Episode 59 — Gun Control

[admin 330]

The recent events in Connecticut have inspired us to discuss the topic of gun control. Guests Paul Rust, Dominic Dierkes, and Sean Clements debate gun control with a human who Matt had a short dialogue with on Twitter. This episode’s also full of movie theater heroes, gun cars, and body occupying demons. Be sure to pick up an improv4humans shirt from the Earwolf Store and follow @MattBesser on Twitter to send in your improv suggestions. Music by Bobby Matthews and Dragoon. You can also now get Matt Besser’s new comedy album “The Six Most Important Sets in the History of Standup” at mattbesser.com!

[pdxsean 241]

New no-no: If Improv 4 Humans is going to start making two hour-long episodes with what sounds like another session of "Case Closed!" on an awesome controversial topic, then I'm going to be even more excited when I see Paul Rust is one of their guests. New no-no!

[Gym Sockerman 1326]

New no-no:

If you're not going to play the theme song at the very top of the show, then I'm going to make my own theme song and play it at the very end. Okay?

 

This episode really encapsulates what I love about Improv 4 Humans. Sketches start somewhere specific, trying to make a statement, but the performers don't let that get in the way of the comedy that's clearly developing in another direction.

[Neclord 194]

A fucking great episode. The post-interview sketches were off the charts. Some amazing banter too.

[Consept 0]

Only besser can do it this good! Matty beast helped me figure out my own position on the issue. I was flipfloping on gun rights but certain guns don't need to exist. The shotgun thing is a good way to keep these home protection arguments in check

[Gym Sockerman 1326]

I'd be fine with completely abolishing the right to own guns, but I thought the caller did a pretty good job with his side of the argument. Though when he was talking about the media's treatment of the rifle in his car it sounded really "LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!" Kind of how dare the media photograph that helpless rifle. That's what ran through my head anyway.

But I know that public speaking really makes you go off the cuff and you might not say exactly what you mean, so I'm sure that wasn't the sentiment he meant to get across.

 

But as an innocent civilian, I don't feel the least bit safer knowing that there are random "responsible" strangers with concealed weapons.

 

Though the uprising against the government argument is a complete joke. There is no way that the population of this country is capable. People are too lazy and too comfortable.

[choochoo_the_wonder_slut 740]

If the gov'ment takes our guns, and satelites, and tanks, and fighter jets, and nuclear submarines, and special forces ninjas, and drones, and thousands of trained personnel how are we gunna defend ourselves 'gainst them Obamaniacs when they come to force us to do abortion and read books!?

 

[MattCameron 595]

I just got done laughing for an hour and I'm about to download this. Fingers crossed!

[JacobCrites 4977]

This is why improv4humans is arguably the best podcast out there.

 

Also: "One Ply toilet paper: for people that hate their own butts."

[Julia 477]

So Matt Besser and his fellow humans can literally make any topic hilarious, right? Because that's what I've learned from this podcast!

 

P.S. Can't wait to read your gun tweets in eight weeks, bros!

[Dave D 8]

I wish you could of asked him why he had a carry conceal permit to protect his houes. This was a great exchange.

[BroccoliRob 78]

I really like Matt's "Shotgun Compromise." Want a gun? Fine, have a shotgun.

 

The guy they interviewed seemed level headed, but I didn't like his arguement that it was impossible to regulate guns any further because "there are too many guns already out there."

[BroccoliRob 78]

I really like Matt's "Shotgun Compromise." Want a gun? Fine, have a shotgun.

 

The guy they interviewed seemed level headed, but I didn't like his arguement that it was impossible to regulate guns any further because "there are too many guns already out there."

[Cabbagehead 61]

Great episode Matt. You guys took a serious subject made some really good points, but were able to keep the show light as well. I'd recommend this ep to anyone who has questions on guns, and their proper uses.

[MattCameron 595]

I wish you could of asked him why he had a carry conceal permit to protect his houes. This was a great exchange.

 

He would have just said, "Just for that situation we saw at the movie theater!"

[vgfitzger 46]

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

 

If the press weren't free to sensationalize these shootings into historical watersheds, turn the gunmen into dark anti-heroes and rattle off death counts like high scores, maybe disturbed individuals wouldn't be inspired to try and become famous by commiting suicide by massacre.

 

What about freedom of speech? If film makers, game developers and authors weren't free to depict and describe violence and cruelty, maybe the gunmen wouldn't have been pre-desensitized to the violence they were planning and never be able to take a life.

 

Taking away protections of search and seizure would free the government up to do routine checks on every gun owner's home to make sure their weapons are locked up safely out of the reach of their pyschotic sons.

 

If the government could force a state religion down our throats maybe the fear of eternal damnation would enough to prevent a shooting.

 

If there was no due process and no restriction on cruel punishments maybe the promise of swift and sure retribution would make all violent crime a thing of the past.

 

If you trust the government enough to restrict your ability to physically resist and rise up against tyranny, why don't you trust the government to remove all of the safe guards put in place by the bill of rights to prevent tyranny?

