Vegas Shooting: Gun Control, Mental Illness, & Terrorism | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

Obviously, we have to talk about gun control
this week. Over the course of our many Rubin Report interviews,
I’ve sat across from an array people who are pro-gun rights, anti-gun altogether, or somewhere
in between. While the events surrounding the gun conversation
are always horrific…with this week’s tragic events in Vegas being perhaps the worst of
them all…I believe the conversation around guns, when done right, can offer powerful
insight into how people think about society at large. Gun ownership and the right to bear arms brings
up issues about the American constitution, states rights, personal responsibility, mental
health, radicalization…both religious and otherwise…and much more. Unfortunately, as is the case so often these
days, we’re seemingly caught between two groups: the people who want to ban guns completely,
and the people who don’t want to have any sort of conversation about sensible gun laws. While I absolutely support the 2nd Amendment,
at the same time I absolutely acknowledge the United States has what seems to be a unique
problem related to mass gun violence. Lost in the midst of the awful events of Last
Vegas this week are the other senseless shootings across the country, like the 5 people killed
and 30 others wounded by gun fire in Chicago this past weekend. The weekend before that, 3 were killed and
36 wounded in Chicago, and the weekend before that it was 11 dead and 29 wounded in the
very same city. We’ve included a link down below which tracks
the gun related violence across Chicago occurring every single weekend, and it’s disturbing
to say the least. I bring up Chicago not to deflect from the
events in Las Vegas, but to show this murderous violence is happening in one of our biggest
cities literally every single day, happening so often at this point the mainstream media
has all but given up on reporting on it. The reasons behind how and why people murder
others also makes it hard to find one law around guns that works in every situation. There no doubt is a difference between a murder
that occurs during a robbery v. gang violence v. terrorism v. suicides v. a random shooter
with no known political or religious motive. And the same time, there are the times when
someone with a gun saves innocent lives during a shoot-out, or when someone defends their
property and family by having a gun in the home. So again, while I support the 2nd Amendment,
I also recognize that we undoubtably have a gun-related violence problem on our hands…just
look at the numbers. I can also acknowledge that guns in and of
themselves aren’t the only problem here. Without question, much of the carnage caused
by guns is due to people with mental health issues gaining access to guns. The truth is that if I, or most the gun owners
in America, had access to the most deadly weapons on Earth, we wouldn’t randomly use
those weapons against innocent people. Not only are mental health issues an aspect
to the people who commit mass shootings, but also there is also a problem with any ideology
which drives people to commit these heinous acts, be it a religious ideology, a political
ideology, or any other system of principals or beliefs which could drive someone to kill. A weapon in and of itself can’t kill anyone,
it takes a human being and a corrupt thought process to pull the trigger and kill innocent
people. Also, as I’m recording this, it is still unclear
exactly what weapons were used in Vegas, but authorities report finding about 20 other
fire arms in the shooter’s hotel room, and it’s possible that this man was using a military
style fully automatic rifle to commit this heinous act. For all the defense I’ve offered the 2nd Amendment,
I CAN NOT see how access to such weapons, which have the ability to mow down civilians
at an incredible rate and which are designed for the battlefield, should be in the hands
of regular citizens. As we post this video the story about the
Vegas gunman is largely incomplete. At the moment we don’t seem to know his motives,
so it’s hard to say if this was an act of terrorism under the most specific definition
of the term, which includes having a political motivation to kill. Nevada state’s defintion is a little more
broad, not including the need for a political motivation, which would in fact classify this
killer as a Terrorist. Regardless of how we want to define this specific
act of horrific violence, or how the gun discussion relates to terrorism, or the legitimate right
of every citizen to have the ability defend themselves, we must get better about talking
about gun control between the shootings in order to prevent more shootings, and not just
when these acts occur. Passing more laws in the heat of emotion is
rarely the right thing to do, even if they are well intentioned, while doing nothing
and hoping these events will simply end is just as misguided as hoping terrorism will
completely stop if we just ignore it. While we wait to find out more about the Vegas
shooter himself and at the same time mourn the victims of this evil act, we should also
continue to talk to people on both sides of the gun debate to try to come to sensible
place of agreement. I’m going to do my best to do just that — if
you know of some interesting voices in this debate you’d like to hear on The Rubin Report,
let us know in the comment section right down below.

