At what point will mental health be brought into the conversation about all the gun violence?

Thank you. I am relieved to listen to this..

I’ve been listening to your various podcasts over the years, but must stop right here! I’m waaaaay older than Ms Underwood, and have been riding the MTA system since traveling from an outer borough by both bus and train into Manhattan since my early teens for a specialized PUBLIC high school. Left at 6:30 AM each morning, returned back home around 8-9:30 PM from work ( after school in NYC) for over 4 years. It no longer is safe AT ALL !!!! I’m no shrinking violet, can hold my own, a real street-smart, Bronx born NYer, and it is NO LONGER SAFE at all !

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

You missed the point. Did you miss the clearly said statistic, that NYC today is SAFER than "Jacksonville, FL or New Orleans or Birmingham, AL or literally dozens & dozens of other American cities." He didn't say NYC is "safe" (though, per-capita, IT IS). It IS SAFER than many smaller cities all across America. NYC is safer *_because_* of its gun controls. A city 10 times larger is much safer. Explain that, please. And yes, it doesn't help your situation -- YET YOU ARE SAFER in NYC than in many other cities.

@57ditchdigger

7 ай бұрын

@@keep-ukraine-free LOL, safer because of, or in spite of, the gun control laws? He is guilty of what he accuses Alito. Imagining a wild shootout with no evidence it happens. His fear mongering is as disgusting as Underwood's silly argument

@thinkharder9332

5 ай бұрын

@@keep-ukraine-free NYC is safer because of its gun controls. -Nope, because plenty of other big cities that have comparable laws have worse than average homicide rates. New York has different policing. Namely stop and frisk and broken windows. Stop and frisk meant regular stops and searches which deterred illegal carriers, and broken windows policing recognized that criminals willing to commit murder often committed petty crimes too, so cracking down on smaller offenses and getting them off the street sooner before they could commit violence worked.

Sergeant Preston left the violence to Yukon King.

When I was a kid (1974- 78) in Tehran, Iran, we could watch the English TV channel with programs starting in the afternoon and ending by 11PM or midnight. It was back to back westerns, followed by comedy like Carol Burnett and Jonathan Winters, or music like the Donny and Marie Show. The westerns I recall were Davey Crockett, Daniel Boone, Gunsmoke, Rawhide, Jim Bowie, Bonanza, Wyatt Earp, Little House on the Prairie, Wagon Train, Zorro... And lots of old movies in the evening, many of which were cowboy classics with John Wayne being king. The old Perry Mason shows were a treat, but English TV in Iran before the Revolution was dominated by cowboy machismo, and all the manly theme songs introducing each one. You know, back when men were men... and everyone knew it... A family could only survive so long before a situation in which the only solution was through aiming a loaded gun (or a gun the Bad Guy THINKS is loaded).

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

Agree, those shows warped the minds of many children. Many of those kids became "machismo" adults wanting to r@pe or be###d every woman, and they could threaten/bully others using guns. Its why most places with weak gun-control laws are murder-central. And why NYC with 10x or 1000x the population is safer.

That last comment sounded pretty republican, I just subscribed to your podcast and turned on the notifications 😊

The first 16 minutes of this episode were hilarious

I think it's disingenuous to characterize Alito as suggesting all subway riders should arm themselves, and as a subway rider it's also disingenuous to imply there is virtually no reason to fear violence there. That said I am no gun nut and don't the the "good guy with a gun" solves much of anything there either.

Our current Supreme Court is a national embarrassment.

You ask if the Justice ever rode a subway. I have to ask you, have you ever fired a handgun? You may need to do research on defensive shootings and their accuracy.

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

You clearly keep assuming. In this series, he DOES go to firing ranges. Listen to other episodes. And he may have practiced shooting many times before that. Your lack of factual knowledge, supplanted by too many trite assumptions, demonstrate a lack of thought (or care).

I agree with the general comment about guns in the media. But it didn't stop with Gunsmoke. Some, like A team, 20 years later didn't kill people but their answer to everything was to take the law into their own hands and start shooting. Many others ended by killing people. Its laziness in the media and still says the answer to every problem is to start shooting. It applies to the US international policy as well.

