Or Americans gun owners (nor gun manufacturers) make a powerful voting bloc.

Switzerland has a population with a high gun ownership and they are not killing each other. When a shooting happens it's a good chance that it can be fake so the public can get scared like this idiot in the video and have those who don't have rights to envy those that have right and the one with lesser rights to take away the rights of everyone else

CDC shouldn't be studying guns that's a waste of tax payer dollars they should be researching diseases and the like. Guns and crime should remain in the hands of the FBI. The CDC should do more research into mental health. It's the primary cause of mass shootings.

Steam Punk Angel why trump is working with the democrats more than republicans

@@Zaes223 When mental health involves guns to actually prevent mass shoutings though, then hands off, right?

You cannot be a conservative while being as ignorant as you are about guns.

@@peedinkus389 I guess what you're trying to say is, Michael can't be a conservative because he has a clue? Because we all know many, many conservatives, (like yourself), are utterly clueless.

@@jalderink Not a conservative. Libertarian.

You sir, are a prime example of an old crusty fudd.

@CipherBytes CITATION PLEASE!

@CipherBytes America is the only FIRST WORLD country where mass shootings occur commonly.

Achintya Jain Norway

@@crewchmelar9441 hahahah someone's using some cool drugs

@CipherBytes please don't tell me you are actually dumb enough to be serious with that line of argument

MrBambooSticc what’s your moms name? Just asking so I can use her name as a derogatory slur, seems fitting if you use my Lords name like that. Honestly sir, rethink your stance on blasphemy and ask yourself if your mother would approve of you using her name like that.

Joe Biden I’ve noticed on a few comments that lean towards freedom and protecting rights, be it the algorithm or manual sabotage of spelling. Could it be a coincidence? Maybe, but the structure and spellings of some seem to imply a underline low IQ that we know is fabricated. They are trying hard these days to tilt public opinion...

@@unknowninfamous2346 ok boomer

Don't say made up names god damn it!

see the problem with that is, your personal experience resulted in a fear of guns, but some people whove seen a different side to gun violence know that a gun might be their only chance to protect their family or themselves. for example id be dead right now if guns were banned, so the argument goes both ways. plus a lot of those gun shows arent just for collectors or psychos, they're for range owners who want exotic guns for people to rent and shoot in a controlled environment

I'd just own them for fun

There are two sides of the gun debate, those of us who understand guns and the point of freedoms and the facts involved, and the other side is people who have no idea what they are talking about and refuse to acknowledge the facts because they themselves just "don't like guns". But the facts are what they are, and they are VERY clear, in every place in America where a person looks it's the same story, the places with the tightest restrictions and heaviest gun laws ALWAYS end up with the highest crime rates, while all the places with the most relaxed gun laws always end up with the lowest crime rates. The second amendment was written into the constitution for several very important reasons, and it's shocking how many people fail to understand those reasons at all, for one thing it's the only absolute guarantee of freedom and guarantee against tyranny in government that there has ever been, and also it is the natural right of a free person to be able to arm and defend themselves, their homes and properties, their families and loved ones, however they see fit, and if you don't have that right you are not free, you are controlled, you are a serf. The anti constitution people always try to act like we fight to protect our rights just because we "like guns", but it's actually the other way around, we fight for our rights and will to the very end because we understand the point and purpose of the second amendment but you people who fight against it do so simply because you "don't like guns", that's why you try to blame guns for everything even though none of the facts back you up. We the people who do understand guns though, we always have the facts backing us up, like the fact America is only number 28 in terms of most gun deaths per year, and that of all those gun deaths every year two thirds are from suicide, and 80% of what remains are good people, either cops or civilians, stopping criminals in the commission of crimes. The only way gun control laws could ever work would be if all guns were just taken out of existence altogether, but that will never and should never happen, but as it stands the only people affected by those laws are the law abiding citizens, and the more law abiding citizens are kept from arming and defending themselves the more crime there will be, gun laws don't affect criminals whatsoever. And keep in mind that I'm not a "conservative", I am someone that has spent most of his life proudly calling himself a liberal (albeit a sensible one that supports freedom and the constitution), I'm an atheist and I am generally left leaning in my political stance, but I am fortunate enough to have grown up around guns so I know about guns and therefore can't be duped into buying all the hype or sensationalism or be duped into having an irrational, almost phobic fear of guns, I just simply know better. And to all my fellow atheists out there, we pride ourselves on not taking anything on faith, but in thinking logically and critically, and being willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and always being in pursuit of truth, but then why do so many of you ignore the clear truth about the destructive nature of "gun control" laws? Not one of you could support that crap if you actually looked at the facts. I could go on and on about this subject, but this will do for now.

As an American, I couldn't give less of a shit about a European opinion.

