Episode 1339 Scott Adams: Floyd Trial Surprise Twists, I Predict the Future, and More Fun
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Next weeks headline prediction
Useful strategies, if we're a simulation
Chauvin prosecutors made case for the defense?
Experts are guessing, most of the time
National leaders creating, encouraging riots
Daniel Dale and "unlawful misuse" of guns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I went to get my vaccination yesterday, but it didn't work out for me.
I'll tell you about that in a minute.
Now, What would you need to do to make this the best day ever?
Well, part of it is having the simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Have I mentioned I like coffee?
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes everything better.
Come on, come on, come on, grab your cup.
It's time.
Now.
Ah.
I think we nailed the simultaneity that time.
Better than usual, really.
Yes, so I'd say your day is getting off to a good start, isn't it?
So yesterday, after weeks of waiting for my first vaccination shot, the closest place I could get one was about an hour away in heavy traffic.
But I thought to myself, nothing will stop me.
Nothing will stop me from driving an hour across town, getting that jab.
I'm going to take the chance.
And then I did something that you should never do before you go to get a vaccination.
I'm going to give you a little bit of, dare I say, medical advice.
And it goes like this.
Before you leave the house to get your vaccination, don't do what I did.
Don't be like me.
Do not do this.
Huh, I think I'll see what's on Twitter before I... Yes, the very last tweet I looked at before I walked out the door, by coincidence, was somebody who allegedly got the shot and dropped dead within hours.
Now, Given that tens of millions of people are getting these vaccinations and that they're being targeted primarily in the early days at the people most vulnerable, weren't there going to be a lot of people dropping dead after the vaccination no matter what?
Because a lot of people drop dead.
And if millions of them are getting vaccinations, some of them are going to drop dead Pretty soon after getting a vaccination.
Doesn't necessarily mean the vaccination did it.
But if it's the last thing you see before you leave for your vaccination, your experience might go like mine.
I drive an hour.
I get there.
And when I get there, it's a big fairgrounds parking lot with, you know, massive operation.
And a guy waves me over and I drive up and he says to me, what county are you from?
So I guess, depending on your county, you got a different line.
And so I said, Alameda.
He was standing right here.
I mean, he was sort of this far away.
And he said, But what county are you in?
And I said, Alameda.
And he looked at me and he said, But what county?
And I looked at him and said, Alameda.
And he looked at me and said, Boa County.
And I said, Alameda.
And then he said, what's that line over there?
Now, I don't know why that conversation happened that way.
I just know that it did.
And so I looked at the line and I said, whoa.
There's a lot of cars in that line.
So it was a line of cars.
But I said, I don't know how long that line is, but I'll go to the end of it and see how it goes.
So I pulled down the block to find the end of the line, and it turns out it continued around the corner.
So I turned the corner and kept looking for the end of the line, and then it turned the corner again.
And then I looked to the end of the line, and I couldn't see it.
The line for Alameda looked to be about two hours, would be my guess.
About two hours. And I didn't have gas in my car.
And I can't go four hours without using a restroom, because this looked like it was going to take a while.
Plus, you've got to wait after you get it and stuff.
So I turned around and went home.
So, will I be Like that person who missed the flight and is glad he did, or am I going to die because I didn't get the vaccination?
One of those two things could happen, or none of it will make any difference at all.
That's also possible.
But in my case, it didn't really make any difference if I got the vaccination, unless Christina got it about the same time, and she's not eligible yet, being so young.
I've got to tell you, though, I wanted an extra week or two to just see what's coming out lately, because it feels like there's more stuff coming out lately.
Kind of like another week or two to see.
But I tried to make another reservation, and I can't do it.
So I'm eligible for it, but I can't find a way to get a vaccination in my county that I can actually do.
So I'll try to work on that.
But I don't know how dumb people do this.
I honestly don't.
How do dumb people just navigate this situation?
I'm pretty smart.
I've got a lot of capabilities.
I've got computers and internet and all that.
I can't figure out how to get a vaccination.
Now you're going to say, Scott, Scott, Scott, I don't think this could be much easier.
Look at this website.
Follow the link.
You just put in your town, and you put in your eligibility, and it just tells you where to get it.
It's as simple as that.
Well, don't you think I tried that?
I tried that.
Here's how that goes.
Put in all your information.
Put in some more information.
