Top 10 MYTHS About GUNS

[@blubben17]

Gun and suppressor owner here, thanks for taking an objective and honest look at guns, there has always been a lot of misinformation about guns/suppressor/machine gun laws in the US.

[@laggindragon7166]

and they did it in the simplest way possible, god this makes all thos long winded gun debates look like nothing more then kids fighting on a playground

[@optwood]

.22LR rifle using subsonic ammunition with a supressor. The only sound was the mechanical action. The type and volume of sound was no different if there was a round chambered or it was empty. I personally experienced this in the late 1980s.

[@BigDawgTac97]

Brotein92 but its called a silencer under NFA

[@blubben17]

Alex the terms are interchangeable, yes they are legally referred to as silencers because that is what Hiram Maxim called them when he originally designed them but suppressor is a equally viable name for them used by many companies in the firearms market, for example "Rugged Suppressors".

[@99PMoon]

OPT Wood The fps of subsonic .22 LR is about 1,100. Compounded with the reduction of the suppressor, you would have to be close to the person and intent on committing murder. There are commercial pellet guns that shoot at 1200 fps and are just as quiet.

[@williamjacob885]

Well reasoned and thought out. I'm a gun owner, shooter, hunter, etc. I liked the fact that you described a gun as a tool and emphasized the responsibility of exercising that right.

[@thatguy22441]

It's nice to see he understands what any sane person has to explain 15,673 times: Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. If guns alone killed people, gun stores, gun shows, hunting camps and shooting ranges would be the most dangerous places on the planet. If legally owned guns were so dangerous, where I live would be more dangerous than Fallujah, while countries like Honduras and El Salvador would be utopian. The opposite is actually true. Well, not exactly the opposite. Gun laws have no bearing whatsoever on actual violence. Peace and prosperity do, but that's another kettle of fish......

[@Gladiamdammit]

@@thatguy22441 In England it's virtually impossible to buy a handgun. Knife violence in London is out of control. Food for thought, that.

[@mannamedisaak3316]

It makes you think in a whole different way

[@scotsman242424]

@@Gladiamdammit that's cultural diversity for ya, working wonders in london😂

[@alexithymia6288]

@@Gladiamdammit Haven't they banned/aren't they banning knives as well in the UK? If you can't own a gun, and can't own a knife, I guess you'll have to rely solely on your hand-to-hand capability, which the vast majority of the population lacks pretty much anywhere you go. Even here in the States, the police *might* be there in 10 minutes under prime circumstances, but you'll be dead, kidnapped, raped, etc. long before anyone shows up to do anything but react to what already happened, therefore making the appeal of owning a firearm for personal defense much higher for those of us who have that mindset.

[@craigbain1645]

"Knowledgeably argue your subject." We need more of that Mr. Whistler. Keep educating the masses. Well done dude

[@kalabwhite9600]

This was the most factual unbiased video I’ve ever seen on this topic

[@seancastle5971]

He got alot of it right except a larger round delivers more kenitic energy but but doesn't have to over penetrate that depends on the design of the specific round.

[@kalabwhite9600]

e fred like?

[@kalabwhite9600]

e fred ok how about list three things?

[@willtheman840]

@e fred I have learned that I definitely want to listen to Simon more than you.

[@willtheman840]

@e fred yeah my 135 iq doesn't always work. 💀

[@twilightzone39]

Also I love this video because it covers both sides REASONABLY. it doesn't lean towards any side and purely exists to provide information and to educate people, rather that to sway people towards any one side of the debate.

[@bestari5555]

I felt like it leaned to the pro gun side. It disproved things that people against guns propse but didnt really counter arguments of the other side.

[@JustinDragonClaw]

Bestari maybe because the foundation of the anti-gun platform is one of emotional-based arguments, skewed statistics, and idiotic debate?

[@spikedwk]

He still lied about things, he blatantly lied and said Los Angeles doesn't have strict gun laws.

[@tomwilhelm452]

@@bestari5555 It leans to the pro gun side because the facts lean to the pro gun side. And I'm saying this as a liberal. And a gun owner.

[@claytonecramer]

@@spikedwk I am sure he meant Louisiana. (LA.)

[@mdnave5807]

Finally someone who isn't completely biased and gives actual facts

[@1776PatriotTeen]

The nerdiest Gamer Yea but even then, he's still wrong with quite a few things in there.

[@Snubrevolver]

Wallie L Such as?

[@pwh2998]

S&W M19 lol he won’t respond because he doesn’t have anything

[@spikedwk]

S&W M19 the most obvious one is the blatant lie about L.A. gun laws.

[@iggsta3o5]

I would argue that his statement about the AR-15 being an overpowered tool for self-defense is one of the things he got wrong. With the average home invasion taking place with 2 - 4 assailants. Only 20 - 30 percent of rounds hitting a target in a dynamic firefight, as well as the fact that the average person can survive 4 shots to the chest (as long it's not the heart) at an 80 percent survival rate. With enough adrenaline they can continue to attack you. Having 30 rounds of 5.56/.223 would be a better and more appropriate tool for self-defense in a home.

[@RageCreati0n]

Gotta admit. You threw a curveball. I was expecting leftist propaganda. You served a refreshing plate of unbiased fact.

[@realitymatters8720]

Propaganda mean education, your dislike for it could explain your moronic remark. This is not a right left issue, it a common sense issue, something missing from many claiming to be rightwing on this issue.

[@thecaramelshawn]

@@realitymatters8720 information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. That is the definition of propaganda like saying banning AR-15 will sovle our problems like the left says. he is saying the man approached this in an unbiased manner informing both sides of this arguments and yes it is a common sense issue people on the right understand that they are upset because the left is acting without common sense about how they approach this problem

[@wesleypipelayer7627]

Wow. What a well crafted piece of propaganda. The final conclusion is that your right to defend against a tyrannical government, rests upon the decisions of that government to decide what is excessive and legal. Pure propaganda.

[@thecaramelshawn]

@@wesleypipelayer7627 when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government. This is straight from the declaration of independence. Now for me to craft propaganda I would have to be pushing a certain idea and what idea is that because you have no idea what my stance on situation is, so calm down keyboard warrior.

[@wesleypipelayer7627]

Shawn Shakoor .... calm down? Really Shawn shakoor? Did you understand a single thing you even said? If you had, maybe you’d understand the irony. Again I say..... what a well crafted piece of propaganda. I agree with most all of it, expect the conclusion. Basically saying “You have all the rights in the world, as long as your tyrannical government grants it to you”. Go back to Europe and beg for your rights. Can’t believe how brainwashed most Americans really are. You’re doing a great job.

[@spokanetomcat1]

He is very right about one thing, guns are tools and should be used as one.

[@harleyme3163]

indeed... but unfortunetly its a tool of death. Guns replaced crossbows, crossbows replaced bow and arrow's, bow's replaced spears.... Humans will never stop finding better or more effecient ways of killing.

[@spokanetomcat1]

They were made for defense use and hunting until someone figures it out they can also be used offensively.

[@christianbarrett3040]

@@spokanetomcat1 They are designed solely for killing. You don't see a gun marketed as just disabling an opponent. Not to mention every gun shot wound has to potential to be fatal.

[@spokanetomcat1]

@@christianbarrett3040 Again it is a tool. This tool can be used to be fatal. So are cars just to name another.

[@christianbarrett3040]

@@spokanetomcat1 All tools are designed with a specific use in mind. In this case it is a tool designed strictly to kill something. A car is designed as a mode of transportation but can be misused to kill people. You example completely ignores intended function and use of the tool.

[@ryanwilson5834]

"The top three cities, New Orleans, LA, and Detroit, are in states with a lack of gun control." Bruh… California has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country, and at least two of those three cities have strict gun laws on the books, with the local politicians attempting to increase those restrictions

[@jonperelstein2480]

You must have inhaled too much lead in poorly ventilated range. The chart doesn't say Los Angeles, it says "... New Orleans, LA; Detroit, MI; St. Louis, MO...". In other words, New Orleans Louisiana, Detroit Michigan, and St. Louis Missouri. In fact, Los Angeles is about #50 with a rate of about 6.5 firearms homicides per 100,000 versus Houston at about #28 with a rate of 11.2 per 100,000 Dallas at #14 with a rate of 14.5 per 100,000 St. Louis at #1 with a rate of 64.5 per 100,000 San Francisco is about #60 with a rate of 4.5 per 100,000 In fact, the worst city in CA is Oakland at about #13 with a rate of 18 per 100,000

[@austinhernandez2716]

Do you know what LA means there? 😂

[@patrickgriffitt6551]

Chicago

[@computerssuck93]

It's so nice to see a FACTUAL video about such a controversial issue, wherein the facts are presented without a bias undertone in either way. Great Job :)

[@michaelbeda410]

Hollow point bullets are designed to slow down post impaction with a target, the mushrooming is an effect

[@levicrane6101]

+ Accutronitis I don't think it misses the point at all. Bullets are meant to kill, not just give you an owie. Hollow points equal less collateral damage. There is no such thing as more dead. I don't think we are in disagreement I just wanted to elaborate on your point.

[@podmonkey2501]

Shanockdotcom The thing is, logical thought is itself biased in favor of gun rights, at least as far as the typical gun control arguments go.

