Colion Noir critiques toxic online discourse and clarifies that AR-15s are semi-automatic, arguing bans would confiscate most civilian firearms while failing to address inner-city violence driven by socioeconomic factors. He cites Northwestern data showing school shootings haven't increased since the 1990s, noting 60% of gun deaths are suicides and only 7,000 to 10,000 are intentional homicides. Noir defends concealed carry for surprise and safety, asserting that despite low statistical probability of use, preparedness is essential for liberty against systemic neglect rather than general gun proliferation. [Automatically generated summary]
I don't want to say I've been blind to it, but just seeing some of the reaction and the responses that I got, especially, for instance, when I was on Mar.
After I did Bill Maher, I saw some of the comments from, I say the other side just for ease of communication, but for people who largely don't agree with me and his audience, they were like, Oh, why would you have the NRA guy on there?
Even a, there was a tweet I responded to yesterday.
And even though I was on my no tweeting deal that I like to put myself on because it's so toxic in there sometimes.
Because I grew up Under the guise and understanding the importance of discourse and being able to talk things out, even if you do disagree with someone.
But then even still having the ability to set aside whatever views I may have on a particular issue and then be able to speak with you cordially or have respect for you, even though we don't agree.
That's the way I was brought up.
And so to see the country kind of falling into this extremely vitriolic divisiveness, It's unheartening.
Usually we don't have the guests cry until the end, but all right, we can do it this way.
But that's exactly why I wanted to have you on, because you are okay going into enemy territory.
I'm not calling this enemy territory, but you did Marr's show where you knew a certain percentage of the audience was just gonna hate you, and we talked about it briefly right before we started, but you found Marr to be basically pretty respectful and open, even though on policy he probably disagrees with you.
And that's an interesting thing you point out there.
I think sometimes people take offense to that idea.
It's like, you're intriguing.
I think intrigue kind of offends people sometimes, because it's like we all grow up with a typical understanding of what we expect certain people to be like.
And then when certain things don't fit, it's like, hmm, that's interesting.
How did you get there?
And I think when it's innocent like that, I don't think there's an issue there.
When you use it to try to kind of muscle people into believing a certain thing based on what they are,
then that's when we start having problems.
You know what I mean?
It's like, you see me, it's like, how do you as a black guy?
Like it happened to me when I first started doing what I did with the NRA.
Russell Simmons, and I'll never forget this.
I was like in Virginia Beach, I think.
And Russell said, I did my first sets of videos rolled out with the NRA, and I get this tweet
from Russell Simmons, and he's like, how can you as a young black man push that?
And so that was kind of like my first foray into that world of, wait a minute, people have an expectation of me based on my race that I'm not going to say I was oblivious to, but it just, when it was coming from people that look like me as well with the same level of intensity, that's when I go, wow, okay.
Yeah, all right, so I want to back up to a little bit of childhood and growing up, because your evolution's kind of interesting, but let's just sit with this for one second, because I think there's something really interesting about that thing right there, that often if you listen to the media, they'll tell you that police are hunting down black men and all of this.
And then at the same time, you're saying Well, we should be able to arm ourselves and protect ourselves from the white supremacists.
But meaning that lawfully and legally, we should be able to take care of ourselves.
If you believe that the system is so corrupt and the police are so corrupt and there's racists running around everywhere, you're trying to bring the power back to yourself.
To me, that's very empowering, yet somehow this seemingly is lost when this conversation hits the mainstream.
It's like, in one breath, you're talking about, let's take the current administration, for instance.
Like, they'll paint it as this, the most vicious and vile thing on the planet, and then it's like, well, then let's give the same guns that you have for your own self-reliance that you would use to protect yourself against this monster that you said existed, and let's give it to them, and then place your entire reliance with respect to your safety on the same people you're telling that I should be scared of.
And so what it does though, it exposes this notion that there's an absence of ability to, I don't want to say ability, or people just choosing not to critically think.
You know?
And we're at a point now where we have access, and I tell people, it's like, it amazes me some of the questions that I get.
And it's like, You literally have a device that gives you access to all of the information in the world.
And it's amazing how when we have such access to so much information, we've become so lazy at reaching for it.
It was almost like back in the day when we didn't have this access, we were more adamant about searching and seeking it out and critically thinking about things.
It's almost we've become too fast for our own good, right?
So the obsession now is instant information, instant information, regardless of whether
or not the information is of any use or good, or if it's even correct.
Yeah.
You know?
And so, I hate it, because, you know, I've blogged, I've done all of those things, and
I actually get people who get mad at me when I don't jump on a certain issue quick enough.
And when I say quick enough within 30 seconds— Right, the second it's breaking.
Something goes down in the news, and literally two minutes go by, or I'm at dinner, and I wasn't looking at my phone, and then I'll get a slew of tweets.
And that's the one thing that I think a lot of people don't do.
And I almost tweeted that the other day.
I go, you know, it's very dangerous to read headlines, especially in the day and age of clickbait titles.
To just read headlines and then make an opinion based off of that, or think you know or understand what happened in a particular story.
Because there are so many articles that I've read about me and what I've said, where the headlines said one thing, and to cover their asses, within the article, they'll clarify exactly what it is that I said.
But they're banking on the idea that people are just going to read the headlines and then run with that.
That's interesting you pointed out, because I was talking to my friend, I'm like, how can anyone watch this interview and not walk away with saying, you know what, that was a great conversation by two people who don't agree on everything, but there's some things we agree on.
He's like, because they didn't watch it.
And I was like, what do you mean?
It's like I had this weird blonde moment, right?
I'm like, what do you mean?
He's like, they didn't watch it.
He's like, they don't actually watch the video.
They just read the title and then assume they know what happened in the video and then make their opinion from there.
But then there is also this idea that, being a young black man, that I'm supposed to run from guns because of the projected image that we've all had forced down our throats with respect to black men and firearms in this country for decades.
You know, black man with a gun, he's a thug, he's a drug dealer, he's a gangbanger.
Period.
So now, when I Young, attorney, educated, open-minded, you know, with respect to different issues.
And then I'm pushing the narrative of the Second Amendment.
It sets off an explosive level of cognitive dissonance in people who have what—I love this quote, and I believe it was Bush who said it—this soft bigotry of lowered expectation.
They hate it the same way they hate you now, because you can't control someone who's willing to think independently, outside of what is stereotypically expected of you, right?
And that's where the labels come in.
So it's like, you know, you're progressive, you're liberal, you know, so forth and so on, but you still have that ability to step outside of that and say, you know what, let me—let me—okay, I can see that perspective.
That's dangerous for people who want to control people.
So, when I want to control the way you think, the way you see yourself, I cannot allow you to develop an ability to think independently on separate issues, because then I can't control you.
So, if I say, you know what?
I can do everything for you.
Depend on me.
The last thing I want you to do and understand is, you know what?
Wait a minute.
You mean to tell me I can protect myself?
You mean to tell me I don't have to depend on calling a cop in order to come save me if someone does try to break into my house?
Because then I can't control you.
I can't own your vote.
Because what the gun has done for me and a lot of people, it serves as a catalyst for the awakening of a lot of people to understand, you know what?
I can do more for myself than I realize.
You know?
And once that, once that spark is set off, then a lot of things you start to realize.
You know, I don't, you know what, maybe, you know, now that I'm holding myself to a different level of accountability, Maybe I might try to do this on my own.
I mean, putting aside, I know a lot of people are into facts over feelings these days, right, Shapiro?
But doesn't that statement right there, that you can do more for yourself, it just feels good, like taking some power back to yourself and going, the government or you, whoever you are, you're not in charge of my life, my responsibility, my livelihood, my family, the rest of it?
So, you know, when I talk about the issue of firearms, I do I was having a discussion with a lady not too long ago about just general firearm issues with respect to her son, right, who's a young black man.
And I asked her, you know, like, are you fearful of the idea of him carrying a gun and so forth and so on.
And I have to bring myself back when I'm having a discussion with someone like that, because I don't have kids.
Right?
So yeah, am I a godfather?
Yeah, and I love her, but it's not the same for a woman who has a son.
So I have to be cognizant of that and understand what goes into that when she's thinking about whether or not she's okay with him owning a firearm.
And then on top of that, having this idea that her son is more likely to get killed by a cop because he has a gun on him versus when he doesn't, you know?
And that's where the feeling component comes in, where it's necessary.
I think if you can't sympathize with that, then it makes you dismissive.
And so then that person can't relate to you, then we can't have that conversation.
Because when I was reading your bio there, I mean, there's some really interesting stuff about how you evolved sort of politically and personally, but when you started getting into guns, you kind of had to hide it from your mom even.
I didn't realize I was anti-gun until there was one present, right?
I wasn't kind of rabidly running out screaming, "I hate guns!" or anything like that.
But when a woman was present, I remember this one moment when I was in college, I had a
roommate, one of their friends brought a gun over.
I was like, "You need to get the hell out of my apartment."
And I had a good friend of mine who randomly just asked me, "Hey, do you want to go to
Never even thought about it.
Never even crossed my mind, which is how I know a lot of times I can decipher based on certain comments, whether or not somebody is actually commenting from a place of ignorance or place of understanding.
Because I was that guy.
Never even thought about going to a range, never thought about shooting a gun, but could tell you all the opinions in the world why I didn't like it.
Right?
And so, when I hear that rhetoric now, I can usually point it out and I'm like, you've never shot before.
You've never even held a gun before.
And so, from that perspective, we went to the gun range and I shot for the first time.
And I was hooked.
Now, I was hooked, not from a political standpoint, not even from an empowering, oh my god, I can protect myself now standpoint.
It was just pure fascination with the mechanics, the physics, all of it.
I'm a very curious mind, so for me it was like, I kind of like this.
The idea that I'm launching a projectile faster than the speed of sound at a little target, like a hundred yards away, that was awesome to me.
So from that perspective, so after that, I just, I followed that rabbit all the way down the hole.
But it was, like I said, it was more from a scientific, mechanical understanding of it.
Then, as time went on, then I started looking at it from a more intellectual, Second Amendment political activist standpoint.
And then I started, then the lawyer mind kicked in.
And I started looking, and I'm like, I'm hearing something.
Because during the time period, that particular time period, we had a couple of pretty big mass shootings that happened.
And so I started paying attention.
So now I'm paying attention more to this.
It's kind of like when you're thinking about buying a car, and you never see it on the road, and once you start thinking about buying it, you see it everywhere.
That's pretty much what happened now.
So I'm like, I'm hearing the conversation about guns everywhere now.
And I'm like, none of this is making any sense logically.
Like, what people are proposing, it doesn't, it was so pure, it wasn't like an agenda drum, it was like, this doesn't make sense to me.
It's like, a window, like a sticker on a window's not gonna stop somebody from bringing a gun in.
And so, but, so she was trying to buck, so I knew once I started getting into guns, no, no, no, no, because the perception was black man with gun, gangbanger, right?
And, you know, she had some insecurities in that.
She's like, you know, like, there's gonna come a point where I'm not gonna be able to control this kid.
I don't know what he's going to be doing.
And so I didn't want to terrify her and make her think that I was living some nefarious lifestyle.
It was almost in a way to protect her more than was to hide it for my sake because I didn't want her to feel like she failed as a mother.
And so I knew if she saw the AK-47 that I had hidden under my bed, in her mind, she knows nothing about guns.
All she knows is what she sees in the media.
And we all, like we touched upon before, that imagery is not positive.
So, she comes home, sees AK-47 in the bed, she's like, oh my god, my son is a gangbanger.
Okay, so from that point, when you started getting okay with this and now you're exploring it, as you said, intellectually, how long before you were really an advocate for this stuff?
Because you always sort of wanted to fight for something.
That was my goal, even to the detriment of my grades.
I focused more on my mock trial stuff when I was in law school than I did my actual work, like school-wise, right?
And I liked being the voice for people.
I like being able to speak to people who can articulate certain things the way that maybe I can.
And I never saw this going the way that it did, but I'm doing exactly what I always wanted to do.
And for me, with the gun thing, I remember being in, like, I'd be in, like, class in law school, and the way that, like, the seats are staggered, they're like stadium seats, right?
So, if I'm on my computer and you're behind me, you can see what I'm doing on my computer.
And, like, I'd be in class and, like, I'm researching guns and stuff like that, right?
And, yeah, oh, man, oh, dude, like, people, and the thing is, a lot of things that were being said about me, I didn't even know about until later on.
Yeah, he's like, he's great, he's not doing anything crazy, he's not, you know.
And look, I get it.
If you don't, if you're not into that kind of thing, and you don't follow it, the idea of being passionate about something you perceive to be a tool that's used for killing people and only killing people, it's going to seem a little odd to you.
But, because I came to it so naturally, so organically, without any of that, it just made sense in my mind.
I was so unapologetic about it once I got over being apologetic about it that I didn't
push it in people's faces.
But there was even a time—like, that's how my Instagram got started, was me separating.
So the people who followed me up until that point—I had a girlfriend at the time—was
like, "You know, I get a lot of questions from people.
You think you can kind of tone down the gun stuff a little bit?"
And it was kind of an innocent thing.
But inevitably, I just said, "You know what?
Forget it.
I'm just going to set up a whole other page, and I'm just going to do all the gun stuff I want to do on that page.
And then now that's taken over.
I don't even use the other one.
I don't even know if I remember the password.
And so from there, that's where things really started taking off.
And then when I started—because I started doing gun reviews.
And then I want to do the most common misconceptions about guns.
Because I think part of the issue right now is every time something happens, Every time there's a shooting, half the people don't know anything about guns on one hand, half the people then give you all of those misconceptions.
It gets it confusing for everybody and even the people who I generally trust, I sense don't know exactly what they're saying.
So I want to do a video with you right now where every time one of these incidences happen, And someone starts asking me this, asking me that.
I wanna go, I've got the thing that I can point you to with the answers.
And does so at a very high rate of speed, generally speaking.
Semi-automatic, so now there's been this thing where people conflate this or use semi-automatic as a kind of a hyperbolic way of Characterizing guns as death-killing machines, right?
Virtually every modern gun is semi-automatic, and what that means is one press of the trigger, you get one bullet, versus holding the trigger down once and getting all of the bullets.
And it's a bolt because it allows you to build a gun up in such a way where it's the tighter constraints within a gun and it allows you to be more accurate.
Okay, so you would say then that when all of these people come out and say we have to ban semi-automatics, that they are actually just flat-out confused, or intentionally conflating or obfuscating what the truth is related to them.
It's the idea of putting it under the guise of needing, right?
Name another right where we use that same standard.
You know, it begs the question.
And so, it's like, okay, you have a fully automatic gun, and you have semi-automatic guns, you have bolt action.
There are different reasons why you would want each of these guns.
Now, I can delve into that, but then that starts getting into the very nerdy side of firearm ownership, where the enthusiast aspect of that comes into it, is understanding tactically why you would want certain things.
And so, for me, I'm not personally—I don't have a problem with people owning fully automatic guns, personally.
I just don't see that as a significant danger above Beyoncé owning a nuclear suitcase.
Right?
So, people tried to make that absurd argument to me before.
It's like, well, then, won't you be allowed—well, that's because there's a cost-benefit ratio that doesn't make any sense.
Right?
That you just—that's inherently self-destruction.
So how is that protecting you in any way from the very thing that you're supposed to be protecting yourself against?
So let's talk about background checks for a minute.
So there's this idea and this notion that we don't have background checks for our guns.
We do.
And the funny thing is, we in the gun community have become a victim of technology.
And what I mean by that is people think that just because I can go into a gun store, if I really wanted to, I can go into a gun store right now, buy a gun within two minutes.
Okay, so when people say there are no background checks, or the background checks aren't tight enough, or however you want to extrapolate that, is there any credence to any of that?
When I get back to Texas, I'll transfer the gun to a gun store here in California, if it's on the specific list that allows you to actually own that gun.
And that's what the whole concept of the universal background check is.
It is to require a background check for every private transaction.
Now, legally right now I can't do it, but like in Texas, I can sell a gun to a friend, and as long as I know he's not a prohibited person, and I know he's not a felon, I can sell him that gun.
No problems.
That's completely legal.
What the universal background check idea suggests is he should be required to undergo a background check before I can sell him that gun.
That would mean he and I would have to go to a gun store and undergo a background check, then he can go and buy the gun from me.
So is the problem with the way it is currently, say, in Texas, the way you're describing, that you just would not know potentially enough information about the person you were selling it to?
And so the reason why I'm against the universal background check is because there is no other way to enforce it but for a national gun registry.
Because otherwise, you have nothing to check it against.
To say, if a cop walks down the street and sees you have a gun, he's like, did you get a background check for that gun?
Yeah.
How is he going to prove otherwise, unless there's a national registry?
And the answer is, OK, fine.
Well, then let's have a national registry.
No.
Because we've seen time and time again that when the governments have a national registry for firearms, they subsequently use it to confiscate guns.
Now, the problem is, when you say that, they try to put the 10-4 hat on you, right?
Except—because what they envision is, you know, roving truck, black military trucks coming down the street, pulling guns from people's houses.
No, that's not what happens or how they do it.
It's constructive.
And then, when you have potential presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton suggesting we should take up the Australia model, which did that very thing, they used a national gun registration to tell people to say, you know what, you need to turn in your guns.
It's a voluntary buyback.
No, it's a mandatory buyback, right?
And if you don't sell your guns back, guess what?
You go to jail.
That's a confiscation.
It's a constructive confiscation, but a confiscation nonetheless.
Just because they didn't roll the military trucks down the street and pull them out of your house doesn't mean it isn't confiscation.
And so that's why I'm adamantly against universal background checks, unless you can demonstrate a way for me for it to be applied in such a way that would not require gun registry, because I do not trust my government not to exploit that registry in their favor.
It's like, well, how far do those states' rights go from the standpoint of violating my Second Amendment right?
I believe in states' rights right up until the point you started violating my constitutional ones.
And so when you have places like California, which I think I'm being currently violated now, the fact that I can't carry my My God, what is the difference?
I can take my car with my Texas license and drive it right into California.
No one has a problem with that.
I can drive up and down these roads and as fast as I want, as recklessly as I want.
Yeah, that might be illegal, but I can still do it.
There's that potential to do it.
But yet, I can't carry the thing that I carry to protect my life with the same license?
That doesn't make some sense to me.
Am I in any less danger here than I would be in Texas?
If anything, I can make the argument that there's more danger for me here and that I don't know the area very well.
Right, so it's an interesting philosophical place to talk, because it's like, it just depends where you start.
Because even though I'm definitely a states' rights guy, I hear what you say there, and then on the other hand, as a states' rights guy, to me, if a state wants to have stricter laws, And you're a big gun guy, then you actually are allowed to leave.
As I would say for virtually every other situation, it's kind of shitty.
It doesn't feel great to have to leave a place that you want to be at, but if they're doing things as part of their state experiment that you don't like, well, it's on you to get going.
So when you hear someone who doesn't know anything about firearms, think about it, like, if I'm already kind of I'm a little scared of firearms, and then I hear he used a weapon of war.
What image comes up in your mind?
It's Rambo, you know?
He's running down there, just going crazy.
And that's exactly what he's doing!
But he could do the same thing with a handgun.
And so, the biggest thing that I like to—when I'm having these conversations with people is, you're going to walk away with two points of—two trains of thought.
I'm either going to get you to admit you just want to ban all guns, or you can see my perspective.
Because if you're willing to say, you know what, we need to get rid of all the assault weapons, as they understand them to be, which is essentially AR-15s.
But now it's actually become even more broader, like we need to get rid of all semi-automatic weapons, right?
And that's virtually every modern gun.
So let's say they want to ban AR-15s.
AR-15s, the rifles aren't even used.
The percentage that rifles are used in actual shootings is so low and marginal, it's unreal.
So if we got rid of that, and we got rid of AR-15s, and then we have another shooting that happened, because our most deadly school mass shooting was Virginia Tech, and he used a handgun.
So then what happens if that happens again?
So now what are you going to ban?
You're going to ban handgun?
And that's when you're stuck having to confront the fact that, OK, either you really just want to ban all guns, or you understand that the distinction is irrelevant.
Right?
We've got to get to the absolute point of issue in why these things are happening.
And focusing on the gun is doing a disservice to the conversation.
It sounds like I'm just utilizing—I'm using the bigger issue as a scapegoat.
But in reality, if you really sit down and think about it, right, we have over 300, close to 400 million guns in this country.
They're not going anywhere.
And understanding that, you've got to then sit down and say to yourself, all right, if we're going to try to fix this issue of gun violence, or just violence in general, we've got to get to the root of the issue of why people are doing it.
And then, understanding that, staying within the context of reality, we've got to understand, well, in the process, I still have to protect myself.
And because people are still going to be able to get their hands on guns, whether they're legal or not, and use them to commit crimes and to threaten people's lives, I've got to be put in a situation to defend against that.
So you can ban all the AR-15s you want, doesn't mean it's going to stop somebody from getting one on the black market.
So now, yes, I don't run from the fact that the AR-15 is a more powerful platform.
That I agree with.
And I don't run from that.
There are going to be people who are going to be mad at me for saying that.
But the reason why I don't run from it is because that's the very reason why I want an AR-15.
When it comes to defending my life, I don't want it to be a fair fight.
Period.
I don't want to have to confront someone with an AR-15 with a handgun if I don't have to.
If you come in my house, I'm not grabbing a handgun.
It's like when people will say, okay, well, the Second Amendment says the right to bear arms, and then they'll put up a picture of the type of arms that existed way back when, and it's like, well, then we should have the right to that, because that's what they were talking about.
It's like, they were also talking about why you should be able to form a militia, and it's like, The thing that we'd be fighting against now has a lot more power, and it doesn't mean that just because you have some guns, you're gonna be able to stop the guys in the black trucks, as you talked about earlier, but maybe you could defend yourself a little bit longer, and who knows what happens with a little bit of time.
So is there anything to you that, when they always say sensible gun control, and I'll always see the pro-gun people will say, well, the people that always say that just don't know what they're talking about.
Now I sense you're probably in that spot, because you were just saying what they do with language.
So when they say loophole, what they're saying is that if you are at a gun show, you're not a dealer, you can actually sell that gun at the... If one, the person's not a prohibited possessor, you're from the same state, then yes.
Yeah, that you're sort of taking somebody's word for it at that point, right?
Like if you just meet somebody that day and they're like, I wanna buy that gun, and you say to them, you ask them all the appropriate questions, they could be lying to you, right?
I mean, that's what you consistently see every time we talk about this.
And you know, there's this other piece of it where it's like, every time a shooting happens, you know, there's this pylon where now we should talk about it.
And then there's this other part of us where it's because we go from one crisis to another, that there's never really, it seems to me at this point, we never really have time to really ever fully unpack any of these things.
I think there's moments like this, but on a national level, we're not particularly good at these conversations.
Yeah, I mean, right after the last shooting and when Dana Loesch and Rubio were on that CNN town hall, I mean, it was... You mean the gladiatorial fest?
It was a disaster.
I mean, it was everything I hate about cable news.
It was everything I hate about just the quick bites of all of this and flashiness and just who can we take out right now.
And I said, and I pointed this out, how can we have a real honest conversation when they try to paint pro-gun people as crazy when we say, no, the ultimate goal is to ban guns, but then I can watch a CNN live town hall where Rubio suggests, you do realize banning all semi-automatic guns is essentially banning all guns, and the entire stadium erupts in applause and cheers.
Even when confronted with the, because Rubio said, look, you want to ban on some automatic guns, so here, let me educate you really quickly and tell you, that's virtually all guns.
So even when he corrected them, so it wasn't, they can't claim they were ignorant on it, because he just explained to them, that means banning virtually all guns.
And they erupted.
So it goes, okay, so now you have all those pro-gunners told you.
Yeah, there was that moment, I'm sure you remember this, after the Parkland shooting, when they had the big rally, and one of the survivors got up there and said, we're gonna come, what was the line, do you remember the exact line, where she said basically, We're gonna come for the semi-automatics now, but we're gonna come for everything later.
Something to that effect.
I'm slightly butchering it, but I thought, wow, now you're flat out saying.
And you're just giving, you're telling them now.
So I could see why.
You know, I see this with all my frustrations with the left all the time.
It's like, I know they're never gonna stop.
I've seen it so consistently, and that's why I'm staking out some positions.
But sometimes it's kinda sucky to have to just be like, well, the people that I'm fighting against, so to speak, they're not dealing in the same world that I'm dealing in.
And that makes it more important for me to stake out a position.
But the thing that's most frustrating about it is the way they'll color it in the mainstream media is that we're unreasonable.
We don't want to move one inch.
We've dug our heels in.
All we want is—we don't care about anything.
And really, what it is is, no, I let you into my house, and now you're trying to take my house from me.
So get out.
Because that's essentially what they're saying, is, all right, so they'll say, well, common sense—that's why we hate that word, common sense, because it's disingenuous.
It's like, well, we need common sense measures after a shooting, all right?
And another shooting happens.
We need more common sense measures, and another shooting happens.
We need even more common sense measures.
When does common sense measure stop being common sense and just intruding on my rights?
And then the idea of, like, you know, we can talk about gun-free zones, right?
And it begs the questions, like, What is that sticker on the window going to do for me?
So now I have to make, like, people don't really like to sympathize with gun owners in the sense of, like, we all want the same result, right?
We want the killing to stop.
We want the violence to stop.
Notice I said violence and killing, not just gun violence, right?
Because we can't just focus on gun violence, because violence is violence.
However you die, you die, and it's bad all the way around.
But when I have to make a decision about whether or not I potentially break a law to go into an establishment that may or may not cause me to need my gun at some point, man, that's messed up.
And I know that there are a lot of people who don't see it that way, because they don't see value in the Second Amendment, because they're not firearm owners.
Right?
There are a lot of people who look at the Second Amendment as useless, because they don't own firearms.
But when you have a group of people who understand the importance of it and how it fits into their lives, and they understand that at the end of the day, when something happens, the only person who's going to be there to stop it is you.
That's a big deal.
So it's not just me trying to protect a piece of metal because I just want to have fun with my guns.
No.
It's much bigger than that.
It's this idea that I have to rely on myself.
You can tell me all day long the police are going to be there, the police are going to be there, but they're not going to be.
What about the piece of this that's just sort of optics?
So you know every now and again you'll see a picture of like three dudes with big-ass guns at Chipotle, you know like an open carry.
Now I know if I walked into Chipotle and three guys came in with big-ass guns on their back, - They're gonna take notice.
Well, I would take notice and I'd probably leave.
I probably would.
I would just be like, you know, look, and again, I'm here in California where that would be so,
so out of the norm that whatever.
But for the person that's living in Texas, you can do this.
If I was in Chipotle, right, and three guys walk in, I probably would leave,
knowing everything that you just said there, knowing that these guys are probably NRA members.
And as far as I know, no NRA member has ever done a mass shooting, right?
Okay, so, you know, because you see this all the time, these celebrities, Michael Ian Black, like Pat on the show, who's on this rampage, telling everyone that you guys are terrorists, I mean, really, that you're part of a terrorist organization, I mean, okay.
The interesting thing about it, that is a big debate within the gun community as a whole.
The idea of open carry versus concealed carry.
I don't ever open carry.
Except for maybe if I'm out hunting or I'm on the range or something like that.
But that's a personal decision.
I'm choosing my own for various reasons.
One, sometimes I'd rather not have the attention.
And tactically, I like the advantage of having the element of surprise.
You don't know I have a gun on me, so if I had to use it, I'm going to be reacting, right?
I'm not going into a place to shoot it up.
If somebody decides to come into a place to shoot it up, I'm going to be reacting to that.
So I need all the advantages I get from my personal perspective.
So I want the element of surprise.
There are some people who think in the alternative.
They feel like just the mere presence of that gun is a deterrent.
From anyone who wants to come in and do something bad.
So for guys casing out a couple of stores and then you see there are certain citizens in there with long guns and some that have handguns on the side of their hip, then that's a deterrent, right?
I understand the alarm that people who don't necessarily engage and interact with firearms get when they see people walking around with rifles, right?
Even I've seen a couple of people in Texas do it.
And initially, my gut reaction, and I'll admit, was like, "What's going on here?"
Now I'm very versed with firearms, and I have a gun, too.
So at that point, I actually almost welcomed it.
And the reason why is because if you're going to do something, I now get to see you attempt to do it.
Okay, so we can't end without doing sort of what I think would be the big question for everything we've talked about here and for someone that works with the NRA and your shows on NRA TV and all that.
So what is going on in America right now that seems to be unique to our society?
It seems that there is something uniquely happening here.
Now, I would argue that there's all sorts of mental health issues and probably prescription drugs and maybe non-prescription drugs and all sorts of other stuff.
So there's a couple of things, so I'll try to keep this as concise as possible, because we are going to get into weeds for a split second here.
So first of all, let's talk about mass shootings, or school mass shootings, for instance.
I recently just read a study from Northwestern University, not too long ago, which talked about comparing the number of school mass shootings back in the 90s versus today.
And what they concluded, essentially, was the perception is that it's happening more frequently, but it's not.
It's actually on par or even less now than it was then.
Now, people are going to be like, oh my God, how could you possibly say that?
Google it.
It's a Northwestern University research.
I can't remember the actual title of the actual research.
So, that being said, mass shootings account for a very, very, very marginal percentage of shootings in this country.
Let's start off with the overall.
So, 35 to 36,000 people each year die from guns, right?
I didn't specify gun violence, but just guns, because they don't do that.
They'll just say gun violence, right?
So, about 60 to 65 percent of those, that 35,000, is suicides.
Now, what I'm not saying is we don't care about suicides.
We do.
However, when it comes to the idea and the issue of somebody shooting at me, that's not—it's not germane.
But then, even still, if you want to make the argument, well, if we had less guns, we'd have less suicides, that's also not true, because our suicide rate is on par with every other major country.
So if it was the case that the more guns you have, the more suicides, we'd be leading the charge.
We've got to set that aside, because that's not the issue we're trying to address.
So set that number aside.
And then you have about 5%, which are accidental.
Right?
Kid finds a gun, pulls triggers.
Unfortunate.
Extremely unfortunate.
However, I believe, personally, half of that could easily be addressed with more education.
So, if we took the energy that we took, that we place now, on trying to vilify guns, and have national campaigns teaching people about gun safety, that will cut that number in half, because a lot of these accidents are easily preventable, but they're just people who have guns who just don't know.
I'm not gonna assume I have that answer, because I don't have that hard number.
But I do feel comfortable assuming that as well, right?
And so if we take that accident and set that aside, purely homicides, We're looking at around 7,000 to 10,000 every year, right?
Now, that's a different-looking number, right, when we've accounted for all of the context here with those other shootings.
Now, the vast majority—I'd say close to 80 percent that I've read in a couple of articles—of those homicides are happening in the inner cities of our country.
Right?
So then, reason goes, all right, so let's look at those inner cities, and let's look at the dynamics there, right?
You have low jobs, lack of economic opportunity, destroyed households, and a narco-economy that warrants—that warrants, but creates the necessity for this type of violence.
So, if we dealt with the socioeconomic aspects of what's going on in those areas, right, Do we really have a gun problem?
Just think about it.
I know other communities filled with black people.
They have guns.
They don't have the same level of violence.
Because I only say black people because most people associate the inner city with black people, right?
But the reason why we have that high level of concentration of violence is because of the conditions in those environments.
And even within those communities, there are—the vast majority of those people in those communities are good people.
And it's a very minor group of people who are creating a large number of the violence, right?
So, there's something to be said.
Do we really have a gun problem, or do we have a socioeconomic suicide problem in this country?
Because at the end of the day, There's 35,000 to 36,000 that people are assuming is all gun violence by way of homicides, people shooting at other people to kill them.
It's not the case.
We're looking at closer to 7,000 to 10,000, if that.
And so, if you take those numbers and you compare them to other countries, then how does it look?
Yeah, well, I'm so glad that we finally did this, and we will definitely do this again, because I think this story and everything we've talked about here is just gonna continue.
I mean, these are the battles that we're now fighting on many fronts related to the Constitution, and free speech, and free expression, and your ability to own your life and all that stuff.