Penn & Teller On Gun Control

Submitted by: CrakrJak 4 years ago

26 minutes long, but very much worth the view.
There are 83 comments:
Male 14,330
@Angilion

When out of arguments resort to nitpicking.
0
Reply
Male 2,513
Said it before and i`ll say it again.

Give us guns, don`t take them away.

Outlaws will get them no matter what, let`s level the field a bit
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]SO then it can be used for sporting purposes.[/quote]

Try reading a post before replying to it. That would stop you making irrelevant "replies", like the sentence above.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@Angilion

Then when will you outlaws swords and bows and arrows? Target shootings an olympic sport is it not? SO then it can be used for sporting purposes.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Guns are made solely for killing.[/quote]
I disagree. Consider this, I shoot at a target at the range. Would you consider this a misuse of the firearm? I certainly don`t.

Now, if you do not consider this a misuse of the firearm, then we can conclude that it is being used purposefully. Therefore, one must reach the ultimate conclusion that the purpose of a firearm is not to kill.

What then is the purpose? In all of the cases of use in which I consider a firearm to be used properly, I find that the purpose is to propel a bullet or other projectile over some distance.

Of course, this all hinges on your acceptance or denial that firing a gun at a shooting range is a proper way to use it.
0
Reply
Male 7,329
Angilion-"Guns are made solely for killing."

Guns are made solely for the purpose propelling a small tapered cylindrical bit of metal away from itself at a high velocity as accurately as possible.

The PERSON chooses what to throw it at.

The pistol pictured below was made SOLELY for shooting at targets. Not for killing, not for threatening and surely not for concealed carry.

0
Reply
Male 184
@McGovern1981- My point is that this isn`t an argument used in any form of intelligent debate on this issue. We both know that. For you to posture this claim as an argument held by intelligent supporters of reform only to attack it is dishonest.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Read the comments saying "Guns are made soley for killing" it`s said in everyone of these threads. Couldn`t be more wrong.[/quote]

Guns are made solely for killing. That`s what they`re designed for. That is the purpose of a gun.

Many people use them for shooting targets, but that`s just human ability to use things for purposes other than the purpose they were made for. It doesn`t change the purpose they were made for.

And don`t argue defence. That`s just silly in this context. The whole point of using a gun in defence is that it`s made solely for killing - you are using it to force someone to obey you by threatening to kill them or by killing them. Which is why you`re using something made solely for killing.

Sure, you can also use a gun as a paperweight, a hammer, a means of opening a locked door...all sorts of things, but it doesn`t change what a gun is made for - killing.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
@jinxjinx34

Read the comments saying "Guns are made soley for killing" it`s said in everyone of these threads. Couldn`t be more wrong.
0
Reply
Male 184
continued- If there are far more studies that support your position, why did you choose a tabloid article?

@McGovern1981- "Millions of guns are used everyday for sport and recreation in the US but the anti gunheads still cling to the argument they`re just for killing. Our forefathers would be ashamed of you!" This is such a bs strawman argument. There is nobody suggesting that guns are not used for sports. Show me one person claiming that gun sports do not exist.
0
Reply
Male 184
@crakrjak- oh, I see. You have provided a chart of stats from a notoriously dishonest tabloid as a rebuttal to many credible surveys. Is this the best you can do? In the very article showcasing South Africa being the 3rd most violent to the U.K. at number 1 it continues "South Africans suffer more than 20,000 murders each year - compared with Britain`s 921 in 2007." All of these "stats" have been obtained using different parameters chosen by the various institutions they are gathered from. I almost feel embarrassed for you for citing this "information" as relevant, and apparently you have done it twice! lol! "All BS studies with several flaws, there are far more studies and statistics that confirm that guns save many more lives than they take and prevent a lot of crimes like rape and robbery." What are the flaws, specifically? Where is this abundant statistical data supporting your claim? If there are "far more" studies that support you
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@aroc91

The Wermacht (German military) were generally considered honorable by Allied and Axis forces and were generally ignorant of the horrors perpetrated by the Nazi regime and Schutzstaffel.

The Wermacht did not attack German citizens, that was the special POLICE FORCE called the SS. Your argument supports a pro-gun stance.
0
Reply
Male 182
@SpermNinja81

"I`m astounded by the belief that the US government is going to turn on it`s citizens. I`m hearing it again and again in these gun debate threads. Really?"

Tell that to the citizens of Nazi Germany and the rest of the Axis.
0
Reply
Male 7,329
FoolsPrussia-"It never ceases to amaze me how Crakrjak can brazenly dismiss studies that contradict his point of view."


0
Reply
Male 3,445
It never ceases to amaze me how Crakrjak can brazenly dismiss studies that contradict his point of view.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
@skullgrin
That just makes America sound like a crap place to in. If you need a gun to save yourself from the government then that place isn`t worth living in. Also, WHO on this planet is going to try and over throw America? Like seriously dude, Korea are going to invade North America at some point?

@MeGrendel
I never said guns are available here, but there`s a difference between living in a country that doesn`t allow guns to be used and guns being widely available. Even though I said the U.K has around 8 deaths a year due to guns, that`s not a good thing.

@CrakrJak
1) Care to explain how you know the motives of those criminals and KNEW that they would commit crimes because the victim didn`t have a gun
2) Explain how, guns are supposed to scare off criminals yet you still have some of the highest shootings in the world?
3) When you cite the DailyMail as a NEWSWORTHY SOURCE, you`ve already lost your credibility.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
•"Gun Control? It`s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I`m a bad guy, I`m always gonna` have a gun. Safety locks? You pull a trigger with a lock on, and I`ll pull the trigger. We`ll see who wins." -- Former mobster Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, who testified against John Gotti (his former boss), admitted to killing nineteen people, and is now living under the Witness Protection Program.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]I posted this in another thread, but perhaps you didn`t see it. [/quote]
I posted how that chart is wrong in that same thread, but perhaps you didn`t see it.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Millions of guns are used everyday for sport and recreation in the US but the anti gunheads still cling to the argument they`re just for killing. Our forefathers would be ashamed of you!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]dm, she`s Scottish, not Irish lol. Her people have never known freedom, except in a movie. ;)[/quote]

ROFL classic!!!
0
Reply
Male 14,330
As you can see everyone wanting more control has never owned a single gun. For your information an AR-15 is one of the best target shiiting rifles you can get because yes the military likes their guns to be accurate.
[quote]I mean, do you seriously expect to win against the US military with some crappy second hand assault rifles?[/quote]

Ya that look real secondhand and crappy. The leftist solution ban an object that wasn`t legal for the shooter to have in the first place. It`s the objects fault lets not try to see what makes a person do such a thing.
0
Reply
Male 3,081
No Crackr, that`s the way you`re choosing to interpret a set of stats that aren`t about gun crime.

0
Reply
Male 14,330
@baradhili

Quite the facist state you have going there all for "safety."

[quote]“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” - Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany[/quote]

Now how did that work out again???
0
Reply
Male 459
I`m astounded by the belief that the US government is going to turn on it`s citizens. I`m hearing it again and again in these gun debate threads. Really? how likely is this, even if the amount of firearms were reduced or limited to less combat effective weaponry. I`ve never heard anything approaching that scenario being suggested in this country, and we`re the weirdos who gave up our guns. I have a healthy distrust of anything a politician says, sure. and some of the wars that have been started overseas might be considered criminal, but is the same armed forces who enlisted to fight FOR their country going to be compelled to attack their own citizens? I seriously doubt it. It`s also pretty unlikely that any foreign army would try to invade the US theyed just fire nukes., the biggest threat to American citizens are themselves.
0
Reply
Male 164
In australia all ranged weapons need a permit to own, need to be carried dissassembled and in teh case of guns, teh parts neede to be locked seperately in a safe and the police have the right to make regular un-announced checks.

Does this mean less murders? well stats show that teh murder rate didn`t drop that much when the gun laws went into effect. However the number of mass killings dropped pretty much to nil, gun related suicides also dropped close to nil
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Listypoos: That`s irrelevant when the actual crime rate is so elevated because of unarmed people.

It`s just common sense, muggers, murderers and rapists are less likely to commit their crimes if they are deterred by gun owners and concealed carry owners. The statistics back this up.

More gun laws and gun free zones, do not make anyone safer.
0
Reply
Male 3,081
"As you can see gun laws do not prevent crime, they just make crime easier for the criminals to commit them."

But your stats weren`t about gun crime, they were for violent crime. Post the stats for the ratio of violent crime involving guns and see how they compare then.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Jinx: As you can see gun laws do not prevent crime, they just make crime easier for the criminals to commit them.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
jinx:

I posted this in another thread, but perhaps you didn`t see it. Btw, America is #19 with a violent crime rate of 470 per 100,000.

