HomeHumorWatch Jon Stewart Annihilate Anti-Gun Control Arguments in this Amazing Daily Show Clip! (Video)

Watch Jon Stewart Annihilate Anti-Gun Control Arguments in this Amazing Daily Show Clip! (Video)

You know all those ridiculous anti-gun control arguments you’ve been hearing for the last few days, ad nauseum?  Let’s see, there’s the “anything can be a weapon” argument, the “if everyone were packing heat, we’d all be safer” argument and,  our favorite, the “we need our guns to fight tyranny” argument. Stewart slays them all in this phenomenal clip.

Watch Scapegoat Hunter – Gun Control:  “Gun rights activists’ paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents America from addressing its actual dystopic present.”


Americans Against The Tea Party is a group committed to exposing the Tea Party’s lies, violence, racism, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, and corporatist fascist efforts to subvert our democratic process – and we are organizing to defeat Tea Party/GOP candidates on ballots everywhere.
  • Sam

    A lot of stupid arguments these gun nuts make, mostly illogical. Jesse Ventura must have been brain damaged in the ring to make the argument he did, equating guns and automobiles Automobiles are not manufactured with the purpose of killing as are guns. They are a means of transportation AND they are heavily regulated and controlled. But, if the same rules were applied to guns, I do believe we would see significantly fewer senseless deaths, especially of children. A lot of talk here about criminals, but there are a lot of needless deaths- due to negligence and accidents and legal guns falling into the hands of people who should not have them, criminal or not-.that could be avoided. Automobile ownership requires training and licensing, insurance, and compliance with safety standards. The same should be applied to guns. That is not an infringement on anyone’s rights. THAT is common sense.

    • http://gravatar.com/fiddlestix bob

      If you don’t want to carry a gun…DON’T, but don’t try to regulate what I can or cannot carry!

      • Sam

        Hold on there shorty. I know gun nut types care little about innocent lives lost because of sick people’s unfettered access to firearms, but there are a lot of psychopaths out there who should NOT have access to guns. It’s possible that lack of caring just might put you in that category. As far as I’m concerned, just ONE innocent young life is worth many many times more than your need to compensate for what you missed out on in the manly department.

      • https://www.facebook.com/martin.groseclose Martin Groseclose

        Oh we will try and we will regulate your guns.

  • http://www.templeguardmc.com Rabbit
    • Barney Muldoon

      Photo shop strikes again. I’ll weep for the stupid people who believe it.

  • Machiavelli

    I know that most people here are aware of the fact that nobody is pushing to get rid of guns altogether. However, the underlying fear that many pro-gun advocates feel is that slow, incremental changes are what is going to eventually hinder responsible, good people from defending themselves, their family, their property, and their country. (Let’s leave aside the “this land belonged to the natives first!” argument for now.)

    I am a historian, and history has taught me two things that are germane to this discussion:

    1. History repeats itself.
    2. All governments are capable of treachery.

    Americans should not allow restrictive laws to be made and enforced as the result of the psycho/sociopathic actions of a relative handful of mentally disturbed individuals. Gun laws treat the symptoms of our problem, and not the root cause. The problems our country faces are myriad, but here are just a few: mental illness, mind-altering prescription drugs, our largely deplorable media, the failed “war on drugs,” the false flag WTC attack and it’s subsequent effects (Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, et al.), our so-called “federal” reserve system, our apparent role as the police of the world, our unchecked military spending, our bailing out of irresponsible financial/corporate shiesters, etc. I could go on and on.

    Another bit of info to consider, as it hasn’t been addressed yet: In states that still enforce capital punishment, there tends to be significantly higher murder rates. I won’t bother sourcing this claim, but one could find the statistics online rather easily.

    What exactly is an “assault weapon,” anyway? Isn’t that term a bit redundant on some level? Also, when it comes to gun-related deaths in this country, we really need to extrapolate the actual number of murders from the data. Take out accidents, suicides, police shootings, and the number of shootings caused by unlicensed carriers of pistols (who are breaking the law as is) and then we can get to a more realistic number of deaths caused by legit firearm owners. Including stolen or illegally-owned guns in this figure makes little sense.

    We as a country need to address the real problems we’re facing rather than give in to knee-jerk reactions and media sensationalism. If we stopped sticking our collective nose into the rest of the world’s business and stopped spending such an utterly ridiculous amount of money each year on “defense,” not only would cease to continue to draw the ire of many people / nations around the world, we’d also save an astronomical amount of money — much of which goes into clandestine projects that is totally unaccounted for. (And let us not even begin to talk about companies like Halliburton which charge(d) our government exorbitant prices for goods and services… approximately $7 billion in total, with several millions of dollars going into Cheney the warmonger’s pocket!)

    I should also mention the enormous recent acquisition of billions of rounds of ammo that DHS has purchased recently. HOLLOW-POINT rounds, which is in defiance of Geneva Accords agreements. DHS does not conduct war on foreign soil, so why could they possibly need to stockpile such an enormous quantity of ammunition? Also, why is it that police departments around the country are, for the lack of a better term, militarizing? Why are they buying armored personnel carriers (APC’s), body armor, automatic shotguns, and exotic “crowd control” weapons? Why are there FEMA camps all over the country which are already fully operational and frighteningly similar to the concentration camps of WWII? They are out there; I’ve personally seen three with my own eyes. This isn’t paranoid fantasy speaking, it is sober lucidity. This country has been inching towards tyranny these last 20 years or so, with a swift progression after 9/11.

    Why does anyone need a 30-round magazine? Why does anyone need to own a home? It is their right. Normal, sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens should not have to suffer the consequences of a small handful of crazy people, especially when the common thread that these recent mass murderers have in common is psychotropic drugs and/or mental illness. No amount of rhetoric can change that fact. High-capacity magazines are not the problem, nor are guns themselves. (Once again, we’re treating the symptoms rather than the problem!)

    Switzerland is a country armed to the teeth, yet gun-related killings are extremely rare there, and why? Because they do not share many of the same toxic aspects of our modern culture.

    • Jane

      If you were a historian you’d know that “The Prince” was satire and that no regime ever made incremental changes when they wanted to take away people’s rights. They just took them away.

    • Adamcolquitt

      Oh my goodness you IDIOT. Please stop that Switzerland comment. Read up on their gun policies and you will see that they have some of the MOST tight gun control regulations. You know at 20 males get guns until they’re 30. They have consistent checks on their ammo supply (which is VERY little, which the government gives them) and it’s because they don’t have an army. their army is a well regulated militia.

      That being said, the reason their gun control is down is due to the heavy regulations. Which we would shit bricks if our government made us do that. If they came in every so often to make sure all ammo is accounted for.

      The fact is either A: You honestly did no research on the matter. Or B: You did do research and are leaving out certain details to push forward your argument.

      Their government says “Sure you can have guns, as long as your part of the army (which is the militia) but we will tell you what you have. We will give you the ammo which is very little (VERY LITTLE) and we will check up on you every so often to see where your ammo is. If all ammo isn’t accounted for, feel free to go to jail.

      So fine, talk our government into adopting their policies. You’ll regret it much more. IDIOT

  • Jeff G

    The difference between assault weapons and hammers is that you can only kill one person at a time with a hammer. Oh yeah, and guns can’t build things…

    • Barney Muldoon

      Not to mention that cleaning a hammer has never caused anyone’s death. You cannot drop a hammer on the ground and have it go off and kill someone. When was the last time an innocent child killed his/her friend showing off Dad’s new hammer?