100 thoughts on “Vegas Shooting: Gun Control, Mental Illness, & Terrorism | DIRECT MESSAGE | Rubin Report

  • As an interesting follow up to this (and with more on the specifics of the guns) check out Ben Shapiro's analysis of Jimmy Kimmel's comments last night:

  • I'd like to point something you mentioned in your video and discuss it. You brought up Chicago and all the violence that happens there ever day. Some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation are in place there. It's obviously not working. Why would anyone want to implement those same laws anywhere else? If you want to talk common sense laws to help reduce violent crimes, I'm all for that. Gun control is not a subject matter that belongs in that conversation however. Gun control doesn't work. The justice system in this country is broken. If we were to fix that system, I can almost guarantee all crime rates would drop, including gun violence. I could talk at length about this, but here isn't the right place for that.

  • "Why would anyone need a military style weapon?"
    Because the 2nd Amendment was directly written for the citizens of the United States to defend against a tyrannical government until they have won or an outside force helps, like France did during the Revolutionary War.

  • You should talk to Colion Noir, who is a supporter of gun rights and an NRA spokesperson. I don't know any reasonable people who call for gun control, so I can't help you there.

  • "I cannot see how (weapons) … designed for the battlefield should be in the hands of regular citizens." Then you either don't understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, or you are lying about your support of it. Is "lying" too harsh? Perhaps, but there's some serious gaps.

  • Guns help close the gap between an angry mind and a violent act. So, guns ARE a factor. One can't simply dismiss the connection or say guns aren't the problem. Nor is a gun ban either feasible or desirable. Nor can one deny that powerful, conservative gun lobbies and advocates have escalated the issue and influenced the politics, rarely in any way that is helpful.

  • So true. Every word. Thanks for posting. What happened in Vegas was beyond evil. You'd have to have a heart of stone not to have deep empathy, sympathy and remorse for the victims and their families. But whatever the subject is-guns, speech, alcohol, tobacco, drugs–prohibition never, ever solves the problem.

  • It's all BULL SHIT, there were no humans or animals harmed in the production of LAS VEGAS MASSACRE. It's an illuminati free-mason construct. DON'T FALL FOR IT!! IT's ALL ABOUT TAKING OUR GUNS – NO CORPSES, NO FUNERALS!

  • The majority of gun crimes in the U.S. are committed using illegal guns.  Chicago has tons of people killed by guns because the criminals know that no law abiding citizens have guns and it's open season

  • This guy had no criminal record and had money. What exact law would prevent this? How do you prevent a guy from driving their car through a crowd.

  • Define "sensible gun control laws". Please? I stipulate that one man's sensible gun laws will be another man's slip down that slippery slope of tyranny.

    I will NEVER give up my guns or accept any more restrictions upon my ownership or use of them. I draw the line and you step across it at your peril.

    No. Your move.

  • How about getting Leah Libresco on your show? – a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site.

    Former gun control advocate "red pilled" after "deep diving" actual gun statistics and facts.

  • Let me offer you one reason why regular citizens should be allowed to have any (and every) type of fire-arm available — and not just fire-arms but any weapon of warfare:  Government tyranny and the potential of such.  This is the reason it was put into the constitution in the first place.  So kindly read the constitution, and read it like a normal intelligent person who considers the motives of the framers and the socio-political milieu they were in — and be smart.  Only cowards give up their freedom when evil men scare them.  You won't stop murderers with more gun laws, you'll make regular citizens even more of a sitting duck.

    TLDR:  Don't be an idiot.

  • Typical Rubin. It's all about "I don't have any useful actual opinions of my own. I just pretend to be the mediator who says a bunch of fluff and never add any actual contribution to policy using facts while I try to stroke the right wing off." Fuck this guy.

  • I'm not a strict constitutionalist, but the bill of rights is supposed to protect the freedoms of individuals from government. I say freedom cause Americans don't know what a right is anymore. The government doesn't have the authority to take away second amendment rights even if they do, just like I don't have the authority to walk into my neighbors house and take their tv, even if I do. Our rights are the rational extrapolation of self ownership, infringing them is abuse, its robbery, its immoral. If society considers it necessary to infringe on a right, I concede private ownership of nuclear material to that category, it needs to be for a better reason that guns make me feel bad m'kay. The argument isn't about guns, its not about murder, its not about automatic weapons, its about whether or not you own yourself or your community owns you, your state/country owns you. Can we all own each other but no one owns themselves? Really think that through.

    On the constitution, which is supposed to be the founding lawful document, all state constitutions must adhere to, which means all state laws must adhere to (most federal laws are blatantly illegal).

