Im quite new here so sorry if this post has already been made. But this episode about gun-control is plain out stupid, im not saying that the gun-control the government is making is any kind of help vs criminals, im saying its complete nonsense saying guns are good based on a 200 year old piece of paper written by people right after a internal war, the only thing that was presented in this episode is the opinions of completely random people and the opinion of Penn himself, no research or statistics whatsoever was used. Its plain out stupid saying that guns are good because then if the government decides tomorrow that they are evil you can kill them all, because the only way u can stop the government is with guns...right. I watch the show because i like the fact that in most episodes you actually use some kind of proof to your point, while here you introducing a one minded murder victim( not saying it isn't tragic but you cant base the whole theory of guns in the whole USA on one persons experiences), please continue making the show based on facts and research and not about your personal feelings. This is not the first show that has had this one minded perspective and i really hope i wont see more of it, as i think its a waste of a good show.

Well they do freely admit to be "biased as fuck!" so I don't really know what to tell ya except, if you don't like it don't watch it!

You totally missed the mark on that one. Penn and Teller don't use the Bill of Rights to justify gun ownership, as they most likely believe that we have these rights with or without that piece of paper. The right to defend oneself is fundamental, and is something that all people have, regardless of what their government has to say about it.

The really good episodes of Bullshit! are the ones like this. These are the issues that Penn and Teller fell passionate about, so there aren't as many facts and figures. Besides, ethics and statistics have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Hypothetically, I'm sure that you could show Penn and Teller stats showing that one in three houses with guns would suffer an accidental death, and they would still maintain their position because it is the moral thing to do.

I find it refreshing that there are people like Penn and Teller out there who actually stand for something, unlike anyone involved in politics, as most (if not all) of them have traded their principles for power.

Kindest Regards,
Paul

"The right to defend oneself is fundamental, and is something that all people have, regardless of what their government has to say about it."

How can i not agree, but the problem here is that in this case we defend ourselves with a power that we cant controll, let me use an example.

Would it be fair to shoot a guy attacking you if he was standing beside innocent people, so if you shot there was a big chance you would hit the wrong target. Or would it be better off if you tryed to run away.

The fact of the matter is that with power comes responsibility, and people dont have that in my opinion.

"The really good episodes of Bullshit! are the ones like this. These are the issues that Penn and Teller fell passionate about, so there aren't as many facts and figures"

Sorry but this is like saying the bible is good because people are passionate about it, so they dont need facts.

"I'm sure that you could show Penn and Teller stats showing that one in three houses with guns would suffer an accidental death, and they would still maintain their position because it is the moral thing to do."

Why is it the moral thing to do? Sorry i just cant understand how bringing more harm then good to people can be the moral thing to do.

"I find it refreshing that there are people like Penn and Teller out there who actually stand for something, unlike anyone involved in politics, as most (if not all) of them have traded their principles for power."

Of course it good that their people out there like Penn and Teller that stand for somthing, but that somthing should in my oppinion be the right thing

Im not trying to be offensive or anything i just wish that they would have done more research on this matter and ultimately based on this research could either proof me right or wrong. Instead of makeing their answer based on their own principles.

Bart,

Here's my response:

"but the problem here is that in this case we defend ourselves with a power that we cant control"

I CAN control it though. Personally, I qualified markman during Basic Training.

"Would it be fair to shoot a guy attacking you if he was standing beside innocent people, so if you shot there was a big chance you would hit the wrong target."

I would never take a shot like that, and most (if not all) gun owners that I know would agree. Once you pull the trigger on a weapon, you are responsible for what that round does.

"Or would it be better off if you tryed to run away."

If that's an option, I'd probably go with that, but it might not always be the case.

"The fact of the matter is that with power comes responsibility, and people dont have that in my opinion."

Do you have any studies to back up YOUR opinion? Libertarians like Penn and Teller believe that people DO have that sense of responsibility and should have both the duty and right to exercise it.

"Why is it the moral thing to do? Sorry i just cant understand how bringing more harm then good to people can be the moral thing to do."

If you just go for the "reduction of harm" as an ethical principle, you find that you can justify harvesting the organs from one healthy person to transplant into five others. Sure, you kill one guy, but five others get to live. Utilitarianism is so easily contradicted. True morality lies in allowing people to be free to act, even if their actions indirectly result in harm.

"Of course it good that their people out there like Penn and Teller that stand for somthing, but that somthing should in my oppinion be the right thing"

They stand for what they believe is the right thing. How can you honestly fault someone for doing what they believe to be the ethical thing to do?

"Im not trying to be offensive or anything i just wish that they would have done more research on this matter and ultimately based on this research could either proof me right or wrong. Instead of makeing their answer based on their own principles. "

The entire series is based on Penn and Teller's "principles". It just so happens that sometimes you agree with them and this time you didn't.


Cheers,
Paul

"Do you have any studies to back up YOUR opinion? Libertarians like Penn and Teller believe that people DO have that sense of responsibility and should have both the duty and right to exercise it."

No i dont have any direct studys other than, it is known that USA is the country with most death of weapons per year allmost the double of the second country, also the country with the most crime. I dont have any real numbers on me atm so cant give them, but as you say yourself Penn and Teller BELIVE they dont have any research on how many accidental deaths by guns are made, and generaly deaths by gunfire misused, and thats the whole point of my comment.

"If you just go for the "reduction of harm" as an ethical principle, you find that you can justify harvesting the organs from one healthy person to transplant into five others. Sure, you kill one guy, but five others get to live. Utilitarianism is so easily contradicted. True morality lies in allowing people to be free to act, even if their actions indirectly result in harm."

Sorry i dont know if it was your intentions but this answer is completely off track. Reduceing the use of guns to indirectly prevent avoideble deaths has nothing to do with directly killing a person to save others. I dont think that true morality is allowing people do act free when in the end it causes harm, its like if you let a kid eat all the fat food he wants because everyone deserves freedom, there has to be some LIMIT OF RESPONSOBILITY where u can see and judge on statistics and research, that if you let all kids eat McDonalds every day 90 procent are gonna grow up fat and unhealthy, so you put up some llimit of what they can eat so they dont harm themselves and people around them(ultimately its the parents who end up being stressed paying for special diets or whatever), hope you got the example ^^.

"They stand for what they believe is the right thing. How can you honestly fault someone for doing what they believe to be the ethical thing to do?"

I dont blame them for what they belive in, if you read the posts carefully again you will see my point is that as they say themselves "we base our answers on science and facts" and thats just what i think this episode was missing, its not based on facts and science and statistics, its based on libiral principles which i think is a shame since it kind of ruins the whole point of the show in my opinion.

"The entire series is based on Penn and Teller's "principles". It just so happens that sometimes you agree with them and this time you didn't."

Well as they say countless times in the show "we are based on science and facts" and again thats just what i was missing in this episode .. thats all

Thanks for your time and your point of view

Hi,

It isn't the gun ownership that would be the problem. I am totally with P & T on this point. It is irresponsible people with guns that cause accidents.

Look at a country like Israel. All men must serve in the army for three years starting at age 18. Women also serve. Their army is very different in that most soldiers come home every night while they are serving. I was shocked the first time I went to Israel to see young people walking the streets, riding buses, sitting in cafes on their way home from the army carrying their uzis and M-16s as if they were accessories. Yes, EVERY soldier goes home with their weapon.

All men till the age of 50 have to also serve in reserves for 40 days out of the year. They also come home with their weapons. I've had relatives come visit while they were serving. They came to the house, took the clips out of the guns and leaned their guns against the wall. I remember seeing 6 guns sitting there leaning against the wall while children ran around. No one even paid attention to the guns.

You'd think that with weapons like that everywhere, there would be an incredible number of accidental shootings and deaths. That isn't the case. Maybe it is their respect for the weapons? Their training? the fact that it is part of daily life so it isn't such a thrill to see one? Is it gun ownership or attitudes and ignorance while handling guns that causes the problem?

Sincerely,
Audrey



Webmistress:
The Web Home of Penn & Teller
Pennandteller.com

You are totally correct on this one, it is the people who cause the accidents, and i dont belive that gun ownership is what really is the core problem. What i think is the problem, is the amount of guns and the availability to get one, so ultimately these irresponseble people get the chance of having these weapons.

After taking your story under consideration (even though i dont know the numbers for accidental deaths etc. in Isreal, so i will assume your right)

I can only say i still wish Penn and Teller would have shown more research on this matter as it is really complicated, and you cant just base an answer only on opinions on this subject.

Until then, my personal knowledge is that in the USA guns do more harm then they do good, as it is so much easyer to commit an crime, or an tragic gunfire accidental death, when these guns are available.

Also there is the factor of fear. Where i come frome any kind of possesion of weapons is banned, and i have to say i feel alot safer this way, then i would if everyone around me including myself had an weapon. Because i simply dont see the need for everyone to carry a weapon this dangerours to its surroundings. Yes you can allways argue that if i am attacked i wont be able to deffend myself as well as if i had a gun, but because the availability of guns is so low here, the low end criminals who get drunk go out to pick a fight/rape do not have guns either, and may give up on their objective as they dont have more power then an averege person.

I belive gun ownership of irresponseble people open doors to tragic outcomes that normally wouldnt have happened, and because the numbers are so high(public gunfire deaths) i belive guns should be banned from the public because based on my knowledge the public aint responseble enough to handle these guns (even though the maority are).

If i am wrong about this i want more then some random gunlovers opinion to convince me, i want hard evidence that gun possesion in the USA acctuelly dosent cause as mutch harm and fear as i belive.

And that brings me back to why i started this topic, i was just angry that a show i admire as mutch as this one, that normally back up their episodes with facts, science, evidence, statistics, did an episode about an issue that is so big and so complicated, with nothing more then liberal oppinions of random people.

I am open minded, if Penn and Teller ever make an constructive episode on this matter, where they prove me wrong i will gladly admit i wasent right, and what i belived in was Bullshit.

Thanks for taking your time to read this and eventually respond.

First, forgive the pun. Questions about firearm rights always bring a strong response.

I have no answers, but would submit three things:

1. The definition of firearm is very important. Military and assault weaponry far beyond any defense or sporting need is out there for anyone.

2. The problem isn't with irresponsible people having guns, it's with malevolent people having them.

3. It's a sensitive subject but some parts of this country do have a regional culture of weapons & violence.