Guns Part 3: A Shooting Lesson | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm goes to a shooting range in the woods of North Carolina to get a tutorial on the AR-15. It’s scary. It’s ugly. It’s at the center of the gun control debate. But what exactly makes it worse than other guns?
Binge the 6-part series from Revisionist History about everything Americans get wrong about guns with a Pushkin+ membership now: www.pushkin.fm/join-pushkin
Season 8 (2023)
#podcast #revisionisthistory #malcolmgladwell
ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY
Revisionist History is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every podcast episode re-examines something from the past - an event, a person, an idea, even a song - and asks whether we got it right the first time. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.
ABOUT MALCOLM GLADWELL
Malcolm Gladwell is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries. He is a journalist, a speaker, and the author of six New York Times bestsellers including The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, David and Goliath, and Talking to Strangers. He has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1996. He is a trustee of the Surgo Foundation and currently serves on the board of the RAND Corporation.
ABOUT PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES
Pushkin Industries is an audio production company dedicated to creating premium content in a collaborative environment. Co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg in 2018, Pushkin has launched seven new shows into the top 10 on Apple Podcasts (Against the Rules, The Happiness Lab, Solvable, Cautionary Tales, Deep Cover, The Last Archive, and Lost Hills), in addition to producing the hugely successful Revisionist History. Pushkin’s growing audiobook catalogue includes includes the bestselling biography “Fauci,” by Michael Specter, “Hasta La Vista, America,” Kurt Andersen’s parody Trump farewell speech performed by Alec Baldwin, "Takeover" by Noah Feldman, and “Talking to Strangers,” from Pushkin co-founder Malcolm Gladwell. Pushkin is dedicated to producing audio in any format that challenges listeners and inspires curiosity and joy.
STAY CONNECTED
Web: www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revis...
Twitter: / gladwell
Facebook: / malcolmgladwellbooks
Instagram: / malcolmgladwell
Newsletter: www.pushkin.fm/newsletter

[@pamgallagher9778]

Oh Malcolm Gladwell! How long I have waited to hear this series on the American gun manufacturers? Thank you and Major Kudos. I realize we are far from a solution to this gigantic crisis but Please Please continue this? My sister and I adore you, ALL your brilliant work and ALSO your huge heart. ❤❤❤

[@amandaw6872]

Thank you so much for this truly balanced look at this issue! I hesitated for months to listen because I'm so tired of both sides misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the issues. I did especially appreciate pinning down one of the most frustrating things about the whole debate: the definition of "assault" weapons or rifles. It is used so loosely that most conversations about control get hung up there. While I'm not surprised to learn that this was done deliberately, the exact details of how were new history for me. One nitpick on the contention that an AR15 is not a hunting rifle though - while it is true that it is not useful for what most consider "game hunting", it is, in fact, considered the ideal weapon for wild boar hunting (which have been labeled an overpopulated nuisance problem in some states & are causing problems for cattle ranchers). So, not only is it not a "weapon of war", it is actually a necessary tool for some hunters doing good. I've found it's a tough spot to be in, to both support responsible ownership & support control, yet not agree with the general talking points of either side. I look forward to the rest of the episodes now - there are a few more key points that I do hope you get to. Honest conversations like these are what is needed to actually come up with real world workable solutions.

[@TyroneNorwood]

I learned so much from this one podcast. Weapon bans is just smoke and mirrors.

[@pagesculptor]

We're Subsistence Hunt our annual meat supply (1-2 caribou and game birds + a deer if needed). We had an AR-15 for semiautomatic practice, but really it was the least practical firearm in our collection. Someone broke in our house and out of ALL the high end costly firearm they ONLy stole that one. We never replaced it because it doesn't serve a purpose in our household.

[@BenfromFlux]