Richard Nance It’s not even a European opinion. Many working class Europeans do want access to firearms but can’t get it because the wealthy leftist jackboots in power will ever consider empowering “the lessor half” with any degree of freedom or liberty. They can’t even run for office against the wealthy leftist jackboots because criticizing those in power can easily be charged as “hate speech” in kangaroo court trials that assume the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent. Very few defendants have ever beaten a “hate speech” prosecution in Europe. In cases where they do they are simply retried over and over again until they are found guilty. When leftists use Europe as a shining example of what America should be you should take it as a sign that having something to protect yourself with is more important than ever. I know a fairly large number of Europeans in several nations that are utterly miserable. They aren’t all communist millionaires who tout Karl Marx as the messiah. More Europeans than you might think want to be free human beings who live in a fair and civilized society someday. They know full well that it won’t ever happen without a full blown civil war and they would need firearms for that.

Well, hear that, everyone? The dude who thinks we give a shit that he has a Czech dad has an opinion. Pfffffft.

Micheal Carney I really know this. Europe has become truly Marxist. Human freedom has always been a no no in a Marxist state.

bio shogushin cars like all things need to be handled responsibly, those who dont should not have access. This is how our laws ALREADY work. Why don't people understand that? If everyone was unbiased with information people would understand that.

Erick Rosa yes but we all know that not everyone one is responsible, so with the examples he gave with how the car industry is regulated why not regulate the firearms industry. I'm not for banning guns or gun accessories I just got my concealed a month ago and im waiting for my G license, and one thing I've realized is that on average a lot of people aren't gonna go the extra mile for gun safety, they'll take the course qualify and probably won't brush up until it's time to renew, some probably won't even go to the gun range to practice. I'd rather you not have it than have it and not know how to use it. Honestly you're not gonna stop bad people from doing bad things but at least make it harder for them, like he says guns were specifically designed to kill there's no other application like with knives, cars, pencils or other everyday object that could be used to kill just don't look at every suggestion as wanting to take away your second amendment.

bio shogushin i agree with you. Guns and all weapons need laws to regulate them and things pertaining to them. The thing is these laws do exist. My belief is that armed security needs to exist. We need armed security in public places. I believe organized civil security under the local and state police but independent of them needs to exist, i also believe we need more police who are properly armed as well and also an increase in private securities also all of course being trained and licensed to work under their titles and to properly use arms and tactics to supplement each other. Gun laws exist. They need be enforced, people need unbias education, and proper security measures aka armed organised groups from civil, private and government sources all working under the law of tge government but independent.

Erick Rosa true that, at the end of the day the topic is being distorted and presented as black and white, one side completely against guns and believing they're evil incarnate, and the other side being gun toting nut jobs who only know of the 1st and 2nd amendment which makes it harder to have a civil discussion.

Hello. I believe that guns save lives. I believe that owning a gun doesn't make you a bad person. I believe this whole heartily and yet I'm here watching this 13 minute video contracting my believes. Because I believe in looking at every point of view. That's the true american way. Don't get me wrong I can see this point of view. Yet I made a PERSONAL decision to disagree. That's my right as a citizen of the united States. So here's may take on this topic. A video that's half as long as this one. I went out of my comfort zone to watch this video on gun control so why can't you? What do you have to lose except half the time I spent on this cracked video. The worst that could happen is that you disagree in which you can say you've seen both sides of the story. knowledge is power. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q56TZdp8rrnaYKM.html

Da'Ron White he did forget about him....

Thats how it should be

Texas needs to chill out. 😂

Huford Mungus why the fuck should it be that way?

hos 46 they are hiding likes from your comment.

hos 46 I’ve noticed many discrepancies with our favorite video platform, like erasing likes and pumping up views. Shadow banning certain videos because of political or social issues. Even hiding links in the comments, I have a few accounts that I sign in and out of plus use incognito to check my comments and review ways to try and reveal the hidden truth. These people use certain subjects they know people are aware of to gain your trust and confidence then use their influence to steer your perception of certain subjects and issues in their favor. By hiding the videos that prove trickery and false narratives they guide the masses unknowledgeable view of sensitive subjects. Like gun control and people control, if you control the information, you control the narrative. They do it through movies, music, commercials and tv. They don’t call it T.V. Programming for nothing. The average person is in a favorable state of consciences while zoning out on the boob tube called the alpha waves, they exclude logical thoughts and active problem solving. This is how they manipulate your understanding of important subjects and scenarios. They impartiality provide a type of entertainment that subliminally creates feelings towards certain people or situations and subjects. Then create them in real life so you will have a predisposition to feel a certain way and make irrational assumptions and decisions. If you refuse to accept the official view given and accepted by the masses, you are scorned and outcast by your peers for being logical and curious. When things don’t make sense in physics or reality but your told they do and not to question. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize they are lying and what else are they lying about. Only to discover our reality is the byproduct of bankers and occultist... If you can control the information, you can control the perception like hitler did to all those people with propaganda... Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and it will be believed to be truth.

