Jon Stewart's plea for gun control (1 Viewer)

[Brock Meaux]

I think my biggest wish If I had a wish to use, is that out of all those who demand to have a "conversation!" is that they all spend a week doing firearms training, to include both classroom and range time. I garentee you the "conversation" would take a new tone.

The problem remains, as Big L rightly stated in an earlier post, going after the guns and magazines isn't going to do much. larger, deeper more important issues need to be addressed, and i'm fairly certain they measures that Obama and Co' will bring out at the end of the month will not address them nearly as much as they should.

This is specifically discussed in the video. While it's clear that no one thing the President or Congress or whoever does will magically solve the issue of gun violence, and that yes, there are clear issues that need to be dealt with in regards to our treatment of mental health issues and violent video games/movies/culture and various other things brought up every time somebody talks about having the "conversation," some kind of gun control CAN be a part of that discussion along with all those other issues as piecemeal steps in working towards finding a broader solution. I'm not a gun guy, and I'm not advocating taking away people's rights to own weapons, but I'm also fully aware that there's no need for an average American citizen to EVER need an AK-47 or an AR-15 or other military-grade weapons of that class. This "conversation" would go a lot smoother and be more productive if the left stopped trying to "get rid of everything!" and stigmatize everyone who wants to own weapons and the right stopped throwing up straw men and started participating as the well-informed gun owners most of them are in a discussion of exactly what weapons are reasonable to own and what belongs in the category with tanks and SAMs.

 

[V Chip]

Why in the world would you start there?

Because this isn't a zero-sum game. It's not a "you can do this, XOR you can do that" proposition, it's a "let's do this" one. We can work on boating safety AND crib safety AND stroller safety AND insurance reform AND gun safety. Which is my point: why the comparison? People using that line of reasoning are saying "that is bigger, you should concentrate there" as if there is only one thing that can be done at a time. Do you think only one thing can be done at a time? Do you honestly think we Americans or our Congress should only think about and work on one issue at a time? Of course you don't believe that. Then why use that as a point of reasoning in a discussion?

If these gun control peeps really want to save lives then they need to worry about foods high in fat, sugar and waste products. Then go after alcohol and tobacco since they are the main contributors to more than 50% of the deaths in the US.

Well then apparently you actually DO think people can only concentrate on one thing at a time.

Don't come at me with only wanting assault rifles banned either. While it wouldn't impact me if assault rifles are banned. I enjoy shooting them but more people are killed by dogs in the US each year than murdered by assault rifles. Even then, most of those assault rifle deaths are from stolen or unregistered firearms. We are taking all this energy and going after a weapon that is used to kill less people than a baseball bat every year.

I'm not "coming at you" with anything besides pointing out a weak line of reasoning.

If you could blink and there would be one less firearm death in America next year as a result, would you do it? If yes, then you agree even one saved life is worth some sort of effort and then the "argument" should be the level of effort versus the impact and not "there are more deaths by flu than by firearm!" If no, then you think even minuscule effort isn't worth saving one life.

 

[V Chip]

The problem remains, as Big L rightly stated in an earlier post, going after the guns and magazines isn't going to do much.

You know something I completely agree. They won't do much if anything in stopping spree killers. While they might save some lives it's a "prevented event" statistic which can never be completely accurate.

But my point is: why is that so often used as a shut-down argument against something? "A 1% cut in X program won't do much." If you said "I got a $.20 an hour raise that didn't do much" did you then give it back, or did you take the little it did? In the statement you are actually admitting that it will do something. Why then follow that with "it won't do much, but let's try it because every little bit helps" or "it won't do much but let's start with that proposal and see if we can make it more effective."

I honestly don't think much can be done to "solve" our gun violence problem without massive changes in our Second Amendment rights that I don't think we would ever see. I don't think all of these other ideas will help much (but they will help a little and thus we should be willing to try some of them) from the mental health aspect to violent entertainment to glorifying war and death. I think as sad as it sounds we simply have to accept that we will have Sandy Hooks, that they will happen again and more people will die in these seemingly random violent outbursts and that this is a consequence of our Second Amendment freedoms.

 

[bclemms]

Because this isn't a zero-sum game. It's not a "you can do this, XOR you can do that" proposition, it's a "let's do this" one. We can work on boating safety AND crib safety AND stroller safety AND insurance reform AND gun safety. Which is my point: why the comparison? People using that line of reasoning are saying "that is bigger, you should concentrate there" as if there is only one thing that can be done at a time. Do you think only one thing can be done at a time? Do you honestly think we Americans or our Congress should only think about and work on one issue at a time? Of course you don't believe that. Then why use that as a point of reasoning in a discussion?