[@Bob5mith]

Yes, hollowpoints are designed to mushroom and cause more damage than an FMJ zipping through-and-through. People use them for self defense for all the same reasons cops use them. Minimizing collateral damage is one of those reasons. The other main reason is that if you are in a situation that justifies deadly force, you need to stop someone immediately if not sooner. Even a solid heart shot can leave a determined attacker 10-15 seconds of mobility. That's a very long time for someone shooting a gun at you or charging you with a knife to give you a fatal wound. He'll probably die before the ambulance arrives, but so will you. And that's the very thing you were trying to avoid when you shot him. He needs to be stopped, completely and immediately. Hollowpoints make that more likely

[@deadeyeeffect319]

podmonkey2501 agreed, but there are times I look around at people and think, I hope they know how to keep these tool out of reach of children. Even though chemicals found under the kitchen sink and swimming pools kill way more children each year. It is a great responsible, being a gun owner, I just hope some of these people I see understand that. Also, there is the fact that being human, no matter how responsible you are, you can still make mistakes. My wife and I are gun owners and she told me that an officer in our area had forgotten to unload his service pistol about 5 months ago. A young child got a hold of it and killed himself. Even the best trained can forget how dangerous firearms can be in the wrong hands. I did not wish to hear any more details and my wife only slightly knew the mother. All I wish to say is please, know where and in what condition your firearms are in. Also, if you have young children or children over, who are uneducated about firearms, keep them out of their reach.

[@shimata17]

2:53 "Many gun rights activists say that there is no real definition of an assault but they would be totally incorrect... " Then proceeds to incorrectly define an assault rifle as a civilian version of a military weapon based on a Ban that wanted to get rid of all rifles.

[@masteranger4499]

He specified that is was defined by that law, which is true. The fact that it was purposely defined vaguely and inaccurately in the law, is not relevant to the fact that is was defined.

[@Meton2526]

@Edgar Miller Depends on your target. An intermediate cartridge is perfectly suitable for deer, and the ease of use, lower recoil, and higher portability of an AR-15 style rifle may make it a superior option to a full sized rifle, depending on terrain. Not that it's relevant, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural inalienable right, and the 2nd amendment was protecting the liberty to exercise that right against a tyrannical government, where you need a weapon that can effectively kill your enemy. Also an assault rifle is a weapon with a detachable magazine, in an intermediate cartridge, that can fire either fully automatic or with a mechanically limited burst, intended for effective use between 100ish and 700ish yards (or meters.) That burst was only added to aid with lack of training, since a fully automatic weapon is mechanically simpler, and in the hands of a trained and disciplined individual is strictly superior. The M16A2 modification to the original M16 replaced automatic control with a 3 round burst since the infantry in Vietnam were mostly conscripts that lacked the professionalism, and so required a mechanical limiter to prevent mag-dumps as a fear response. "Assault weapon" is a nonsense term that only has a definition as part of the "assault weapons ban" that defined anything that could be forced into the bill and passed. It has no definition as part of weapon-smithing or military categorization, and is strictly a vague and now ambiguous (since the sunset,) political meaning.

[@ericdiesch7591]

@@Meton2526 100% accurate...

[@daveacker7427]

@Edgar Miller you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. AR-15 rifles are used for predator hunting, hog hunting, varmint shooting and other types of shooting sports. Any firearm is a "man killer" and an AR-15, while meeting the arbitrary visual definition laid out in the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon capable of full auto, burst or semi-auto fire. The AR is a semi-auto only.

[@joshuaford9714]

Stand your ground applies anywhere the law is applying to. Castle doctrine only applies to the home. They are 2 very different things

[@orion8981]

They're correlated and historically intrinsically linked. Stand your ground is castle doctrine for the streets.

[@userJohnSmith]

You are correct sir. Stand your ground and make my day are both derived from called doctrine.

[@thewolfshark5914]

Joshua Ford castle doctrine also applies to your car

[@ninponighthawk]

@@thewolfshark5914 Is some states but not in others.

[@JS-os2qi]

In Florida the castle doctrine also extends to your vehicle, carjacking and such

[@truvak]

This is the best explanation of the 2nd amendment ever, and coming from a British person it is even greater. Cheers from Mexico.

[@ILikeToLaughAtYou]

Truvak T I’m so confused by your comment lmfao

[@pankobreadcrumbs7090]

10 facts about PTSD please!

[@rurikvolkov2810]

Lemmy Koopa King it ain't pretty bub

[@Gottaculat]

14:17, Actually, no, the 2nd Amendment has a very clear directive in it that is not in the first: "Shall not be infringed." If you don't know what that means, in this case, "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." The 1st Amendment doesn't have this directive, but the 2nd Amendment does, and that cannot be justly ignored. ALL gun laws that limit a citizen to keep AND BEAR (keep: to own and be in possession of, and bear: to carry on one's person) arms (arms: armaments, be it ANY weapon, armor, or related accoutrements such as holster, laser, cleaning kit, etc), also limit that person's ability to form a well regulated (organized and competent) militia (civilian combat force, NOT under any government jurisdiction/authority, with the purpose of securing their own community - with or without government cooperation), are an infringement on our rights, and therefore UNLAWFUL under the supreme law of the land, aka "the Constitution." Federal, state, and local jurisdictions (even private citizens) MUST all abide by the Supreme Law. All are subject to it, none are exempt, though many violate the Supreme Law in practice (and they will eventually get their comeuppance if they keep pushing us). Also note that our first 10 amendments CANNOT be repealed or changed, as they are clearly labeled as "inalienable rights," which means just that, that they can not be made different or gotten rid of; they are permanently protected. Amendments can be added that don't alter the first 10, and only those that are added may be changed or repealed, so long as they don't mess with the first 10. I know some lawyers may say I'm wrong because that's not how the law is practiced, but I posit that just because one practices something incorrectly (and illegally) doesn't make it correct.

[@jacka55six60]

Exactly! At 14:14 the guy says "should not be infringed". WRONG. It is clearly written "Shall not be infringed". HUGE difference between should and shall.

[@gsekse]

GREAT, according to this idea, I can own a fully functional TANK! And when they invent a functional version... A RAILGUN, nothing says personal defense like a supersonic weapon. Also, how about tactical nuclear tipped weapons? My personal defense is very important to me. :eyeroll: all things need some sort of reality check.

[@jacka55six60]

gsekse “this idea” was made LAW a couple of centuries ago and hasn’t been removed. The growing tyranny over the last century has been able to persuade enough people to think as you do.

[@gsekse]

@@jacka55six60 So.. you vote YES to anyone owning all of what I listed? Cool, you need to think that over a bit.

[@egoarmyic]

gsekse you should definitely be allowed to own those. In fact, the founding fathers would agree in saying you should. Now, unless you’re a billionaire, probably not going to happen though

[@alecduquette7500]

I live in Maine and at the end of 2015 we passed a law making concealed/open carry legal for anyone who can own a firearm. For handguns it's 18 if active duty military and 21 standard. A lot of the gun control people started freaking out thinking crime would jump but the opposite happened. We saw record numbers of purchases but also it was nearly impossible to find a firearms safety course that wasn't sold out. For what little violent crime Maine has(largest city is just under 70,000 and state overall is 1.2 million) the rate dropped even more. People wanted to educate themselves about what they were doing. And even now people are still taking the concealed weapons class even though it's not required. This right here proves both sides wrong since more guns actually helped but it wasn't any obnoxious ones. The top 3 purchases were 9mm,. 22lr and 380 and most people only bought 1 or 2. Gun control isn't needed. Anti gun control also isn't needed. Common sense is what we all need

[@MikhaelAhava]

Alec Duquette I am an advocate gun control, keep your hands on the gun. I'm bad at Jokes.

[@alecduquette7500]

XZDrake You are absolutely right in that. I personally work in law enforcement, specifically Corrections in the county jail. Like I said we don't have much up here in Maine(leading to the lowest incarceration rate in the country) but even then gun violence is almost non existent up here. In the last 2 years I've seen only 5 murder cases in our facility and none of them involved a firearm. Likewise with about 20 robbery cases only around 5 involved firearms and 2 of them were bb/airsoft guns with identifiers removed. I can't speak for the rest of the country but gun violence isn't really a thing here. And tightening gun control will just lead to a repeat of prohibition from the 20s. Alcohol was illegal yet people still got it. All it would do it take a firearm from an honest person, a criminal would still find a way to get one. And at least with alcohol it was a danger to only the person drinking it at the time, it couldn't be used to mug someone or rob a bank. Arms trafficking is already an issue in some places and tightening gun control would just spread it more.

[@MikeForce111]

Los Angeles does NOT have a "lack of gun control," quite the opposite actually. Other than that, great video.

[@levlev.1028]

MIKE FORCE well, L.A. has a surprising amount of guns for such strict laws ;-)

[@MrArcher7]

I think he means New Orleans, LA, as in Louisiana.

[@howardbaxter2514]

He was saying NOLA, Detroit, and St Louis.

[@jmshaw357]

There were dozens or misstatements in this video, some facts, but lots of misleading misstatements. Sloppy language.

[@misha5670]

No, not really. Yes a couple errors yes, but if you have ever tried making youtube videos, you know already small mistakes are unavoidable.

[@danielhesse8600]

LA is in California, the state with arguably the strictest gun control laws.

[@233kosta]

Don't know about strictest, but definitely dumbest.

[@Y3N1X]

And the most gun deaths and shootings because no one can defend themselves

[@chaist94]

I think New York is worse.

