Does Gun Control Increase Security or Infringe Human Rights?
Does Gun Control Increase Security or Infringe Human Rights?

Gunslinger Snavely here to say “PEW PEW PEW PEW….Welcome to our channel of D-D-Death” [Intro Music] Death of a Notion. In today’s episode, we’re gonna be pitting together the political Left’s ideology of gun control against the political Right’s ideology of an inalienable right to bear arms. Where are the lines drawn on this matter in the USA and internationally? Are there trends and statistics that can be observed to help human society with some reasonable level of gun control? Is it possible that the left and the right are
both in the right, and can we use reason to figure out a third option that both sides can agree on? I guess we’re gonna find out today! Let’s start off with some
common ground between the two sides rather than immediately pit them against
each other. Like there is one fact about guns that a grand majority of people can
agree with and that is guns make the job of killing people a whole lot easier. Also from the Pew Research Center, if I were to ask an American the statement: “Should we prevent the mentally ill from purchasing guns?” or “Should we bar the sale of guns to those who are on no-fly or watch lists?” It doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat, 80% of you will agree with those statements. Since we have the groundwork laid out for us, let’s start critically thinking as a group, and imagine that a hypothetical law was put in place
that made it illegal to sell guns to the mentally ill. What illnesses do we include in this law? And are there any that we can exclude? Because both Paranoid Schizophrenia and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder are mental illnesses. Yet someone who is OCD would hypothetically be fine with owning a gun. You know, as long as they spend four hours a day cleaning it and loading it and
reloading it. While the Paranoid Schizophrenic would be more likely to
shoot up a bunch of monsters in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and killing innocent
bystanders. OCD probably shouldn’t go under this mentally ill gun control blanket. Neither should most sexually-based mental illnesses. And illnesses such as depression are so widespread, how and why would we even bar
such an illness from buying guns? What I’m trying to get at is this: whatever
exhaustive list of mental disorders you wish to be included in this hypothetical
law, there will be somebody there ready to argue that you have one too many or one too few mental disorders on your list. So now let’s see the best arguments for gun control presented by both sides. The Right says: “More gun control is not needed. Education about guns and gun safety is what is
needed to prevent accidental gun deaths.” And 95 percent of U.S. gun owners say that
children should learn about gun safety. But I say: “little did they know that if they
made gun safety education mandatory, if it is in fact needed, IS a form of gun
control that is used in many nation states. The Right says: “Gun control laws
will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws.” Which is
absolutely true, but I say it will make obtaining those guns just a little bit
harder to get. Also take this logic to the full extent and think about it.
“Murder control laws will not prevent criminals from committing murder,
therefore we do not need murder control laws.” It’s time to Purge, y’all!!! The Right says: “gun control laws and lower gun ownership rates do not prevent suicides.” Which is a
solid argument; if people want to commit suicide there are many ways to kill
oneself. and they site that “Lithuania has one of the world’s lowest gun
ownership rates of seven hundred guns per 100,000 people, but it’s suicide rate
was 45.06 per 100,000 people in 1999, and it’s the highest suicide rate among countries with available information.” The Left says: “High-capacity magazines should be banned because they easily turn murder into
mass murder. And they cite that “In a Mother Jones Investigation found that
high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the sixty-two mass
shootings between 1982 and 2012. When high-capacity magazines were used in
mass shootings the death rate rose 63 percent and the injury rate rose 156
percent. The Left says: “A majority of adults, including most gun owners support common-sense gun control such as background checks, banning of assault weapons, and banning of high-capacity magazines.” To be fairrr, I found an article
that says that bans on assault weapons do not reduce gun deaths.
Just because people support an notion, doesn’t mean that there is good science
to back it up. And heck, before researching this video, I thought banning
assault weapons was a no-brainer. But it doesn’t show the results that we would
expect when concerning gun related deaths. The Left says: “The Second
Amendment was put in place to protect the rights of militias to own guns, not
the rights of individuals.” In 1791, baby USA wrote within its Constitution the
Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights which states that “a
well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Within this statement, there are two somewhat obvious statements that are said. One, that a militia brings security, and two, keeping and bearing arms is a human right.
Something I, and something some historians have noticed, is that these
two things are very much intertwined Rereading the statement as a whole, as a
Philosophical and Psychological statement “A well-regulated militia brings security,
therefore, for the purposes of increasing flow and productivity to our security,
keeping and bearing arms is a human right.” The notion that the founding
fathers wrote this statement for the purposes of protecting the individual
rights alone is kind of wrong. Within the context of the full sentence that is the
Second Amendment, the individual’s rights are there to protect the collective. Not
the individual’s rights are there to protect the individual when their own
shiz hits their own fan. For the purposes of straight up answering the main question of the video, I’m gonna have to do some REAL TALK! Mmmm, this is
gonna be some Real Talk y’all. Okay, taking all the guns away is a bad idea. Giving every last body a gun also a bad idea. Too many dead bodies when you take
either extreme path. Now gun control as a notion in and of itself is…wait for it…CONTROLLING. And you know what else is controlling? A ducking well-regulated militia. A militia that’s got their shiz together. A militia that knows where most all of its guns are. A militia that controls where its guns are. A militia that already in its own right requires a back-ground check of physical and mental health just to get in. Do you think the founding fathers expected a group of white bass Hicks to be the source of their security? White bass hicks who ain’t regulating shiz and showing off their inalienable right to bear arms? Heck to the naw! You know who they were
expecting to provide us security? I’ll tell you who they be expecting to
provide us security. THE MI-LI-TA-RY. You know, back in the day they didn’t have a U.S.