Well then apparently you actually DO think people can only concentrate on one thing at a time.


I'm not "coming at you" with anything besides pointing out a weak line of reasoning.

If you could blink and there would be one less firearm death in America next year as a result, would you do it? If yes, then you agree even one saved life is worth some sort of effort and then the "argument" should be the level of effort versus the impact and not "there are more deaths by flu than by firearm!" If no, then you think even minuscule effort isn't worth saving one life.

You aren't talking about banning boats, cribs and strollers now are you? If you want gun safety laws in place then I think that is a great idea. In fact, I think everyone should be required to take a gun safety class regardless if they own a gun or even plan to own a gun. Good thinking.

No, I do not only have the ability to think about one thing at a time. But by your assault rifle reasoning of saving one life is worth it then we should outlaw:
Alcohol
fattening foods
Sugar
Tobacco
knives
Baseball bats
dogs
cars
boats
gas
electricity
water
cold air
hot air
lightening
planes
motorcycles
ATV's
plastics
prescription medicine
garage door openers
razor blades
tylenol
bicycles
and about a thousand other things.

Then, even if you ban these items it doesn't mean it would actually prevent any deaths. The laws themselves are only as good as the people willing to obey them. If a law was going to stop killing then why don't we just make killing illegal and give it the maximum sentence of any crime? Oh wait!

You are talking about taking away thousands of assault rifles and if you are using the term assault rifle as loosely as some lawmakers we are talking about hundreds of thousands of weapons used for many different purposes and taking them away to ATTEMPT to save the lives of a few hundred people. Of those fwe hundred then yeah, you might save a few of them but that doesn't mean we should make everything illegal that will save a few lives now does it? You are trying to say that my line of reasoning is weak but I'm simply giving examples using your line of reasoning.

My line of reasoning, leave things alone. Quit making laws that we don't have the ability to enforce and that will change almost nothing. Quit trying to take away rights of people in the name of an illusioned safety. Quit trying to change people that aren't willing to change for themselves.

The gun control people are ignoring all the data that is out there on violent crimes. The same type of data that they use to try and legalize drugs. I believe the data for guns and I believe the data for drugs.

If Republicans really want to keep their guns then they should be forced to legalize drugs and everyone wins. We would instantly see gun crime drop at amazing rates without having to outlaw guns. We would suddenly have more money, less people in prison, less crime, less, laws, less drug use and more drug rehabilitation and mental health facilities available to those that need them. And yes, it really is that simple.

 

[Bleu Raeder]

If you could blink and there would be one less firearm death in America next year as a result, would you do it? If yes, then you agree even one saved life is worth some sort of effort and then the "argument" should be the level of effort versus the impact and not "there are more deaths by flu than by firearm!" If no, then you think even minuscule effort isn't worth saving one life.

But what would the blink be related to? Taking one gun off of the street? Taking a truckload? Taking a particular type? Or could that blink also conjure up better mental health care and facilities?

There are literally thousands of things that could be done to prevent one more firearm death in America next year. So what is the argument here?

 

[newiberiasaint]

Homicides are way down the list of the top killers in America. Tops are tobacco, medical errors, unintentional accidents and motor vehicle accidents. Actually, I believe these crazy violent video games are more to blame for mass murders. Young men are way to happy to kill people in videos with no repercussions and then throw in mental illness and its a bad recipe. Do we want to ban these video games? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm just an old white guy.

 

[seandroog]

I hope that everyone replying has watched both videos. Whether you agree or not, I think Jon Stewart says some pretty level headed things in an interesting way. You may think he's completely wrong or you may think that he's on point, but either way I think he makes a pretty valid point.

 

[Big_L]

This is a great point. Jon Stewart mentions that bazookas and tanks are illegal. Those are suppose to be handled by trained military personel. Citizens are not meant to weild these weapons. Why should high caliber assault rifles be any different?

A 5.56/.223 (standard AR) round is slightly larger than a .22.

 

[V Chip]

You aren't talking about banning boats, cribs and strollers now are you? If you want gun safety laws in place then I think that is a great idea. In fact, I think everyone should be required to take a gun safety class regardless if they own a gun or even plan to own a gun. Good thinking.

No, I do not only have the ability to think about one thing at a time. But by your assault rifle reasoning of saving one life is worth it then we should outlaw:

No, you're not getting my point.

I'm not trying to outlaw anything. But even if I were, this is a silly line of reasoning. More people die of cancer than meth overdoses. So we should not outlaw meth? We shouldn't try to get people off meth? We shouldn't regulate the ways people can easily manufacture meth through other legal means? More people die in car accidents than from lead poisoning. You're arguing we shouldn't outlaw lead paint in children's toys? We shouldn't try and regulate it and measure it and keep track of it so that some people aren't exposed and contract lead poisoning?

C'mon, seriously. What you are arguing is that "as long as there are more problems with X than Y, we should do nothing about Y" which is straight up ridiculous.

You are talking about taking away thousands of assault rifles
...
You are trying to say that my line of reasoning is weak but I'm simply giving examples using your line of reasoning.

No, I am NOT talking about taking away anything. But the point still remains: when you make this "X is worse than Y" argument you reduce it to "we can only act on the #1 "worst" thing and everything else is a waste of time."

Gun control people might say "lets ban all assault rifles, AND take them away from anyone who owns them." Although very few I have heard of are proposing that, let's assume they did. You can argue against that as a violation of Second Amendment rights, you can argue against that by pointing out the the definition of assault rifle is too broad (or maybe offer up better definitions), you can argue against that by stating a need for the use of assault rifles, you can modify it by suggesting an assault rifle restriction to shooting ranges or ammunition autofeeders for those specific weapons. Hech there are lots of ways a ban and confiscation can be argued against.

"More people die from flu" is not one of them.

The gun control people are ignoring all the data that is out there on violent crimes. The same type of data that they use to try and legalize drugs. I believe the data for guns and I believe the data for drugs.

I think both sides are cherry picking data that supports their point of view and ignoring anything that doesn't. There are lots of data, stats, and studies on both sides of the debate that support more control/less control.

If Republicans really want to keep their guns then they should be forced to legalize drugs and everyone wins. We would instantly see gun crime drop at amazing rates without having to outlaw guns.

Well that's a separate issue albeit slightly related, but it is another idea. The vast majority of gun rights supporters would not agree with you on that one, though.

 

[seandroog]

Homicides are way down the list of the top killers in America. Tops are tobacco, medical errors, unintentional accidents and motor vehicle accidents. Actually, I believe these crazy violent video games are more to blame for mass murders. Young men are way to happy to kill people in videos with no repercussions and then throw in mental illness and its a bad recipe. Do we want to ban these video games? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm just an old white guy.

Tobacco - we put how much they will kill you on the box. AND as much as we allow people to harm themselves, we have given people the knowledge and forced people to no longer smoke in public to hopefully cut down on lung cancer. Again, it is more about hurting others than hurting yourself.

Medical errors - Well I guess people could stop going to doctors? Until we're treated by perfect robots there will be medical errors.

Motor Vehicles - people have to get places. I take the train every day, but if I lived in a city without public transit I would have to drive. Drunk driving is heavily enforced.

I love video games, but I am willing to have the discussion of video game violence. I am one of the least violent people you'd ever meet and I've spent my entire live playing the most violent video games, watching the most violent movies and listening to some pretty dark music. Is one worse than the other? I dont' know. I dont' know if classic war movies from the 50's that glorified war had violent affects on children. I'm willing to have this discussion, though.

I just wish gun owners were willing to have the discussion on gun restriction.

 

[V Chip]

But what would the blink be related to? Taking one gun off of the street? Taking a truckload? Taking a particular type? Or could that blink also conjure up better mental health care and facilities?

There are literally thousands of things that could be done to prevent one more firearm death in America next year. So what is the argument here?

The blink is a theoretical "thing that takes some amount of effort." Theoretically, if you are willing to do some minimal effort to save one life, then you are in favor of intervening and doing something and the argument gets off of "we shouldn't do anything" and gets into how much effort and how much effect.

He was saying (as newiberiasaint just echoed ) that we shouldn't do anything about gun deaths (or just assault weapons deaths) because we should instead concentrate on something more deadly. If he is willing to put minimal effort into a small effect, then that completely counters that line of reasoning.

Of course again, using that argument is in effect saying "until #1 becomes #2, we should do nothing for any of the other hundreds of causes of death."

 

[bclemms]

No, you're not getting my point.

