How to Debunk "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People" [dTube]
This is a horrible, tired talking point
A viewer asked how to debunk the tired old talking point of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" as a defense against reasonable gun safety legislation, in the wake of the recent shooting at a high school in Florida.
What do you think? Leave your thoughts in a reply!
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
Way to go, Dave. You're really making Uncle Rahm proud!
btw, actual quote.
I do not know what is more sad, your whiny caller pleading for your help "Dave, please help me to beat their unbeatable argument! I can't think of one on my own!"
.....or your laughable advice "Well my boy, their argument is dumb so it doesn't count. "
The only problem is that you go in for the next two minutes PROVING that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Your analogy about cars proves exactly that point.
If you were truly being honest, you'd admit that "stricter gun laws" are not your true goal, but rather the outright CRIMINALIZATION and CONFISCATION of all guns in America.
You state "We have decided as a society that devices that can be used to harm others should be regulated" There are already laws in every state and federal laws that regulate guns. Minors are not permitted to own or purchase guns. Guns are not allowed on or near school property. It is illegal to shoot a person unless in self defense (in many cases, it's illegal to even brandish a firearm).
Did any of these laws prevent this person from using guns to commit a crime? NO! Could more laws have prevented him from figuring out a way to do what was in his heart? NO!
If you truly were a thinking person, you wouldn't just respond with the knee-jerk reaction of "More Laws, Stricter Laws" and actually try to get to the root cause.
For instance, there have been guns in America since the founding of the nation, yet these school shootings are a relatively recent occurrence (I can't find any examples of student mass shootings in the 50's, 60's 70's or even the 80's). So what has changed (other than Trump)? If you really wanted to investigate something, investigate that. Investigate what has changed!
However, I fear you are just playing the tune that your liberal leaning audience wants to hear. After all, you too probably have a mortgage to pay.
no, my goal is not the confiscation of all guns. There is absolutely no evidence you could point to that would justify your assertion. It is just slippery slope propaganda.
Sure there is. The real "slippery slope propaganda" is that more gun laws could have somehow prevented this tragedy and others like it.
This young man already broke numerous laws perpetrating this PREMEDITATED crime. I challenge you to name one (rational) law that could have been passed that could have prevented him from committing this criminal act. Any law (short of confiscation and criminalization of gun ownership) could have been easily circumvented by this young man intent on completing his deadly mission.
Obviously, you have no interest in investigating the true root causes of these violent acts. That is the one, true way, to prevent these kinds of acts from ever happening again.
what is your goal exactly? what gun laws do you propose?
I love how he proceeded to list off a bunch of regulations of drivers, not cars. That was hilarious.
"Dont respond" - yeah you totally debunked it! What a joke.
it's more of a defense mechanism than a defense.
It's intellectually dishonest to name the video as a debunking of the statement and then basically only making a weak argument against it.
Whiney Loser: How do I argue with reason?
Pakman: Run Away! Run Away!
Only in America...
This comment has received a 3.13 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @suffragator.
you can use bots to upvote comments too?
Depends on the bot, some allow it some dont...
cool, maybe I will try that sometime.
This comment has received a 0.98 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @suffragator.
@davidpakman
Guns are Guns ... should be placed ONLY in the hands of the police not to be sold to individuals.
@josteem
Gosh, brilliant, and the 350,000,000 guns that have been sold to individuals already? When the cops need an armed citizen to save their lives who will be there for them?
Liberal logic: Cops are racist violent thugs - only They should have guns...
I honestly think your obsession with guns is a disease... This statement makes the same sense as saying, nuclear weapons ain't for killing, Americans kill Japaneses or North Koreans kill Americans...but nuclear weapons that potentially can destroy the entire world are a good thing.... Come on!!!!
I can't really disagree
I've always liked this retort: "Yes, and lawnmowers don't mow laws, people do. But you can mow lawns a hell of a lot more effectively with a lawnmower."
I haven't heard that one before, it's not bad
Being effective is a good thing though
No sir.