[BrettMorris 1862]

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

you can be for gun control and be just as in line with the constitution as ted nugent. we all agree on some form of arms control, the "yer destroying the constitution!" argument doesn't work very well.

 

If you trust the government enough to restrict your ability to physically resist and rise up against tyranny, why don't you trust the government to remove all of the safe guards put in place by the bill of rights to prevent tyranny?

this isn't the 1800s, "the government" has nuclear weapons, satellite guided missiles, drones, etc. the idea that the we're just around the corner from beating back the government with hand guns is so funny to me.

[Corky Kneivel 113]

I've yet to llisten to the episode but I cannot wait.

 

Okay that statemen tis a falsehood because obviously I am taking the time to write this.

 

 

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

 

 

 

I'll happily discuss the remainder of the Bill of Rights with you as long as you acknowledge that the Bill of Rights concept of, and reason behind claiming it a right as decreed by God, bearing arms in no way resembles life as it is lived in 2012. The fundamentals of everything else you mentioned: due process, freedom of the press, separation of chuch and state, still apply (and have been an ongoing national discussion as modernization dictated) but fervent defenders of the constituational right to bear arms have vowed to act like there have been no changes in the last 2 and a quarter centuries regarding the readiness of, accessibility to, and technology of keeping guns.

 

The United States of America is no longer just a loose confederation of newly founded states still afriad of an invading superpower, and each other, and that there will never be a need for armed militias of landed gentry. Tyranny and subversion of democracy in 2012 is effected with voter fraud, and back room machinations your guns will never protect you from.

 

And to your last paragrapg regarding "the government": you do know who "the government" is don't you? Its us. Its voters. If we the people decide, after FINALLY engaging in open public adult discussion, that arming every white male landowner isn't a natural law, then its not fear or out of safety or cowardice. Its grown ups understanding cause and effect.

[treiphish 38]

I usually hate listening to these call-ins, but I have to say, this call in discussion was one of the best I've heard. I honestly expected another ridiculous caller and just ripping him to shreds. I kind of feel like this was a worthwhile discussion.

 

I think the problem is no one even wants to talk reform, even though most, like this guy, would probably be ok with it.

[vgfitzger 46]

the "yer destroying the constitution!" argument doesn't work very well.

Straw-man arguments rarely do.

 

this isn't the 1800s, "the government" has nuclear weapons, satellite guided missiles, drones, etc. the idea that the we're just around the corner from beating back the government with hand guns is so funny to me.

I'm not interested in the logistics of a treasonous uprising. I'm interested in just how far we are willing to tolerate constant restrictions of our rights, trading freedom for safety at every turn. If you think that the desire to have any small guarantee to soften the ever looming threat of intolerable oppression isn't valid just because of the existence of nukes and drones, well there's nothing that can be said to you.

[GarbageCan 143]

I thought both sides handled the 'case closed' segment really well, and found it very helpful in shaping my own opinions on a subject that I hadn't put much thought into since it doesn't come up that much in my country. (The marijuana=shotgun ; cocaine=auto rifles was a good analogy)

 

And while I thought it was interesting to bring up the subject of prohibition as a comparison, the differences in frequency of use, physical/mental dependancy, and result are a little too much.

But I did like thinking of the equivalent for a home still in this situation. Homemade automatic weapons would be quite something.

[mattbesser 605]

I'm glad you guys liked it. I was totally wrong about Lanza's mother's shooting habits. Apparently she loves to go to the target range all the time. But I was right when it came to home protection. I've read she was a doomsday prepper, which I guess is the ultimate in home protection. Tyler was wrong about the gun he used to kill the children. He did indeed use a .223 semiautomatic as one of his three killing weapons. It's good to talk about this topic when it still hurts. In California we are fortunate to have Senators who are leading the fight in gun control. But even here in LA you can contact your local politicians and them how you feel. I'm just afraid that instead of gun control, the issue is going to be made into "we need more security at our schools" and "we have to combat evil".

[LAinWLA 6]

Re: the guest's statement (I'm paraphrasing) - "what if you try to take people's guns and they go nuts and start shooting cuz they're so mad that the government wants to take their guns away"

 

To me, this is typical of the bullying and threatening we get from gun nuts all the time - both overt and unspoken. You better be nice to them, and you better not try to regulate their guns, or they just might shoot you! They use this threat to intimidate others into just going along with them having all the guns they want. So much bullying, and it's so obvious.

[Syme 548]

One of the most ridiculous arguments to come out of this is that teachers in schools should be armed. As if 1) Training teachers to be proficient in firearms is no big deal and 2) The prospect of teachers having guns in school isn't terrifying. I think I'd be too scared to ever go to school.

[vgfitzger 46]

I'm just afraid that instead of gun control, the issue is going to be made into "we need more security at our schools" and "we have to combat evil".

 

Do you think that in your double barreled shotgun only America, when someone eventually decides to achieve CNN celebrity by walking into an elementary school and shooting two kids, people's reaction would be, "Thank god it was only two!" No! Two is still two too many. I'm not saying it's a slippery slope, but when knees are jerking, gun rights are gonna be the first thing to get kicked.