[@atropabelladonna5215]

I would like to add some clarifying arguments (in a hopefully unbiased way) that explain some of the arguments a little better. A common argument among gun control advocates is that gun control hasn't worked properly in the U.S. because there aren't strict borders between states - for example, I could potentially obtain a firearm legally in one state with fewer restrictions and simply carry it to a state with stricter regulation. I'm not sure whether this argument holds any statistical weight - I haven't seen a study documenting whether this is commonplace or not.

[@grandadmiralthrawn8116]

@@atropabelladonna5215 as far as I know that's illegal. When my brother came to Alabama from California the gun shop refused to sell him a gun until he could prove he lived here. Now weather or not that's a federal law I dont know.

[@NP-cq3vb]

Here in Finland we have the highest rate of gun ownership in Northern Europe, however only 5% of all our violent crime is gun crime.

[@lookoutforchris]

Nikolai Puumalainen if the US sent to Finland the 12% of our population which commits the majority of our murders you'd have the same problem we do. Subtract that 12% and the murder rate in the US falls right into the middle of the statistics for Western Europe.

[@mobspeak]

You are also a depressed bunch of junkies.

[@MrLastlived]

Finland is also one of best places to live according to the happiness index

[@GamzaLive]

One of the biggest things I would like to clarify is that the Constitution doesn't grant rights; it's law of the People restricting Government. rights are self evident and endowed by our creator, so the Amendments don't grant us anything, rather they restrict government powers. But because of endless politics the Government essentially says "I get to decide if this law restricts me or not? okay! the answer is of course it doesn't." and thus firearm restrictions, cops confiscating property and claiming it's "evidence" even if you haven't committed a crime, government spying on people without warrants etc.

[@RealtorDanHayden]

Actually it lays out firmly what the government can not do to we the people. That’s why some folks wrk fly define it as “negative rights” as they have a government 1st view of the world.

[@Volunteer-per-order_OSullivan]

i would interpret it as to prevent the government from taking away the right of a human to self preservation, something all people in all countries have but few actually protect..

[@JeffDeWitt]

Yes, the most fundamental human right is the right to self defense. In the United States that right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

[@kurious2a607]

The United States has never been a country. Each state is in fact it's own nation.

[@madisonlink7141]

The Constitution grants rights. Obviously, the Constitution is a piece of paper, and nothing more. But the US Courts have by and large faithfully upheld those rights.

[@robertkesselring]

While I can't give this a perfect 100%, I can say that this is by far the best and most balanced presentation on the subject that I have seen on KZbin.

[@DavetheDiabetic1]

We have duty to retreat in Ohio, but our law basically says if someone is trying to kill you, you are not required to turn around (exposing yourself to harm) to retreat. Castle Doctrine applies to your Home and car in Ohio.

[@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire]

And in Texas, deadly force is authorized in the immediate pursuit after someone steals something from you. You can't go hunt them down the next day, but if you are chasing them right after the theft, it's acceptable. That was probably put in there so that people didn't realize that they don't need police.

[@ejrupp9555]

#8 The 1994 act expired in 2004. The definition is held to the act ... Thus the definition expired. If a new, similar act was passed, they would have to define it again.

[@Razgriz85]

I also find a problem with how vague they defined what an "assault weapon" is. If you look into their new proposed ban, H.R.5087, you'll see that they added more to what they perceive as "assault weapons" by putting pretty much all semi-auto firearms into the classification with few exceptions.

[@vepristhorn8278]

@@Razgriz85 Thats because said gun laws are being written by individuals who are not knowledgeable about firearms, and many a politician has been caught not being able to define the terms in laws that they wrote

[@theshocker4626]

It was a definition made up from thin air and the fever dreams of Statists, who themselves have armed security.

[@IndianaJoe0321]

Correct; the legal definition expired. So now there is NO such thing as an "assault weapon." A person can use a ballpoint pen, a stool, or a hammer as an "assault weapon," so the idea of labeling firearms is sheer lunacy. I cut Simon some slack in this one due his being a Brit who put together a well-balanced video on this subject.

[@younghusk1968]

Gun control will never stop people from obtaining guns or slow the crime rate. There is an equal amount of crime in gun friendly states, but if gun control solved anything then there should be LESS crime in anti gun states.

[@amak1131]

Part of the problem is.... states. I could easily drive to Nevada (4hrs) and buy a gun that is illegal in California.

[@jamessheesley5484]

you could, and that would make you a criminal. Thats the problem with most laws not only gun laws, thay are largely useless. How many can honestly say they never speed? Its a law and if you do your a criminal. Thats just how it is. Is the social order going to break down if you speed, not likely but if you are willing to break one law the next may be that little bit easier and so on. What is needed is personal responsibility and accountability. Yea I know, never happen.

[@howardbaxter2514]

Federal Bureau of Statistics noted that 40.0% of guns obtained by criminals are illegally obtained (from the street), and 37.4% of guns are obtained through family and friends. That means that nearly 80% of guns obtained by criminals bypass any sort of background check on the criminals. Side note: the Columbine shooters obtained their guns by breaking 20+ gun laws and had a girlfriend give them two shotguns and a rifle (they also some how obtained TEC-9 handgun somehow. Another side note: I just finished writing an argumentative essay against gun control, so I’ve looked heavily at the statistics pertaining to gun control and gun violence.

[@lazydragonslayer]

It’s already illegal to murder.... so....

[@biocapsule7311]

From personal perspective, associating crime rate or crimes in general with guns, is a distinctively American thing. I don't think there's any developed countries beyond the US that thinks in such a way. Just like the argument that if you take guns away from the "law-abiding" citizen, only the criminals will have them, implying that criminals automatically want guns. Putting aside that if they are taking guns away, everyone that secretly have them are by default not law abiding anymore. Criminals who aren't in the US, generally don't use guns, since most crime don't require one. And Criminals generally aren't in the habit of drawing unwanted attention for something they don't even need. It just happens to be true in the US, not because career criminals are 'criminals', but rather because be it police, civilians or career criminals, they are all first & foremost Americans. which means they think in terms of guns, whether something happens to be true or not. Same with the idea that "Gun control will never stop people from obtaining guns", it stop plenty beyond the US. The developed world is not swarming with illegal guns, since it's not an item that can easily sustain a black market for the individual in stable region. Because regardless how effective something is... it only works if you want it to work. It never would, if you never intent to make an effort of it.

[@logicplague]

Suprisingly even handed video on this issue, well done. Just one thing, assault weapons by definition have select-fire capability, therefore semi's are NOT assault rifles.

[@monkeymode7529]

damn, you kept this completely unbiased, I thought it'd be liberally biased and was very happy to see you're professional

[@syriuszb8611]

"unbiased" without even checking facts about how "hard" it is to buy a gun in some states other than most restricted...

[@vettebodee]

Syriusz B yeah, it's not like they actually said that some may have more relaxed laws.

[@AshGreen359]

I'm in California, but I think in other states you can still go to a gun show and walk out with a gun. That's terrifying even for me who owns guns.

[@colenickerson6335]

Ash Green that's not true sorry if I seem rude

[@sdgardner1954]

Not in most states, unless you undergo an instant background check.

[@deanpeterson2272]

This is extremely well put together, I am impressed.

[@noname-xo5mp]

I just bought me a pistol the other day, I live in Florida. Had the wait 3 days for the "cool down period" I was crackin jokes with the gun store guys, sayin " Suzanne is lucky I don't hold grudges that long, but I'll still buy it" They was laughin it up bc they know the law is ridiculous too

[@brandonnecessary]

I believe in Tennessee where I live used to have one, then they realized it doesn't matter.

[@GlassicGamer]

Get your concealed carry permit then you won't have to wait 3 days next time :)

[@TheJMBon]

Myth: Guns kill people Fact: People kill people Blaming guns for gun crimes is akin to blaming forks for the obesity epidemic

[@jeffsimon2144]

It is too my fork's fault! How dare you imply I should exercise any personal responsibility!

[@yig_501]

Or blaming cars for human error acciidents

[@matonmongo]

Actually it's the _bullets_ that kill people, and guns just make it a whole lot easier to _deliver_ 'em. It's why mass murderers don't choose a knife or sword. On the other hand, overeating doesn't 'require' a fork (cue the Subway and Burger King ads).

[@matonmongo]

@e fred Is that why the _Driver_ is required to have insurance and held responsible for any damage their rolling 'tool' does?

[@TheJMBon]

@Bruh Moment When's the last time a gun magically jumped off a rack and shot someone? I'll answer that for you, NEVER. People kill people, inanimate chunks of metal and plastic don't. If humanity disappeared suddenly, what do you think guns would do? I'm betting they'd just sit there, undisturbed and harmless. Take your short-sighted, politically motivated bigotry elsewhere. I suggest somewhere filled with your IQ level such as The Church of Scientology or the Flat-Earther Society.

[@LloydHanebury]

The difference between the restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms is that the first amendment doesn’t say that a persons right to free speech shall it be infringed, whereas the second amendment clear states that this right shall not be infringed. The definition of infringe: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. "his legal rights were being infringed" synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair, damage, compromise

[@HC130P8419]

Except the first words of the First Amendment state "Congress shall make no law...or abridging the freedom of speech..." So the amendment clearly states that congress shall make no law curtailing the freedom of speech. The Second amendment does not place that limit solely on Congress, but a blanket "Shall not be infringed" statement was chosen. Now, obviously the argument could be made that the Framers did not envision the People would vote and cede so much power to the federal government instead of keeping it with themselves or the States, but that's a different argument. But in short, you're wrong, the First amendment states that congress can't infringe on the freedom of speech and the second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They are both, technically, on equal footing in regards to how much they are allowed to be regulated.