    We claim to be a country of law, of egalitarianism, of meritocracy, but the federal government ignores the constitution, the state constitutions are pretty good usually, unfortunately they ignore their own constitutions too. Judges litteraly just make shit up and say its the law without basis and try and confuse things with postmodernist pretended complex language and faked knowledge. They've written statutes and policies and call them law, they tell the police its law and it must be enforce.

    You have an entire legal system operating outside the law, its a mafia. The words on the page mean nothing when society decides they don't. We decided we're subjects of our "representatives", our judges, our police, most who think they're following the law because they've taken to interpreting law like its scripture, and have created a zealotist culture around their dogma of "law".

    So the words mean shit, but what do the words say.

    A well regulated Militia
    Militia. Military. Well regulated. Not hunting rifles. Quality military grade equipment.

    being necessary to the security of a free State
    Necessary. Why? History of authoritarianism. Looong history of the rise and fall of civilizations. Not gonna happen? Venezuela. Democracy, ended overnight. Is brexit going to happen? Sure the fuck doesn't sound like it, end of democracy, cause democracies are shit. The EU is turning into an oligarchy, it happens, why do people assume it doesn't cause "we're modern". How many guns do the citizens in either country have? Disarm the people so they can't fight back. It is LITTERALLY happening right in front of us and we can't see it.

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
    Free state, rights of people. People's rights. Duh, only people have rights. Cars don't have rights, guns don't have rights, buildings don't have rights, land doesn't have rights, states don't have rights. Only. Individual. People. Have. Rights. [Emphaaaasiiiis!] To keep, to have, to own. And bear, to wield, to carry.

    shall not be infringed
    Do we know what infringed means? To limit, to undermine. You don't do it. At all. No justifications in the law.

    Anyone who is advocating to limit or undermine, possession and use, of any form of gun or weapon (that doesn't violate the rights of another individual, gotta add that for all the "yeah but" idiots.) Without a constitutional amendment, are advocating for unlawful actions to be carried out on the individuals of this country.

    I'm a classic liberal minarchist, seriously flirting with anarchy. Cause democracy sucks shit ass balls. Republics gargle pissy horse jizz. Government is an ancient retarded virulent memetic polymorphism that keeps plaguing humanity and refuses to be cured. (But its my disability so you can't judge it with your hate speech) gaaaaawd!

    America is falling. Not even falling, merrily walking our asses into the ovens because we're afraid of Nazis, that is whats happening isn't it? May be not happily, bickering and name calling, but just voluntarily walking the path of Rome with every hedonistic ignorant wisp of a thought that comes into our heads.

    Just as America left Britain to retain their freedom (with the EU failing, I wonder if Rome had an exodus of freedom seekers, if they did, what became of them, so much history to learn, oiy.) People are beginning to leave America to find freedom elsewhere. America is no longer in America. If we don't put Americanism back, it will fall, like Rome, like Greece, and it will likely take half the world with it, cause we're economically globalizing, like it or not. That's technology.

    So. Since we've already fucked the constitution. Since we already are an evil self indulgent mob of serve-me-zombies. If we're not going to fix freedom, take the guns, I'll leave, let America fall. Its diseased, cut it off and throw it into the fire, its corrupting the world.

  • We need the right to bear arms, we do not need heavy weapons, and we must have background checks and a wait time of some sort. If we ban guns, only bad people will be able to get ahold of them, and no one would be able to protect them from criminals and corrupted government (such as what happened with WWII). I do agree that some gun control laws, such as the banning of fully-automatic weapons and background checks and such, and this will help reduce guns in the handa of bad people, but it will not stop them.

  • The right to bare arms is just another way of saying you can have a militia and nothing to do with arming the average citizen for self defense.

  • Mental issues! Let's see throughout his life, there were no diagnosis! He's a high roller in Vegas! He's sane enough to make every decision in his life without questioning. Now he's a mental disturb man after he " single" handed planned, murdered, shot as many people as possible with the guns he bought, carried and filled with ammunition and executed many people as possible! That doesn't seem like mental I'll person. That a cold hearted calculated mass murder. Don't sugar coat because the race is Caucasian. Any other race in America would of been a a terrorist by law, by Ethnicity, by religion, by the public, and society! Whites have the right complexion for their crimes! They're innocent until proven guilty. While others are guilty until proven innocent.