Thank you for desiring an honest conversation. I am a fan of your work, guns are my life, and I want to do all well-reasoned action to reduce and prevent violence. Maybe I’m a rare breed. A few clarifications: There are lots of points of dishonesty from the anti gun movement - one being including ALL gun violence, including that which saves lives. They also count suicides, they count the death of murderers and rapists who are stopped by a gun. They do not count the 1-2 million crimes that are stopped every year by simply brandishing a firearm. All rifles, from assault rifles in the hands of police/mass murderers to single shot hunting rifles only kill 200-300 people in the US every year. This is vastly less than death by fist, deaths by hammers and other blunt objects, does not compare to the knife death count. Pistols kill many more people. I deal with civilian, mil and le, and have never heard the term “spray” or any “technique” like it. It’s not a thing. Rifle bullets are often smaller and lighter than pistols, the most common rifle discussed here typical shoots a tiny 55-62 grain bullet, as opposed to 9mm being 115-147 grains in typical weight. I very, very much appreciate your effort to fully understand this issue, as it is incredibly complex, and please continue to explore the positive aspects of firearms. After lots of research and thought, I am absolutely convinced that the myriad of benefits FAR outweigh the cost. There is no better tool for women and smaller individuals to defend themselves from the brutes that would otherwise rape and rule you - and this also applies to the individual(s) defending themselves against the group that would commit genocide against them. ❤

[@WNH3]

Credit to Malcolm for calling out BS from the other side.

[@erongaman1]

I think he called bs on the notion of sides. A gun is a gun is a gun. Guns are designed to kill things. If you listen to the series, there is a theme about the specious nature of the US gun problem. John Knight, and the 2nd amendment are plausible but wrong. The deception lies in the $ide$ of the real i$$ue. What MG doesn’t mask is the seductive, tempting power of the gun itself, the lie of Dodge City according to Gunsmoke, the lies of little Sammy Alito and the fact that sides of the American gun problem is a delusion.

[@johnspooner1403]

Hmm - sides. "The other side." Maybe that's one of the main problems.

[@WNH3]

@@johnspooner1403 Exactly right.

[@slowmoe1964]

Sounds like he was making the case to ban the platform?

[@EggBabe23]

"you get used to the violence of it" 😢

[@candispapalii2200]

Excellent

[@bearsbreeches]

You're all MAD

[@sbssez]

When they have the option (time), why do police choose assault rifles over their readily available handguns? Almost all footage I see of SWAT, they carry assault rifles. Also, a specialist in ideal situations should never be used as a real world example. Using an F1 driver's speed on closed city streets to determine the speed limit in that city would be ridiculous.

[@kambrose1549]

This platform concept must make the AR5 a real toy for boys sort of possession. Which makes it even more scary given the gadget addiction that is typical of so many guys

[@APere047]

I’m not a lib and I found your channel after the Douglas Murray debate. Your honesty in this video is respectable

[@testdummy44]

Mr. Gladwell says, "...But an AR-15 is more like a firearm platform than a specific kind of gun." He then goes on to say, "Even the federal ban on assault rifles, in place from 1994 to 2004, was just a ban on some of the add-ons." Really? The assault weapons ban of 1994 specifically named the Colt AR-15 (and copies or duplicates) as among the banned weapons, not simply "add-ons", as Mr. Gladwell calls them.The text of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 said, "* (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: * ‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means-- * ‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as-- * ‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); * ‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; * ‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); * ‘(iv) Colt AR-15; * ‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; * ‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; * ‘(vii) Steyr AUG; * ‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and * ‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

[@thinkharder9332]

There were AR-15's sold during the 1994 ban, they just had those features removed (IE no telescopic stock or muzzle device), which is why people say it's a ban on accessories. Just look up California Compliant rifle or AWB era AR/AK.

[@glenrotchin5523]

Wait, Is it not a fact that after the assault rifle ban in the 1994 mass shooting deaths dropped, and as soon as the ban expired they shot up (pun unintended) again? Why doesn’t Malcolm tackle that one.

[@Shackleford_Rusty]

Because it’s untrue

[@edmundschubert4963]

@malcolmgladwell I completely understand your frustration with the blatant lies told by the gun control guy, but I fear you let the gregarious and affable gun rights guy seduce you. Use some basic math and logic and the gun guys own numbers: he said it takes 6 seconds to shoot an entire 30-round clip and 3 seconds to reload. I think 3 seconds is pretty fast given that most mass shooters don't have his level of training, but we'll use it anyway. That means that in 60 seconds a really focused killer can empty 7 clips and fire 210 rounds. His argument against limits on magazine size is that if it only takes 3 seconds to reload, there's no time to rush the shooter and disarm him. But 99% of people aren't going to rush the shooter, they're going to try to run away. And if you had limited clip size to 10 rounds, using his numbers again, it should only take 2 seconds to fire 10 shots, but the same 3 seconds to reload, which means in the same 60 seconds, the gunman will empty 12 clips and fire 120 rounds. So my question is this: are you more likely to escape alive from a situation where 210 rounds per minute are being fired, or are you more likely to escape alive from a situation where 120 rounds per minute are being fired? The gun rights guy was more genial that the gun control guy, but he was just as misleading. All he did was smile while he made you look left when you should have looked to the right.