Get your lazy ass up and Google it

That's not how the burden of proof works Pierr

HA HA HA HA HA! Oh you're serious? Let me laugh harder!

Pierredirects that's the mature response to "where's the evidence"

The sources are on cracked website

because it doesnt have a political skew and it has humour in it

Because they're not owned by people invested in gun manufacturers? There are so many well-sourced facts compressed into such an angry nugget of bitter truth in this 15 minutes that my head is exploding. Could you imagine if cable news actually did its job?

andrew davis I love this show, but it definitely has a strong progressive skew. It just does it in a pretty reasonable way and actually uses facts to back up their arguments.

Because its not insightful at all. Its a comedian who has realized that you cant do any research on your own, and has come to realize that if he says what you want to hear, regardless of how factually incorrect it is, how misleading it is, or how downright harmful to you personally it is, you will watch it, over abd over again. So he can rack up hundreds of millions of views on a video, and profit.

Because most real news shows have to report on what's happening right now so they can't focus on one topic in detail after the facts are in. And because the news has to appeal to a broader audience.

and it was after he quoted vice news!

I have great insurance, a pistol, a shotgun, and an ar-15 style rifle. Weeeee

Either would be neat

let me ask you does europe have crips,bloods,latin kings and a lot of other gangs the U.S has its homicide rate mainly made up of gang violence people always think of mass shootings and want gun control because of mass shootings but mass shootings only make up 1% of the homicide rate with guns the majority of it is gang violence so if you’re a crip you should be worried otherwise not really what people worry about is mass shootings which is so rare especially compared to how much gun owners there are in the U.S and again there exist illegal guns same way there exist illegal heroin

And why don’t we ban alcohol since a lot of deaths are caused by drunk drivers......think critically and please research some of the topics you speak of instead of just listening to left leaning view points

The Capitalist First of all, Conservative gaslighting 101 in full effect here. Second, when was your last run-in with Crips, Bloods and Latin Kings (?). I live in Southern California, and I had a run in with some Crips when I was 16 and I have never thought the problem here in the US with the Crips, Bloods, and Latin Kings was enough to warrant getting a gun. What you call Left leaning view points the rest of the world calls common sense.

Hey there, Europe here... the other side obviously - it's a trap! In my country it's actually illegal to have a gun - only police, military and gangs own them - in other words if the bad guys break into your apartment with a gun - you are f*cked!

I rather like living in a country where there are very few mass shootings. I'm not sure why this is so, but it statistically it does appear that America has more of them per capita than in Europe. As I see it, three possibilities exist - 1) Americans are more predisposed to mass shootings, 2) liberal gun laws allow more mass shootings to happen or 3) both. Logically, as the Capitalist presumably disagrees with the contention 2) and 3) it must logically mean that he thinks the problem lies with Americans. Why do you hate Americans so much, then? Leave you ad hominem attack, tu quoque, etc below as normal.

Demmrir "with zero background checks" Bwahahaha. So you did a straw purchase in front of FFLs and security... that's against the rules. You cheating isn't about gunshows, it's you cheating. Back in the 90s that was somewhat common, but now you'll get kicked out of a show for that nonsense. You can't even did cash exchanges between private citizens on the PROPERTY. they'll tell you to leave. Going through an FFL right at one of the vendors would cost you five dollars. I didn't get a background check when my bad bought me my first handgun... but that's only because he found it for sale 4 hours away while I was busy at work and then gifted it to me... I'm his son. He knows I'm not a criminal. That guy at the con doesn't know you're not a felon. You convincing him to let you have it without a 5 dollar background check is just you being sleazy. He endangered himself legally for no reason so you could make a point.

ravissary79 It was my first time buying a gun, I didn't know what was involved, they just never even brought up a background check. So I simply said I wanted a gun, they helped me pick a used .22 rifle, I paid them, etc. Like any normal purchase. It's so easy to buy guns without checks that you can do it accidentally. So sorry, I'm not buying the "the system works perfectly" argument of yours. Clearly it doesn't.

But we're not talking about a gun ban; we're just talking about gun regulation. There is a total difference

As a fellow gun owner i can agree with most of this. The main reason that firearms are in the constitution is to protect from tyranny, so if gun control is made, the police should not have access to anything that the people do not.

A Rogue Chihuahua It was a used gun. An old .22 semi-auto Winchester. Although he was clearly selling a lot of guns, he might have simply figured it was a private sale to avoid having to spend time on a call. And? Here's the question: Why is it fine that used guns can be purchased without background checks? Answer: It isn't. There's no difference between new guns and used. You're just an idiot.

Ah, oh well. It is a comedy after all.

frank wolftown lol if you want sources you'll have to go to crowder. I'm looking forward to his response to this

magurgle What is Crowder?

frank wolftown are you being serious? Assuming you are he's a conservative youtube who did a video on the same topic recently

I can't believe I am saying this because the fact that I even have to state this boggles my mind to the point of near-insanity, but thank you for being a logical and caring Human being.

“Really a hard core gun lover”? For some reason I think you hate guns just saying that to sway people’s opinions

If you'll permit me a moment of paranoia - I'm pretty sure the death is exactly what the rich and powerful in America want. After all, these are the people trying to kill millions of Americans by repealing their health care. Robots, prison labour, and overseas factory workers are all cheaper than minimum-wage Americans, let alone people trying to earn a living wage. American workers aren't profitable unless _they're_ willing to work for $3/hr too. Opposing gun control is all part of the "labor market correction." Mass shooters only target places with little to no security and easy access. They're no threat to people who can afford their own private security. But it _looks_ like an "indiscriminate tragedy" and that's what really matters. It's no accident the United States is at its lowest population growth rate since the 30s. Its Conservative policy.

You are not a hard-core gun owner lmao

Pyromancer_ Psycho FUD

@michael reynolds Nope, by militia, the Constitution specifically meant the organised forces that defend the nation in times of war. It was very important to specify militia and not military, since the Founding Fathers found the idea of a military antithetical to the notion of a free country. The argument you're making is one that was viewed as completely incorrect until 2001, and only in 2008 was the interpretation you're talking about accepted. Weirdly, the Supreme Court had actually made rulings on this before, and 200 years of Supreme Court rulings all agreed that no citizen had a constitutional right to bear arms. Your argument, weirdly enough, only actually started to exist from the 70s onward. So the context you're talking about is that the Supreme Court Justice nominated by Reagan (the first president to be backed by the NRA) is also the first Supreme Court Justice to believe that every citizen has a right to weaponry, ignoring the entire first part of that Amendment, which was specifically written that way to reinforce the fact that the Founding Fathers HATED the idea of a formal military. "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a *standing army*, an *enslaved press*, and a disarmed populace" -James Madison. Standing army, right there, number one. Disarmed might sound like it support your argument, except that common use in the time was to say "unarmed", instead, as disarmed meant "caught off-guard", as in, unaware of the actions of the government. Which is why the government was supposed to be held accountable by the press... you know, the FIRST AMENDMENT? Because making sure the government couldn't keep secrets from its people was supposed to be the most important part of America. "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. " -Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States Some additional reading to help show you that this is historical fact: www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/07/why-founding-fathers-would-object-todays-military/66668/ teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24671 www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/07/29/both-james-madison-and-the-anti-federalists-were-right-about-standing-armies/#2bc2ceda75a0

DefTech esp the chicago thing.

Are they trolls or people with opinions?

I know right. And it's sad because I'm a gun owner myself and I don't like it when people rip into the hobby/hunting/collection aspects of it, but it's hard to just make a moderate case for those like me (not against new regulations, just against being vilified), when idiots swarm in and start yelling a bunch of debunked bullshit. He explained Chicago yet here they are, and I'm sure somewhere down in the comments there's someone yelling about John Lott and Kleck or the Constitution. So it goes.

I appreciate your opinion. I'm more in the moderates myself about this issue, and I'm in a family of hunters so I know for a fact responsible gun owners are out there, and shouldn't be vilified. But it's exhausting to be terrified of going to a movie theatre, or a concert, or a club because I don't know if someone with a semi automatic rifle (or modified one) will show up and try to take my life. I really do appreciate your candor in expressing your agreement on a number of these issues. It gives me hope that maybe something will actually happen this time. At least I hope so.

Yeah. It doesn't have to be an either/or issue. It's not necessarily a slippery slope between regulating guns and banning them outright. There'll always be pushes either way, but still. The problem on the flip side is when you get told "COLLECT THINGS THAT DON'T KILL PEOPLE!!!11!" by someone like in this video, which I still generally speaking agree with, it tends to put even people that might be sympathetic to some regulation on edge, because it plays into the narrative of "THEY want to ban ALL guns!!!" and is really playing to its own echo chamber while alienating people like me. But anyway, sorry to dash any hope of progress you may have had, but I'm Canadian, and thus have no influence on US policy.

By your own analogy, the laws your talking about passing would involve things like "raising the driver's license age to 25" and "no one is allowed to own a car that holds more than 2 people".

pop5678eye murderers will still murder. Make it legal

Tiny J Because holding more people in the car makes it more lethal? More mass I guess?

In my opinion, there is a very big difference between breaking minor laws, like jaywalking or something, and FREAKING MURDER. Just my opinion, you know.

I don't think that in my comments that I have blamed guns for all of the social issues in America, nor do I believe that they are. I believe that better regulated guns might help or at least make it harder for certain people to get their hands on guns. I also believe that we should help mentally ill people better not because they might do a shooting (I have no idea of the correct grammar to use in this scenario. cause a shooting, maybe?), because from what I know (correct me if I'm wrong), mentally ill people actually don't cause the vast majority of shootings. I think mentally ill people should get better care because they need it to live a healthy, normal life. I do not think gun laws will help solve gang violence or help get people who need it off the streets, or that gun laws will automatically fix gun violence. All of that will take time and effort, and people working together to try and help other people.

I mean that the majority of people, when they talk about gun control, just want to have them better regulated. I completely agree with you that it's sort of ridiculous to completely ban guns, and that they can be used for self defense and hunting. Additionally, not all guns are semiautomatic, although the majority of them are.

Still relevant how fucking stupid his arguments are, if not disingenuous. Can't tell though. Either he's really stupid, or a liar. It's a tough call though folks.

Cha Boy who?

@@akimoetam1282 guy that made this video

@Wilbur Wafer well that's not a nice thing to say

Unfortunate for NZ

Well fckn move there!

Yes the so called mass shootings number the left loves to point to would drop dramatically since most of that is due to gang violence!

Hahahah...There is no war on drugs. Name ANY popular drug. It can be obtained ANYWHERE in the US, in any town you go to.

christopher scott That war is perpetual. As long as we make something scarce, there will be a demand for it. Life sucks, drugs are fun (for the most part).If

Wanna end the war on drugs? Make them legal. That way drugs can be purchased from reputable distributors with regulated standards, putting the cartels out of business and ending the need for violence. But that's never gonna happen.

Shiloh Q I think you’re going the wrong direction with that. Because drugs are illegal gang violence causes gun violence- legalize, moderate, and tax rather than banning and letting the violent people hold all the cards in a war no one can win.

Jknighte224 stay in Australia please. Thank you.

While I appreciate concern from people about common issues as opposed to people ignoring them, I can't help but be conflicted on this topic. On one hand, I appreciate the idea of making it harder for people more likely to kill others or themselves to obtain weapons that make it easier to kill others or themselves. On the other, I like guns and freedom. Now, save for the gun show loop hole mentioned in this video, I was under the impression that there are many regulations on guns...? Of course, there will always be unregulated private sales regardless of whether or not we pump out more laws on guns. Guns are here. They have been here for a long time. It is likely guns will be here until they erode post human extinction. I disagree with the statement that killing with guns is without guilt. There are plenty of veterans who will tell you otherwise. Now, I've seen the whole "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" statement. I'd say that's accurate. However, gun control doesn't mean the government will take away all the 'splody sticks... it means they don't want to have their schools, movie theaters, streets.... shot up by people abusing these weapons. Now, if you'll take note of the fact that I've used the term "weapon", I'd like to also note that guns aren't just for killing people in cold blood. Yes, I understand that was their original purpose. Collecting, hunting, protection, and sport are all alternative reasons for owning (a) gun(s). I plan on owning at least a couple guns in the future. I plan on doing so responsibly. I'm not a murderous individual with plans to go on some homicidal killing spree. I'd like to believe I think logically for the most part. So the reason I have this internal conflict is due to the fact that when I approach a discussion or I am to assess a situation I actually take a look at it from as many angles as I can imagine and try to picture the best solution to whatever problem or disagreement there might be. Saying things like "stay in Australia" solves about as much stating you are from Australia. Let's take an actual look at what is being said here. On one side, people want to stop these blood baths. On another, they don't want their possessions/freedoms taken away. I'd say that these are both valid. So I offer this: if people are willing to do more thorough background checks, take tests, obtain the correct papers/permits... would these people be allowed a wider variety of guns/associated equipment? It would seem fair that if people were willing to go through a more intense process of checks and regulation to expand upon their privileges, correct? By no means am I saying anyone outside of the military be granted heavy machine guns or rocket launchers... things of that particular nature... but such things as barrel length, type of grip, or perhaps even size of projectile if they have the proper training, pass tests, and acquire the right papers. Now of course the more dangerous the gun or part is, the more difficult it would be to obtain. How do you determine how dangerous a gun/part is? Perhaps enforce procedure for manufacturers to test these guns/parts in a way that determines things in the direction of: does a gun equipped with this part shoot faster, a larger projectile, further... does this part allow the gun to be concealed with more ease, hold more ammunition... at what rate might this part malfunction and in what way. These companies must present conclusive evidence and a government agency should do a random check to confirm these tests. An extensive background check should be required. Potential criminal history, any legal disputes, diagnosed mental illness or presence of mental illness in family history... investigate these people as much as you have to. Let's all acknowledge that between government agencies and massive corporations, there probably isn't a single noteworthy detail about anyone they don't know... I mean, in my opinion, I don't really care. I get that most people have a problem with the invasion of privacy (or really total lack of privacy might be more accurate), but I couldn't think of any reason to really care. Even if I could, what's done is done. They already know almost everything about you. It's just a fact of life at this point. So, to anyone upset by the idea of "the government snooping on us" or anything of the sort, they've already done it and honestly what is there that you really want to hide from the people trying to ensure everyone's safety? They might use this information against you? If they can, you have probably done something wrong. If not, how/why would they?

Jknighte224 go look up truck attacks

What? What are you getting at?

Gun violence was going down in Australia before the buy back, and in the end 2/3s of the people who owned guns, kept them.

Padoru.exe i believe that guns save lives. I believe that owning a gun doesn't make you a bad person. I believe this whole heartily and yet I'm here watching this 13 minute video contracting my believes. Because I believe in looking at every point of view. That's the true american way. Don't get me wrong I can see this point of view. Yet I made a PERSONAL decision to disagree. That's my right as a citizen of the united States. So here's may take on this topic. A video that's half as long as this one. I went out of my comfort zone to watch this video on gun control so why can't you? What do you have to lose except half the time I spent on this cracked video. The worst that could happen is that you disagree in which you can say you've seen both sides of the story. knowledge is power. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q56TZdp8rrnaYKM.html

Christopher Drum He is a taking head. No better than Chris Cuomo and Anderson Cooper. CIA puppets.

Nice sentiment - well put.

TooManyChoices1 Fact: the CIA works for the president. Issue: our current president is anti-gun control. Solution: Obama is the president again. New issue: you must be a phsycotic liberal.

Fact: obama served 2 terms issue: obama cant serve a third term even if he was vice president solution: The Constitution and congress pick a new president that is not affiliated with either political party and only stands to uphold the constitution of the united states

@TooManyChoices1 Respectfully and passionately disagree with you.

Exaxtly he should move to communist china see how that works for him

Hohenheim Productions I’m really really glad that someone is finally talking about this issue.

My point sailed completely over your head, didn't it? Of course cars CAN kill people, but that's not what what their designed to do; they're designed for transportation. Guns, on the other hand, are designed first and foremost to KILL THINGS.

You're still missing my point! Yes yes, vehicles can kill people. That's why they have to be licensed, registered etc. etc. But they are still not designed to kill people and yet no one has a problem with having to register them, license them etc. etc. However guns and other firearms are designed to kill people/things, but if anyone suggests having to register them people lose their fucking minds.

I didn't say it would. I just think it's stupid that people have no problem registering their car, but lose their minds when it's suggested that they should have to register their guns.

can someone explain to me again how this is not considered either bribery or corruption? because this sounds a lot like bribery or corruption

Lasnight, because it's America. We've got bald eagles and freedom, but no bribery or corruption. Well at least not on one side of the political spectrum, everyone on the other side of course it totally corrupt and hates America.

Please tell us were did that old evil hag Hillary Clinton get her money from? At least the Nra gets it's money from regular people like me.

John Coyne Yes, you were proven wrong and shown that you don't understand this topic so you continue to divert to another topic altogether. Please just go take a nap.

Lasnight Did you say that with the donations made to Obama to sway his opinions? Sit down. It's either ALL corrupt or ALL okay. Fucking hell, I'm so tired of these children and their fucking historical ignorance.

Clearly you havent been watching public media. The problem isnt that is not discussed. The problem is the american peoples short attention span that stops caring after a month.

Ummmm...Isn't this news channel talking about it?

We speak about gun and gun control only when something happens than forgetting about it. That like having a hole in your roof and only discussing it when it rain or birds shit in your house. You clean up the mess and say nothing until it happens again. While everyone says damnit less do something.

Ed Nogi I COULD but I'm fairly certain this is called "sarcasm" no?

Vaughn Waddell this actually isn't true. It's being discussed by those for and against who really have skin in the game CONSTANTLY. It's the media who only brings it up along side terrifying images of death and destruction since they can bypass rational debate, pump ratings and inspire outrage. If the media was interested in a rational debate then they wouldn't try to get people irrational first.

Grimm GooseGirl sad...

Yeah, they're doing a great job presenting propaganda. Very pathetic that they've gone from "funny" to "let's indoctrinate younger people to our political views through unfunny garbage like this"

ld1112 Yeah how dare they present factual information about world events.

Doing a great job at what? Spreading just as much misinformation as pretty much any other "news" station. The thing about gun control that people like this don't understand is any thing enacted would not have stopped this because again there is a difference between law-abiding citizen and Criminal. people need to get it through their goddamn head real quick that gun control does not work on criminals that's kind of indicated in the name criminal means they go the fuck around it.

ld1112; Which points did you disagree with?

dick castle i believe that guns save lives. I believe that owning a gun doesn't make you a bad person. I believe this whole heartily and yet I'm here watching this 13 minute video contracting my believes. Because I believe in looking at every point of view. That's the true american way. Don't get me wrong I can see this point of view. Yet I made a PERSONAL decision to disagree. That's my right as a citizen of the united States. So here's may take on this topic. A video that's half as long as this one. I went out of my comfort zone to watch this video on gun control so why can't you? What do you have to lose except half the time I spent on this cracked video. The worst that could happen is that you disagree in which you can say you've seen both sides of the story. knowledge is power. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q56TZdp8rrnaYKM.html

Upcycle Electronics Vulnerability is not an inherent part of life. Everyone should be able to defend themselves. Gun control helped Chicago and Detroit, didn't it?

Professional Nihilist It did actually, what didn't help was that Chicago was surrounded on all sides by cities where guns were easier to acquire than hunting permits. You losers keep trying to make the same bullshit long debunked arguments, and we'll be here to spank you at every turn.

People hunt with bolt guns, sure. They are a great tool for the job. But a lot of people (more than you might think) hunt ethically with AR-15's as well as they are light weight, accurate and easy to use. But Ignorant people have this notion in their head that using a gun like that makes you a shitty hunter, drunkenly stumbling through the woods ready to spray bullets at the first thing that moves. There are plenty of videos on youtube of hunters with AR's taking down deer with a single well placed shot. They get the job done just fine and double as a viable defensive weapon if they happen to run into a predatory animal. Also the CDC did a study a couple years ago and found that guns are used defensively anywhere between 500,000 - 3,000,000 times per year (see point 7: www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html ). Vast majority of those defensive gun uses, a shot was never fired as the mere presence of a gun is enough to deter a would be attacker. The actual yearly statistics are difficult to pin down exactly for that reason. If a shot isn't fired and a crime isn't committed, who do you report that incident to?

The second amendment isn't about hunting. It's about keeping a free state, it's about protecting the citizens against outside terrors and an overpowered government. Remember the famous quote: "In order to conquer a nation, first you must disarm its citizens." -Adolf Hitler. I am from Alaska, and I hunt all the time, at least once per week, and my top hunting rifle is a semi-automatic, they're just better. More gun control only will hurt law abiding citizens and simply give more power to criminals and the government. An attack on one right is an attack on all.

The disconnect between someone who has never experienced city life and one who has, is real. You speak as someone who has never encountered a person intent on hurting you or your family. Actually *YES* there are people who choose to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings. These are the people who you don't see CRACKED make videos about, because they stopped a deadly threat in it's tracks. Take your bumpkin ass to a place like St Louis, or Chicago- and see how you fare.

That is assuming that there are two very distinct and hermetically closed categories of people, namely the good and the bad, and that the guns of a good guy cannot be used by a bad guy. Then again, getting weapons is possible if you are part of a gang I guess, but unfortunately, mass shootings are not done by those. What's more, it is wishfull thinking to think that having a gun will make you safer in a situation where there is a "bad guy" with a gun. So overall I don't think that is a good point.

@@raphitekthebestone like 200 people die yearly in mass shootings in US. 200 people. Sad, yes, but statistically speaking it's not an issue.

So ya gonna ignore the fact people buying guns and bringing them across state lines is a problem? Just not even gonna factor that in?

of course, that is a factor as well. not denying that.

What do you mean "enforce the police"?

we should increase funding for police officers and also ensure unruly behavior is punished. cops do bad shit because they get away with it.

IcantSignIn I assume they mean reinforce. Which is a silly argument considering Chicago's history. The idea that economic stability would help has some merit tho.

' you don't need 30 different guns' what about gun collectors?

ILikeMe 123 our issue is we haven't actually had compromise. You always feel happy to add another small shackle to our right but if we try and gain something back all of a sudden we're the cunts

So all of the people who've said to ban firearms over the past 22 years or so don't really mean it starting with California Senator Diane Feinstein saying it would have been Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns if she'd been able to get 51 votes in the US Senate through our newest California Senator who said she'd like to see private ownership of guns banned?

You say that like mainstream leftist journalists, politician and celebrities are not calling for a ban on the most popular type of gun in America, while also openly praising Australia's gun confiscation scheme. YOU are the one who is being dishonest

To answer your question, because the left thinks "gun control" works when it doesn't. Unless you can explain why Houston does not have a huge "gun problem" and loose gun laws... making "strict gun laws" isn't logical.. ready? go. making what I call a "feel good law" that does nothing but make you feel good is what the left whats to do with Gun Control.. it makes you FEEL like you are doing something when in reality it doesn't do anything. Sure people cite countries that have low gun crime and then cite the REASON is because it doesn't have guns.. but cannot explain the opposite when guns are banned or very restricted (ie gun control) and has HUGE gun problems... this makes me think there is a variable we aren't thinking of and the left has problems with math.. so they just do quick correlation causation fallacies because it is easier.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

@@kelvinnguyen3537 While I agree sacrificing constitutional liberties for a false sense of safety is a poor choice. What I'm proposing does not infringe on or allow the government to infringe on gun ownership or privacy. It simply allows investigators to subpoena gun ownership records of a specific firearm from the gun manufactures only when that gun was used in a crime. This would not allow blanket unrestricted access of this information by government officials. I also want to add that the Ben Franklin quote you posted has been mis-used and taken out of context. Ben Franklin was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

@@DTAWOM69 That what the form 4477( Federal background check) is for when you purchase a firearm. It is Federal law for the gun store owner to keep the form for 20 years or if his shop closes, he had to mail in all the forms to the ATF, but the agency cannot Electronically file the form. If for instance Bob Joe committed a crime with his firearm he owned and bought from any store, the feds can and will pull the form to trace back the firearm to Bobby Joe, but a crime needs to be committed in order for the feds to do that lawfully. I just bought a g2c a little bit before Christmas, and the gun store owner was able to pull up my info from years before when I bought a gun a his store.

@@kelvinnguyen3537 I'm aware of the federal background check, but that check does not track riflings or firing pin signatures, only serial numbers and gun types. Furthermore that process does not track transfers/sales between individuals. What I'm proposing would require gun manufacturers, not gun shop owners or the ATF, to digitally document and track sales to individuals from gun shops as well as individual transfer/sale of firearms. This would completely remove the ATF and federal organizations from the equation. If the feds wanted sale/transfer documentation they would have to subpoena it from the gun manufacturers by having either the serial number, rifling, and/or firing pin signature of a specific firearm. This would completely remove the government from any paper and/or digital tracking of firearm ownership. The federal background checks would still have to be performed obviously, but with the system I'm proposing it would not attach that background check to a specific weapon, just the individual. The only way to tie a weapon to a individual, firearm, or background check would again be a subpoena it from the firearms manufacturers.

@@DTAWOM69 So you would trust the feds with that? Can you tell me how the red flag laws are going? What about how both republican and democrats misuse their reach? Feds, or anybody body else has the propesenity to misuse any kind of power, reach, or right granted to them by we the people. Let's be honest here. "common sense" gun laws don't work, neither does magazine size restrictions, or "assault weapon" ban. The only kind of gun control that would work is a total gun ban.( but I highly doubt the feds want a civil war) or death by a thousand cuts(add gun restrictions here and there next thing you know you have an unarmed populace). I don't trust anybody with my safety or my families safety but God and me. The only way to stop evil, is to have good men, who are trained to stop evil. Gun control does not work, and many major cities has proven it by facts and statics.

95machinehead why do you think letting people have clean drinking water saves lives ??? What about the billions of people who don’t have access to clean water and the millions that die every year because of it?? Clearly giving people clean water isn’t effective because people still die in places that don’t

Your Icon got me. It got me good. Also yeah, money is why.

solving problems is hard lets pretend we don't have them and hope it goes away

I'm from the uk and i find it ridiculous how easy people get guns in America, what is the reason that you are allowed them it just leads to problems

That is falsely assuming people don't care about the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, despite caring about the other nine. While we're at it, that "First Amendment" thing needs to go, too; the Founders couldn't have predicted the invention of the Internet. I'm no gun-owner -- in fact, I'm a bit of a hoplophobe -- but we need to put ourselves in others' shoes before we resort to calling them "evil."

I'll take "money" for eight hundred, Alex.

That's roughly the kind of regulation that most people call for, not the total ban of guns. Background check, training/testing, license, registration. Like cars... Did you know congressmen are right now trying to make silencers legal? And that they repealed the regulation making it harder for mentally ill people to get guns? And that no one on the terrorist watchlist is barred from getting a gun? These are just unreasonable. I appreciate your reasonable post; that's the only reason I replied.

Charlie Evergreen I don't see why you shouldnt be able to have a silencer. In case you didn't know, silencers don't actually silence a gun like in James Bond movies. Guns are so loud that they will destroy your hearing without protection. With a silencer they just hurt your ears less. They're still louder than anything you hear on a daily basis.

Oh look, a centrist who finds ideological superiority by not having a spine. Try again

Suppressors should be legal, they're great to protect people's hearing and do not make guns silenced like in movies. Why would someone on a watchlist have their right's banned? A watchlist isn't a conviction or even accurate when you look at how many regular people are on terrorist watchlists. www.popphoto.com/g00/news/2014/07/photographer-reportedly-lands-fbi-terrorism-watchlist-taking-photo-public-art?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3D

TheMysteryDriver Scruffy seconds this motion.