Maybe I’m Wrong: Regulating Guns like Cars
Maybe I’m Wrong: Regulating Guns like Cars


I’m Krishna Andavolu,
and I’m willing to admit that even though
I have strong opinions, I’m not always right. In this series, I’m gonna talk
about guns in America. I’m interested
in seeing if we can talk about serious, polarizing stuff while still keeping
an open mind. This is “Maybe I’m Wrong.” ♪♪ Maybe I’m wrong, but if guns
were treated like cars, gun deaths in the United States
would be reduced. Here’s why. Cars defined post-war America. And then they became a legitimate
public safety concern with increasing
fatal car crashes in the 1960s. But smart regulators
didn’t ban cars. They mandated a simple,
effective safety feature — the seatbelt. Since 1968,
when American car manufacturers were required
to install seatbelts, car-accident deaths
have plummeted. However, the Consumer Protection
Safety Act of 1976 specifically excluded firearms from most safety-testing
requirements. Why? I believe lawmakers then
feared any regulation would not withstand
court challenges under the Second Amendment. Even if the Second Amendment carves our special protection
for bearing arms, the First Amendment
protects free assembly, which I interpret as
the unfettered ability to travel to meet people. Cars are immensely
important tools, and so are guns. And regulating car safety
hasn’t yet infringed on our ability to get around. But then again, maybe I’m wrong. ♪♪

78 thoughts on “Maybe I’m Wrong: Regulating Guns like Cars”

  1. VICELAND says:

    On September 18, VICE is hosting a Facebook Live debate on gun-related issues.

    Set a reminder and RSVP here: https://bit.ly/2N5hIDA

  2. Powah says:

    Guns don't kill people, cars kill people…with guns.

  3. izz Hipp says:

    Ban CRIMINALS

  4. noir . says:

    this guy just loves guns .

  5. Charles Waldon says:

    Wrong

  6. Expert Excavating says:

    Gun regulation is more complex than a comparison to cars. We need cars in America to live, an exact point smartly mentioned in this video. The necessity to travel and the ability to carry guns is divided by one hugely important factor: the CONSTITUTION. I'm not hyper 2nd amendment, but politics aside, some of the arguments in this video were very weak. I'm all for proper discussion and debate, and perhaps I'm going on too much for a series titled "Maybe I'm wrong"… but still.

  7. Adam Helsel says:

    Obviously guns just need to be weed. Make them be being weed.

  8. zum says:

    guns are already regulated, you cant be a felon, under 18/21, buy one fully automatic, buy one over .50 caliber, need a federal background check, need permit to carry, etc.

  9. _ says:

    More people killed by cars, planes, trains, drugs, bad food habits, and idiocy.

  10. ChachinAKAChino says:

    Person crashes car it's the person's fault not the car. Person shoots gun it's the guns fault not the person. This is America.

  11. Doobiejimbob says:

    lol learn 2 defend yourself. bottom line

  12. GrapeDrank25 says:

    Not a bad idea, but I think the focus should be more on things like firearm education, background checks and security than stricter gun laws. Mass shooters don’t care about gun laws.

  13. Apollo370Z says:

    First off cars aren't a constitutional right.
    Second the push from anti-gun left has made firearm education non existent. Firearm safety used to be taught in schools as part of the curriculum in many parts of the country, as some school even had shooting as a sport. This lack of education is the biggest factor here, specially when comes to the leftist anti-gunners.

  14. Masta nASTY says:

    He's behind a desk and holding a pencil…why the thumbs down?

  15. Psycho Sinder says:

    I was here

  16. Christian Traverse says:

    Most guns now in days have a safety… Is this not a harm reduction feature equivalent to the seatbelt example that was given with cars?

  17. Nicholas Scott says:

    Confused about the point? Guns today are very high quality and safe to use. I do remember a ton of cheap $25 pistols in the 80s but the atf basically banned them as unsafe

  18. Home Wall says:

    How many people would prefer a car with no seat belts? The regulation was perhaps a good nudge, but in the end it's likely to be a problem in that better solutions are not looked at now that a seat belt standard has been made mandatory by law.
    Guns rarely injure people by accident, as cars may be involved in accidents daily. The intent of a gun is impose "harm" on its target, but a car isn't.

