Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Texas Mall Shooting & Car Attack | Gun Control Debate
Recorded: May 7, 2023 Duration: 4:36:46Space Recording
Short Summary
The transcript primarily revolves around discussions on gun control, mental health, and societal issues in the United States. Participants debate the effectiveness of gun regulations, the role of mental health in mass shootings, and the cultural factors contributing to violence. The conversation also touches on the Second Amendment, the potential for tyranny, and the importance of individual rights. Various perspectives are shared, highlighting the complexity of finding solutions to gun violence and the need for a multifaceted approach.
Full Transcription
Hey Mario, thanks for the invite.
Pleasure, man.
Let me get Slay man up.
Dan, you've got an issue with your account, man.
Every time we try to invite you, it's just been a nightmare.
That's why I brought you up immediately.
I don't know what it is with your account.
It's not the blue checkmark, man.
I don't know what shodding is you did, but we cannot, we can never invite you.
You can never search you.
Well, thanks for getting me in early, man.
I appreciate it.
I think it's ever since I lost my legacy verification.
I just don't pop up anymore.
Alright, let me get the invites out.
Toppea, what's up?
Doing good, bro.
How you doing?
Good, man, good.
Where's trash?
Do you want to hit Trash up?
Yeah, he's there.
He's requested.
Oh, I can't see him.
I just sent him an invite.
Trash, I say, oh, there you are.
I sent you a co-host invite.
Oh, you're up trash.
I don't want to be doing this small talk business.
Sorry, Ben, sorry.
What's he doing, bro?
Why's he not here yet?
Don't get anxious, man.
Don't get anxious.
That's it, he's here now.
Trash, do the small talk then.
Yo, man, I went, so I didn't do much...
Man, my team just...
I killed my team.
Hold on.
Let me start berating my team.
Yeah, so I went to an event yesterday, or technically this morning.
I used to go to events every week, but I don't because of the show.
And I think you like this news, Slime Man.
Guess how many people ask me about you?
I'm thinking, legitimately, I'd say probably most of the show.
Now on a serious note, how many do you think asked me about you?
So I had maybe a total 40 people come up to me throughout the event.
Well, like before, after my panel, how many do you think asked me about you out of the 40?
I would have said zero, but the fact you're asking a question, maybe one.
It's actually zero.
You're right.
Yeah, I thought.
Yeah.
I'm glad you got that right.
Where was this event?
Just Dubai.
I don't travel.
I try not to travel anymore.
So I've been told, like, a lot of kids in Dubai know who I am because they're all top G fans.
They all know the importance of top G.
But other than that, yeah, I don't know about the rest of these nerds.
Oh, cool.
So despite Dubai being a hotspot for you, I still had zero.
Interesting.
What would you conclude out of these figures?
I just said to you that a lot, from what I know, a lot of the lads know who I am, but the nerds obviously don't.
The nerds are going to your show.
Like, come on, they're not going to know who I am.
The DNGs.
Alright man. How's the, what's the latest with Tate?
Tate's doing good. Tate's doing good. He did a nice comedy sketch against the mainstream media and he's just taken over the world right now.
He probably had more numbers than they did.
Of course. It's top G.
Right. I've sent out all the invites.
So while waiting for the invites to come in, let me sure I've got everything good. Trash, how are you, man?
Yeah.
Yeah, good, Mario. Good to see you.
Silemon. Good to see you guys.
Doing good, doing good.
Cool. I've got the panel organized.
We've got more speakers joining us.
Actually, let me get...
No, I'm not going to do that.
Let me get Mr. M.C. Doge.
He's not on the list, but...
I could be really wrong in getting him up, but I think he's got some...
No, no, he was. He was on the list.
Oh, he was on the list. Oh, cool, cool. All right.
All right, man. So before kicking off the space, what's your conclusion?
We didn't get a chance to get your thoughts from yesterday's space. What are your thoughts, what's your conclusion out of everything?
So my thoughts are, I think Fidgetle described it quite well yesterday
in terms of if he's going to be legally culpable.
And I guess, I mean, he obviously kept the choke on for too long.
The question becomes that, for me, anyway,
that if he's a Marine, would he have knowledge that that was too long?
Or was it that he was just holding on to him, hoping that he wouldn't get out?
And then by doing that, you know, the, what's his name?
Jordan, he nearly ended up dying.
So if it's that he was holding on to him and thinking,
I just don't want to let this guy go because he's going to cause, like,
a lot more, like, he's not go crazy at everybody.
so then
then may be different
but if he's got a marine
if he's got knowledge
then obviously
then it is
he should be charged
but how did it become
a race thing
and do you think it should be
because I know you're more
liberal on that topic
and when it comes to race
no no I'm not
I'm not liberal on the topic
so I don't think it was a race thing
so I'm not liberal on that topic
I'm liberal
because I think
that there's systematic racism
But I don't believe that these individual situations where basically, you know, when a black person attacks a white person, or we see on Twitter quite a bit when a white person, sorry, when a black person attacks a white person, which was seen quite a bit on right wing Twitter.
And on left wing Twitter, the other way around, I don't think that those are individual actions of racism where like two kids are fighting or two adults are fighting.
But in terms of like systematic racism, I do believe that that exists, yeah.
Trash, where do you stand on this before we kick off today's space?
Yeah, no.
So it actually kind of frustrates me that race was even brought into this conversation
because that's not what happened here in my opinion.
Now, I will say the argument that I ended on yesterday is
there might be some culpability in there for how long he held the show a cold.
I think that's a legal question.
But my question that I came out of that was,
okay, well, what reasonable fear do they have if they let this guy go?
What was going to happen?
And I think that that's what led up to it to begin with was there had to have been.
There was reports.
We had two or three 911 calls kind of stating this,
that there was some disturbance from this guy.
He was going crazy.
But that's all we know.
We don't have much else.
But again, if they're holding on to make sure this guy doesn't get out and get loose,
there's something there
unfortunately for the guy
that wrapped him up and held a choke hold too long
this man which shouldn't have passed away
which should have had mental health
ended up passing away which is just tragic
and he may end up facing some legal consequences
especially in New York
I think I'm concerned about that
and the next question I have Slyman is what's the latest
since then because I know there's been protests
and I went to sleep you and sensitive men
were covering this
have we seen a lot of protests is there much
much happening?
Yeah, there's been protests.
We've got a bit more information.
I'll just pass that along.
Oh, no, sorry, that's not.
So, yeah, no.
Yeah, just protests,
and it does seem like the protests are still happening.
So my concern is that, obviously,
if this, like, exacerbates and becomes, like,
completely politically driven,
I mean, if the guy is going to be charged or not charged,
it should be solely based on the merits of the case
as opposed to, like, some kind of political agenda
from AOC or whatever.
And so what we're doing today is we're going to discuss gun control, which we haven't done in a while, especially after yesterday's shooting, the one in Texas, and you probably have more updates on this one. I saw that censored, posted a few things in the thread. And so that will be key folks. And then you want to talk about immigration as well, correct, Slimann?
Well, we may touch on that later because in the – but let me give an overview and then we'll see –
Yeah, because we've never – just for the record, we've never – we've never discussed immigration in the space.
So this is an – it's going to be an educational topic for me.
And my stance – go ahead.
Sorry, Mary.
And even if we don't cover it in this space, I mean, it's going to be one of the political issues that I've spoken about between the various candidates.
So we definitely will have a show on it specifically.
Cool. And I'm going to talk about my stance in terms of immigration in a bit as well. I think you'd be surprised what my stance is. It's going to be interesting. But let's kick it off, Simon, give us the news and I'll let you start warming up the space and then we'll kick off the discussion.
Well, I'm interested in your stance, actually, but okay, let me give the...
I think I'll do it after the space because I want to learn a bit more before giving my stance.
But like in brief, the easiest way to know my stance, when you ask me where I'm from, I never give a country.
No matter where I was born or where I've lived, I've lived in Australia all my life, I never give a country because I just don't, I don't like separating it.
Because I've traveled all my life, so I was a kid.
So for me...
Earth itself is like one big-ass country.
And it's a very naive stance on the world.
Like I think we should all help each other, et cetera.
But that's, again, that's a very,
it's a lot more complicated than I make it out to be.
So that's why I probably don't have a final stance
and we'll do this space, maybe another space,
and then I'll have a more concrete stance on the issue.
Anyway, let's kick it off.
And then who the fuck am I to talk about US immigration
when I'm not American anyway?
So I'll probably have opinions,
but the policy will, at the end of the day,
and be decided by the Americans.
I mean, your stance makes sense from like a utopian society,
but in terms of America itself,
so I do think everyone, like,
I don't think there's an issue with anyone having an opinion on it,
because we talk about this a lot,
but basically whatever America decides
or whatever America does, it impacts the entire world significantly.
so it is important
so now coming back to
the what's been happening
so we had the Texas
mall shooting
in Allen Texas
eight people were
unfortunately killed
and seven were wounded
The weapon that was used was an AR-15 style rifle.
Now, the suspect is Latino, and so that's the main issue.
That's what we know.
Now, there is some reports saying that he may possibly have some connection to extremism.
And the argument that's been made is that he had a RWDS badge on his clothing,
and that stands for right-wing death squad.
Okay.
So that was in terms of shooter.
So if it is the case, then he is, if that's right, we don't know.
We don't know.
This is just one report and it could be completely like misinformation as well to cause political unrest.
But at the moment, it does seem like it's a Latino man.
I mean, not seems like the reporting is saying that it's a Latino man with possibly right wing ideology.
Right.
And then later on in the day or today, and again, it's probably not connected, but there again, you never noticed.
But it's in Texas again.
It was a car attack in Brownsville.
And unfortunately, seven people died and six were injured.
Now, the person, he ran over an area where there were, where,
Bith, he ran over migrants.
So essentially he ran over migrants.
And so the thought was that what?
Is this a racial attack?
But then on the other hand, it was, again, someone from who was Latino-Hispanic.
So then the question is like so we basically had two attacks in two days from like people from the Hispanic community.
Now I'm unsure if this is connected.
Hold on no, sorry, sorry Saman.
The so I'm seeing it, I know I tweeted about it, but the Sanzan said man did that for me.
Um, so he deserves a credit.
But you're saying that there was an attack in Texas again, a car just ramming into people and killed seven?
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah.
Oh shit.
So we have the shooting yesterday and the car ramming.
And the one you're talking about the right wing Latino man.
Is the shooting yesterday or the car that rammed into seven people?
That's the shooting yesterday.
Okay.
And what do we know about the car that rammed into the people?
So we know it's a, we know it's a, we know it's Latino, but we don't know.
It's also a Latino driver.
And yesterday was a Latino man as well.
Yeah, that's right.
That's right.
Oh, shit.
Oh shit and we don't know if he's right wing or what the the
No for the second guy we've got to know it and we don't know about the first guys only one report
I just want to be clear on that but yeah that one report is saying it because it could be
Mario have you not have you not seen the videos on your own
No no I just said earlier I didn't tweet those I was sleeping man I do get some sleep sometimes but my team tweets them in this case censored men the the man the myth the legend to them
So there's a response to your tweet about this that is frightening
Please tell me more what what response?
I'll post it up top, although it's really graphic.
It's the actual video of the car running over the people.
Yeah, yeah, Nick posted it as well, didn't he?
Yeah, it's really graphic.
It's probably Mario probably wouldn't want that on yours.
I don't know.
I used to watch, I used to watch, you remember Live League that website
with all the gory content?
No, I used to watch LAM.
Oh, shit.
Lame stuff.
I used to watch the goriest videos because when I was younger,
because in my mind, I'm like, it will make me tougher for in case I ever need to be tough.
Now I don't because it just brings, it just fucks up your mood like crazy.
But I'll watch this one.
If you can post, don't post it at the top Fiji because we don't want people to watch.
I'll send it.
Yeah, maybe people don't want to watch it.
They can go.
I don't know. People tell us in the comments if you want us to pin it above and we can pin it if you want to watch a gory video.
If we get enough comments relative to the audience, a number of audience members that we could pin it at the top.
But, Saman, yeah, I'll let you finish off and then we'll kick it off.
David, I think had his hand up, so we'll kick it off to the panel to get more context.
Yeah, I mean, I can give you updates about gun issues in the entirety, but I guess we'll go into that when it comes to the specific good debate.
But what's he, so what's your, my first question will be, anyone could jump in, take this one.
So what is, first, are we seeing more gun violence and more attacks?
Because obviously it's dominating mainstream media.
But statistically speaking.
Are we going through a period where it's above average?
It's question number one.
And question number two, do we know what the motivation is behind the two attacks in the last 24 hours?
Because what I've known before when I used to read about this is that when there's one attack,
it could inspire other attacks.
So is there, and I know we're starting to speculate here,
but is there any links between yesterday's attack in Texas and today's attack?
It's up for the panel.
Anyone jump in?
It's too early to make a conclusion like that, especially when it just happened.
I like how you say, Sean, I just said we're speculating.
You're like, yeah, it's too early to make conclusion.
No, thanks, man.
Thanks for reinforcing that we're speculating.
Sean.
Helps a lot, bro.
Mario, just before you do that, one point I wanted to say, just for clarification, that I know people are saying the first guy is a white supremacist, but it could be he got up the top from somewhere else.
Like, this is possible, but I'm just saying the basis is just the clothing he was wearing on.
I just wanted to chime in.
I don't see many white supremacists with neck tattoos and hand tattoos that are Hispanic.
You know, like this is Roy with weapon outfitters, by the way.
The tattoo on his hand was one, was a prison tattoo or the Dallas tattoo?
Was it a prison tattoo or unrelated to prison?
People were speculating that it's a prison-related tattoo, like a Hispanic gang thing where they say,
oh, this is the hood that I'm from.
They're saying that, yeah, so real quick, what they're saying is, so there's an overarching group, a prison gang, within Texas, and there's different sex depending upon the city that you're from.
And they're saying that I've got several messages on this, that the tattoo, uh,
is related to a gang called Tango Blast
and that's all I have.
I don't have anything more.
Now we're bringing all source in,
all sorts of an expert in this
so you'll be joining us in a bit
to give us an update
because I know there's been links made
remember Trash,
you mentioned that yesterday
there's links made that this was
by a Mexican cartel
which I don't think is the case
but again, we don't know.
A Mexican cartel in response
to a bill that's being,
what was it, what was it a response to?
Can you give us more context?
Title 42?
Yeah, so Title 42 is going to expire
next week on Thursday.
Actually, Trash, can you give it, can you give me
an update on, I know we want to talk about immigration a bit later when I start about gun control,
but just a bit of context. Can you tell us what's the latest with immigration in the US?
What's the policy? How has it shifted since Biden took office? And how does it compare to when
Obama was in office? If you can give us a bit of an overview.
Wait, why are...
Why are we talking about immigration right now?
Do we have any information to suggest that the shooter was an immigrant?
No, no, no.
It's unrelated.
I don't know if the shooter is an immigrant or not.
I'm just curious about immigration policy because it's something we've never discussed before.
So it's a topic that it's more personal curiosity.
So if anyone could just...
Well, the relevance is the people who got run over were...
It's been reported that immigrants, weren't they?
David?
That's what's being reported, yeah.
David.
David.
As far as I know when it comes to immigration, there's, you know, it's not an open border as right-wing media makes it out to me.
You know, thousands of apprehensions happen all the time and they get turned back in the border.
So the borders are closed.
They're not open.
So they're making sure that the border is secure, even though, you know, immigrants aren't trying to come in.
And I think what we need to do, we need to figure out why people are leaving their countries of home and seeing if there's anything that can be done to stop the crime in their countries of origin so they can be livable so they don't have to come here.
You know, they don't have to sink asylum and try to do support.
But, yeah, the borders are not open.
They've been doing a good job and try to keep the borders secure.
Thank you.
I might actually have some really timely and relevant information.
I just met a guy who was Russian, who escaped Russia at the beginning of the war, and he came over the border.
And he spent three months in an immigration facility where you learned to speak patois, because a bunch of Jamaicans were there, too.
So it's pretty easy to get over the border.
Yeah.
I haven't gone through the process myself.
I'm the son of immigrants.
You know, I can chime in about H-1Bs
since I'm right by the Microsoft headquarters
and I'm Taiwanese-American myself,
but I do think it's pretty easy to get over the border.
I mean, I live in Washington,
and every time I need anything done on my house,
a white guy gives me the...
the quote and it's always a team of hard-working Mexicans who get the stun.
And they're so far from the border.
You know, it's pretty crazy.
If we want to talk about immigration, I'm happy to talk about that too, but, you know, I'm here for the guns.
Yeah, I think we're kicking off with gun control because that's the structure you had.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, let's start out.
So I have got a structure of mind.
And we are going to talk about various aspects of guns because I don't want to cover the issue properly and in depth as much as we can.
So the first issue obviously is, and is related to the news yesterday, I did give an overview, but it's about, you know, mass shootings that are happening in the United States.
So I was looking at the data and what the data shows is up until 2017, mass shootings were in single digits, right?
And then, obviously, we had, from 2017, I believe, if I'm right from the top of my head, or 2018.
Yeah.
it start going into double digits.
And other than the two COVID years,
you've seen it's been consistently quite high.
So there has been an increase in mass shootings.
So the first question is...
Wait, what data specifically are you talking about?
Because we've already had 100, I think,
in 19 mass shootings this year in 2023.
And there's not been a year since 20...
What was it, 2005, that we haven't had...
had more than 50 mass shootings a year.
So are you talking about like a specific place or how are you defining mass shooting?
Rebecca, first, before you answer Sleighman, Rebecca, I saw your profile.
We haven't met, but I saw your profile.
You talked about, you know, your target misinformation and disinformation.
I don't know what your stance is.
All I know is that it's going to be a blast because Slyman's going to be full of misinformation and disinformation.
So keep crushing him, please, Rebecca.
But Slaman, please respond.
I mean, that's not true.
I'm not full of misinformation and disinformation.
I will try and find where I got that from, Rebecca.
Just give me a few minutes.
But anyway.
Well, I don't need you to actually find it because I already pulled it and shared it earlier today.
And they're put over 100 best shooting so far.
Okay.
We should define what a mass shooting is first.
I can back that up.
I prefer Sleman's perspective because that means it started when Trump took presidency, and we just had increased mass shootings since then.
So I'll stick with Sleman.
Right.
No, it's not just since the Trump presidency.
This was a problem that we had after the expiration of the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004.
It's been increasing.
we haven't had, I mean, as far as numbers go, there were actually periods of dips. COVID was a dip in mass shootings, mostly because people were not congregating at major events in which these types of things would be, you know, targeted towards. Because for these people, it's like the death count is all that they care about. But yeah, this has been an ongoing problem probably for, well, I guess that was almost 20 years ago. I feel so old saying that. But.
But it's not a Trump thing.
Trump didn't really touch gun control much other than repealing a post-Sandy hook provision to try to prevent people who have been flagged for mental health issues from getting guns at the federal level.
This can't be put on Trump.
I didn't say, I didn't say he, I did not say that he changed regulation.
I was implying that he caused a hysteria in our populace that may have or may not have contributed to more hate.
Post the shooting in Las Vegas, Trump signed an executive order that banned bumsstock.
So he did actually pass gun control or attempt to.
I mean, it was killed by the court because the president doesn't have that authority through executive order.
But like he did for almost a year, you couldn't buy bump stocks at all or you'd be a felon.
Yeah, for five years, it was basically regulated at the same level as machine guns.
Obviously, if you want to go through the paperwork to get a machine gun, you want a real one, not a bump stock.
Well, I was going to bring up the whole fact that you guys brought up mental illness.
And if you guys seen the post that the end-wokeness just put out, and then Elon commented below it,
it says that the asylum, mental asylum patients...
They're like,
1955
5,59,000 people
inside of a mental
institution, and now we only
have 35,000 people
present day.
So we're... And the population's
gone way up. Yeah, the population has gone
way up, but we're still at
25K for
2023, which
shows me that
You know, if we're talking about stats, like I'm coming from a medical background too.
You know, like my my whole stance on this is for the gun owner's rights.
And I'm hoping that the control part of this isn't going to be too controlling,
but that we try to mitigate all of these people that are out there who are unstable,
because that's what I'm more worried about in America's unstableness of the psyche.
We have a really, really bad, and I don't know if that's video games or that came from something recently.
But that's definitely, I would think, a problem.
Doctor?
Well, if you live in a Democrat city.
So go ahead, doctor.
Dr. Chathan, you got to mute, bottom left corner.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you, Mario.
You know, mental health is an issue in multiple countries.
And I think it's, you know, I study this issue day in, day out.
I would say that it is wrong to say that there is not a link between mental health and gun violence, but there's a complicated intersection.
However, I will say...
that is a totally incorrect, I think, way to look at this, right?
Because there are mental health issues.
Similarly, people in crisis at the same percentages, if not higher,
in countries like Canada, Scandinavian countries.
But they don't have access to AR-15s.
The number of AR-15s 20 years ago were something like 2 to 3% of all guns sold.
They are now 25%.
So if you do believe that there is a mental health component to this,
what I don't understand is,
is why not support what the majority of Americans support,
which is stronger background checks,
they may be screened for some of those issues.
Right.
So what it is, and we are going to go specifically into,
like, what's the reason for gun violence?
What's the reason for mass shooting that's going to be later on in the space?
So just to keep a bit of structure,
because then with, you know, it'll end up being there'll be a lot of issues
that we haven't talked about.
So let's just specifically focus on mass shootings.
So with mass shootings...
With mass shootings in the US, I used the website Statistica and what it said was that there was 11 in 2017, 12 in 2018, and then 10 in 2019.
And then 2020 and 2021, there was 2 and 6, 22, 12 and there's 5 up to now.
So Rebecca, my question to you is you're saying there's a lot more.
So I'm guessing the reason is because of definition.
So according to your stats...
Probably. I just shared it from the Pew Research.
What's your definition of a mass shooting?
The FBI's official definition of a mass shooting is three or more people being shot,
including the perpetrator.
It is irrelevant whether or not anybody dies and in a single series of events.
So not necessarily, like the guy who shot up people in like San Bernardino or not San Bernardino,
the one who recorded himself doing it.
He kind of drove to several places in a day and was shooting people.
That still counts as one mass shooting, even though there were breaks between them.
But that is the definition that is used by federal authorities.
It's the definition that's used by Pew, which I linked to below.
And if you look at the data on mass shootings, the number of fatalities is,
drops significantly from the trend that we saw before then at 20194 when we enacted the assault weapons ban and then begins to pick up very quickly.
So, let me ask you a question.
And Slyman, maybe you can kick this one off.
Do you think assault weapons should be legal?
I'm just going to start with very, very basic argument.
Slyman, you want to kick?
I know you'd probably say no.
Slaman, do you think they should be legal, assault weapons?
And how do you define assault weapons?
Let's keep it basic.
Just a machine gun that shoots a million bullets at a time.
So, well, I'll talk about my opinion later, but let's see what other people are going to say first.
All right, so I want someone that thinks they should be legal.
I'm curious, I want to go a bit of back and forth and learn what their perspective is.
Mario, I think you also need to define what legal means.
Are you allowed to, is the average Joe allowed to own it with, just in general?
Like, just own it in general.
Someone that's not in the military, it's not in the police force, having the ability to own an assault weapon.
So this is not connected to hunting.
This is not connected to self-defense.
Hold on, man.
What do you need to hunt to have a machine gun?
That's what a lot of people.
There's like an imaginary Second Amendment right to hunt.
I know, no.
Look, you can hunt.
I'm not saying you shouldn't hunt, but I'm just saying like I've hunted when I was a kid and never used a machine gun.
So I'm just curious.
And Parker and weapons, weapon outfitters, maybe weapon outfit is, I see your bio.
Maybe you can give us an idea.
Do you think the average Joe should have the right to own an assault weapon?
Oh, glad you called on me.
Thank you.
We'll go Parker right after.
So we'll go to weapon outfitters and then Parker.
Well, obviously I'm biased since, you know, I sell weapon parts and weapons online.
I'm a fully licensed federal firearms license holder so I can make and sell machine guns too.
But this means that the ATF gets to, you know, raid me once a year and make sure I do all the paperwork.
I think the hunting question, in regards to the Second Amendment, is a red herring.
Like the whole point of the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court,
is that it's to give average citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense,
and as historically written was to be able to counteract the government, basically.
So this is viewed—it used to be a very unpopular opinion, but—
over the past 40 years, thanks to the work of like the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, ILA.
It's not become the mainstream accepted view.
Sorry, what was your name or do you want me just call him by?
Oh, it's Roy.
Right, cool.
My brother's name is Roy.
So my brother's name is Roy.
All right, Roy.
So my next question is, okay, so the argument, and I'm trying to keep it simple,
the argument of why someone, the average Joe should be able to own a machine gun.
is the in case...
Let's bring it back.
Let's define machine.
I know.
I know it's going to go down that path.
Let's say it's...
Let's go back even more.
Let's define assault weapon.
Right?
The liberals...
Why don't we just say AR-15?
Why don't we...
Okay.
Okay. Let's go on AR-15.
Ar-15.
Yeah.
How about you have this argument without referring to the Constitution?
No, no.
Oh, actually, yeah.
It's a good point.
Yeah, so...
Let's see the argument actually.
And Roy, I'm genuinely curious because I have a stance, but I'm very open to kind of changing my stance.
If there's a good argument made, and I'll tell you what the argument that I hear the most,
is that in case the government flips and no longer has people's interests at heart,
the people could protect themselves in case we get a tyrannical government in 5, 10, 20 years time,
which is a fair argument.
Do you have any more points?
So that's the main point, Roy, the main point of the argument from a logical perspective.
You're muted, Roy, so you can't unmute, but I'm the corner.
Go ahead, man.
Oh, sorry about that.
But other than the logical perspective, there's a historical perspective and the cultural perspective,
which is the beauty of the Supreme Court decision that recently came down.
Lillard, just not Supreme Court.
Yeah, yeah, I was going to say that.
Yeah, so the, I'll let you finish it.
I'm not going to play by your random rules, sir.
Yeah, go ahead, go ahead, Roy.
Okay.
Yeah, but basically the Supreme Court affirmed my viewpoint that, you know, guns should be allowed for private civilian use.
They weighed the pros and cons, right?
And they also weighed the history and culture of America.
And they said, you know what?
Citizens should be allowed to own arms.
It started with D.C. versus Heller back in 2008, actually.
Another recent case.
But there were certain legal things that the US has used to define arms, like sporting use,
which was from the 1989 assault weapons ban, which is still in place.
So the first point is tyrannical government, which is what I mentioned.
And then I'm just trying to simplify.
The second one is culture, which is an important point.
And then the third one is history.
So would you say these are the three key pillars for that argument?
And I'm sure Parker and Sean might have other points, but just to kind of go a bit back and forth with you, Roy.
Would you say these are the three core pillars of the argument?
Yeah.
One last one would probably be the common use clause that came from the most recent Supreme Court case.
But that's a legal reason to own guns, but I'm saying, because there's two arguments to make.
There's one of legally, what law stands, you refer to the Constitution, you could refer to different laws passed.
which is one argument and then there's one just a logical one like does this make sense like we
you know there's different laws that allow for censorship but we have debates he's like does it
all but does it make sense like I know legally they're oh yeah like pros and cons like you can you
can have free speech but you can't threaten people exactly so the pros so the pros what would you say
the pros are like self-defense against a tyrannical government and what else would you need a self-defense
in general okay
Because like if you would recall from 2020, the number one growth for demographics and gun ownership was with women and minorities.
But then if you go to the AR-15 example, do you think we need that one for self-defense to go to that extreme?
Is it any more dangerous than a regular gun?
That's the big thing.
And honestly, as a gun expert, as someone who reloads thousands of their own rounds...
Like, do you think a shotgun is less dangerous than an AR-15?
Do you think a Mosin or M1 Garand is less dangerous or even a cowboy lever action rifle?
So that's actually the argument for self-defense.
And, you know, if anybody is against ARs in the group, please just let me know what AR stands for.
And I hope you don't say assault rifle.
But so an AR is probably the most efficient self-defense weapon out there, a gun in my opinion.
Number two, it's not firing rounds that are like these crazy rounds.
I mean, the calibers are not much different from, say, a handgun.
And it's far more accurate.
And it's far safer to use and say a handgun or a shotgun.
That is actually the argument for AR-15s for self-defense alone.
All right, so but trash.
So in AR-15, if I go on a YouTube video, it shoots multiple bullets at a time.
How many and what frequency?
It's semi-automatic.
Okay, so how many bullets can it shoot in a...
One bullet, one trigger.
Okay, how many bullets can it shoot in, let's say, 10 seconds?
Would you say? I'm sure Roy could probably have the exact number.
I'll have Roy answer because I don't know that answer on top of my head.
Roy, what's if...
Well, I mean...
Can you make a handgun automatic?
Yes. If you go on YouTube right now and you look at Glock switches,
which is a huge problem where like, you know, every single street thug in America
now has like a machine gun.