  • America has a problem…..and funny how so many people here say this is the price of living in a free society…i live in a free society and i dont have to deal with the gun violence that i see happening in America

  • The problem isn't automatic weapons; the problem was a loophole in the laws which didn't account for semi-automatic weapons being converted into automatic ones with relative ease and lack of expense (at least compared to how one would normally acquire fully-automatic weapons). That is the loophole which Republicans are willing to work with Democrats to close, not gun control or repealing the 2nd Amendment.

  • there are already to many gun laws. the people who want to ban are incrementalists, they will never be happy and will never give ground so they should never be given any ground. not an inch, not anywhere should the regressives be given any ground, not ever.

  • I will get hate for this, but what the hell. I think the Second Amendment is fucking stupid. Military weapons sold to non military people, yeh that sounds like a good idea.

  • Rubin. This was nearly goodbye, then I remembered you are not Cenk so you might see reason.

    I am not a gun worshiping southern christian. I am a Libertarian Centrist that has faithfully participated and watched you since you departed TYT. You have always been logical and fair in your opinions but if you cannot see why "military style" weapons were meant to be in the hands of the public you do not understand the 2nd amendment. Everyone conveniently forgets their history, left and right, the right to bear arms protected not just "muskets" but CANON. It is also a misconception that there were no automatic weapons at the time, there were several and a few of the founding fathers owned them, but I digress. You have gone from a logical, centrist, I'm not taking sides but I'm asking hard questions, to bleeding TYT all over my screen. Please for the love of all that is bacon in this world, take a moment to step aside from your emotions or "current moral compass" and honestly think about what a room full of men; who willingly declared war on the most powerful nation on earth, meant when they said ARMS instead of MUSKETS. Please, and if you can't see reason at least put it back in the box and get back to the center.

  • This was all an elaborate training drill production that is being played out with the media as a real event. Happens all the time. There was multiple sounds of gun shots in different areas and lots of totally different stories and theories. Of course there is going to be. The time lines for this event are all twisted and the media is giving out tons of crazy theories for everyone to play off of. You have cell video of some of the crisis actors and real innocent bystanders but the time lines don't match the official narratives. Fake names and numbers that get officially delcared come out of thin air and thrown into the mix. (makes for some really entertaining theories) Then they just change one of those fictitious statistics and create all new conspiracies. If you don't think something like this can be staged to be played out live then your probably stuck in all the conspiracy theories within the staged event. This event targeted the same demographic that tore past drills apart. Now that same demographic believes this one has to be real. There has to be a real bad guy and lots of real dead people on this one. I know a friend's, sister's, uncle that was there so it has to be real. It gives this demographic the sense that this one belongs to them. That it's their event. It's targeting your emotional response and over riding your logical thinking. Some prior targeted demographics won't even pay attention or care about this event. This has been a very effective government tool. It's so easy to fool today's population with these things even with all the horrible acting and botched off script stories. That is why they keep using them. The production quality has gone down dramatically but the effectiveness has definitely increased. The real concern about this event going live is what is going to follow it. The consequences of it. The solution for it. Are they going to use this to enact worthless gun laws and worthless spying laws? Will they decide to go with connections with terrorist and use it for more worthless war operations? All of the above? Of course they will. Never waste a good crisis. They cost too much to produce. It's not worthless laws to our government. Follow the money trails. There is a lot of money to be made form writing new laws. A lot more money to be made than it cost to create. By the time you get to the conclusion of your theories for this event those consequences will already be written in ink/blood and will be business as usual until next time. Never going back because the next distraction is just around the corner.

  • You know, I think a great debate about this subject would be very helpful. Maybe get Sam Seder? He’s a leftist and really wants to come on. Invite him on

  • Violence is not unique to the U.S. look at South America where whole tribes are killed by illegal prospectors. Where drug cartels wipe out police forces, judges and politicians. Street thugs will kill you during a mugging. In parts of Africa they will kill others for their religion , being albino, or if they think someone put a curse on them. I for one think that North America is pretty safe and am surprised that not more of this type of thing happens. Here in Canada people are smug about our low murder rate, but that's only because we have 1/10 of the population as the U.S.   I find people here in Canada that don't find our laws oppressive our people who don't know the laws and don't follow them.There is no need for debate or discussion because absolutely nothing will ever stop this type of thing from happening again.

  • Hey, gun owner here.

    We can't have a national conversation about guns until liberals actually bother to educate themselves on guns and the laws regarding them.

    We can't have a national conversation about guns until liberals acknowledge that "assault" weapons account for maybe 0.03% of gun murders in America.