Put in a little more information.
Now, how about some more information?
Now, we'll tell you where you can get the vaccination.
You can get it at CVS right down the street from you.
Perfect. This is a good website.
Gave it my information.
It told me the store is right down the street.
Bam! Click on the store.
No vaccinations available.
At all. Not like in a long time.
Just none. So go back, put in your information, pick another store, finds out no vaccinations.
So there's not actually even a website that helps you.
Because you can find places that don't have it.
In fact, it's literally a database of places you can't get it.
That's it. It's literally a database where you put in all your information, and it tells you all the places that you're not going to be able to get anything.
Here's another place you can't get shit.
Well, I'll put in a little more information.
Oh, here's another place you can't get shit.
That's very helpful. All right.
I would like to predict...
The headline for next week.
Are you ready for this? I made a lot of predictions.
Some good, some bad.
But this one I'm feeling good about.
Are you ready? Seeing into the future now.
Into the future. Everybody, please calm your thoughts.
This helps me. Looking into the future one week from now.
Headline on CNN and maybe other major news outlets will be Experts concerned about a new wave of infections.
There you go. Next week's headlines, experts are concerned about a new wave of infections.
Anybody want to make a bet?
Make a bet. Come on.
Yeah, you're not going to bet against that, are you?
Well, if I were to ask you, what would be the most perfect headline for a story?
Something that when you read the headline, it doesn't make you unhappy.
That would be good, right?
Most of the headlines make you happy or unhappy.
So you'd want a headline that was so perfect it didn't make you unhappy, but it just made you think, oh, you know that feeling?
Here's the headline. This is a real headline.
I'm not making this up.
Elon Musk's partner says he could build the real Jurassic Park with genetically engineered dinosaurs.
That is what I wanted to hear today.
Do you know what I wanted to hear when I woke up?
Please, dear God, somebody tell me that they can make a Jurassic Park with genetically modified dinosaurs, which is, by the way, better than actual dinosaurs.
The real Jurassic Park, the real one, the real movie Jurassic Park, they try to revive actual dinosaurs, which I feel is sort of the loser way to do this.
Once you've got your genetic engineering up and running and you can mate your genetic freaks, as Elon Musk's partner in, I guess, Neuralink, He says you could build a better dinosaur.
Why would you build a traditional dinosaur when you could build like a turbo dinosaur with, you know, freaking lasers on its head or whatever it is?
So I don't know what could make me happier.
Nothing could make me happier than Elon Musk's partner because you know he's smart, right?
If it were just some dumb guy, you wouldn't care.
But can't wait for that.
On Joe Rogan's recent podcast in which he was talking with Dan Crenshaw, my name came up in a discussion of the simulation theory.
And I wanted to add a little bit to that.
The first thing I would like to note is that I can't remember another time when somebody mentioned my name in public without adding the Dilber guy.
Something's happened in my life or career that my name can be mentioned in public without adding the Dilbert guy, and people will still have a good chance of knowing what they're talking about.
So one of the things Dan Crenshaw said is that whether or not the simulation theory is true or false or independent of its reality, what good is it?
What would it do for you?
What would be the functional purpose of believing we're in a simulation?
It's a good question, right?
Because if it's just something that happens in your brain and you don't make any different decisions, nothing's different.
It's as if you don't even need to talk about it, which is an interesting point.
But I would submit that a belief in the simulation, if you can call it belief, because it's more of a statistical risk management situation, in my opinion, I think you would act differently.
Here's why. Let me give you an example.
Do you know the story of the four-minute mile?
It used to be believed that no human could ever run a mile in less than four minutes.
And everybody who tried failed.
And then one day, somebody did it.
One day, somebody broke the four-minute mile.
And as soon as one person did it, lots of people broke it.
Was it Bob Hayes, somebody saying?
You have the right name. I have allergies, not a cold.
Somebody's asking me. And so after the four-minute mile was broken, then other people broke it too.
And the thinking, I'm not sure if this is true.
It might have been there were just better training in those days.
But the thinking was that it was sort of a psychological barrier.
Somebody says, Roger Bannister.
I'm seeing different names here.
So I don't know who was giving me that other name, but it looks like...
Oh, now I'm seeing John Walker, Roger Bannister.
It doesn't matter who it was.
You can Google it.
I'm seeing a lot of different names for that.
That's interesting. But here's why I think it's important to think of your reality as a simulation.
Number one, if we are a simulation...
Could we steer our reality?
Meaning that could you influence your subjective reality more easily if you are a simulation than if it was something like a traditional reality where you're just, you know, you're subject to the laws of physics.
But in a simulation, you wouldn't be.
You would be in the sense that code is part of physics, but you would be able to do anything in a world in which software was your conscious experience.
So the first thing is, could you use affirmations or any other technique to change your subjective reality, which is the only one you experience?
So that's the first thing.
And, nextly, would you feel the same?
Would your subjective experience of your life be different if you thought you were in a simulation?
Well, one thing it would do is make you wonder if some people are NPCs, right?
Now, that might be bad because you might think, well, they don't have souls or something like you do.
But here's what I think is the most important part of thinking you're in a simulation, and that is prediction.
I feel as if, if this is a simulation, that we would be able to predict some things.
And I've made predictions before, based on the simulation, and they happen freakishly consistently.
Which doesn't mean we're in a simulation, it's just an experience I have, right?
It's not science. So let me give you an example.
I have noticed a pattern in my life.
That my actual life plays like a video game.
Meaning that I get one problem after another in a very consistent schedule.
The moment I solve any big problem in my life...
See if this is true for you.
The moment I solve any big problem, the new one queues up as soon as you celebrate it.
Like, it might be a few hours, but right after you solve a big problem...
A new one takes its place.
Have you ever noticed that?
And you say to yourself, that can't be a coincidence.
Because if problems came in randomly, sometimes you would have 15 problems.
Sometimes you wouldn't have any.
How long do you ever go without a new, fairly substantial problem just showing up on your doorstep?
It's just hours, right?
Is it just me?
So I've started to actually conceive of my actual life as a video game, and then I see, all right, how consistent is it to being programmed?
A lot of people are saying yes in the comments.
You're having the same experience.
I'll tell you, so last night, Christine and I went out to dinner, finally going out to dinner, and we were having this amazing dinner.
We had, you know, an incredible night.
It was just wonderful.
And we were sort of celebrating that, you know, one other of a million problems had just been defeated.
And while we were celebrating, I said to her, you know, if this is a video game, which it feels like it is, then our new problem will arrive sometime tonight.
Because you never wait long after one gets solved.
And it did. It did.
It came right on schedule.
It came out of nowhere.
It was something I'd never even heard a hint of.
Now, is it solvable?
Yes, it is. Just like the last problem.
It's a whole series of large, you know, large meaning you're really going to have to put a little muscle into getting past it, but completely solvable.
Somebody says, I jinxed it.
I'm not sure jinxes a thing, but...
When you see how consistent your challenges are, like scheduled, it just doesn't look like an accident.
It looks like you entered a game and you had a series of challenges and you're trying to accomplish something.
You know, I told you before that my life is the strangest life you've ever seen.
I mean, the number of times...
Well, let me ask you. You've probably seen it yourself.
Have you ever noticed how many times I'm at the center of national stories?
In the comments, I want to see if anybody else has noticed.
Have you noticed how often, and it just feels like this weird coincidence, doesn't it?
Just a weird coincidence that I'm at the middle of a whole bunch of national stories.
Now, do I say, hey, there's a national story.
I'm going to go get involved in that.
Not really. Not really.
I mean, I'm interested in a lot of things, and I get involved in a lot of things, but I'm not pursuing that objective.
But it does seem to happen.
The number of times I turn on TV and there's some big story, and it's somebody I just talked to, you know, somebody I just texted, and now they're on TV in the middle of a national story, all the time, almost every day, or at least every week, I would say.
So I can't explain that.
My life seems to defy any statistical observation by a lot.
Alright. So, that's the bottom line.
If we're a video game, and you tell yourself that you're playing against a bunch of tests, and your reward is to get to the next level, and it feels like that's what my life feels like.
I feel like I keep getting to the next level.
And... What that did was that it removes your stress.
Because if you think you live in a simulation that's a video game, and you're trying to solve these little puzzles, you say, oh, this is a video game, I'll solve this little puzzle.
That feels different than I have a gigantic problem.
Oh, another gigantic problem.
So if you're processing your experience as a bunch of gigantic problems, as opposed to a game that has a bunch of puzzles, How do you feel?
Well, you feel a lot better if you think you're playing a game.
And your experience will probably look just like you did.
At least mine has. Check out Decentraland.
Many of you have been suggesting that.
So I think I probably will check that out.
I'll Google it, I swear.
Let's talk about the Floyd trial.
If you read CNN's coverage, the prosecution...
Ripped apart the defense, and it's all over because everybody that the prosecution talked to says there's no doubt about it.
What Officer Chauvin Chauvin did killed George Floyd, and there's no doubt about it.
So that's how CNN covers it.
What do you think is the reality?
Well, it's not what CNN says, that's for sure.
Here's closer to the reality.
Apparently, yesterday was the day the prosecution got to show some evidence they hadn't shown before.
And it's a day when the defense doesn't get as much time and as much ability to introduce their own evidence.
So basically, it was the prosecution's day to present a case.
And what do I tell you happens every time lawyers are involved and lawyer one presents a case.
Is it convincing?
Yes. Whichever lawyer is talking today is going to be convincing.
So when Nelson was initially having his day, was he convincing?
Yeah. Yeah, he was convincing.
It looked like fentanyl was the problem, and that's the end of the story.
He had experts, and the experts testified, and what else is there to say?
Reasonable doubt all over the place.
But then the prosecution talks.
And the prosecution brings in its experts, and they apparently are experts, and those people say, nope, it's 100% clear, at least to these experts.
The fentanyl had nothing to do with it, because they could look at the video, and they could determine the breathing pattern for the video, and they could know the timing of things, and there was a leg kick that means maybe your last gasp or something.
And they looked at positions and angles, and they looked at some documents, and they concluded that there's no way that this was a fentanyl death because his breathing wasn't consistent with a fentanyl death, etc. And so what do you think?
So the prosecution just put on a case that had experts saying There was nothing here except the officer's actions, and they probably should have known better.
Are we done? Are they convicted?
No. It always looks like a slam dunk.
You're done no matter which lawyer talks.
I've told you this a hundred times.
So whatever you're feeling about it today doesn't mean too much.
Here are the facts that seem relevant to me at this point.
We now have the autopsy that said the fentanyl level was high enough to kill him, but other experts who looked at video and other evidence and said, you know, probably wouldn't have, and that it didn't.
So we have now a disagreement about whether fentanyl killed him or not.
Now, I think the autopsy or chief examiner or whatever is going to be talking today, So the side that says fentanyl was potentially, just potentially, a cause will be cross-examined, I believe.
So today is going to be maybe the most important day.
It could be the most important day.
But here's a point from legal insurrection, which is...
If you are the police officers, and you are in the middle of doing what you're doing, and the crowd is around you, you're distracted, Floyd is big and dangerous, or they could have thought, and he was just resisting arrest, and you've got all these variables going on, they didn't really have the same luxury or even training as the experts.
So would it be important that the experts were sure The cops were doing something wrong, but the experts had all different information, because they're watching it after the fact, and they can watch it in slow motion and different angles and everything.
So what the experts had was the luxury of no distraction.
They could just dig down and find out what's real, plus the luxury of being experts, which these police officers did not share this medical expertise.
The police officers Being blamed for their actions, either intentionally killing him, which is not really the charge, but rather putting him in a situation where they should have known it was dangerous.
I believe that the experts for the prosecution have proved the following.
If you were also an expert, and if you were not in the middle of the situation, and if you were not the police officer worried about the crowd, and if you did not have 15 things in your head Trying to keep it going.
And if you had been trained in a way that you weren't trained, you might have had the same opinion as the experts, meaning that you would have handled it differently.
But there's no evidence been presented yet that the police officers had any training that would map to what the experts have.
In other words, the experts kind of made a case that you'd have to be an expert Do you feel that yet?
The experts proved you would actually have to be an expert to know that the guy was going to die in that situation.
If you were trained as a cop, you wouldn't know that.
You wouldn't know that.
Now, when Nelson, and I don't think he's got his teeth into this yet, I think he's got a shot coming up.
When Nelson gets a hold of this, I think he's just going to eviscerate it.
I mean, I think a very strong prosecution case, strong in the sense that the experts said exactly what the prosecution wants you to say, but they also proved that you'd have to be an expert to know it.
I feel like that's the end of the case.
Isn't it? Now, is this the second or third time that the prosecution has made the defense's case for them?
I believe the prosecution just made the defense's case.
You would have had to be an expert to know the difference.
That's it. That's the end of it.
Isn't it? Am I wrong?
Now, of course I'm wrong, in the sense that until the trial is over, you don't know what evidence has been presented or how well.
And there could be plenty of twists and turns.
Let's see. Here's another question I have.
Does it matter, in terms of the prosecution, as long as the police officers were following procedures?
As long as the police were following the procedure, and I believe that the testimony is that they were, according to the trainer, as long as they were doing what they were trained, Do they have any liability?
It's just a question.
Now, I suppose beyond their training, if they saw something that any person would have known was a problem, then yes, of course.
But if they were consistent with their training, and they did not have expert ability, which you might have needed to know there was an extra problem, I feel like the case is over.
And then I have another question.
This latest expert was testifying...
That I think pressure on the back of George Floyd is what caused him to lose his ability to breathe.
Now, isn't the case that Shaven had his knee on the neck area?
So did not the expert prove that the only person there who could not have killed him was Shaven?
Because he wasn't on the back.
That's their case. Their case is that he was on the neck.
Their own experts said it was the back pressure, you know, plus the position, you know, plus other variables.
But the back position and the pressure on the back is what killed them.
That wasn't Chavin.
That was the other cop.
Am I wrong? Do I have that wrong?
Wasn't it the other cop who was on the back?
So I feel like the prosecution just made the defense's case.
Or at least put enough doubt about which police officer was involved in what way.
If I were the jury, I'd be kind of confused right now.
There's also the idea that the crowd killed Floyd, not intentionally, but because they were the distraction which made it impossible for the police officers to do their job, because apparently their training requires them to secure the area and take care of their own safety before they even deal with somebody who's in trouble medically.
That's actually the procedure.
And so the crowd, you could call them the mob, I see somebody saying that, the crowd is complicit.
They created the situation that made the police officers far less able to notice something that maybe you wanted them to notice.
Secondly, how could the drugs not be part of the cause?
And if they're part of the cause, isn't that the end of it too?
Like, how could...
How could the drugs just not be part of any of it?
Because I can't imagine any amount of serious drugs in your body that you had just ingested to not have any effect.
Because fentanyl is something that affects your breathing.
I mean, if you had a little bit in there.
Now the big question is whether Floyd had enough in his body to be part of the problem.
The experts said he didn't look like he was in it, but there's some ambiguity about whether you could tell You could really tell if he looks like he's on fentanyl.
And then there's a timing question, because if, we don't know this for sure, but if he put some fentanyl in his body just before the arrest, it takes about five minutes to peak, and so during that five minutes he would look like he's not dying from fentanyl, but just about the time he was dying in real life would have been just about exactly the time the fentanyl kicked in.
And apparently we're going to hear testimony that there was enough.
Enough to kill him under some circumstance.
And his circumstance was he had COVID and heart problems and high blood pressure.
I mean, if you're on this jury, you've got some serious reasonable doubt here.
All right. And it's going to come down to some doctors who looked at some video compared to the chief medical examiner who did an actual autopsy.
Now I guess there's some competing autopsies too.
So you're going to have experts disagreeing.
And so I ask you this.
What good are experts?
Isn't that the big question?
The big question not just for the trial, but life.
What good are the experts?
If expertise were a thing, they would agree.
Wouldn't they? Because if experts disagree, what is expertise?
What is it? Because you would think at the very least it's people who are correct more often than you are.
But if you have two sides, both qualified experts, and they're completely opposite opinions, that's not better than you guessing, is it?
Because you would have to guess which one of them is right.
You don't know. You're not an expert.
So you would be asked to be an expert to figure out which expert is right.
That's absurd.
Because you're not that expert.
So this is one of those cases where you can see just as clear as you could possibly see that belief in experts is fucking stupid.
It's stupid. And we've been fed this constant diet from CNN and everybody who wants to look smart to say, if you don't believe the experts, what kind of a dope are you if you don't believe the experts?
And yet, every single fucking trial we have, you can bring in experts who can say any fucking thing.
Sorry. Too many fuckings in there, I know.
You couldn't have a more clear example I would say this example is very much generalizable to the whole world.
My point is, this isn't special.
This is exactly the real world.
Experts are fucking guessing.
Most of the time.
Most of the time. And when they're not guessing, when the expert actually is just right, they're not guessing, You can't tell the fucking difference.
Because, wait for it, you're not an expert.
The whole expert thing is fucking stupidity that we've packaged up as brilliance.
It's not. It's fucking stupidity.
Packaged as brilliance.
And just the dumb people buy into it like crazy.
They just eat it like candy.
A lot of experts! Give me some experts!
And anybody with like a little bit more experience is saying, you fucking idiot.
You'll believe anything.
Alright, sorry. I'll stop swearing for the rest of the live stream.
But I will...
I do submit the swearing...
Is important communication.
Seriously. In all seriousness, if you can learn to use wearing correctly, it's just a little flavor on a point.
It makes it far more likely to be viral, frankly.
Not for good reasons, but it does.
So, there's that.
Alright, so... I have called upon our national leaders.
In a tweet I made, I said, I call on our national leaders to start now, the start now being pretty important, to persuade the public against staging violent protests after the Floyd trial verdict.
I think we all agree there's going to be violence no matter what the verdict is, right?
Feels like it is.
And I would say that given that we know that's going to happen...
I feel like our leaders have an obligation to tell people to stand down.
Because if they don't, is there any precedent for a national leader, let's say, who could have said more to stop an obvious riot that was forming?
If somebody is a national leader and they could have said something to stop an obvious riot before it starts, an obvious one.
See, it's the obvious part that makes it different.
If you don't know it's going to happen, maybe that's different.
But if it's obvious it's going to happen, such as the Capitol insurrection, I would call it a Capitol protest or Capitol riot.
Right. It's exactly like the insurrectionists.
And I believe that the news business has created a little box, it wasn't there before, that says if you know there's going to be trouble, you're not guessing, you know there's going to be trouble.
And you're talking in public, and the people you're talking to are in some way influenced by you.
You know they are.
Democrats are influenced by Democrats, exactly.
Trump supporters are influenced by Trump.
If you know there's going to be violence, and you don't stop, if you don't start right now to try to reduce it, you're encouraging it.
Thank you.
You're encouraging it by lack of doing the obvious thing you should do.
People are gonna notice if Pelosi isn't telling them to stand down.
People are gonna notice if Biden doesn't say anything about potential protests.
People are gonna notice if Kamala Harris just stays silent.
And if they do, you have to believe that they want these riots.
That is not too far.
Feels like it, doesn't it?
Feels like I took that a little too far.
It's like, well, Scott, no.
That's not like they're encouraging the riots.
No, it is. It's exactly that.
No doubt about it.
It wouldn't be encouraging the riots if they weren't sure they were going to happen.
I would say. A little different situation.
But when you're sure they're going to happen, and everybody's sure they're going to happen, and they're already organizing, I'm sure, if you don't try to stop it, you're trying to create it.
And I didn't make this standard.
I'm not the one who set the standard.
This is the mainstream press.
This is the Democrats.
It's a very clear standard, and I've accepted it.
Right? I didn't argue.
When they said Trump could have done more, that's a fact.
Trump could have done more.
I don't know if it would have stopped anything, right?
That's a different question. Would it have made a difference?
I doubt it. But he could have done more.
And I think as a leader, he should have been.
And I've been very critical of President Trump when he didn't do more to control that Capitol situation.
Completely legitimate criticism.
I would say that's a legitimate criticism of President Trump.
It is also a legitimate criticism of Biden, if he does nothing.
And Pelosi and the other leaders.
So, that's the trap that they created for themselves, and now they're walking directly into it.
And I expect bloodshed.
Unfortunately. Let's do some fake news fact-checking on the fact-checkers who are fake news.
Are you ready? Somebody needs to fact check the fact checkers, and I take that responsibility.
It's got to be me, I guess.
So here's the first fact checker, fact check.
This fact check comes from factcheck.org, which must be accurate because it says fact check right in their name.
If your name says factcheck.org, you better be doing some fact checking.
All right, here's what they say.
Quote, Biden falsely said, so we're looking for his lie here, or his inaccuracy.
Biden falsely said that, quote, you can buy whatever you want at a gun show with no background check.
But here's the fact check.
Federal firearm dealers at gun shows must run background checks.
Private sales between non-dealers are exempt from federal laws.
So in other words, there are two ways to buy a firearm at a dealer show, at a gun show.
One would be from somebody who has a federal license, and they're actually just a gun dealer.
And the other way would be to buy it from a private individual, in which case there would not be a background check.
So Biden says that you can buy anything you want at a gun show without a background check.
True or false? True or false?
You be the fact checker.
Fact checkers?
No, Biden is completely right.
The fact check is wrong.
The fact check is completely wrong.
And it's a trick.
So hold on to your opinion for a second.
Let me explain what the trick is.
Biden said you can buy any weapon at a gun show.
Some of the sellers do background checks, but there are plenty of people who would, wait for it, sell you anything without a background check.
That's exactly what he said.
The fact check is wrong.
Biden's right. Now, I would add to his rightness that there's a portion of the gun show that you could not buy anything you want without a background check.
But there's the other part that's maybe just as big, or it could be a third of the people there, or 25%, depends.
But plenty and plenty of private gun sellers, so that hypothetically, if one of those private gun sellers brought exactly the gun you wanted, you could buy anything you want at a gun show without a background check.
Boom. Joe Biden, a president I'm not thrilled about, he's right.
That's just true.
Right? It has nothing to do with gun control.
It's just a true statement.
And thefactcheck.org is looking at exactly what I'm looking at, and they even said in their fact check, they actually said...
They said, private sales between non-dealers are exempt from federal law, meaning also background checks.
So even in their fact check, they show you the proof that their fact check is wrong.
It's right in the fact check, that the fact check isn't real.
What the hell is going on here?
Now, in this particular case, I'm doing a fact check that would be to the benefit of a Democrat, Joe Biden.
He absolutely was correct, and the fact check is absolutely wrong.
Completely, obviously wrong.
But because they say it fast, it looked true, didn't it?
How many of you, before I gave this simple explanation, how many of you heard this and said, oh yeah, no, Biden's wrong.
He wasn't wrong, but it felt like it, didn't it?
Are you having a moment now?
I know there's some of you who are listening to this saying, wait a minute, Like, one minute ago, I was positive he was wrong, and no data changed.
I didn't change any of the data.
You thought he was wrong, and then without me changing any facts, I showed you he was right.
Why'd you think he was wrong?
The reason that you thought he was wrong is that the fact check said he was wrong, and then showed you evidence he was right.
But you took them saying he's wrong, instead of the evidence they showed that he's right.
I just read the rest of the sentences and said, oh, actually, he's right.
Somebody says he's not wrong, it's a lie.
No, he's just right.
You can buy anything you want if a private guy is selling it.
All right, here's another fact check.
This one from Daniel Dale at CNN. He said Biden was wrong when he said today that gun makers are the only big industry that, quote, can't be sued.
And Dale points out that they are immune from liability over, quote, here's the important part, unlawful misuse of guns.
But they have been sued on other grounds.
So it's not like gun makers can't be sued.
They're specifically not able to be sued over unlawful misuse.
It's not even use.
It's unlawful misuse.
It's like two negatives of guns.
And so I ask this question.
Isn't that the same with everything?
If you misuse a manufacturer's product, are they liable in any case?
If I take a baseball bat and I beat my neighbor to death, is the person who made the baseball bat liable?
Because I didn't use it for baseball.
I used it in a way that I would call, what's the phrase?
Unlawful misuse.
I'm pretty sure that the laws, at least the way that's described here, there may be some details that are not in the story so far, but it would be unlawful to use a baseball bat to kill somebody, and it would be a misuse of the product.
It would be used outside of its approved context.
I'm not even sure there are any laws about guns that aren't universal.
Are there? Or at least it's not described in the fact check.
Am I wrong about this?
I feel like I must be missing some big point or something.
But do the gun makers have any protection that isn't common to 100% of all products?
Do you think that Apple has protection if I take this iPhone and I find somebody weak and I smash them to death with my iPhone?
Is somebody going to sue Apple for making an iPhone?
I'm pretty sure everybody has this protection.
What am I missing here?
All right. So there's that.
All right, here's another fact check.
We're trying to figure out, I guess Biden made the claim that His work in banning fully automatic weapons reduced mass gun shootings.
So he's made the claim that he's already succeeded by banning some kinds of specially deadly weapons, arguably more deadly.
But the fact-checkers are not so sure.
Apparently it's ambiguous. There are some studies that might show that it made a difference.
Some others that show it didn't.
But here's my question.
Don't people just use whatever's the next best weapon?
Isn't that all that happened?
If you were intent in doing a mass shooting, and there was one kind of weapon that was hard to find and hard to use, but there was another one that would get the job done just fine...
How could it possibly make a difference that you got rid of one tool that works just great, but you left all the other tools that work just great?
How would you even expect it to be different?
Now, the only argument you could make is that the fully automatic was a more effective killing machine, and there's not really much evidence for that, is there?
Because the way these mass shootings unfold, it really is aiming at one person at a time.
Apparently, if you've got your handgun or any other kind of legal firearm, aiming at one person in close range is going to be pretty bad for that person.
You don't need the automatic weapon to do what you need it to do.
I don't think you need a bump stock either.
It's not really going to help you. At least accuracy-wise, it's not going to help you.
So I guess that's still, you know, the experts would disagree whether banning guns makes any difference at all.
But I would say it would be similar to trying to start to, it would be like this.
Banning one kind of gun when there are so many substitutes that work almost just as well, or even better, you could argue, in some cases.
Somebody says you can bump fire without a bump stock.
Well, you can do a rubber band or something on the trigger, right?
You have some other ways to do that.
But I don't think that the bump stock or any automatic modifications you make, I don't think they improve your killing ability.
I think they decrease it.
That's what the experts say, right?
I'll need a gun expert to fact check me on that.
Is that true?
So anyway, banning a certain kind of gun feels to me like if you wanted to stop drunk driving accidents, you would ban whiskey.
If you banned just whiskey, would that reduce the number of auto accidents from drinking?
Or would the people who would drink whiskey just drink something else?
Well, you could sort of imagine in your head there'd be somebody who says, well, I like whiskey, but I don't like anything else.
So maybe? Maybe?
But I feel like the people who are doing the drunk driving would just drink something else.
So I'm not sure anything that happened in today's news makes any sense.
Now, the news is a little bit boring today, I think you've noticed.
So I'm going to look at your questions for a minute and see if there's anything that's especially on your mind.
Yeah, I think if you're going to do a mass shooting and you bring a rubber band as any part of your assault weaponry, you're probably not good at that.
Yeah, band assault, whiskey.
What about Gates?
Well, you know, all of the Matt Gates story all has the same characteristic to it.
I don't trust any of it.
Everything you hear about the Matt Gaetz situation, it just looks like maybe it's not real.
And I'm not saying that he did or did not do anything.
I don't know. It's not my job to defend him.
And I want to be very harsh on the people who say that I can't talk about a subject without looking like I'm defending it.
I assert my right to talk about any topic.
Even if you think I'm defending it.
So I assert that right.
What is your favorite gun for home defense?
Well, same as everybody, right?
The handgun gives you time to get to the shotgun.
Isn't that the basic home defense, right?
Handgun buys you time to get to your shotgun.
I believe that's the theory that makes the most sense.
Magnum 44.
I've got a feeling that if you had the dirty, hairy gun, just the sound of the pulling back the...
I've got a feeling just the sound of the gun would be enough to drive somebody out of the house.
Oh, interesting.
Somebody's saying that if you sell a gun to a prohibited buyer, you're still in trouble even if you're Are you saying even if you're not an official gun dealer, even if it's private?
But still, it would happen.
So it doesn't really help you too much.
It would still happen. Do you feel...
Yeah. I once had a recorded sound of a pump shotgun.
I was going to play it through my speakers, you know, figuring out a way to, like, play it through the speakers if I needed to, but I think a real gun probably is better.
All right, what are your thoughts on ghost guns?
I don't really have a thought on ghost guns.
You know, I've got to say that the gun, the whole gun topic...
The legalities of it are just sort of not that interesting.
Oh, it's a straw purchase of a gun for somebody else.
Is that what a ghost gun is? If you smoke pot, are you not supposed to have any guns?
I don't know. That's a good question.
If you smoke pot, can you legally have guns?
You can, right? I don't think that would prohibit you.
Will 3D printing have an impact?
You know, even with 3D printed guns, I think they have to have some metal parts.
I suppose those could be 3D printed, but you'd need a better setup.
Somebody says pot use?
Well, I think maybe it depends on the state.
All right, that's all I've got for now, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Hit the subscribe button or the...
The notification button, that would help me out a lot, and I would appreciate it.