It's crazy. We can talk about that late.
But, uh...
In 10 seconds, you can shoot, you can empty your magazines.
So, yeah, so firing at a semi-automatic AR-15 is 45 rounds per minute.
So the, which is about seven, eight rounds.
Way faster.
Okay, and you could go way faster.
Way faster.
Okay, so the argument, the counter argument I make to this is the three of them.
One of them is self-defense.
One of them is to write, self-defense is like in general, not against the government.
So my thoughts on this, and then there's culture and history, but that's moving away from logic.
This is more, you know, personal reasons and whether...
gun control in general would work
and whether it can be implemented, legally speaking,
and referring to the Constitution and the culture in the US.
But let's go back to the two logical points.
And then I want to go to Peter Parker
see if there's more logical points to be made.
But the first one is against self-defense.
My answer to this is that it had gone trash,
I don't think many people have a, you know,
you don't have 30 people entering your house
or try to steal stuff from there.
It's very rare for that to happen.
Usually one, two, maybe three burglars.
And as soon as you have one gun,
generally they run the fuck away.
So I'm saying that they're,
I'm sure there's instances where there's like someone's,
there's like 20 burglars coming into the house
to try to steal stuff or kidnap you.
And you might need an AR-15 or semi-automatic weapon.
But in general, a handgun's enough,
for general self-defense.
That's how I look at it.
And again, feel free to disagree,
and I'm curious what your counter to that would be.
And then the second...
Oh, I like to talk about that for sure.
Hey, can I make a quick point?
Yeah, David, let me...
I'm actually on a luncheon.
Yeah, go ahead, David.
I'll let you, maybe you can make that...
Maybe...
Oh, good, all good.
And maybe I'll let you make that point,
and I can...
I know you get on lunch,
we can jump off
and then join us back when you have time later.
Okay, I just want to make a quick point.
If you look, if you do the history of the AR-15, and yes, I know that AR-15 does not stand for assault rifle.
But like the history of the AR-15, it was a weapon that was actually meant for war during the Vietnam era.
But, you know, the military upgraded into the M-16.
So there's no reason why any civilian should own an AR-15.
And it's meant to kill many people in a short amount of time.
So, and I think it's ridiculous that, you know, that you even have debates about this weapon,
that should not be in the hands of civilian.
Yeah, so I see, David, it's a valid point.
I'm trying to make that point, but I see a lot of thumbs down.
So I'm sure that I see a lot of people disagreeing.
That's why I'm curious to see why they disagreeing.
And it's logical, smart people that are disagreeing as well.
So, okay, so that's the point I'm making a Roy.
I'll let you counter that before I go to the next one,
is that the gun is designed to kill multiple people at a time.
And generally, that's not needed to self-defense.
And you said you had a good counter to that, Roy.
So I'd love to hear your counter.
Well, basically, the anti-gun groups used to want to ban handguns.
Handguns, he was the biggest target of anti-gun groups in the 70s, 80s, but Americans overwhelmingly want...
the right to keep him bear arms.
So gun groups started to shift their target towards scary-looking guns.
Now, is the AR-15, like I keep saying, is it any more dangerous than a regular gun?
Is it more dangerous than Browning A5 invented 120 years ago used for duck hunting?
Yeah, go try to shoot that gun off a hundred times in a minute and see how that works out.
Well, it's called three gun, man.
But Roy, when you say it's more dangerous, sorry, it's not...
Go look at the pictures of the child with his brains, a chival bag with his brains
on the tag wall.
And then talk about the one.
Yeah, Rebecca, the argument of the, when you go down the emotional path, when you make
an argument, it usually doesn't get us anywhere because you can blow someone's brain out with
a handgun, you can blow it out, where you can get a baseball bat and blow it out.
So it's an easy argument to counter.
Not from 800 yards away.
But you don't need to blow someone's brain out to kill them.
If you can kill them with a knife.
So I'm just thinking that argument itself, I'm with you there.
I just don't think an AL-15 is needed for self-defense.
But I'm trying to, when Roy says it's not more dangerous.
Go ahead, Simon.
But look, the argument is this,
because what's happening is you're trying to look at,
what you believe is the severity of each gun and look at it specifically from one perspective.
The reason why Americans, from why I understand, want guns is because of a variety of reasons.
It's not just one reason.
Part of it's self-defense and you're going to need certain types of weapons for that.
Part of it to stop a tyrannical government and a handgun isn't going to work against a tyrannical government.
There's a variety of reasons.
Let's hold on.
Let's just let me pause for a sec.
You just said variety of reasons and you just mentioned the only two reasons that I mentioned.
Is there any others?
Sorry?
Self-defense.
Self-defense?
Yeah, I know, I know.
And we're talking about the self-defense.
By variety, I meant variety of incidents.
So, for example, you could be self-defense.
Self-defense could be in your house.
Self-defense could be when you're walking down the street.
Yeah, I know.
But do you think there's...
Mario, for 20 years, I carried an M-4 and an M-9 with the United States Navy,
and I'm telling you, bro...
Like, it's no different than carrying a handgun or any other gun, like a weapon out.
So why do you say that, MC?
We could do it.
Yes.
So explain why you saying it's no different.
Yeah, because like it will, I'll tell you why it's MC, because you're the expert.
And when I see a handgun, it just, it's not as easy to shoot 100 people with a handgun than a machine gun.
Otherwise you'll see people on, you see soldiers going into Iraq with handguns.
Yeah, that would be very debatable because I have some guys that are Navy SEAL friends that can do so much damage with a handgun.
Sure, but they don't go to the Iraq war with a handgun.
People that are trained to use those weapons in a war environment.
You're talking about the everyday citizen.
Yeah, that's right. That's right whistleblower.
And that's why I want to carry a weapon because the everyday citizen right now is crazy.
Sure, sure.
But going back to the point, for an average citizen, for an average person, what is the difference?
Then there is a difference between a handgun and an AI-15, isn't it?
Oh, is there not?
There's almost no noticeable ballistic difference,
a close range between a 5, 5, 5, 6, and a 9mm?
Thanks for nonsense words.
We're actually asking about the usage of a handgun versus an AR-15.
Why will nobody have logical conversation?
So then why is an AR-15 ever?
Why does an AR-15 exist?
Just listen.
I don't need to hear the word ballistic.
Why does an AR-15 exist if a handgun is better?
Yeah.
Yeah, so it goes back, and see, goes back to the point I was making is, you talked about doing a lot of damage with a handgun, but when you go, we need soldiers on the ground in every war for the past few decades, since World War I, or World War II, it's been an automatic weapon. And I'm not an expert. So I'm just saying if they can cause the same damage with the handgun, so they can cause a lot, average Joe or a soldier, they can kill more people with a machine gun.
That's that's and and I would like to chime in please like I mean let's let's stop like making stuff up and like just making inferences right the ballistic with when it comes to handguns it only crushes the tissue that's directly in front of the bullet so a handgun is not as deadly as an AR-15 that is absolutely true.
Well, the main problem with rifles and long guns is that they are more deadly.
Like a rifle bullet, when it hits flesh, especially at closer ranges, it expands and it creates cavitation, temporary and also permanent cavitation.
Whereas the handgun bullet's like an ice poke.
So you can get shot nine times with a nine millimeter and live.
But you get shot once or twice with a rifle or a shotgun round.
You're going to die.
Like you're going to lose a lot of blood.
You're going to have a lot of internal injuries.
So that's one thing I wanted to bring up.
And like, just to the basic ballistics facts, right?
And then we should get back to the whole point of,
are ARs more deadly than other guns?
I don't think...
there is such a thing as a non-deadly firearm.
All guns are deadly.
And the reason why I oppose attempts to ban the AR-15
is because of the historical past
where handguns was caused most of the firearms.
Let's go back.
So this is the second point I want to talk about
where the gun control could actually be implemented
and whether it's a good idea.
Because I think this is a separate topic.
So even if we all agree, I know we don't,
but even if we all agree that automatic weapons should not be legal for the average Joe.
Again, I know we don't all agree on this.
Then there's the argument.
Can I say something real quick, Mario?
I want to, we're not.
Yeah, so just.
It's about the automatic weapon thing.
We're not, the AR-15 isn't an automatic weapon,
and those currently aren't legal for snowing should just go buy at the store.
Okay, so what's the, what do you need?
Semi-automatic is the term, semi-automatic, where one pull of the trigger gets one bullet fire.
Semi-automatic, you got to use that term, because if you use the term automatic, it just confuses the heck on people.
Okay, and what are the-
And this is actually something-
Yeah, so, Roy, what are the requirements to get an automatic weapon?
Not a similar, right.
Oh, actually, I have a bunch of those myself.
But basically, I got to get interviewed by the ATF agents.
I have to have paperwork.
I get the ATF has the right to inspect my...
my place of registration once every 365 days.
So I waive my Fourth Amendment rights.
At any time the ATF can legally open up my facility
and look up my butt, basically, make sure everything's in order.
Whereas the ATF is banned from making a firearms registry of civilian-owned guns.
The ATF cannot go figure out who in America has guns and just knock on their doors and take it from them.
Whereas if you sign up to own a machine gun, you kind of waive that right.
Sean, I'll give you the mic as well to add on to this.
First, I want to know what the requirements are for an automatic weapon.
Then I want to go back to the semi-automatic discussion.
So it's not just that there are requirements for automatic weapons.
In the 80s they passed, I think it's called the Hugh Amendment to the Firearms
Owner Protection Act.
And after that was passed, they can no longer produce any more machine guns for the civilian
market.
So this has created a situation right now where every legal machine gun that you can buy is
going to cost you $40,000, $60,000.
And there's just sort of a collector's item at this point or like an investment for a lot of people.
So it does kind of deprive people from getting access to that unless you're very wealthy.
So that is sort of the situation with machine guns.
Like I said, we're really talking about semi-automatic weapons.
One pull the trigger, one bullet flies.
It depends on how fast you can physically pull the trigger.
And that's really the differentiation between machine guns and semi-automatic weapons.
And so, Sean, and my question to you is there's two, we looked at two logical reasons why you should be able to own an AR-15.
One of them is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.
The other one is self-defense.
And we're just talking logic, not legal, et cetera.
So you're saying, do you think an AR-15 is needed for the average Joe to defend themselves from the burglar or bully or someone threatening their life?
Yeah, I think so.
Or it's needed more for the tyrannical government.
All right, give me an example where...
Go ahead.
I'd add the caveat that it's also useful for hunting.
A lot of people are saying it's not useful for hunting,
but I actually do a lot of hog hunting in Florida.
And what people don't understand about hogs is they like to sometimes charge you in a pack.
And if they're charging you in a pack with their tusks that sometimes carry horrible diseases like anthrax.
You want to make sure that you have the firepower to drop the hogs.
It just is what it is when it comes to that.
But also, if you have a home invasion, it's not always, it's not as rare as you think to have three or four people.
people pop into your house at once for a home invasion especially if you if you live in a bad area
like la or someplace that's very high violence would you say as soon as they see a handgun do you expect
those four to five people do generally speaking get the fuck out in most cases as soon as they go
a lot of there are a lot of the cases where people where home invaders get into our firefights
with home motors and they try not to back down because once it starts it starts
And Sean, one other question.
What do you need to be able to buy?
If you want to go buy an AR-15, what do you need?
So you need to be above the age of 18.
You need to do a background check.
What are the requirements?
If I'm going to a licensed FFL, I go there, I hand them my ID.
They do a background check, and I walk out with it that day.
Unless I want to go to a private sailor, then I can just do that.
But that has its own risks when it comes to that.
Most people don't do that.
So Rebecca, what do you think of the argument that first you need for hog hunting?
I'll move the hunting argument.
If I can just pop up in a second, are we, is there, is there an epidemic of anthrax on, on hog tusks?
Is that, is that an issue that we're dealing with now?
It's always kind of been an issue because when they dig around in the dirt, they pull up anthrax, especially like in the southern United States.
So what's the, sorry, what's the, what's the anthrax argument?
I was just saying that that's just one dirty thing that hogs have.
He just said that hogs, you need a gun to be able to kill hogs in large volume with an AR-15 because they have anthrax on their tusks.
Okay.
Go fidgetal.
Okay.
Well, in his defense, I don't agree with everything that...
Rebecca, please, real quick.
Rebecca, please, real quick.
So...
this is the argument and I don't think Sean was actually clear
they actually have to bring people in to do hog hunting because they are a serious
menace it is actually a serious problem throughout Arkansas and through the south
like you do have to see I know hogs are a pest
I was enjoying the anthrax on the
as a legitimization.
Okay, no, no, no, no.
Okay, so I'm going to jump in and defend the anthrax thing here a little bit.
It's not like the type of anthrax you're thinking that gets put into like a little envelope and then sent to politicians.
It is very common in the ground.
It's,
can be president among hogs.
I actually worked for the state of Louisiana
coastal restoration plan,
and somebody actually did submit a formal proposal
to take a helicopter and put a machine gun on it
and open fire into the Louisiana marshes
at all the hogs because it was such a big problem.
And we did actually have like,
anthrax and hogs awareness flyers.
So I don't, I'm not agreeing with anything else,
but that that part of it is at least legitimate.
I can see nothing else other than that.
Weapon outfitters, can you stop a car with a nine mill
and an engine block?
Absolutely not. I mean, you can give them an oil.
There you go.
So, so what I'm saying is like if I'm being, you know, chased down by a car and I have a rifle, I can stop that car.
I can't stop the car with a handgun.
So we're looking at like proportionary force.
Whatever the force is of somebody else coming at me, I have to have the same or greater amount of force necessary to take out a threat.
And that's everybody has that inherent right of self-defense.
Okay, but are you guys living in like a James Bond movie
where you think all these people are breaking in 10 people with fully decked out in their arms,
like a freaking John Wick movie?
Because most of the times...
This is not real life.
Go ahead.
Yeah, so I was going to say, like the argument that Rick is making is that these are valid points,
but the cost of having those weapons legalize and the cost in terms of mass shootings
outweighs the benefits of someone protecting, defending themselves from a car trying to ram into them.
I just don't see that happening all the time, but again, I could be wrong.
I've looked at the statistics.
That's a question, really.
So let's say we do what you said, Mario, or not what you said, what you propose it.
you ban guns that are like AI 15s and a more advanced weapons so what do you think that's going to achieve
it resulted from 1994 to 2004 in a market significant decrease in the number of people who were killed in every single mass shooting in the united states i posted that
i would like to count on this thread actually something to do with economic prosperity during that time
Sorry, just go back.
Let's take to that access of Rebecca.
What is it that you posted?
There's a link.
If we can have a gun trade-in that supplements UBI, right?
Because no gun regulation is actually going to stop the amount of guns that exist.
So how do we get people to turn in their guns, but also give them universal basic income?
Well, I don't know how...
That's not a bad point, but that's not really what we're talking about right now.
So just...
So just, yeah, go ahead, Trash.
I'm interested in that study that Rebecca is talking about.
It's the Pew Research link that I posted in the comment section on this thread.
Cool. If you can pin it above as well, just click on the share button and click on sharing top of the space.
So ever I could see it at the top, please, Rebecca. Go ahead, Trash.
Yeah, so here's the problem.
Um, the, fidgettel's right. The, the guns are not getting out of the public, right?
Uh, you're not going to have a culling of 435 known weapons, 435 million known weapons in the United States.
It's not going to happen. The other thing I would, I would also like to mention is that every single one of these events are mostly occurring in either gun free zones.
Or they're being done with weapons that are not registered.
There was no background check.
The people that are actually committing these crimes could not pass a background check,
which is why they obtain these firearms technically illegally.
We can have another purist 2A debate on another time, but it is what it is.
So they're obtaining these weapons illegally, and then they are committing criminal acts.
That's not true. That's not statistically true of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, the Las Vegas shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter, the Parkland shooter. All of those guns were obtained legally. James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado, where my friend was shot through face.
Did you make the distinction between match shootings when you didn't want to have the distinction we're talking about the number of them? First, these happen for the large ones, and you're going to distinguish that between the small ones, and then you're going to only have that statistic you want.
No, because we're talking specifically in this conversation about the AR-15 in the cases in which that specific gun has been used.
I mean, the conversation is gun control, right?
And so if we are actually having a conversation about gun control, that applies to all weapons.
And I can tell you, the only people that are going to comply with any kind of laws that are put forward are already law-abiding citizens.
So we're talking about...
So what's the point of having laws ever if nobody's going...
That just argues away the entire point of having laws if people will not follow them.
So Rebecca, what did you say?
One second.
So Rebecca, what did you say about 994?
Elaborate.
Say again.
What was your argument about 1994 that AI-15s were basically,
what was your argument?
You said that it increased in a certain year.
What was your argument again?
They were banned in the United States from 1994 to 2004.
I don't see how I can pin it to the top of the conversation.
So I just re-shared it again.
I'll do it for you.
I'll do it for you.
So you're saying between 1994 and 2004,
semi-automatic weapons were banned in the U.S.?
Yes, correct.
And what was the, we had less mass shootings or less people dying and shooting?
There was no meaningful statistics that demonstrated a decline in violent crime.
That's false.
I've just been there.
That's absolutely false.
I'm looking at it.
I've just been there above.
We can all look at it.
And there's a pure research they're done.
I'm actually going to look it up myself, just search it up myself to see what happened.
Based on the Pew research that Rebecca, you put up,
it does show that in 1994 to year 2000 there was a drop but then from 2000 because you said it was 2004 wasn't it
so even during that ban it started to increase again so from 2000 to 2004 there was an increase
and then to 2008 there was an increase then they dropped again so even outside the ban you had a huge drop from 2008 all the way to
this is just based on the pure recess that you posted it
till 2014 there was a huge drop and then you had a huge increase from 24 to 2021 but what that tells me is that what you're
so which which huge increase so hold on which which spike and drop so I'm looking at the so when there was a drop in 1994 so if you look at 1995 I'm looking at the chart yeah I'm guessing we're looking at the same chart well we see all right so let's let let let let let
No, before you refute it, let's look at what you just said now.
Just make sure it's factually correct, no?
I'm just going to read through what I'm seeing so you understand my point.
Is that all right?
So if you look at the chart.
If you click on, you could change the chart to a table format.
You'll see that it did not return back to pre-1994 levels until 2005.
So look, if you...
If you look, and I'm just looking at the data, so what you post her, so I didn't prepare in advance.
So if you look her in 994, Rebecca is right.
From 994 to 2000, there is a drop. Can you see that?
Yes, a massive drop.
And that's for the audience again, it's a pinned link above.
You can go through it.
But you go ahead, so there's a massive drop.
Then 2000 to 2004, there's a slight increase, yeah?
Slight, keyword here, slight.
Slight, very slight, yeah.
And it's important, as you continue, okay, I'll finish first.
And then in 2004 is when the ban ends, a counter Rebecca, right?
Yeah, I mean, it's not according to me.
And then what happens is 2004, there's a slight increase in 2005 and then it drops again, open till.
Well, I wouldn't say that's a significant drop.
That's stable until about 2017.
It's still a drop, but, but, but, but, man, that's unfair because I'm going to make the point now.
Now, you've got to look at major changes because small changes have a lot of different factors.
I see a lot of hands up.
But small changes have a lot of different factors.
It could be an increase in unemployment.
It could be an increase in a certain, it has a cultural change.
Thank you.
increasing crime that leads to a drop or an increase.
And I'm glad you thank me, Roy,
but kind of that makes Rebecca's point.
So you're not going to thank me soon.
But the point I'm making Slyman is that the major change
is what we should look at.
And there was an immediate massive drop
Like an incredible drop from as soon as it was banned immediately,
with pretty much instantly, a massive, massive drop.
The biggest drop we've seen ever on the charts, it's 968.
And then we see, so you're frankly these slight drops and these slight ups and downs,
which will happen.
Those fluctuate, we're not going to be completely smooth because there's so many other external factors other than gun control.
So there's two points, Mario.
So just quickly as well, let me just quickly say them and then you can just like,
rebut them. So if you look at it, after the assault weapon ban is no longer there from 2004, all the way to two, so it's not a small period of time, all the way to 2014, so you've got 10 years.
There's a drop, it's a slight drop and there's no increase.
So if assault weapons were the reason, there should have been a massive...
Oh, you're saying, so, yeah, I have accounted of that before Roy goes in.
So your other argument is that it didn't spike up...
And the second argument is in 1980, there was a huge drop as well, so what's the reason for that?
So in 1980...
Yeah, I don't know.
So I'll have to check what the reason for that...
Yeah, it is relevant.
I'm just saying, I don't know.
I'm not saying it's not relevant.
No, no.
She might not.
Yeah, cool, cool. But let me ask you your first point. You're saying it didn't spike up as soon as it was legal again, correct?
Well, for 10 years it didn't.
Yeah, so 2004. Yeah, so that's a fair point. Now, it's actually a very valid point. But one way of looking at it is that, and maybe we'll have someone else, I'd go with...
All right, we don't have many, many people that can give contacts going through the panel.
But the one potential argument for this is that when it was legalized, not everyone ran out.
I'm going to go buy one.
It kind of, it was, it took a while, because it was banned for a long time.
It was banned for 10 years.
So it just took a while again for people to start owning it again.
That's not sure.
But I'll address that.
But that, yeah, so I'd love someone to address that because that's a valid point.
And then maybe first, Roy, let's have Rebecca respond to the second question is, why did it drop in 1984?
It dropped in 1980.
Yeah.
Yeah, so, and I also got asked why the chart starts at 1968.
The AR-15 was not a civilian available weapon until the 1960s.
It was basically the civilian version of the weapons that have already been discussed,
but that's why the chart starts where it does.
It's not to crop anything out.
It just wasn't.
available.
Yeah, but just to answer that one.
And also the minor drops that you see in about the
kind of the slight drop in the 70s and there's a slight one drop in the 80s.
There were a couple of compounding things, but sorry?
In the 80s it's a big drop. It's not as big as the 94, but it is a big drop.
Yeah, and there have been various gun control measures that have been put into the past.
The 1994 assault weapons ban is not the only...
weapons ban that we've ever instituted. We also had the creation of the ATF, or at least their expansion,
into being able to do things like the gentleman explained with owning a machine gun to screen out people from getting, you know, mass weapons.
Implemented statewide legislation across the country throughout, especially in the 1980s.
So just, Simon, Saman, so this is some information here for you.
And so in 1980s, there's not only gun violence,
is general violence,
general violent crime dropped in 1980s.
One possible explanation is economic expansion.
The 1980s saw a period of economic expansion in the U.S.,
which computed to a decrease in gun violence and violence in general.
And obviously, research shown economic expansion associated with decrease in crime.
I don't want to use my favorite line here, but you know what it is.
But what that showed is there was a significant drop, but not based on gun control, but actually eradicating...
I agree. I think, yeah, yeah, sure, sure.
Now, I'm with you there.
Like, I think gun control is not the only, or if it, like,
I'm not saying gun control is a solution.
I'm saying it, even if it is a solution, it doesn't have to be the only solution.
I'm sure there's other solutions as well.
But if you, like, you cannot ensure economic expansion 24-7.
There's going to be economic contractions as well.
And the argument, sorry, yeah, well, look, the argument is when there's no economic expansion,
There's two alternative because there's economic contraction in any country.
And when you look at a country with gun control, the gun violence is less during economic
contraction than the U.S., which doesn't have as much gun controls.
Now, I know that we do want other speakers to do want Parker, Bowen, Roy to speak.
There's.
There's a caveat to that data too, and it's that what you're talking about as far as gun violence versus mass shootings are two different types of gun violence.
You can't really lump them all together.
If you look at violent crime across the country, it's been declining almost steadily since the 1990s.
That is absolutely not reflected in the data that we see for mass shooting deaths.
They are almost inverted.
So let's get other panelists.
I think we've kind of hogged the mic for a while, us co-horses and Rebecca.
I'd love to get maybe, Bo, I'd love to get your thoughts on the discussion so fine.
And we have Dr. Chathan back as well, so that's good.
Bo, go ahead.
Sure. So I'm, you know, I have a business that deals with mental health. I worked in education and I'm a big gun guy. So my, my, you know, nobody here, I'm pretty confident wants mass shootings to happen, even the pro gun people like myself.
So I always like to reframe these conversations and not get emotional.
Even the concept of a mass shooting to me is not the best way to look at this because then,
you know, we go down that rabbit hole of what's a mass shooting, right?
So I kind of want to establish a framework that makes sense to talk about this stuff.
And the way I see it, and I'm open to any counterpoints is, okay, gun ownership per capita.
Everyone agrees the U.S. is like,
you know, standard deviations above every other country.
If you look at other countries that have high gun ownership in general per capita,
you know, Canada's up there, Serbia is up there, a lot of countries, right?
The countries that are that are leading in murders per capita and gun violence per capita
are none of those countries.
So to me, it's a very simple point.
There is no correlation, you know, there's a stronger correlation between other things such as socioeconomics, mental health, right, than gun ownership itself.
And the data around the world backs that up.
So for those of you saying there's a correlation between, you know, any type of gun ownership and murders and killings, I just don't understand how you counterargue that counterpoint.
That's not true.
I'm going to about to share another link to the actual data.
Sorry, Rebecca, go ahead.
I'm looking at it right now.
I mean...
So the point you're making, Bo and Rebecca, I think you're replying, and I'd love to get Dr. Chathan and Rebecca's thoughts on this.
But the point you're making, Bo, is that there's other factors that correlate.
The murder rate in the U.S. is like, depending on what you look at, right, five to, five to, you know, 10 people per 100,000, right, per capita.
You have countries that are in the 50s, right?
We're middle of the pack.
Should we be better?
Absolutely.
Right.
But I also think a lot of this is a matter of.
following the existing laws that exist the background tracks every time something like this
happens guys you know there's a million warning signs there's 50 million red flags more laws
is not the solution it's creating you know a society that's economically prosperous
that encourages mental health, well-being, right?
And not politicizing what's a mass shooting versus not.
And, you know, throughout the conversation, you lose the point.
So the point you're making is the U.S. violence in general, murder rate,
is lower than some other countries that have gone control.
Than most countries, than most countries.
But which most?
Okay, because if you're sitting there comparing to Yemen or Iraq, it's not fair.
So are you talking about advanced countries?
So can you give me some examples?
I mean, look at the,
a chart, right?
I can post the link.
I can send you the link
if you want to post it to the net.
But give me,
give me three,
three countries that are,
like,
like from Japan,
Switzerland,
Sweden,
France.
Well,
you,
look,
people,
people always use that argument,
right?
You're,
you're forgetting,
like,
country like Norway or Sweden, they're the population of certain states in America. So I can give you a
state. No, no, no, we're looking at per capita. Bo, we're looking at per capita. So population shouldn't
matter. So I'm saying per capita. How does, and I'm a genuine question. Okay. So South Africa,
South Africa. They can't compare, hold on, Bob, boy, you can't, you can't compare to South Africa,
which is Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, 27. Again, no, no, but I'm looking at, so I'm trying to
compare apples with apples. So I wouldn't compare.
if you're comparing the US,
which is an advanced economy,
the biggest economy in the world.
His comparison is much more legitimate.
You can't compare a nation of 270 million.
It's not about per capita,
but when you've got a smaller nation
and a smaller nation of people,
it's easy to ensure that crime rates are much lower.
Just think about yourself.
If you're about,
The irony is Norway has one of the highest mass shootings per capita rating because of the mass shooting they had because they're such a small country.
So I think establishing the framework like guys, nobody here wants mass shootings, right?
So again, I think it's really important when these things get heated to say, okay, what's the context through which we're looking at this?
What's the normalizing of the data?
Are we cherry picking, you know, a 30-year-time framework?
It's a good point.
Let me go to doctor.
I like your point.
I'm actually going to look some data.
Dr. Bow's point in terms of comparing the U.S.
set of comparing only to other advanced economies
in looking at Europe.
We could look at the European Union, by the way,
Simon, all of Europe.
That would compare population-wise.
But yeah, yeah, I think that's still your argument
would still stand, Slaman.
But, Dr. That's Boe's point.
I think it's an interesting point.
We'd love to get your counterpoint to that.
Yeah, absolutely.
Thank you, Mario.
And I think that...
I mean, I think you raise a really good point, Mario, in that we need to be compared to other G20 developed countries.
If we want to be compared to Brazil and South Africa, I mean, I don't know about you guys, but that seems absolutely ridiculous
because we don't compare to those countries with almost any other metric that we consider, you know, a strong point for a country.
But I did want to talk about the data piece because I think Rebecca brought up a very good point.
We have to get very nuanced with the data.
I shared a study.
That is probably one of the legitimate studies done about the assault weapons ban.
And, you know, this is not meant to be a political discussion in my viewpoint, right?
You know, I'll give me an example.
How many people think seatbelts are political right now, right?
But there was a time where people thought they were political.