Army taking care of the big stuff for us. *misquacked* They had the common man there as part of
the militia taking care of that big stuff. Y’all want to stop this onslaught
of mass shootings in our culture? Have a couple of your military boys and gals
guarding the places you want to see protected. Highschools? Military.
Universities? Military. Airports? Military. Southern borders? Hmmmm? USE THE DUCKING MILITARY! So yes, gun control increases security. And yes it may infringe on
human rights, but you can get your rights back as soon as you decide to add to the
collective security in the military. And you can still get your guns from Ruraltown, Letterkenny, USA. Just let the government know what heat you are packing,
why you are packing heat, and how you will be protecting your heat so that
your dumbass five-year-old doesn’t blow off his or his brothers head. We ain’t
living in the Wild West here folks. Gun control. Good. Increases security and
flow of the militia. And protects human rights by protecting the lives of those
who call the USA their home. But of course not so much gun control that guns
become impossible to buy, keep, and bear. Because whooo-weeeee, that would clearly infringe on human rights and would definitely be bad for everybody. Phew…All right we good… we good? All right. Now back to your regularly scheduled type of talking. And even though guns were abundant in revolutionary America, so where the gun restrictions. This may sound stupid now, but they had gun laws
making it illegal to sell guns to Native Americans, Irish indentured servants and
black slaves. So even then, with the Second Amendment fresh on everyone’s
mind there is evidence of gun control in some form. And since it appears that some
level of gun control is good and reasonable, it’d be nice to have some gun
related statistics to help guide politicians to help create policies that
would hypothetically reduce the number of gun related deaths in their
jurisdiction. And that’s what I’m here for! In a paper by Koper et. al., it
says that “available information suggests that automatic weapons and other
high-capacity semi-automatics are involved in as many as 57% to firearms mass murders.” However, paraphrasing David Hemingway, who is the Director of the
Harvard Injury Control Research Center, suggests that even though banning
assault weapons may reduce the number of mass murders or shootings it would do
little to no effect on reducing the number of deaths caused by guns. Also in
a 2017 paper Hemingway examined laws that banned assault rifles in the
context of other firearms related laws. And none of the assault weapons banning
laws found a decrease in firearm homicides. So apparently, banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons doesn’t reduce the
amount of gun deaths. Here’s a question: Where are the world’s guns? Wait for it…just look at this graph. Let it soak in….okay, next question. What is the best
guesstimate for the number of gun related deaths connected to each type of
gun? Even though handguns and shotguns have similar prevalence in quantity
available, handguns by far are the most frequent gun of choice in homicides. But
the type of gun isn’t the largest indicator of what gun is likely to be
used to kill someone. Studies have shown a significant correlation between the
size of caliber and frequency of gun homicides. The larger the caliber of the
gun, the more likely it’ll be used to kill someone. Here’s another question: Is
there any correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths in
a country? Or gun to person frequency and the number of gun deaths per capita? Alright, wait for it…I’ll show you another graph. The first graph when compared to all countries that have this data no correlation is found. However, if you have only developed countries in this graph and excluding the very racist and killing
South Africa, there is a strong correlation found. A good formula to remember this by is: Developed Country + More Guns=More Death by Guns. Or depending on who you’re talking to: Mad and Crazy People in a Country + Just a Few Guns=Significantly More Death by Guns. Which brings us to
the next question: Are there any psychological trends inside the minds of
those who commit mass murder? Dr. James Knoll in an article on says this: “Most perpetrators are young males who act alone after
carefully planning the event. They often have a long-standing fascination with
weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings usually occur in a
public place and during the daytime. The mass murderer is an injustice collector
who spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined
rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid worldview
with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and grudge holding. He
is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are enjoying life’s
all-you-can-eat buffet while he must peer through the window; and outside
loner always looking in. He creates and enacts and odious screenplay of grandiose
and public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when
he does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for
apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs.
Fury, deep despair, and callous selfishness eventually crystallize into
fantasies of violent revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass
murderer typically expects to die, and frequently does in what amounts to a
mass-homicide personal-suicide. Some clearly do not meet criteria for any
mental disorder and often may justify their acts on political or religious
grounds.” We can easily predict a high risk group, but have no way to identify
the one specific person who will go haywire or when they will go haywire. One
last thing that I think everyone should be aware of concerning people who commit
mass murder: Often times, they tell someone that they are going to do it.
Either explicitly, or in a clear negative and weary tone. So if
someone you know meets the general criteria of someone who is in the
high-risk group, and you hear or see them communicate that they are going to do it,
here’s my professional list of common sense list of things to do in this
situation, as helped by my bachelor’s degree in psychology and my minor in
criminology. First, talk to them. You alone may be able to stop or persuade them
from doing those harmful actions. Second, call their authorities. Family members,
pastors if applicable, police; people who are above them who can investigate
further and talk to them. And third, at least in the following weeks, try to
befriend them. Nobody can be friends with everybody that they meet all the time.