Interesting to visit our roots. Our networks shouldn't limited offerings for Sgt. Preston exclusively. 😢

MG, it’s a “Criminal Justice System” as soon as we have justice for the victims of a crime and eliminate life sentences you will make a tangible difference in gun violence & crime. MO

@photografiq_presents

8 ай бұрын

Revenge isnt the same as justice. Its also justice for the community, not the individual. Punishments don't deter crime because most criminals aren't thinking rationally. Spend money on that side of the equation and it would cost a quarter of what it currently costs and you'd have a more productive society. I don't really care about your opinion, this isn't a conversation. I just wanted somewhere to park this and your idiotic comment was as good as any.

This is a pretty simplified analysis of Justice Alito and the place of TV Westerns in our culture. Could someone else make a connection between liberal, anti-gun attitudes from movies/TV shows they watch? Is the Andy Griffith Show an accurate portrayal of small town life? No crime, and all confrontations are settled with a talk and gentle understanding? Should people who watched that show, or Canadians who watched Preston of the North, be put in charge of our legal system because they are 'better'? Because they are not subject to their own fantasies?

A colonial militia includes any group that can fire a fusillade of bullets. All militia, even single person militia, are constitutionally required to be well regulated.

@battlescorn

9 ай бұрын

How does any militia be recognized by government vs just a group of armed individuals?

@chrisolmsted5678

9 ай бұрын

@@battlescorn every state currently fails to provide a process for recognition and regulation of non governmental single person militia. To meet their constitutional obligation every state would develop a procedure to recognize legal non governmental militia and regulate them. I presume the state would delegate much of the regulations to the county and municipal governments so that it's well coordinated with police and so that the civil liability for insufficiently regulating a militia (turned mass shooter) would be shared.

@thinkharder9332

5 ай бұрын

"well regulated" doesn't mean restricted, it meant well equipped. That and the right is of the people, not the militia, and the people's right is clearly stated to "not be infringed".

@chrisolmsted5678

5 ай бұрын

@@thinkharder9332 the framers could tell the difference between well regulated militia acting under control of the local government and the unregulated militia that Shay led in his rebellion. Had he been better armed the constitution might not have been written. Well regulated includes preventing damage that less than well regulated militia might inflict. So well reasoned restrictions are included. Rhode Island specifically didn't trust its neighbor state militia to stay on their side of the border. The word infringe was used in the first draft to protect the rights of pacifists. They could not be forced to bear arms. To infringe on a right, the right must first exist. The term infringe cannot provide a right you don't already have by some other means besides the constitution. The term "the people" always means the persons in a jurisdiction as a group. Jurisdictions can be as small as a household. It's a term from Montesquieu's philosophy for ethics in government that our constitution used heavily. At the end of the day Supreme Court justices are not historians and should not act like they are. Restrictions on firearms need to be well reasoned for the benefit of the persons resident in the jurisdiction.

@thinkharder9332

5 ай бұрын

@@chrisolmsted5678 and the unregulated militia that Shay led in his rebellion. -Has zero to do with civilian ownership. Shay's rebellion the issue was forces amassing against the govt, not that civilians had arms. Well regulated includes preventing damage that less than well regulated militia might inflict. S -Not really. Well regulated at that period meant well provided, not restricted. So well reasoned restrictions are included. -Again, even if you use that definition of "Well regulated" that describes the militia, not the right of the people. The word infringe was used in the first draft to protect the rights of pacifists. -How about reading the version that was actually ratified? The one they actually agreed to and is currently law. o infringe on a right, the right must first exist. The term infringe cannot provide a right you don't already have by some other means besides the constitution. -The founders believed rights to be endowed by ones creator. The 2nd doesn't grant the right to arms, nor does it grant the right to free expression. The wording is that such rights exist outside the Bill of Rights, and what the document does is state the govt can't violate them. The term "the people" always means the persons in a jurisdiction as a group. -No it doesn't. When the 4th amendment, which uses the identical phrase of "right of the people", states the right to secure ones person, it's absolutely referring to an individual right as the group cannot secure a person because the group is not a person. Nor does the group own the home or personal affects, the person does. Similarly, the right to own arms is at the individual scale. The bill of rights was about individual rights. You, an individual, can freely express yourself, own a gun, secure yourself from search/seizure, have a right to jury, etc, all are done at the individual scale as they are individual rights. Supreme Court justices are not historians and should not act like they are. Restrictions on firearms need to be well reasoned for the benefit of the persons resident in the jurisdiction -Again, no historical evidence nor precedent supports the idea the founders opposed individual ownership of guns unconnected to militia use. They themselves had personal collections and had guns that'd serve no use in a militia, IE engraved weapons and pistols, which Jefferson had letters about.

Why are open carry states safer?

@RobertSaxy

9 ай бұрын

You should recheck your stats there buddy

@mathdadclt3683

9 ай бұрын

That depends how you measure. Long term, they tend to have much higher violent crime. But it's all in how you crunch the numbers.

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

Most reputable studies/statistics show that "red" & open-carry states have higher per-capita crime & gun-violence rates. We've seen every mass shooting for 2 yrs (even in open-carry states) where even people who had guns - everyone ran away. @mathdadclt3683, that's incorrect. It does not depend on "how you crunch the numbers." Correctly done statistics consistently show that red states/open-carry states have higher gun violence & deaths. They prove gun controls make life safer.

If a few incidents of assault with a deadly weapon can be used to argue granting every New York resident the right to carry a gun what of the many continuing incidents of gun violence around the country that take the lives of surprised and unprepared victims who are untrained in the use of a gun in an actual and unnerving gunfight? Owning a gun demands the kind of awareness that would reduce life to living in a war zone.

They don’t have gun violence in North Korea at least it is reserved for the leaders.

You do understand that Gunsmoke started on Radio during the 1940s and was brought to television in the 1950s. So what explain the love of guns post Gunsmoke, detective and war dramas of the 70s and 80s, then the introduction of video games gave us bigger guns. America has an obsession with guns and it's not because of Gunsmoke or TV westerns but because of the gun lobbies and the absurd relationship of the second amendment and fear.

@tuckerbugeater

9 ай бұрын

If you aren't afraid there's something wrong with you

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Did you really think it’s just about Gunsmoke? 😢

@TheRhino154

9 ай бұрын

Gun control advocates are better at selling guns than any company. Combine that with the global war on terror and ya I’m going to buy an AR-15 and AKM.

14:35 ish… you don’t need to shoot 2-300 rounds every week in order to be a competent firearm owner. It’s offensive and dishonest to make such a claim.

TWO WORDS: CHARLES BRONSON

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

Your ignorance is showing. Those are two names, not two words. By definition, words are in dictionaries. Are you showing all of us that you barely graduated high school?

So the premise is that Supreme Court justice Alito watched too much Gunsmoke on TV. Without a single stitch of actual evidence that this was the case. Oh Malcolm. What a stretch. Maybe they just believe in an arch individualism? Or maybe he has an originalist (and yeah warped) interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

@5kids1goldfish

9 ай бұрын

As someone who grew up watching the old westerns for years as an expat kid I definitely got the repeated message that people survived by their guns in a dangerous world-- or through their alliance with someone who knew how to use a gun and would not hesitate to pull the trigger. Those western TV series were the main staple when I lived in Iran, and movies that were aired in our Saudi Arabian compound were almost always westerns. Anyone who grew up on a diet of those westerns could not avoid those ideas.

@glenrotchin5523

9 ай бұрын

@@5kids1goldfish I get that. But Gladwell is essentially saying that the reason Alito asked the question he did was because he watched a lot of Gunsmoke on TV and was so indoctrinated as to mistake New York City for the fictional Wild West. The premise, if indeed Alito ever watched Gunsmoke (or any western movies for that matter) doesn’t give the jurist much credit for being able to discern fiction from reality. But let’s start with a simpler one first. Is there any evidence that Alito even watched Gunsmoke? Were westerns his favourite kind of film? Is there any evidence? Gladwell likes to merge many disparate ideas for the sake of telling a good story. It’d just be nice to know how based in fact it is.