I view a lot of these measures like background checks, waiting periods, potential assault
weapons bans as public health policies.
Because there are a number of countries with regional gun ownership rates that are similar to regional rates in the U.S.,
not the cumulative rate, but regional percentage rates that have simple public health measures like safe storage laws, liability for industry,
that actually help keep the population safe.
So let me go back to the nuanced data piece.
You guys are talking about mass shootings, right?
Mass shootings.
So you have to break up gun injuries all the time to suicide, unintentional injuries, and intentional injuries.
Within intentional injuries, you have violence slash assault.
And then you have mass shootings.
Mass shootings, a bulk of them are gang related, right, four or more, as we already discussed.
And then you have public-type shootings, like in malls, schools, and so on.
If you look at those, there's no question.
that many of those have been unfortunately committed using, you know, an assault-type rifle.
And there was a serious escalation, those in recent years, and after the assault weapons ban.
So I encourage you guys to look at the study that I showed, because I think we have to talk about that nuance.
If you start lumping in mass shootings that we categorize as gang violence, which are also categorizes mass shootings, you're missing the root causes.
Because the root causes of violence...
and firearm violence are very different than the root causes of a mass shooting in a school with an AR-15 from a legal gun owner,
who might have a crisis issue, who maybe didn't have a waiting period, who maybe didn't have a background check,
who could just go in and buy that weapon.
And I'm sorry, I'm a pediatric surgeon.
I have seen the damage of these cause.
I would say it's not even about the bullet.
It's unfortunately about, you know, in a kid, in anybody, if you get hit more than once, it just limits our ability to save that person that much more.
And that's just a fact.
I mean, that would be if you're hunting, an animal, right?
Like if you're going to shoot someone twice versus once, of course, it's going to cause more damage.
And if you can spray a bunch of bullets and hit a bunch of kids in a quicker amount of time,
law enforcement, so on, is not going to get there in time.
So I just want us to look at the real nuanced elements of the data
because this is an issue that is even lost within academic circles
when we talk about this.
And I agree.
Listen, this is not meant to be, you know,
I think we have to be intellectually honest about certain policies
that actually don't work and that we don't have evidence for.
But, you know, like sometimes you have to act with slightly imperfect science and then evaluate.
And there are some policies that have been evaluated.
So I encourage people to also look at the Rand Institute.
They have great data on different policies.
And there's actually a lot of data that doesn't support certain policies.
like conceal carry and so on.
Sorry, doesn't support that they're negative.
So I think everyone in the group might benefit by looking there.
Thank you.
Okay, so Slaman, can you?
Yeah, you will, Parker.
So Slaman, can you do me a favor?
Because I think there's just so many interesting points made.
Can you summarize Dr.
Not like to repeat them now.
Make sure we go through all of doctors' points in the discussion.
Okay, Slaman can I ask you that favor?
Okay.
Okay. Now the reason is because I want to go back to initial point I made and Doctor, you commented on that very briefly before going down your other points you had.
So while making my point, I don't want to forget Doctor's points.
So Saman, I'm going to leave that on you.
So to go back to something that, Bo, you said, I looked at, I did the research.
I looked up the top 20 countries and Saman, that can as your point as well.
I looked at the top 20 countries in terms of wealth per capita, top 20.
And I can go through top 30 and do the same thing and I think the result will be the same.
Okay.
Because when you compare to Brazil in other countries, we talked about, you know, generally speaking, if you look at countries that are wealthier in general, and I think we'll all agree, they tend to have less crime than countries that are poorer. And it's very difficult to disagree with that one. Okay. That's a fair argument.
It's human nature.
So I looked up the top 20 wealthiest countries.
The United States ranks, I think, number 13.
And then I'm like, all right, can you please, and I didn't know what to expect.
I can you please rate those same 20 countries, the wealthiest 20 countries where the US is number 12, sorry.
Can you rate them all again, but instead rate them in terms of crime per capita?
Yeah, crime per capita.
And the US came in, Bo at number one, at 5.8 per 100,000.
Luxembourg at 2.2, Sweden at 1.1, and Ireland 0.9.
Now, I can keep breaking down that data and look at the ground control.
Break it down by poorest states.
And that's, I think you're one step away from really seeing the issue, in my opinion.
Break it down by states.
Okay.
and look at the disparity between wealthy states and America.
Yeah, so Bob, Bo, I'm with you.
And big cities.
No, I'm with you.
We disagreed with me.
Bob, but you disagreed with me.
And see giving you a hand, a thumbs up, and so is Roy.
But I agree with you.
I think taking care of, there's other factors.
Like if the U.S. or if the world...
If we lived in a utopian world where equality was improved, there's enough care given to people with mental illness, et cetera.
If all this is well taken care of, then I think this gun violence issue would not be an issue.
But it's almost impossible to have a world.
It is impossible.
It's not one country you can name where we have that perfect world, especially countries as large as the U.S.
54% of gun-related deaths, right, are suicides.
in the US. The data I've just posted for you guys that we were speaking of earlier was a per capita gun ownership rate to specific firearm homicide rates. And we are an outlier. The R square value is over 0.52. So that's the one I just posted. So like the doctor was saying earlier, you have to, are we talking about?
All things are we talking about mass shootings?
So what I posted was gun ownership rate per capita
for just the G20 countries
against gun homicide rates per capita.
And we are...
in exception.
Yeah,
there is a correlation between...
Yeah, but I just want to...
Yeah, go ahead.
Ask the question, guys.
If you've got any comments
and just make sure
any questions you want to answer it.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Of course, thanks, man.
Yeah, I'm going through the comments,
by the way,
and a lot of my questions
are coming from the comments.
A lot of the points
are making is from the comments.
So for the audience...
The audience...
All right, bro.
The purple circle at the bottom right corner, you can ask, you can put the comments there and me.
I go through them.
Slaman probably doesn't, but I go through them and I ask the questions from there.
But Saman, go ahead.
What's your question?
I like the comments on the good.
But there's also a newsletter as well, which essentially...
No, forget about the newsletter.
Forget it.
Go ahead, man.
Okay.
No, not now.
So cool.
Okay.
So yeah, yeah, there's no newsletter.
Oh, there is one, but I don't want to talk about it.
But Mario, the question to you was, you know, when you got the data,
was that for all crime or was that gun crime when you said United States are ranked first?
Yeah.
Let me see, there's just general murder rate so I can get gun crime exactly or you want to general murder rate.
So essentially what you're saying is guess what?
When there's a place where there's a lot of crime also there's a lot of gun crime all that proves is that not that the guns are a problem but just crime in the US in total is a problem
No, so this is gun crime gun crime gun crime gets hold on bro.
grunt crime just got the data for you gun crime gun crime gets a lot worse
US is number one at 4.6 per 100,000.
Number two is Luxembourg at 0.25.
So you're looking at 10, 20x,
almost a 20x difference between the US and Luxembourg.
Not double, triple, 20 times more.
So the point is this...
crime, when crime exists, the mode of crime can be anything.
So in the UK, we have knife crimes which to replace your guys, gun crimes.
So essentially that's the mode.
Yeah, but I've given you, but I've given you the numbers for both general crime and gun crime.
And the US wins in both.
So all this proves is you, in US there's a lot of crime.
And people in US, when they're conducting that crime, prefer to use guns over other things.
And if guns weren't there, they just used other modes.
No, but general crime is high.
Again, I don't know if you're hearing me.
The US is double, and no more than double, Luxembourg, which is number two,
when it comes to general crime, knife, gun, fists, everything.
Mario, the size of Luxembourg is almost Rhode Island.
Yeah, sure, sure, okay, yeah, okay.
Okay, cool.
Good to mock that.
It's five times out of Sweden.
It's a lot more than seven times out of Ireland, seven times out of Australia, eight times out of Germany.
Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Brunei, Iceland, UAE, Singapore, Kuwait, Hong Kong, San Marino, Qatar.
The list goes on.
So I'm just saying, I know you're talking, but if you want to compare population-wise, there's not many to compare to.
There's Russia, which you can't compare to because it's a much poorer country.
China, much poorer country, India, much poorer country.
I haven't compared to those yet.
And Canada, there's not many other countries where you can compare population-wise.
And all those countries, because the difference though, Bo is that wealth-wise, they don't compare.
So I wish there was a country that compares in terms of wealth and population,
because that would make it better, but we don't have that many countries.
So that's the point I'm making, Bob.
Go ahead, Roy.
What don't you like, Troy?
One thing that it's talking about comparing countries is you literally can't,
because this is not just about guns.
It's about like transportation, healthcare, just general society stuff.
America is a federation of a bunch of regions.
And there was one article written on the Washington Post by a former researcher for 538.
She was an anti-gun person, was researching gun stuff.
But the deeper she dove into it, she realized that, you know, gun control wasn't actually the solution, in her opinion, because there's very specific age and demographic groups.
And even down to the zip code where most of the violence was coming from, right?
There are 20-something million AR-15s in America.
If AR-15s were a problem, you'd know it.
And let me go back to the assault weapons ban we were talking about earlier, the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.
The ban was, it goes back to my original point of what's the difference of the AR-15 in another gun?
Is the AR-15 more deadly?
That assault weapons ban proved that it wasn't.
It was purely cosmetic.
Like you could get a functionally, this exact same AR-15 in 1993 as you could get in 1995.
What they banned?
They banned barrel shrouds.
They banned bayonet lugs, flash hiders.
things that don't change the actual deadliness of the gun.
Guns are deadly.
There's no such thing as a less deadly gun than a more deadly gun.
Like, I shoot you with 22 or like, howitzer, you know, you're going to die just the same.
But in terms of being able to shoot more people, Roy, they wouldn't be able to equal, would they?
No, that is true.
What you're saying is that that ability wasn't changed.
Yeah, so let me, let me, say, man, I'd love you to, we need to address Roy's points and
doctors points from earlier.
So I'm going to conclude the country's one with Bo, so we can move on to the other points.
So Bo, I compared just to kind of move on from this one, because there's too many interesting
points being made.
And it's good that we're looking at many different data points, because some might correlate,
others might not, and it's good that we're breaking them all down.
Can I put the closing statement on that?
Who's that?
Who just jumped in?
I'll give you the final, yeah, I'll give you the closing statement.
Yeah, I'll, yeah, and then I'll, yeah, and is it based on the country's comparison or the other points made?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, cool, go ahead, man.
A couple points here.
I feel like this is being a little oversimplified, especially when you're talking about, like, different states and richer states having greater violence.
I mean, for example, the reason why Chicago has a lot of violence is a lot of these guns are coming from Indiana.
It doesn't really necessarily matter on the GDP per capita for violence and whatnot.
They could be coming from elsewhere.
For example, Mexico, Mexico only has one gun store in the entire country.
All of their guns are brought illegally there from the United States.
Also, just another point.
But what point does that point?
But what point does that make, though?
I didn't understand.
Sorry.
You're talking about economics and social equality and all of this stuff in relation to gun violence.
And I think you're looking too much into the individual countries and not where they're surrounded by as well.
And they're accessed.
Yeah, there's a little too simplified.
And may I also add.
But the way we could fix that simplification, in my opinion, Parker, is just look at various data points.
So that's what we're trying to do.
There's probably too many to cover all of them.
But like, you just gave another data point, which I think is relevant, not as relevant, but yeah, it does play a role.
Like...
he's kind of right about that,
but can we,
when we're talking about stats,
I don't know if anybody else here has me background.
Let me,
let me,
let me actually,
I have an degree.
Okay,
let me,
let me just conclude my point,
so we can move on Islam,
and I'll give you the mic
to move on to other points
because we've butchered the country's comparison,
but looking at the five countries,
the five most populous countries in the world,
relative to crime rate,
and to the US,
so in terms of,
per 100,000 people,
murder rate,
I put murder and not gun violence,
China's at 0.6 per, so number one is Brazil,
which is the example you use bro, you use Bo,
at 24.8 per 100,000, significantly higher than the US.
US is 5.8 per 100,000, which kind of goes to the point
there's other factors. It's not just the ability to get guns. I don't know how easy
it is to get guns in Brazil. But then if you go to the next one,
no, the US shouldn't be too proud because it is number two,
and then number three will be India at 3.6, number four would be
Number three is Pakistan at four per hundred thousand.
But then those countries bow are China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Brazil.
And if you look at how wealthy they are relative to the US, US,
per capita wealth is $65,000.
$65,000.
Brazil is at 11,000. Pakistan is at 1,000. So China's at 17,000. So just US is a much
wealthier country. You'd expect the numbers to be better. But I know there's other points made
by Dr. Chathan and Roy and Parker as well. So Simon, maybe you'd want to address those points.
I think it's good to move on to other data points. Yeah. So in terms of what you said, though,
just before we get on to that point, Mario, the issue is this, what I don't get is
What people are arguing is if you were to basically stop guns,
they assume that crime is going to go down,
but the data shows that crime going down,
it's the other way around.
Crime going down means that gun crime goes down.
So, I mean, that's my thoughts on the data that you were saying.
I don't know what you just said, man.
Well, I'll be a little, I can actually.
Correlation.
Yeah, so what he's saying is,
and I'll kind of rephrase it a little bit,
what he's saying is, is there actual data showing that crime will go down
if guns are removed?
And I don't think that any data suggests that, number one.
But then number two, here's the real kicker on gun control.
This is what not being talked about.
And I like these data points, and I really appreciate everyone bringing them up because it does make me think about things.
But at the end of the day, if the conversation is removing guns from the country,
That's never going to happen.
Let's assume in some miracle world that we have enough tax money to make a bureaucracy big enough
that can actually monitor that and take back the 435 million plus guns that are known.
And then what are you going to go get everybody with a three-jee-princerch?
I think this is so trash.
But I want to this is, sorry, let you finish off this point because this is the next topic we're going to discuss.
Even if there's, even if guns lead to more violence, I'll let you finish your point.
But even if guns lead to more violence is gun control the solution and can it even be realistically implemented?
Right.
which is a separate topic.
But I'll let you make that quick point,
but that'll be the next point,
the next topic of discussion.
Go ahead, man.
Yeah.
So, and again,
let's say in a magical world
that you're able to pull all the guns at,
which you never would, right?
All you're going to do is create a black market for weapons.
And then the criminal organizations
are actually going to have them
and have more access to the number one.
But what are you going to go get everybody's 3D printer?
Yeah.
Like, we're already three different...
This is so inappropriate right now.
Yeah, but if you look at other...
No, but look, okay, so you said,
the first thing you said, man,
is that there's no examples of where gun control
led to less violence.
Well, I'll read out four...
No, no, no.
I'll say, God.
Reduction in crime, yes?
In general?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So these are four examples.
So in Australia,
following in 1996,
Australia implemented a series,
and I'm originally from Australia,
Australia implemented a series of gun control measures,
including a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.
In the years,
since the reforms were implemented,
Australia has seen significant declining gun-related deaths and injuries.
Japan, in 2017,
so they've done similar,
they've done gun control,
I can't remember,
I don't know which year,
it doesn't say,
but in 2017,
They almost have no gun violence at all.
The UK, after 1996, they did implement gun regulation as well.
Since then, the country has seen significant decline
in gun-related deaths.
Okay, again, that makes your point.
Does it link to general violence
and not just gun-related violence?
I'll have to check that.
And Canada in 1996, again, these examples
relate to gun-related violence.
So I'd want to look at the data if it links to a drop
in general violence.
But in terms of the issues, if there's gun control, if it can be implemented, I don't think the issue of like, okay, 3D printers and stuff, I don't see in Japan or all these countries that have gun control, you're not seeing mass shootings from 3D printed guns, at least not a big issue yet.
And that would that be a new problem to solve?
Assassination, though.
Sorry?
The assassination of Shinzo Abing?
Yeah, but Roy, these are anomalies.
I think it's not that common.
I'm sure there's going to be examples,
but we didn't see, since 3D printers were introduced around the world,
we didn't see a spike in gun violence across the world, did we?
So there's no that correlation.
But I think that trash is the other point, though,
is that can it even be implemented?
That one's tough.
I don't think it can.
Each country that you just provided.
That's not what the stuff that the band does.
The examples you just provided, Mario, every single one of those, you stated in 1996, 1994, Australia, Britain, the other countries, is when they did exactly what we're discussing doing.
They led buyback programs.
They no longer allowed the gun through the countries.
Right.
They did that.
So those examples that you used in which there were cases and evidence and data that the reduction of the number of guns and the illegality of guns led to an immediate drop and a sustained drop in gun violence involved.
is exactly proof that it has been done before in which citizens willingly turned in their guns.
Now, I don't think America is the same culture, to be honest.
I don't think, I think we're in a very toxic place right now with this,
and you'd have to convince the people that this is the right thing to do it.
I think we're too, I think we're too hateful towards each other for that to be even a safe thing.
But I also don't think that the difficulty of doing a thing
should negate the importance or the morality of the thing you're trying to do.
Okay, but again, I would like to look at the data as far as what, gang, gang violence, gang-related violence, illegal gun ownership in those countries.
And I would suspect it's not going to be anywhere remotely close.
So all you're doing is disarming law-abiding citizens in this effort.
Yeah, but this is the same issue.
This is the same issue comparing apples to oranges, right?
You can tackle crime and stop gun crime with illegal guns, which I agree with you guys.
You know, that's why I was talking about root causes.
You can also stop mass shootings that are committed by legal gun owners or the kids of legal gun owners.
Yeah, and you can actually stop those shootings with also legal gun ownership if you're not like trying to also stop.
Well, yeah, but I will definitely push back on the defensive gun use database because it's completely biased.
I would say that, listen, I'm trying to also support your point.
We can tackle crime.
There is a crime issue.
I'm not a total left or right.
People might think that.
I'm actually very centrist.
We have a crime issue.
But...
Let's get nuanced and stop comparing because I heard one individual kept saying we're comparing.
You were talking about gun control and crime in general.
That goes against all the points that I just made.
So if you all said that, hey, no one here wants a mass shooting.
Then let's get serious about some policies that stop a mass shooting.
Why don't we just start there?
A public school mass shooting.
Why don't we just start there with some simple policies that you all can agree on that, as you mentioned, because you don't want them to happen...
you know, because that is very possible, right?
We have to stop lumping this all together.
So, doctor, are you saying policy because nobody disagrees with you in terms of policy?
Or are you saying banning guns or certain types of guns?
No, yeah.
Listen, I don't believe in, you know, I know the conversation went to removing all weapons in the country.
I mean, no, I don't think from the start of this conversation we were talking about that.
I'm simply talking about things that promote responsible gun ownership and prevent mass shootings and promote safer communities.
So that includes everything from crime reduction.
Right.
to tackling illegal guns, to making legal gun ownership more safe, which means responsibility,
which means background checks and licensing, just like when you have a car, which means not freely
being able to go in when you're having a crisis and buy an AR-15 before you shoot up a school,
which is what currently happens. If you look at the waiting, you know, the states that have
lack of waiting period and how quickly many of these mass shooters bought their weapons and then committed a crime,
which was a mass shooting, right?
These are all very nuanced issues that have certain policies that can tackle them.
So I do believe they can all be tackled with different policies.
Yeah.
Let me bring Sean in because, Sean, you put your thumbs down.
And I would have thought what he said sounds pretty reasonable to your guns,
but let's just put some stringent requirements in place.
What do you think, Sean?
Well, he's talking about licensing, and it's not the same thing as, like, driving a car.
In the U.S., like, I know you said we wanted to avoid the constitutional argument, but, like, we do have the constitutional right to pick...
to keep them bare arms and that means we can go purchase them, buy them,
and there shouldn't be, I shouldn't require a permission slit from my state government
to be able to go purchase a firearm.
It's just that runs counter to the Second Amendment.
Like I completely agree that we should absolutely take all of these school shooting seriously.
I mean, a good example of that is in the state of Florida,
there was a middle schooler who went ahead and put in a threat that he was going to shoot up
a school.
You better stop right the fuck now.
When he pointed...
Oh my God, that's her.
Please mute this man immediately, please.
Let him finish whistle.
No, he's talking about my son, Mario.
He's talking about my son and he's spreading disinformation.
Please kick, please mute his microphone.
Right.
Can I finish?
You are not going to sit there and attack my child for sharing memes on the internet that were critical of police.
13 years old with no access to weapons.
Never been allowed to shoot a gun.
Never said he was going to shoot up anything and spread problems.
You know what?
People are all the same.
You made up statistics at least eight times.
I had to fact check you eight times in this one conversation
because you said things that were statistically,
provably, demonstrably, false.
And then when you see that you've lost the argument
and some right-winger messages, you decide to talk about my child,
my 13-year-old child who got arrested for sharing memes,
making fun of the cops during you, Valdi?
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
Once a second, I don't think we should go into that.
Let's talk about somewhere else.
I had no idea what he was talking about, to be honest.
I'm not up to day on that issue.
So let me go to Evan.
Evan, you want to speak.
Go ahead, bro.
Yes, thank you.
Yeah, no, I, you know, I've heard a lot.
I've been listening for a little bit, and I've heard a lot of good points being made,
but I wholeheartedly disagree with.
that we need reasonable
more gun control
because, you know, there's this whole thing
that if we had an assault weapons van,
well, I was shot during the assault weapons van
by two kids who wanted to murder me.
You know, the fact is that kids will find guns
People will find guns and there are ways, Mexico.
Someone brought up that fact.
They have one gun store in the whole country and it is a war zone down there.
And they say it's coming from America, the guns.
Well, they'll come from somewhere.
Those guns are accessible worldwide.
They exist.
And to the doctor's point of we need to find reasonable solutions to stop mass shootings.
Well, I have worked with schools and organizations that train
teachers and faculty members to carry concealed. And there are studies that show over the last 20 years,
these schools have not been targeted for over a thousand school districts have armed staff and
they protect their students with firearms. When there is a mass shooting, the number one
firearm of choice to stop the mass shooting is an AR-15.
You look at Southern Lynn Springs at the church.
You look at law enforcement.
When they choose to stop a mass shooting, if they can have an AR-15, they will.
And why would we take those out of the hands of millions and millions and millions of Americans
who want to protect their families and their communities when just one individual wants to stop it?
And I could talk.
for days on how this problem of mass shootings.
And I am, like I said, a Columbine survivor who's shot and wounded.
And I could talk for days on how we're ignoring the fact that we have a mental health crisis.
We have.
a moral decay in our society.
We have a lack of respect for life.
We have so many issues that we're ignoring.
We have DAs that are releasing criminals left and right.
We have all these things.
And all you want to point to is the guns when it's the individuals who are doing this.
And we have perpetuated this problem.
by not securing our schools and not securing our churches.
I could point out the fact that we were around as a country for 200 years with rifles hanging on the wall
where people could get guns and cause mass havoc, but they didn't.
The problem is, you know, and this is, I'll say this, just kind of summarize it up.
you know, people debate these stats and statistics.
And they don't talk about the terrorists that are killing hundreds of people at a time with bombs.
And they dismiss that like it's unrelated.
The fact is, is evil people, when they want to kill, they will kill.
And we need to stop just looking at the facts because that is just disingenuous, staring at stats.
We need to look at principals and we need to look at results.
And we need to protect our schools and stop this in its track.
Evan, did you say, Evan, did you say we should stop looking at stats?
No, I'm just saying stats alone are not the solution.
I'm saying stats are useful.
That's, stats are useful.
But without looking at principles and results, then stats are just a bargaining chip that can be manipulated in so many ways.
For example...
terrorists around the world kill people with bombs and knives and all kinds of other things.
But people are trying to compare like apples to oranges, like people have mentioned, of gun violence.
Well, you take away guns and you take away people's rights.
You take away, look at the millions of people who have been murdered at the hands of their own governments because they were disarmed.
there's a lot more to this okay so let's okay you've made so many points of it's interesting
so so first thing you said it's like stats stacks matter but they can be manipulated let's look at
results yeah marr just but how do you sorry to be rude sorry to be rude just i'm gonna go
go straight back to oh sorry go ahead yeah you no no just one point of clarification so when
about the misinformation point the only disagreement was about that's because whistle you mentioned
that we've been spreading misinformation
The only point was where the disagreement was in terms of the number of mass shootings.
You're using Pew Research.
You're using...
And the website I used with Statistica.
Now...
There is, I agree that in terms of what someone deduces or the mechanism to decide what a mass shooting is obviously the reason why that is.
So that's not misinformation.
That's someone using one parameters to make the decision and another person using a different set of parameters.
Ah, she's, she's not what I was referring to.
I was referring to the other thing.
Okay, no worries, no worries.
So Mario, go ahead.
I was just going to stick up for you, but you don't need it.
No, just Evans, Evan just made, you want to, do you want me to respond to Evan's Sleman?
Or do you want, you had another speaker want to go to another point?
You said you got a really strong point.
You got loads of questions for Evan.
I never said.
I have a strong point of lots of questions.
You asked me,
you were chickening out.
You're like,
Mari,
jump,
come back to the space.
Come back to the space.
I'm like,
man,
I need to brush my teeth.
So I come back and I hear Evan speak.
But Evan,
the,
the,
the,
the,
the statistics,
I think is the most important thing.
Because when you start using anecdotal evidence,
and he start comparing gun control to terrorists.
I think bombs are also illegal.
So I don't know what terrorists have to do.
Like terrorists are an issue.
Yeah, okay, cool.
Terrorism is illegal.
There's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of, uh,
Trucks too, trucks and friends.
Yeah, sure, I know, but then you look at the benefits.
Yeah, I know, but you look at the pros and the cons.
A truck transports things.
A gun kills.
So I don't think you can compare trucks and guns.
I think the point you're making, though, Evan, is like guns is not the only solution.
I would say, yes, this is true.
I think there's other things we could do to prevent gun violence.
This is, I think, where people that are pro and anti-gun control...
And again, we haven't gone down the rabbit hole
of whether gun control would even work in the US,
even if we all think it's a good idea.
But I'll just finish this point.
I'll give you the mic.
But I think the commonality,
the common point that we all have is that
Gun control, we disagree on gun control whether it could be a solution, but I think we all agree it's not the only
Solutions there's other things we could do other than gun control and maybe a good argument now would make that argument is that
Maybe let's not focus on gun control for now
Maybe we should maybe we should it but a good argument would be another argument would be is like let's focus on all the other things like taking care
No improving unemployment because like for every percentage point unemployment drops and
unemployment increases, I don't know how many thousands of people die, and a lot of them from
suicide and cause violence. So let's look at unemployment, let's look at mental health and the
support we give people with mental health disabilities, mental health conditions. So maybe there's
other things we could do before focusing on gun control. That's where we agree. But to completely
prepare guns to
terrorists and to
trucks,
I just don't think
it makes a good
argument, my
opinion, Evan.
Well,
and I respect
that.
I, you know,
and the fact
is I'm saying a
lot of people
who are debating
stats that we
need to ban
guns or even
limit certain
types of guns
are looking at a
a very close snapshot in a relatively small portion of history.
You know, look before 1986, we could buy fully automatic rifles basically off the shelf
in America.
But we didn't have kids murdering kids.
We didn't have people murdering left and right, indiscriminately shedding innocent blood.
There is something that has changed in our society.
And I think there's a deep illness and sickness that is a problem.
And yes, I think we all agree whether you're pro or against gun control,
that it is a wider spectrum of things.
But for so long, even, you know, I have challenged,
many of the main organizations, why don't we protect our schools?
Like, if this is such a problem, why don't we protect our schools?
Why do they stand in the way?
Every time I've testified in front of state legislatures and tried to get more protection in our schools, but they stand in the way.
And why is that?
I don't have an answer.
The fact is, is they are leaving our schools vulnerable.
when we should be protecting them because we know it's an issue. And then we can deal with the
solutions. But first, we have to deal with the problem at hand. We need to be adults about this
and stop dragging our feats and protect our children and protect our communities. After that,
yeah, we can have debates. We can have we can look at the snapshot or we can look at the long
line of history when we had fully automatic weapons in America and people weren't murdering each other,
whether that's a,
a moral decay or a mental health issue that some people are referring to it nowadays.
And you mentioned the whole comparing it to terrorism.
It's not that far off in my mind because the tool doesn't matter.
In other countries, they use knives.
China has had mass of murders in the tens and dozens of people being slaughtered by knife and sword.
Japan, there's been other places that have other issues and you're just not doing it.
But this is it.
When you look at violence in China, the death in China is 0.6 per 100,000,
and the US is 5.8 per 100,000.
But we're talking about statistical anomalies, right?
Because this is one thing that I think we need to bring back to the original core of the debate.
Like, what is a mass shooting?
This is one thing I have some special insight into since I've had SWAT training.
And one thing they bring up in the classroom, the first thing is what is terrorism?
terrorism is violence for a goal.
So I would say that this type of mass shooting that we're talking about,
like the stuff that makes the news and not the gangland random shootings in Chicago that happen every day,
the difference is it's terrorism.
The people who perpetuate the violence, they want...
The audience, they write 50-page manifestos,
and then they go murder a bunch of innocent people, right?