  19. Nicholas Bergmann says:

    1776

  20. PirateDynamics says:

    Regulating car safety HAS infringed on your right to get around. Airbags, side-impact beams, crumple zones, extensive testing and development, emissions controls, etc. all cost money. In China, they have almost none of these regulations, and there are brand new cars that you can buy for $5000.
    The regulations that we have absolutely do price a certain portion of the population of of car ownership, especially new car ownership, but because there is no right to own and drive a car built into the constitution this isn't really something that anyone has a problem with.

    And the other part of you analogy that doesn't work is this; what proposed gun safety measure is as simple and effective as a seat belt, or even an airbag? All of the proposals I see are ridiculous shoehorning of electronics into what is otherwise a purely mechanical device; fingerprint censors, pin pads, lockouts that require the presence of a special bracelet or ring, etc. are all complicated and fundamentally change the nature and functionality of the device. And really, lets face it, most of them are bad-faith efforts by anti-gun activists to make guns less functional and more expensive, not actually safer.

    Either way this show looks great, I love Weediquette and think you're a thoughtful guy and a great TV host. I'm sure this will be worth watching.

  21. Lynden Blomberg says:

    It's a good analogy, but what would those actual regulations be for guns?

  22. miccheck11 says:

    Oh so registration……lol no

  23. notnowliberty says:

    Interesting, but then again, although I have first hand experience with both cars and guns in Europe as well as the States, I won't be able to watch this. So, not interesting after all. Thanks for trying your best at this thing called conversation.

  24. Ben Marvin says:

    More laws will not help because people that commit gun violence do not care and they're already breaking the law. I dunno, regulate murder to be against the law or something.

  25. Trust Chacem says:

    “Gun deaths” include suicided and accidents as well as shootings I don’t mind you using gun accidents in this senecio because most car deaths happen because of accidents also the seatbelt was around before it was regulated to be in all cars what do we have that we could add to guns for safety is were this video should have gone but you didn’t really answer that did you

  26. Loping Camshaft says:

    Yes, you're wrong. The comparison isn't fair becasue cars aren't really protected the same way guns are under judicial review. The founders had no concept of cars and guns weren't anything like they are now. Which, as a side note, speaks to the obsolescence of the Constitution. Jefferson said that Americans should revisit the Constitution every 20 years and rewrite it from scratch.

    Anyway, guns should be treated like the weapons of mass destruction they are and be limited to only the few people and orgs that need them, like toxic chemicals or radioactive material. They serve no other practical purpose than to kill.

  27. Caesar Hernandez says:

    Driving is a privilege. The right to self preservation is an American right. (Really a human right)

  28. Travis Norseman says:

    There is ZERO compromise on this issue. Guns are not cars. Period. Guns, or the INDIVIDUAL Right to Bear Arms is about INDIVIDUAL self defense. specifically from regulation hungery monsters like you. It's about human nature, there will ALWAYS be people, like you, who want to rule other people and the 2nd Amendment is the final line of defense against it.

  29. Fox Mulder says:

    you'd have a bit more credibility, if you literally didn't look like every hoplophobic #SJW-Taliban mangina, who's last experience outside an urban metropolitan area is a rest stop along I-95, on your way to another city.

    wait until someone makes the same retarded prior restraint regulatory argument vs 1st Amendment.

    fucking idiot: DEMONSTRATE that you comprehend what a RIGHT is, as guaranteed in the constitution, NOT created by the Constitution or the govt, the same constitution in which that same said govt is supposed to abide by, but never does.

    really, stop fucking living in la la land: drugs are illegal (which they should NOT be, as ALL drug laws too are unconstitutional), and yet they can get and smuggle drugs, phones and guns even in prisons, where it's entirely 100% govt controlled.

    so WTF makes you delude you're gonna stop gun ownership?

    most anti-gunners have at least bought and smoked 'illegal' weed at some point in their lives.

    you'd think the ease of that experience alone should illuminate to the opposite effect in reality, vs feigned empathy intent of gun control 'laws,' let alone any drug laws.

    But your problem, as much is the case with EVERYTHING your dummy commie cunt assholes are engaged in??

    you're utter hypocrites: you'd infringe on people's rights, if they're not of the same political tribe as you, but excuse it, when they're 'your own.'

    NOBODY politically aware believes you're honest brokers, precisely because you're not interested in conversation, but control: you're literally like every rapist, pedophile killers. You simply lie to get your way. And power and control is the end. Not conversation or even coexistence.

    You're just sociopaths. Stop with the pretenses.

    Lucky for the other half, even if you want the entire country to be disarmed, the portion of the population you want to disarm are heavily armed, and you on the most part abhor guns, don't know WTF to do with one, or know WTF do with several armed bodies. xD

    So WTF makes you delude the already armed population who like to keep it that way, would even negotiate with assholes who hate them, their way of life, their guns, and especially when the very same anti-gunners who want the other half disarmed themselves wish to remain disarmed??

    xD

    Or, maybe you can simply be honest and admit to 90% plagiarizing the popular Steven Crowder segment on " ________, change my mind", without overtly sounding like you got 'your idea' by watching him, because everyone who knows about media landscape knows what a fucking astroturf fraud y'all at VICE are. xD

  30. Mcintyre says:

    Guns themselves are not an issue – mental health, poverty, low-income single-parent households and lack of education are. There is a blatant and direct correlation between poverty and crime. Gun ownership as is an all time high – violence from guns is at an all time low.

    "Since 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, the nation’s violent crime rate and its murder rate have decreased by more than half, as Americans have acquired over 170 million new guns, roughly doubling the number of privately owned guns in the United States."

    The statistics speak for themselves. There's an argument to be made that we need to help low-income areas, help mentally struggling people and love each other. But there is simply not a logical argument for gun control / banning guns.

  31. Tacoma Dental says:

    What a douchebag. Maybe I'm wrong, but we should regulate liberals.

  32. Lynellf says:

    Man, that beard tho.

  33. i am watchin you says:

    Regulating guns is like regulating prostitution…it will always be unregulated and works best with less laws restraining certain gun models from being purchased in certain states…

  34. Tonymacaronie says:

    Anyone can buy a car at any age from anyone.
    Anyone can drive a car on private property.
    This argument is shit vice. you took 1 step forwards and 10 steps back.

  35. Sean Samoyan says:

    Gun seatbelts that’s some next level thinking my guy lmao

  36. Bonez P says:

    Shall not be infringed and yea ur wrong

  37. farm dit says:

    I don't understand the correlation being made here between guns and cars at all.

  38. Michael White says:

    So how do you expect to regulate those who have firearms purchased from the black market or stolen from legal gun owner's.

    It's a double edged sword there's no way to stop what has become it's what makes America, America

  39. Le commentateur says:

    -But guns kill people..
    -LMAO JUST PUT SEATBELTS LOWL!

  40. John D says:

    I don’t remember seeing cars in the constitution. Guns are. They are specifically named as being a resource for the PEOPLE to keep the GOVERNMENT in check. Period. “Shall not be infringed” is pretty cut and dry.