[@ZhangtheGreat]

The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the 2nd Amendment is fully subject to reasonable regulation, including in the DC v. Heller case that was considered a victory for gun ownership rights.

[@Hamann9631]

Lloyd Hanebury. You aren't completely right on that but he wasn't either. Banning lies intended to kill people has nothing to do with freedom of speech. A comparable situation to "yelling fire in a crowded theater" would be banning murder. Banning me having hollow point bullets or a gun of a certain shape are not comparable to banning me ordering someone to murder another person.

[@josephgazitano3445]

Except the second amendment doesn't state that the right of every citizen to own a firearm shouldn't be infringed. It says that the right of a well-regulated militia to own firearms should not be infringed. You're ignoring, as do many gun advocates, the first half of the amendment because you don't like the word "regulated" but it's RIGHT THERE in the amendment. And not just regulated, but well-regulated. Regulations are guidelines for usage. Well-regulated would mean very clear, defined, specific guidelines that are legal and supportable. A well-regulated militia would be one that has very clearly defined guidelines for how it can be used. Yes, it means that the citizenry can use their firearms to defend themselves if an oppressive government is trying to declare a dictatorship, but it doesn't mean you can hoard your guns to shoot anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[@Hamann9631]

@@josephgazitano3445 You are wrong! The militia in the minds of the founding fathers was every able bodied man, hence every citizen. Your definition of well-regulated is not the one the founding fathers used. I am thinking of a primary source document. The writing was describing a military unit he visited. He said the were regulated, meaning they were regularly shooting towards the enemy.

[@BruceDoesStuff]

This was very good, and surprisingly unbiased; but it's worth noting that the "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" analogy used near the end is actually completely misleading. You ARE allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater; but because it's a "call to action", you may be responsible/liable for any injuries which occur if it causes a stampede. Similarly I could walk in to an NAACP meeting in the US and say the most vile things imaginable about black people, and I would be protected by the first amendment. In contrast if I walked in with my buddy Steve and said, "Steve said [insert previous list of vile things], so you should kick his ass" (or even told Steve that he should kill the NAACP members); my speech would NOT be protected, because it was a call to action for violence against Steve/NAACP. To the same effect, you can look back on documented correspondence with the founding fathers to make a solid argument that the second amendment CANNOT be limited; including a sailor who asked James Madison if he could have a cannon on his ship, and Madison effectively said "Of course you can, what do you think we meant when we said '...cannot be infringed'?!"

[@brenine3104]

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater *if there is not a fire.* The second part is typically left out, since it is implied. Cheers

[@hitlerscow]

You didn't actually read the comment you're replying to, did you?

[@nunyastockson5901]

true. but i think we can give them a pass on that slightly misleading point.

[@michaelbeda410]

Mr. Bruce, have Googled your quote in regards to James Madison and the sailor, but have not found evidence of it. Would you mind posting a link for this?

[@deathsythelui]

Dude, the document linked to is a privateering license, which were commonly issued in the early days of the nation due to the fact that we a very weak naval force until some time after the War of 1812 (which itself was won largely due the efforts of privateer fleets hired by the US and Louisiana state governments to directly combat the British Fleet entering the New Orleans harbors). Totally taken out of context by that original video.

[@Charlie_Rowe]

Thank you, Simon. Love all your vids, especially the historical ones. You would be a better curriculum here in the U S. than the one we currently have that trains kids to take aptitude tests.

[@davedonovan9648]

This is probably the most unbiased information I have seen on the internet regarding firearms. Well done.

[@JS-os2qi]

Not completely accurate though.

[@Needagoodnamebutcantthinkofone]

Well done, I was impressed with the fact it was almost totally accurate and almost completely unbiased.... Well done again

If anyone thinks you can buy military grade equipment you are sorely miss informed. Same crowd who thinks an ar-15 is an assault rifle.

[@brucetucker4847]

Military-grade really just means rugged and made by the lowest bidder.

[@ghostuscoyote]

Uh... yeah I have a few older rifles that were issued to military troops. Military surplus. Just because some guns are slightly modified for civilian use does not mean they are beneath the level of military weapons. A 5.56 out of an AR 15 is just as deadly as out of an M16 (actually it can be more so because civilians can use hollow or soft point). By the definition in the old Assault Weapons Ban, yes an AR is technically an "assault weapon" but who cares? Don't tell me an M16 is "military grade" and an AR15 is not, they are literally the same gun shooting the same round but the M16 has a full auto selection.

[@sammiecanua7310]

These people werent allowed to have toy guns or watch violence like adam 12, you know they are taught to think dumb stuff by libtarded parents

[@thatguy22441]

Let's face it, the anti-gunners want to disarm everyone except police, military and their own security details. "Military style" firearms are low-hanging fruit for an incremental firearms ban.

[@bigsean2473]

@john Mullholand right so if a mass of murders went on killing sprees in 30 states with ball pein hammers would they ban them??

[@johnguy3211]

I was with you right up until you forgot what "shall not be infringed" means. Not bad for a brit though 👍

[@jasonporter5912]

He lost me when you said the first amendment doesn’t cover shouting fire in a crowded theater. A video dedicated to debunking common misconceptions just parroted a common misconception lmao

[@pauldanish1]

@@jasonporter5912 Mr. Justice Holmes said that Freedom of speech does not include the right to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater and cause a panic. Gun control advocates usually leave out the parts about whether there actually is a fire.

[@accuratealloys]

I’ve seen security video where a violent person was shot several times with a 9mm hand gun and kept attacking and didn’t even notice until dying several minutes later. That didn’t happen when an AR15 was used. They either ran away as fast as they could or dropped instantly.

[@cleverusernamenexttime2779]

That's why the .40 cal was developed. More stopping power than a 9, less recoil than a .45.

[@OldManMontgomery]

I prefer larger caliber handguns, .45 ACP being my choice. That said, no handgun generally works as well for self-defense and 'combat' as a rifle.

[@majorsynthqed7374]

Could have been high on PCP.

[@yadidimeanmaine]

An AR-15 is actually an extremely responsible choice for home defense because the tiny super-fast bullets break up in walls and don't over-penetrate.

[@LinkHyrule03]

M855 is kinda terrible for most applications. M193 works well as do most OTM and polymer-tipped ammo.

[@TK-fy4nu]

Why exactly is the ar 15 controversial?

[@chloebrammer4254]

You do realise "tiny super-fast bullets" are better at penetrating right? If you had a 9mm and a .45 the ,45 would do more damage sure but the 9mm would penetrate better due to it's higher speed and smaller surface area.

[@WorldWarGames]

Yeah but the .223/5.56 is so light that when it impacts it tumbles and breaks up. 9mm won't because it's speed relative to it's mass does cause enough force to shatter the bullet on impact. Everything has a certain critical force level where if enough force is applied in a short enough time, the item will shatter. 9mm doesn't travel fast enough or weigh little enough for it to ever meet that critical level. .223/5.56 DOES, because it travels almost 2000 FPS yet only weighs between 40 and 70 grains, which is 2.5 to 4.5 grams.

[@yadidimeanmaine]

Chloe Brammer - I'm guessing where you live you're probably not allowed to have AR-15s. I'll tell you from experience that 5.56 is TERRIBLE at hard barrier penetration. Even when shooting through brush it won't maintain a straight trajectory like a 7.62 round will.

[@tank2003]

"Why do you need a big gun?" Cites an AR15

[@highgear2359]

Accuracy. multiple attackers. And popular for boars

[@reillyberg7761]

He's probably never heard of 458 win mag or .416 rigby

[@dustinfaulkner5970]

@@reillyberg7761 well he did bring up the 30-06 which we used a semi auto one in WW2, so I mean plastic or polymer hardware makes a gun more lethal right lol. But I think his point was a semi-auto rifle that people think is big and scary regardless of actual caliber

[@donna30044]

@@highgear2359 I'd rather use a .300 Blk rather than a .223/5.56 for hogs; .45-70 is better than either of those.

[@x-rayactual4770]

he does make a fair point regarding over penetration and secondary casualties due to stray rounds though. I'd argue that for home defense in a paper wall apartment a short PCC loaded with .45 ACP hollow points (slow, heavy and expand on impact) or a short pump action 12 or 16 gauge with low power ammo would be preferable. Then again I'm not a gunsmith or former SOF soldier so what do I know.

[@Cypress1983]

As someone that survived the Columbine shooting (shown in your video), I can confidently say that the majority of people that survive mass shootings tend to see the need to purchase/own/carry firearms. Very well done video, Simon!

[@isaiahtracy3543]

Finally some guy decides to be educated about guns

[@theduke7539]

I'm thoroughly impressed. This was a fairly comprehensive discussion with no real bias. And while I'm certain Simon has his own opinions on the subject, he did the discussion justice by sticking to the facts, even the facts that I'm sure he doesn't quite agree with. I'm a gunsmith and I have a relatively small gun collection, and I found that most of this is correct, and the things that weren't, were really inconsequential. I often find that when people walk into my shop, they are severely uninformed. And even though i am in a state with relatively lax gun laws, there are still multiple things to do to get your gun. And sometimes people dont come prepared to meet those requirements. And not to mention, the cost. I cant tell you how many people come into the shop with the expectation of buying a gun for under 200 dollars, which frankly, isnt all that possible. My shop normally has around 3,000 guns on display, and in that, only 7 brand new firearms are under 200 dollars, and occasionally there will be a used firearm under 200 dollars. But when someone walks in and asks if we have .357 Magnum revolver for 150, I have to look at him and say that this isnt the 70s anymore, and the absolute cheapest .357 in the shop is 399.99, and if you want a SW .357, that's gonna be around 700 dollars. People watch a cowboy movie like the Fast and the Dead, and they see a guy buy a "shootin iron" for 5 bucks and think, I wanna go do that, I know inflation is a thing, but surely I can pay for with the money I normally keep in my wallet.