A lot of these times, it's basically terrorists.
But, Roy, the argument I was making to Evan's point,
just like one of the points he's made,
because I know there's a lot of them.
And I'll go to other speakers, like Tiro,
maybe I'll let you jump in next,
but Evan, like you said, you used to talk about China
as a guy with a knife and killed all these people.
But I'm like, all right, let me check the violence in China
versus the US.
So for every 100,000 people,
There's violent crime in the US is 368 per 100,000.
In China, half of one, 0.5.
Quick point.
So I will say, you can look, and this is my point to the data and the stats and comparing things to principles.
They also are forced into labor.
They have very little liberties.
They have very little things that they have to follow a party.
True, true.
I think, but this is moving away from violence.
Yeah, okay, cool.
I think, okay, the point you made is there's other factors.
Maybe those other factors play a role, which goes back to our original argument.
Okay, it's understood.
Sorry, Slaman, you want to, Othier-R-Slayman.
I'm happy to go.
Please do.
I'd rather hear your voice.
Well, yeah.
So it seems to me that some of the arguments that were made, and I recognize that everybody is, there's an emotional nature to this argument and people have had experiences that I have not, and I appreciate them.
But.
What we're hearing here is the perfect is the enemy of the good.
People are basically saying, well, people can use other things to kill people,
it said all this sort of stuff.
And that basically...
Tehr, let me mention breaking news quickly.
Sorry, and I'll let you continue making a point.
It's just perfect timing.
Six minutes ago, I haven't read it yet.
I'll read it out quickly.
Sorry, Tira, but it is breaking news.
Yesterday, Ellen, yesterday Texas was torn apart by a senseless mass shooting at a shopping mall.
I'm reading the tweet by Vice President Kamala Harris.
Doug and I mourn for the eight adults and children who lost their lives.
Pray for those wounded and send our gratitude to the first responders who ran towards danger.
While there's much we don't yet know about the attack, he's what we do know.
All Americans deserve to be safe from gun violence, but they're not.
Not because we don't know what the solution is, not because Americans are divided on the issue.
A majority of gun owners support reforms.
The president signed the most significant gun safety legislation in 30 years and implemented important executive actions, but more must be done.
Send a bill to Biden that bans assault weapons in high-capacity magazines,
implements universal background checks,
and helps keep guns out of the hands of people who are in danger to themselves and others.
We need action.
So I'm sure you all love Kamala Harris here, but let's go back to Tira, the point you'll make.
Yeah, what I was going to say is that I think a lot of people are taking the position.
Well, other things can kill, so why should we regulate guns or...
we can't deal with this.
It seems to me that that is not an appropriate,
that is not the correct argument,
because as I said, what it's basically saying
is you can't do anything if you can't do everything.
And I don't agree with that.
So do I think we should harden our schools to a certain extent?
Sure.
Do I think they should have, yeah.
Explain that.
You can't do anything, you totally do everything.
Well, people basically seem to be saying we can't, we shouldn't be doing this until we do that.
Right.
In other words, it's almost as if it's linear.
So the gentleman who was speaking, I'm sorry, I could not see his name, Evan, who
was speaking with let's deal with, let's deal with the schools.
Okay, we can deal with lots of things at the same time.
Okay? And I think we should take this sort of multi-pronged approach, not the one-off approaches, which really makes us all have fights about what happens and who does what. So I agree that we can, I don't know about teachers being armed. I am, I'm
very skeptical about that, but I think we can certainly harden schools.
We could have better security systems, things like that.
And there was money, interestingly enough, in the COVID bills for that.
I think it might have gone away by now, but we can ask people to put in more money for things like that,
because I do think that would be helpful in many schools.
goals. Let me just continue. I also, however, I believe that since now, we have to understand
that we're dealing with the American Supreme Court and what they've said about gun regulations.
So there are things that will not fly, right? Basically what Clarence Thomas and his peers have
said are that you can only implement gun regulations that would be effectively were in effect
at the time the founding fathers weren't living. So you have limitations there.
people are challenging these gun laws all the time.
Nobody really knows what's appropriate or what's not.
But I think there's certain things we can talk about.
We can talk about because they did have this in the colonial era training.
We can talk about having to lock up your guns.
Basically, that seems fair to me.
If you have a gun, you should hold it responsibly.
We can talk about potentially licensing.
So I think we have to sort of look at this.
And then we need some analysis.
Gun research has not really happened that.
that robustly, let's just say, we need some research about what actually does work, because nobody,
the research is all over the place, okay? So I think we need better research about, does it help
to ban these things or people who just make up their own guns? I don't think the bans actually
are going to work, to be honest. I don't think they'll be found constitutional. I think you can
probably ban felons from having guns. I'm not sure you can ban people who have
who are not been adjudicated as anything from having guns.
I mean, I think we really need to talk about what would work,
what would be effective,
and how many things can we do it once?
And we cannot, of course, forget the mental health aspect of things.
Yes, we have a crisis.
Look what happened in New York.
We clearly see that there are problems here.
But,
we need, once again, better programs for that.
But we should be attacking this on all angles and not just sort of sticking to our one talking point.
Thank you.
No, no, but can I just ask you directly?
Like, if you say that we can do many things all at once, then why haven't we secured our schools in over 20 years?
You know, Carl mine happened more than 23 years ago, and we still haven't secured our school.
So we keep.
Okay, let me, Evan, let me just speak to that.
We have...
The schools are basically, as you know, funded by the states, right?
The federal government, in fact, only does 8% of school funding.
So the states have not acted, and these are Republican states, right?
Many of them.
So it's not like, yes, Columbine, maybe not, but
you know, many states that are having issues
or that care about this stuff are not willing
to put money into it.
So might I suggest that people go to their,
I mean, if you're going to your school board meetings,
you should go to your state legislatures
and say, we need this money.
As I said, there was money in the,
was it called the pre-back?
There was money in the COVID bills.
for actual school security purposes
that you could have used for these purposes,
I'm not sure districts even use this money.
So I think Americans have to be more on top of this.
I mean, honestly, to be, and I'm going to say something
that people are going to disagree,
instead of worrying about maybe, you know,
banning certain books and going crazy about that sort of stuff,
maybe we should be talking more about the security of our students, okay?
Yes.
Because it seems to me that that's something
that people don't go to school board meetings and talk about.
And if you want it, you can have it.
Okay, so that's my view of it.
Yeah. No, and I will just add on to that. I think you're absolutely correct in that regard. And I think
And this might make me unpopular, but knowing what we know and knowing that there's funds not being used, shame on us as adults and parents in our own communities if we don't stand up and speak out to our local school boards and our local state constitution, our state legislatures to protect our schools.
This is a problem because people keep focusing on things that may or may not work when we should start somewhere.
And that somewhere, people say, do something.
Well, let's protect our schools.
That's something.
Why can't we come together, whether you're left or right, and protect our schools?
That's all I'm saying.
Right, but I'm going to say one more thing.
That's going to be your mantra, and I understand that.
But I think we should also be talking about reasonable gun regulations.
As I said, I see no reason why we can't hold parents to a certain standard so that their kids don't get access, that you have gun safes.
I'm not talking about people breaking into your house.
I'm talking about that you protect right from your kids getting them because we've seen that happen.
I personally would love to see a 21-year-old age for certain guns.
I don't think that's going to fly either, to be honest.
I'm not convinced because if you look at American history, 18-year-olds were in the militia.
I'm not sure.
that we're going to be able to do anything like that.
But I think there are things we might be able to come together on, right?
Well, and here's the, it is anecdotal, but it is, it's broad in the aspect that America has been like this.
I had more power, I had access on the day that I was, that those two were trying to murder me,
I had access to more powerful weapons than they had.
And I not only did I have those, many of my friends had them in their front living rooms in gun cases with,
that were made of oak with glass front doors,
had higher powered weapons than the two that were trying to murder us.
But the fact is,
we weren't trying to murder our fellow students.
They were.
So the fact,
this whole gun access thing isn't the issue.
The soul and the heart of our children and these individuals who shed innocent blood is the issue.
And that,
as long as we ignore it,
is going to continue to perpetuate the problem.
Yeah, if we don't fix the mental health, then we're going to try to disarm the law-abiding people.
It just doesn't make sense.
You know, like, why would I want to give up my right to self-defense if I know that there's a bunch of crazies on the streets?
Because there's no way that we can deal with them other than just throwing them onto the streets and letting them try to survive.
I mean, my office is 10 miles from Seattle.
And when I have to go into the city, it is a straight-up war zone.
So that's just one thing I wanted to chime in.
Can I just say the vast majority of proposals to ban assault weapons do not take guns away.
And in fact, people are still allowed to transfer them.
So this argument that if we were to ban assault weapons that law abiding citizens would have their guns taken away.
Yeah, but you're still going after my right to buy one.
And it's a multi-faceted approach here. I'm not.
I'm not saying that's the only answer.
That is not enough.
To purchase that weapon.
Make sure that these people who shouldn't own guns
shouldn't get them either.
But I see no problem with law-abiding citizens
owning weapons.
But California took a...
That's my right.
That's...
That still affects my right to purchase that firearm.
The AR-15 as a rifle that is in common use.
And if you look at the Heller decision, weapons that are in common use, you can't ban.
You can't ban the purchase, manufacturing, or possession of those firearms.
So how are you going to combat that on the court basis when the court would not let you do that?
Like right now we have assault weapons bans being dropped state after state.
Like Illinois, their assault weapons ban just got smacked by the courts.
They have an injunction right now in place where they can't enforce their assault weapons ban.
and all of these are going their way up to the Supreme Court,
and we're probably six or seven months away from the Supreme Court
finally putting a nail in the coffin when it comes to assault weapons ban.
So where do you go from there?
Like I said, we have the right to bear arms,
and you're not going to be able to do that.
Like, what solutions do you have that don't affect that when it comes to gun control?
I heard Trish was talking about,
she thinks a lot of these things wouldn't pass constitutional muster, and like, where...
Like, where are you going to come from for, like, your argument from that basis when you can't make an argument that would be legal?
And we should just go back to the ARS thing.
Like, are they more dangerous than regular guns?
Like, the whole assault weapons ban statistics debate, I think was a huge red herring.
Because as you brought up, Mario, like, crime and other issues, like, were a big issue, like the urbanization, de-urbanization, gentrification, the crack epidemic.
Like, those are huge problems in the 70s and 80s.
And then there's definitely malicious conflation of statistics.
So that's what Evan was talking about,
where statistics can be manipulated and presented in a certain light to prove your point.
But if we step back and look at the big picture, I think I agree with Evan that the moral decay and mental health crisis in America is probably where all this...
the rise in mass shootings is coming from because it is a form of terrorism and it gets
encouraged by the mass media and you know what we're doing right now talking about it it's
probably going to encourage the next mass mass shooter to be honest
So to touch on both of your points, you know, you both have good points.
And there are solutions.
Like you said, so gun violence, it's not the problem.
It's the symptom of the problem.
And the problem is socioeconomic lifestyles that people are being forced to live from low incomes and different things like that.
Mental health issues.
But there are solutions for it.
Okay, so health care for all.
Make sure everybody has access to get help with mental health issues.
Right.
There are other solutions, universal background checks, make sure if someone's purchasing a firearm, they can legally purchase that firearm in the gun show loopholes.
And when it comes to what is more deadly, an armor light rifle or a handgun, I mean, realistically, the armor light rifle, it will fire higher velocity.
It'll do more damage, and it has much greater range than a handgun.
But when it comes to rate of fire, I mean, I have a Walter Q5 match.
My handgun can fire, I can fire 15 rounds and maybe three seconds.
Same thing with an AR-15.
It doesn't, what we have to do is focus on the problem and not the symptoms of the problem.
And not enough politicians are addressing it because they're so stuck in this gun debate because it raises them millions and millions and millions of dollars.
As long as I'm in Arkansas, as long as a, you know, Republican candidate can show up and go, I'm pro 2A vote for me.
People are going to vote for them and give them money just because they say they're pro 2A, even though it's not solving any problems.
Right.
the debate problems going for money.
Yeah, making guns a non-political issue is definitely like a dream of mine.
And it's starting to happen because you see now way more liberal gun owners.
Like because of 2020, like minorities and women becoming the number one consumers
are the fastest growing demographic of firearms buyers.
I definitely think guns can be elevated away from the political grift.
It will stop being like political football like the abortion debate is.
And maybe we can actually address...
The core issues, which I still think is mental health because where do we send people who are on the edge?
Where do we send people who have fallen off the edge who are in serious crisis?
They just get dumped on the street.
That's literally the policy in America right now.
Just throw crazy people onto the street and hope they survive.
It's nuts.
Yeah.
Well, yeah, and to that point, Roy, real quick, I've actually brought this up several times that mental health is the number one problem. And we do not have funding. Matter of fact, they've done nothing but strip funding for mental health services for people, maybe low income, no income, or just general access to for people at all. Mental health has not been focused. I've been talking about this for years. And actually, someone just brought up to me.
an interesting point in that it seems to be,
specifically like with school shootings or like these mass events,
there's always a manifesto for the most part sometimes.
There's like there's some posts or Snapchats or Instagram posts or whatever
when they're talking about this stuff.
And it seems to be,
kind of like almost like
add the mental health part of it too, but it also seems like it's
sensationalized in their mind that that's the mark that they're going to leave because
they're so angry, so on and so forth. If you remember
back when we had a rise in serial killers, they stopped reporting on it
and it stopped being sensationalized in the press because they didn't want to encourage
more people to go out and do it.
And so this was actually one of the big things that was happening was like serial killers and they stopped talking about it.
And you did see a decline in serial killers.
So I think there's another aspect of this where the media sensationalized it.
And on the last point, Roy, that I want to agree with you on is something I've talked about as well, is that it is the abortion topic.
It is the two A topic.
It is nothing more than a political fundraising tool without any actual solutions ever being proposed.
It's something easy that you can campaign on, that you can fundraise with.
It's super easy, whether it's abortion pro or against.
Whether it's 2A, pro or against.
whether it's health care pro or against right nationalized health care whether it's universal
basic income or is it is it better opportunity for companies to grow to provide more opportunities to
the community these are easy hot button political fundraising tools and no one actually seems
serious about solving it and i to sean's point earlier
the Supreme Court will be hearing these cases.
And I think once and for all it's going to put a nail on it.
And then they're actually going to have to campaign on solutions for the public.
Right.
but mental health number one by far not even close needs to be something that needs to be talked about furthermore
because a mentally ill put with a gun is not the same as a as a law-abiding citizen with a gun who is mentally sound
and so i i believe that mental health is on the conversation not can i just show on about that because he wants
what son what do you think about what trash said because if i mean your your position is there should be no
restrictions would that be one restriction you'd have
Sean. Like, what do you mean? Like, like, saying mentally ill people can't purchase firearms?
I wouldn't think that passed constitutional muster.
Sorry, said that again, Sean?
I don't think restricting people just because they have a mental health issue would pass constitutional muster.
You can't lose your right to a firearm without proper due process.
Trash? Are you going against the Constitution?
No, I'm not. I actually agree with that. We can't go extra constitutionally against someone's mental health rights because they may do something in the future.
that's not how it works.
I mean, we can't get into that.
We can't get into that game.
We can't legislate from that area.
And then also what you're saying?
What was your point about?
mental health, there actually needs to be access to mental health and a focus on actually getting people, the actual right help that they need.
But Trash, you just said, you just said, hold on, no idea.
That you'd think that someone who has mental health issues should be denied access to a gun.
That would be ideal. You don't want those people to have access to guns.
You said they shouldn't have access to guns if I heard you.
No, no, that's not what I said.
So what did you say?
I've never said that.
I said mental health is an issue that we need to talk about, not guns.
What I said was a mentally ill person with a firearm is most likely going to, could make a crime versus a legally law-abiding citizen with a firearm won't.
That's all I said.
But I'm not saying you should take them away.
Just to summarize your argument, your argument is basically we shouldn't focus on mental health, but those people should still have access to guns.
If we have appropriate mental health and people are getting the health that they need,
We're not going to have to worry about restricting guns.
Well, you're not going to end...
I got the perfect example.
You can work towards this.
What I mean is your argument is that people should have access to guns if they've got mental health.
Well, I have...
I have the perfect example of how access to mental health care could have stopped the mass shooting.
If you look at the...
If you look at the Parkland shooting in Florida...
he constantly was getting Baker active because he kept saying he was going to shoot people up,
he was going to kill people, and they didn't have the bed space in this area to go through with an involuntary commitment,
which to the detriment, if he had been involuntarily committed, he would have gone through the proper due process,
and he would have lost his gun rights. There's already processes that exist for this.
That's correct. Due process, you have to be able to go through it first. That's the point.
So basically, Sean, you're saying that he would have went through due process and then he would have lost his rights to...
Yes, he would have, if he was involuntarily committed by a court, he would have lost his right to purchase a firearm unless he went through another court process to restore his firearm rights.
And that doesn't break the constitutional right.
No, it's due process. You can lose rights through due process.
It's the same thing as going to prison.
Okay, that makes sense.
Jennifer, thanks for joining us.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on what we were discussed now,
and then I want to move the conversation on to something else.
Sure, thank you.
So I just wanted to address this.
So as far as the Parkland shooting, just so people know,
that school shooter was in the Promise program,
which was out of the Obama administration.
It was a pilot school to push restorative justice practices
into the school that we have now adopted in 100% of the public education system.
and restorative justice came from the Black Lives Matter movement because they said that they did not want cops.
Cops are oppressive and racist.
They wanted more counselors.
And so what happened was, you know, for the Parkland situation, that child fell through the cracks because he was in this program.
He was not given the appropriate consequences.
appropriate consequences that he needed during that time. And it's because of that program. They tried to sweep it under the rug, but they could not do that. So what happens in school, the reason, again, they're not wanting any security measures that are appropriate. Most people agree with is because of this restorative justice. So they're pumping the schools full of more counselors.
under the idea of mental health.
And everybody in here is talking about how the mental health, right?
We have a major mental health problem.
And I agree.
But the problem is the mental health supports they're pumping into the school instead of security measures.
are by way of indoctrination through more critical race theory, which promotes division and anger,
sexualization of children, gender ideology, which creates more mental health issues.
So they use these type of issues are like this shooting to justify the mental health money that's going into the school,
which just brings in more radicalization.
And it's a cycle, and it's a problem that needs to be talked about.
Thank you.
To what Jennifer just said, Parkland actually tried to fight the state of Florida when they passed a law that would add more security in schools and give funding for it and required to have a certain number of armed security.
There are Parkland, Parkland, tried to take the state of Florida to court to prevent them from forcing them to have more armed security, which is crazy that that was the school that decided to take it to court.
Okay.
And I just want to bring in Lori.
Thanks for joining us.
I know you have a different opinion on this.
I'll go ahead.
Thank you.
Yeah.
And thanks for having this space again, Mario.
I just, I popped in when people were talking about taking all guns away.
No one is talking about taking all guns away.
I think that needs to be established.
No one is saying that.
Because I know that gets gun owners pretty angry, rightly so.
But I wanted to say as a public school teacher, and Jennifer, I don't agree with a lot of what you say.
I don't agree with army teachers.
I posted an article from the Giffords Organization that lists all the accidental discharges of armed teachers or different personnel in schools.
And, you know, schools are supposed to be a place where kids are comfortable and safe.
And kids going through shooting drills, active shooting drills, has terrorized a whole population of children.
And I don't see bringing more arms onto a school to help any of that.
In Wisconsin, I'm in Wisconsin, and I know we went to one level of hardening our schools.
Like we locked all the buildings.
And of course, I know it's going to not stop windows and things.
You know, we locked buildings and we did that.
I don't know what other states have done.
But historically, that's one measure we've taken in cameras and things.
And I agree with Tara.
We need to harden the schools more, but not with arms, not arming teachers specifically.
And one other thing I just want to say, and I got to go somewhere else is there's a poll.
And I know you guys like stats and stuff.
I posted that too from Fox.
I believe it was in April.
that just shows people, the majority of Americans and even liberal gun owners that you're talking about,
that some of you are talking about, I think we can all kind of agree that maybe just more,
something needs to be done.
If it's, you know, something in the line of red flag laws or whatever, the questions that poll I listed.
And it just, it seems like those of us sitting back and watching these things happen over and over are just,
we just can't take it anymore.
Right.
We're just seeing children murdered.
It's just getting, I think, to a lot of Americans
and maybe leading to more mental health issues in America,
which is definitely a problem.
So that's my spiel.
Thank you so much.
I got to run though in a second.
No problem. Thank you. Zen, I saw you were very much in agreement. I'm being sarcastic with what she said.
So what's your thought about her? I know you want to add some more. So go ahead. But in addition to that, if you can answer this question, what's your thought about Laurie's argument, which I think it's fair that if you have, if you're arming teachers, you're putting guns in schools.
If you put guns in schools, there's a risk that kids may have access to those guns,
and therefore you're basically causing the very thing you're trying to stop.
Okay, well, I don't know if you guys have heard, but, well, let me say this first.
In Israel, they're hit with rockets and stuff every single day.
and they have terrorist attacks every day.
When's the last time that you heard of a school shooting in Israel?
All the teachers in Israel are armed.
Most of them carry M-16 rifles.
So that's not true.
I'm from Israel.
That's actually not correct.
Go on.
I can picture.
Pictures.
I don't need pictures. I don't need pictures. I lived in Israel for 25 years. My whole family's in Israel.
So there are teachers, right? There are some teachers that are armed, but you're not talking every single teacher, right?
I mean, look, firearm requirements in Israel are extremely stringent, right?
There's a push right now by Itemal Ben-Givil to amend that, right?
I have a picture of a little 16-year-old girl carrying an M-16 behind her back.
I have a picture of a Christian wearing a yarmulika.
Because you have a picture doesn't mean that that is an accurate representation.
Forget that. Forget that.
Let's go on to the next thing.
If they ban firearms, it's going to be a filled day for the criminals because...
In England, the criminals that have guns just walk into houses and ram sack the place.
And there is a lot of guns in England.
There's a lot of guns in Europe, too, because they've had so many wars in World War II.
The Germans would take ground and retreat.
And every time the French people would go in and pick up the firearms,
I've got an M1 Grand rifle that was in a French field
for three years after the war,
and the French person had it for that long,
and it still had the ammunition in it.
And the other thing is,
all this mental health care money that people are talking about,
we had six million illegals come into this country,
the guy in New York,
The Marine who had to take that guy down was trying to hold him so they got to the next station so the police could take over.
It was a tragedy.
Okay.
We have illegal immigrants in New York City living in five.
I just want to.
I mean, great.
Can I fit?
I need to get.
I need to get.
Not your point's not that right.
I just want to stick to the point where you mentioned.
I just want to ask somebody else that.
So, uh,
Let me go to Navi.
Let me count it.
Let me count it just get some numbers.
So like Europe has a lot of guns.
Okay.
So just looked it up.
US has 120 guns per 100 people, 125.
Number two, Switzerland, I'm comparing US to Europe.
Number two, Switzerland 45 per 100, which I had no idea.
They had that many.
Finland's at 32 per 100.
Cyprus is at 31 per 100.
Now, if we look at crime rate of those, it's surprising.
It's actually interesting number.
Europe for age.
Thanks man, I appreciate it.
So I'm not who brought you up and followed you, but I appreciate the kind words.
And I was making a point that you made, so I was supporting your point, but I appreciate it.
In terms of you look at the rate, the crime rate per capita of those countries, so US is
5.8 per 100,000.
Switzerland though, you'd expect it to be higher, but Switzerland's at 0.5 per 100,000 Sleman,
okay?
And then number three in terms of guns is Finland.
It's 10 times more than Switzerland.
That's actually interesting. Do you get what I mean?
Finland has a pretty high number of guns per person.
Not as much as the US, but just under half.
So it's not that much difference.
Yet crime rate in Switzerland is 90% less than the US.
And Finland has, in terms of guns, 34 guns per 100 people.
Yet the crime rate is 5.2 per 100,000, which is very close to the US, which is 5.8.
I'm talking about, sorry, crime rates per capita, not gun crime rates.
So it's actually interesting point. These numbers kind of paint a different picture. The rest of them go back to the initial argument that was made.
But then you have the three top countries, Europe versus the US, and the discrepancy is insane.
Do you see numbers? Again, US 120 guns per 100 people, Switzerland 45, Finland 32, but crime rate, not gun crime.
US is 5.8, Finland's 5.2, but Switzerland's 90% less.
Oh, I actually can speak on this.
Please, yeah, I'm curious.
What was it?
Finland has the same problem as Sweden, lots of immigration.
Because, you know, they don't have enough people.
So they got to get, they'll take anybody.
They need warm bodies, same as Germany.
If you read Peter Zahan at all, you know, he talks about that,
where you just need people to keep your society going in a capitalist-style country.
So Finland has a super open immigration.
Yeah.
policy.
And they also have,
traditional underworld issues like motorcycle gangs that import weapons and stuff.
So it's a little bit crazy.
Where Switzerland is a super rich but very closed off society,
it's very difficult to become a Swiss citizen.
I've looked into it myself.
Because everyone has to serve in the military when they become a Swiss citizen,
and they have the option to keep their service rifle and bring it with them.
The main thing there is that they have way more cultural cohesion.
Right? In Switzerland, like it takes a lot more to become a Swiss citizen and everyone in Switzerland just has a higher standard of living.
So that goes back to the whole thing.
He's talked about, sorry, just two seconds. Can I see?
Mario, did you say Finland has a high, has a high rate of people per guns and then has a low crime rate?
Yeah, Switzerland and Finland have similar guns per 100 people, 45 and 32.
So Switzerland's a bit more, yet Switzerland has 90% less crime than Finland.
And Finland's close to the US in terms of crime.
Talking about general crime.
So I'm just curious.
Now, you said, just don't want to go to Roy's point.
Roy, you said there's more immigrants in Finland versus Switzerland,
and that's why Switzerland has lower crime rate?
Oh, actually, it was something like that.
Yeah, it was...
So I wish we could bring the Finnish game.
No, no, no.
You've got to compare immigration rates.
Again, you're making the same fallacy that Mario was.
You've got to compare immigration rates with Finland with other countries
and then look at the crime rates based on that.
Because Switzerland, again, isn't a good example of these other countries.
So, no, but then the facts actually counter his point completely.
So Switzerland...
Switzerland's 25% is foreign-born.
Finland's only 7.7%.
So based on that, the immigration in Switzerland is significantly higher.
Oh, I would venture to say, though, looking outside of statistics,
those people are probably a lot of...
That was not my intent.
No, you know, Roy, Roy, look at Lestiseman does this, puts words in your mouth.
They didn't do that, Slaman.
He's just basic numbers and making assumptions.
You didn't have to take this personally.
Jesus, man, it's becoming woke, Sleman.
You think about like a...
Like an immigrant to Monaco, you know, like how many people are born in Monaco and have a Monaco passport?
It's like, there's different types of immigrants.
Like in America, there's like, you know, the H-1B very highly educated Indian program.
Yeah, okay.
So Mario, why it's important is because obviously weapons made the argument that the reason why Finland has a crime rate is because of immigrants.
And obviously, you just shown the data to show that that number is completely...
Yeah, exactly, but you don't have to go and say, say, oh, yeah, blame everything on the immigrants.
We're looking at various factors, which include immigrants.
Well, he said the two reasons were, he gave two reasons on one of them was immigrants,
and people remember those statements.
Oh, come on, man.
He just, he just gave one reason.
He's given many reasons multiple times for various things.
You were all okay with that, but now he mentions immigrants,
only have to take it personal.
I'm not taking it.
Well, we do need high-paid, high-skilled immigrants.
Inacra, I have to clarify it.
Yeah, clarify it properly, but you don't have to put a statement, like, blame everything on the immigrant.
He's very sensitive weapons.
He's very sensitive when it comes to certain topics.
That's one of them.
No, I'm not sensitive.
Like, obviously, you're making it look like that.
I'm not really bothered, to be honest.
But my point is, I need that.
It's important.
When people make inaccurate statements like that, people believe it.
And then in their head, it's.
Then do, like me, correct the statement with facts rather than saying, yeah, blame everything on the immigrants.
It's important to clarify what the intentions of what people are saying as well.
I don't know, assuming his intentions.
But go ahead, Dan, please.
Well, you know.
study published by the annual review of criminology found that immigrants were less likely to be
involved in crime than native-born individuals and that the relationship between immigration
and crime was generally negative a 2015 study published by the journal of quantitative
criminology found that increases in immigration were associated with decreases in violent crime
rates so these are studies that were done not an opinion
Yeah, the study of America, right?
We're talking about Finland and Switzerland.
And also we're talking about Finland taking in refugees.
versus Switzerland taking in only the richest people like you I've looked into trying to become a
citizen it is pretty expensive you know you get rejected it'll be well for whatever
reasons they didn't allow you as an immigrant but that doesn't I mean your point is
no I mean I didn't even try I looked it up like it basically Switzerland doesn't just take
in every person they can whereas like someplace like Germany they need the warm bodies for their
because their birth rate's not keeping up.