But people like that obviously need some extra loving if they get to that
point. Prove to them that the way that they were thinking was wrong, and that
there are people who do care about their needs. Here’s a question: Where are the
most common mass murder locations? The sample size that I found was from an
article on the Washington Post, and it records every instance of 4 or more people
dying from a gun in the United States since 1969. So here are your Top 10ish
Mass Murder Locations. Low and tied for number 10, but prevalent
enough to get me to notice, was Post Offices, Military Bases, and Auto Shops.
Number 9: the Malls and Marketplaces. Number 8: Elementary Schools. Number 7: on
Government property. Number 6: High Schools. Number 5: Colleges and
Universities. Yes, places of education are hotspots. If we combined them, they would be collectively number 3. Number 4: Religious Meeting Places. Number 3: at Home; in close proximity to someone who just snaps and goes cray-cray on the fam. Number 2: at Bars, Clubs, and Restaurants. And the Number 1 place you are most
likely to experience a mass shooting event, which is still very unlikely IS: by
the hand of your coworkers. It doesn’t matter if it’s white collar or blue
collar; a stressed co-worker can be a deadly co-worker. So smile! Make a friend! And watch them spare your life as they shoot up the place and they don’t tell you first. Here’s a question: Are there any laws in
place in certain States and Providences that are successful in keeping gun
deaths low? Even in the United States? Oh yeah! Massachusetts got wise and treated
the ability to buy a gun very similarly to the way that we buy a car: with a gun
license and registering the gun into the Massachusetts Gun Transactions Portal.
Recent data shows that Massachusetts had 3.6 gun deaths out of 100,000 people in comparison to New Hampshire, which is very close and
similar culturally, but has very lax gun control laws, they have a gun death
rate of 9.9 out of 100,000, almost 3 times more. And the
top three states with regards to gun death rates are Alaska, Alabama, and
Louisiana, all of which had loose gun laws, all had gun death rates over 21 out of 100,000. Now internationally speaking, there is one
nation state that has such an amazingly low gun homicide rate that it would be
wrong of me not to bring it up, and that nation is Japan. In Japan, most but not
all guns are illegal. Gun ownership is therefore rare, and the gun homicide rate
in Japan is 1 in 10 million per year. The only guns that Japan permits are
shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or guns
that are used in competitions like skeet. However, one looking to obtain one of
these few legal guns in Japan must go through an onslaught of prerequisite
tasks. One, they gotta obtained formal instruction on the safety and usage of
the weapon. Two, they gotta pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests. Three,
they gotta undergo a rigorously detailed background check. Four, they gotta inform
the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored (mostly to see if
they are doing it safely). And five, they gotta submit their firearms for annual
inspection, again for safety reasons. This may be a little bit overkill, like
banning handguns and requiring that you have to get your gun expected every
year, may be unnecessary, but their impressive numbers speak
for themselves. Some analysts speculate a couple reasons why Japan has such an
aversion to firearms, may be from the demilitarization that happened in the
aftermath of World War II. And since the citizens observed that the overall crime
rate is low, most Japanese see no need for firearms. So now there should at least
be some level of urgency to resolve this issue to at least statistically reduce
the amount of gun related deaths that happen within any state that enacts
policies consistent with what this research shows. But anywho, hopefully as a
result of all this research, you may now realize that the Liberal concept of gun
control is actually reasonable and can work. And that the Conservative concept of
an inalienable right to bear arms may bring security when it is reserved for
the military and controlled within acceptable reason within the main
populace. Personally, I think that Massachusetts way of requiring a license
and registration to buy a gun, plus a part of Japan’s way to require a mental
and background checks every time you get the license, which I think
should happen once every five years, plus one or two military personnel guarding
at least all of our schools and universities and businesses that can buy
that kind of security time, plus a cultural awareness to love and befriend
those who are in the high-risk category to become mass murderers, will be all
that we need to combat this cultural epidemic within the US and around the
world. This video was made by Tim and Kaiida Snavely on the channel called
Death of a Notion. And definitely not by people who imagine a utopia involving zero
guns, nor involving zero gun control restrictions, so that every last Bad Chad and Crazy
Dave can buy whatever gun whenever they want. Because as long as there’s deviance,
and statistically there always will be, there will need to be some security
system in place to redirect those deviants from causing themselves or society harm. And hey, if you would like to become more enlightened with joy and knowledge,
depressed because I killed a notion that you held onto and you accept that, enraged
because I killed a notion that you held on to and you’re trying to defend a
dead horse, or thoughtful because I listen to well reasoned counter arguments to defend the
notions that I try to bring death to. If you would like to be more of any of those
things, please do us a giddy and click on those like and subscribe buttons. And
until next time, Kumbaya Mother Duckers. The Right goes: *makes elephant noise*. The Left goes: “Hee-Haw”. The Tim goes:…… “Quack”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *