Sunday, December 16, 2012

Guns Kill? Pistol, shotgun, assault rifle put to the test


In this investigative field test, journalist Mike Adams explores the question: Do guns kill people?

Watch as he tries to make a handgun, a shotgun and an assault rifle shoot something in the field (and learn an important lesson about the history of guns and genocide.)

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Awesome video, but his abuse of that assault rifle was mean...

And yet despite the abuse it still wouldn't hurt or kill anyone... an extreme pacifist it seems.

I still can't stop chuckling, funny but straight to the point too.

The guns seem to be very well behaved and very responsible... humans not so much.

On a more serious note it is extremely saddening that many people require such a video/perspective to realize that human beings making conscious decisions are required to kill people, regardless of the weapon used.

And even more sad is that some still won't get it. :(


Nemetron 2000 said...

My problem with guns in general is that they're too damn expensive. That, or either I'm too damn broke. It's definitely one of the two.

Anonymous said...


I might make a video showing stupid people trying to take harmful big pharma drugs by shoving them into their ears, or squeezing them between their toes.
And I could conclude that those drugs are safe with the same logic shown by Adams.

The amount of effort exerted by greasy gun lobbyists to defend guns compared to any sympathy shown for the dead children and their traumatized families says a lot about peoples priorities. Sick and sad.

Anonymous said...

You can't just blame guns and ignore the conscious decision a human must make to use them to kill.

With proper training and safety(in use and storage) guns are very good tools for hunting, ranching, self defense, etc. and are completely safe(modern ones anyways).

Sure guns make it easier to kill people, but it still requires the conscious decision of the person doing the killing to make the gun do anything.

Shirking the human responsibility to blame the guns is shortsighted in my view.

I wouldn't kill you with a knife so if someone gave me a gun just because it made it easier doesn't mean I'd kill you with it either.

If you are so mentally weak that you can decide to kill someone just because it's "easy" with a gun then you shouldn't be allowed to even have silverware or a vehicle as you are clearly a threat to society whether armed with a gun or anything else.

Trying to deal with the symptoms of a mentally and morally declining society by going after guns won't do anything to make the society safer.

Blaming guns for the mental and moral weakness of the criminals who use them in illegal and immoral ways is just stupid.

That said I do agree there are way too many non-practical guns in America today(assault rifles or machine guns and such that have no real value for hunting or ranching and are excessive for personal defense), and the purposeful manufacturing of weapons designed to help criminals is disgusting.

But again it's all about supply and demand, if there weren't so many weak people out there with criminal tendencies there would not be any need for so many weapons, and they wouldn't be produced.

The urban/criminal gun culture in the U.S is a result of the social degradation of America, not the cause of it.

I despise violence of any kind and am very sympathetic to the children and their families in the latest incident, but guns don't cause violence - a screwed up society and violent people do.

Even many parents of school shooting victims(like at Columbine) are opposed to gun control.

If a teacher or trained security guard had a gun that day most or possibly all of those kids would still be alive.

The police didn't arrive till the kids were dead already, so them having guns didn't help at all but one guard or faculty member with a gun could have changed the whole outcome.

But we'd rather argue about the morality of guns after-the-fact than actually protect our children in the first place.

Even if guns are banned the criminals will still have them(like in Britain), leaving your children defenseless to such monsters is cowardly.

One gun is at all it would have taken for the monster to be killed instead of 20 innocent kids.


Anonymous said...

thanks mike

Incriminally Sane said...

The only problem here is that more than half the people in Amerika are absolutely brain dead and cannot comprehend this fact that it takes human interaction to use this tool and do the negative things that are done in it's name. GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE.......PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

Anonymous said...

Gun control works,over 3 million Jews died proving the point.

Anonymous said...

"Trying to deal with the symptoms of a mentally and morally declining society by going after guns won't do anything to make the society safer." Little Jonny with a BIG GUN.