So they need everybody.
They'll take everybody in.
So they're making a balanced bet.
They bet that they can assimilate all the Syrians and Afghans
into German culture in time before the cultural discohesion causes too much problems.
I mean, it's a calculated risk.
Again, weapons, you're making statements, put your evidence up, back it up,
and then put it on here.
Because the reason I'm pulling it up is because...
I know these arguments were made about the UK and when I researched it, I found them to be false and complete mispropaganda by the mainstream media.
So therefore, and now Dan's demonstrate how it was you're wrong about the United States.
I put the data up. Let me look at it. If it's right, it's right. But most likely, I'm most likely based on me researching the UK and based on what dance in the US, it's going to be another example of you, staying in...
an opinion without being able to back her up with data and facts.
Okay, yeah, I will concede that it's an opinion that when you have
too much immigration, whatever.
And never mind, okay, you win.
So Navi, go ahead, bro.
You want to say some out?
Navi, before you go ahead, the question was,
which somebody raised,
and they said they wanted guns in schools
or teachers to have guns in schools for protection.
Now, the argument someone raised against that was...
Before you continue, let me stick up for Roy.
I didn't expect to be doing this argument.
Let me stick up for you, Roy.
A study published by the...
Ethnicity and Criminal Justice in 2017, by the way, this is not my stance, Slaman, just before you attack me back.
No, no, there's actually, I'll make your point as well, Simon.
So a study found by the Journal of Ethnicity and Criminal Justice in 2017 found that there was a positive relationship between immigration and violent crime rates in the US metropolitan areas.
The study noted, however, that the relationship was weaker when controlling for factors such as poverty and unemployment.
Another study by the European Journal of Criminology in 2018
found that there was a positive relationship
between immigration and crime rates in the Netherlands,
particularly for property crimes.
The study suggests that factors such as social disorganizations
and lack of integration may contribute to the relationship.
And last one is a study published by the Journal of Ethnicity,
blah blah, blah, 2019 in Canada,
the studies suggested that the relationship may be influenced by factors such as urbanization and income equality.
Now there's many other studies before you respond. There's many other studies that kind of counter Roy's point and there's no conclusive evidence in one way or another. There's studies that show that make both arguments. But from what I've seen based on this very limited research and this is probably your area of expertise claimant, I don't think immigration itself
cause leads to a crime right I think things that immigration could like immigration done wrong
that if it leads to more poverty or or they're not assimilated into the culture they're not well taken
care of that might lead to crime rate increased crime rate because I think the biggest correlation
with crimes is people being in desperate situations as poverty I think this is by far the most
important factor that leads to crime
and if you look at crimes in different countries
countries that tend to be poorer
in general have higher crime
and that's just humans doing it out of necessity
so I just want to stick up a bit for Roy
because I know you got a bit touchy about it's like I'm
yeah let me come back on that because obviously
But I made your point as well. I think I said studies are inconclusive.
You made a while quite weak, so let me sort out.
Thank you.
So first of all, Mario gave some studies.
Dan's already given some studies as well on the other side.
But let's be clear.
You need to look at both studies and look at what the controls are and what the mechanism
to do it.
So let me give you an example.
I did a...
similar, I researched into the issue
in the United Kingdom about grooming
and it was blamed on minorities.
When I looked into it, most of the
studies had
debunked it, but then there
was one study that they used to
propagate this idea through the media and to
propagate it. When I looked at that study, it was a COCP study. And what that study did was, it essentially had only 300 people in the study. So just imagine that. The sample size was only 300. And then within that sample size, they split it up into tier 1 and tier 2. And tier 1 was basically essentially, if people could understand the language, which they didn't make clear, was pimping and tier 2 was actually doing rape.
And so, but they made everybody think that, and then they said tier one was minorities.
And based on this, minorities were raping, but in reality, it was pimping, but just based on a very weak study that it's 300.
And actually, tier two showed that it was white people who were doing it.
My point being, that study showed, and that study was a terrible study, but it also had a very small sample size, and it was basically done in a mate to manipulate the situation.
Okay, so, so, Saman, how, just two seconds?
How the hell does that counter my argument when you refer to one study being flawed?
When my argument...
is that there studies that show both sides.
It's inconclusive.
And I even said you're the better expert.
And I kind of made my own conclusions that the factors,
the factors that play a role is other,
it's not immigration itself,
but immigration done wrong and generally poverty in general.
I don't know how you counted it.
And I didn't, I wasn't even countering you.
And you thought about the flaws in one study.
Yeah.
Because what you did was,
I know, I demonstrate the flaws in one study that propagated
There's flaws in many studies, yeah, for sure.
Which caused an entire community get terrorized based on that study.
And so the reason why, I disagree with what you said was,
because you had Dan who actually gave some legitimate studies.
You gave studies on the other side,
and then you just give opinion on the other side, and that was the problem.
But anyways, fine, I rectify this, it was no problem.
No, you didn't rectify.
I gave you three studies on one side to kind of support Roy's point.
What study did you give on the other side?
Yeah, I didn't give any because Dan gave one already.
So I can give you more.
What are studies that go against that?
I can send you three right now.
And I think there's going to be more study.
My personal opinion, I think there's going to be more studies that point to the point that Dan made, that I think immigration, there's no correlation.
And generally, it's immigration done wrong.
That's my conclusion.
Okay.
I gave three just support Roy's point just because I wanted to take a job at you.
We need to do a space on immigration because I don't agree with it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, it's definitely derailing.
Yeah, I don't know.
I didn't mean the, I don't mean any offense.
Like I was saying, I don't mind talking about it.
I don't mind.
I love talking about it because it debunks a lot of notions that are out there and propagated.
So I haven't got an issue with that.
But I just have a point real quick.
I would love us to do a space on it as well.
That'd be brilliant.
Yeah, and the immigration was part of the topic here as well.
So there's numerous studies that found no significant relation between immigration and crime rates.
Study in the Journal of Ethnicity and Justice in 2018,
there was no significant relationship between immigration and violent crime rate in the U.S. metropolitan areas.
after controlling, so this is again, let me go back,
this is a study, there's one in 2017 by the same people,
Journal of Ethnicity and Criminal Justice,
that said there is correlation, and then one in 2018
that says there's no correlation.
Another one here, the annual review of criminology in 2020,
found that there's no consistent relation
between immigration and crime rates again in the US.
Another one in 2018 by the British Journal of Criminology in the UK.
Another one here, meta-analysis of 51 studies, it's actually an important one,
a matter analysis of 51 studies published in the Journal of Quantative Criminology in 2017
found that there was no significant relationship between immigration and crime rates in the US
after controlling for a wide range of factors.
Now, my point against Lehman hasn't changed is that I don't think there is correlation.
There are studies that argue both points.
And this is, yeah, a good argument for a different debate.
And you've made a valid point that studies could be flawed.
We've got to look into them.
I don't know how that counters my point, but you just like to say that it seems about the looks of it.
But I'll let you go back to the point.
And I know Navi has his hand up as well.
Well, now that you agreed with me, let me go to Navi.
I thought that was a joke.
My God.
I guess, don't start crying.
Navi, my question to you was...
And it was about basically arming teachers.
And the point was this, look, we should arm teachers to make sure schools are safe.
But the counter to that was, which I thought was a decent argument, was by a lorry.
And it was, if you arm teachers, you've got guns in schools, and then kids have access to them guns.
And essentially, you're causing the very thing that you're trying to stop.
So I love your thoughts on that, Navi.
Sure. So I guess just to sort of preface, I'm Navi. I'm a sort of home gunsmith and I make guns with 3D printers. So you may draw some conclusions about what I'm going to say from that. So the question of guns in school is interesting and it's one that I've spent a lot of time thinking about even.
So certainly like the notion of arming teachers, right, that hits people's ears and that makes them sound like they're going to require teachers to carry guns.
And I think that's a patently bad idea because, and this isn't meant to be offensive towards any teachers out there, there are some teachers I do not trust with a gun as far as you know, having a gun in a classroom and protecting kids with it.
Probably not a safe environment for that.
But on the flip side of that, I was fortunate enough in my high school years to have two teachers, both of who were combat veterans, both of whom, you know, served the United States overseas and, you know, ended up doing things with guns that are probably unspeakable, right?
So, you know, they have used guns, you know, in offense in that particular instance, but in, you know,
in a sort of a professional standpoint in that regard.
And the thought that's always sort of struck me as something that should be somewhat bipartisan is we're pretty much all okay with cops,
well, armed guards, be they cops or private security in schools, right?
I don't think that's something a lot of people object to across the board.
And so my sort of point there would be,
shouldn't teachers, especially ones who are veterans or veteran police officers or soldiers or what have you,
shouldn't there be some sort of an avenue they can take that would let them be able to carry a gun in a school,
if not for protecting their classroom, for protecting themselves even?
All right. So who else believes that teachers should be armed?
Is anybody in the panel who believes that we should have a scenario?
So, yeah.
He should have the option.
I think you should have the option.
So that's what I'm saying.
That's what I'm saying is like teachers should be able to have the option, right?
And I'm not saying necessarily like teachers should be liability for defending them, defending their classroom.
Lawyer brought up that point.
Teachers are there to teach, right?
They're not there to be security guards.
But the sort of thing that always struck me.
you know, weirdly is what you're then doing is, you know, teachers have now become a profession where you're, there's a non-zero chance that you will be stuck in a classroom. You're required to be completely unable to defend yourself, let alone your children, your charges.
And that, you know, that to me seems odd in instances where, you know, I've had teachers who would be overqualified to be police officers, right?
And that it's sort of silly to me that they wouldn't be able to have a handgun on their person, right?
Especially when like these teachers have licenses to carry, right?
They would be able to carry this handgun anywhere else they go in the day except for the school.
And so they're required to be unarmed from a standpoint of defending themselves or defending anybody else in the school.
which is weird to me.
And I guess one other thing that I want to bring up,
I don't know that it's been talked about here yet,
is that,
One thing in the gun control debate is universal background checks.
There's always something that gets talked about a lot.
And I do tend to, I guess, admit my bias.
My personal belief is that universal background checks are a sort of a foolish thing
because they rely on the sort of people that are going to do bad things with guns
to be honest about how they get them, and they will do everything they can to avoid that should it be required.
So the thing that though that I want to bring up is the way that background checks work currently in the country is the FBI has a program called Nix, which is National Instant Criminal Check System, something like that.
And that's what your background check is run through.
However, in order to actually run a check through Nix, you have to sign up with the FBI.
It takes about a month, quite a bit of paperwork involved.
They usually want you to have a business tied to your running these background checks,
because these background checks are usually run through hiring agencies or people that need security clearances like defense contracting or police work or the sale of firearms.
Okay.
I think that it should be more or less bipartisan that Nix should be an app,
that anybody, anywhere in the country should be able to send a query to Nix,
that if you punch in somebody's name and their birth date,
which is essentially the information that's sent to Nix currently when you buy a gun,
and it goes and checks the NICS database to see if this person's a, you know,
had been adjudicated mentally ill or if they're a prohibited possessor.
And I think it would be a more or less completely bipartisan thing that the NICS system
should be something that anyone can access through a web browser on their phone or whatever.
so that if you were selling a gun to somebody third party,
you could immediately find out,
is this person legally able to own a gun?
It would simplify a lot of things in that regard, I think,
and it's kind of, you know, it's,
the NICS system came about a long time ago,
and this is probably just, you know,
people didn't carry around computers in their pockets
at the time that Nix was made.
And the gun control debate goes back and forth
about features and particular types of rifles
and sort of misses the, you know,
the bigger picture things where like, you know,
we could very easily make it.
So an individual selling a gun to somebody
behind a Home Depot or whatever
would be able to find out if that person
is in fact who they
say they are even. And
And so these people who would be otherwise opposed to the requirement for universal background checks because at least run a background check on their own.
But currently, that has to be done through an FFL or whatever.
And in some cases, that's like $75 worth of fees you incur.
It should be free and it should be online.
So can I just ask you a question about that?
I'm interested in this.
So any human being, any person.
In theory, that would also like people kind of whistleblow gun ownership on others who shouldn't have guns.
I'm sorry.
There's that side of it.
Real quick.
Real quick.
Real quick, guys.
Bo, I don't think you can hear tear.
I'm going to drop you down and put you back up.
yeah yeah no worries no worries i'll pull you down and give you back up okay go for it
okay so i just want to ask a question so what you're what you're positing is any human being in the
country would have access to any other human beings criminal records mental health records etc
well so not because that's what you i thought that's what you said but you tell me all mixed
all that say yes or no so
So the way that Nix works currently, because of course there's, especially with the mental health records, right, if you've been adjudicated mentally ill.
Of course, some of those records end up being public anyway, depending on what court adjudicated you mentally ill.
Some of that just stays public.
But the way the NICS system works is it tells you yes or no, the way it works right now.
It doesn't tell you what this person's criminal history was.
It just tells you if yes or no, is this person a prohibited possessor of a firearm.
And so, you know, currently any FFL in the country can check that, right?
Anybody who's licensed to sell guns, even though you're not supposed to clog up the NIC system with a lot of frivolous checks.
But it's something they could do, right?
And so you could very easily make a business and claim it's like, oh, a background check agency.
And you could find out, you know, you could find out the same sort of information with like a little fake.
Not without their social security number.
That part's optional because I'm an FSO.
Social Security number.
There has to be a person there who fills it out with their details.
You can't just randomly check people.
Well, you're not supposed to, but if you have access to the next portal, you could,
although it's wrong and maybe a crime that much I don't know.
But you don't need somebody's social security number to run a next check.
You can run it with a name, address and birth date.
And the address and birthday is really just there to make sure you don't have two people with the same name.
So Dr. Gawker, thanks for joining us.
We've been discussing a number of issues, but I just want to start off with you about asking,
What's your thoughts about having some form of gun control measures in place in the US?
Well, I think you know my point, what I'm going to say here, I'm
Second Amendment advocate because I think it's the civil right that makes all other civil rights
possible. You know, there's a reason the Second Amendment was so highly thought of by the founding
fathers. It's to stop tyranny. There's a reason why every tyrannical regime in history has disarmed
its citizens. So it's not about self-defense hunting or anything else. It's about removing a despotic
government. But, you know, I know you have to react to the news and
But I feel like we are in a chronic hysteresis.
It's like that.
What's that Bill Murray movie, Groundhog Day?
Whenever this issue comes up on spaces, the same things get said again and again and again.
And, you know, half of them are fallacious.
I mean, the idea that there are no stats, somebody said half an hour ago, there are no stats, no reasonable stats.
Right.
That's just garbage. Go to the crime research center right now. They have all the stats on the
use of weapons by criminals or by law-abiding citizens. For example, the fact that every year in
America, there are more than a million occurrences who are a legally licensed individual or an
individual in a constitutional carry state uses a firearm to save lives. Over a million. The idea that you shouldn't
You don't have data about armed teachers.
The same center, the crime research center, has shown that there has been no school shootings, zero, none.
And the idea that, oh, negligent, negligent discharges are the issue, really.
There have been no school shootings in any school in America where the teachers have been permitted to carry concealed weapons.
zero, none.
And then to hear somebody who's actual teacher say,
oh my gosh, the psychological trauma
you're putting kids through to do drills.
Well, is it better to be dead or to do a drill?
I'm of a certain age where I lived under the Cold War
where we had drills,
and where the danger was not a school shooter coming into the building,
but nuclear annihilation.
I think we dealt with that so-called psychological trauma quite well.
And that same person actually said,
nobody's calling for a ban on these guns.
Well, then I would suggest that she go back and watch Biden's address to the joint session of Congress, where he says, he actually shouts at the camera and says, let's ban assault guns.
I said all guns.
That's the chief executive.
That's the president of the United States.
Okay.
And then the idea that the poverty, this crime is being caused by poverty, come on, it's about culture.
Why are 6,000 black Americans being killed by black Americans every year?
It's not because they're trying to steal a loaf of bread.
This is about morality.
It's not about poverty.
If we're about poverty,
then there'd be gun violence beyond any recognition,
not once every couple of weeks.
It'd be every single day people would be getting shot for a loaf of bread.
It's not poverty.
It's a lack of morality.
And then the last thing, I can't remember who said it about an hour ago.
Absolutely stunning.
This is the kill shot ideologically.
Before Reagan, oh my gosh, Reagan...
actually signed that bill to ban the manufacture or importation of any more machine guns into
American 1986. You could buy a machine gun, a machine gun. And it's really weird. Kids weren't
shooting kids up in schools with machine guns or M16s or AR-15s.
We had kids taking their 22 rifles to school and putting them in their locker.
And they weren't killing each other in the 50s or the 60s.
Why is that?
If you answer that question honestly, nothing to do with poverty, nothing to do with the amount of guns.
Then you've got the answer.
And the answer is really mental health.
When the Supreme Court decided in the early 1970s to make it impossible to institutionalize somebody with mental health problems, unless they were actively hurting somebody else or themselves, we kicked these people onto the streets.
So it's a lack of morality. It's a lack of mental health institutions, nothing to do with gun control.
And the idea that you're going to stop criminals or mentally...
ill people by punishing and denuding the civil rights of those who have committed no crime,
that's unconstitutional.
Real quick, I did want to correct something that Dr. Gore had said.
Major East Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, although no teachers were known to have been armed at the time of the shooting.
The school's policy allowed for teachers to carry firearms.
The shooter was a student who killed 17 people, STEM High School in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, May 7, 2008.
in the shooting attorney to school where some teachers were authorized to carry firearms.
The shooters, two students killed a student and injured eight others.
So there are two examples of school shootings that happened at schools where teachers were permitted to carry fire.
And it didn't have any.
It's hard to shoot somebody if you're not carrying a gun.
That's not what I said.
I said where students and where teachers are actually armed.
Well, well said.
Thank you, Dr. Corka.
No, I actually agree.
So that's spot on.
It's spot on.
Yeah, that's actually what I was speaking to earlier about the mental health.
So Dr. Gorker, I really appreciate those comments.
But that's only because, I mean, obviously, he said what I said, but much more eloquently and much better.
It's the British accent.
Obviously.
It helps.
It helps.
Thank you, Dr. Corka.
Ben, I saw you had your hand up.
Did you drop it down?
I guess, did he kind of wrap up your...
Yeah, no, I was going to comment on what that guy, the gentleman that left earlier said, but it's really not that relevant.
I mean, he commented about Israel, and I just wanted to say, so look, there has been a phenomenon as of late in Israel that I can't speak to, right?
So...
Itamar Ben-Gaville has been pushing for a five-fold increase in the amount of basically carrying permits, right?
And I can tell you this, and there's other Israelis in the room that will tell you the same thing, right?
The more guns that went into the hands of lawfully, you know, lawful-abiding citizens...
they were able to neutralize threats. I'm not talking about the politics over there. Okay, we're not getting into this conflict, that conflict.
What I am saying, though, is it used to be a wave of suicide bombings. Okay, we doubt that. Then it switched to vehicle and gun attacks.
And what you will see, if you read the Israeli press, right, you will see photos of a neutralized terrorist, and you'll see a, you know, a Hasidic man with a beard and a fringe of Tzitzie hanging out. And you know what? They neutralize the threat. So,
I'm not necessarily sure, and I know I'm going to get a lot of pushback on the room.
Zeno down there put up a great post, right?
I'm not necessarily sure that there is a gun problem.
I agree with Dr. Gorka completely, right?
In the United States, there's clearly a mental health problem,
but Dr. Gorka pretty much summed what I was going to say,
so it's null and void.
I'll just take credit for what he said.
Well, and real quick, Ben, to that point as well,
and we're kind of talking about this in the back channel as well.
Two things.
Number one,
I listen, I think that a teacher should be armed if they would like to be.
But then number two, we also actually need to talk about real school security.
All right.
So there's some specialists out there, some consultants out there that actually specialize in going, working with school districts, having a single point of entry, having security protocols for anybody coming in and having this one point of entry where you actually have to be buzzed into the school.
Now, granted, those people need to handle that responsibility much more important.
efficiently. But again,
you can plainly see that who's coming in
if they're strapped up, loaded up,
versus just maybe having a handgun
concealed. But either way, there should be a single
point of entry. There is actually a lot of science behind this.
There's just not an appetite for the school district
to spend the money on doing it.
Absolutely, trash. I mean, sorry, I'll
go ahead. Sorry, I interrupted you.
Yeah, no, but the second thing that I wanted to say specifically is that aren't all adults in Israel actually trained in IDF, right?
Is that part of it then?
Well, not all.
No, not all, right?
So, yes, there's conscription, right?
But the Hasid de Chahredim don't need to go to.
A lot of them opt out, right?
So, yes, I mean, a huge portion of the population are veterans and they are trained, right?
Right.
but you also have a lot of people who are coming, people who are making Aliya who are not trained in the IDF.
And, you know, there's a lot, gun control is very, very serious in Israel.
It's funny, right? People think it's this, everyone's walking around with the gun. It's not. That's not what it's like.
But again, with the increase of, you know, people who lawfully, you know, entitled gun owners,
You're seeing more and more neutralized terrorists.
That's just the fact that's what you said about the debt.
What you're saying is you have a different, you have a citizenry, many of whom have been through the military service of the IDF, right?
Not all, but many, many, who have been trained in weaponry pretty well.
And you're also saying that there is a serious, there are regulations as to gun ownership that we might not have here.
right?
So it's not the same as the U.S., is it?
Well, it's not the same as the U.S.,
but it is becoming more comparable to the U.S.,
especially as of late,
with the push to increase the gun ownership, right?
So, no, no, of course it's not the same.
But in my opinion, and Sean,
I'm going to defer to your expertise here.
It's not that hard to become adequately trained with a firearm.
It's not.
There's a lot of firearm owner, right?
It's an inanimate object, right?
It's like a vehicle or a knife.
If you leave the vehicle and park in your garage for 20 years, it's not going to drive anywhere.
You leave a gun on a table.
It's not going to do anything, right?
It's the people who pull the trigger.
Well, I guess...
Yeah, and just to trash's point, right?
So the controlled entry thing is a very interesting topic, right?
So I remember, so when I was practiced in New York, I went down the 47th Street a lot, surprise, surprise, right?
The Diamond District.
And what we saw is this, look, there was a large series of robberies at gunpoint and so forth.
So what did all the jewelry store owners do, right?
They put a controlled entry, and it dropped down to zero, right?
You know who's coming in, and...
that's something to be discussed, but I take trust your point very, you know, I take it to heart.
I don't think it's the guns, right? I think it's the people, and that needs to be addressed.
And there's a lot of mental health issues out there, right?
We don't need to get into them, but yeah, it's just, it's not the guns, in my opinion.
By the way, Thira, lovely to see you again.
And to clarify what I was saying real quick, this is important. In order to get a carry, a firearm carrying permit in Israel, you must complete a firearms training course, which includes classroom instruction and live fire training. You must undergo a background check and you must pass a medical and psychological evaluation. So are you saying that those things should also be required to get a firearm permit carry here in the U.S.?
No, that's not what I'm saying whatsoever, right? Because you're going to, you're basically going to brush up against a constitutional issue that's just not going to fly.
What I am saying, though, is I'm just talking about the facts on the ground, right?
So the facts on the ground are, the more lawful, lawful firearms owner that there are in Israel, the less that Israelis there are.
And that's just the fact.
But that's not, but basically, you're making a sort of an account.
Well, you're not exactly making an equation, but you're saying that people are safer and
in Israel certainly if because there are more guns right but in America but you also
have these protections which Dan has just mentioned which we don't have in
America some of which I says so I don't know under understand what the point is
so my I'm actually no my point was this I just wanted to clarify the point of the
early the speaker earlier who was speaking about the see that whatever the six
or 16 year old girl with a gun I'm not
You know, I'm not actually trying to impart Israeli values or law into America.
Clearly, I'm well aware of the limitations on that.
I was just calling out, basically, I was correcting.
That's all.
Let me ask, can I just ask one question?
The people on stage who don't want any, well, let's say, I think there have been some people
who don't want any gun regulations, would you agree to any gun regulations?
Could I? No.
As they are, they're pretty decent as they are.
I would agree to due process.
Sorry, go ahead.
Go ahead.
I was just to say, the only thing that I agree on with regulations is due process-related
regulations.
That I'm okay with.
So, Tira, I've got a question for you.
If you look at the gun crimes, and I'll just look at the statistics now, the vast majority
of them are basically suicide.
And then when you look at the remaining amount, some of them are, a lot of them are accidental death.
Some are due to, they involve law enforcement.
Yeah, justified shooting, yeah.
Yeah, and some are due to undetermined circumstances.
Essentially, when you're looking at the gun crimes, there are a lot less than these larger figures that they're perpetuating.
It's almost like 30% of the actual real number, which looks at around 23,000.
So...
Or even less.
No, it's not even 23,000.
It's about 15,000.
So 15 to 18,000.
So, I mean, again, what it looks like is what you guys are saying.
People are getting guns, but the crime when it comes to guns isn't as major issue as what's being presented.
What's you thought?
Well, I would agree.
Well, this is going to sound heartless, and I don't mean it to be so.
I don't think most of these mass shootings, they don't add up.
to a large total overall, they are devastating personally and for the people involved.
But as a number, I do not think they are a huge portion of gun deaths in the country, let's just say.
Okay.
So I agree with that.
But as I said, I mean, my view of this is there must, I really do feel that, and this I think would pass constitutional muster if you look at things like training.
I mean, the militia people had to have training before the revolution.
If you look at things like the actually people had to say how much ammunition they had,
they had to tell the heads of their militias what they held.
But Trish, the Second Amendment is no longer linked to militia service.
No, no, no.
But I'm talking about, look, I'm talking about New York Rifle, not Heller, right now.
What I'm saying is that I still believe that there are gun regulations,
akin to regulations that were in place in the colonial era.
We did have certain regulations.
There were things like keep your powder safe,
right tell us how many guns you have they had requirements for training etc i do think some of
these things would still be legal under new york rifle which is a carry thing but you know and and
and under the some of the other gun cases that the Supreme court has decided we don't exactly know
where the lines are but i think there are regulations that would be approved and i guess i'm
trying to figure out if anybody would go for any of these
I mean, I personally have, you know, as I said, insisting that people lock up their weaponry if they have it in their house to me is not a bad idea because kids do get access to guns and they use it to kill themselves, by the way.
Right? So I'm not certain that that's not a, you know, something like that to me. Once again, the question is, do you can't, is one life worth it? You know, I mean, we if you're. So how many is that period? Just out of interest, I actually don't know the day. How many, how many kids are getting? I don't know. I don't know. But what I'm trying to say is if it's 100.
And these regulations are not that onerous.
Should we do it?
I mean, I think a lot of people on stage don't think we should do anything.
I think there's...
Yes, Sean, I think Thorne's argument, and I'm going to give it to him,
his argument is it goes against the Constitution.
So then if that's right, our question to you is, is it worth...
going again we don't know what goes against the constitution yet the court has basically said
that the only gun regulations allowable right now are regulations that would have been in place
or similar to regulations in place in 1791 or 1860 whatever okay that's what they've said
that's why the courts are all over the place right now because nobody knows what exactly is kosher
so to speak
Well, I mean, there's no, there were no gun safes in that era.
I mean, never in mass production.
One could argue that you can't require, but one could argue that you can't require them to keep it safely stored in a gun safe.
Like, especially if someone breaks into my house, the last thing I want to worry about is having to put the code into my gun safe to get my handgun out of it, especially since we do have the right to self-defense.
And that that's a ridiculous impediment on it.
Tira?
As I said, there was a requirement in the, there were regulations, okay?
You had to keep track of who had firearms.
You had to keep track of the storage of gun pattern, right?
And you had to store it safely.
Now, you could argue, once again, that this is similar to storing guns and, or at least
ammunition safely.
So I think that might pass muster is what I'm saying.
But once again, nobody knows, right?
The court has been a little, you know, has left it out there for the circuits and district courts to decide this.
And we will see what happens.
There are a lot of gun cases going up the courts and we'll see what happens.
Tira, let me ask you now.
You know I'm not beating up on you because actually we speak friendly many times and I really respect you.
I actually do.
What are your thoughts on red flag laws?
Because I know what mine are, but what are your thoughts on red flag laws?
Do you think that that's something that we should have?
I think you have to be careful to, I think they need protections.
I think they need due process.
I think there might be a way to do it, but what you'd have to have is the ability to go in there.
It can't be sort of just ex parte, right?
You have the ability to go in.
You have to have evidence.
I mean, you have to have those sort of due process protections in place for people.
I am not opposed to them in theory, but I think the details are what will see whether they're
okay or not.
But I do, I don't think you should have the ex parte ones.
And I think, you know, it's interesting people.
Sometimes it has to be reported by police.
Sometimes your family can do it.