[@jasonadams1632]

I usually don't watch videos on this subject as they are almost always filled with biased opinion and mis/dis information. This video was well done and quite balanced, thank you.

[@michaelconran5252]

Another issue is the term Assault Rifle. A Ruger Ranch Rifle is not considered an assault rifle. Change the stock, now it is. Nothing about it's performance has changed. Just like putting a hood scoop on your V-6 Mustang, car ain't going any faster.

[@dcwillis87]

I'd like to point out that the standard caliber of an AR15 is 5.56x45/.223. You tried to describe an AR15 as an "overpowered" gun, this cartridge is one of the smallest rifle cartridges. I didn't say the smallest I said the one of the smallest.

[@dcwillis87]

Anthony C yes I know that, you fool, but powder charge and bullet weight is. A 5.56 as compared to a .308, .30-06, etc etc is a relatively weak cartridge. It's considered an intermediate rifle cartridge, not a full power cartridge, such as .308. The most common 5.56 round is a 55grain bullet, when fired from a 16" barrel, which is the most common barrel length in an ar-15, it gets around 3000fps. This is very powerful when compared to oh say a 9mm pistol. But when you compare it to your "standard" deer hunting rifle in .308 or 30-06, it's a fairly weak cartridge. It's even illegal in some states to shoot a deer with a 5.56, because it's considered too weak and inhumane. I'm not hating on the caliber, in fact I love it, I have four rifles chambered in 5.56, including two AR15s. But it's not in anyway shape or form an overpowered cartridge.

[@jamessheesley5484]

Apples and oranges. 5.56X45mm is an intermediate cartridge and the 7.62X54mm is a rifle cartridge. To determine if it was "overpowered" it would have to be compared to other intermediate cartridges not a full rifle cartridge. It is after all much more powerful then the 5.6X15mmR which is of a similar caliber (most of us would know this as the .22 long rifle). I'd be willing to put money down that .22 long rifle has killed far more dear then .223 and I would also put money down that you would not find any one willing to admit to it. 'corse then we would have to define "overpowered", yeaaa luck with that.

[@cameronnorton5898]

Even .22lr is incredibly lethal.

[@chedelirio6984]

The video clearly means to refer to "overpowered for your purposes", as opposed to on an absolute quantitative scale.

[@jamesbizs]

357 Magnum Bear in fact, the .22 is the round that has killed the most people

[@xXBoredomeXx]

Those limitations I think are unconstitutional but I also think safety classes should be more common. *Shrug* the NFA should be repealed. A short barrel rifle or shotgun is honestly less dangerous than an accurate longer barreled one

[@robertirwin2259]

Hunting IS expensive, but I have never paid for processing meat, except possibly a sharpening stone and freezer paper

[@scottjackson1636]

some people never bother to learn, and take the animal in for processing. If i wanted to spend 500 dollars for 200lbs of meat, i would have gone to a butcher. Instead of freezing my but off in a tree stand for hours at a time.

[@trevorhill2730]

What I took from this video is that America's gun culture has issues with poverty and suicides. I love my firearms and can totally agree with this. Great video man. Very unbiased and insightful

[@joddtoward442]

Great unbiased video. Wish more people would realize that guns are not the major problem in the U.S. It is poverty and lack of education in some major cities, that result in higher crime rates. Also a gun is like a fire extinguisher or spare tire. You may not need it, but it is there when you least expect it.

[@masonkiefer1222]

Ed boy people need to stop blaming the guns and start blaming the people for what they do with them if a man really did want to murder his wife you remove the gun he'll use a knife you can't blame a tool for what people use it for

[@donjuan69420]

Darude Rocket you are stupid even though most people in the US can own a weapon you don't see millions killing each other we don't have muslims running the country like the UK thats why there is that small amount of deaths

[@clstjam4321]

Well done Simon! To hear a Brit speak clearly on US gun laws/culture is impressive considering how many US citizens remain willfully ignorant of the topic. The only correction I would make is that the AR15 is not a "big" gun. It is in fact a .223 caliber (5.56mm) and is illegal to hunt large game such as deer with since it would be considered inhumane. Most states require a .270 or larger for deer hunting. It is perfect for medium to small sized game taken at a distance though. Not to mention it's mild recoil makes it a fantastic rifle for target shooting and first time shooters.

[@michaeleisenbise4278]

Watch most of your videos. Feel you provided really thought out video. Feel it presented the facts. Was most impressed. Great job.

[@im1who84u]

When someone buys a big screen television. I don't ask them why they need such a big screen.

[@manbeast]

TV/Guns. TV. Guns. The difference could be them wanting a better quality picture and surround sound or hunting a goddamn bigfoot. Maybe you should ask. There are some interesting characters out there.

[@im1who84u]

@@manbeast I see your point...... and My point was... why do little babies that are afraid of guns ask gun owners, why do you need a gun, why do you need such a big gun, why are you carrying a gun are you expecting trouble..... It's really none of their business as it is none of my business why they are exercising their constitutional right to purchase a large screen television.

[@ogloc6308]

Shockingly unbiased and nuanced. Great job

[@Madmac96]

I was a bit skeptical of a Brit talking about firearms. Figured it would be anti-gun. Was very surprised to find I was wrong, and he was pretty unbiased. Well researched and fact based. Nicely done, sir.

[@noelnicholls1894]

Years back a study showed a larger proportion of Brits had gone through gun safety programs and training irrespective of ownership

[@jacobrodriguez8659]

As well as most of the other commenters I am happy to see a very throughly researched video and an unbiased video.

[@Blunt_Man]

I like how surprisingly unbiased this is! I'm pro gun and I doubt anyone will ever change my opinion but it's because just like in this video, it's based on facts and not feelings!

[@joseantoniolago5857]

I love guns but it is not a cheap hobby .

[@davidmcguire6043]

No matter where you stand on the United States firearms debate the words "shall not be infringed" are very clear and our supreme Court has been derelict in its duty for not recognizing that.

[@davidmcguire6043]

@Edgar Miller learn English then learn what the words meant when the Constitution was written because language changes over time then reread it. And it's not our constitution that's failing the reason our country is doing so bad is because our leadership is failing to abide by the Constitution.

[@davidmcguire6043]

@Edgar Miller you're way too ignorant to have this conversation with if you really believe that the founding fathers weren't capable of recognizing that society and technology would advance and even without considering that humans haven't changed. also some of your facts are on their face completely false.

[@martincart2775]

#6 Magic bullets - Hollow points were designed to impart as much energy into the target as possible to cause a knock down. The fact that they have minimal chance of passing through is a beneficial side effect.

[@CelticCross74]

BRAVO !!!!! ... Spot on my friend. This was fantastic and very accurate. A couple of grey areas could still be debated, but I absolutely loved this. Thank you for putting out this very accurate information.

[@treverlawrence5183]

Also wrong the 45 ACP is the slowest moving projectile of any handgun known besides subsonic rounds usually used with a suppressor 45 ACP is a very slow moving Target in unless you miss your target has less likely to pass through a intruder then any other firearm that includes 9 mm 380 Etc and we're being told this by somebody with a British accent which probably has no understanding of American Firearms thank you for your input on this subject but you know little if nothing about actual ballistics

[@peterreid5315]

Actually really well rounded argument I’m genuinely happily surprised!

[@internetcatfish]

I would like to add a few more facts to consider. The first is about suppressors. While they do muffle the sound of the gases and can slow the bullet down, they often still allow normally supersonic bullets to create a sonic boom (because they didn't slow down enough) and they do nothing to quiet the action of the firearm. Most guns make a very noticeable sound when you chamber a round, which happens on every shot with a semiautomatic firearm. The second is about the cities with high murder rates. While it is true that some of them are in states with less restrictive gun laws, several of those cities have more restrictive laws than the states they are in. For example, the city of Detroit has gun laws that are more restrictive than several states. This is true of many cities, some more so than others.

[@Psychol-Snooper]

A trusted person can pry my gun from my cold dead hands if I show suicidal behavior. That's the saying... right??

[@huntermoss9403]

Angry Applesauce gtfo

[@Psychol-Snooper]

@Hunter a Pity your dad didn't GTFO of your mom in time, am I right?

[@benperez9824]

Lol an ar15 is not a big gun

[@theoldshooter9011]

What most people miss about the 2 A is the little item in it called a "comma"". Between the idea of a militia and the idea of citizen's right to bear arms is a comma. The purpose of a comma is to separate ideas. The comma makes the distinction of a militia AND citizens bearing arms. Few paid attention in English class.

[@bikebuilder89031]

Thank you for being completely unbiased and only stating factual information.