  41. Sawyer K says:

    Just throwing it out there that to drive a car, you need to take pass a exam to then get the privilege to train driving under adult supervision. Then you needed to pass another test to be able to drive on your own. If you've been hospitalized for seizures or if you've had vasel-vagal syncope as a result of a micro-seizure or if you don't pass your eye test at the DMV you can be denied a drivers license. If you want to drive a commercial vehicle, you need to have a reason (profession) take another test and get a commercial drivers license. If you want to drive a semi-truck. You need to be tested with even more with practical and written skills. Then, there are limits on what you can transport. If you want to drive a semi-truck that carries harmful or hazardous materials, you need to pass a background check, go through OSHA training, and pass more safety-tests. Furthermore, there are limits on where semi-trucks can drive, there are even more limits on where semi-trucks carrying hazardous materials can drive. Also mind you that before seat belts were enacted, the CDC had to study car crashes and their effects. They studied it; found empirically that if you are in a car crash and if you don't have a seat belt (coupled with a metal dash), chances are you die even at relatively low speeds. Then the automobile industry lobbied against and blocked the implementation of seat belts for nearly a decade. Thus, thousands more people died after we knew empirically that having a seatbelt reduced the probability of you dying in a car accident. It didn't mean that having a seat belt reduced your chances of being in a car accident. Why can't we study gun violence? Well because the NRA and corporations have successfully bought politicians from allowing them to; including reducing the funding for gun violence research by 96%. Granted I'm not a supreme court justice, but there are ways to assemble without a car. There is public transport (proven to be more safe), biking, flying (even more safe), and fuck it walking. If you really want to believe that the 1st amendment right to peaceable assemble would prove to negate a gun ban, the argument for limiting what kind of guns are available (you can't walk into a dealership and buy a semi-truck) and the process by which you can acquire them (physical/mental ability or capacity, written exams, mandatory safety class, practical skill/application test, permitting) are still plain as day.

  42. fractal says:

    Yup your worng with your leftist logic

  43. kotsbalbes says:

    Why they use 3d model of LADA 2107?

  44. Andrew Klein says:

    You should all look up the article if medical marijuana was treated like guns and ccw

  45. Invincible Osprey says:

    You are definitely wrong. What would happen is more INNOCENT people would die. Innocent, good people don't kill the wrong person with a gun. They kill the right ones. You are basically seeking to equilibrate the lives of good and bad people. The UK has strict gun control…yet people are killed every day with KNIVES and have acid dumped on them. Guns allow good people to protect themselves against bad people. Not all gun deaths are bad. Bad people doing bad things deserve to be shot. People who commit suicide with guns…are crazy and will always find a way to kill themselves or otherwise self-destruct. Each individual is responsible for his own safety and whether he wants to live or not. All gun control creates is a totalitarian government and innocent people with no ability to defend themselves against run-of-the-mill criminals and tyrannical governments. After South Africa's "feel good" end of apartheid everybody is less safe largely because idiot white people there played the "feel good" game and surrendered their firearms. How is that working out for them? White farmer homicide rate is around 200 killed per 100,000. The mean, nasty ol' USA only has a 4.8 homicide per 100,000 rate. Guns are good.

  46. XpnLef says:

    Interesting idea to host a debate I hope you clean it up a bit after and post it on YouTube because you know morons and looser ma would try to « troll » it

  47. radoisdope2 says:

    Guns usally have a safety and yea its gun theres nothing making them safer

  48. Donald Martin says:

    The first amendment is not about travel. There is another section of the Constitution that says citizens have a right to cross state lines without being stopped for no good reason and nowhere in that section does it say that driving a car is a right. Four little words in the Constitution dictate that all gun laws are unconstitutional and should immediately be repealed: “Shall not be infringed.”

  49. Donald Martin says:

    Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither

  50. Kevin Vesey says:

    Glaring flaw in this argument is that people can’t conceal drive a car, so even criminals tend to follow the laws and register/insure their cars. Guns…. not likely.

  51. The_ Dungeon says:

    "Shall not be infringed", Welp I think the debate has be settled, on to the next topic.

  52. Nate Rowe says:

    I liked the previous shorts on this series but this one doesn't bring much sense. Seatbelts aren't going to help when a person decides to ram into a crowd at 40 miles an hour. Adding safety requirements to guns (presumably drop-testing and manual safeties?) aren't going to do anything for those that want to commit murder with them. It'll probably help in negligent discharge murder situations but those have to be remarkably rare and an insanely small percentage. All that said, looking forward to the debate.