@5kids1goldfish

9 ай бұрын

@@glenrotchin5523 Are you of a younger generation? The mindset of the men who raised those of us from that earlier time in American history by and large operated inside a consciousness of the individual conquering adversity by their own manly abilities, and of American men collectively saving the world. Strong manly men and a strong military. Guns were promoted as necessary for safety, unless you were Andy Griffith in the small town with its one and only town drunkard. The other big attention-getter was war movies and documentaries. The SCOTUS justices definitely reflect the eras they grew up in, whatever they watched-- which might include Gilligan's Island-- and there is a reason why we say "art reflects reality." Film and acting is art, and it was not just Gunsmoke in the days of cowboy shows. It's rather shocking, what a huge genre that was across all the arts, and into commercials. Asking how much Alito actually watched begs the question of the broader cultural mindset in his formative era. If you don't know that, then I am guessing you were born later or raised outside the dominant American culture of those times.

@5kids1goldfish

9 ай бұрын

@@glenrotchin5523 Alito and other jurists already proved they are removed from reality. Their decisions are made within a fictitious notion of life in the general public domain of our cities. I say this as one who lived for decades in major Northeastern US cities using public transportation and walking the streets on occasion at night after the last bus or train was halted til morning, with my home on the poor (i.e. dangerous) side of town. Without needing a gun. Malcolm smartly points out the beliefs which are reflected ad nauseum in the most popular genre of American art of those days: the Western. If anyone told me Alito didn't grow up playing cowboy games using his pistol-finger I'd be shouting LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

@glenrotchin5523

9 ай бұрын

@@5kids1goldfish Or a more factually-based argument is that Alito and Thomas and probably Kavanaugh are 'originalist' interpreters of the Constitution who have a certain (admittedly warped) notion of the Second Amendment, and they are just trying to find a justification for their preconceived ideas. Nothing whatever to do with Gunsmoke, or watching too many westerns. My argument is not about whether their view is realistic or not, or about if carrying a gun protects you or in fact endangers you (probably more true), I'm criticizing Gladwell's method of storytelling as disingenuous, and unfactual, which I believe does a disservice to the (admirable) cause. The first episode of this series was far better and grounded in a genuine legal vs. historical conflict. I recommend it. But this story sacrifices honesty and truthfulness on the altar of storytelling effect, and that's a shame.

Mr. Gladwell! From Dodge City. Laramie is north. That means that the bounty hunter came down to Dodge, not up to...

@keep-ukraine-free

9 ай бұрын

Clearly you didn't learn basic English in high school, and instead learned to misinterpret so you can falsely attack/bully others. SHAME ON YOU!

I liked episode 1. This one was trash. Felt like a filler episode, only it was filled with bullshit assumptions. Watching 3 next! Lol

Cowboys and Indians. Canada disarmed and passified it's natives. The tribes were separated by miles of impenetrable forest and high mountain ranges. This kept them from uniting and staging large attacks like Little Bighorn in the wide open plains of America. So white settlers in Canada didn't need guns to fend off Indian attacks. The wide open spaces , America also produced the American cowboy, who carried a gun because there was no other law out on the range. And they had "range wars" among cattle companies. A gun was required equipment to get work as a cowboy. And after ate American Civil War, soldiers brought their guns west with them. Grant allowed defeated Confederate soldiers to keep their guns. Then there's the gold rush. To not have a gun was to not have a claim. All reasons America has a tradition of gun ownership and Canada doesn't. To cite low gun violence data to argue against the need to be armed disregards citizens being attacked, mugged, raped who, had they been armed, may have been able to defend themselves. People being murdered, raped, mugged where a police report makes no mention of a gun don't make the data on gun violence. Alcohol figures large in Dodge. Just like in Los Angeles, there are a disproportionate number of alcohol related auto accidents. The problem is the alcohol, not the car. And since drunk drivers in LA will drive away after a collision if they can, it's worse than police stats reflect

O😊

He'll be coming after violent video games next. He's just as shrill as the Supreme Court Justices he sneers at. This is laughable.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Why not add another fallacy? Why stop there? You have too few dog whistles for your comment platform, Cletus…

@tomsibub

9 ай бұрын

@@christopherhamilton3621 if you work harder you might work out they're not fallacies. blaming a tv show for gun violence is deluded, ironically as deluded as the people who blame violent video games (the nra), and just as deluded as the arguments the supreme court justices were coming out with. gun control is totally necessary, his argument is garbage though.

Gladwell has GDS, aka gun derangement syndrome. The idea of conjuring the subway massacre from someone trying to self-defense is hilarious. Some guy just got arrested for doing a warning shot to stop an attack on a thoroughly ungrateful woman who threw him under the bus. No one was injured, but the bum ran off. And the lady said "I wish he'd done someting without a gun". I wonder if gladwell's family was part of 1940 germany, and on which side.

Malcolm I would like to see you walk alone and use the subway in NY City at midnight. I know you live in Hudson New York. Walk the walk if you are going to talk the talk.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

That’s an argument? 😂

Mr. Gladwell you should have watched the shows for yourself. The show was not as you portray it at all and you would know that if you grew up watching it. Today we have a class divide with corruption in the highest court. We have mediocre lawyers trying to defend the constitution and not protect interest of the masses. In Gunsmoke your the know it all newspaper man from the big city. 😊

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Such a strong argument there. NOT

This would probably be more impactful if Malcolm wasnt so condescending. It is increasingly difficult to listen to these podcasts that i ised to recommend to everyone. This one has many fallacies that don't stand up under simple scrutiny.

This character, too many times, seems to go with an idea and then fit the facts to that idea rather than analysing the data and finding the truth of a subject. In science this wouldn’t get you very far, but in the media it seems to be a sought after trait. It would be great if they adjusted their process to more accurately fit reality, however they have called wolf too many times for me to wait for the redemption arc. I have written this, in hopes it may guide them to understanding why people are tuning out(giving an opportunity to not disappoint and mislead others in the future) as I now click the “don’t recommend channel” button and head into the sunset. Good luck and farewell!

@iansowden8049

5 ай бұрын

I am puzzled. The podcast offers data that you don't refute and you don't offer figures or references. Until you do that I am going to believe the podcast. Especially as I have heard his statistics in a wide range of independent sources.

This is a fairly dishonest episode. Your going to talk about public carry and not go over the penalty or gov abuse of the law? Your also not going to cover the State’s with permanent less carry and defensive gun use statistics?

Love you but some Canadians opinion on the 2nd amendment? I’ll pass. Y’all don’t even have free speech 😂.

@mathdadclt3683

9 ай бұрын

When people who say they love the 2nd Amendment start embracing the words "well regulated," I'll take your point of view seriously too, sir.

@Shackleford_Rusty

9 ай бұрын

@@mathdadclt3683agreed states should be required to provide funding for individuals to train with their firearms. If you want to be taken seriously sir perhaps educate yourself on what the bill of rights is and who it is directed to.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

Truth kinda triggers ya, don’t it, pardner?😂

@mathdadclt3683

9 ай бұрын

@@RandyCampbell-fk3pf Gun grabber? No. I'm an owner. Starting with that is precisely why we can't have reasonable discussions about this incredibly dumb, uniquely American issue.

@mathdadclt3683

4 ай бұрын

@@Mr.K.14823 I simply want items that serve only military purposes to be put in the same class as bazookas. That is not a Constitutional issue. It's a regulatory issue. And to say that the imaginations of the founders could in any way understand the level of firepower now available to the average teen is disingenuous.

Sometimes you are very bright and arguments are well argued, but your constant attack on Justice Alito makes your political bias so obvious, your arguments are no longer valid.

@christopherhamilton3621

9 ай бұрын

LOL! Triggered

'Promo sm' 🎉