[@ChiefMac59]

I have a few issues with the statements made. First off - the Department of Defense has a definition of an Assault Weapon that proceeds that of of 1994. It says "As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, SELECTIVE-FIRE weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” Second the statement that the AR-15 is a military weapon weapon modified for civilian use is absolutely false. The first rifle design was the AR-10 which was an .308 and looked like the M-16. The US Army wanted an .556 version so Eugene Stoner built the AR-15 , which was again a CIVILIAN weapon. The US Army demanded changes such as selective fire and a forward assist. So the AR-15 is a civilian weapon modified for military use not the other way around. Let's go to number 1. The First Amendment does not prevent somebody from falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is an outright lie. Nor does the First Amendment state that the right shall not be infringed. It says that the government may not regulate speech period. If you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater you do not lose your freedom of speech, but are punished for inciting panic. Now let's go to the Second Amendment - "the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" is actually an absolute and nobody can claim otherwise with an ounce of morality. So this video creates 3 myths instead of answering 10

[@josephgazitano3445]

Let's go back to the Second Amendment, since you're talking in absolutes... "A WELL-REGULATED militia" is pretty on the nose, yet 2nd Amendment supporters tend to leave that part out of it when they argue for LESS regulation. How can you say you support the 2nd Amendment yet you ignore half of it? Besides that "shall not" is not the same as "can not". I'm not saying whether I'm for or against gun control, but I'm saying that the argument for less gun control is directly in defiance of the 2nd Amendment.

[@sluggoman2551]

@@josephgazitano3445 Once again, this has to be reiterated even though it has been repeatedly stated and explained. We don't ignore it. We interpret it the way it is supposed to be interpreted. "Well-regulated" does not mean regulation by an authority it means "in proper working order/a functioning militia/a properly armed and reliable militia". This is what they meant at the time of the writing of the bill of rights. This is has been misinterpreted countless number of times. I do believe Scalia even addressed this as such in DC v. Heller. You have to go back to the 18th century and prior to understand the terms they used and in what context. Read the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. to know exactly what their thought process was regarding this entire issue. As far as the word "shall". You are wrong again. It means exactly what it says. If you don't believe it does then you have completely ignored the First Amendment because the same word appears there. First Amendment: Congress SHALL make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Do you see the second word there? SHALL. What does that mean then and why is it different in the First vs. Second Amendment? You do understand how the First Amendment and the freedom of speech is interpreted as far as what can and can't be said, right? There is a difference between free speech and the well known analogy of yelling fire in a theater. You cannot incite violence or lawless action on others. Do you also see the term "the right of the people" there? It appears in the Second as well. First: SHALL make no law. Second: SHALL not be infringed. How can you possibly interpret this same word differently? So if they decided to write the First Amendment as "Freedom of speech SHALL not be infringed" and the Second amendment as "Congress SHALL make no law prohibiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms", would you be ok with this? Would you be interpreting this differently then? You really can't because it means the same dam thing.

[@thelonerider5644]

So, if one gov't definition already existed... how did the 94 ban (expired by now) ever get legally passed? (leaving aside, who knows more about "assault rifles", the dept of defense or Diane Fienstein) Can the same gov't legally have two definitions for the same thing? AT the same time? This makes me even more skeptical of the gun control crowd, inasmuch as they seem to play fast and loose with procedures and laws as much as the constitution and gun facts.

[@godlyk3]

Assault Weapon =/= Assault Rifle. They are two different terms used by two different groups of people. A lot of folks decide to use them, wrongly, interchangeably.

[@YourMotherIsDisappointed]

I live in Texas, I can legally buy any firearm in cash from someone's trunk in a parking garage. Literally done it, 100% legal, no registration either. Scary honestly

[@Calebguy13]

Well done. Factual and accurate, but with one minor clarification: "Assault Weapon" and "Assault Rifle" are two separate terms. "Assault Weapon" is a legal term meaning what you described in the video: detachable magazine, semi-automatic, pistol-grip, etc. "Assault Rifle" on the other hand is a military term describing a weapon with a detachable magazine which can fire both semi-automatically as well as fully automatically, fires an intermediate cartridge (bigger than a handgun like 9mm, smaller than full sized rifles like .30-06), and is effective to at least 300 meters. Therefore, I'd assume where most of the confusion lies is in the fact that people think that both terms are synonymous, and therefore believe that a firearm legally classified as an "assault weapon" is some fully automatic bullet hose despite it really just being a hunting rifle wearing different clothes.

[@idiot_idahoan2298]

Always remember. Sticks and stones may break your bones but hollow points expand on impact

[@LouisianaJesse]

Lol, thanks for that. And the mashed potatoes

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@LouisianaJesse Yeah, taters, to be sure. As I don't drink, I owe my belly to taters.

[@leealtmansr.3811]

@@LouisianaJesse o poo opoooooooopoooooooooooooopooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9oo9oooooo99oòooòòòòòò o 9ò òòpò999o9o9o I 9ooo9o I oo 9lk nonnoonono9oononoo up

[@DarnedYankee]

Hmmmmm... Mom never told me that one...

[@Joe_Goofball]

That is BRILLIANT!

[@mario167100]

Wow this was surprisingly unbiased

[@SkipTerrio]

Plainsville Productions Right? I fully expected this video to piss me off, and I was pleasantly surprised.

[@dylantheiceman2096]

Personally I'm not the biggest gun fan but I understand why some people may want one. I also think there should be reasonable rules and regulations with guns. So it's nice to see an accurate unbiased discussion about how we would address gun issues . Not just the far right and far left screaming at each other.

[@theworldofnexttuesday2802]

I think that moreso than left vs right, gun politics are an urban vs rural kind of issue. Whenever people push for the feds or the states to be the primary engines for gun legislation, you end up with people fighting over whether the entire land should be treated like it's the center of a major city, or if it should be treated like a sparse wilderness region where you pretty much have to look after yourself because the nearest police station is 20 miles away and cell phone coverage is still spotty. For instance, I live in PA and I have a fondness for firearms. I would NEVER take a gun into Philadelphia, even if it were legal. A gun in an area with that many people is just trouble waiting to happen imo, especially if you're a bad shot. I could see if you had some training to handle a weapon with that many people around, say if you have some military experience, but guns pose a higher risk in those kinds of areas for mere casual enthusiasts such as myself. It just requires some more competence and responsibility, especially when so many people are passing through your personal space and can potentially pickpocket your gun and use it against you if you aren't wily. On the other hand, if you go out to the deepest regions of the northern parts of the state, owning a firearm is as sensible as owning a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit (btw, if you claim your gun is for self defense and you don't own those as well, you're a damn punchline). It's not just to keep away the bad people. There's 600+lb bears and shit out there - seen them myself when I used to spend summers and winters over in that neck of the woods. And there's plenty of space that you can just shoot stuff from your porch without even having to worry about the neighbors hearing it. It's still important to know your target, but there is a huge difference between shooting into the woods at the crack of dawn, and shooting down a sidewalk at 7PM on a busy street Friday night. I think that, at the very least, our society needs to work on educating people better about firearms in general. There are so many lies and myths that are propagated by films that lead the otherwise uninformed to make poor decisions. For instance, I think that the country would be a much better place if they just took a single day of health class to teach people the concept of trigger discipline and general gun safety. Not with the intent of telling kids that the guns are good or evil, but simply to address the objective fact that guns exist, and when poorly handled they can be incredibly dangerous (one of my favorite gun videos on youtube is one where they show you how to unload and clear the most common types of automatic weapons - the intended audience being non-combatants who may end up in warzones [ie Peace Corps volunteers and press correspondents] and encounter a loaded weapon). Kind of like the sex ed portion of health class: the point should not to be encourage or discourage the kids from having sex - the point is that sex is something that definitely happens, and without education kids are more liable to make life-hindering decisions that could get them unintentionally pregnant or infected. Or like the alcohol awareness segment of health class: it's not to teach kids to be alcoholics or teetotalers, but to give them information that hopefully helps them to avert alcohol-related mistakes.

[@john-paulsilke893]

I'm also a gun owner, but from Canada. We have our issues, (every country does). I'm not sure of the right way to write firearm laws, but I am pretty sure everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong, (maybe a lot of each. This is a very complex issue and quite frankly I wouldn't even know how to approach it. But there is one thing I do know, gun violence isn't about guns. America is a great country with a capital "G". Unfortunately everyone believes they deserve their piece of the pie, but many people don't realize that pie doesn't belong to them. They have to pick their own apples, grow their own wheat and make their own flour. America is opportunity not a gift horse. If that was taught a little bit better to the people, well America would have colonies on Mars and half a dozen other worlds in our solar system and the rest of the world would finally have to admit they are pretty damn good.

[@RCFourFive]

Yes - pleasantly surprising. Was the "Gunshow Loophole" mentioned somewhere in there? If so, I missed it. That pesky "Gunshow Loophole" is another huge myth perpetrated by the anti-gunners.

[@pattersonbrown66]

I am immensely impressed with how well thought out and presented this was. As a gun owner I view videos with titles like this as a bit sketchy. After watching this though and seeing and hearing the sheer amount of information presented to show both sides I am wowed.

[@bryguy46574]

Best video on the topic I personally have ever seen, it doesn't take a side just portraits facts. Thank you sir.

[@evilphantom457]

Isn’t everything so much better without political bias?

[@chrisoliver5302]

Hell yeah! I for sure was rolling my eyes at the first of the video. By the end, I'm nodding at their ability to only present facts. Well done to @TopTenz!

[@barneymiller7894]

NO! This is America, let's fight about it!! 🤣 jk

[@kennycubensis8152]

Yes

[@nmarrs8539]

Meh. Personally I think things are better without people.