I'm sort of mixed on that because I think family often might know more than, you know,
the local police about who is dangerous, et cetera.
But once again, my view here is.
You would have to allow the person to go in and say, no, you're wrong about this.
Yeah, and one of my concerns, and I'll go to the panelists, we've got some hands up now, so I'm glad this kicked up a little bit.
One of my main concerns here with red flag laws is that now that PTSD is recognized as a mental health disorder,
that many of our veterans who are now getting seeking help as they should be,
versus what happened in the VA, which was a travesty, under PTSD, which I believe is a real thing.
I've dated women who had it, who were in the military, and she had it for good reason.
She was an EOD in the Air Force.
I mean, if she's defusing bombs in a war zone, I would say she probably had a little PTSD from what she saw.
and she was not getting help and now she is and now it's a recognized diagnosis.
The problem is, is that if they institute these red flag laws,
they're going to start attaching it to current disorders.
And I think that that is a slippery slope too far.
And that's the only reason I ask,
because I actually genuinely would like to hear a different argument
than what I believe red flag laws would actually do.
So I appreciate that.
I'm not sure who was next, but I want to go to somebody hasn't spoken yet,
unless Dan you had something, or Sean or Dan, you had something to refute.
Because that's why your hands go up and then, yeah.
Yeah.
I did want to do this real quick.
So we have actually amended the Constitution 27 times.
And the 18th Amendment was to prohibit the manufacturer selling transportation of alcohol.
So it could be rat, you know, we could amend the Constitution to ban the sale and manufacture of guns if Congress so chose to, which I don't think that they will.
And it would just be Congress.
You'd have to get the states to ratify it.
And that's just not going to happen.
Two thirds of the states, it's definitely not going to happen.
Right.
But as far as red flag laws go, I mean, my sister's ex-husband, he's an army war veteran, and he suffered from PTSD.
He was the only survivor in a vehicle that ran over an IED.
And when my sister had divorced him and got full custody of her children, he called her and told her that he was on his way to kill her and her children because she took them away from him because they were in an abusive relationship and so on.
And.
He was actually able to call the police and they went to his house, removed his firearms.
And I mean, I believe that saved my sister and my niece's lives.
So it's really hard with red flag laws and I think they should be a case-by-case basis.
But they, in my life, you know, personally, I think it did save my family.
So, um...
I was going to ask,
let me ask you what's your conclusion Slayman.
Now you said you didn't want to say anything at the beginning.
What's your conclusion now?
Because all sources here and I'd love to hear what your thoughts are, Slayman.
Yeah, I don't, I actually think that weapons should not be banned
for the reasons what we discussed,
which is tyranny against the government and self-defense.
So, okay, tyranny over the, and self-defense.
So you think automatic weapons.
But my main point is tyranny against the government.
That one, for me, that was the better argument.
But then, do you really think a bunch of machine guns in today's advanced?
Like, maybe 20 years ago, it would make sense.
But today, when there's tanks and tactical weapons.
Well, the thing is, first of all, yeah, I'll answer that.
But in terms of warfare, like, first of all,
Having better weapons does help.
And the second point is,
that's not literally how the warfare works.
And whenever you're fighting against tyranny, the government,
you do however you want.
Let's get,
let me just give you one source on that.
So a good example of that is when John Brown,
in America,
who was a,
basically a white person who fought against the slavery and took on the US government and died
and sacrificed his children to do so.
But bro, you're talking about decades ago.
I just said, but that's an example.
But that's an example. He did it with minimum weapons.
If you had better weapons, you might have a better chance.
chance.
But the.
Yeah, but again, you're talking at a time when there's no weaponry like there is now.
You just ignored the point I made.
But in a lot of issues, so there's three issues.
It's the fight that matters in some situations.
In the other situations, things can go to guerrilla warfare.
There's many different circumstances, but things can change.
What I'm saying is you can't predict what's going to happen, but what you can predict
is that you need to, what you can say is that you need to keep yourself in the best situation
possible to stop the tyranny and having better weapons would allow you to do so.
What do you think also you got a tank as a profile photo? Do you think having web, because for me, that argument is probably the more logical one, not logical, but the one that makes more sense to me. I think both arguments are worth discussing, obviously. But that one to me is a better argument than the first, in terms of having automatic rifles or semi-automatic rifles.
Yeah, so I think the first thing, the historical context, right, of the Second Amendment, I think it's important to highlight that,
One of the reasons why the Second Amendment was established in the United States is because the founding fathers were very, very, very concerned about a standing army in the United States, right?
Because they viewed an active standing army as a threat to the republic and kind of like a democratic institution, right?
So...
That was the main reasons, right, so that the states can form militias into combat in time of war, the United States ability, if we were invaded, et cetera, right?
So the founding fathers were very much against a permanent army, as we know it as today.
That all changed after the war of 1812 when Great Britain invaded the United States.
We didn't have a standing army.
They trashed Washington, D.C., burned the White House, burned Congress, etc.
And after that, we kind of had a standing army.
But the standing army that the United States had was very, very, you know, still very ineffectual until, you know, post-World War II and then the Cold War, where we acknowledge, okay, we need a permanent standing army deployed around a world to me.
You know, and again, I come from this from a very, oh, you know, I'm sorry to yourself, but this idea that the Second Amendment is to defend itself because the tyrannical government is the best way to fight a tyrannical government.
You know, there has been countless studies done, you know, and I know people are going to push back and I could easily cite them and get them.
But the most ineffectual way to fight actually a tyrannical government, especially post-World War II, is through armed insurrection.
Right. I mean, just let's put an example, Syria.
right syria is a perfect example of of just how ineffective utilization of an arm insurrection you can
even use libya as an example it wasn't until nato got involved that overthrew goddafi was it because
it nato had to get involved right in post world war two you know the the idea that somehow
utilizing an arm insurrection when in historically the state's best tool vietnam
the tyrannical government to fight, you know, is utilization of weapons.
And so an armed insurrection actually fight, you're fighting against the strongest aspect of a modern state with everything we've done.
Maybe 200, 300 years ago, we could have had that conversation.
But modern day, I mean, no, it's just not how, countless studies have been shown.
Armisturrections.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan.
Right. But so, yeah, but Afghanistan, the United States just pulled out because we're like, we're done, right? There was domestic political reasonings why we're done. And I think one of the irony is if you look at the post-World War II, let's look at two countries, right, of key important historical aspects, right? It's Japan and Germany, right? What does the United States do post-World War II in Japan and Germany? We basically wrote their constitutions.
What is the first thing we ensured that neither Japan or Germany had a right to second amendment?
And the United States had a vested interest to ensure that Japan and Germany did not have tyrannical governments, you know, stood up again, right?
We did not establish the Second Amendment in Japan or Germany.
So what you're saying is that because the U.S. didn't give Japanese citizens the right to bear arms so they couldn't overthrow their government that they wanted in place, proves your point.
I'm putting, it's proving the point that it's not to stop, you know what I mean.
No, but I mean, I mean, maybe, okay, so let's look at post-World War II.
Where have we seen the most historic dictatorships falling through?
The people is internal coups.
That's number one. Number two, if you look at, let's say, Serbia, Milosevic,
demonstration, right? I mean, I can use examples, but you're going to come to me as like,
oh, this is color revolutions, right? But if you look like throughout the post-World War II,
we consistently see that arm insurrection, you're fighting the state at its strongest,
as such is not the most effectual way to prevent a tyrannical government for rising.
And again, I'm actually somebody who's in favor of the Second Amendment.
I just believe that, you know, common sense gun control.
I also believe that, you know, this idea that unlimited guns as an ability that, that if you're not in favor of the Second Amendment then, all sources?
I am.
I am in favor.
Yeah, Myanmar.
Common sense gun control.
That would go against second.
So let's locate.
Myanmar.
I'm glad.
Who brought up Myanmar?
Uh, weapon and outfiters.
Okay, so in Myanmar, so what happened in Myanmar, right?
So the military launched a coup, right, overthrew Yangtuki,
Ani Suu Kyi was overthrown, and then they did a massive repression campaign against a Myanmar population,
and then they did, what happened was instead of doing through peaceful protests,
they took up arms and they've been in a civil war since basically three years from now, right?
The Myanmar junta is still in power.
They're not in any way, shape, or form threatened to be overthrown.
And so I am sympathetic to the people from Myanmar.
I'm also sympathetic to the Syrian rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad.
I'm sympathetic to everybody.
I'm not saying, do not take arms to fight for your democratic freedoms.
But the argument is that is it the most effective way to fight a tyranny, and it's not?
At least they have that option.
At least they're not in like cattle cars, right?
At least they have the ability to fight back and not just be...
put into mass graves. I mean, I'm Asian myself, so I'm pretty familiar with all the crazy stuff
that happens around in Asian countries in the last thousand years, I mean, hundred years.
But at least they have the ability. And also, if they had the guns beforehand...
maybe the government wouldn't have been so happy to overthrow the democratically elected government.
Isn't there that like, oh, deterrence, the deterrence effect of private firearms.
They're less likely to do these things to begin with.
No, no, I'm sorry.
That's just not factually correct.
I'm like, look, if you can show me an example, all sorts.
If you can show, can you show an example of a state that had a arms of a citizenry like we do?
Like comparable to the United States or Canada that turned tyrannical and there wasn't a horrific response by the citizenry.
So you're asking as, so, so, okay, here's a perfect example.
Here's a perfect example.
So if you look at, let's say, let's go to, uh,
So Somalia, Sead Baer, right?
So Siad Baer was overthrown, right?
He was a dictator of Somalia overthrown.
Somalia actually has one of the most, besides the United States, actually has one of the most armed sinseysries in the planet besides the United States per capita, right?
Besides the United States.
No institutions, yeah.
Right.
Right. But they're not united.
That's exactly the point.
You got, that's exactly the point I was getting out without institutions.
Because what happens, right?
When you analyze conflict zones like that, like Somalia, when you armed citizens,
there's this idea in people's mind that the people will always agree on one form of government
and it's a tyrannical government against the people and the people have democratic aspirations.
What happened is that that's not what happens.
It's a breakdown of rule of law, breakdown of institutions, the breakdown of law and order, and then it's just whoever's the mightiest in the sides and warlords form, right?
Somalia is the perfect example of what happens when a dictatorship is overthrown by armed conflict and then people are armed to the teeth, right?
It's a complete of the rule of law.
Okay, so, but like literally right now today in the United States of America, some people could argue that we do have a tyrannical government.
We live in a nation where 86% of the time the candidate with more money wins.
We have corporations and billionaires putting unlimited amount of money.
That's not tyranny.
That's not what that is.
Yeah.
Who said the U.S. government is tyrannical?
Yeah, that's not what tyranny is.
I mean, I don't think, I don't think you've seen.
I'll help them out.
Yeah, like COVID.
It's pretty common.
COVID lockdown is a good example.
What happened in Michigan during the COVID lockdown?
COVID lockdown happened, yeah, but the COVID lockdown happened around the world saying all governments are tyrannical because of the COVID lockdowns.
It was very tyrannical.
I mean, tyranny literally refers to.
I would say that's a very good example of why people should, why people should.
That is for me, but what happened in COVID where there was a mass.
government intervention in the lives of people and literally controlled it.
And if the now, the next time it happens, people are going to speak out and you do need to be able to defend yourself.
Wren, yeah, so lockdowns were state, I don't know how lockdowns mean as a tyrannical government.
Was it a step too far in government overreach?
Yes, but to paint the US government at the democratic system that's available in the US as a tyrannical government,
is, yeah, a step way to.
And there was zero federal lockdown, by the way.
This was all handled by the individual state,
so it's important to note that.
Yeah, I was going to make that point as well.
And tyranny occurs when absolute power is granted to a ruler.
And again, they kind of Sean kind of countered that by saying it was a state,
it is decision state by state, best of the information they had.
I don't agree with that supposition.
I don't agree that tyranny only occurs when absolute power is given to truth.
Well, I'm just, I'm reading the definition.
I don't really care.
Yeah, you can basically be.
You don't care, hold on, you don't care what definition of a word is.
That's a great argument.
No, no.
While you're reading,
may I give my...
No, hold on.
Yeah, it's lower it in a second.
And can I move on to the point?
You're saying you don't care about definition.
I don't know what to say to that, bro.
Yeah, I'll answer you a question, bro.
I'll actually ask you the question so you can answer.
So you're saying,
unless there was me news,
unless there was two people
who now basically terrorize the entire nation
and basically oppressed them to the level
of what one person could do,
that's no longer tyranny, forgot to you.
What?
Right.
Your thing,
Right.
Your thing, tyranny is only, tyranny can only occur if it's one individual where it basically power central...
I'm not saying this.
I'm reading the definition from Britannica.
I don't make up the dictionary.
I don't make up definitions.
The definition of tyranny, I'll read it again for you, is an order.
So probably you should look it up before we get into the debate.
I think it'll help you, Slaman.
But...
it's a form of rule in which one individual exercise power without any legal restraint.
So it's saying in the US there's one individual exercising power without any legal restraint.
You want to oppose that definition or can we go back to the point that's also something?
That's wrong.
Oh, okay, the dictionary is wrong, man.
You're taking way to be fine.
Now you're arguing, Dan, just hold on.
I want to enjoy this.
You're arguing with the dictionary, bro.
How can I argue with you now?
If I'm allowed to speak, Mario, tyranny can be applied by a government as well.
It doesn't have to be one individual.
Come on, bro.
You should know the basics.
I'm reading, I don't know.
I'm reading a fucking dictionary.
Look, everyone's like, this is like basics.
Like, we all know this.
We read it.
If you read a bit.
All know this.
I'm reading a dictionary.
Oh, this is becoming political philosophy, right?
Because you're not talking.
Let's go political.
I think it's more interesting than trying to change the dictionary.
So I looked up to it to kind of, to go back to all sources point.
And maybe if anyone can count of that particular point, I'm actually interested.
Because that one is, it's tougher to debate.
Yeah.
because it's something that is not too many examples to use and difficult to research.
So while you guys were debating and also was giving all these examples,
I looked up at a certain of research the four examples of where a government was overthrown
without citizens taking up arms.
And the four examples that were given were the people power revolution in the Philippines.
And in those a few dozen to several hundred were dead.
The second one is the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia,
which is now called Czechia, I think Czechoslovakia.
Czech Republic and Slovakia, because they played after that.
Oh, yeah, yeah, of course, of course, yeah.
Czech Republic is now Czechia and then Slovakia.
Relatively few casualties, I think just about a few dozen.
The Arab Springs, hundreds, but Arab Spring has many various aspects,
somewhere citizens took up arms and others they did not, so probably too broad.
I'll cut that one off.
And the fourth one is the fall of the Berlin Wall, relatively few casualties.
And then I'm like, all right, give me examples of where a tyrannical government was overthrown
through citizens taking up arms.
The examples, and again, guys, I'm looking for more context here.
The examples that were given were the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Libyan Civil War.
So three examples are three.
In these three examples, the first one, 25,000 Americans died.
The second one, the French revolutions, I think there were 700,000 deaths.
Just looked it up now.
In Libyan Civil War, there were thousands of deaths.
So the point I'm making is that if there is a tyrannical government, citizens taking up arms,
While it might sound noble, is it really the best solution?
Is the examples to make one point another?
And we'd love different takes on this one.
Oh, and the important aspect of Libya was that there was NATO intervention for it to be successful
because the Libyan rebels were going to be crushed by Gaddafi.
It required NATO intervention to prevent that.
I think that's an important context as well.
Yeah, I think that's a good conclusion.
But, Roy, to conclude it on my end is that citizens could take up arms,
and all that would do is that would lead...
Actually, I'm going to counter myself as well.
So citizens could take up arms, and what that could do is,
militarily they cannot win.
We know if all Americans took up the arms,
went to the streets,
at the end of the day,
if the government was eventually tyrannical,
which obviously were far from that,
but if the government became tyrannical,
and once kill its own citizens,
and there's no way the citizens would win.
There's no way they could beat the tank.
But the other, can I make the other kind of point?
And whoever said, I'll have a disagree.
I want to hear your thoughts, please.
But to make the count, I want to counter myself.
Because the other...
And the other side of the argument, it might, it might, citizens having weapons might make it less likely for a government to even become tyrannical.
So that's the kind of account.
I'm countering myself there.
But whoever said, I strongly disagree.
I want to hear your thoughts.
I was one of my strongly disagree with that because it would be it wouldn't be like a war with battle lines.
It would be within neighborhoods.
And so I think the president, whether you support him or don't support him, I think he said something like the American government has tanks and F-16s and bombs.
But they're not just going to strafe their own neighborhoods.
and if you have a bunch of individuals with arms,
it's just a matter of time.
Have you seen, so Justin,
have you seen tyrannical governments?
They don't give a fuck.
They've,
they've gone through neighborhoods.
You're talking about tyrannical government,
and if there's an insurrection.
How many times we said tyrannical government
after arguing for like 20 minutes
that there's no such thing?
A tyrannical government, okay, you're being, oh no, let's see Slyman try to be a smartest.
Let's, no, no, let me try to get there, because obviously you have to move away from the conversation
because you want to be a smartass.
You're taking this personal.
Let's not give value.
Let me ask you, yeah, let me show.
A tyrannical government.
Okay, let me, no, no, no, let me, you want to take a jab.
All right, let me read definition of tyrannical government.
and then we'll continue back to the debates
we can have value.
And I'll explain it myself
before looking at the dictionary.
Tyrannical government, again,
is a government led by one person
that has absolute power.
So nice trying.
It would still be a person,
one person having power
based on a dictionary,
not my own definition.
A tyrannical government
would be led by one person with power.
So there's your response.
Now, can we go back to Justin's point?
If it is a tyrannical government
and it is getting to that stage,
we've seen the examples I gave
and,
You saw what happened.
Libya, we saw what happened.
Syria, we saw what happened.
So I'm just wondering, is that the best solution?
Oh, we should bring, we're talking about insurgencies in a broad term now.
And this is kind of like something you'd want to have the special forces officer here to talk about.
Because there are, it's a very well-studied military subject.
You got to bring up that in the American Revolution, you had the French providing military and,
logistical support.
But you're right, I think.
I think we need people that are experts in this field.
But we bring it back to insurgency.
You're not fighting a tank.
You're not fighting a fighter plane.
You're blasting the fighter.
You're kidnapping the fighter jets, pilots, family,
and telling him not to strafe.
You're attacking the logistical supply chains of your own country, your own backyard.
You can't have a M1 tank patrol a town looking for insurgents.
You know what I mean?
Like,
That's the whole point of the Second Amendment.
It's like we're actually trying to police each other,
make sure that we're all armed and then we all respect each other
in the institutions of democracy.
When you say police each other, like I had a panel yesterday in which,
you know, I'm a big investor in the crypto space in the Web 3 space.
And one thing in crypto they say is that, yeah,
and one thing in crypto, what they say is that, hey, we want to regulate each other.
It's called self-regulation.
We don't need regulators.
And then we saw what happened with FTCX and Luna and all these other scams.
Like the concept of protecting each other and holding each other accountable.
Well, that's Bitcoin, right?
Right?
You have to have 51% of the network.
Let me, let me, the point I'm making is that the concept of, you know,
keep holding each other, holding oneself, one another accountable.
And every single advanced economy, every single country that has, you know, wealth and is doing well,
it's not us holding each other accountable.
It's a government, a system that is built
with a certain structure from the top to bottom.
We hold...
Okay, I don't think you're getting the point.
It was mentioned earlier, the U.S. military might against all these very unarmed, no tactical, no revenue insurgents over Afghanistan for how many years.
And when we left there, they still had quite a few people and immediately took everything back over again.
And, you know, the United States citizens have a lot more tech and a lot more capability than that.
Yeah, and we're also not willing to kill all our neighbors.
Hold on.
That's also correct, yeah.
Can I address that?
So this kind kind of goes into the special forces example that weapons was getting at, right?
And where there's a fundamental.
So that is a foreign invasion, right?
So we utilize Afghanistan and Vietnam as examples of fighting.
Those are foreign invasions where the goal is you will outlast the foreign invader, right?
Right.
So that's one example.
But I don't think anybody can hear it tell me that the Taliban in Vietnam,
currently under a communist regime, are examples of democracies, right?
If anything, the Taliban in the communist...
Communist Party in Vietnam are very authoritarian, right?
And so there's a fundamental difference when we're talking about doing insurgents to fight and foreign invasion when you're trying to outlast and sap the political will of your opponent to continue to fight, which, yes, those are two great examples that have been successful, but there's also countless other examples that have failed, right?
Right.
Malaysia is a perfect example where the British outlast the Malai emergency by overwhelming military power and then just did atrocious actions to maintain power in Malaysia to ensure that the communist guerrillas were not successful, right?
So the Philippines is another example where insurgencies for decades have not been an example.
Myanmar has been in a state of insurgency since the 60s.
where they had not been successful, right?
And so, again, there's a difference between fighting a foreign invasion,
which, again, everybody has the right to defend their country, right,
and fight as they deemed fit.
But to say that Afghanistan and in Vietnam,
when you're arguing that it fights a tyrannical government
when both the Taliban and the Communist Party in Vietnam
are the exact opposite of democracies,
and I think that's an important distinction to make.
And again, I'm saying this as somebody who's in favor of everybody
having the right to defend themselves, right?
just within some common sense gum reform and gun control.
Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right.
It's definitely not the same situation.
100%, you know, 100% I agree with you.
I think that an armed citizenry in the United States has a bigger advantage, is my point.
Yeah, we basically can't force a democracy at gunpoint.
Like, we have to trust each other.
It's kind of like a Robert Heinlein quote,
where the arms society is a polite society.
Like, if the institutions, the trust in institutions completely dissolved,
and yeah, we'd start blasting at each other.
It'd be terrible.
Democracy is basically war up until the point of violence.
We scream at each other and call each other names,
but we never...
Want to cross that line because we know once we go past that it's bad.
Yeah, so we're going down this path because we're missing or we got kind of distracted by some invalid parts of all sources premise related to the militia clause of the Second Amendment.
And let me just lay this out here for you.
So it's very, very clear.
See, the reason you have a statement in the Second Amendment in the United States for militia.
is not because of the exigency of a militia being needed,
but because the exigency of an armed citizenry being necessary in case a militia was going to be there.
And let me lay this out historically.
I agree. I agree.
My friend David Copel, who wrote...
an article, he's with the Independence Institute in Colorado or has been.
He wrote an article called the American Revolution for gun control.
And one of the, he lays out a lot of historical parts of this that are very important.
But the major one is a lot of people don't know what was happening at Lexington and Concord
when the shot fired around the world was shot, so to speak.
And here's what was happening.
There was, word had been gotten back to American citizens that the British were spying out a cachet of weaponry that people, that men in Lexington had put together.
And so what they decided to do, when they found out that the British were marching that direction to take the cash away from them,
They gathered up everything in there, and then they opposed the red coats that were coming to Lexington on the bridge there, and thus we have the whole story.
The reason that the militia provision of the Second Amendment's there is because of the fact that Americans were so perfectly and well-armed that they were able to fight the revolution.
And one other point I want to make on this.
You know, a lot of people also don't understand this little factoid about the revolutionary period.
Again, all of this helps us understand the Second Amendment better in the United States.
The American citizens, on average, not entirely, but on average, had vastly superior weapons than the greatest standing army in the world at the time.
The Redcoats.
They used the brown best, the Kentucky long rifle, and a couple other designs were available and broadly distributed within the American population.
Now, they were a rag-tag military starting out.
They screwed up all the time.
But these guys could be both snipers and face-to-face soldiers with a superior weapon.
And it allowed this part to have the ability to continue on and to win that war.
So they wanted the personal weaponry to be there to maintain that advantage at that time.
But I think we're in agreement.
Maybe you disagree with me.
But the premise I was making is that the founding fathers...
Especially James Madison, I think is the perfect example, was extremely concerned about having a very active standing military.
Right? I think that is a fair...
Yeah, but that doesn't relate here.
No, I get that.
And I understand that in the militia.
And you're right, all sorts.
You're absolutely right about that concern.
In fact, it was a grave concern.
I think it remains a concern to be candid, but that's a topic for another day.
But the point is, though, let's look at what the functional aspect of all this is.
When it comes to the militia need that existed very clearly in the United States of that time,
and that made a revolutionary war even possible to begin with,
was the personal ownership of weapons and broadly owned amongst a majority of the populace.
So that was a key advantage.
It's not the only thing.
And there are a whole lot.
It's more complicated than this.
But that was one key advantage.
that allowed a standing army to eventually get to Yorktown
or else that wouldn't have happened.
And that was the functional reason for the Second Amendment there.
I got to bring up one point, though.
It's like the anti-gun camp.
They don't even want to argue the constitutional point
because that's pretty much been settled.
Because that's a brick wall they can't pass.
Yeah.
So anyways, I'm traveling.
I got to talk to my wife.
I've been on this for three hours.
It's great talking to you all.
Thank you all very much.
Talk to you later.
Bye-bye.
Yeah, but one other thing I want to point out, since all the course had gotten us down that path, and it's a useful one, I think trying to adjudicate the aspect of gun ownership that opposes potential tyranny, which I do believe is part of the whole process, really is not the fundamental purpose. And it goes beyond the Second Amendment, what I'm about to say. I believe firmly.
that the right to own to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right beyond what we do in the Constitution, largely because of the self-protection aspect of it.
But just in general, it's a basic liberty. Individual liberty is what we attempted to do in this country.
and that we have modeled where we could, particularly post-World War II,
in countries we helped reconstruct thereafter,
to develop a system, if possible, of individual liberty where individuals
can make their own decisions and that where we adjudicate problems through government is where individuals right so jim i have a
question said that you said okay jim she had it said a question and by the way my question might make me seem like
i'm i'm a pro gun control anti-gun control i really don't have that stance it's very very nuanced and
i'll tell you what where that nuance is clear with this following question jim
So your statement was the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right, correct?
That is correct.
I say it.
Okay.
So do you think a grenade launcher should be legal?
And I'm not this stupid example, but I'm making a point with this.
A grenade launcher should be legal to hold a grenade launcher?
Absolutely.
Excuse me?
Absolutely.
You think people could walk down the street holding grenade launchers, man?
So if someone has a mental illness, he can get a grenade launcher and blow up a bus with 20 people?
I didn't say mental illness.
You can already buy grenade launchers right now in the US.
Holy shit.
Hold on 266.
Yeah, I never said you said mental people.
I'm saying, okay, oh yeah, true, because then you have certain checks and balances.
But just sorry, Sean, you can actually, the average joke can get a grenade launcher in the US.
I can go online right now and put in an order for an M203 grenade launcher.
I was right.
He's right.
That's crazy. So you have to go through a shit ton of watch.
There's the distinction to draw there because you can't get the ammunition for it.
You can't get the ammunition and you have to get paperwork on each one of those too.
Right. You can, yeah, if you get special paperwork and get cleared, yes.
And what do you need to get? What do you require to get the special paperwork?
Mario, it goes through the regulation aspect, right? And so I think that,
So again, I don't disagree with the new.
Let me, before, before you give us a speech, all source.
Just quickly, Sean, what do you need to, what are you required to be able to get ammunition for a grenade launcher?
So they're registered, they're considered by the government what's called a destructive device.
So you have to go through the process to get a destructive device permit and go through the whole process to purchase it.
And you're going to have to, so the MTO3 grenade launcher itself is registered as a destructive device.
And any time you'd get something like an explosive grenade, you'd also have to register that with the government as a destructive device.
But what do you need? Can average, can you, like, can anyone get one as long as you don't have a mental illness or a criminal record? Can you get the ammunition?
If you have the money?
It's extremely unlikely, you can get one.
No, it's not extremely unlikely. You can absolutely go buy a NEM2 or three grenade launcher right now.
That is not unlikely.
With the ammunition.
No, we're going back to the ammunition distinction.
What do you need, get just, I'm, it's a simple question.
What do we need, who can get ammunition for a grenade launcher? Can someone give me that basic fact?
You'd have to have someone who manufactures it willing it to sell it to you.
That's going to be the main issue is finding someone willing to sell it.
Okay, so it's not easy.
So, Sean, so it's not easy.
I mean...
You can get non-explosive rounds, and then you can personally convert them yourselves.
I'm not talking about personally you can create bombs and go blow up a bus.
I'm saying legally, what do you need to get?
What he's trying to communicate, Mario, is the fact that there are manufacturers very hesitant to even make such things
because it's icky and scary, and that's fine.
I mean, that's just the free market, and that's the situation we're at.
But that's what he's trying to communicate.
His main argument is Mario.
I don't think it's actually legal to...
I don't think it's...
No, no, it's actually valid to my point. I'll tell you why.
But sorry, go ahead, Justin.
Now, this is gray area for me, so someone knows more, that's fine.
Okay, so I'm pretty sure it's illegal.
Be at least, sorry, just sorry to interrupt you, Justin, but be at least 18 years of age.