  53. Nothing Unsavory says:

    Yes you are wrong. Go back to making videos about weed.

  54. Brandon McBadass says:

    0:09 “Guns in America”

    Guns in my Area WOO!
    This is America, don’t caught me slipping up

  55. Stephen B says:

    Gun are not the problem. If someone wants to do harm there are a million diffrent ways to do it. Before anyone says but guns kill more people easier your wrong. Look at nice France for just one example or the Oklahoma city bombing. We need to get to the real root of the problem. Because when you get ride of guns or make it harder to obtain it just makes it harder for honest people to protect themselves.

  56. olson_nation says:

    Im here for the left handed ppl who also notice continuity errors

  57. Lucius Sulla says:

    Maybe I'm wrong but driving a car is not a constitutional right, your personal interpretation of the amendment is a bit of a stretch.

  58. lukeikins says:

    i fuck with the maybe im wrong approach its coming on to a wider audience, i think your right but i think firearm education and just teaching kids that theirs and everybody elses life matters and has meaning then we will see a drop in school shootings, gun bans arnt going to stop people from killing people

  59. Pop Fizzy says:

    based entirely off of the first 15 seconds, i genuinely like the idea of this series

  60. Mxrk Garcia says:

    I like it when they compare guns to cars when people talk about things you can use to kill people but the moment we suggest we apply the same regulations we have for cars to guns, they're now completely different. Y'all weird.

  61. Zigarettenbruch says:

    Not a great hypothesis, since cars have always killed more people than guns, even with the regulations you brought up, and the places with the strictest gun laws, have the highest homicide rates.
    Legally obtained guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, whereas illegally obtained guns are used in a majority of gun-related crimes. More laws and regulations would do nothing but make a bigger black market, and make law abiding citizens an easier target.

  62. Flip Wilson says:

    We do its called a driver's license

  63. Tatonka DTD says:

    You don't need to use a seatbelt at all.  Your car doesn't even need to have a seatbelt.  It only needs to have a seatbelt and you only need to use it if you plan to use it *in public*.  The car/gun analogy falls apart when you realize that a private individual has complete freedom to do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her car when on private property…

  64. Damitri The Dragon says:

    Don't treat cars like guns. Treat gun licenses like drivers licenses

  65. crackindomes420 says:

    You're wrong.

  66. Chris Carroll says:

    Guns aren't the issue. Mental illness is. Lack of community. Lack of feelimg self worth. Lack of empathy.

  67. danntrev says:

    Yes, you are wrong. Comparing guns to cars is bullshit

  68. edward foran says:

    this was a 2016 article written by a scientist y'all can't even come up with your own ideas for videos

  69. XskiXedgeX says:

    No. You are wrong, and here is one simple reason why.

    Seat belt regulations were put in place to protect the operator in the even of a crash. If you were to translate this into a firearm regulation, what would be your proposal? We aren't in need of any regulation for firearms to protect the operator. That doesn't solve the "problem" with firearms that most anti-2A groups are pointing to.

    At the end of the day, a person can choose to operate a vehicle, with their seat belt on, and drive it through a crowd. The human element is the issue that needs to be corrected. But… Maybe I'm wrong.

  70. Huy Petrovich says:

    бля семёрка

  71. mr wiggles says:

    Maybe i'm wrong… but DiGiorno taste better than delivery

  72. Spooncer says:

    I don’t want the government knowing where every single firearm is because It would make discrimination against gun owners easier

  73. illitero says:

    "Cars define post-war America"
    (Shows 3D model of a Soviet Russian car)

    Does that count as a point for being wrong by technicality, orrr…? hahaha

  74. Luke Aurand says:

    You should stop you maybe I’m wrong stuff. It’s so cringey, thanks for voicing vices liberal opinions tho

  75. Peter Kang says:

    Maybe healthcare insurance should be like car insurance. and keep government out of it.

  76. JJ tokin says:

    Okay soo guns need seatbelts now I guess….🤣

Leave a Reply

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