I'm not trying to outlaw anything. But even if I were, this is a silly line of reasoning. More people die of cancer than meth overdoses. So we should not outlaw meth? We shouldn't try to get people off meth? We shouldn't regulate the ways people can easily manufacture meth through other legal means? More people die in car accidents than from lead poisoning. You're arguing we shouldn't outlaw lead paint in children's toys? We shouldn't try and regulate it and measure it and keep track of it so that some people aren't exposed and contract lead poisoning?

C'mon, seriously. What you are arguing is that "as long as there are more problems with X than Y, we should do nothing about Y" which is straight up ridiculous.

No, I am NOT talking about taking away anything. But the point still remains: when you make this "X is worse than Y" argument you reduce it to "we can only act on the #1 "worst" thing and everything else is a waste of time."

Gun control people might say "lets ban all assault rifles, AND take them away from anyone who owns them." Although very few I have heard of are proposing that, let's assume they did. You can argue against that as a violation of Second Amendment rights, you can argue against that by pointing out the the definition of assault rifle is too broad (or maybe offer up better definitions), you can argue against that by stating a need for the use of assault rifles, you can modify it by suggesting an assault rifle restriction to shooting ranges or ammunition autofeeders for those specific weapons. Hech there are lots of ways a ban and confiscation can be argued against.

"More people die from flu" is not one of them.

I think both sides are cherry picking data that supports their point of view and ignoring anything that doesn't. There are lots of data, stats, and studies on both sides of the debate that support more control/less control.

Well that's a separate issue albeit slightly related, but it is another idea. The vast majority of gun rights supporters would not agree with you on that one, though.

I got your point but thought you were wanting a ban. I'm not saying just because it isn't the leading cause of death that it shouldn't be addressed because that is just silly. What I was saying is banning something because of a few insane people doesn't make any sense. I was using the others as examples of how they cause more death but nobody even mentions the bans. The assumption of most people is that only a handful of insane people buy assault rifles and used to kill tens of thousands of people. My posts were simply trying to put it into perspective. These guns are purchased by hundreds of thousands of people and used in a couple hundred murders. My ultimate point is that gun control is ultimately nothing but political grandstanding. My point was nobody talks about banning other items that cause more deaths and that gun, more particularly assault rifles, are getting far more attention than they deserve.

Personally I think banning guns ranks right up there with banning alcohol on the stupidity level. Murder has been around since the beginning of time and for society thinking they will change this by outlawing guns despite very strong statistical evidence suggesting otherwise is just moronic.

I know gun violence is less in some other countries that don't have guns, I also know gun violence is higher in some other countries with gun bans but honestly I don't care about other countries because we are in a different situation with more guns per capita than any other country. We will never have a full out gun ban in this country, it wont happen and unless we did have a full out ban and managed to get all the existing guns off the street nothing will really make a difference with gun violence and even then it wont change violent crimes because people will just use other weapons. In the meantime we are simply spending time money and emotion fighting a battle that ultimately makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things other than taking firearms away from people that enjoy and use them.

I realize most pro gun people would not agree with me on the legalization of drugs. They deny the same kind of statistics they use to argue for guns. The whole reason behind the gun ban is democrats have wanted it for years and they got a couple mass shootings and are using them to gain support for a gun ban. Meanwhile the Republicans are doing everything in their power to keep drugs from being legalized because that is the republican party's official stance. Unfortunately most people do not have the ability to think for themselves and whatever their party wants they piggy back on the topic and start screaming. It is the biggest waste of time, gets everyone worked up for nothing and just creates more division while we ignore the real issues at hand.

But you know what? If the democrats want to hand the white house over for the next decade again then they should try to ban any sort of gun then when they hand over the white house the Republicans will just undo it again.

 

[seandroog]

The gun control people are ignoring all the data that is out there on violent crimes. The same type of data that they use to try and legalize drugs. I believe the data for guns and I believe the data for drugs.

If Republicans really want to keep their guns then they should be forced to legalize drugs and everyone wins. We would instantly see gun crime drop at amazing rates without having to outlaw guns. We would suddenly have more money, less people in prison, less crime, less, laws, less drug use and more drug rehabilitation and mental health facilities available to those that need them. And yes, it really is that simple.

The truth is none of us know definitively. Saying something is simple doesn't make it so.

I don't see how guns and drugs can be so directly connected. Yes, when alcohol was illegal you saw gangs rise to power. Now you see gangs controlling the drug wars. But who is to assume that a met head who can get cheap meth, and yet is willing to kill for more met, wouldn't kill for legal meth? Even if they were legal, doesn't mean they would be cheap. Have you see how much a pack of cigarettes is now? Imagine if something as heavily addictive as cocaine were sold in 7-11s. I'm sure you'd see a rise in 7-11 stickups.

Nothing with this much history and this many technological advances can be considered a simple issue.

 

[bclemms]

The truth is none of us know definitively. Saying something is simple doesn't make it so.

I don't see how guns and drugs can be so directly connected. Yes, when alcohol was illegal you saw gangs rise to power. Now you see gangs controlling the drug wars. But who is to assume that a met head who can get cheap meth, and yet is willing to kill for more met, wouldn't kill for legal meth? Even if they were legal, doesn't mean they would be cheap. Have you see how much a pack of cigarettes is now? Imagine if something as heavily addictive as cocaine were sold in 7-11s. I'm sure you'd see a rise in 7-11 stickups.

Nothing with this much history and this many technological advances can be considered a simple issue.

Have you seen the statistics of drug abuse among nations with legalized drugs? It is much lower. Regardless if a meth head would kill for another hit legal or not, there would be less meth heads and therefore less methheads killing.

Check out the gun violence in the US and compare it with drug use and gang violence. There is an undeniable connection.

If we legalized drugs and used the tax money to heavily subsidize drug and mental rehabilitation facilities it would be getting help directly to many of the people that kill before they kill.

Is an american life more valuable than a mexican life? Pretty sure we can all very safely assume that if you take away drugs from cartels you strip them of their power and you strip them from motivation to kill. Now I also realize these people wont quit being drug lords, got to school and get a degree in computer science. Most will remain in some sort of criminal element but one that is less profitable and less violent. If there was an easy answer we would have done it long ago, until then this is the easiest answer we have to drastically impact both crime and gun crime while addressing a lot of other social and economic issues along the way.

If you still aren't sure how guns and drugs are related ask yourself why there are so many gang related shootings and what the main source of income for gans tends to be. Also ask yourself why drug busts almost always come with a weapons cache. Ask yourself why there is so much trade along the border for guns going one way and drugs going another.

 

[seandroog]

Have you seen the statistics of drug abuse among nations with legalized drugs? It is much lower. Regardless if a meth head would kill for another hit legal or not, there would be less meth heads and therefore less methheads killing.

Check out the gun violence in the US and compare it with drug use and gang violence. There is an undeniable connection.

If we legalized drugs and used the tax money to heavily subsidize drug and mental rehabilitation facilities it would be getting help directly to many of the people that kill before they kill.

Is an american life more valuable than a mexican life? Pretty sure we can all very safely assume that if you take away drugs from cartels you strip them of their power and you strip them from motivation to kill. Now I also realize these people wont quit being drug lords, got to school and get a degree in computer science. Most will remain in some sort of criminal element but one that is less profitable and less violent. If there was an easy answer we would have done it long ago, until then this is the easiest answer we have to drastically impact both crime and gun crime while addressing a lot of other social and economic issues along the way.

If you still aren't sure how guns and drugs are related ask yourself why there are so many gang related shootings and what the main source of income for gans tends to be. Also ask yourself why drug busts almost always come with a weapons cache. Ask yourself why there is so much trade along the border for guns going one way and drugs going another.

Why are drug cache's always found with gun cache's? Well none of us are detectives, so all of us can only speculate. My assumption would be that people who peddle in illegal wares usually peddle all illegal wares. Prostitution, drugs, guns, fake passports, etc. The money is good. My other assumption would be that guns=power, the power to take anything at any cost. That won't change no matter what is legal or illegal.

I am not completely against legalizing some drugs and then listening to the affects of other drugs to entertain if those should be legalized. But to say it's as black and white as "legalize all drugs + tax them = severe drop in gun violence" is just not certain at all. You can believe that would happen, but we aren't sure.

I truely believe that to make all guns illegal will severely drop gun violence. I don't think that we should make all guns illegal and I don't 100% know that it will fix gun violence. But throwing out a solution as extreme as "ban all guns, its that simple" makes about as much as sense as "legalize all drugs, it's that simple". It'll never happen, so it's not a very plausible solution.

Neither party would entertain making heroine, meth, crocodile, crack, moll-e, weed, shrooms and opium all legal. Hell, 4 loco is illegal here. Buzz cola was illegal in Louisiana!