"You can't just blame guns and ignore the conscious decision a human must make to use them to kill." Jonny.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, WEAK. Nobody is ignoring the human factor. The human factors of anger, fear, drunkenness, and stupidity prove that more guns will equal more tragic deaths. Laws to restrict those factors are always beat down by the gun lobby and their servants in both criminal political parties.


"But again it's all about supply and demand, if there weren't so many weak people out there with criminal tendencies there would not be any need for so many weapons, and they wouldn't be produced."

The brain dead American shoppers beating the crap out of each other at Walmart on Thanksgiving shows how DEMAND is easily manipulated. The big gun lobby uses fear to sell more guns all the time. This crisis is already being used to scare gun nuts (very easily frightened) into buying more guns before the big bad Democrats make it illegal.
But, I have a job and a life, unlike the supremely talented well paid gun lobbyist swine who are infesting this I'll stop bugging you guys and let you get back to your fear mongering.
Peace. Peace means peace.

Anonymous said...

Just as a note on how impossible gun control is when there are millions of them already out there - I live in Canada which does have fairly strict gun control, but still see's increasing gun violence(always blamed on the U.S of course).

Though I do not possess any guns myself due to a weapons prohibition I am under right now I do know how to get hunting rifles, handguns and even fully automatic weapons(AK47's, M4's, even possibly an old RPK 75 Light Machine gun).

The automatic weapons would come from a police officer, the only people in Canada legally allowed to own them.

As long as the police force is corrupted - see recent RCMP scandal of guns, drugs and money taken from evidence lockers and seemingly sold on the streets - or some police officers simply don't agree with the anti-gun laws the laws will not be that effective.

The demand for guns in America is ingrained in the psyche of many American's today hence the DEMAND will ensure that some of the people who will still be allowed to own the guns will also sell them to the people who aren't supposed to have them.

Whether that demand was artificially created/inflated or not is irrelevant, it exists today and will not go away just because you want it to.

The U.S has about 50x(or more) as many guns out there as Canada does, if you seriously think anything other than full-scale war by the government against gun owners will get the guns off the streets you are a plain and simple fool.

Soldiers would have access to even better weaponry and the military (both in Canada and the U.S) has a history of corrupt activities such as gun dealing.

Gun control does not work when there are millions of guns in circulation already.

The reason we have less gun violence here is not lack of access to guns, but better education regarding being compassionate human beings that don't feel the need to kill others.

American's in general(as a society) are too far gone morally for that already(it is a nation built on obliterating other peoples for profit).

Maybe if you offered like $10,000 per weapon for people to turn them in you would get maybe 50%-60% of them off the streets, but the remaining one's would mostly be in the hands of the most dangerous criminals.

If you think that is a smart plan then you obviously don't really care about the safety of the people in society but just your own ideological belief systems.

Pre-emptive gun control when there are few guns in circulation would have a chance of working, retroactively trying to relieve millions of law abiding American citizens of their guns requires full-scale war against your own citizens.

And that is exactly why many Americans have those guns - to fight back if that happens.

Have fun with civil war because you don't like freedoms.


Anonymous said...

Just to clarify the point of my post since it ended up being a wall of text again - to attempt the type of gun control being suggested right now would likely lead to much greater violence, civil strife/unrest and such than currently exists.

To react to violence by demanding a policy that will increase the amount of violence simply doesn't make sense to me.

And to me it proves that many of the gun control proponents in government and media don't want to stop violence, but actually increase it to justify the existing massive police state(and any future expansion of it).

I used to be a staunch supporter of gun control, and I do like the laws that are existing here in Canada despite how easy it is for criminals(not law abiding citizens) to get around the laws.

But to react to violence in a way that is guaranteed to increase the amount violence just seems extremely stupid to me if the people behind it actually truly want to stop violence.

Considering the DHS has been warning police forces around America about a possible civil war in the near future for over a year now it is impossible that the government doesn't already know that such gun control measures will almost guarantee that.

Oh, and by "those guns"(second last sentence) I mean automatic weapons.


Post a Comment