0
Reply
Male 184
Crakrjak- How can one "prove" that a gun has saved a life or prevented a crime? Exactly how would this be measured?
0
Reply
Male 184
"The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States` 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany`s 0.21 (3 times higher)."- Wikipedia. I think statistics like this lend a great deal of weight to this discussion.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
FoolsPrussia: All BS studies with several flaws, there are far more studies and statistics that confirm that guns save many more lives than they take and prevent a lot of crimes like rape and robbery.
0
Reply
Male 7,329
8BitHero-"So what does that make me? Someone living in Europe? Am I defenseless or am I on the same level as everyone else?"

It makes you mostly defenseless to the 17+ guns per every 100 people that are privately held in Europe (that`s an average. May be higher or lower depending on which country in Europe you`re in).

What? You actually thought there weren`t guns to be had where you live?
0
Reply
Male 936
@8bithero

they were pretty clear about this in the video, but we need guns now so that when the time comes and we have to fight for our freedom again we would be armed and ready. Let`s say that we didnt have guns because we`re not at war anymore like you said. Then all of a sudden the government or someone else steps in and tries to over throw us. What do we do? stand in line and get our guns? no way would the people attempting to over throw us allow that.

Bottom line: owning guns prevents the need for us to overthrow our government since the government won`t be able to do it in the first place
0
Reply
Male 5,413
I love Penn and Teller. But they REALLY messed up with the whole "Back-in-time" part. Good point THEN to use an excuse for guns. Arm yourself in the face of danger. It`s a war. Fine, I get that. So then WHAT REASON would you need a gun now? Back then they had a reason, today you don`t? Just bored and feel like shooting a school or cinema? Who are you fighting there? Also back then,I doubt the 2nd Amendment thought 200 years into the future where a gun is now a rapid fire killing machine.

12:28
"A bad guy no longer knows who`s carrying and who isn`t" So then why does your country still have 10 000 deaths a year in places like schools, shopping centers and cinemas yet countries without guns, have around .....8?
0
Reply
Male 936
@mischeif954 following your same logic, but in reverse, maybe no one should be allowed to use steak knives. They can be used as weapons. Lets get rid of scissors too. Shoot. We should probably ban sports that throw objects because someone might get hurt.

The point is that there is a line that must be crossed before owning weapons is unreasonable. Guns do not cross that line. Nuclear weapons on the other hand do.

0
Reply
Male 5,413
Good post. I still don`t like guns, BUT, I took on some of the points made.

But I still have questions
So what does that make me? Someone living in Europe? Am I defenseless or am I on the same level as everyone else? Everyone has a gun criminal or civilian, yet here they don`t.

Not to mention it`s a fact that less guns results in less gun crimes/death. Killing someone from a distance with a weapon. I still don`t think it`s a good idea. Add MORE gun control to your country if you want, but how do you watch over those who are able to have them....like a mentally handicapped person like recently?
0
Reply
Male 6
If you think Adam`s story is impossible,, last week my aunt`s step son basically made the small fortune of $7111 workin a fifteen hour week in their apartment and there roomate`s mother`s neighbour has been doing this for nine months and easily made more than $7111 part-time On there laptop. use the instructions at this site, Great70dotcom
0
Reply
Male 670
Following the same logic, why not let every person, have a nuclear weapon I wouldn`t mess with someone with nuclear capabilities.

Are they suggesting we should have guns in zones that are gun free zones? Like schools, airports, federal buildings?
0
Reply
Male 616
Obama pisses on the constitution every morning
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]I understand the overthrow of tyrany part. Good luck with that against the US military...[/quote]
As a serious question, why does the anti-gun crowd always jump to the most extreme example while attempting to dismiss the fact that firearms can effectively be used to prevent tyranny?

Does the City of Eau Claire and its police force have tanks, missiles, etc? Of course not. There have been many instances of citizens legally defending themselves from local governments. In addition, there are documented instances in which local authorities deterred unlawful federal actions with the threat of firearm-backed encounters.

Lastly, who here believes that the US military would engage in a widespread attack on the citizens of this country? Not to mention that domestic offensive use of the military is unconstitutional.
0
Reply
Male 616
@ Fools Why should something wich is stated clearly need interpretation unless you don`t uderstand it?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
As a counter, here is a discussion about interpretations of the 2nd Amendment prior to the last 30 years or so: Link
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Yeah. If the Government suddenly became an aggressor to the people, we the people would have the advantage.
0
Reply
Male 3,576
@Mikeoxsbiggg
>>Good luck with that against the US military.

says the guy from the country that burned down the White House
0
Reply
Male 7,329
Draculya-"Maybe nothing short of a complete ban will work."

The reality is that even a complete ban will NOT work. A ban would be just a law, and criminals have been known to break a law occasionally.

Mikeoxsbiggg-"Good luck with that against the US military..."

If the military were ever turned against the populace, a vast portion of said military would immediatly begin defending the populace from the government. They would have help (armed populace).
0
Reply
Male 1,497
I understand the overthrow of tyrany part. Good luck with that against the US military...
0
Reply
Male 10,339
dm, she`s Scottish, not Irish lol. Her people have never known freedom, except in a movie. ;)
0
Reply
Male 10,339
...says the woman who lives under the rule of the government we overthrew.
0
Reply
Male 3,576
@MacGuffin
don`t you live in the same place as the I.R.A?
how is the british occupation going for you?
:-)
0
Reply
Female 2,602
I love the argument that gun ownership is about being able to protect yourself against your own government. Sounds like such a lovely place to live.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
That last shot, was drating awesome.
0
Reply
Male 3,576
@toonces

wow someone who gets it! you don`t even live in the US and still you get it!
the Amendment 2 is about protecting the people from the government.
so we can overthrow them if they take our rights a way.
0
Reply
Male 2,376
the people in control do not have your best intentions in mind... the people that control control this world are sick.. this is obvious by the wars they fight for oil. they want to control you. and you idiot anti-gun people would let them.. in the same of "safety" of course.. drat.. STOP THIS dratIN PLANET I WANT OFF
0
Reply
Female 6,381
toonces: absolutely right on. American gun-packers are just wildly infatuated with the feeling that can knock down any bully in the yard. Rebelling against their own democratically (well, almost) elected government is a crock.
The States see more than six times the per capita rate of gun killings as their biggest trading partner next door. Whatever points you want to make about gun control laws, you can`t tell me they`re doing things right.
0
Reply
Male 2,542
[quote]rarely if ever use them[/quote]

this is true. its a last ditch effort, but they still train with them and still carry them.
0
Reply
Male 1,229
@Draculya: Rape and Murder are completely banned as well.

How is that working out?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I hope @Gerry is reading this thread, because I remember in another one he said "At least they aren`t blaming the gays...yet."

Well here it is.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
It`s obviously possible to have a society that`s better in nearly every way, without having a need for guns, and without the fear of tyranny.

Isn`t that worth looking into?
0
Reply
Male 1,243
Much stricter gun controls are coming, Obama has had gun controls on the agenda for a long time, now that he is in his last term he will push it through with the recent travesty providing all the momentum. The problem with gun nuts is that they just can`t accept when they are wrong, civilians carrying and having easy access to guns is no longer a good idea and is in fact a negative thing which leads to an unecesarry loss of life.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]marines still use 1911`s (102 years later). pretty sure the army issues bertta m9`s[/quote]

And I`m pretty sure they rarely if ever use them other than as formal uniform. Swords are still in the army too, but they`re not intended for use in combat. I might be wrong, but to me "pistol + regular military = officer`s mostly ceremonial sidearm".
0
Reply
Male 2,376
"I mean, do you seriously expect to win against the US military with some crappy second hand assault rifles?"

see Vietnam
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I was under the impression that the underlying reasoning behind widespread ownership of guns, including some military-level weapons, was twofold:

1) To make a revolution easier in the event of internal tyranny.
2) To make violent resistance easier in the event of occupation by invaders.

In that context, widespread private ownership of things such as assault rifles makes sense. If I was holed up in the hills fighting a tyrant or invaders, I`d want an assault rifle, many bullets and many other people with assault rifles and many bullets.

But...does it really matter with modern technology? Your camp could be detected from space and destroyed by an air strike. One modern military plane would be enough.

But...there are still insurgents in Afghanistan et alia, so it`s obviously still possible in some circumstances.

Also, is it worth the cost in peacetime? The USA approach to guns has a very high price.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: As skypirate said below, it`s a "Scary looking gun" ban that has no basis in reality.

The parts on most modern guns are so easily interchangeable to the point you can take any gun and make it look `militarized`. How something looks on the outside doesn`t change how it works on the inside.

It`s akin to these kids putting rear wings and fender flares on their Honda Civics. It doesn`t make them go any faster, just look flashy.
0
Reply
Male 8
If we want to be able to overthrow our government, we need some heavier machinery. We should vote to allow owning bombs, bombers, fighter jets, tanks heavy explosives and mustard gas for the public.

I mean, do you seriously expect to win against the US military with some crappy second hand assault rifles?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@CJ: Well I suppose I stand corrected. It still doesn`t negate the point of @Patchouly`s post, though, that the lines are arbitrary.
0
Reply
Male 2,542
[quot]Hunting rifles aren`t military issue[/quote]
Remington 700 is pretty common hinting rifle and military sniper rifle.
[quote]military personnel with shotguns[/quote]
benelli m4 is a military shotgun
[quote]Pistols aren`t technically military weapons[/quote]
??? marines still use 1911`s (102 years later). pretty sure the army issues bertta m9`s

thats military issue rifles, shotguns and pistols that you can buy today in the US. none of which are automatic and wouldnt be effected by a `assult weapons` ban....even though assault weapons have been banned since 1986...should be called scary looking gun ban.



0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: [quote]I don`t recall seeing any military personnel with shotguns[/quote]

Shotguns have been integral to the military since before the revolutionary war.

0
Reply
Male 17,512
patchgrabber: Nice attempt at changing the subject, but it didn`t work.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@dm2754: Hunting rifles aren`t military issue, and although I`m not positive I don`t recall seeing any military personnel with shotguns, but they may have some somewhere. Pistols aren`t technically military weapons, but @Patchouly makes an interesting point. Lines are obviously drawn, but where the lines are drawn seems to be arbitrary. What is the rationale for not letting a person own a nuclear bomb?
0
Reply
Male 14,773
@insane_ai I agree. Gun control doesn`t work. Maybe nothing short of a complete ban will work. I recommend a complete ban.
0
Reply
Male 14,773
It`s just occurred to me that if the purpose of the right to bear arms is to overthrow a corrupt government, then they`re going to need Stinger missiles to defeat air-support.
0
Reply
Male 1,471
Isn`t their point a false dichotomy?..
2nd amendment and freedom vs. gun control and tyranny?
Ever been to Europe ?.. Most (if not all) European countries have very strict gun laws, only allowing hunting rifles/shotguns to people who qualify for a hunting permit.

Yet, many European countries are even more free, and have much lower crime rates than the USA.
0
Reply
Male 3,576
@patchouly
Shot guns, rifles and, hand guns are military weaponry.
so much for darwing the line.
0
Reply
Female 2,509
1st - guns didnt shoot those children, a person did.
HOWEVER, does society really need knock offs of the military rifle in the public`s hands? When you get right down to it, it seem to me it is an ego thing to own said rifle. And if you believe you need one to protect yourself from the government, shouldn`t you be questioning your government and not the second ammendment?
A suggestion...if you have the need to shoot a semi-automatic let the shooting ranges provide ones that you can rent. Your need to shoot them will be satisfied.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
I agree with everything Penn and Teller have to say, except this.

Not that it matters, but my opinion on this subject is simple. Allow people to have guns. Despite what you may have heard, Canadians do have guns. Shot guns, rifles and, with a permit, hand guns. That being said, military weaponry has no business being in the hands of the general public. You can`t hunt with it and it isn`t for personal protection. It is meant to kill lots of people.

You can argue your rights all you want but then where do you draw the line? If you can have fully automatic weaponry, can you own a flame thrower? How about a bazooka? A tank? Where do you draw the line? If a line is drawn, then how do you lend credence to anything other than basic weaponry?

Let Americans keep their hand guns. Take away any and all military weapons.

Of course, as I mentioned, that is just my opinion.
0
Reply
Female 1,743
I love the BS episode about organic foods. That needs to be shown to every goddamn piece of poo hippy I meet that gets all preachy about food.
0
Reply
Male 1,229
Yep, Penn & Teller sum it up pretty well.
0
Reply
Male 505
That people don`t have the right to bear arms is as ridiculous as creationism - that should see a few people conflicted about this video.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Hmm, I wonder how @CJ feels about the rest of P&Ts Bull$hit videos, like the ones on creationism and religion...
0
Reply
Male 8
Oh I can only imagine this discussion will be civilised.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Link: Penn & Teller On Gun Control [Rate Link] - 26 minutes long, but very much worth the view.
0
Reply