[@greenleafgaming6933]

HELL YEAH BROTHA

[@jamesporter2431]

Wow a non native American who understands 2A better than half the people born here

[@MASTEROFEVIL]

Sad

[@michaelcridge]

@@MASTEROFEVIL very

[@MrSupercat48]

He's a really big history buff. He understands the history of our country, I can't say the same for others in our country

[@SandBoxJohn]

But not quite all the way. His quoting of the Second Amendment omits two commas.

[@radioblitz1494]

@@SandBoxJohn because thats correct .-.

[@jameswoodard4304]

I often find problems with the facts on TopTenz, but I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised at their objectivity on this divisive issue. One of the few unbiased voices I've seen on this topic.

[@wallyd7384]

Maybe he is unbias but half truths are just as bad as lies

[@demonboy50]

You’ll never unsee: Assault Weapon was confused with Assault Rifles by this dude. Again.

[@Johnny-tq9no]

Paul Lewis lol he was clearly referring to the legal definition

[@Isaac-ho8gh]

But the thing is that legal definitions don't always mean what they're defining, its kind of like a different language.

[@MrJawa28]

Well done! Thanks for doing the homework and being objective.

[@justAguyDs]

Justin Keys u mean thanks for doing MY homework right? look out debate class

[@Stacy_Smith]

justAguyDs That is so cheaty! Hope you do well we need more conservative views expressed in academia!

[@elgordo687]

I haven't shot a gun in hours

[@pankobreadcrumbs7090]

El Gordo I haven't shot a gun in years

[@pankobreadcrumbs7090]

LVL100 COLONEL I meant I have never shot one

[@imboredoffmyass69]

Lemmy Koopa King well shit i suppose hes dead press f to pay respects

[@pankobreadcrumbs7090]

hi person! soon once I become president I will make sure that football coaches aren't the highest paid

[@MrEvanfriend]

Last time I shot a gun was Thursday. It was a full auto G36. I found a place in Tennessee that rented machine guns (Bud's Gun Shop, right outside of Knoxville, exit 407 on I-40). It was incredibly fun, as I hadn't shot full auto since i got out of the Marines 10 years ago. That being said, the criticisms of the G36, namely about heat, are valid.

[@bri4940]

Simon " there are no such thing as magic bullets" Me: my blender says otherwise 😂

[@kimberlainodriscoll4781]

I'm a nurse. Trust me, there ARE magic bullets but you need to remove the foil wrapper before inserting.

[@johncipolletti6139]

There are magic bullets (if they work). The military has some that supposedly kill people around corners.

[@exmcgee1647]

@@kimberlainodriscoll4781 LOL!

[@thatguy22441]

But "Black Talons" and other "Cop Killer" bullets fired from "Ghost Guns" on "Full Semi-Automatic" kill millions of Americans every day. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

[@Mrobertnoel]

@@johncipolletti6139 Yeah they are called ATGM's and they aren't secret. We also have these big 'ole bullets called JDAMS that you can guide onto a target with a laser.

[@SkipTerrio]

This was an astonishingly well-researched, informed, and balanced video. Not what I was expecting, frankly (no offense intended). Kudos! 👍

[@jackcarter6629]

His English accent is mainly to do with it.

[@ricardoarias1279]

Jack , I was on the defensive too when I started watching.m, but it was very objective and the facts presented very clearly.

[@thatguy22441]

I was expecting a Brit to be highly anti-gun. Whatever his views, it was a balanced presentation.

[@seannoyes2174]

thanks for making this video non-political! Keep up the great top tens!

[@Stacy_Smith]

Sean Noyes Actually it unintentionally was slanted toward the right. I am a 2A supporter and because conservatives argue with fact and logic instead of emotions and opinions TopTenz inadvertently went a little right. Liberals that think a "No Gun sign" will keep out criminals should watch this video!

[@claytonecramer]

@@dylannelson7946 I agree but a little more detail is needed: how business licensing impoverishes poor blacks for example.

[@wasacrazy8]

Although not 100% accurate, this is probably the most unbiased portrayal of guns in the United States I've ever heard. Very well done. 👍

[@coolbeans6148]

what wasn't accurate?

[@greenlychfire8482]

@@coolbeans6148 the part about the 45 in an apartment complex. 45 has a larger caliber, but it is slower and has less penetration than some smaller calibers like 9mm.

[@Cahje93]

He also said that L.A. was in a state with max gun laws. I live in California, and the laws here are crazy strict.

[@Thefireguy87]

@@Cahje93 LA is Louisiana

[@Tanfo77]

@@Cahje93 LA is a state, L.A. is a city.

[@chrisclark5204]

He was spot on about a rifle having a pistol grip, flash suppressor and magazine not effecting the way it actually operates.

[@zackrum]

In California each of those features add immense explosive killing power with each trigger pull and mental thought, I know, I'm from there. End sarcasm, but really they butchered the AR 15

[@Hurricayne92]

I mean extended mags means more shots before reloading therefore more potential victims so there's that

[@slyfoxx2973]

@@Hurricayne92 Takes an experienced shooter only a second to put in a new magazine.

[@thatguy22441]

Think about it, a British KZbinr knows more about firearms than any California politicians, or most US politicians, for that matter. I fear for the future of this country.

[@thatguy22441]

@@Hurricayne92 Capacity doesn't make nearly as much difference as training and experience. Give a big game hunter a bolt-action rifle (capacity 3+1) and about 500 meters of standoff and he'll rack up one hell of a body count. The deadliest attack in the US was carried out with a truck bomb made of ammonium nitrate. The deadliest attack in a school was carried out with dynamite (which is easier than most people think to make). Until the Las Vegas massacre, the deadliest mass shooting, as well as most gun murders, was carried out with handguns. Rifles of any description (semi-auto, bolt-action, lever-action, single-shot) account for around 5% of people murdered by firearms. Blunt objects kill more people than all manner of rifles. In fact, you're more likely to be beaten to death by an unarmed assailant than you are to be murdered by ANY rifle of any description. Even when you factor in suicides (which is what nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths are), poor dietary habits and obesity kill more than ten times as many people as firearms. You don't hear people talking about "common sense food control." Medical errors kill many times more people than firearms but we don't hear people advocating "common sense doctor control."

[@KENNEY1023]

Someone did their research, very well done.

[@David-bf6bz]

Not really. His understanding of ammunition and ballistic is pretty flawed.

[@jbarton1541]

One thing they miss is how easy it is to convert a semi auto assault rifle to fire in full auto. You can buy a bump stock attachment that will cost less than $50 in almost any state in the US. It is what the guy in Vegas used to shower bullet onto the crowd, killing 58.

[@David-bf6bz]

@@jbarton1541 sigh... no bump fire is not full automatic. You don't need a special stock, you can do it with many semi-automatic weapons. It also significantly reduces accuracy...

[@seabeans4165]

For anyone wondering the AR in the AR-15 stands for Armalite* Rifle which is the company that first manufactured them. It has nothing to do with Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle. Just some friendly information :)

[@mcleb84]

Lol I didnt know that severely misinformed and brainwashed people were thinking AR meant assault rifle until about a year ago. I laughed and then realized things have really gotten bad...

[@elijahhughes6455]

Sea Beans finally someone who is smart and looks stuff up

[@Tainomontana]

Sea Beans the news says AR stands for assault rifle so who do I believe the media that has a agenda, reason to make the public think one way over the other, flat out lies by putting out information without research & makes money out of death, tragedies & unthinkable catastrophic events or should I believe someone I don’t know in social media that has nothing to gain out of telling the truth because he/she is informed in facts? 🤔this is such a hard decision that could be very easily made with a little research.

[@B1ggyL1ttle]

It's also worth noting that the AR15 was. Civilian weapon before the military took the design and made it full auto.

[@233kosta]

*Armalite At the time a subsidiary of the Fairchild corporation, employer of Eugene Stoner. The patents and designs were later sold to Colt, hence the Colt AR-15, M16 and M4. The latter two, I believe, being registered Colt trademarks, or for some other reason unavailable to other manufacturers.

[@nacc7240]

Thanks for not turning this video into a left-wing rant.

[@kevinodom2918]

Really. I’m pro gun and after watching many of his videos I was surprised it was this fair and unbiased.

[@Darkmausi]

... next

[@rosssmith4638]

Australia has had strict gun control since the mid 1990’s. For some reason, I don’t know why, but there has been a VERY BIG drop in gun related crime.

[@Stacy_Smith]

@@rosssmith4638 Why does it matter if violent crime is gun related? If someone stabs one of your family members or rapes them, are you really going to be relieved that "at least they didn't use a gun"? Notice your statement is a false statement with a qualifier? Once you add the qualifier "gun related" a false statement now becomes a true statement. This is how they can manipulate statistics to fit a narrative and people like you doesn't even question it. Just like lumping in suicides & self defense killings into the homicide statistics in order to skew the results. If you compare murder only your narrative falls apart.

[@davidsmock8235]

Then it must be a right-wing pro-gun rant. See I can make blanket statements too, goddamn deplorable.

[@CaptainLog]

As a rooting tooting southerner with carry permits in multiple states, I must say your across the pond analysis is excellent.

[@TheStevehuff]

You do know that you can only have a permit in the state that you reside in but that permit may or may not be reconized in other states.

[@damienk7311]

​@@TheStevehuff "you can only have a permit in the state that you reside in" that's not true, a lot of states offer non-resident permits. "but that permit may or may not be recognized in other states" that is completely true, and only slightly irritating to navigate around when traveling cross country.

[@prepperjonpnw6482]

It’s called reciprocity. I have carry permits in just 2 states but they are honored in 39 states. This means I can legally conceal carry in all of those 39 states.

[@homuraakemi1933]

@@TheStevehuff My Ohio Concealed Handgun License allows me to carry across most of the entire USA except for a couple of states

[@KamiNoBaka1]

There is too such a thing as a Magic Bullet! It's a blender that sold through infomercials about 10-15 years ago.

[@yetimourer6509]

KamiNoBaka fair play

[@tommywright7196]

KamiNoBaka well said lol

[@timmcc6899]

I have to agree ... I know a few women that own a sex toy called a 'magic bullet' ... Whistler has got this one wrong hahaha.

[@tyronebiggums7284]

That thing is responsible for more deaths than any magic gun bullet. Dealers use those blenders to mix drugs, which kill tens of thousands every year.

[@howardbaxter2514]

😂😂😂

[@zeusathena26]

When something happens people want more laws. There are more than enough laws, they just aren't enforced properly

[@Charlie_Rowe]

Agreed. It seems more laws go after legal gun owners. But repeat offenders who use illegal weapons get slaps on the wrist. If you use an illegal weapon in the commission of a crime it should be an automatic 10 years added, minimum.

[@Meton2526]

@@Charlie_Rowe How are you using "illegal weapon" ? A felon is not allowed to possess any firearm, so if you mean that, then fine, but honestly it's no different from them committing crime crime repeatedly regardless of weapon. If you mean "illegal weapon" to mean a weapon that's banned by NFA or whatever, then those aren't used in crime in any significant number. The big lie of gun control is that "they're only trying to take away weapons of war", when it's handguns that are used in all of the crimes, and they're use VASTLY more often to prevent crime than commit it. And that gun control works, that's the other big lie .... it doesn't.

[@Charlie_Rowe]

@@Meton2526 Yes, I mean weapons that are illegal for them to be in possession of or are acquired by illegal means. The NFA has numerous things I disagree with as well as numerous local statutes that limit what a person can legally possess, but it is the law of the land. But, again, I follow the law. A criminal who carries anything is by definition not going to care about capacity limits or a tax stamp or whatever other rules we are required to obey.

[@TravisL.Desmadreson]

I second your comment. As it strands, "crime is already illegal. murder is illegal and so forth. More laws are clearly NOT helpful. (having so many as it stands, showing little to no real impact on deterring motivated criminals)

[@Spookex166]

"You wouldn't use a 30-pound sledgehammer to pound in a nail for a family portrait" I laughed when imagined it.

[@BruceDoesStuff]

I also laughed, because I've actually done exactly that!

[@joecope9935]

Me too! 😂

[@joecope9935]

Trump my grandpa did that once, but not intentionally.

[@dirtriderjon]

That's how I wake up every morning, driving tacks with my 30 lb sledge. I use it to start my truck also, the 30 lb sledge. I also use it to open walnuts, my 30 lb sledge.... 30 lb..... sledge. 30...... lb......sledge......

[@wraith_7353]

Sometimes it's entirely appropriate to kill a fly with a sledgehammer

[@deathsythelui]

I came here expecting a video on how "guns are LOUD!" and other easy misconceptions... What I found is probably the single best, unbiased account of the firearms debate I've ever seen... Well done folks, well done.

[@jackclefstad]

LynnLeFey1 He said "easy misconceptions", as in they are just well known misconceptions, not that they aren't misconceptions.

[@LynnLeFey1]

See that word 'other' in that sentence? It may not be what he meant, but the sentence connects 'guns are loud' WITH 'misconceptions'. Not saying it was the OP's intent. Just the way it reads.

[@ericanderson2400]

I love how you made clear that the 2nd was so we could defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. Too many think that a militia is for defense of the nation and so they argue that we have a national guard and therefore do not need weapons ourselves. Thank you for making that clear. However, it doesn’t hurt for foreign enemies to understand that, beyond our military and national guard, we have a monster stockpile of private weapons to take on anyone foolish enough to invade. “A gun behind every blade of grass”.

[@ColtonWalker073]

I'd say it was written to protect the citizenry from all threats, foreign and domestic. Foreign threats could be a military invasion and domestic threats are a potential tyrannical government and common criminals.

[@justsomedudeyouknow8372]

Also don't forget that a well regulated militia is appointed as such by the state. Doesnt mean a group of guys with guns can call themselves a militia and everything they do is automatically legal.

[@frankphillips6001]

Many argue that the first clause demonstrates that the amendment applies to what we today call the national guard. However, this ignorance can be dispelled with one simple question: Where else in the constitution do the words "the people" refer to a government body?

[@notlikely4468]

Well...my problem with the SC's (Heller) decision definition of "militia" Is that I can't differentiate it from "gang" Beyond.."I'm part of a militia...but you're part of a gang" And I'm not keen on gangs with guns

[@scislianlongshadow]

@@justsomedudeyouknow8372 militia is armed civilians they do not have to be legally appointed by the state.. Otherwise how the HELL does one protect themselves from a tyrannical government if they don't have the governments permission lol

[@pkill23]

In todays polarized world, it is extremely refreshing to see such an unbiased and fact based video. Subscribed!

[@thatguy22441]

I hope he comes to the States and spends a day on a range. That's so much fun that it turns anti-gun people into pro-gun people in just a few hours.

[@redwolfexr]

Actually I would say it had a slight pro-gun bias, more based on what he skipped and what he included. (barely mentioned private sales while implying it is hard to buy a gun -- I was in and out in 20 minutes last time I bought a pistol and did a single piece of paperwork) . But he didn't shy away from addressing Assault "Weapons" either, and made the point that I try to make when discussing it as well. They didn't say "Assault Rifle" -- they said "assault weapon" and it has a very specific LEGAL definition. An Assault Rifle is always NFA. The terms are two totally different things and trying to use one to ridicule the other does not make the other definition less legally binding. . The judge won't care if you don't think your rifle was an "assault weapon" because its not selective fire. He could care less what your definition of "Assault Rifle" was if you were arrested for waving around a "Assault Weapon" by its clearly defined legal definition.

[@brianmenzies7007]

Unbiased that's a fact but you didn't have his facts straight. Shall not be infringed!

[@redwolfexr]

@@brianmenzies7007 Explain it to the Supreme Court. Their opinion is what matters.

[@kevinvelasco6167]

This was the single most even, well researched, and unbiased piece on guns I have ever seen. Well done indeed.

[@gagewesterhouse9558]

Really?? I stopped it at 1:10 because they had already made a factually incorrect statement. Suppressors don't decrease muzzle velocity. In fact, they frequently result in a marginal INCREASE in velocity.

[@bubbiesdad]

There is misinformation in this video.

[@kevinvelasco6167]

Oh Gage I was wrong. Apparently bubbiesdad cares too. You two should hit some parties together. I bet you would rip it up together.

[@mattmatt516]

@@gagewesterhouse9558 "it can also work by reducing the speed of the bullet" is the quote. And he is correct, some suppressors (not many, but some) are designed to reduce the speed of the bullet.

[@gagewesterhouse9558]

@@mattmatt516 really? I'd like to see some links.

[@maureenjacobs7452]

Normally I just watch your videos and I enjoy them. What I normally don’t do is comment. I find this to one of your most middle ground, honest, and best videos ever. The subject matter is a bit controversial in some circles, but your explanation was fair and honest. Thank you!

[@rabbidninja79]

The answer to "why do you need a gun?" Is 2020. Anyone else watching in June 2020?

[@Dutchball]

The proper answer is, "In a free country, I don't have to explain my 'needs' to anyone else."

[@rabbidninja79]

@@Dutchball I agree but alot of people dont get it so using an example like this helps drive home the point.

[@Shadowshael]

Hopefully all the new/first time gun owners get a little range time and take the personal responsibility to learn basic safety. I have a feeling that people who can repair drywall will have a bump in business through the rest of the year.

[@rabbidninja79]

@@Shadowshael definitely! In my case when I bought mine all the ranges were closed. I've yet been able to go to a range however, I grew up around firearms and have been extensively drilled on handling and safety. But that's not something everyone had access to.

[@tadecker82]

I've been watching, closely, how fast all the AR-Platform PCCs and PDWs are going out of stock. I own a wide variety of firearms, but have taught all my friends and family to shoot using a pistol caliber carbine. I go this route because they're practically idiot proof, and they're not as intimidating to new shooters as handguns or full power rifles. YOU CAN'T FIND PCCs ANYWHERE right now... Makes me feel both vindicated in my teaching methods, and a bit concerned about WHO is purchasing all of them. 🤔

[@jhmartin641]

As a proud 2nd amendment supporter, I have to say: well said.

[@howardbaxter2514]

Hey, I’m the 100th like

[@williamavitt8264]

110

[@littlegreenhelmetboi4148]

330

[@skgtt1811]

As a proud gun owner I have to say... WE NEED MORE GUNS

[@littlegreenhelmetboi4148]

Fyrom will never BE US amen

[@mirangermanll]

Terrific presentation ..... Was expecting a somewhat slant towards gun control, but you've kept it balanced!

[@timjones1061]

As a gun owner ... i really enjoyed a nonbiased review! Thank you for keeping it real!