    We can't have a national conversation about guns until liberals acknowledge that it's actually handguns in the hands of criminals that account for 99% of gun murders in America.

    We can't have a national conversation about guns until liberals stop pumping out bullshit statistics that include justified self defense and suicides in gun deaths statistics.

    Actually, you know what? It's become glaringly obvious that we'll never have an honest debate about guns in this country. It's because I honestly have no other choice than to conclude that liberals don't actually give a fuck about about gun deaths. Why?

    Democrats run the cities with the highest rate of gun murders in America and they do NOTHING about it year after year after year. Chicago has a Las Vegas sized casualty count every other weekend and you guys say nothing about it. Detroit, Baltimore, New Orleans, Oakland, Memphis… All run by Democrats and you guys say NOTHING about it all year until something high profile happens, then you go into a frenzy, virtue signalling to all your friends, denigrating law abiding gun owners who had nothing to do with what happened, claiming that if we don't agree with your position, we don't care about the dead.

    Fuck you. Every time you do it, I'm going to cram the gun homicide rates in your cities, that you say nothing about year after year after year after year down your throats.

  • My government has armor tanks, boozaks, drones, planes and billions more bullets. Citizens should be about to get military style guns for defense against a corrupt government

  • I have been considering returning to the US to run for public office actually on a third party ticket and I have some fairly different views on gun control (as well as all the normal wedge issues). I don't know if you would be interested in talking to American expats who are for all intents and purposes off the political spectrum here but I would be happy to talk with you. Here's something I wrote for a party-oriented organization on some hot-button issues.

    On the second amendment, I think a key problem is that the 2nd Amendment was clearly intended to be an anti-military measure, ensuring that the state could disband the army without fearing for its existence at the hands of what were then global powers from Europe. This makes the 2nd Amendment in my view far more complex because I am. not sure what an "ordinary citizen" is who should not have access to weapons for the battlefield. On the other hand, perhaps if such weapons are primarily good at mowing down civilians, perhaps the military should not have fully-automatic small arms either.

  • Look at the numbers and facts.
    It would be wonderful to have a discussion based on that, unfortunately more and more prefer to discuss based on their feelings excluding the numbers and facts.

  • Speaking of stories not being talked about, the church shooting in Tennessee. I have heard nothing else of it. Why?

  • Muslim drives a van into innocent people: Islam is a religion of peace. A single American man shooting innocent people: guns must be banned.

    The hypocrisy of the left.

  • The United States does not have a gun problem, we have a people problem.
    Countries such as Austria who have a culture around them have almost no gun problems.
    People are the source of the violence pertaining to guns, not the tools themselves.

  • One cannot Support the second amendment fully and be willing to restrict citizens from owning rifles equal to what our military carries. Infringed is the Key my friend. Thank you for always offering a sober and wise opinion on all matters.

  • The media has not 'given up' on reporting on inner city violence, they intentionally avoid talking about it because it harms, not helps, their narrative and it's the progressives's fault because they're all failed cities run by democrat philosophy. Inner city violence doesn't have much to say about taking AR-15s away from people who are distrusting of authority, which is what all authoritarians are highly interested in.

  • The argument is easy dave for automatic weapons dave: The second amendment is not for hunting, self defense, or sport. It is for overthrowing government tyranny and the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  • Gun control is only important for the left because it is a platform of the not-so-left. I say the not-so-left because many Democrats own fire arms for home and personal protection as well as hunting. When you look at comparable statistical equivalent arguments the logic does not add up for the panacea of the left to remove the 2nd Amendment in any way. For example if they are worried about death rates (excluding suicide) of firearms lets look at Brazil. The own only 8.8 million weapons and have a death rate almost twice the rate of the United States and the U.S. owns around 300 million firearms. Also their logical analysis is hypocritical to say the least.

  • 1st amendment: "abridging the freedom of speech"
    not supposed to regulate free speech. But we do it anyway because we agree on particular language that should not be protected.

    2nd amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
    guess what, if we can regulate free speech, we can regulate firearms.

  • Regular people shouldn't have guns that belong on the battlefield? Sir, you miss the entire POINT of the 2nd Amendment. The Founders intended for a free and armed people to be the FINAL check on a lawless government.

  • You really can't have it both ways, Dave. If you support the 2nd Amendment, then you support the reason behind it, which was to equip the people to violently overthrow an oppressive government. Such a government would of course have automatic weapons at its disposal, so you can't very well limit the kinds of arms people are allowed to own to hunting rifles. Not if you expect the 2nd Amendment to do the job it was supposed to do.

  • I will have to respectfully disagree about the idea that military style weapons shouldn't be given access to civilians. My argument being 1, a vast majority of weapons can be modified even if it wasn't their intended design, to be automatic and 2, the weapon he was using was illegally modified to be automatic normal civilians cannot purchase fully automatic weapons. Disallowing civilians from owning military style weapons is also such a broad statement that things will become silly and any weapon with a scope or non wooden stock might be considered military style.

    Another thing to think about is how this attack was actually poorly carried out. Think about it. I personally share a bit of relief in the fact this man was obviously not a skilled operator because having the vantage point and weapons he had he wasn't able to carry out near the death count he should have been able to. I am sickened by his actions but the attack as it stands, with it's death count and injury count, could have been done in the same time frame with weapons that are neither semi auto or modern designed.

    You should have hickok45 on he does a great job of explaining this.

  • I don't think you need to talk to any guest for more then ten minutes Rubin. I think that is a reasonable position everyone can get behind….You see the problem I'm having here? You want to restrict a right when you would never restrict the others. I'm standing ten feet back from where I'm suppose to be and you are telling me to back up more, No.

  • Talking about policies related to everyday violence certainly makes more sense than talking about rare, sensational events, especially when the motive for such an event is completely unknown. I think Rubin is sincere about having meaningful discussions, but when talking about violent crime, I wish he'd acknowledge that overall, rates of violent crime are going down in the US. It's not going down because people have fewer guns, since the opposite is true. Neither is there any evidence to support the idea that more guns has reduced violence. If we can't be sure that the number of guns has had any effect on rates of violence and the parts of the country with the highest rates of violence, such as Chicago, have some of the strictest restrictions on guns, is there any policy about guns that can be expected to have a desired effect?

  • Here is your problem Dave. The AR15, the AK47 and any other military STYLE firearm is the exact WEAPON the 2nd Amendment is talking about. We, as free people, have the right to defend ourselves the same way a Government or Country defends itself..WITH VIOLENCE and opportunistic warfare against an enemy who is attempting illegal violence against us. The term "keep and bear arms" is not hunting…its not sport shooting, its not collecting and its not entertainment. The phrase "keep and bear arms" in modern language would be. "own and use firearms for combat".

    When people were said to "bear arms", they were actively using weapons to either defend themselves or through threat of direct weapon combat enact a change in events.

    The M16 and AK47 have civilian counterparts these are the AR15 and the AKM. These are firearms designed to mimic military firearms as close as possible without triggering Federal laws dictating rate of fire with a single pull of the trigger.

    An AK47 if legally bought and certified in the hands of a civilian would cost about $15,000 and take 6 months of background checks to legally own. The same is true of an M16. What the media and even much of the gun industry calls AK47 and AK74 are simply AKMs with the famous (AK47) name attached.

    Lets read the 2nd Amendment with the understanding this was written to CONFIRM an individuals right to self defense…
    A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It is clear the 2nd Amendment is CONFIRMING a civilians right to military style firearms to use as defense and of course that means "legal" defense.


  • If you, Mr. Rubin, support the 2nd Amendment, then you must understand why it was written they way it was. A key reason behind the amendment was to defend against a government that had overstepped it's power. Personal I look at it that the 2nd Amendment as what forces the government to not infringe on the 1st Amendment. The amendment that is the most peaceful way to resolve conflict. Before you say that losing the 1st Amendment is impossible I think you should look back at some of your video's which talk about the infringement that have been occurring in our society as of late.

    If you do agree in anyway with my of view of how the amendments work in tangent and just independent of one another, yet still say we need more laws/regulations on guns I would love to hear how you rectify the conflict between your positions. If you don't agree with my view I would be interested in your opinion why the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution in the first place. Thank you.

  • I understand why the Rubin Report is not on mainstream TV, because a person talking sense and willing to listen to both the left and right to figure out a best way forward is not what TV is looking for.

    This is great informative TV.

  • I think the gun debate reveals the uncomfortable relationship Americans have with violence. We've been taught to believe humans are some sacred species that are capable of transcending animalistic behavior. Even those for whom science is their "religion" are uncomfortable with the fact humans are simply a higher-order animal. In other words, the gun problem is simply a violence problem and it's not something that's going to go away. In fact, I'd argue the level of violence in America is commensurate with its size, diversity, and lack of social cohesion.