[@classicalextremism]

This is fallacious and shows you don't have practical experience in this area and no real thought put into the situation you would find yourself in. This myth persists in all manner of forms, like charging someone with a Garand when you hear the *ping* or trying to tackle a shooter, or running from them, during the reload. Its all irrelevant. Whether it is running TO or FROM a shooter the reload is too fast to achieve anything during a reload other than dying. Doubly so because there is no need to wait to expend all the rounds before reloading. Even if you could sit there with clarity of mind to count them as they rang out. Nor would you know if the "10 round magazine" means he had 10 rounds, or 10 rounds + 1 in the chamber. If you made a presumption that there are "10 rounds" because thats the magazine limit and you stood up after counting out the rounds you would be staring down a still loaded barrel. And the number of shots taken is not at the limit of the cyclic rate of the weapon, however they are loaded, unless someone is intending to mass shots into floors and walls. If the intent is to create casualties the shots are aimed and that always takes longer than the cycle of the weapon. Meaning there is a constant stream of breaks in the fire between each shot. Especially if everyone is cowering in place waiting for salvation from some outside force.

[@testdummy44]

Umm, you seem to be assuming that, in a mass shooting situation, everyone except the shooter is hitting the deck and trying to count to 10 before getting up again and running. Try to imagine any number of different situations (perhaps Las Vegas concert?) where many people are running in many different directions at the same time. That shooter had magazines as large as 100 rounds. 450+ people hit. 60 dead. If he had been forced to reload after every 10 rounds? And just maybe didn't have bump stocks? Imagine how many man-feet those hundreds of people could have covered during his two-second reloads. Using the numbers of the man interviewed by Mr. Gladwell - he said he could shoot 4.5 rounds per second, and 2 seconds to reload? That means a shooter with a 30/50/100 round magazine could shoot between 0-9 additional people during EVERY time a shooter is reloading their 10-round magazines. It's math, really. If you're reloading, you're not shooting. I'm a bit surprised Mr. Gladwell seemed to just nod his head as if the only realistic scenario is everyone lying on the floor waiting for the shooter to reload.

[@classicalextremism]

Trouble with that is you're assuming your math has anything to do with practical experience or the real world. It doesn't. Like how you think bump stocks make rifles shoot faster, when they don't. You can do the same thing without a stock, its called bump firing. The stock allows you to shoulder the weapon while firing, making the rifle more precise. You aren't arguing for a reduction in rate of fire, you're arguing for more randomness in where the bullet travels and saying that makes the public safer. If that sounds bad, give it a think, because you're approaching more knowledgeable people in this area with this ignorance and preaching to us. Or how people will be jumping up after counting shots and playing frogger. Ask someone involved in a shooting how many shots were fired. If you ask 5 people you'll get 5 different numbers. Sporadic fire coming in during a high stress event while echoes are bouncing around and no, you won't be counting anything.@@testdummy44

[@richardl.metafora4477]

I agree that handguns and automatic rifles are distinctly different instruments. However, it could be that the shooters are in different categories. Teenage son products shooting indiscriminately may prefer an automatic rifle. Handguns, however, might be used by so-called professional, criminals or murderers, so intend to kill someone they know this is why proximity and precision counts with handguns more so than the automatic rifles.

[@bobcornwell403]

There are a number of problems with this narrative. 1.) You didn't have your gun expert fire as many rounds as he could with 10 round magazines. I think that would have slowed him down somewhat. 2.) It is not all that difficult to turn a semi-automatic gun into an automatic one. I know of two ways. One is to equip it with a "bump stock."" The other is to file away the catch on the receiver so that it doesn't stop with each round. Of course, the same can be done with a handgun. 3.) The round from an AR-15 compensates for having less lead in its round by hurling it at a much greater velocity. The amount of kinetic energy of a bullet (or any moving object) is 1/2 its mass times its velocity squared. Notice that it is the velocity part that gets squared. So if a bullet weighs half an ounce and travels at 1,000 feet per second, it has less kinetic energy than one that weighs 1/4 of an ounce but travels at 2,000 feet per second. It is the kinetic energy that does the damage. A well designed bullet is very efficient at transferring most of the energy that launched it into its target. It does this in two ways: 1.) It tumbles and sometimes breaks apart, spreading the damage, or 2.) It flattens out within the target. A bullet that passes through its victim is not considered a very effective bullet. The goal is to get it to expend all of its energy within its victim. A "bump stock," by the way, is an automatic trigger-puller.

[@battlescorn]

Bump stocks got banned after Vegas mass shooting from what I recall

[@bearsbreeches]

Lovely!

[@briankuhl9314]

The file down the semi to make it an automatic story, or us a "bump stock" narrative, has been around a long time, how many people actual do this? How many mass shooters do it? The shooter in the Quebec assembly used a machine gun, but I've never heard of anyone actually bothering to make the modification to the semi in real life. (well hardly ever) If you really want a machine gun, you get one, you don't bother with modifications on a semi. Did you listen till the end to hear the study? No ones disputing a rife does more damage, that's kind of a given, no physics required. What actually happens in real life in mass shootings is something different.

[@bobcornwell403]

@briankuhl9314 The reason I brought these possibilities up was to make a flanking attack on high capacity magazines, whose only practical purpose is killing people. I doubt that very many hunters use them. I personally consider any that hold more than six rounds to be excessive. This includes the one on my personal handgun that holds fifteen. I would gladly turn it in for one that holds only six. Such, I believe, could adequately defend me from just about any attack other than a zombie apocalypse. A big part of the problem is not just guns but gun culture, which seems to glorify enhanced deadliness. Perhaps this will be mentioned in future episodes.

[@classicalextremism]

Ignorant and wrong on every item. That takes effort. The 5.56 is not higher velocity, more powerful or more lethal than other rifle rounds. In fact, far less energetic and far less damaging. It is banned as a hunting caliber for medium to large game because it is not ethical, it does not cause enough damage for a quick ethical put down of a deer or larger. In practical numbers a 5.56 will yield 961 m/s (3,150 ft/s) 1,859 J (1,371 ft⋅lbf), while a 300 WinMag will yield 3,117 ft/s (950 m/s) 4,100 ft⋅lbf (5,600 J). The lack of power is why the military stuck to 7.62 nato following WW2, despite the evidence saying a lighter less powerful round would be better. Like the British .280 for their EM-2. Any time spent with an honest investigation, even the most simple of inquiry, would have educated you otherwise. From ballistics gel tests to dummy torsos, hunting laws, or practical experience. A bump stock does *nothing* to the fire rate of the weapon. Not one thing. The semi-auto is always semi-auto. Bumpfire is a thing with or without the stock. Instead of pulling the trigger back you can pull the rifle forward away from you. The recoil will snap the rifle back while you continue to pull it forward. As you push against the recoil the trigger will press against the finger and fire quickly. But this causes inaccurate fire because you are losing a contact point, the shoulder. A "bumpstock" is a stock that slides freely from the weapon. Allowing someone to fire accurately. The bump stock just means you won't be careless in the process because it allows someone to shoulder a weapon while bumpfiring. You are advocating the careless use of firearms by banning items that make the firearm controllable. Are sights next? And here is an expert actually comparing rates of fire with different shooters, experience levels, and situations. The magazine restriction only hurts the defender. The attacker can come prepared with a gym bag of spares. The defender can only carry what will be unobtrusive and will not encumber them on their daily routine. Limiting the round count always favors the attacker. You are favoring evil. Good job! kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3S2qoarmtKcfrc

[@bearsbreeches]

How can something be 'less lethal' ? It either kills or it doesn't

[@patrickmaline4258]

survivability. bullets travel at different speeds from hand guns, than they do from longer barreled rifles. the rifle fired bullet, traveling faster, breaks up into smaller pieces inside the body, doing more damage and more likely killing than the same size bullet fired from a hand gun. i wrote from memory and think its accurate, but appreciate correction. i don’t think the AR brand is special in this way from other brands. barrel length, caliber, and the exact ammunition used are the relevant factors. the brand may affect accuracy, i don’t know.

[@douglasodonnell6800]

You do what happens a lot in arguments… you get side tracked on an issue which is off topic. Whether a person can fire 30 or 70 rounds in less than 7 seconds does not bear on the fact that a shooter can kill 250+ people in a minute. That seems to me should be the problem we need to look at. Now we get off onto the tangent that mental health is the real issue. And so it goes, and the children die.

[@user-yo5jx1kd4z]

Wrong again. The gas tube on an AR is below the barrel. The rail on top is only for scopes and other accessories. There may also be a rail below the barrel. The AK and others has it's gas tube above the barrel. Magazine change pause could give a trained person (police) who might anticipate the reload time enough to advance their position enough to get around a corner and deliver a lethal shot. So magazine size DOES matter. I don't care what old boy says Regarding the BAR. It is huge, and heavy and has far more power than required to kill any human. Bullets are three times the size of the ARs. Magazine only holds 10. If it held 30 it would wear a person out carrying it around. Bad choice for a mass shooter. It's also not very accurate and doesn't have a pistol grip. Geraldo was part right . Earlier versions were very easily converted to full auto with a $100 kit available by mail order. The 2017 Las Vegas mass shooter used a bumpstock to convert hus semi auto assault rifles to full auto. He killed 60 and wounded more than 413. He wouldn't have been able to mount nearly that toll without his weapons firing in fully automatic mode.

[@keep-ukraine-free528]

Malcolm's books are great. Except after you learn some are disproved. The reason: he used only a subset of data that should/could be used to understand his topics. He did it again here. Also, his example of the surgeons' comparisons left out crucial cause-of-death data: distance between victim & shooter, caliber, time to EMT arrival, % killed by 1st shot, etc. Without these, you get the "wrong" answer, as they did. This episode argues for a full gun ban. *America's 2nd Am. makes that impossible.* It's why gun control tries to _limit_ rather than ban all.

[@5kids1goldfish]

It does NOT call for a full gun ban. He says as a Canadian, his preference is no guns. What he's doing is pointing out inconsistencies with arguments on both sides of whether to ban a category of guns in the USA. For someone like myself in the USA, I have had to participate in training children in the classroom for active shooter drills on a regular basis, and search each child every morning as I welcome them to be sure they are not bringing a weapon in tucked into their clothing. This is our "normal" for raising children here.

[@anthonylawson2275]

The 2nd doesn't make it impossible. The author wrote regulated in it. That's ignoring the wrll trained militia. G. Washington held that an unregulated undisciplined group is of armed men. Wasn't a militia. They were only an armed mob.

[@thinkharder9332]

@@anthonylawson2275 The 2nd doesn't make it impossible. The author wrote regulated in it. -To describe the militia, not the right to keep and bear arms. They used the terms "shall not be infringed" in regards to the latter. hat's ignoring the wrll trained militia. -Often the people who say this themselves ignore the "right of the people" bit and "shall not be infringed.

[@anthonylawson2275]

@@thinkharder9332 No. The entire sentence is about the militia. That is according to Scalia in Heller v D.C. As Scalia pointed out there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that negates any other part of the Constitution. Your assertion that Madison meant that not only. Should everyone have guns but that there can be no laws applied to those guns. Ignores the actual Supreme Courts decision in Heller v D.C. As Scalia succinctly put it the 2nd Amendment does not give everyone the right to own any gun they want, to carry anywhere they want to. It also means that you have not read the Debates on the Constitution, The Federalist Papers ( in the Federalist Papers #4 John Jay stated commerce and guns were to be heavily regulated. Your 2nd Amendment is as a member of the militia at large. This is not my opinion. It was the opinion of the authors the Bill of Rights. And was held to mean so by the Conservatives and Republicans until Ronald Reagan. This includes the Supreme Court itself. So the courts annulment of the 2nd Amendment is a fraud. It erased the Amendment as it's written and writes a completely different Amendment. This is Unconstitutional. In the Heller decision Scalia also pointed out that laws can be made in regards to weapons. I was taking Constitutional History at law school, when the decision was handed down. Not a lawyer. I was a history major and History of the Constitution lectures were part of law school. I was able to attend because I was an upper level history student. So I did get to watch future lawyers conducting moot courts on it. We do have a right to own guns without being militia It's a 9th Amendment Right. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In fact gun control was a Republican party platform until Reagan. But no matter which one of those it is. It's still able to be "Regulated" After all nor regulations makes it anarchist. None of the Constitution's authors, Gouvenor Morris, T. Jefferson, John Jay, or James Madison were anarchists. Hell anarchy is further left than any Progressive, Liberal or Democrat.

[@thinkharder9332]

@@anthonylawson2275 No. The entire sentence is about the militia. -No, it's about the right. That's why it's in the bill of rights, and the "shall not be infringed" action of the sentence is directed at it. . That is according to Scalia in Heller v D.C. -No it isn't. Each of the amendments to the BILL OF RIGHTS is about rights. Also learn to make/read a sentence diagram, makes it a lot easier. As Scalia pointed out there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that negates any other part of the Constitution. -It prohibits the govt from violating the right of the people tom arms. The same way the 1st amendment prohibits the govt from punishing free expression. Ignores the actual Supreme Courts decision in Heller v D.C. As Scalia succinctly put it the 2nd Amendment does not give everyone the right to own any gun they want, -You know what it did cover? Those in common use. The bar for which is 25k, based on another case involving tasers. AR-15's for instance are the most popular civilian rifle, they're well within common use. The stuff not covered by that is stuff like CBRN weapons, which is never what you people are after. It's AR-15's which fall well within common use, handguns, which that case covered specifically, if not guns at large. to carry anywhere they want to. -People hear this and then think there must not be a right. You can't shout in a court room, so you must not have a right to free speech. . It also means that you have not read the Debates on the Constitution, -If the founders wanted gun control then why is there zero precedent from the period and instead the founders personally owned weapons unrelated to militia service? John Jay stated commerce and guns were to be heavily regulated. -Guess what actually got ratified? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Accordingly, the laws from the period affirm such, not what you claim Jay wanted. Your 2nd Amendment is as a member of the militia at large -Yet it says "right of the people" (identical phrasing in the 1st and 4th amendments), not "right of the militia). It was the opinion of the authors the Bill of Rights. -Yet there's zero evidence to show they only wanted those in militias to own and have ownership be solely for militia purposes. Again, the founders personally owned firearms unrelated to militia use. Jefferson for instance has letters about an engraved pistol And was held to mean so by the Conservatives and Republicans until Ronald Reagan -This cope? The amendment has always said right of the people, being in a militia was never a requirement. So the courts annulment of the 2nd Amendment is a fraud. -Anulled by affirming that the right of the people is in fact the right of the people. . We do have a right to own guns without being militia It's a 9th Amendment Right. -It's clearly stated in the 2nd. "the right of the people", not the militia. n fact gun control was a Republican party platform until Reagan. -Not really. This at best looks at bipartisan legislature. The gun control Reagan was present for was when he was a democrat. It's still able to be "Regulated" -The militia, not the people's right. The latter shall not be infringed.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

The "signature gas tube system of assault rifles" you talk about existed on the m1 garand. On the other hand the machine gun rifle taken by west germany during 1975 was called the g3 and has no gas tube system at all even though its a real assault rifle. Try harder.

[@Scoots1994]

Thank you Malcolm! I am not a gun owner nor a gun lover, but I've been preaching that the gun control the government has been talking about for 40 years is worthless. It's just theater. The first question I've been asking people who talk about "gun control" is if they want to get rid of "assault weapons" and if they say yes I ask "Can you define what an assault weapon is?" and then I explain what you learned in this episode ... that by any meaningful definition all semi-automatic guns are assault weapons, and that generally includes hand guns. I then explain that fatalities from what the media calls "assault weapons" are miniscule in comparison to handgun deaths. The other major lie I hear all the time is about the total number of guns in the US ... there are more guns than people in the US, and that that number somehow explains why we have a gun violence problem. The issue I have with that is that the majority of those guns are owned by collectors and guns owned by collectors shoot very very very few people. And those collectors are almost all in the NRA. Then we get to legal gun deaths vs illegal gun deaths and we get to the core of the issue. When most of the gun deaths come from handguns in the hands of career criminals, and guns that are passed around constantly among criminal organizations ... how is ANYTHING Congress says going to make a difference? Third, and I think this is really important. It's too late, the battle is over. 3d printing and computer controlled machining means I can drive 15 minutes from my home and buy all the tooling and software and material to start churning out semi-automatic hand guns in my garage 24x7. As far as I know the law only restricts me in making guns for sale and distribution. I can give them out instead of candy on Halloween (but not to minors) and not actually break the law. Michael Moorer's conclusion was that the issue was the culture not the guns themselves and I agree. The problem is, how do you fix a culture that glorifies violence and obsesses with what "they" are doing to you and how "we" are going to solve your problems? And a media and government that broadcasts fear 24x7? That does not make for a society ready to rationally and calmly consider the meaning and risks of gun ownership.

[@leekyoverhere]

It's incredible how in the pursuit of political support, a person that is fighting for something noble, can become an outright liar and buffoon and ultimately work against the bigger cause. Only honesty will stand the test of time lol

[@tomhill2376]

You make no mention of what makes the AR-15 particularly lethal. It is not full vs semi mode or other design features. In fact our soldiers are taught to use semi mode and "three round bursts." It is the round itself, either a 556 military or a 223 caliber. These are very high velocity which causes the tumbling effect which vastly increases lethality. There is no need to ban the gun. Just ban the ammo for civilian sale.

[@richardgrumbine4867]

I have heard mixed things about this argument… IF it is true, then perhaps we could just bad certain types of rounds… which might be an easy enough fix… do you have any links? I am no expert… but most of things I have looked at do not support this tumbling idea in any strong way… I am NOT saying you are wrong… I just want to know the truth… if it is correct it could well go a long way towards a remedy!

[@TexasConnor]

Incorrect.

[@APere047]

😂 wrong

[@tomhill2376]

@@APere047 The positions here are so fully develo[ed ans well justified. /s/

[@corbert13]

Because this is false. I use a .223 to protect livestock from coyotes. If the bullet "tumbled" it wouldn't be accurate. This is just one more lie used by people who really don't care, they just hate guns.

[@mikewiz1054]

Obviously Malcolm didn’t do enough research on this one. Saying there is a difference between the military AR15 and the retail model is gun lobby propaganda. I can convert an AR15 to fully automatic in under 10 minutes. Anyone can do it with a simple google search. That’s the problem. It’s embarrassing that this wasn’t covered in this piece.

[@RTKdarling]

That conversion is meaningless though, it's been proven many times even by the US military. They realized after Vietnam that fully automatic weapons didn't just waste considerably more ammunition, but they lowered accuracy as well. Semi auto and three round burst are far more accurate and that's what the military mostly uses now. Handguns and armor piercing rounds are more deadly in the US than full auto.

[@somuchtosay]

Agreed on your point. Further, if the instructor was being fully transparent they could have mentioned that. Edit: Also ignored bump stocks. To me this boils down to what a reasonable person would be able to with a particular weapon. We can't rely on the founders, keep them out of this. They would have been scared of the potential firepower of anything made even 50 yrs later. A reasonable person would have very similar results with a semi vs a fully auto weapon. In fact, perhaps the semi is more dangerous.

[@R005t3r]

That would be neat trick, considering the receiver architecture and bolt carrier are different from auto to semiautomatic. Thank you for calling Sugarman out on his lies.

[@APere047]

Wow that’s crazy. All this time I thought you would have to switch out major parts

[@we_are_all_zero]

You sir are incorrect. Speaking as a machinist with the technical knowledge to ACTUALLY do this without a fucking google search IF IT WERE POSSIBLE the only easy semi to full auto conversion that does not require extra parts that are illegal for civilian use is when you machine to receiver catch lobes off an ak-47

[@plweis7203]

I personally find this person’s comments embarrassingly woke.

[@tjrich9349]

Of course, you do. Anything to stop the slaughter of school children is of course WOKE. A minority would rather see the continuance of child murders than be considered WOKE. It's the way they think.

[@Murray-wk3hz]

What is woke?

[@Transhumanist_Adam]

Give him another shot. I acknowledge he’s made mistakes in the past but This episode seemed fair enough.

[@mikewiz1054]

⁠@@Transhumanist_Adam No he didn’t do enough research. I can convert an AR15 to fully automatic in ten minutes. Anyone who served in the military can. Or you can just do a simple google search. That is the problem with that weapon. It has no usable function in society. And I’m an avid firearm enthusiast. There is propaganda from both sides on the AR15 but it is just a simple fact that it can easily be converted and that is the issue.

[@VikingTiger001]

You claim it's so easy to convert, which is highly illegal, similar to murder, but outside of one or two recorded cases, criminals aren't converting their ARs to be fully automatic. Rifles only account for 3% of firearm murders and the term "rifle" within the data also includes actions outside of semi-auto, like bolt, lever and pump. You mentioned propaganda, which surely you can admit here, is the only thing driving the control of the AR platform, as handguns account for 60% of all firearm murders. Buzzwords are used to portray rifles as scary, but if lives were to really be saved, mathematically, it's a no brainer the target should be pistols. But that never comes up. I wonder why that is, exactly.

[@jakejacobs4463]

Here is an idea, if you want to save peoples lives, don’t let criminals have lawyers