Guns kill people.
It is the guns that tempt your temper.
A disarmed man can't kill even when angry to kill.
Power shouldn't be much in people's hands.
Agree 👍🏼 I am anti-Gun supporter !
@musemeza
@josteem
Why do you want people to be slaughtered in their own homes and defenseless against criminals?
I have yet to see a gun kill someone all by itself - in fact, I have a gun and it has been sitting on a shelf for 15 years. It is loaded. It is clean. It is ready. Damn, that gun must have some serious self-control!
Also, using your incredibly infallible 'logic' please define DISARMED - if you mean a man with no arms, you would still be wrong. What about knives? I could easily and quickly kill a lot of people with a knife. Put the knife on a shelf, it is simply a dust collecting object. Totally harmless. How about cars? Do cars kill people, or do the idiotic, foolish drivers kill themselves and others? Ya, the drivers do the killing.
Only an absolute fool would say that guns kill people. With a person, the gun is an utterly inanimate object completely unable to do anything, other than collect dust.
@musemeza, you really have no clue, do you?
Knifes ultimate purposes are cooking, eating and eventually, killing.... Cars ultimate purposes are travelling, transportation, driving, and eventually also killing in the rare case of an accident... Guns ultimate purpose are solely killing...sorry mate, but your point makes no sense at all...
ROFL, here in America people murder other people using hands and feet twice as often as they do using rifles of any kind. So twice as many are killed here by people using their bare hands as are killed by people using rifles. So you should not have the power to defend yourself?
Did you get that statistic from the NRA?
No, I don't know any NRA statistics, that comes from the FBI, I'm not surprised you were ignorant about that. Here are some more fun government statistics:
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@funbobby51/the-gun-debat-in-7-charts
The source of your statistics is your own steemit acc ? XD
You are hilarious!
His source is FBI stats. Try reading them
The NRA surely wont portrait guns in a positive light. They fight against gun rights since decades. I dont like guns, but im a liberal, and as such have no patience for people like the NRA who want to deny felons, the "mentaly ill" or substance users their rights.
This is such a stupid argument. I's right up there with "If gun violence goes down, knife violence goes up" Which is actually something I heard people say!
Because if someone has a gun in a fight doesn't make any difference, right?
I'm okay with that tradeoff for now
Guns and knives can be used by violent people to kill people. But there is a difference:
@josteem
Yes indeed, a woman with a gun can defend herself from a whole gang of rapists, isn't that good? Or should stronger people be able to prey upon the weak?
So while an armed woman in most cases would just point the gun at the rapist to scare them away, the rapists are less likely to hesistate. And in a state where everybody can own a gun, so can the rapists.
They are easy to use, just point and shoot, the rules for gun safety are very simple and American gun owners are more responsible than ever before, despite more guns than ever before, at the same time the number of guns went way up the number of fatal gun accidents went down. The number of accidental fatalities is at an all time low, not just in rate but also in number. In other words we have fewer deadly gun accidents now than we did when the population was half as much.
Nope, she shoots one or two and the rest run for their lives. Women are smart, they can figure these things out. It's sad you are pushing that ugly sexist lie that a woman is likely to be shot with her own gun if she chooses a gun for defense.
If you are being raped you probably won't be very reluctant to kill the rapist. Will you?
Criminals, like rapists, are not allowed guns, try telling them that though, they will have guns whether they are allowed to or not. Disarming their victims won't change that.
Fatalities. What about accidents? I couldn't find any numbers on that, so citations would be welcomed.
It's maybe hard to believe, but we don't live in the world of minority report. Nobody knows beforehand, if you are going to be a rapist or not. Even if rapists aren't allowed guns all across the USA (I'm not going to look it up, so I'll just concede that point), anyone can become a rapists at any time. And until they are, they can legally own a gun in most of the USA.
the number of accidents is irrelevant and confusing, who cares? What is important is how many people die, that is very easy to count and for everyone to agree on the definition. Fatal gun accidents are at an all time low, about 71 times as many people are killed in car accidents annually.
She is prepared, she has a gun. Why would it be better for her not to have a gun?
Your concerns are hypothetical, I read a real story about a young woman who was an adept gun operator but her college forbade guns, so she got raped in a situation where she could have easily defended herself, in a parking garage, and then her rapist killed his next two victims after her. If she was allowed to be armed she could not only have prevented her rape but also saved their lives.
If you were alone in a parking garage and some strange man or men approached you and you were armed you wouldn't put your hand in your purse and grasp your gun?
Of course a rapist does not need a gun, they just need a victim to not have one. And that is what your plan achieves.
Why wouldn't you care how dangerous guns are, if you are talking about gun control? It's the whole point of talking about gun control!
And fewer gun deaths doesn't mean fewer gun shootings. The counts of gun deaths are USELESS without the counts of gun accidents. They could just as well be explained by advantages in medicine.
"She is prepared, she has a gun"
That is a complete non sequitor. How does having a gun equate to being ready to shoot at a living target?
"Why would it be better for her not to have a gun?"
It's not about HER owning the gun. When she is able to legally own a gun, everybody else is too.
"If she was allowed to be armed she could not only have prevented her rape but also saved their lives."
Ok. What you are talking about sounds like, she didn't have a gun, so what you describe what would have happened, actually didn't happen. What is the word I'm looking for again... could it be... hypothetical?
That assumes a) that that is how rapes usually happen (it is most likely not, most rapes are perpetuated by someone you know and even in the cases it is not, I highly doubt it would take place in a parking garage. It's not a smart place to do that. She could just get in her car and then what?) b) That the group doesn't have any guns and c) that the same results can't be accomplished by her carrying a tazer/ pepper spray
What? I'm sorry, I can't follow, that doens't even relate to anything I said.
This is pretty much how everybody outside of the USA and Afghanistan sees it. XD
I have not heard that one, but here is an argument I like to point out. As the number of guns owned by Americans has gone up and the number of places where they can legally carry them has increased from a handful of states to all 50, gun homicide rates have fallen to historical lows. So more guns and more people allowed to carry them has correlated with far fewer gun homicides. What do you think about that?
Corelation does not equate to causation, as I'm sure everybody knows by now, it's one of the most repeated phrases on the internet.
Same goes of course in the other direction, just because America has a problem with gun violence, doens't mean necessarily, that an over abundance of guns is the problem.
Just that having more guns around will make it more easier for people, who want to, to access guns, meaning a spike in gun violence would be expected. Whereas making it easier to attain a gun, when there is already an overabundance of guns around, isn't likely to change anything.
Also the guns in the USA aren't equally distributed. There are some gun collectors for instance. The number of guns gowing up, doesn't mean the number of gun owners does go up.
"Corelation does not equate to causation, as I'm sure everybody knows by now, it's one of the most repeated phrases on the internet."
Gosh, that's probably why I said "correlation" and not "cause" huh? We can't tell from that correlation if the loosening of gun laws caused the reduction in homicides that we see but we can conclude from the nature of the correlation that the reduction in gun laws did not cause gun homicides to increase as anti civil rights people claimed it would.
I don't know that America has a problem with gun violence. you have not demonstrated that.
Exactly, that is your theory, but we can see in real life that the opposite happened. That's why the correlation where as guns go up gun homicides go down is so important. We made it much easier for people to get and carry guns and instead of a spike, like your theory predicts, there was a crash. Therefor your theory is wrong.
Yeah, that's another popular theory of the anti gunners, that fewer and fewer people actually own guns, they just own a lot more each, that could be possible.
But would that explain all the entry level guns being bought and the record numbers of people taking beginner gun safety classes? Are they opening all these gun megastores to cater to a smaller and smaller number of gun buyers?
No, in reality the polls of how many people own guns do not measure how many people own guns, they track how many people ADMIT they own guns to researchers, something which fluctuates relative to the political climate.
25 years ago, when gun homicide rates were at their peak only a handful of states allowed concealed carry, now all 50 states do many without even requiring a permit, and gun homicides are at record lows.
"I don't know that America has a problem with gun violence. you have not demonstrated that."
Really. You didn't provide ANYTHING in terms of prove for all the claims you made. And you expect ME to prove something that is that well known? The charts on gun violence all accross the USA are through the roof compared to any other of the industrialized nations. The only two European nations with a higher homicide rate (homicide, I'm not even talking about gun violence alone) are Lithuana and Russia. The USA is by far the least safe of all the western nations and that's despite that your country is basically a giant no mans land compared to Europe, where the poplation density is a lot higher. 31% of all mass shoutings worldwide happen in the USA.
To debate, IF the USA has a gun violence problem is to put it generously: retarded.
We can debate WHY the USA has a gun violence problem, though.
And I'm not going to give you sources, just google it. It's such a well known thing that it is insulting of you to suggest, I'm in the burden of proof here.
"where as guns go up gun homicides go down is so important"
There. That's exactly what I meant. Where is your citation on that?!
"Yeah, that's another popular theory of the anti gunners, that fewer and fewer people actually own guns"
I never said that though. And can you explain to me what exactly an "anti gunner" is supposed to be in your world view?
"they track how many people ADMIT they own guns to researchers"
The polls are annonymous. They don't really have an incentive to lie. And even if you have a few liers in there, it'd be a stretch to claim, that it's common to lie in this instance.
"25 years ago, when gun homicide rates were at their peak only a handful of states allowed concealed carry, now all 50 states do many without even requiring a permit, and gun homicides are at record lows."
Even if that would be true, which you would have to demonstrate, as you suggested I do with the gun violence in the USA, how the fuck would you be able to derive anything from those numbers? If it's legal to buy a gun in any state, and you don't have any state-to-state borders, everyone can get a gun any time they want.
Becouse People kill People, they schould have a hard Time getting guns. Guns are the easyest way to kill someone.
Easier than running them over with a truck? Why are trucks so much more effective?
We will always need good people with guns to protect us from bad people with guns just as we needed good people with bow and arrow to protect us from bad people with bow and arrow. Before that we needed good people with spear and sword to protect us from bad people with spear and sword. The frame of mind that thinks this will ever change is called idealism. If you are an idealist you will likely reject that history as a blueprint for the future. If you are a realist you will prepare for the threat by developing countermeasures and training people to repel attackers. Another way to determine whether you are an idealist or a realist is that an idealist will post a sign that says "No guns allowed". The realist sees the sign as an advertisement to a killer as to where he can achieve the highest possible body count. Where do you stand?
They live in a fantasy realm where the sign is all the protection children need.
There is nothing wrong with idealism. It has it's place along with realism, analysts, and pragmatists. Where we disagree is which thinking style should deal with which circumstance or condition.
Can we agree that the gun free zone signs have failed, at least in this case?
That's my point. Gun-free zones only keep law-abiding gun owners from carrying their legally licensed guns in gun-free zones. Law breakers carry their guns anywhere they want to. Logic is the realm of a realists mind. Emotion is where the mind of an idealist dwells. The realist says that there are good people with guns and bad people with guns. The idealist says that all people with guns are bad.
agreed, I think the idealist watches too much scripted TV and movies where guns are always a plot element. So anytime they see one it is only used for violence to advance the plot in some way. In real life most guns sit in a safe all the time and never advance any dramatic plots.
My guns are not in a safe. They are at the ready. Idealists are best to tell us how we SHOULD live, how we SHOULD act, how we SHOULD think. A realist doesn't care how others live, act or think as long as they don't tread in his space. A realist usually recognizes the limits of his control...because he is a realist. It is when an idealist is in a position to force others to obey their will. Then we have a problem. The dominate thinking style of a person, in my experience, transcends political affiliations, gender, race, anything.
yup, thank God Hillary lost.