    The other revelation is the extent to which many Americans expect the state to protect us from ourselves. This is tied to the discomfort we have regarding violence – most of us would rather not exercise our right to kill or maim somebody in self-defense. It's an understandable impulse, but people overestimate the extent to which the state can adequately protect us and are ignorant of the implications of giving the state a monopoly on the means and exercise of violence.

  • Dave, the problem is in the verbiage, gun "control". All the dictators agree that it works,worked. Would it be ok for us to implement more control over your life? That is what gun control is. Where did revolutionary military get it's artillery, firearms and ships? History tells the story over and over again.

  • It is extremely rare for mental health problems to cause mass murder much less violence, mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.

  • The term "common sense gun control" is liberal speak for something that will only impact law abiding citizens, won't have ANY impact on criminal activity or mass shootings and in my belief the starting point of the real desire of some of our political elite.

  • There's no point talking to gun control people, because they don't know when to stop and eventually you'll end up like Australia, California (you live there, you know how strict the laws are!) and New York.

    The FBI and CIA are known to use terrorism and cover up events like the mass shooting in Las Vegas. We need to hold them accountable. They do not always listen to the public when suspicious people are brought to there attention.

    And of course, mental health is the key and so the gun issuers need to adhere to it and never give guns out to people that are mentally ill ie — a prone to violent acts. The gun issuers (which is usually the police) need to be held accountable.

    Also race is an issue, because the people who are killing each most of the time in Chicago are Black.

  • If this had happened in California, people would be screaming up and down for gun control, but look at what happened in San Bernadino… and look at how strict the gun laws already were. Most people outside of the US have no idea the gun laws are already strict in the most populous parts of America. Californian gun laws are very strict enough as it is.

    Hardly anyone lives in the "shall issue" counties:

  • The left is so full of mentally disordered cult followers that it would be hard to fine anyone normal enough to pass a psyc eval without being issued court orderd meds.

  • Weeks later we still don't know "the motive". This can only mean one thing: dude had the kind of motive that would be very inconvenient to the democratic establishment if it got out. If he was a conservative, we would have known about it before this shooting even ended. Guns aren't the issue here at all, the issue is radicalization. The source of radicalization in this particular case is likely the mainstream media. Last time (Pulse nightclub) it was religion. Next time it will be something else. If guns weren't available, he'd just ram a truck through the crowd or planted a few bombs in the middle, or strap a bomb to a consumer grade drone and rain death from above. All of those things are completely unregulated and readily available. Evil will find a way. See e.g. Nice, London, and other places.

  • To start with, I LOVE your show, respect your options and I attempt to take your stance into consideration. RE: In the timeline at 3:40, let me help you see. If Trump was Hitler like the Left claims and if the Right is Nazis like the Left claims, then consider this. If you were able to go back to the late 1930's in a time machine, to Germany and you had the ability to convince the Jewish people to keep and fight for their rights to bring arms to bear, would you "possibly see how access to such weapons which have the ability to mow down civilians at an incredible rate and which are designed for the battlefield, should be in the hands of" Jews! I don't think Trump in Hitler, but Sanders Maybe, but one day is possible. The 2nd is designed to stop that. You wouldn't have given out muskets to the Jews would you? So, stop the criminals in the drug trade, stop the gang bangers, and get the mental hospitals back open and do all of the color blind and the gun issue will go away.

  • I love your work so much Rubin and you are SUCH a smart guy. Please, please look into things like mass shootings and 9/11 and consider that some, maybe not all, are actually false flags. There is a long history of these which are deep state psy ops! Conspiracies at the highest levels exist and nefarious social engineering mass trauma events have been carried out for hundreds of years. I recognize it may be difficult to talk about these topics but look into it for yourself.

  • Ain't weapons illegal in Chicago? Why is gun crime higher in states where it's illegal? Because law abiding citizens aren't allowed weapons, which is a deterrent.

  • If mass shootings have increased during the past 50 years, while household gun ownership has gone down and the bureaucracy controlling gun ownership has only increased, it is strange that few look at the "progressive" cultural changes supposedly bettering our society, which have increased markedly over the same time period.

  • The term Mass shooting is stupid, It doesn't matter if someone killed 20 people in a day or over time they have the same result, serial Killers have killed far more people than major Media coverage shootings in the US, why does it matter that it happened in a day or 20 days, that makes so sense being it all adds up to murder with rifles to be very very very low, Not counting that the category rifles also counts Manual and semi auto, which makes Deaths by SEMI autos much smaller. Tell me why time and the event make a difference when people can still get away with high death tolls, These type of AR-15 shootings are fairly new and have only been used because they see it on tv which can create copy cats, same thing happened to pistols in the 2000s. Media blows things up way too much to make it seem that it happens all the time and that you are going to die from this. Why do you hold these kind of situations at such high standards, you do know by numbers and perceptive these mean absolutely nothing. It's like holding Islamic attacks with such high standards to make it feel much more dangerous to the population. The US is actually pretty safe for terms of regular civilians when it comes to guns, If you are in a gang the risk is very high and gang violence is about the majority of gun murders, and by logic there is still a very high chance of more DGUs than Crime uses due to the vast of legal Gun owners. Countries like Japan never needed a gun ban and there are plenty of countries that allow guns and semi auto and still have lower crime than the US and most ban First world countries, There are also ones with high crime in third world countries, Culture is key in this issue. guns are used to stop over 500,000 confirmed crimes a year. There are around 2000 homicides in America (If not counting gang) So by these FBI statistics you are much more likely to stop a crime then being shot. Some points to people that think it makes a difference banning Semi Auto weapons.

  • Larry Correia's essay on gun ownership in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting was well informed and very popular. He's an entertaining guy to talk to, for several reasons. Recommended.

  • So how did the guns get into Chicago the guns get into Chicago from their neighboring states were they can sell and buy guns and write a receipt on a piece of fucking toilet paper so naturally it's easy to transfer guns from state to state unlike transferring a gun from say New York to New Jersey New Jersey to Connecticut Connecticut to Rhode Island

    Charlotte North Carolina actually has more crime per capita than Chicago

  • 2:44 "The truth is that if I or most of the gun owners in America had access to the most deadly weapons on Earth, we wouldn't be randomly using those weapons against innocent people."
    3:15 "A weapon in and of itself can't kill anyone; it takes a human being and a corrupt thought process to pull the trigger and kill innocent people."

    How is it that Dave makes these brilliant points and others, but then…

    3:41 "For all the defense I've offered of the 2nd Amendment, I cannot see—I cannot possibly see how access to such weapons, which have the ability to mow down civilians at an incredible rate, which are designed for the battlefield, should be in the hands of regular citizens.'

    …makes this ridiculously ignorant point that completely contradicts everything else he said?

    Dave, I suggest you do some more research on the intent of the 2nd Amendment and read DC v. Heller, as it is clearly mentioned in the case that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons designed for military use, and more. I personally don't think the 2nd Amendment protects nukes and fighter jets, but it sure does protect ground weapons such as assault rifles, tanks, rocket launchers, and hand grenades. I'm also in the same stupid political party as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, so I really mean it when I say you should look further into these things.

  • So far none of these anti-gun laws have yet curb crime or stop criminals using guns folks. These bad gun laws were designed to do just one thing, to restrict or ban firearms to law abiding Citizens folks.

  • When the authors of the Second Amendment penned it, could they have envisioned the evolution of guns at that time from single shot weapons (an expert musketeer could get off only three shots per minute) to automatic assault rifles capable of of firing thirty shots in three seconds? Ira Lee, Ph.D.

  • Why should individuals in a government have more licensed to kill than an individual? Is it the 007 effect? The 2nd amendment was created by people who knew that the government is not always right

  • Never ceases to amaze me how many delusional gun owner talk about the 2nd amendment and how it allows their local militia and their AR15s stand up against an F22 or a Abrams tank if the US Government ever needed to be overthrown.

  • America, the criminals committing these types of crimes, are domestic terrorist, psychopaths, and straight up murders, who are NOT mentally ill.
    Anyone that premeditates, the taking of several human lives isn't acting on mental illness and while some mental illness might be present, it is not fueling the fire responsible for mass murder.
    The definition of a psychopath, is someone without a conscience and if someone does not have a conscience, then they cannot be suffering from mental illness.
    These crimes, are nothing, but premeditated murders!
    While a bunch of brothelized socialism whores, false label the truth with their brand of weaponized stupidity attempting to encourage MORE government overstep.
    Natural rights, no longer apply to people with mental illness because social retardation knows what's best.
    The mentally ill, no longer have the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, and 98% of the U.S population, has mental illness to one degree, or another.
    America's being progressively enslaved, by its own government because of delusional social retards and the political sucks that they empower, are writing slavery into law.
    Stupidity, is the most dangerous and destructive assault weapon in the world.
    America's being enslaved and ruled, by the finest stupidity delusion buy and elect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *