Gun Control “Expert” Can’t Answer This Simple Question

Gun Control “Expert” Can’t Answer This Simple Question

by -
14 817

Tucker Carlson asked a gun grabber a simple question about so-called “assault weapons.” A simple question that gun control advocates can never answer. The result is a lot of deflection, but no straight-forward answer. After all, answering this question honestly pretty much destroys this guys narrative.

Watch he squirm below:

 

The reality is that the vast majority of homicides are not committed with so-called “assault weapons.” Even blunt objects like bats and hammers kill more people each year. Chicago banned ALL HANDGUNS, not just so-called “assault weapons”, and they still have record high crime. The federal government banned so-called “assault weapons” from 1994-2004 and crime is lower today (in most places) than it was during the ban.

A ban on so-called “assault weapons” can’t lower the crime rate by any measurable degree, the reason is simple: very few crimes are being committed with such weapons in the first place. That’s “common sense” liberal gun control in a nutshell. The key to lower crime is to ban guns that law abiding citizens aren’t using to commit crimes, while completely ignoring the enforcement of existing laws designed to take guns that actually are used in crimes from the criminals who possess them.

Should we stop and frisk suspected gang members acting suspiciously on the street corner and confiscate their illegal guns? NO THAT’S RACIST! How about following up on an insane person, like the Sandy Hook shooter, who is on record trying to buy a gun illegally, should we do anything about crazy people failing NICS checks? NO, WE DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR THAT, INSTEAD LETS GO AFTER 80 MILLION LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The struggle continues…

 

14 COMMENTS

  1. Let us not get too bound up in all of the gibberish. The simple answer is; if the citizens’ gun are taken, the violent crime will double and maybe increase even by a factor or four or five. Right now criminals commit “X” number of crimes each day, knowing many citizens are armed. If they know the citizens have no guns, simple logic, deductive reason and common sense dictates the criminals will become more active. That position was verified when the guns of the citizens of Australia, Great Britain and France were either taken or seriously controlled—and we see daily citizens from those countries pleading, “do not give up your guns”.

    • Wait, after first denying an assertion taken directly from his own statement, he sidesteps the question (“Of the 762 murders committed in Chicago last year, how many involved ‘assault weapons’?”) and instead makes one of the dumbest statements imaginable (not just dumb from a gun owner’s/second amendment advocate’s perspective, we are talking just plain DUMB – that’s “Dee-YU-Emm-Emm, Dumm…” from any perspective), namely: “assault weapons make any killing more lethal”. Wait, what? Did he say that an assault weapon makes a killing MORE lethal? Does that mean that you are MORE dead if you are shot dead with an assault weapon than if you are shot dead with some other type of gun? Or more dead than if you’re killed by any other instrumentality – knife, bomb, airplane being rammed into a building…? Are there multiple layers of dead? You know, “he’s dead” vs. “he’s assault weapon dead”? Can you revive a “merely dead person”, say one who’s been decapitated by a buzz-saw but cannot revive someone who was shot by an assault weapon? “Oh no, this one got shot in the leg by an ‘assault weapon’ – put him in the ‘no treatment’/’past treatment’ triage pile and grab that guy with no head and move him to the front of the line for emergency care…” Or do you have to be dead-dead before you can also be “assault weapon dead” or “assault weapon dead-dead”, as opposed to “merely dead” or “merely 6 shot revolver dead”? I am having a hard time grasping this one, but, ya’ know, that’s what he said “assault weapons make ANY KILLING MORE LETHAL”. Must be true (whatever it means) because he’s an “expert”. That’s what it says on his resume’, anyway.

      • WAIT, I figured it out! “Assault rifle” dead means “deader than Megyn Kelly’s career at NBC” as opposed to “as dead as Rachel Maddow’s credibility” (congratulations to Tucker Carlson for beating Megyn in the ratings, btw… Guess that $20M/year offer from FOX might look good in a few years, huh, Megyn?). Good work, too, Mr. Carlson, on holding up this moron as the moron he is. Well done.

  2. This clown has not a clue Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University would call him an a-hole. On New York State Dutchess County 3 hours north of NYC has 7 guns for every person. This guy is a lying sack of crap. If the ATF stopped games Fast and Furious and enforced existing trafficing laws. They would shut down illegal yes I said illegal interner sales. The laws already require background checks and FFL to FFL transfers. Thks is more liberal horseshit

  3. A few years ago I looked up stats about murders and the weapon used. In that search (I don’t remember which years I read about) more people were murdered with empty hands (i.e. no weapons except one’s own body) that were murdered using rifles (any rifles, not just so-called “assault weapons”, a term which I never heard of until around 1990).

    • Assault weapon, is a term coined by a liberal gun grabber and parroted by the liberal lap dog media, to make an ordinary semi automatic sound like a true military weapon. Most of these fools do not even understand the difference. Typical left wing BS rename something change the true meaning and the MSM whores spread the BS and the useful idiots buy it.

  4. As a LEO we get the stats on murders and all crimes of violence as part of Crimes information System. I am retired now but just a little less than two years. The last I looked deaths with things like bats, hammers and hands were much higher than firearms. The idiot that Tucker was interviewing was just another liberal want to be that is trying to feel important to other liberal morons.

Leave a Reply