Colin's Last Stand, Episode 22: America's Dishonest Gun Control Debate

I though the video was great, and I'm loving all the other content you've been putting out. I'm from Canada where we do have guns and the public can purchase them (as long as you've gone through a safety course and passed background checks). I also believe you have a right to own a gun, even here where it's not written into our constitution (not that I'm saying I'm fluent in the 2nd amendment or all the other subleties surrounding the argument). That said I don't believe that you should be able to go right to the store and purchase a firearm without any kind of background check. Which is my biggest problem (and maybe a misunderstanding) I have when I see these stories come up on the news about gun laws. I guess my biggest question about the system in the US is, why is there such a resistance to a "cooling off period", or (like up here in Canada) having to go through a course on proper handling and care of a firearm?

Ryan Arden

Late to the party, but I wanted to talk about gun ownership and the second amendment on a more fundamental, philosophical issue. Firstly, I don't really disagree with the point of the video, which is statistics not being presented truthfully in the argument, although I agree with points above about gun suicide being considerable argument against guns to be raised, while still agreeing with Colin that suicide numbers shouldn't be used to disingenuously make homicide numbers seem bigger. My question is this: what's the point of defending the second amendment other than for the sake of itself? What is the point of having a gun other than to have one? What damage would be done by greatly restricting or completely abolishing ownership? Guns have no function other than as instruments of death (my wording is perhaps overly emotional there but "no function other than as weapons" means the same thing so I'm gonna allow myself an emotionally effective phrasing as an argumentation tool this one time). That being the case, what's the point in having them around in public ownership? I understand park rangers needing them for work, or police officers, or the military, but why does anyone need one? And why should those who need them for work have any need to possess them outside of work? Before going any further, I understand that to reach my necessary logical conclusion of highly strict gun control laws, like we have in the UK, and I think in Australia, may well be impractical at least in the short-medium term and that poor implementation of these controls in the us could lead to only those who truly intend to cause harm with them possessing them amongst the general public. I have two things to say to that: 1) "a bad guy with a gun can only be countered by a good guy with a gun" is a terrible argument, a generic good guy with a gun could easily get more people killed by not handling a standoff properly and if untrained to kill the wrong people themselves. It is truer to say that "a well trained, regulated good guy with a gun counters a bad guy with a gun". That NRA argument is like saying the President could be defended by civilians and not the secret service purely by the virtue of the civilians possessing guns, and I think that proposition is self-evidently false. 2) (whoops, this is a long sidebar) I'm more interested in philosophical level arguments here, presuming realistic practicalities can be presumed as being dealt with as if "in a perfect world" because I did debating like that for a long time and I think having to rely purely on philosophical/non-practical arguments leads to stronger debate. Returning to my point: can anyone tell me why they should be entitled to own a gun just because the second amendment says so? What would be the harm to Americans in removing that? I don't believe American culture is so fragile as to be destroyed by the loss of gun ownership, and I'd say that to say so would be an insult to American culture. If the purpose of a gun is limited to doing harm (which it undeniably is, unless, I dunno, you use your gun as a hammer?) why is it a worthwhile object in the hands of the general public. Let's compare to knives to make my argument a little clearer. We have table knives, which, yes can do harm, because they primarily are used to cut/serve/ otherwise interact with food. We don't have samurai swords because they don't reasonably serve that purpose (relevant fact, you can't buy any kind of knife in the uk unless you're at least 18. This means you can have sex (age of consent = 16) before you can buy a knife to put butter on your bread). I suppose I'm asking one question in many ways, but I think you have to answer it before you can justify defending anything else other than complete ban on public ownership of guns. Why should the general public have guns if there only purpose is to harm? Some pre-emptive counters now: "But I need it to hunt." Ok, rent it from the park ranger service, or the department of parks and natural resources when you get your hunting license. Why do you need to own it when you aren't hunting? "I need it to rebel against the government." I think that is an unrealistic scenario to happen (and the legitimacy of rebellion is a whole 'not her argument), but, ok sure. Just sell all guns in a glass case that says "only break in case of necessary rebellion" and it's a crime if you break it for any other purpose (yes, I know that's unenforceable but my philosophical point stands, you don't need a gun readily available in a closet or on your table. You could also envision a more workable version of this where stores can only open their stock of weapons when they feel a rebellion has started. But I admit this is the point where the practicalities of allowing for an (I suppose just about reasonable) argument for public ownership of guns clash with the absolutes of how to enact that allowable relaxation in the philosophy. "But it's an American right to own a gun." That doesn't answer my question. I'm asking why it should be a right. You're still an American without your gun. What's the point in having the second amendment other than because the founders wrote it? Even the pope isn't infallible anymore. Maybe they were unwise to include it. "I need it for self-defence." In a philosophical a argument we're presuming very strict gun control would work properly, so no one attacking you has a gun. A baseball bat works here (one reason why baseball should be more popular in the uk, more bats to defend from unlikely burglaries, note the bat has a primary purpose of sport) and a gun would likely be disproportional force which is illegal and philosophically wrong in itself. Even if 'bad guys' have guns I dispute the idea that you having one is better self defence than you having a bulletproof vest and well trained policeman having guns. I think that's everything? Apologies if I'm mischaracterising counter arguments, that's a debate technique from my decade of doing it I may not have shaken off yet. Apologies if I'm unclear anywhere, this and healthcare are the two aspects of American politics that make me very angry, as I worry about there effects on my American fiancé, her family, and well the millions of other innocent people in America harmed by these aspects of American politics and policy. Lastly, a word on the second amendment itself. It reads as so: "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." I think there's a legal argument to say that, as per constructionism, the right to bear arms is envisioned as a right with a well regulated militia. I don't think you're contradicting the second amendment to regulate the gun control fairly strictly. The second amendment explicitly includes regulation and I think could reasonably include strong regulation at that. But still, my primary question is this, what's the point in keeping the Second Amendment? The constitution can be amended, so philosophically speaking why shouldn't we amend it to remove/annul the second amendment?

Gavin Todd

<a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5NZwK63tf60" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5NZwK63tf60</a> fascinating video would love your thoughts Colin

George Newton

Colin why are our comments being spammed by this Donna Sex individual ?

George Newton

<a href="https://www.patreon.com/sexywomen">https://www.patreon.com/sexywomen</a> follow me i have new things for you i promise

I'd like to do a video on that, but for me, it's a totally separate issue. One that deserves its own analysis.

Colin Moriarty

Thanks! I brought up that black people are only 13% of the population in the video; didn't feel like it was necessary to repeat the stat.

Colin Moriarty

It's like anything else, at this point: We need adults. Moderates that can come together and solve problems without ceding too much ground to either loud, ignorant extreme.

Colin Moriarty

Glad you liked it! Thank you for watching.

Colin Moriarty

Well, I think there are some common sense things we can do to take some of these arguments off of the board by addressing them. I've no issue with mandatory background checks (as long as there is no federal registry), and checking into a person's fitness in a standard and predictable way to ensure that they should own a gun to begin with. Thing is, with so much crime committed by illegal gun owners, I feel like these steps won't mitigate many of the issues, and may simply punish the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners who are good, decent, law-abiding people.

Colin Moriarty

The comments seem fairly constructive and positive to me!

Colin Moriarty

LOL.

Colin Moriarty

I'm with you on the safety part. The reason I don't own my own gun is because I haven't yet had time to take the classes to properly learn how to handle, load, clean, shoot, et cetera a gun, and I want to be a positive, learned, and educated gun owner. Thanks for watching!

Colin Moriarty

Thank you! I'm not sure where self-defense falls into play, although I suspect the numbers aren't very big.

Colin Moriarty

That would be interesting to determine, comparatively to other causes of death.

Colin Moriarty

Thanks! Shirt is from an online merch store called Declaration, which is run by a buddy of mine.

Colin Moriarty

Thanks ma. Love you!

Colin Moriarty

Agreed. Thanks for watching!

Colin Moriarty

Interesting. Also, Mexico has incredibly strict gun control, which only leaves people defenseless from the drug cartels.

Colin Moriarty

As a brit this was an interesting piece , I like the protection of the second amendments and all of the founding principles and would love to see that explored much deeper. Many thanks as always

George Newton

The only statistic that is skewed in my opinion is the deaths by officers. The statistic had 261 black deaths and 501 white deaths. That means roughly 33% of deaths from police are black, but African-Americans only make up about 15% of the population, so they are actually being killed more by percentage than white people. Always great stuff Colin. Thank you for the videos. I love the neutral take on the topics you present .

Bill Gartner

So as a gun owner - I appreciate it when people recognize that it is in fact overblown. And I recognize that at the beginning of the video you said there is no denial that there is a problem in the country, but the numbers show it's not as bad as people like to make it. I'm on board with this. I think though the issue is getting gun advocates to recognize that there's a problem. They're so afraid that someone is going to take their guns they refuse to acknowledge any problem at all. I think this is the real issue. The numbers are overblowm, but it's just like climate chnage.. like they're so concerned with liberties being infringed on that they refuse to acknowledge any issue what so ever. We should absolutely protect our freedoms, but the lack of ability from people* sometimes to see things from other perspectives is nuts man. *by people I don't mean Colin or anyone here, I just mean in general when a topic like this comes up.

Owen

Highly enjoyed this one colin! Great work!

Avi

That's a sad story -- depression, anxiety, and all the rest are real -- but, in my estimation, the whole of gun owners can't be blamed for or held to account for the actions of others. Taking that argument to its logical conclusion doesn't bring us to a positive, peaceful, or logical place.

Colin Moriarty

As you point out, it's a complicated, stat-ridden issue that's far deeper than any one or two facets of the argument.

Colin Moriarty

I absolutely intend on covering it, though when remains to be seen. It's a fascinating tale.

Colin Moriarty

Thank you for your long-time support. =)

Colin Moriarty

Thank you for watching!

Colin Moriarty

Great video and interesting thoughts. Really enjoy reading the civil comments here. On a previous video on gun regulation, when you were still at Kinda Funny, you were in support of some gun regulation and seemed to lament the fact our politicians couldn't come together and meet in the middle on some of these issues. I'm not a gun owner currently, but I grew up around guns and learned how to shoot on my Grandma's farm. My Grandma would routinely go out and shoot Raccoons or Opossums who were getting into her garden or getting her Chickens. I guess my point on that story is we aren't going to get rid of guns in this country, and I wouldn't want to because of this type of story and numerous others. I do want a honest civil discussion about how to limit and deal with the gun violence we do have and see if we can curtail it even further than the numbers now. This would also hopefully include trying to lower the suicide rate by guns and accidental injuries. Paraphrasing you from the older video you said: If we do all we can and have all the regulations or safety measures in place we can and things still happen we can at least say we have done all we have. If not remember correctly or not representing your thoughts I apologize, but this is the point I want to get to in regards to gun violence/deaths.

Britton Dowers

Great video! I can't wait to see the YouTube comments.

Jack

I will quote my wife: "I don't like guns because they are loud and they are scary and they are Republican." Great video.

Ryan Berry

Thank you, Paul. Your intelligent counterpoint is why I enjoy being part of this community. It was a little frustrating to see Colin, in his effort to stay true to the numbers (which I don't dispute, intrinsically), produce some glaring false equivalencies that lead him to some rare non sequiturs, many of which you addressed. These topics merit deeper discussion, as I think Colin was just too broad in his analysis. I also think you hit the nail on the head about this being a zeitgeist issue for liberals, in the same vein as terrorism for conservatives. Added to that, I would argue that in conservative circles, namely in the NRA echo-chamber, the perpetuation of fear of violent crime and the criminal element in general occupies a similarly disproportionate amount of the discourse as the "gun death epidemic" does for liberal circles. As a liberal gun owner, I am desperate for some sanity in this debate, where reasonable restrictions are considered earnestly and not dismissed out of hand (mandatory training regarding all facets of gun ownership, registration, reevaluating the methods for closing "the gun show loophole", smart gun features on newly manufactured weapons, etc.), and where earnest study of the issue acknowledged as a matter of public interest (<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research).</a> I find the "2nd Amendment is a Right, not a privilege" woefully tired. Yes, a gun is just and object, but it is also an object that has an enormous capacity to do harm, indeed that is it's design. If we don't have enough respect for it's power to consider reasonable restrictions on how they are proliferated into our society, then we are doomed to the results (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html).</a>

Timothy Monnig

Hey Colin. Great video on a very tough topic. In the likely chance that in the future there will be some form of follow-up video I wanted to offer some ideas as this is a topic I am very interested in. For some background, I believe in pro gun rights but believe that people should know what they are doing and gun safety should be the top of anyone list when they own or consider owning a gun. Secondly, I witnessed/was involved in a school shooting in high school. Thankfully this was one of the more happy ending stories but my views are still very much affected by the events of that day. What I think would be interesting to watch in a follow-up would possible be a round table where we can maybe get some level headed people to discuss there thoughts on gun control. People have had different real world experiences that shape their views and I would be interested in them talking and seeing how they would try to work together to solve these issues rather then just yelling at each other and getting nothing done. You have always been a great interviewer and I do miss that a bit in your videos so maybe this would give you a chance to branch out a bit and evolve what type of videos/features you can make. Keep up the great work.

I think the difference is that the ability to operate a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right. And most items or goods that we purchase or own are not constitutionally given rights or privileges either. However, owning and possessing a firearm literally is a right. That's what makes the whole issue difficult. How can the government be able to decide who should or shouldn't have access to this fundamental right? And while I agree with you that of course it sounds good to be sure that responsible people are the only ones who can have access to guns, who decides what the definition of "responsible" is? Will "responsible" in 20 years be different from what we see as "responsible" today?

Zack E

That was a great video I love the way you broke everything down it was clear and to the point the only thing I am wondering about in the numbers for gun homicides does that include self defense shootings as well? Because all we really hear about is the homicides in the news I'm 23 love in Alaska and own 5 guns two pistols 2 rifles and a shotgun but no one really talks about how they can be used to stop violence as well as cause it.

Cool Shirt and another great video.

Not sure it's been said already, as some of the comments are super long! but i feel there's one factor that should be considered alongside the statistics of cause of death. Flu, Heart disease, cancer etc are more likely to be the death of relatively older people. The total net loss of lives measured in years for every person killed with a gun would be an interesting metric when compared to the other causes given vs average life expectancy. I'd wager this would begin to skew things quite a bit. Because after all, it's not always the amount of total deaths that matter, but how many years were taken from each person by each cause.

Colin, I agree with most of the numbers presented. However, even you admitted that it is not the gun but the person behind the gun. I personally don’t want to regulate guns as an object. I do want to regulate who is allowed to own one. Just like a vehicle, we try to make sure that the person behind the wheel should be behind that wheel. We make that person take tests, grant a learning permit so you can train, then you take another test to be fully allowed to get behind the wheel un-monitored. Continuing, you need to re-up your license every X years. Why is asking for some control in the form of gun license, background checks and stopping the sale of guns at gun shows such a hard ask. I am not asking that we stop people from owning a gun. I am just asking that we do a better job of making sure that people who own them are allowed to own them. I also believe that if you own a gun and you are not responsible with it and your 22 year old mentally ill child goes off and does something with that gun. You are responsible for that. I repeat Colin here …”It is not the gun, it is the person behind the gun.” That all said, I can already here the people out there typing up that a criminals don’t obey the law. And, my personal favorite, you can’t register a gun because then the government can take them away. I will reinforce my stance again. I am not looking to take away anyone right to own a gun. I only would like to see guns sold and put in the hands of people that are responsible.

This is exactly what I needed. We had a serious discussion about gun ownership over the weekend! Perfect timing! Thank you. 😉

BettyAnn Moriarty

One-party rule won't move the numbers. Politics can't fix culture.

Jeremy Meyer

I disagree with you on so much, Colin, but this is somewhere where I think we see eye to eye. And besides the facts speaking for themselves, the notion that Americans can defend themselves from a tyrannical government is a wonderful thing. The fact that so many throughout history have had to just sit back and let their governments oppress and murder their families because they had no tool for fighting back is a great tragedy.

Samuel

The most murderous US cities in 2016, as measured in lives lost, were Chicago (536), New York (252), Baltimore (230), Detroit (221), Philadelphia (213), and LA (205). All controlled by liberal governments.

Jeremy Meyer

Of the 50 most homicidal cities in the world, only 4 are in the US, at the bottom of the list. The raw 2016 death count is led by Venezuela, South Africa, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia, Honduras, Jamaica, and Mexico.

Jeremy Meyer

Lots of stuff to comment here, so I'll try to keep it as brief as possible. First, it's disingenuous to try to separate suicide deaths from homicide deaths by firearm. Multiple studies have shown that the correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates is actually stronger than the correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. A strong meta-analysis shows that gun ownership increases your risk of dying by suicide by 3.4x compared to just 2x for homicide (<a href="http://annals.org/aim/article/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://annals.org/aim/article/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic).</a> Further, when Australia implemented their gun buyback program in 1996, their firearm suicide rate dropped by nearly 70%, much more than the homicide rate, and the relationship was stronger in states that bought back more guns (<a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8721267/gun-suicide-gun-control).</a> Other methods were largely unaffected. This is largely attributed to the spontaneous nature of suicide, the fact that 90% of people that unsuccessfully attempt suicide don't end up dying by suicide, and that suicide attempts with firearms are more fatal than any other method (<a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/)." rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/).</a> The fact that 2/3 of gun deaths in the US are suicides is, in fact, a strong argument FOR gun control, because all the data tends to indicate that reducing the rate of gun ownership would be more likely to reduce suicides than homicides. The second issue I take is trying to deconstruct firearm homicides to point to a deeper problem that couldn't possibly be associated with guns. But the data generally shows that increasing rates of gun ownership are correlated to increasing rates of homicide, even accounting for various other factors. Take, for example, this study: (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/)" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/)</a> "Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%. ... We controlled for the following factors, which have been identified in previous literature29,32,34–37,41–45,54,56,57 as being related to homicide rates: proportion of young adults (aged 15–29 years),8 proportion of young males (aged 15–29 years),8 proportion of Blacks,8 proportion of Hispanics,58 level of urbanization,59 educational attainment,60 poverty status,61 unemployment,62 median household income,63 income inequality (the Gini ratio),64 per capita alcohol consumption,65 nonhomicide violent crime rate (aggravated assault, robbery, and forcible rape),66 nonviolent (property) crime rate (burglary, larceny–theft, and motor vehicle theft),66 hate crime rate,67 prevalence of hunting licenses,68 and divorce rate.69 To account for regional differences, we controlled for US Census region.70 In addition, to capture unspecified factors that may be associated with firearm homicide rates, we controlled for the annual, age-adjusted rate of nonfirearm homicides in each state.8 We also controlled for state-specific incarceration rates71 and suicide rates.8 The definitions and sources of these data are provided in Table 1." Trying to deflect from gun ownership by pointing to causes such as race, income, gang-related crime, etc. doesn't hold up very well because the studies that compare gun violence across states already correct for all those factors and more (including nonhomicide violent crime and even divorce rate). I also think your comparison of gun deaths to causes like the flu or accidental poisoning is missing the point; most people don't worry about things that are random like the flu, they worry about things that are unusual and, on the surface, seem preventable. You're far more likely to die from a firearm than from a terrorist, and yet Donald Trump voters said terrorism was their biggest issue for voting and we dropped nearly 30,000 bombs in Syria in 2016 fighting ISIS. If we simply attacked issues based on body count, terrorism wouldn't even be on the radar. But what terrorism and gun violence have in common is fear that reflects a loss of control and social order. The fact that in the US, we have become acquiescent to one of those says something profound about our society, I think. Now, here's where I will agree with you: the liberal attack on gun control is very flawed. As you mentioned, most gun violence is by handguns, not assault rifles (since most gun violence is intimate), so what are we attempting to achieve by banning assault rifles? It would barely make a dent. Likewise with background checks. If there's one thing the data shows, it's that the best way to reduce gun violence is to reduce the number of guns and the number of people that own them. And liberals know that to even suggest such a route would be political suicide, even among moderates and many liberal voters. Americans of all political stripes like guns, and event ardent supporters of gun control aren't going to be willing to let the government buyback half the guns in the country the way Australia did. Further, liberals have turned gun violence into their own form of terrorism. While I think it was disingenuous to compare firearm deaths to flu deaths, it's perfectly fair to compare firearm deaths to drug-, alcohol-, and tobacco-related deaths. In that light, the 33,000 firearm deaths pale in comparison to the 60,000 drug overdose deaths, the 100,000 alcohol-related deaths, and the 400,000 tobacco-related deaths per year. If liberals are concerned with body counts, they would have a much larger impact (and face less political opposition) pursuing policies targeted at those deaths, like increasing the alcohol and tobacco-taxes, drug reform, pharmaceutical regulation, etc. But liberals have found gun control to be their version of terrorism for conservatives - it's a political stance based on fear. Liberals fear gun violence (and mass shootings) in the same way as conservatives fear terrorism, and fear is a great political motivator. There's a very strong argument that liberals should let the issue go - as I said, Americans love their guns, and it's unlikely that liberals are going to win this battle. And maybe they shouldn't - the number of firearm-related deaths is relatively small compared to other indulgences. Everything that has the potential to kill comes with some tradeoff, and maybe having far more firearm deaths than any other developed country is a valid tradeoff for what many would consider not just an American right, but an American cultural pastime. Sure, we could reduce gun deaths by banning guns, but what would we give up? And, would it work in America the same way it did in Australia or other parts of Europe, or would it work as well as Prohibition or the Drug War? Last point (and I know this has been long) - the Supreme Court has not held that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun "over and over." The first time the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual a right to own a firearm in the home for personal purposes was in the 2008 case DC v Heller. That was extended to states in the 2010 case McDonald v Chicago. Before that, the Court usually found that the Constitution merely granted the right of gun ownership when connected to militia service.

Paul Peavler

The biggest problem with gun I have is all those suicide. People get depressed and commit suicide attempts everywhere in the world. But since guns are part of the culture in the US, they usually succeed on the first attempt instead of getting help they need. I have a friend she's on a 3rd attempt, over 15 years, depression is a bitch. Her family loves her, they are trying hard to help. She will eventually bounce back. Shes still young, less than 30. Luckily funs aren't part of our culture up here in Canada, she probably would have been dead. And on another note, its sad to see the culture of fear the USA media keeps rolling with everyday. Can't we all love each other and not see our fellow citizen as potential attacker qe need to defend ourselves from. Thank for the video Colin.

GrisWold Diablo

Very good video. I can't count how many times I've had similar discussions with people. It's also interesting to compare the crime rates with Australia and the U.K. after their gun bans. Their crime rates did decline but after a short increase in violent crime. During the same time the crime rate fell in the US. Crime rates dropped in all three places while the number of guns decreased in two and increased in the third.

Colin, I noticed your very stylish Whiskey Rebellion shirt and wonder if you ever plan on creating any content focused on the event? I live in Western PA and we have our annual Whiskey Rebellion Festival coming up the second weekend of July. I think you would appreciate the historical celebration, and the local whiskey.

Yes! Content like this is why I'm a Patron and have been a fan of yours for years.

Thank you for putting all this information together. A lot if people are in need of the truth when it comes to guns in the United States. Loving the channel so far. Keep I it up!

David McKinstry