  • ~This is Common Sense~

    I’d like to point out the fact that a lot of the people on these comments are spouting statistics with almost no way to prove that they’re actually legit.

    This is why we have to recope to common sense.

    What thug is gonna care whether or not we have laws against gun control? I mean they’re already cheating and stealing from everyone and the government anyway. What’s a gun law going to do to stop them?

    Gun control will only lead to the end of this nation, due to us law abiding civillians.

    • AATTP

      What thug is going to care whether or not we have laws against rape or murder or drunk driving? Should we get rid of all laws since criminals won’t obey them anyway? The idea is to impose penalties and punishments on those who break the law. That’s the premise behind ALL of them.

      Your argument is anything BUT common sense.

      • ~This is Common Sense~

        Alright, so we have an intent to stop the criminals of our country. Have we done that?
        No. We haven’t. We intend to, but do we ever put a stop to the stuff that happens to us?

        I’m not saying we should get rid of all the laws. I’m saying we need to enforce them better before being stupid and creating more laws that people will not listen to.

        • Ian K

          Ok, so you suggest regarding the current laws “we need to enforce them better”.

          So lets see, in order to enforce the current laws we need to hire more police officers, more investigators, more judges, build more courts, build more prisons, and yes hire more prison guards.

          So, let me ask YOU this simple question, are YOU prepared to pay substantially more taxes to cover these new expenses?

          Yes…it’s that simple.

          • http://Hogwildcomputer.com Scott

            But, adding new laws would create the same thing, wouldn’t it? Enforcing the current ones rather than adding to the morass of unenforced ones seems to make more sense.

            Why wouldn’t passing new laws do exactly what you’re indicating is a fallacy?

      • ME

        Your own argument contradicts itself.

        The pro gun (aka pro rights) group does not suggest getting rid of all laws because criminals will ignore them, we simply note that placing a law is not the same as enforcing that law. It is already illegal to murder people or bring guns onto a school property. Good people abide, bad people ignore.

        Bad laws target good people, such as gun control or gun free zones, that merely tell the law abiding they can not defend themself from bad people.

        The entire point of the “anti’ gun types (Obama included) is to teach all of you that YOU are to blame for this killing, your silly belief that you control your own life or have the right to protect your own life- this belief is the cause of dead kids.

        If only the entire nation could be a gun free zone, like the school in Newtown, if only all of us could be as safe as the kids in that school or as unarmed as the teachers when trying to protect ourselves or our kids, then BAD people would surely know their place.


        Try enforcing that “do not murder” law if you want. No one is saying to remove all laws because bad people will ignore them. We ARE saying that adding laws to good people will simply weaken them relative to bad people who will ignore them.

        It is illegal to yell FIRE in theater but you all have the ability to do so at any time, because you are FREE people. When the government treats ALL of you like potential spree shooters, removes the word FIRE from your vocabulary or sews your lips shut- you are not free.

        The guilty are guilty, the innocent are innocent. Victims are not guilty, the guilty are not victims.

        • Justin Ballard

          No one is coming for your guns. Not now. Not ever…. unless you are Jewish and move to Nazi Germany… or something.

          That said. I agree with you. Assault Weapons bans, and bans in general are stupid, feel good, reactionary policies that my side of the political spectrum trots out every time a school shooting happens. It’s on page one of the “Liberal” handbook, right along with “Political correctness”.

          However your argument have a lot of holes in it, and the “Pro-Gun” crowd refuses to be an active participant in any meaningful dialogue about gun violence. Why? Because every time it happens, you throw on a tin foil hat, grab yer daddy’s shotgun and get ready for President Obama to show up on your front porch demanding said shotgun. (or AR-15) or whatever you have. Then you equate guns with other objects that can kill people, but weren’t designed with that purpose in mind.(Like a cinder block). Then you grab a Constitution in one hand and proceed to hold it up as a shield, calling for the President’s impeachment (or the recall of other elected officials) because they make completely stupid, yet completely constitutional laws aimed at preventing gun violence.

          Of course, if the Gun Lobby (NRA) would shut the f*ck up and let adults do the talking, maybe… just maybe we could start treating the diseases. Mental illness, poverty, lack of education, etc. At the end of the day, the goal here is to keep guns out of the hands of those whole would use them to kill someone. We will never be completely free of gun violence. We’re humans, and we kill each other. There will always be some bad eggs. But if we work to better our mental health care, work to make sure everyone has a chance to get a good education, and work to make sure that everyone has a chance to make a living, then I think you’ll see the majority of these petty criminals turned murderers, Armed robbers, etc etc will simply go away.
          Where will they go? To Mars? No no… They’ll go to work. Or they’ll go to school. They’ll be too busy making an honest living because of their good education to have to join a gang, or hold up a store at gunpoint, or sell drugs. THAT is where we need to start. THAT is where we’re going to make the biggest difference.

          So my question is, when are we going to get moving? When is the “Pro-Gun” crowd going to come to the table and admit that we need to start having serious discussions about stopping gun violence in this country?

    • david saint

      what hes saying is, ok you dont want gun bans so what ideas do you have? Thus far its been a very loud “NONE!”. He makes the point, that when DUI’s were causing many deaths, we addressed it. If an outbreak of some terrible disease happened, we would react to it and come up with a solution. If bridges started dropping left and right, we would investigate, and come up with a solution. See the point? Its not “this is what it is”, its “come help us come up with a solution, be part of the team”…and i have to say, the vitriol and death threats from the most avid of the pro gun people, that guy talking about civil war, it sure as heck doesnt help the situation. “if you arent part of the solution, you are part of the problem”. pick a side

    • More common sense

      I think he explained it in the video, that it’s about the small steps to a greater thing. The thug wont have access to assault weapons (unless he has connections with the black market which i highly doubt) it’s about going into a school and only being able to shoot 8 kids instead of 50

      Idiots will only lead to the end of this nation,

  • Pingback: Why You Should (Almost) Never Link to Wikipedia Articles | Reflective Dynamics Blog()

  • sean g

    did any one see the video that was so pointedly altered of the kid in front of the tanks in Tienanmen square…the kid stood in font of the tyrannical tanks and then the announcer said …this is what the NRA believes would be different if he had an assault weapon …so he stands in front of the tank and stands up to the tyranny of the government with his assault rifle at the ready…the announcer tells us that this patriot could be you if you can keep your weapons at the ready …the tyranny will stop with your gun and vigilance …in the very next scene the the now gun wielding patriot ,standing up against tyranny..of the government tanks is then squashed under the 70 ton tank …gun and all …get what I’m saying assault weapons or not …the only thing that stands up and creates a good government is simple involvement and knowledge ….not your little penis extension ….

    • Norma Sasson

      Sean – I so totally agree with you. The NRA is as deranged as the supposed shadow government they see them selves armed against. And the penis part too – gotta concur!

    • Jeremy

      @Sean G. So because the tyrannical government has bigger penis extensions you just give up and let them do what exactly? Simple involvement and knowledge do not stop tyrannical governments. Tyrannical governments DO NOT ALLOW your simple involvement. Do you know how they do that? They disarm the populace so that there is no resistance to their agenda. You can currently openly voice your opinion because dissenters fought tyranny and created the framework to give you that right. No, one person with an assault rifle can’t stop a tank but millions of armed citizens can completely overwhelm and take back a government that has launched its tanks against its own citizens. Lets call it like it really is.. you and many others feel that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights is, in fact, no longer relevant (if ever). I am also willing to bet that you believe your example of tanks in Tiananmen would never happen in the USA. The reason it won’t is because they can’t… not yet anyway. It is lemmings that follow governments and their agendas blindly that are the true threat to the entire world. Focusing on magazine round counts and flash suppressors and making certain types of weapons illegal is just setting the groundwork for what the true socialist agenda really is… make all guns illegal, confiscating them all and letting the good governments you so fondly mention protect us and our best interests.

      • Jacob

        @Jeremy Finally someone with some common sense on this site!
        @The other 2 if you bother informing yourselves about the subjects jon stewart talks about you begin to lose interest in the show because he only comments on the crazy arguments of the bunch because he knows he’d lose in a real debate.
        Here’s a few simple reasons your plans to limit or altogether ban guns wouldnt work
        -The states in the country with the strictest gun laws(examples include illinois and new york) have the most gun deaths.
        -Thugs ignore gun laws
        -Thugs prefer unarmed victims and avoid potentially armed citizens
        -A gun is an inanimate tool not deviant behavior and crime is deviant behavior not an inanimate tool. You can’t prevent deviant behavior by regulating tools because tools are incapable of behavior and the number of tools available to the world’s deviants is endless.
        -In case you missed history class the government has tried(and failed) to take away our rights before. I point you to the prohibition. After being pressured by interest groups(like now) they banned alcohol(to a ridiculous degree(like they’re trying to do with guns)) which instead INCREASED the number of people who drank and what was that other thing…? Oh that’s right organized crime was established in the US(the mafia).
        There are 5 good reasons OTHER than the obvious “it’s against federal law”

        • Mira

          Jacob, as usual, you cite skewed statistics. But even so, your arguments point to *why*federal legislation is needed and not patchwork state legislation. Yes, Chicago has a high rate of deaths by gums. But those gums were not purchased in Illinois. They were obtained in states with lax oversight regarding gun purchases.

          Ninety-one percent of Americans want background checks done on firearm buyers. Yet that simple legislation is shot down repeatedly.

          There were fewer deaths from gums during the ten year assault weapon ban. Can you explain that away? What possible need is there for a thirty round magazine expect to slaughter as many as soon as possible? The need for law abiding citizens to not reload at the gun range is not acceptable. 2,278 guns are still allowed under the bill proposed by Sen. Feinstein. Isn’t that enough for you? Your argument that ” a gun is just a tool used by a person with deviant behavior” is bullshit. Guns kill. Get it? Guns are tools that kill. They serve no other purpose than to kill. No, not to warn or wound. Anyone with a gun must accept the responsibility that a gun is a weapon that kills.

          “Enforce the laws we have.” stop cutting funding for law enforcement and stop passing legislation against research into gun violence and that might be possible. ” only thugs will have guns” well, brainiacs, if these guns are no longer manufactured, no they won’t.

          Oh, yeah, btw, NO ONE, REPEAT, NO ONE, is proposing, or has proposed, legislation to take away your guns. So where does that paranoid fantasy come from?

    • ME

      If you are implying that to resist the US government, IF tyrannical, is futile I would like to point out that the 2nd amendment was designed to ballance the power of federal vs state vs the people. If true that the Federal branch is so far more powerful than either of the other two the solution is not to disarm one or both of the other two, yeilding totalitarianism (with time), but to equal their power.

      Reduce the armament of the federal government.

      I fail to see why american citizens must be limited to revolvers and 100 yr old bolt action rifles for self defense but the American government’s Department of Homeland Security (deals with domestic threats only) training with “no more hesitation” targets (pregnant women, old men and women), has access to drones in US skies with missles, has ordered billions of hollow point bullets, has ordered armored vechilces, and by any accounts is gearing up for some serious “domestic threats”.

      Why let the US government arm a non-military branch with military grade weaponry to police the US people, citizens, while simutaneously disarming the us people, citizens?

      IF indeed the Federal government is already too strong to resist simply perpetuating this problem will not solve it. Disarm and weaken the federal branch or reinforce and strengthen the other two!

      • Charles Wright

        The second amendment was enacted in reaction to British occupation during the war.

        Learn your history.

        • http://twitter.com/youfoundthecard We Are Legion (@youfoundthecard)

          There is actually far more evidence that it was enacted to guarantee to the slave states that the Federal government could not disarm their runaway slave patrols, as that was the main duty of the militia in the South.

        • http://Hogwildcomputer.com Scott

          Actually, it was enacted so that a central government could not become overwhelmingly powerful over the people. The runaway slave patrols? Get a life, at that time a slave would have had no where to run to. Slavery was accepted in all the states at that time.

  • Eduardo

    Mike H, there are boundaries on what types of weapons we can own. A lot. There is the National Firearms Act. There are size limits. There are heavy taxes on short barreled rifles, there are heavy taxes on suppressors– basically anything that is considered to be highly destructive is off-limits to most. We already have heavy limits, and keep in mind our constitution prohibits ex post facto laws, meaning the current assault weapons would have to be grandfathered in, including the millions just bought after the recent events.

    With this many assault weapons in the market, what makes you think that they’ll be difficult to obtain for any person? How difficult are drugs to obtain right now– they’re also illegal. I’m on the border, and ask any person in Mexico if their assault weapons ban and a ban of any handgun over .38 spl has helped reduce gun violence– It hasn’t. In fact, they are begging for assault weapons over there. Make no mistake, they’re also in our borders with heavy weapons as well.

    • Mike H

      I have not done research on all the pre-existing laws that restrict the types of weapons that we can purchase and own. I think you have a point depending on the type of conversation we want to have about guns. If we turn our attention to horrific mass murders that seem to be taking place at an increasing frequency, then I think gun restrictions is reasonable to put on the table. A brief survey of mass murders committed in the last 20-30 years reveals many were committed with weapons obtained legally or even stolen from a family member. Yes some were committed with handguns,but some were committed with assault rifles. If we want to the national conversation to be about gun violence in say more urban areas, then I agree that gun laws are not much of a solution because the rule of law is not.

      • Jesse M.

        When will people realize that criminals don’t follow laws? Gun control only restricts law-abiding citizens from acquiring them.

        • AATTP

          When will people like you realize that that’s an insanely stupid argument? Laws aren’t implemented because we expect everyone to follow them; they exist so that those who break them can be punished. Why have any laws at all? Criminals just break them anyway.

          • Jacob

            @Aattp your argument is invalid.
            Murder is ilegal. Stealing is illegal. Owning a gun when you havent done all the proper steps is ILLEGAL. What then could adding in a law that says “that particular guns is not allowed” do that the other 3 didnt?

        • Mira

          Again, most of the mass slaughters occurred with legally obtained guns.

        • Charles Wright

          Who do you think criminals steal their weapons from?

          • http://fcbk steve boehm

            your neighbor!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Mira

        The mass murders that get the media attention were not done in the urban area you reference, Mike H. All were done in suburbs. Almost exclusively by white males, btw.

  • Karen

    I think this site has a great debate going on. Thanks to the posters using statistics over name-calling.

    Truly though? As a Canadian, we don’t have a pro-gun culture. There are people who enjoy hunting and going to firing ranges (I know a few of the former) but we’d honestly think it was weird if you went around with a concealed weapon. I probably wouldn’t let my kid go to your house if I knew you had a handgun. If you showed us your automatic weapons we would carefully step away from the building and dodge your phone calls (we’re Canadian – super nice and often avoidant).

    You couldn’t pay me to live in the States. It feels totally unstable – especially when I read the comments from people who are so up in arms (pun intended) when a measured conversation of gun control is discussed.

    I don’t have any great stats (I could look them up for Canada but I won’t – I just know that we have some gun violence but nothing along the lines of what the US faces yearly). I just wanted to observe that looking in on your culture from the outside, it sounds…crazy.

    But then, the reasons for going to Iraq sounded crazy to us too. As does giving corporations the rights of people.

    Cultural differences!

    I think overall, Jon is right. Do you feel positive about the way this world is heading and want to work for the common good? Or do you feel we are doomed to some kind of dystopian future where we will need to stockpile weapons and defend our ground? Where your attention goes your energy flows – just keep watching what you create with your thoughts and words.

    (p.s. not that we’re immune – we have a Prime Minister using US political tactics and changing our policies little by little towards a more agressively conservative base. but we’ll figure that out eventually)

    • ellen

      You are very smart… as a Canadian, I agree with everything you said…

    • Jacob

      So then you agree that what our government does on its own is stupid but then think gun regulation which is only going to affect people who arent criminals is a good idea? Also a quick correction the people agreed to go to war with iraq but only after they were LIED TO about the “weapons of mass destruction” that had been “proven” to be there.The corporations thing as well was NOT something citizens wanted. The courts decided it, the democrats hated it so the republican party hating all things democrat decided to do the opposite. The actual citizens who align themselves with republics do NOT think corporations should get the rights of people and many alternative suggestions have been put out there. I can speak for canada but hopefully I cleared up some of the confusion with those two issues.

  • Justin

    Watch 5m 14sec in through 5m 28sec. That clip right there proves, that law abiding citizens should be allowed to purchase assault rifles to defend ones self. Because a criminal can buy an assault rifle and vests under the radar with no registration, leaving a person defenceless. Hah and calling the cops ain’t going to do anything, because it only takes a second for a criminal to pull the trigger and kill someone.

    • Nik

      So… we’ll all leave our houses every day decked out in body armor with our assault rifles slung over our shoulders? That sounds rather tiring.

      • chip

        I agree, however, i also believe that i or anyone should have that right. Just as the first amendment gives me a choice to disagree with you.

    • Jesse M.


  • Emmasue

    Diane Feinstein admits she has a permit and carries a gun for self protection and hires an armed bodyguard.. Does Mr Stewart do the same?
    Does making fun of people really comprise a valid argument?

    • Jesse M.

      No, no it does not. But is does comprise good tv for viewers. Stricter laws = less freedom. Less freedom = tyranny. It blows my mind that people don’t see the pattern of events taking place here.

  • http://prolibertatepublica.blogspot.fr/ Red Mercury

    Well, I know where our Jon won’t follow on arms control… How about some control on the weapons you send to Israel? Or indeed various al-Qaida affiliates in the Mahgreb?

    Like many people in the rest of the world, most too polite to mention it, I’m rather more interested in how much you and your clients shoot other people, than how much you shoot each other. Except that we have to tolerate your fatuous national ‘conversation’ and you’ll make more crappy, sentimental movies about it….

    • Milo

      That was a very ‘polite’ thing to say to a show dedicated to anti war. Go write this on Fox news rather than a site that agrees with you.

  • Mike H

    Good discussion. I just don’t understand the passion and paranoia of people who are stockpiling weapons for when the government turns on them. Could it happen? I guess there’s always a remote possibility but noone would stand a chance against our own military. Could there be a Red Dawn scenario? Possibly, but our armed forces would take care of that. Its irrational fear riding on the shoulders of our Bill of Rights. I also don’t see the logic that more guns on the street in the hands of responsible gun owners is a solution.

    I would like to see:
    – Schools promote inclusion and embracing of people that are different
    – More effective support and treatment for people with mental illness.
    – The NRA to launch an aggressive nationwide campaign promoting gun safety and responsible gun ownership – discussing the great responsibility that comes with ownership of ‘killing machines’, ensuring gun owners store firearms are in a safe and secure location, and perhaps even promoting it as a sport (e.g., marksmanship).
    – Require background checks for all gun purchases
    – Reasonable restrictions on firearms that are sold

    I do think the drunk driving example is valid. Noone can eliminate drunk driving but through awareness, tougher penalties for DUIs, and actual enforcement, the rate decreased. Not being able to eliminate doesn’t mean you don’t take action.

    • Dan

      Firstly, you are considering that the US Military is made up of heartless killers who wouldn’t have any qualms about killing the citizens they swore to protect.

      Secondly, tribesmen in mudhuts who herd goats for a living have managed to stay undefeated by the US Military onslaught, so what makes you think that a determined force with many more guns wouldn’t be capable of doing something?

      Thirdly, the NRA actually does promote responsible gun ownership and promotes the sport of marksmanship, and they do set and publish guidelines annually about how to properly handle firearms. Where they stray is in the field of public relations and with their head; LaPierre is a moron.

      On the subject of background checks and restrictions, I believe that we need more extensive background checks, and a psychological evaluation within the past 6 months, and every 6 months afterwards, if someone wants to buy a semi-automatic rifle. That makes sense to me, and it can help keep these weapons out of the hand of the insane. I also believe that we should severely restrict access to actual “Assault Rifles”, guns that can fire on fully-automatic. There is no good reason to own one unless you are planning on joining the state militia.

      My greatest issue with the “Assault Weapons” bill that might be passed through Congress (doubtful, but possible) is that is bases the banning of weapons on aesthetics rather than the actual action of the gun. It would ban weapons for having a pistol grip and a folding stock instead of weapons that fire on fully-automatic; it would ban weapons that are painted black and made of metal that fire on semi-automatic as opposed to brown wooden weapons that fire on semi-automatic, even when the cartridge fired is the same. It doesn’t address the issues of mental health and background checks while restricting what people can and cannot own, needlessly.

      • sean g

        since 2000 more than 4.5 million guns have been stolen from homes and cars more than half are never recovered and at least half of the stolen guns are used to commit crimes …so much for the myth of responsible gun ownership…

      • wakeup

        Fully auto weapons are already illegal. Get the facts straight before you speak of something you know nothing about.

        • Charles Wright

          Fully auto is illegal. Selling kits with instructions on how to make semi-auto into fully auto aren’t.

          Weird that, eh?

          Do a little research on how easy it is to circumvent the laws due to bribed law makers before you put your foot in your mouth.

    • David forrester

      You know 9/11 was a remote possibility, I’m sorry if I refuse to be a good little sheep and have our Sheppard the government protect me. Cause simply put the government can’t be trusted to do anything right. With the idiotic votes in this country I am sure it’s only a matter of time before a bad group of people get elected, and I am not making it easy for these people by making weapons illegal.

      Liberals like to claim that our forefathers would not want civilians with assault weapons. That is likely all that’s left that they would want. They hated big government.

    • ellen

      every point was articulately made…bravo

  • ryan

    I like the idea of people responsibly owning guns to defend themselves from villains. I hunt. My wife and I both love to shoot. We agree that assault weapons are dumb. If the American Military decided to take us out it would use drones that could blow us up without us ever knowing what hit us.

    • Joe

      Ryan, WE have been using drones in countries for over a decade, seems like it only ticks them off, not actualy “takes them out”. You can not control an unwilling people without boots and guns on the ground intimidating and controling them. When the “Them” are able to shoot back in mass, the boots on the ground are much less effective and less willing.

    • Josh

      If the American Military decided to take us out it would use drones that could blow us up- Dumbest statement ever

      If we compare a modern US war in Afghanistan, in which the US is mainly fighting the small arms gorilla style warfare in which heavy ordinance, munitions, and combat sorties are implemented on the US side and are vise versa met with small arms fire, Improvised explosive devices and homemade ordinance it becomes a shear numbers game. According to Marine General James L Jones,
      ” Make no Mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan”.
      The Afghan Army holds 52,000 weapons, mainly small arms, the police force holds another 70,000 while the civilian population holds a reported 1 million. Per capita that is 4.4 guns per 100 persons in the country. The US on the other hand holds an estimated 274 million guns or 88.8 per 100 persons. 270 Million guns are held by private citizens. 3, 054, 553 are held by defense forces and the police hold 897,400 firearms. To summarize the US civilian population is armed nearly 20 times more than the defense and civilian population of nation we’ve been unable to defeat for more than a decade.

      • scott

        There being no need to minimize civilian casualties, they could just all hole up in a mountain fortress and rain down a few dozen nukes on us.. :) Or use biological/chemical weapons against us. I’m sure there are plenty of ways for the military to slaughter us as quickly as possible, probably never even needing to use something as measly as a firearm.

  • http://www.availpress.com Mary T. Ficalora

    Really!!!? You would actually dismiss the need for vigilance over maintaining the people’s sovereign power in order to lower the 30,000 gun death rate in the United States?!!!! Damn that’s scary Jon Stewart. Alex Jones could use some DBT training for the emotional heights of his passion, but the fact remains that the United States is founded on a political philosophy that names Government as a necessary evil. Gun control is saying we want to trust the evil with our sovereignty. I fear incremental gun control too. There are 36,000 plus suicides every year in the US, most with guns? I don’t know. I do think we should address the suicides before we worry about gun control. I don’t want the wrong guys holding the weapons, hence stay away from gun control. The government all too easily becomes the wrong guys. People as sovereign is an American ideal, I want to see it enforced. What’s the matter with you, Jon Stewart?!

    • http://www.availpress.com Mary T. Ficalora

      P.S. The United States is NOT supposed to have a standing army!!! A well regulated militia means local sovereign fighting men. Decentralizing our military would go a long way in diffusing the emotions of men like Alex Jones. IMHO.

      • JB

        “Well REGULATED militia” does not mean a bunch of gun nuts with semi-automatic weapons playing war on weekends….regulated means disciplined, trained, registered and chain of command…not getting together with a keg and a box of bullets!

    • Ironicsalesman


      You don’t want the wrong guys to have guns so… Keep your hands off gun control? Seems legit.

      • AknownEMouse

        The logic being that criminals don’t follow the rule of law, and will obtain weapons anyway, while the average hypothetically responsible person will not be able to equivalently arm his or herself.

        • Tony

          Gun death stats: Compare what happens in the US with what happens in civilized occidental social democracies and the social behavior of the US ends up resembling that of some third rate banana republic.

          • Norma Sasson

            The number of gun deaths in my country makes me sad, mad, and finally, hopeless. Our entire culture reveres violence as the answer to every problem l- personal, local, national, world wide, . I wish my whole family that I love did not live here – I’d be gone.

      • Chris G

        @Ironicsalesman… yeah, after reading her comment in it’s entirety, it makes perfect sense.
        To everyone clamoring for stricter gun control laws, how do you explain away the fact that violent crime rates and crimes involving guns in areas with stricter gun control laws and so-called gun-free zones are significantly higher than in areas where people are free to openly care or carry concealed firearms?

        • AATTP

          Well, we don’t explain it because in almost all cases you’re flat-out wrong. For instance, despite what Republican news sources (blogs and chain emails from what we can tell) report, in Australia the crime rate, including violent crime, has gone down steadily since 1996 when stricter gun control laws took effect and they have had ZERO mass shootings since that time. Homicides dropped 27%.

          Statistics form 2012 proving that ALL crime is decreasing in Australia:

          The key statistics in the AIC’s Australian Crime: Facts and Figures report are:

          Break-ins have been cut by about half since 1996;
          Car theft has dropped by about 61 per cent over the past decade;
          The overall number of violent crimes decreased in 2010 except for the offence of kidnapping and abduction;
          Of the five categories of violent crime, four recorded a drop in the number of victims between 2009 and 2010 – homicide, assault, sexual assault and robbery;
          The most common weapon used in homicide in 2009–10 was a knife. Knives were involved in 39 per cent of all homicides;
          Firearms used in 13 per cent of all homicides;
          There has been a 27 per cent drop in the number of homicides between 1996 and 2010, with a drop of 11 per cent between 2009 and 2010;

          • Joe

            Very similiar numbers apply to THIS country. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html#overview shows the overall crime rate in this country since 1990. It has continually dropped. As gun laws have come and gone no real effect can be seen in the murder or violent crime rate. Assult weapon ban and clip capacity laws go into effect and the murder rate continues to drop at the same rate. Those laws expire and murder rate continues to drop at roughly the same rate. They HAVE NO EFFECT AT ALL!!!

          • http://www.mainecarry.com Maine Concealed Carry

            Actually crime rat in AU has gone up.

            In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent
            Sexual Assault (Rape) increased 29.9 percent
            Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

            Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
            During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
            Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
            Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
            At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
            Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

            Source: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

          • AATTP

            Actually, that “study” has been thoroughly refuted. Plus, we gave you numbers from 2011 and you’re tying to contest them with numbers from 2006. Oops.


          • Brian

            AATTP – That’s Australia but what about the UK? Oh look, there gun ban has produced an 89 percent increase in violent crime in the past decade.


            Wall Street Journal just did an article contrasting the AU & UK


            In part what they conclude is, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don’t provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.”

            So you Democrats can twist the facts all you want but maybe you want to actually research a little beyond your talking points so you’re not all spewing the same nonsense ad nauseam and making yourself more ignorant than usual.

          • AATTP

            No twisting necessary, Brian.

            The murder rate in the U.S. is almost triple of that of the U.K. That means that regardless of crimes committed, three times as many people DIE as a result of them in America.

            Murders in the U.S. 2010: 12,996
            Murders by Firearms U.S. 2010: 8,775
            Murders in the U.K. 2011*: 638 (Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)
            Murders by firearms U.K. 2011*: 58 (equivalent to 290 US murders)

            We want logical gun-control–bans on military-style assault weapons and large capacity magazines, better background checks, mental evaluations, monitoring of large scale ammunition purchases. In other words, we don’t want a madman to be able to shoot dozens of people in a matter of SECONDS. Here is a piece about how COMMON SENSE gun-control laws could have prevented the horrific massacre in Aurora, Co. Please tell us what’s wrong with any of these specific proposed regulations.


            And the WSJ piece wasn’t an articles at all, it was an opinion piece. There’s a difference.

    • JB

      How would an arsenal of Bushmasters defend against a drone or tank attack? There’s no common sense behind the “no control/no regulation” crowd…the gov’t as evil argument just doesn’t work for if it truly became the evil one all the gun nuts in the country wouldn’t be able to defend their local bar much less the country.

  • Vicki

    Yes we will always have death by guns but not doing things needed to bring them down is ignorant. Could you imagine if we didn’t control driving, let anyone drive, no test, ect…. the deaths would be worse. There should be a license for every gun owner, which you must take at least a 4hr course and then a test. We need to see that since so many gun owners are unable to be responsible that we see to it they are as much as we can. If we dont do anything now, it will be our kids, grandchildren that will loose the 2nd admendment in the future. The 2nd admendment does not state how many you are allowed to have, or ammo, it says “Arms” 2 would qualify there, so if the NRA doesn’t work with the US instead of against it, the no. 2 might be the future. keep in mind the phrase, “well regulated” Wake the he** up America.

  • Rusty Abrams

    The Gun Problem and The Solution

    Guns don’t kill people, my Fork doesn’t make me FAT, but they ARE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS!
    I am a Veteran. I know all about responsibility with handling weapons. I also understand what it takes to protect the People. I truly love going out and shooting guns, and I have nothing against gun ownership. The majority of people ARE responsible with them. That said, Handguns and ASSULT weapons were meant for Military and Law Enforcement ONLY. The 2nd Amendment was drafted and implemented in a time when we didn’t have a Mighty Military or Law Enforcement. The 2nd Amendment has outlived it’s purpose. Owning a shotgun for hunting and passing down that tradition to younger family is a great thing! And if you have weapons for Hunting or Sport Shooting and you need to defend your family with it, i feel bad for the guy on the receiving end! But nobody needs to own 45 rifles with magazines that can hold dozens of rounds each, and 37 shotguns, 23 pistols, and enough ammo to fill 3 wheelbarrows is just an obsessive paranoia against an imaginary person(s) who has never made an actual attempt to take them away. There needs to me Mental Screening for Gun Ownership.
    It truly is the fault of the NRA and their HUGE Money Backers/politicians. The NRA is only concerned with Gun Ownership. They should be instilling Gun Safety/responsibility in society.
    If any Gun lover thinks that the Guns involved did not kill any of the 4-10 year-olds that the parents had to go in and personally ID the body of their child, because kids don’t carry ID, and see that horror, then THAT is the type of Gun Owner that does not Mentally Qualify to own any.

    The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads “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.”

    Most people are only aware of the last HALF of how it reads. they aren’t aware that it calls for REGULATION. If somebody even attempts to speak of Regulation of Gun Rights, there is an immediate outcry accusing that their rights are being repressed. That you want to “go against” what the Constitution says and you’re implementing a Government Takeover and want to invade and “take our Guns!”
    An all too common response to the notion that ‘Guns kill people’ is that ‘Cars kill people, and we aren’t going to take Cars away’.

    If Guns “kill” people in the same way as Cars “kill” people, and shouldn’t be “unfairly” targeted, and we aren’t going to ban Cars, I suggest you consider this;

    to operate and own a Car you MUST;

    -after reaching a certain age, one must study for and take a written test for a Permit to learn the skill and the rules of Safe Driving.

    -attend a classroom Driver Education Course. And PASS!

    -participate in an actual physical test of your abilities in operating a Car, AND PASS!

    -you then MUST obtain and keep a License and renew it regularly.

    -you must have your car Licensed in your State to operate it. The License Plate must be displayed on the exterior of the vehicle.

    -you MUST Register each vehicle you own and Pay for a current Yearly TAG for it to remain Licensed. YEARLY!

    -in many States, you must get each of your vehicles Inspected and must PASS the inspection. If your vehicle doesn’t pass, you cannot operate it until inspection IS PASSED.

    -it is LAW that you must have Auto Insurance for EACH vehicle that you operate.

    Failure to do any of these things results in losing your PRIVILEGE of Owning AND Operating your vehicle(s)

    Now I propose the same process for Gun Ownership and Operation.

    This would allow people to continue to own Guns in a Legal manner, and would not “Infringe” on the Constitutional Right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

    • AATTP

      Great comment!

    • Vicki

      You Nailed It!

    • hc

      exactly . Parallel cars. Repeated problems with short or long guns, like cars, should be followed by mandatory recall.

      Here’s an article from today’s SF Chron on mandatory insurance that’s worth reading.


    • Gene William Devin

      Thank you for supplying the text of the words of the Second Amendment. Now let’s try to read them as written. First off it is the United States Constitution. It is defining the powers of the federal government with respect to the States and the people. So in the Second Amendment, the federal government is limited in power to not abridge the people’s rights to own and operate arms. So that the people can be the militia. So that the state, not the United States, but the individual state can maintain its freedom. You mentioned regulation of the militia but you confuse it with regulation of the arms. Regulation of the Militia means the people of the militia bring their arms and the state provides the training. It is very clear that they are not to regulate the militia, not the arms.

      In your attempt to compare arms and cars, you correctly point out that driving a car is a privilege. The taxation necessary to provide the infrastructure necessary to afford that privilege to the People makes it right and proper for the state and federal governments to protect the infrastructure and the pople through regulation of that privilege and in fact of the ownership of the vehicles that take advantage of the infrastructure. What the second Amendment makes clear is, that because arms are a rights of the people, even if the government’s should provide an infrastructure where in arms may be used, the arms themselves are not to be regulated because that would be a barrier to the militia and impede the freedom of the state.
      Perhaps the most disturbing of your comments is the idea that the second Amendment is no longer necessary because there is a Mighty military and police force present in our country, and that at the time of its writing there was not such a force. I do not believe you understand that this is an amendment to the Constitution. You should read the actual Constitution. You will find that there is a provision for the building of the military, and you will find that there is a provision for the Conscription of the militia to the federal defense. You will find that there are limits 2 the military in this country in times of peace prescribed in other parts of the amendments. In amending the prior Constitution with the statements of the Second Amendment you see that it is “Necessary” for the freedom of the states not the United States but of the individual states that the people must have arms. That would be freedom of a state from the other states, the United States, or a foreign State for instance France or Britain or Spain or Portugal or Mexico etcetera. At the time this was written the armed people of the individual states had successfully defeated the armed military of an empire….in a time when empires and the military expansion of empires were the norm. You say you are a veteran and that you know what it takes to protect the people yet you would deny the people those protections for themselves. Shame on you sir. Thank you for you service, spare us your “mighty military” arrogance.

      You say that there have never been anybody coming to take guns. You are wrong. After Hurricane Katrina the National Guard and local law enforcement went house to house not to help people but only to take their Guns.

      • Chris G

        Thank you for articulating what I was thinking. I was beside myself when I read that a VETERAN, of all people, believes that the Second Amendment is no longer necessary.

    • Tony

      Outstanding. Thank you.

    • Sean

      The entire car argument is specious. Driving is a privilege; gun ownership is a right. Furthermore, the rules and regs regarding vehicles are set by the INDIVIDUAL STATES, not the federal government.

      • ta

        You’re right, Sean…gun ownership is a right. Doesn’t say anything about bullets though…

        • Jacob

          Ignorant doesnt even begin to describe that…
          Please tell me that you dont honestly think the founding fathers thought
          “Guns cannot be regulated because the people must be able to defend themselves!”
          “But what about the bullets?”
          “Nope, those should be banned!”

    • Brian

      Well reasoned and reasonable.

    • ta

      Terrific response!

    • Fyre

      I am so boring that for responding to others
      i couldn’t express it better and as politely :)

  • Doesn’t matter

    Sparks, the only people looking to take over the country are the Tea Party. That is not on the agenda for the country. Government doesn’t want/need to “take over the country” because corporations already have. What you’re referring to is simply paranoia, it is not a real issue in today’s day and age, in our country. Sensible gun control is over generalized to include all guns, which is not the case. We just want to make it less possible for people to hold mass public shootings. Please still feel free to hunt and protect your home. I completed a concealed carry course myself. We are not ANTI gun. We just want sensible laws. People use Mexico as an example of gun control, they are an example of FULL gun control, 100% of weapons, not just semi-autos, that is apples and oranges.

  • Shinashi As Usual

    To pull from Jon…So, Johnny, there is absolutely NOTHING anyone can do?

    And if you’re going to ride this conspiracy of future tyranny in America- why not go whole hog? Matter-of-fact, I’m pretty sure the government has cameras in every house, guns that shoot lasers, and subliminal messaging to poison the minds of the liberal young to stay away from guns. The massacres and gun violence is perpetually orchestrated by the select few of the gov. truly in power to scare as many people away from guns as possible.

    On a more serious, realistic note- do you think your guns will have anything against a gov. who wants dystopian control? If they’re willing to be a country where “only the bad guys have guns”, what’s going to stop them from dropping bombs on truly rebellious areas? Of course… if you have a bomb shelter stocked with food and guns, you’re great! You’ll get the country back in no time.

  • http://google r

    Although I agree with Jon on some issues I have to disagree with his attempt at rationalizing “Another” gun control law or Presidential interference. We all know what the “Law” stipulates and his definition was not a valid one because “The well-regulated Militia”,,, is,, “The People” in every sense of the word. The Article III “Does” establish the right of the “People” to keep and bear (bare) arms (and)shall not be infringe (upon). So I don’t know where he decided that “Only” a well-regulated militia could or should be the “Only” people who can bare arms when in “Fact”,,,it means “The People” and not the Government or it’s “Well Regulated Military”, that is trying to “Take Away” that deterrent which allows “The Government and their thugs” to “Invade” your home and “Take” it as was the case in Germany, Russia and China and as one of his examples stated,, Look what happened to those countries and “Their People”.
    The “Real” issue was simply related to a “Teenagers” access to his mothers legally purchased weapons and his “Personal” demons or delusionary ideas that directed him to that “Tragic” out come.
    I personally don’t own or have a weapon but I do know how to use one which I learned while in the “Armed Forces” but I “Strongly” will uphold the “Natural Right” for any mature citizen to own and have a weapon to protect his home and family as I’m sure the people who were murdered in those other countries would have wanted. r

    • Ironicsalesman

      @R… What did I just read?

      TL;DR: Guns are for the defense of the home. Not for you waltz around with in public. Restrictions on the types of firearms owned is fine. Because SCOTUS.

      While I agree that current caselaw indicates (D.C. v Heller, McDonald v Chicago) the “Well Regulated Militia” referenced in the 2nd Amendment refers to the intent of the amendment. That is to say — and this might be a clumsy phrasing — the purpose was to make raising a citizen militia possible ergo that right cannot be infringed.

      However, SCOTUS has limited that ability in two respects: 1) The arms must be for “traditionally lawful purposes”; 2) They are for self-defense of the home. It doesn’t say “Protect yourself at all times by having a concealed gun on you”, it doesn’t say “Do this so the government won’t take your guns” and it certainly doesn’t say “You absolutely cannot regulate firearms”.

      Ownership of a sawed off shotgun? No good, legal purpose there. Assault rifle? You could argue “I use this for hunting”, but you’re a piss poor (and as a result, likely dangerous) hunter if you need that. 30 round mags? Come on. What’s the excuse? Convenience?

      If anyone is worried that restrictions (i.e. the previous post mentioning similar licensing requirements to driving a car, or a ban on 30 round mags) means the government is going to come TAKE your guns… All they need to think about is how many firearms are in this country. 200,000,000 according the FBI stats. More likely projections say more like 350,000,000 given unregistered sales at gun shows.

      • Sam

        Wow, apparently your ability to read isn’t that great. You fail to mention the criteria brought forth in the Miller case concerning weapons protected under the Second Ammendment. “In common use at the time” ring a bell? Probably not, because it seems like you read just enough of the decision to try to prove how “bad” assault weapons are. I think you’d be hard pressed to argue the AR-15, the so called “assault weapon” everyone finds so terrible, doesn’t fit under this criteria, as there are 10-20 million in circulation.

        Don’t even start with the hunting BS, that is obviously not what the Second Amendment is about, but again, this takes some reading and reasoning skills that may be above the typical anti crowd.

        People have no idea what their own government can and will do them when there aren’t checks to their power in place. Lots of examples in other countries, but since those “won’t happen here” why don’t you do a bit of reading, it never hurts. Battle of Athens, TN. Think that would’ve been solved by a populace disarmed? All the weapons used by the men standing for their freedoms were “military style weapons”.

        To think that government is here to save you is a naive belief by those who do not have a solid grasp of history.

        And to the Canadian, how’s that gun registry working out for you? Bunch of good that did…

        • AATTP

          To think that you have a snowball’s chance in hell if the most powerful military in the world decides to take you on is a naïve belief by those who do not have a solid grasp on reality.

        • Karen

          I would have happily kept the long gun registry – all the police forces wanted to keep it because it was working – but our Conservative/Republican style government decided to get rid of it on principle and because it was politically expedient.

  • Joe

    I want to start by saying that I love the Daily Show, I watch it as often as I can and I agree with Jon on most things and entertained by him even concerning topics where I might not agree with him. That being said I have to completely disagree with this bit. I am a scientist by training, a geologist to be specific and I am a gun enthusiast, but not a nut or unreasonable person. I have spent large amounts of time looking up and reading many of the hundreds of studies and statistics available from credible sources online and every long term fact disagrees with what Jon is saying. We HAVE tried all of these things, reducing clip sizes, restricting “assault rifles” access, trying to make it more difficult for criminals to get weapons. We tried them for a decade and it had absolutely no effect. This country has a LONG history of finding worse solutions to bad problems and reacting poorly to panic stricken situations. We need to calm down as a nation and pay attention to facts and history and data and try to solve the problem, not re-enact bad solutions that have already proven not to work
    Jon made fun of the “Hammer statistic” but it is no less of a truth. More people were killed by hammers & clubs in this country than rifles. I believe it is obvious that at least some of these murders were performed with a blunt weapon because the person was unable to acquire a rifle. If all rifles were magically done away with then the number would rise dramatically, then we would be trying to figure out how to curtail blunt trauma violence. The terrible fact of the matter is that awful terrible crazy people sometimes to awful terrible crazy things. They will always find an avenue for accomplishing their awful terrible crazy things and passing laws that has a history of being ineffective that punish people who have done nothing wrong is wrong and ineffectual .

    • Ironicsalesman


      Could you possibly give an idea of which studies from which credible sources? Throw in a sprinkling of data somewhere?

      • Joe

        http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html#overview Here is a good start. statistics from the FBI website, showing a constant drop in murders and violent crime in this country regardless of gun laws that come and go. I will follow with others when I get a chance to look them up

        • Karen

          What about the fact there is no consistent gun control throughout the US, so that gun bought legally in one state can be trucked into states with stronger gun control laws. You haven’t yet proven that stronger gun control laws doesn’t work from where I’m standing. And btw, I’m standing in Canada where this whole discussion sounds like crazy talk. You do realize you all have like 300 million guns floating around your country already? How many guns do people need?

      • Joe

        The “Lott/Mustard gun control study” done in 1996 is one of the most famous and most scrutinized. I can not find a link to the study immediately, but here is a link to an interview done by the university of Chicago Press. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

      • Joe

        Here is a study on the effectiveness of the Brady Bill http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10918704

  • James Cheatham

    Oh and as far as defense against a corrupt government, it didn’t really work out for the southern states back when we didn’t have things like tanks and gunships.

  • James Cheatham

    I don’t know what the answer is, I do know that both sides are unreasonable about the discussion. The mass shootings are an aberration. We shouldn’t base our policies on that. Last time we did that we ended up with TSA and the Patriot act. If you look at statistics for 2011 49% were handguns,13% with knives and 3% with rifles. (I’m leaving out shotguns and firearm type unknown). So does a ban on assault rifles really make sense or is it a knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy? By the same token arming every teacher doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either. Just what you need in the mix and confusion, a bunch of terrified people running around shooting at anything that moves. If you wanted to we could even turn our schools into heavy duty bunkers with bullet proof glass and reinforced steel doors. How about we step back, take a deep breath and look at it from a practical standpoint. The president isn’t trying out Hitler mustaches in the oval office plotting his next move after he’s disarmed the population, nor are there crazed maniacs behind every bush waiting for school to start. Registering guns, it’s an unpopular idea and it probably wouldn’t have prevented Newtown, but it might help with solving and maybe preventing some of the handgun violence that IS a real problem.

  • NormM

    One thing that Jon didn’t mention is the money behind gun sales. Most of the profits in the industry come from selling military type (“professional”) weapons. It’s an enormous industry and they’ll fight like hell, including through funding politicians and all sorts of crazy people, to keep making those profits.

    • Norma Sasson

      Norm: As the man said, “Follow the money.” You can talk to you are blue in the face about 2nd Amendment rights, protection against a corrupt government, crime statistics with or without gun laws and/or bans, but as with everything in this country of ours – is ALWAYS about making a buck – ALWAYS. The gun manufacturers are laughing at all you gun nuts behind their Wizard of OZ screen.

  • Johnny Saprks

    jon,,sorry,,i don’t agree with you on this one..every year it is the same thing,,anti gun people want gun control and are willing to force it on us against our will,,over and over,,just quit it,,or,,get rid of all the guns in our world and make some kind of agreement with the bad guys to stop hurting innocent people afraid to protect themselves yet are willing to call someone with a gun to do it for them..while all the while supporting War on other country’s totally un able to defend themselves from our oppression,,kind of like israel does to the palestinians..see.. besides what next,, prescription drugs,,because as you know,,errors,, while dispensing these drugs,,kill more than guns ever did in times of peace in america,,and what about War,,do we still get to have our wars,,,or what,,cars,,,calling the cops can get you killed,,it happens..what about tyranny in case that government take over happens and only bad guys have guns,,who are you gonna call that will show up fast enough to save you,,if not you…

    • Mike

      It’s Gun Control… not Gun Ban. Nobody in their right mind thinks America is going to drop all their guns into a big hole.

      However, any reasonable person can agree that guns should be better controlled than asprin.

      The tyranny argument is paranoid and irrational…

      • Daniel

        The tyranny argument is paranoid and irrational? Tell me if you will, which direction is the United States going, the way of more laws and rules, or the way of less law and rules? Now, with that answer in hand, extend than for decades…now a hundred years…and perhaps more. You see, it’s getting more tyrannical everyday. Sometimes in slow steps, sometimes by leaps and bounds with irrational knee-jerk responses to minor tragedies (yes Sandy Hook, horrible as it was, was a minor tragedy). History is replete with examples of people being massacred by the millions. The answer is simple; when there is danger, you don’t disarm. You remove the danger, and that danger is humans with some kind of mental affliction.
        The gun debate may rage on and on, it moves me nor others not a millimeter. The most important function of weapons is to remove oppression. Stewart says it was written in a time of muskets, but now we have more modern weapons; the ‘militia’ is to be armed with the weapons of the day, to properly carry out their function. When laser handguns come, we shall have laser handguns. Unfortunately, there is no debate on this issue.

        • Karen

          The statement “there is no debate on the issue” indicates you are entrenched in your position and no facts, figures, or reasonable discussion will move you. God save the United States.

      • Tom

        It’s interesting to me to hear that tyranny concerns are “paranoid and irrational” when somewhere between 30 and 50 million people have been killed by their own governments just in the last 100 years. The modern era. Those now dead folks thought tyranny concerns were paranoid too.

        • AATTP

          The point is, even if there were a real threat what could any of us possibly do about it now? Go down in a blaze of glory? Sorry, but that seems pretty Chuck Norris wannabe stupid to us.

      • Bob in Boston

        Last time I bought Aspirin I didn’t have to get an FBI background check…

  • Phredd

    Interesting, as a gun enthusiast, I do feel that laws requiring safe storage of fire arms (not mentioned here) as well as tougher standards for ownership are good ideas. Proper mental health care, also not mentioned here is very much needed in this country. Regulate magazine size all you want, there are already so many high capacity magazines out there it would be a futile gesture. As far as the nut bags that want to protect us from tyranny, seriously? I have some bad ass weapons, I don’t think that the will do much against a tank, which you can own in this country or an Apache gunship. Again for those who think they would, I stress the need for mental health care.

    • AATTP

      I think you meant “which you CAN’T own in this country” and we agree.

  • c

    30,000 gun death a year in this country?! First, like many of you, you have your facts wrong. We had a little over 12,000 gun deaths in this country. Some were law enforcement killings, some were private citizen defense killings. What were left were mostly gang related killings in big cities. No one brings up the number to times guns are used to prevent being assaulted or killed. A woman in Ga. recently used her .38 to save her life and the lives of her children from an home intruder. And assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of gun killings anyway.

    Statistics consistently prove that lower crime levels are found in area where guns are present by non-criminals. And crime levels are higher in areas where guns are restricted and/or banned. You can make fun of and criticize people who are pro gun but the facts are on their side. I don’t understand why people like you can’t or won’t see that. It is impossible to ban ANYONE from owning a gun. If someone wants one, they will find a way to get one. It’s as simple as that.

    What we can do is restrict the buildings and areas so guns cannot pass through. But that would cost a whole lot of money and manpower. Who wants to do that? They would rather try the impossible and remove the tool altogether. Not going to happen. End of story.

    • Mike H

      You seem to be making the argument that “assault” weapons are not necessary for ordinary citizens to have to defend themselves. The only reason then is recreational use and fear of the gov’t.

      You also seems to be making a claim that responsible gun ownership lowers crime rate. Its correlation but not a cause. I would think that socio-economic conditions and cultural differences explain that difference. Ownership of guns is not the issue. I’m pro-gun ownership and the vast majority of the US is but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be boundaries.

      I’m not suggesting that we start banning what we fear, but putting metal detectors in every public venue is not freedom either. Its a constant reminder of fear. That’s not the society I want to live in. There has to be a middle ground or other ways in which to protect people. I’m sick of hearing about mass killings from dudes with weapons and body armor. Why is that acceptable?

      • Anna T.

        Well said, but I would like to point something out. The reason you’re hearing about so many mass killings is not because there are more than there usually are; it’s because mass media are trying to manipulate public opinion to agree with many more gun control measures (probably more than are really necessary).
        Thank you :)

    • chris

      You nailed it. Everything you said was spot on. There are some who may choose not to believe it, or cherry pick what they agree with, but, statistics are on your side. Let them argue with that, you are just bringing them to the table. Good job.

    • Jane

      Correlation is not causation. I live in a tiny town with tons of legal gun owners and our crime rate is higher than the national average in every category.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test