U.S. citizen or a permanent, oh shit, legal permanent resident as well, okay.
Three, pass a background check and be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Okay.
Pay a tax of $200 for each individual launcher and any associated ammunition.
Register the launcher and ammunition with the ATF.
So what is the requirement for 0.3?
Let's see.
To get it back and be approved by the ATF.
Okay.
It's similar to an ATS requirement for being able to get an automatic weapon.
Like, you've got to go through a process.
Yeah, so it shows that you need a criminal history check, a mental health check,
a review of the individual's eligibility to possess claims,
or it says here there's a mental health check.
What they're going to do is they're going to do the same next check that there is for any other firearm.
So if you've not been like a voluntarily committed, you're going to be fine.
Yeah, they're not going to do a mental health.
They're going to have evaluation.
They're just going to do a check.
There's no evaluation.
Okay, so just let me take it a step further, Jim.
And there's a reason I'm making.
I didn't, I thought grenade launcher is going to be no, you're not allowed.
So I don't know it's possible.
It's crazy.
Can you get, can you get a C4?
I'm guessing you know, or a tank.
I'm guessing no, correct, Jim?
By C4, do you mean the explosive?
Yes.
I'm not absolutely clear on that, but I do believe you can get C4, yes.
But probably in limited amounts.
It may be restricted, though.
I'm not absolutely certain.
Yeah, it's restricted.
It's another ATF.
No, it is generally not legal for private citizens to purchase or possess C4 explosive in the U.S.
C4 is classified as high explosive.
Okay, so to go back, so yeah, the only way to get C4 is to be a licensed explosive dealer or manufacturer.
So glad there's a line being drawn somewhere.
So my question to you, Jim, and I think we all agree that there should be a line drawn somewhere.
An average citizen should not be able to get tanks.
Otherwise, you'll get a crazy billionaire, get a whole bunch of tanks.
You can buy tanks in the US.
Yeah, you can buy tanks.
theoretically I would not restrict it, but I mean, you know, we might make laws to that regard and there might be reasons for that.
Like, for example, that might be, I'm not making a big advocate here because I don't care to get a tank.
But you might say in the United States where we have a lot more room, and there are other countries like this too, but I'm just using the U.S. as an example.
where you have a lot of room, places that you could store it,
place that you could actually drive it, potentially.
I mean, you know, okay, sorry, so Jim, I'll make my,
I, okay, you guys are crazy.
This is insane, goodbye, thank you.
But to go back to the point, I'm trying to make.
You can buy thanks in the UK, Mario.
Jesus, man.
Maybe I should go to the UK and get a tank.
There are some distinctions here that are important to go over.
For example, you can't, like the weaponry on them is disabled because it's property
of the U.S. military, and when they offload it, they disable that stuff.
So, yes, you can get a tank, but you can't drive it around on public streets because it's
because you're not allowed to, you'll get arrested if you do that.
So if you have a giant amount of property, sure, you can drive your tank around.
It'll cost you, like, I don't know, a couple million dollars to get a tank.
I don't know.
Yeah, you can drive it around on your property all you want,
but you really can't drive it on public roads or anybody else.
Well, let me throw this out here.
There's a reason I'm making these statements.
I mean, I really believe what I'm saying.
I'm not just only doing it from your argument.
Here's the point.
We have so...
gone after weapons that seem scary, some that really are and some that aren't like, you know,
AR-15s are not scary any more than any other gun in any way, shape, or fashion.
We make things scare because an AR-15 just has stuff on it that makes it look like a cool gun compared to other rifles.
Before you're going down, you're going down a different path, Jim. I just want to kind of finish my point. So the point I wanted to finish...
And Laura, I will get your thoughts because now you've been trying to jump in for a while.
But the point I wanted to finish, Jim, is there's lines drawn.
I thought those lines were a lot more restrictive than they are.
I didn't know it's legal to buy a tank.
But like there, for example, C4 explosives, that line is drawn.
And Sean, I know you're a proponent of limited gun control or maybe even no gun control,
but do you think that certain levels of control like C4 explosives is fair?
Sean, just get an idea of your stance?
Sure.
I think the second event pretty much covers,
and my personal idea behind it,
is like firearms and things like that.
Maybe rockets,
but, like,
I don't see four explosives.
It's just an explosive.
I don't,
I don't see how you can consider that.
It's not quite a good control.
Okay, okay.
Okay, well, the point I wanted to make, Jim, the point.
No, no, no, no, let me finish my point.
And then I'll go to Laura and then I'll go back to you, Jim.
But I wanted to finish my point.
It's like there's some restrictions.
There are restrictions.
And I think most of us would agree that there's some restrictions.
The debate is where should those restrictions be and how far they should go.
It's not whether the citizens should be able to own guns or not.
I think we all agree that, you know, a hunter, even countries that have very
civil gun control, a very strict gun control measures, you could still get a gun to go hunt.
some more extreme than others.
But the point I'm making is that it's nuanced
and the reason I don't have a position
because it is two nuances.
Where do you draw those restrictions?
what are the requirements you need to follow?
Like maybe having stricter requirements
for someone to be able to purchase a gun
would make sense as an example.
So that's my position on it, Jim.
And this is a question of where should you draw those controls?
And I don't think it should be a carte blanche
where anyone could buy any weapon anytime with no restrictions.
So this is where it gets very nuanced.
And maybe we'll go to Laura, Jim, Laura,
and then we'll go to Jim because you had a second point, Laura.
Thank you, Mario, and trash, and whoever brought me up.
I've been trying since day one on spaces to get up here.
So I first want to say thank you.
Laura, it's your first time you've tried for so long.
Yeah, your mic, just start again because your mic...
Sorry, I won't...
I will not be long-winded, but...
No, all good, all good.
Okay, thank you.
And I hope I won't get interrupted, but thank you.
Someone said something about guns are safe and it's easy to train somebody.
That's not true, tell that to Alec Baldwin.
And also the seven-year-old that reached in the teacher's desk and shot the teacher.
Okay.
I am a DOC.gov employee sergeant in a prison.
I've worked with inmates and the mental illness.
And if you have teachers armed, half of them right now are indoctrinating our children.
You don't want them armed.
Also, if a teacher is fired or a police officer or anybody in that, sometimes they brush that record under the carpet and they get hired in other jurisdictions.
So that's not going to work.
There are schools out there that have been made to make our children safe.
And that situation with someone said about the NICS,
you can't run that without a social security number,
and there's no way you're going to guarantee that that person did not falsify their information.
And also, I just, you know, there was so much being said about the militia.
All those people that were there on January 6th, there was no militia.
I live in a state where there's millions of firing going off for hunting.
There's no militia, no shootings.
So the reason I came in because of the title.
Period, the title.
It is the guns.
It's the people.
You got laws.
Use them.
You got 40 times you're arrested.
Keep them in jail.
Don't let them out.
If they need a mental facility, put them in there.
That's what we're lacking.
And we're lacking help for these children when they're young.
And I had so much more, but I am a 2A person, and it's the mental illness, getting professionally
trained.
Right.
Also, I don't believe a teacher should be armed.
And lastly, and I'll get off my little soapbox here and I'll give up the mic because there are people here that have expertise and don't step over each other and argue over and ignore hands is that the one man that stood up to protect others is now being called a murderer and a racist.
And so how are you going to do that with officers in a school or teachers armed when they do stand up?
Just like the officer, the accident you reached for her taser, her gun instead of her taser, and she just got out of prison.
These things happened.
You have to train well.
What happened, Laura?
What's that story?
What's that?
No, Laura, what's that?
That's the case.
You did great.
What's that story you referring to?
Police officer
The Katie Porter situation
Oh what happened
The female officer
She reached seriously
She reached for her taser
She even said
Taser Taser Taser
And she could shot and kill
And they
They persecuted her
She just got out
She did commit manslaughter
That's what that's what happened
Yeah manslotter yeah
But that's not the point
My point was a high level training
And she drew her gun
Yeah, so this is like if you make a mistake.
My point was he made a mistake.
And so what do you think is going to happen with a teacher who doesn't have that in their field?
You know what I mean?
And I'm somebody who carried for 35 years.
And I'm saying this.
So that's what my point is.
Do you want to people around your children?
I just, sorry.
I believe that for the NICS background check, I believe that submission of your social security number is voluntary.
Am I incorrect, John?
It's voluntary, but some people lie.
You can give fake lie detector test, too.
And also, if you get fired, the mystery gets fired for, say, a sexual assault.
If you say you can turn around and get hired somewhere else.
Just like that incident in Tennessee, that police captain was fired from Georgia.
for very poor actions.
But she turned around and hired this gang
who now killed another person
and seven cops were arrested
because she was already fired.
She shouldn't have had another job.
That's what I'm getting at.
You have to file the paperwork.
If you cover up for them and don't use the laws that we have in place, it's going to continue.
That's all.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me up here.
Not at all.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Yeah, so, Sean, all sorts, go ahead.
Thank you.
I know Jim had a second point, so I'll defer to Jim for a second.
Oh, yeah, of course.
Sorry, Jim.
Sorry, yeah.
I was just enjoying Laura's speech.
Go ahead, Jim.
And I stood up for you online tonight, Mario, please.
No, I'm kidding.
Hey, so, no, here's the point that I wanted to make.
Just to finalize sort of what I was saying.
And by the way, I totally sympathize and understand where Laura's coming from.
But this gets to some key issues that I think are critical in understanding,
at least in the United States, and I think other places as well too,
is that, you know, an armed teacher, for example,
who has training and follows a program,
no one would argue that an armed teacher...
should just, you know, just walk in with a concealed carry thing without having, you know, because there's a management issue that the school needs to take there. But they should allow that sort of thing. But the reality is,
when what we are talking about here is an individual right.
And I only bring up the grenade thing because you ask and I answer it.
And it's my opinion.
But the reality is that most people are not going to do such things.
Like anyone that does something like that in this country, at least, is going to be doing it for recreational type purposes and not to go out and commit crimes.
But when people commit crimes...
then we prosecute them.
There are many areas of gun law right now.
We are not prosecuting.
This is particularly happening in some of our major cities right now,
where gun crimes are not being followed up on,
where and they're not being followed up on fully.
And we allow these problems to persist without doing what we should do.
I mean, just this happens in a lot of areas, even like the immigration issue.
We don't follow our present immigration laws.
When you don't follow the laws that are on the books and you don't have any perspective on what to do.
So when you're trying to find limitations.
I believe very firmly you have to stand by the individual right principle because of this.
And then this is the finality of my point and the point I wanted to make.
We look at these scary, icky weapons, and we're all worried about them because they look scary.
Or we heard something scary happened and scary things do happen.
But what we don't understand is, and I know that people get tired of this point, but it's absolutely true.
The guns aren't the scary thing.
It's the people that are scary.
And so when you get to the mental health issue that Laura brought up, which I think is really critical, if we're not going to be willing to deal with mental health issues in this country and recognize...
as it relates to guns,
that the problem is the people, not the guns,
that we're never going to have a rational policy
here or anywhere else in the world.
Because that's the locus of every problem.
Gun or not gun.
C4 or guns.
It doesn't matter when it is.
No, Jim, I'd say, can you hear me?
Okay, I'm just talking, I'm fixing my headset.
Can you hear me fine?
You sound like you're on speakerphone,
but you're hearable, and we can tell.
Oh, okay.
Sorry, I'm just going to.
It's just when you say people, not guns,
I think anyone that's a proponent of gun control is not saying people are not also the problem.
But a crazy person that wants to kill people that's holding a knife versus an automatic, semi-automatic weapon, the one holding a knife is less dangerous.
I think that's the argument being made.
But we both agree.
Both sides agree that people are the problem.
Yeah.
So if people are making that argument, then they're forgetting how you deal with these measures.
Right.
because their solution to dealing with people with problems is for some government agent to come and do something about it.
And that's not the answer to mental health issues.
Like having a security state that comes in and says, okay, we're the people from the government and we're going to tell.
Because how are they more...
How do you have people in government that are more moral, more pristine, more angelic than the populace at large?
That principle does not work, and that is how you get to totalitarianism.
That becomes a slippery slope of totalitarianism.
I'm not saying there's no government intervention of any sort on anything, but what I'm saying is if your solution to the people problem,
is to pass a law and try to impose that upon citizens,
that never will work any better than anything else that you try to do
and maybe cause much worse problems.
Okay, a US police, I've got a good argument to you.
Let me just get the facts.
So I'll tell you my argument.
I think you made a good point, by the way, but read, listen to this.
So you said, you mentioned a point, like, why would the person that's part of the government or part of the police force be trusted to protect people rather than just citizens themselves?
And that's what could lead to tyranny.
So the requirements to be a,
A police officer, number one be a US citizen, number two be at least the age of 18 to 21, hold a high school diploma, possess a valid driver's license, pass a background check including criminal history and drug test, complete police academy training program which lasts several months and includes both classroom instructions and physical training.
pass a physical fitness test,
demonstrate good character, honesty, and integrity.
My brother is a police officer.
And number nine, be willing to work irregular hours.
So this is the requirement to be a police officer
to then stop a crime,
to hold the gun and potentially stop a crime.
Now, to be a random citizen walking in a mob
requires pretty much nothing.
So the point I'm making, though,
is that when you made the argument
that why should we trust the law enforcement is,
to be the one to respond to a crime.
And that's because they go through a very strict criteria to give them the permission, the ability to deal with that crime,
whereas you cannot expect the average draw to do so.
But the other point you make is that if this is taking too far could lead to tyranny, that's a very valid concern.
It's like, where is gun control could take a two-file?
So let me, let you respond.
And we'll go to also sodans just to kind of balance it out.
Go ahead, Jim.
Yeah, so here's my answer to that, Mario.
The vast majority, if we're talking about mass shootings, by the way, there are a lot of other gun crimes that take place.
And the situation I'm going to describe is far worse.
You talk about mass shootings.
Okay, you have these police officers and they're trained and that's great.
And listen, we need a police force.
My problem isn't the police force.
My problem is the laws.
So police don't show up at mass shootings on time typically.
I mean, it's not very common.
So you are relying on the citizen anyway.
Now you're relying on an unarmed citizen who can't do anything if your gun laws are highly restrictive.
And then when it comes to a drive-by...
Like that, then the police is there and all.
Look, I struggle with that argument.
I think the argument of having citizens, having weapons to fight a tyrannical government,
ignore the fact that it's just a right.
I'm just talking about logically pros versus cons,
not whether it's a human's right or what the Constitution says,
because that one's harder to debate.
I'm saying the argument is like having citizens with weapons is a good way to kind of a shooter.
But the kind of argument to that is that you're a lot less likely to have the shooter if weapons...
if there was stricter gun controls.
So that kind of solves the problem in the first place.
Which there's a lot of, but we've gone through studies time after time for hours today and last time.
I've seen the studies point more towards that being a fact.
And I think the argument of having, bearing arms, again, ignoring the constitutional right and ignoring the human right of owning a gun and self-defense.
the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the
the the the the the the the the the the the the the ones will have weapons and
potentially be able to stand up to a tyrannical government for me sounds like a
stronger argument I think Slyman made that same point it's one of the few things
we agree on well let's go let's go let's go let's go to let's go to let's go to
yeah yeah yeah please man we have to also some danish I'll I'll move on from there
listen when when you talk about the the amount of the the amount of guns and crimes
I mean, we have a far more people of gun owners in the United States that don't commit crimes with their guns than do, even as compared to other countries.
That, that alone, when you talk about the number of per capita gun owners, our per capita gun owner crime rate is much lower.
The vast majority of American citizens follow the law with their guns.
One, two...
If you're one, the tyranny argument, I think, is important and valid.
But it's not the most important one.
You do not hear the stories reported because the media in this country won't do it.
Of all of the crimes that are stopped,
by someone who's a law-abiding citizen has a gun.
Those are numerous.
They're well-documented.
We'll go through it at some other time because I don't have to finish my point.
But I would also make that argument too.
That is something that you don't hear reported because we have the gun crime.
No, I don't care what's reported.
I don't care what the media reports.
I just look at statistics.
I just kind of base it on that.
But let's go.
I have the statistics too, which I don't have quickly hand, but you'll get them.
That's the fact.
To that point, Jim, the CDC did that study and they did under the Obama administration, which showed a very high amount, and I wish I had the data with me, but showed a very high amount of defensive use of weapons.
to the point where I think recently in the last six months,
I think some Democrats love this issue or hate this issue,
regardless, but some Democrats tried to bury that data
because it showed how many defensive uses there were.
That could be a little wrong on who was acting to bury that data.
So, guys, let's go to Danish for just to balance it out and then also.
Go ahead.
I wanted to.
I wanted to discuss a little bit more about the mental health issue
and its actual epidemiological data
as it connects to mass shootings or mass murders.
So there's, I'm going to, Mario, I'll send it to you separately,
but there's a really good article out of Columbia
where they actually keep a database called the Columbia mass murder database.
In 2021, Dr. Gerges, he's an expert on severe mental illness,
actually did a study and showed that
approximately and again if I ask actually you know what I'm gonna do this it'll be helpful
Mario I'm gonna ask you directly based on the conversations that we're having right now
if you were to guess what percentage of mass shootings are related to severe mental illness
if you were to guess based on what we're hearing right now Mario what is that number anybody
throw out a number so I would say I mean
Probably severe mental illness.
Yeah, severe, just not just normal mental illness.
Yeah, not just normal mental illness.
Severe mental illness. What percentage? Based on everything you're hearing you.
I'm about 10%, 15%.
That's one out of 20.
Want to be very clear.
But that makes sense because you said severe and the second point is a lot of people
and there's a reason why I use those words.
So you're absolutely right.
Okay, now with non-psychotic, psychiatric or neurological illnesses, including depression,
what does that number go to?
Salaman, feel free or anybody.
Sorry, what was that again?
I want to do this.
Yeah, yeah, Dr. Adams, what did you say?
A non-neurological and...
non-neurologic, any sort of psychiatric issues, including depression.
What does that number go to?
I'd say, if I had to guess, I'd say about 40%.
And again, I'd say the reason is because a lot of them want to be diagnosed.
20%.
Well, that's not true. This is even incidental.
What they did for this database is they actually went and they evaluated them post-event.
So this is, again, really important.
Do you know what they found to be more common?
Substance use was more common?
It was about 30%.
The other big thing was social isolation, not a psychiatric.
So I wanted to bring up this stuff because we keep blaming mental health and we keep talking about the mental health.
isolation.
Why would be,
Danish, why would social isolation?
It's not considered a mental health disorder.
It's considered a social disorder, which are two very, very different things.
And I think it's really important to bring, make that distinction because.
A good example of this is if you were to put a red flag law.
Now, by the way, people that know me are surprised by where I'm going with this.
If you were going to put a red flag law out there, you would only catch one out of five, maybe two out of five.
The real challenge is a destructive challenge that's occurring amongst men in this country.
where we are isolating them, where they feel isolated,
and that actually, if we want to solve the problem,
we have to go to the source.
I actually think, and I wanted to bring this up,
because I don't think red flag laws would work in this country.
And I wanted to go back to that because people keep talking about mental health.
Hey, Sean, we can hear your microwave, buddy.
I was going to say that, you know, that,
Ultimately, you know, when we are thinking about red flag laws and we're thinking about how do we actually police this, how do we come up with good legislation, it would go against people.
It would by far harm, you know, Jim said something which was important, which was that the vast majority of gun owners in this country are not doing violent acts.
Actually, that is true, 85% of Americans who own a gun will never have a violent.
act against another human being their entire life, whether it's in self-defense or any
sort of violent act.
And so with any sort of means, by the way, not just guns.
Can I ask you, I want to ask Von an interesting question, if you don't mind, Danish.
Have you done just someone else a separate question?
Oh, yeah, go ahead.
So, so, so, so, um, a question to you is that you, you've been in a lot of our geopolitic
spaces and covering the Ukraine war and different wars.
So your military knowledge is you and Allsource have a lot of knowledge there.
My question to you is Allsource made this point.
But would, based on the information we have and looking at history,
arming citizens, is that a way to prevent or reduce the likelihood of having a tyrannical government
and a good way to kind of keep your government in check?
And any examples you could give to make your point as well?
I mean, in theory, I get the argument for it.
But, I mean, look, I want to prefix this.
I'm not American.
American domestic policy is not my cup of tea.
So I'm not speaking from expertise or anything like that here.
I didn't ask you about the US.
I just ask you in general looking history and looking at the world.
I mean, it makes sense in the absence of a properly trained militia,
as is the constitutional wording, if not mistaken.
But...
I'll throw a question back at everyone.
How often have armed civilians taken on a modern country's trained military?
Because that's what this entails.
If the government becomes truly tyrannic and starts cracking down with the military,
this didn't work in Syria, did it?
This didn't work very well in...
very many places would have been popular uprisings against
against authoritarian governments, has it?
Off the top of my head, I don't think it has.
So one of the panelists earlier, I think was Roy that made the counter-argument
that, because all sorts made that point, gave a few examples,
but then Roy said, but if look at Afghanistan, for example,
and other examples of where citizens bearing arms or people with limited weaponry
were able to stand up to the US military, what do you think of that point?
I mean, I think it's kind of different because the Taliban have some form of military training.
In fact, some could argue that initially they got that training from the U.S. itself.
So, I mean, there are trained guerrillas.
But that is actually a good point because guerrilla warfare, when done properly, has driven off trained militaries.
Right.
A good case for this, a good case study for this would be Cuba in Fidel versus the versus the Batista government.
If I remember correctly, initially, there was only what, a dozen or two of them and they eventually marched into Havana.
So that's, it could go either way. I think it depends a lot on circumstances, a lot on how large and how well trained and how well armed the armed forces is. So there is a case to be made. I'll happily concede that.
Cool. I just want to ask you that question. And I do want to go back to the points Danish made Slayman. So I'd love your thoughts on those points. I know I just completely digressed for a second. I'm not the best host, man.
No, no, I thought Danish made an excellent point.
Mario, you're a great host. I will not stand for you shit talking Mario like that.
Yeah, exactly.
Look, I try to bring myself down sometimes
because Slamans's ego has been wounded today.
So I try to bring myself down so Slamans feels a bit happy.
But yeah, look, I am a fucking killer host, I know.
And I made a, like, I have, my weakness is not finding
the right co-hosts at times.
but at least I found trash
so it's going well there
but what do you agree with
in terms of Danish's point
what do you agree with Slema
what's the other than he made
a very strong point
that he said that look
when people are advocating for
basically
requirements to get guns being into mental health
where there's a significant amount of people
who are carrying out these attacks
that wouldn't fall into that requirement
which is due to social isolation
now that's a separate
but mental health is
but mental health is only one factor
among many Danish
That's what he said.
That's what Darnish was saying.
Oh, okay.
Well, then we agree.
You just proved this point.
Comes to red black laws.
There's a...
Danish, you're breaking out.
Matrix attack.
Oh, sorry, I think I'd muted myself.
Can you guys hear me now?
Yeah.
Yeah, man, yeah.
What do we, Matrix?
Stake.
Darnish is part of the Matrix, according to you.
True, true.
So, every time it comes out, he's about to come out.
Anyway, I can hear with Dynch.
That's fair.
The point that I was going to make was that the red flag laws, unfortunately, are discriminatory in nature because the large majority of people with mental health issues are actually not, you know, they're
They're not the people that are going and doing these mass shootings.
And on the other side of it is that the people that are doing these mass shootings
often don't have a mental health disorder.
It's sort of, to be completely honest,
and please don't take this personally any of the people from the right,
everybody's wrong in their own special way, right?
I think everybody's a crook.
That's my actual belief.
But on the right, they are scapegoating mental health as a scapegoat
for some of these mass shootings when we don't want to talk about the harder part,
which is that we're having a social decay of men in this country.
And I think that...
For example, a 2018 analysis by Mother Jones found that 63% of mass shooters in the US
between 1982 and 2018 displayed signs of mental illness before their attacks.
63%.
Another analysis by the National Council Behavioral Health found that an estimated 25% of mass shootings
in the US involved a perpetrator with diagnosed mental illness.
Exactly.
So it took me...
Okay, so you're making...
So there's a very big difference between those two.
You just said it...
Actually, you said the quiet part out loud.
Both of them...
Hold on, what do you mean? What do you mean?
25%...
One out of four have a diagnosis.
By the way, that diagnosis includes...
depression Mario I bet you of the people how many people are listening right now 7400 I bet you
2,000 of them have a diagnosis they're in America at least 2,000 of them have a diagnosis of
depression depression is not a fair diagnosis to include in this category in my opinion imagine
Mario somebody could take away your right to having anything just because you have a diagnosis of
depression are we kidding right now
So I just want to think about everybody in your life and how many of them have diagnosed.
That's not the point I made, Don.
It's not a point I made, though.
Like what percentage of the population do you said, what, look,
what percentage of the U.S. population, let's look at it, have a mental illness disease?
Diagnosis, including depression, by the way.
I'm including depression, yeah.
Well, that's the depression is included.
According to an estimate, 20%, yeah, that's what number you mentioned earlier.
Exactly.
There you go.
So the point is that you can't separate it from the background.
Jesus, astonished.
You just opened up a whole topic for another space.
One in five U.S. citizens are diagnosed with mental illness.
Exactly.
Yeah.
That's my point.
That means, hold on, hold on, one, two.
So we have, like, at least two people on the panel right now that have a mental illness,
statistically speaking.
That's fucking ridiculous.
This is depressing is head.
What he's arguing is.
And one fifth of the people carrying it out are doing it.
And it's not because of mental health, is it?
So, Simon, I just want to say, like, my conclusion is, like, first, man, you're a great co-host, man.
I really, like, everything I said on mean, man.
And I'm a big fan of the way you co-host.
Sorry for everything I've said.
And, uh...
Yeah.
But can I add one point.
To the point that I'm trying to make, though, and by the way, when you start taking into account severe mental illness, which includes schizophrenia, which includes bipolar disorder, which includes psychosis.
Does that not include depression, though?
That does not include depression.
That actually represents about 5% of the population.
And Soleiman might remember, because he was listening to me when I was speaking earlier,
that, by the way, that 5% is about the same number in mass shooters.
So again, severe mental illness is not a great predictor of who is going to do what.
It's in the background data.
This is what's important.
So what we're doing, and again, I don't want to blame one side of the other, but it is the right more than the left.
That is blaming severe mental illness for this problem.
Jennifer, what do you think at this point?
Yeah, no, so I'm really concerned about the red flag laws and the mental health diagnosis, and specifically, of course, I work with education.
And the entire system now is a mental health intervention, which means that they are proactively –
That's their words, that they're proactively identifying children that should be flagged.
And so they're collecting data on them.
And then you've got the Teachers Union, the American School Counseling Associations that all have decided that you can be classified as this.
If you don't align with this radical ideology, this will all align with those red flag walls.
They're going to use this and they're,
Every day at school, there are more and more kids that are being identified through this proactive system, and they're going to use it to take their rights away, whether they should have them taken away or not.
It's really dangerous what we're doing.
But I agree.
It's a conversation.
Can I say something?
Just to add to what you were saying,
in terms of like the proportion of people
who carry out these attacks
are people with mental health and social issues.
If you add both of them figures together,
then you get to about 60% don't you on that study.
that's correct and so and so it is those two issues combined that when you combine the mental health and social issues that actually are the reason for those attacks and the reasons that is my thought my thought is danish you know for example like obviously
Obviously, I'm Muslims. So Muslims are blamed for like terrorist attacks in certain countries. And for me, this is just again people with mental health or social issues. But the way they carry out is that way and some people carry out this way. So essentially I think this is a mental health and social issue throughout the world that is a problem. I actually think that it's more social isolation than mental health. That's my point.
which is that people can have mental health.
And actually, if you were going to make a commentary on that,
I think people with severe mental illness should not,
unless they've been severely tested,
they should not have access to weapons.
I think people with a history of psychosis and psychotic episodes
really should not be allowed to have access to weapons.
This is my belief, but it's a constitutional question, actually.
I'm not sure.
But beyond the constitutionality of it, I just think it's a dangerous thing to do.
When it comes to people with mental health issues, I think it's really, really dangerous to try to start saying that, hey, they shouldn't have access to weapons.
Because that's just like a slippery slope.
You're going to start taking away their rights in general.
And I just want to protect their rights.
Yeah, I remember when I was on Capitol Hill, we were dealing with this.
I was working with Thomas Massey, who heads up the Second Amendment Caucus in Congress.
We were finding out because we have people of our constituents and then we subsequently found out some other members offices were seeing the same thing where the VA was putting a mental illness tag on people who said that they were having trouble with their budgets, for example.
And so there's also kind of a broad diagnosis that some in government are, and we found that it was actually somewhat weaponized, if I may use the term, towards the NICS database.
We found this out specifically and dealt with it.
But anyway, the point of making is that sometimes it goes both ways.
There's a loose diagnosis as a way to get at this.
And this is to Jennifer's point, by the way, that we kind of get misguided about what this whole system should be about, if at all.
and that's one of the things is weaponizing mental illness.
I mean, I think your point is well taken down is because I am certain that we misunderstand a lot of
the problems that take place with guns by looking only at mental illness.
I still think, though, it's a significant and important issue that we have to be aware of
and do something about, more broadly for the culture, not just as it relates to guns.
But certainly in guns, there's a lot more.
And then the whole red flag law thing, as you rightly point out, goes legally way overboard
to try to deal with this issue.
And if there are things to deal with,
that can help
violence,
and that's not going to get to it at all.
People have died from red flag laws because when police officers show up to your house and you're a law-bying citizen and you're not expecting them to knock your door down, it can lead to really bad situations.
Like a situation with Duncan Limp where he was shot by law enforcement while they were executing a red flag log on him.
These are certain factors you have to watch.
Yeah, last time I was in Colorado a few years, not too many years back.
That very thing happened in Douglas County, Colorado.
It's awful that these things happened.
On the mental health issue, is there anyone suggesting, though, that any mental health conditions that should disqualify you?
Because it seems a little sweeping.
I've honestly not heard any.
That is a thing people I've been saying.
Well, okay.
I mean, so there are people who say that.
I mean, I will say it.
There are people downtown in my city that say pigs fly, right?
So I'm saying, is there any serious push?
No, no.
There are definitely serious people.
And as-
disqualify you.
Yeah, so for example, Justin, if you have a history of violent crime, obviously that is, I'm starting there because it's not mental health related, but I want to start there.
There are clearly things that we all agree upon that that mean that you get disqualified from the ability to get or you should not be allowed to get a gun.
Then you work through, okay, if somebody has a history of domestic abuse, should they be allowed?
And Spanish, continue.
I'm sorry, say again.
I think Sean doesn't agree with you, but anyway, continue your point.
Sean, if somebody has a history of violent crime against people, they should be allowed to get a gun.
Were they, were they charged?
Yeah, they were charged and convicted.
Were they convicted?
Was it a felony?
Sure.
They already was that.
Is there a level at which they shouldn't be allowed to?
I'm just trying to understand.
If it's not a felony, no.
Okay.
So if it is a felony...
Yeah, I want to start from a point of agreement.
You already lose your right to own a firearm if you commit a felony.
That is already the benchmark.
Perfect.
Okay.
So I wanted to start somewhere where there's agreement.
You know what I mean?
I think it's helpful to start there.
So starting from where there's agreement where a convicted felon should not have access
to a gun.
Okay, likely because of violent crime.
I just want to be clear.
All right.
Now let's work our way back.
If somebody has a history of psychotic episodes where they've been violent, it's
especially, you know, including domestic abuse or toward somebody.
I personally, Justin, I think that there's actually, there will be bipartisan support
that that should come up in a background check.
Were they involuntarily committed, Dr. Dan?
I'm not sure. And again, that's for the, again, I actually don't know what the Constitution says about this, so I'm not a constitutional person.
You can't, you can't deprive of their rights without due process. So unless they were involuntarily committed, the Constitution would say, no, you cannot deprive them of that right. That would be the, that is where we currently stand.
I think the line here is due process. I want to speak about. I think most people probably agree with the due process line, correct?
There's been a lot of work, Justin, right now.
And Jim mentioned it as well.
There's a lot of work going on right now
and trying to go after people that have the history of mental issues
from getting access to guns.
It's not like a complete...
Even the current red flag laws on the books right now.
The red flag laws specifically are doing that.
Sorry, Sean.
Yeah, but red flag laws right now are under severe threat to support challenges.
So kind of going back,
Danish has been making that point, too,
that if there, you know,
he has,
and correct me if I'm wrong,
Danish,
but he,
he opposes these red flag laws
that don't have due process in them.
So, yeah.
And says that's a problem.
And I agree with that,
100%.
We're in agreement with that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So to answer your question, Justin, there are red flag laws that could go against people that have a history of mental illness.
And there are people across the country that are looking to pass these laws.
And again, my issue is not with the intent of the law or like, you know, what they're trying to do is prevent.
You know, it's a greater good sort of analogy,
which is like it would be better for the greater good
if they were able to prevent something bad from happening
by, you know, preventing bad people with guns.
Uh, or people that are...
This is not at all a challenge, Dr. Danish, but I'm just seeking clarification.
So to go after someone with mental illness, it's a sweeping label.
Any mental illness, people are trying to push for any mental illness disqualifies you?
There are people who say that, absolutely.
Wow. Yeah, that's quite nutty.
So, Dr. Donch, you guys?
Can I bring up a board so, Slaman?
So, so I do, I do have a specific disagreement on the notion that, like, this idea that somehow guns per se are not the issue.
Like, I, like, there's certain guns that, like, so you, you don't have to ban it, but I think we all in agreement that should require extensive more background check, right?
No, and, and describe the background check all source.
Say what?
I'm sorry?
Describe the background check for me,
I'll source.
I think it depends on the nature of the background check.
So let's just,
let me put it,
let me put it in a specific example, right?
Because like, like,
the issue I have is this idea that,
okay,
let me put a specific example,
like an M250 cow.
Like, no, you don't, I don't care what the Second Amendment, like, no, nobody can argue to me that anybody has the right to own an M250 cow, right?
But you can't, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you, you,
No, no, no, no, no.
I don't think the second.
You opened.
This is the idea of Trump.
This is the problem with the, like, like, there's somehow this idea that,
that the second amendment is the only amendment in the Constitution that has no restrictions.
It's the only amendment in the Constitution that specifically says you can't restrict.
Yeah, let's just ignore that.
No, no, no, no, no.
Like, even Anthony Scalia said in DC versus Heller that, of course, there's going to be regulations on this.
Like, there's not this blanket, like nobody gets any regulation.
And the reason why I say that is this.
Literally just go through my timeline.
Like, because we talk about the United States about mass shootings, right?
Right.
And I'm going to get to this in the specific history of guns, like, because I cover Mexico in the cartels.
And I send it, and you guys were a lot of the people in this space on the group China win, and I send one specific example of a mass shooting, right?
I have a plethora dozens of videos of mass shootings that occur in Mexico that are recorded.
And I see the aftermath of it.
Like if people here hasn't seen the aftermath of it.
of what happened in Allen where the five-year-old's brain was blown out, right?
Like, of course, guns are an issue.
Like, there's a reason why insurgent groups, bad people, terrorist, madmen, want to get the most powerful weapon that is available to them.
I've seen the aftermath of the next two executions, right, with an M8250 Cal Barrett.
I've seen it.
Like, I'm sorry, like this idea that somehow guns are just not the problem, like, because they're quote unquote scary, but it's the people.
Yeah, but like, come on.
Like, let's look at the Caribbean.
Let's look at, there's the reason why gangs in Haiti can paralyze the country because they outgun the police.
They have more powerful weapon than the actual police force in the country.
And so this idea that somehow the second amendment has no regulation.
And more importantly, it's not only that has no restrictions like any other amendments
that are actually more important than the second amendment, number one, there's way more
amendments that are more important in the second amendment to maintain our constitution
or republic, number one, but that number two, that there is no consequences to it, right?
And so I.
I ask people because I've actually had moments where I had to take a break from Twitter
because I've seen the aftermath of children being absolutely slaughtered in Mexico
because of utilization of very high powerful weapons to say that somehow like let's look at Allen, Texas.
They're like, oh, if the guy had concealed carry and blah, blah, blah.
The gunman got out of the vehicle and immediately shot five people dead like that.
Five seconds. Five people died, right, at a distance where if somebody had a concealed carry, he had a pistol, he didn't stand a chance.
So I'm not, again, I say this from somebody who agrees with the Second Amendment, who believes in background checks, who believes in ability to just regulate it, and to suggest that regulation is infringement.
is absurd. No constitutional Supreme Court justice lawyer will ever go up to the Supreme Court and argue.
The Second Amendment says it shall not be infringed so everybody gets the right to own an M2 50 caliber machine gun.
No. That nobody can ever make that argument because it's absurd in the face value.
And I think it's because that gun can cause mass casualties.
And wreck havoc on any society.
Let me just want to pick up on the premise here.
Once again, Jim, I just want Sean, because Sean wants to come in and I, so we stopped him.
Sean, go ahead, just, and then I'll go to you, Jim.
Sean just.
No, Jim, can go.
Go for a Jim.
So, all source.
So, give me an example of a First Amendment free speech restriction.
Protests.
Protests are not at all.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, what kind of protest?
All source.
What kind of protest?
Here's a freedom of speech.
No, no, don't deflect.
No, no, I will.
Right now, Jim.
Right now.
Freedom of speech, can you scream fire in a movie theater and cause that?
A longer illegal case.
That was not, that was a total absurdity.
It was used as.
Yes.
No, there are restrictions.
Can you protest?
Can you protest?
If you do it with violent intent to cause people, then you will go to jail, but you may still do it.
That is the only kind of restriction.
Give me another restriction because that's not a restriction.
Restriction.
That's my point.
Can you own an M250 cow?
Can you own an M250 cow?
I mean, technically, restriction.
Yeah.
I would argue four machine guns to be available to people.
So we disagree on that.
But Benjamin has his hand.
I'm curious because he's the lawyer.
I'm not the lawyer here.
Well, I don't want to actually talk about the legal aspect of it.
Jim, I want to ask you a question.
You have your thumb on the pulse of politicians on both side of the aisle.
So we're all making talking points here about restricting this, not restricting that.
What do you personally think of the appetite within Congress on both sides to actually...
Try to do anything more that, you know, that's in place right now.
Like, what are the chances?
I put them in your zero.
What are your thoughts?
Yeah, I mean, I don't think you can come to any consensus.
Now, there are two aspects of that.
Jim, what about Rep. Flag laws?
At the federal level at all.
If you're going to have anything like that, you can only do at the state level,
which actually leads me, it's a good segue into the points I want to make.
The first point is this.
These, the Bill of Rights issues...
are have restrictions on federal government primarily now they do extend as i'm sure benjamin agrees
to certain aspects of what a state will do because of the ninth and tenth amendment in particular
and some other various issues
But I don't think a federal law for red flag should be there at all.
I don't think, one, I don't want us to come to that consensus, but two, I don't think we can anyway.
So that's just to answer your question.
Secondly, though, where you have any of these things like, you know, not the way that they currently can see red flag laws, but where you have restraining orders and similar –
types of legal measures that are like red flag laws,
but less severe. Um,
you know,
that,
that's stuff for the states to do,
where it doesn't violate your overall,
civil rights.
You know, I think that the federal government, in my estimation, has limited power about this.
Now, I mean, I have real problems with the ATF and many of the things that it does because it noses itself into things that could be better adjudicated and handled in the states.
But in terms of consensus, Benjamin, I don't see any consensus in Congress in the near future.
Yeah, I mean, I guess what they've done thus far is, you know, pretty much the extent of what they can do, right?
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's a tough topic, but, you know, again, I only said that because, look, you know, we've been debating here for hours, but do you really think there's going to be some drastic change?
I just don't, right?
Whether or not people agree with it or not, I mean, people, you know, for all the people who are pushing...
for gun control and so forth.
I mean, I don't think that they're taking into account just, you know,
the all-encompassing sanctity that the Second Amendment holds for a lot of people, right?
And, you know, people go on about, you know, the First Amendment rights and so forth,
which of course are important, but there's a, I don't know what the statistic would be, right?
But you have plenty of Democrats who are against, and I'm talking about people who vote Democrat, right,
who are against stricter gun control.
I mean, that's just a fact.
I mean, and you can look at...
uh january 6 for an example right you had jason crow who's a democrat he was armed uh in in the
senate chamber right so or in the in the yeah in the senate chamber so i don't know it's be pardon he's in the
house right yes yeah in the house right and uh anyway no that that's it i think sean you made a lot
of good points i'm i can't believe i'm actually agreeing with you for once do i not go to syria this time
no you can stay
But to all sources point, I actually, one of the problems I think we have with the Second Amendment because of the way the debate's gone for so many years is we do not tend in our public discussions.
The legal matters are a different issue and the legislative matters.
But in our public discourse, we do not hold the Second Amendment.
easily at the same face value that we do the First Amendment. And I would argue vociferously
that they are equally important rights. And because we've gone into this
course of action where we're constantly bringing up the type of weapon and mass shootings and all
this kind of all of which are important to base but when we bring all this up we forget that the
second amendment holds whatever we decide about restrictions holds the same level of
of basic liberty to it that the First Amendment does in the construct of what we have in the United States.
I believe those principles are as sacrosanct in any country, whether they have codified it in any manner or not.
But in that debate, we have to recognize.
The Second Amendment, I maintain this all the time, is a fundamental human right,
as much as free speech is, as much as religious liberty is, as much as freedom of the press is.
I don't disagree with you, Jim.
I don't at all.
In the notion of the second amendment is important,
and everybody has the individual right to choose
that they want or not to bear arms.
I owned one, and then I got rid of it
because I had children, and that was my personal choice, right?
Because I just didn't feel comfortable
and didn't want to have that around my kids
until they were older.
That's my personal choice.
I know a lot of friends of mine take their kids to shoot.
God bless them, love them to death,
absolutely 100% concur.
It's an individual choice.
My problem, the disagreement I have,
is this idea that there is absolutely zero regard or from a lot of the people that argue this,
that there should be no regulations, that there should be no restrictions.
And that would-
There shouldn't be, Sean.
Well, the issue I have with that argument, also.
Nobody would agree with you, Sean.
Literally, the first- Let me explain this point.
Go for a shot, Sean.
Just as I come back to what Alsaw says and then also respond.
I just think that the Second Amendment is as absolute as the First Amendment.
I don't understand why that's such a controversial take.
It says the right of the people to keep him bare arms shall not be infringed.
I know he came back earlier when Jim said that and said, well, can you yell fire in a crowd of movie theater?
And I just wanted to point out that that's no longer even a relevant case law.
When you say that, you're basically saying that the government should have the right to lock up draft protesters for who are socialist,
because that's what that case was about, by the way.
So your argument, so let me get this straight shot.
Your argument is, I just want to make sure I completely understand this.
So let's look at voting.
Let's use voting as an example, right?
You have to register it right to vote in your area and then you get to vote, right?
That is a restriction.
That's a, well, not a restriction, a regulation.
to that fundamental right of our constitutional republic, right?
That's a regulation that the state has put imposing.
A lot of people are trying to push against that, by the way.
But there's a registration aspect.
No, there's a difference.
There's a voter ID law, and then there's registration.
That is not up to debate for registration.
You have to register to vote.
That is a regulation in a fundamental right.
And there are a lot of aspects of free speech specifically in process.
I would disagree with that, but.
Okay, let's say...
Yeah, it's not...
Listen, we've got to take a look at what we're talking about in our terms here.
So when it comes to a requirement for a voter ID, if any state implements that, and by the way...
you know, any state can determine how they want to do their elections.
But if we go to a voter ID law, the reason any law like that would be passed is not a regulation against American citizens voting.
It is a regulation that is put in place to validate that someone is a citizen because that one of that.
Regardless of what it is, it's a regulation.
No, it's not because it doesn't because it's not a restraint.
It is a restraint on people otherwise not eligible.
I would argue a background check is no different than registering.
A background is a background.
That's not true. No, no, no.
No, the reason it's different is this.
An American citizen, there are some people who disagree with this,
but I'm just going to accept the premise, which I believe is true,
that only American citizens should be able to vote.
So therefore, when you put a regulation to validate...
the legitimacy of that person to vote, you're not restraining anything.
You're validating an already set principle.
When you go through the NICS system and put any restraint, then you're saying, okay,
what you're really fundamentally arguing there from a logical perspective is everybody has
the right saccharac to have a gun.
But when these certain conditions take place, then we're going to take that right away.
That's right.
Like if you're a convicted felon.
What?
Like, you're a convicted felon.
How do you confirm if somebody's a convicted felon?
Yeah, you do agree with this.
This is either a Pentecostal church or we have a lot of hands up.
Well, listen, again, but listen, whether we agree that felons,
and I can understand where you're coming from all source,
but let's just understand what we're talking about.
When we're saying a convicted felon cannot...
own a gun. What we are saying
both logically and legally
is that a person
otherwise having
a sacrosanct right to
keep and bear arms
is restricted on this basis.
When we are saying that
a person is
vote, is,
is voting, it can only vote when they have a valid ID.
We are saying logically something much different,
which is we are setting into place a process to validate that person's ability to vote.
That's a much different thing.
I'm saying you have to validate somebody having the right to own a weapon.
And then second...
No, no, no, no.
That's already validated by the Second Amendment.
When we say a felon can't do it, then we're saying,
you're already in set right is in place, except under this circumstance.
And then the second point is, because I don't want to go back,
the second point is, again, I will just continue to say this,
this idea that any American citizen has the right to own whatever weapon they choose so much
is literally...
smacks in the face, even DC versus Heller that enshrined the individual right to bear arms to own a weapon in 2008, which was the first time it was set, really, right?
The individual, even the, even the referring opinion said, this does not mean you get to own any weapon as you should choose.
That is not in any sense, shape, or form enshrined in our Constitution.
Okay.
Of course you cannot own whatever we don't want.
I don't know if this is a main talk.
Is there any major movement to get people to own any weapon they want?
I mean, regardless or not if it's constitutional.
Yes, there is.
Yes, there is a gun rights movement absolutely advocates for getting rid of the Hughes Amendment
to the to the Firearms and Protection Act.
That is an action thing that we currently are fighting for.
That's my point.
That's my point.
That's what you're fighting for.
I'm just saying it's not a major movement.
For the gun rights movement, it is a major thing, yes.
Just a quick question. I'm not sure what the status, but over say the last 10 years,
how many people have been killed in what is defined as a mass shooting? Does anyone have the stat or could estimate by chance?
So we had two different figures. We had one from Pew, which showed that in 2021, there was 60.
But then from Statistica, it was...
60 events? 60 events or 60 people killed?
But according to Statistica, it was 11.
So the parameters of what considered a mass shoe is probably different, hence by you have a large discrepancy.
Right, and so does anyone know how many people died of, let's say, illegally obtained fentanyl over last year? I'm just curious. I'm curious as the comparison.
No idea, you tell us, bro?
No, I don't know. I was just curious. I can look at that, Benjamin, what year?
Well, just say 2020, right?
In 2019, 2020.
I mean, I'm going to go ahead.
Right.
So, I mean, Tira made this point earlier, and I love and respect Tira, right?
So of course it's tragic.
The school shootings, the mass shootings, of course it is, right?
But there's a lot of tragic things that needs to be addressed in the United States that are all consuming
and more consuming of unfortunately human lives.
I mean, that's just the reality.
I mean, I wish Tira was here, right?
She worked in the courts too.
It just, or anyone who works in healthcare, right?
I mean, fentanyl, a little obtained opioids and drugs and so forth, are responsible for what?
I would argue this probably between, I don't know what, I think in 2020, the number might be, I don't know, 30,000 to 50,000 people died from a fatal opioid overdoses, right?
Like, I...
So again, I absolutely understand the arguments we've had them, you know, for forever.
But there are a lot of things in the United States that really need to be addressed that are consuming a lot more lives, drunk driving, suicide, depression, you know, than the number of mass shootings.
I mean, the stats are the stats. I don't know them.
But I'd be curious, I'm going to go look it up, but, yeah.
Let's go to Johnny.
Johnny, you have no chance to speak here, and then we go to Vaughn and then Jennifer.
Okay.
Hey, thanks for the space, everyone.
Yeah, a very good discussion.
And it strikes me as guns and law-abiding citizens have coexisted for hundreds of years.
Guns and mentally ill have coexisted for hundreds of years.
And guns and the bad guys have coexisted for hundreds of years.
But this mass shooting thing is a modern day societal problem that we have.
And trying to regulate guns is the bad guys are still going to get them, just like trying to regulate illegal drugs.
It's not going to work.
And so what has changed between, you know, a couple hundred years ago or a hundred years ago,
the things that we do to each other or say to each other as a society,
we wouldn't have even dreamt about it a hundred years ago.
It was people had decency, morals, and values,
and they may have disagreed with their neighbors and not canceled them out.
So it's a deterioration of the decency that we have towards one of one another.
So the root of the problem is, is you have to look at why didn't we have these issues 100 years ago when all the elements existed that we have versus today?
What's the difference?
And it's decency.
It's the erosion of how we treat each other.
And we have to get to the core of that.
And so there is the solution.
And, you know, I also think about, you know,
you have police officers or law enforcement that go through training
on all the different scenarios, hostage situations,
SWAT situations, regular law enforcement situations.
Well, all these, all the modern day,
younger generations that are here now, they have been training and been exposed to this sort of thing
in video games, the rap music. They're desensitized to it. They're desensitized to shooting up a public
place, a school. They've been practicing it with video games, which your eyes see and your ears
hear you become. So it's a new brand of mental illness, but it's all rooted in being
indecent towards each other. And so I think we talk about gun control and I think we talk about
mental illness because we think if we can control those and come up with a solution and ban
guns or grab the guns or whatever that we think it's going to solve it, but it's not.
Because you're still going to have the mental illness.
The bad guys are still going to get the guns.
And all you're going to do is disarm the citizens that need to be able to protect themselves in situations that it would warrant.
So I think the root of it all is decency.
What is different now?
And is there anything we can do about it than what it was 100 years ago?
Thanks for the space.
Thanks for that, brother.
He makes a very good point.
Benjamin, it was 37,000 that I found.
30, oh, geez, 37,000.
All right, I appreciate the yes, that.
You know, just to what the previous speaker said, right?
He makes a really valid point.
Like, I don't know how old everyone else is near.
I'm in my 40s.
And when you're talking about the erosion of values and so forth, you know,
I, Sean knows this story.
I have a neighbor who's very...
well-to-do, well-mannered. And his kid, who's about eight or nine years old in the winter,
hit my car with his hockey stick on purpose, right? And I said, oh, you've got to be more careful.
Now, the kid, and these are,
When you consider high class, well, the kid looked at me and basically told me to go F off.
And I looked at the father, and the father was like kids these days, he started laughing.
You know, if I said that when I was a kid, Mario, I know where you're from, your mother would do this to you.
Sulemont, absolutely.
I would get a shoe thrown at me, and my father would take the belt to me so hard, I would run and I would never say it again.
You know, there's something to be said about the lack of decency and morals and,
in society, right?
It's just, yeah, that's a good point.
It's so funny you should say that.
My two boys, I remember when they were very young, people said, yeah, no, you got to watch out for the terrible twos.
And from a scientific psychological perspective, I mean, there's something to that analysis about the terrible twos, but like I said to people all the time, but I'm not going to join.
You know, it's like, yeah, they're terrible twos.
I understand what's going on.
And now we're going to do something about it.
it. And there's a lot of a lack of that in society, both in the more moderate ways we do it as human beings and adults one to another and the more direct ways we do it as parents and families. And there is a, you know, one of the fundamental issues that.
with any culture at any time and related to...
Jim, I jump out for a few minutes,
I'm coming back,
we're suddenly talking about family life and raising kids.
I mean, Jim is just telling him his life story,
but yeah, I didn't want to stop him.
I didn't want to be rude, but yeah.
And then Ben is telling me about his shoes getting thrown at him,
and then another speaker was narrating.
I mean, Ben did say...
How to design a video game.
Because he's old, so this is kind of what happens, in it.
We all...
Jeez, what a personal attack.
What a personal attack.
Ageism, man.
Ageism.
You're going to get canceled for ages in that, Slime.
But me a benical.
Yeah, but the broader point was being made about how the culture relates to it.
Yeah, yeah.
and the decency that used to be there
so we're just in lightning on it
so we are about a wrap-up
guys are we all in agreement
that Benjamin needs to paint emerald the color on his walls
I don't know that's but
great space man
great great space man man that was epic
it's just so tense guys
the debate was incredible
it's just you came at the wrong time and
Ben was just telling us his life story
then Jim said you know what this is an opportunity
Ben is saying we should hit our kids.
That's all I learned when I came back on.
I mean, I tried to say that I agreed with him, but I didn't agree with him.
But I just, Ben's my friend, so I didn't want to refue him.
All right, man, let's wrap it up with your beautiful thoughts.
No, no, there's not much thoughts.
I mean, I really appreciate everybody's time.
We know the issue of our guns.
You know my position.
I do believe that I'm not.
Oh, yeah, the, the, the, I've just, by the way, the, what's this thing that you pin trash?
Oh shit. There's a post a tweet about the newsletter. He's printed this new one. Who posted this on my profile?
There's some shit being tweeted on my profile that I've no idea about.
One day we're going to wake up and some of the goryest photos posted. My account getting banned and Slaman just laughing in the background.
There is a video. Did you talk about the video of Jordan Neely? Did you talk about that one Sleman?
No, no. I didn't give that as an update.
You're talking about next thing.
Yeah.
Sorry, so it's just a new video that censored men sent us.
I've just pinned it above and I'll pin up my profile as well, why not?
And it just shows Jordan Neely.
So the person that was choking out Jordan Neely, I forgot his name, the Marine, he let
go of him and Jordan was apparently still breathing.
Some people are saying he says last breath and they tried to put him in a recovery position.
which kind of potentially paints a different picture.
Not saying, you know, it doesn't mean there's no at least manslaughter to be considered.
But it just paints a certain picture or at least offers more context to the situation.
What do you make of this, a new video, Sleman?
I mean, it's not, it doesn't, for me, it doesn't provide any more information.
What it does show, though, is that he didn't keep him in the hold until it.
EMTs arrived so we now know that it was for a lot shorter period of time so it could be anything
between that minute and a half to maybe a few to maybe two minutes before.
Balthy would you look at anything more than manslaughter in this case?
I mean, that was not...
It could be the third degree murder
where it's like using excessive force
so doing a violent act
that accidentally caused death
which is more than manslaughter.
My view yesterday was it was manslaughter
negligence
and I still think that's the case
so I didn't think that it was an intended murder
anyway or premed it.
Anyway, it didn't meet the requirements
of actual murder.
I'm definitely not pre-mated murder, but there's unintended murder with the excessive use of force.
And that's more than manslaughter, which I think is still at least worth to be considered.
And, you know, we're not the court.
But, Ben, hold on, we do have a former prosecutor here.
Ben, what would you make out of this instead of me and me and Simon playing pretend lawyers?
Yeah.
Ben? Benjamin?
Well, Ben, so Ben, when I ask you a relevant question to a topic we're discussing,
suddenly your mic is not working, but you want to talk about how to raise kids
and how we should beat up our kids, your mic works, Ben.
I see how it is.
That's his personality, though, Mario.
That's how he always is.
He forgot the last half of the story too.
Ben,
Ben's for me cursing in the background right now
because he can't unmute.
But guys, I think it's a great discussion.
Really appreciate it.
The tweet of the video of Daniel Penny
is pinned above, it's pinned on my profile
because I'll end the space now.
Otherwise, yeah, much love to all the speakers in the
Tomorrow Space.
You're forgetting the Comar Space.
What's Tomorrow Space?
Oh my God, Denise is like tagging you like crazy.
He's going to kill you.
Is Danish?
Is it a finance?
Tomorrow morning.
Danish is leading to finance.
Oh, the tomorrow morning.
Yeah, there's a finance space led.
So run from my profile that Danish leads.
So it's tomorrow morning.
Don't bother attending it.
I think that's what Danish wants me to say because it's just not that interesting.
No, no, no.
So yeah, tomorrow morning, do not attend this space.
No, no.
I'll be hitting on my body, Danish.
It's a really good space.
The guy gets.
No, he's a great moderator.
I'm just saying it's a finance space.
No one cares about finance.
Tomorrow morning there's this space that no one should attend.
No, no, no.
It makes it really interesting.
It makes it entertain.
If you're not there, then you're basically losing out of an opportunity to gain some really good knowledge.
How much did he pay you, bro?
10 a.m. Central.
7 a.m.
Yeah, tomorrow, yeah, 7, 8 a.m. E.S.T.
Yeah, I think it's 8 a.m. E.S.T.
It goes on for a couple of hours.
On a serious note, it's one of our best space.
It's been doing extremely well.
So if you're in the finance space,
if you want to get an update on the economy, on equities,
even there's a bit of a segment on crypto as well.
They do it Monday to Friday, 8 a.m.
And whenever there's breaking news,
you know, another bank failing,
we cover it in our nightly space as well.
So yeah, there you go, Danish.
And that's led by Danish.
So one of the few good picks for moderators that we've done.
Otherwise, really appreciate you all.
And for tomorrow night.
We're not sure what we should cover tomorrow night.
Why are you doing attacks on Trash?
It's just not right.
It's not acceptable.
He's trying to cause an issue between me and Trash.
Fine his back.
Right, I think that's it.
I appreciate you, Trash.
All right, guys.
Thank you so much, and thanks Trash for helping moderate.
Bye, everyone.
All right, bye, guys.
