the entire rest of the world is thinking: "Screw your gun laws! It's the drone attacks that kill the most people!"
I would have to disagree, I am a gun owner and have never nor will ever use my gun for anything other hunting and self defense. I have never needed to use it for self defense and hope I never have to, better safe than sorry I say. Most of the people I know have anywhere from 4 to 100 guns and have never killed anyone. Everyone in my family are gun owners, most of friends, and most of the people I work with. None of then have killed anybody yet, some of my co-workers I do wonder about. I personally feel comfortable and safe around firearms of all types, I've been raised with firearms. Got my first BB gun when I was 8, my first bow when I was 9, and I've had knives forever it seems. I have never used any of those weapons for any other reason than practice or hunting. I feel that an armed society is a polite society.
Really useful information thanks for posting Dave!
Nice post
Please vote me
As what?
its a great politics news... i still thinking about the discuss of your post.... nice post....
and what is your opinion?
What a mockery. So, who holds the gun or do guns now have a mind of their own? Are guns not built for destruction?
Guns are designed not for destruction but for protection.
ROFL! The are designed to kill things! Or do you point yours at your children to keep them safe?
no, I point them at anything that might harm my child to keep them safe. I see you really don't understand how guns work, before you fire one ask someone which end the bullets come out of and which directions you should point that end in.
Do we really need a war to have peace?
Do we really need a gun to have unity as one?
Tell me, tell me please!
Yes, God made men but Samuel Colt made them all equal.
So every body should be allowed one colt and no M16s or AK47s?
and no straw arguments
Many argue against colts, espacialy the Colt AR-15.
It is true that guns don't kill people themselves. People use them to kill other people. The more reason the government must be concerned and ensured that guns are not left in the hands of those who use them to kill, except in war!
Those sound like reasons to regulate those people, the ones who use guns to kill, instead of hundreds of millions of guns and people who don't use guns to kill people.
I think sir, it's true firearms can not kill people but people kill people, because if no one fires firearms at others, if no one where it might kill, it's not possible firearms move by themselves what if not there are people who have firearms, I think like that sir.
you are correct sir!
Amazing. I love it all
”Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”*…. So if the ease of gun ownership isn't the problem, then in America, the average person must be 50 times more murderous than the average person in European?
As for cars, well, there’s a good reason we have training, health checks, licenses, speed limits and compulsory insurance. Also, although we allow 18 year old kids to buy and shoot AR15’s, for reasons of safety, even Mario Andretti wasn’t allowed to drive his race cars on the highway.